-
Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal Feb 2020Treatments that target alterations in gut microbiota may be beneficial for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A systematic review and meta-analysis was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatments that target alterations in gut microbiota may be beneficial for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics. Factors considered in the analysis included global IBS symptoms and/or abdominal pain, secondary symptoms and the frequency of adverse events. A total of 33 RCTs involving 4,321 patients were identified. Overall, probiotics significantly improved global IBS symptoms compared to placebos (standardised mean difference = -0.32, 95% confidence interval: -0.48 to -0.15; <0.001), with significant heterogeneity between studies ( = 72%; <0.001). This remained apparent in both single- and multi-strain probiotic interventions as well as synbiotic formulations. However, evidence regarding prebiotics was scarce. There were no significant inter-group differences in terms of the frequency of adverse events. Future RCTs should address methodological limitations, including short follow-up periods and patient adherence.
Topics: Adult; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Male; Middle Aged; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synbiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32190365
DOI: 10.18295/squmj.2020.20.01.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up to 25% of visits to paediatric gastroenterologists. Probiotic preparations may sufficiently alter the gut microbiome and promote normal gut physiology in a way that helps relieve functional constipation. Several studies have sought to address this hypothesis, as well as the role of probiotics in other functional gut disorders. Therefore, it is important to have a focused review to assess the evidence to date.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the management of chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children.
SEARCH METHODS
On 28 June 2021, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, WHO ICTR, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with no language, date, publication status, or document type limitations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) compared to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in people aged between 0 and 18 years old with a diagnosis of functional constipation according to consensus criteria (such as Rome IV).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (1127 randomised participants): 12 studies assessed probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation, whilst two studies investigated synbiotic preparations. Three studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to the frequency of defecation at study end, but we did not pool them as there was very significant unexplained heterogeneity. Four studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to treatment success. There may be no difference in global improvement/treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26; 313 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, with the pooled effect suggesting there may be no difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.95; 357 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pooled estimate from three studies that compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone found there may be no difference in frequency of defecation (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.56; 268 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to global improvement/treatment success, and found there may be no difference between the treatments (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies compared probiotics plus osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, but it is unclear if there is a difference between them (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.35; 268 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics versus magnesium oxide. It is unclear if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.14; 36 participants), treatment success (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57; 36 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04; 77 participants). The certainty of the evidence is very low for these outcomes. One study assessed the role of a synbiotic preparation in comparison to placebo. There may be higher treatment success in favour of synbiotics compared to placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.47; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study assessed a synbiotic plus paraffin compared to paraffin alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.74, 95% CI -0.96, 2.44; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or treatment success (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study compared a synbiotic preparation to paraffin. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD -1.53, 95% CI -3.00, -0.06; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or in treatment success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65, 1.13; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. All secondary outcomes were either not reported or reported in a way that did not allow for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether probiotics are efficacious in successfully treating chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children or changing the frequency of defecation, or whether there is a difference in withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There is limited evidence from one study to suggest a synbiotic preparation may be more likely than placebo to lead to treatment success, with no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to draw efficacy or safety conclusions about the use of probiotics in combination with or in comparison to any of the other interventions reported. The majority of the studies that presented data on serious adverse events reported that no events occurred. Two studies did not report this outcome. Future studies are needed to confirm efficacy, but the research community requires guidance on the best context for probiotics in such studies, considering where they should be best considered in a potential treatment hierarchy and should align with core outcome sets to support future interpretation of findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Constipation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35349168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014257.pub2 -
BMJ Open Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton pump inhibitors and simethicone) on colic symptoms including infant crying time, sleep distress and adverse events.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Mantis for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and guidelines that used evidence and expert panel opinion. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Selected studies were assessed for quality using modified standardised checklists by two authors. Meta-analysed data for our outcomes of interest were extracted and narrative conclusions were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected. High-level evidence showed that probiotics were most effective for reducing crying time in breastfed infants (range -25 min to -65 min over 24 hours). Manual therapies had moderate to low-quality evidence showing reduced crying time (range -33 min to -76 min per 24 hours). Simethicone had moderate to low evidence showing no benefit or negative effect. One meta-analysis did not support the use of proton pump inhibitors for reducing crying time and fussing. Three national guidelines unanimously recommended the use of education, parental reassurance, advice and guidance and clinical evaluation of mother and baby. Consensus on other advice and treatments did not exist.
CONCLUSIONS
The strongest evidence for the treatment of colic was probiotics for breastfed infants, followed by weaker but favourable evidence for manual therapy indicated by crying time. Both forms of treatment carried a low risk of serious adverse events. The guidance reviewed did not reflect these findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139074.
Topics: Antifoaming Agents; Colic; Humans; Infant; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Review Literature as Topic; Simethicone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32102827
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035405 -
European Journal of Nutrition Aug 2021Probiotics have been reported to be beneficial for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the types, number of strains, dosage, and intervention time of probiotics used... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Probiotics have been reported to be beneficial for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the types, number of strains, dosage, and intervention time of probiotics used remain controversial. Furthermore, the changes of gut microbiota in IBD's patients are also intriguing. Thus, this meta-analysis was to explore the clinical effects and gut microbiota changes of using probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in IBD.
METHODS
The search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from inception to April 2020. Qualified randomized controlled trials were included. IBD's remission rate, disease activity index and recurrence rate were extracted and analyzed. Changes in the gut microbiota of patients with IBD are comprehensively described.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight articles were included. Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics can induce/maintain IBD's remission and reduce ulcerative colitis (UC) disease activity index (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.02, 1.26, P < 0.05; SMD = 1.00, 95% CI 0.27, 1.73, P < 0.05). In subgroup analyses of IBD remission rate and UC disease activity index, we obtained some statistically significant results in some subgroup (P < 0.05). To some extent, probiotic supplements can increase the number of beneficial bacteria (especially Bifidobacteria) in the intestinal tract of patients with IBD.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results support the treatment of IBD (especially UC) with pro/pre/synbiotics, and synbiotics are more effective. Probiotic supplements that are based on Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium or more than one strain are more likely to be beneficial for IBD remission. The dose of 10-10 CFU/day may be a reference range for using probiotics to relieve IBD.
Topics: Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics
PubMed: 33555375
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-021-02503-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been hypothesised that the use of micro-organisms, such as probiotics and synbiotics (a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics), might change the composition of bacterial colonies in the bowel and reduce inflammation, as well as promote normal gut physiology and reduce functional symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers from inception to October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in patients aged between 4 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of functional abdominal pain disorder according to the Rome II, Rome III or Rome IV criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes were treatment success as defined by the primary studies, complete resolution of pain, improvement in the severity of pain and improvement in the frequency of pain. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, adverse events, school performance or change in school performance or attendance, social and psychological functioning or change in social and psychological functioning, and quality of life or change in quality life measured using any validated scoring tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs assessing the effectiveness of probiotics and synbiotics in reducing the severity and frequency of pain, involving a total of 1309 patients. Probiotics may achieve more treatment success when compared with placebo at the end of the treatment, with 50% success in the probiotic group versus 33% success in the placebo group (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.36; 554 participants; 6 studies; I = 70%; low-certainty evidence). It is not clear whether probiotics are more effective than placebo for complete resolution of pain, with 42% success in the probiotic group versus 27% success in the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.56; 460 participants; 6 studies; I = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the evidence to be of very low certainty due to high inconsistency and risk of bias. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of the pain severity and pain frequency outcomes due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between probiotics (1/275) and placebo (1/269) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.12). The results were identical for the total patients with any reported adverse event outcome. However, these results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. Synbiotics may result in more treatment success at study end when compared with placebo, with 47% success in the probiotic group versus 35% success in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.74; 310 participants; 4 studies; I = 0%; low certainty). One study used Bifidobacterium coagulans/fructo-oligosaccharide, one used Bifidobacterium lactis/inulin, one used Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/inulin and in one study this was not stated). Synbiotics may result in little difference in complete resolution of pain at study end when compared with placebo, with 52% success in the probiotic group versus 32% success in the placebo group (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 131 participants; 2 studies; I = 18%; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of pain severity or frequency of pain due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between synbiotics (8/155) and placebo (1/147) (RR 4.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 26.19), or in any reported adverse events (3/96 versus 1/93, RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.92). These results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. There were insufficient data to analyse by subgroups of specific functional abdominal pain syndrome (irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, abdominal migraine, functional abdominal pain - not otherwise specified) or by specific strain of probiotic. There was insufficient evidence on school performance or change in school performance/attendance, social and psychological functioning, or quality of life to draw conclusions about the effects of probiotics or synbiotics on these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results from this review demonstrate that probiotics and synbiotics may be more efficacious than placebo in achieving treatment success, but the evidence is of low certainty. The evidence demonstrates little to no difference between probiotics or synbiotics and placebo in complete resolution of pain. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of probiotics or synbiotics on the frequency and severity of pain as the evidence was all of very low certainty due to significant unexplained heterogeneity or imprecision. There were no reported cases of serious adverse events when using probiotics or synbiotics amongst the included studies, although a review of RCTs may not be the best context to assess long-term safety. The available evidence on adverse effects was of very low certainty and no conclusions could be made in this review. Safety will always be a priority in paediatric populations when considering any treatment. Reporting of all adverse events, adverse events needing withdrawal, serious adverse events and, particularly, long-term safety outcomes are vital to meaningfully move forward the evidence base in this field. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies to confirm the safety of specific strains not yet investigated and studies to investigate long-term follow-up of patients are both warranted.
Topics: Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Inulin; Probiotics; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Abdominal Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36799531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012849.pub2 -
BMC Geriatrics Jul 2022Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is diarrhea associated with consuming antibiotics that cannot be explained by other causes. AAD prolongs admission time and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is diarrhea associated with consuming antibiotics that cannot be explained by other causes. AAD prolongs admission time and increases mortality and financial costs. Elderly individuals are more prone to receive antibiotic treatment and develop AAD. The finding that living probiotic microorganisms decrease AAD incidence in adults (<65 years) has been clarified. However, it is controversial among elderly individuals.
METHODS
We aimed to explore whether probiotics could prevent AAD in elderly individuals. We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library), and two reviewers independently screened and assessed the studies. RevMan5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs of 4691 participants were included. We excluded two large studies because probiotics were used 48 hours after the first dose of antibiotics, and there was no effect. Subgroup analysis of 6 RCTs showed that probiotics given within two days of antibiotic treatment produced a lower AAD prevalence rate in elderly individuals.
CONCLUSION
We recommend that elderly individuals could be routinely distributed probiotics to prevent AAD development when receiving antibiotic treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The review was not registered.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diarrhea; Humans; Probiotics; Software
PubMed: 35794520
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03257-3 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) May 2023Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder which affects a great number of patients globally. Clinical trials and meta-analyses have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials using ROME IV criteria.
BACKGROUND
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder which affects a great number of patients globally. Clinical trials and meta-analyses have evaluated different therapies for IBS. Some of them have shown that probiotics play a significant role in the management of IBS-patients. Nevertheless, results are controversial, and the efficacy of the administration of probiotics remains to be confirmed, especially in regard to which type of probiotic-strains are beneficial.
AIM
The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of the administration of probiotics to IBS-patients with a diagnosis based on Rome IV criteria, which is performed for the first time.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane) were searched until 26.01.2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the administration of probiotics in adult IBS-patients, who were categorized according to the Rome IV criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB) 2.0. Weighted and standardized mean difference with the 95% confidence intervals were used for the synthesis of the results. Primary outcomes were the decrease of IBS-Symptom Severity Score (IBS-SSS) and decrease of abdominal pain. The secondary outcomes were the improvement in quality of life (QoL) and the decrease of bloating. Lastly, the adverse effects of probiotics were evaluated. The protocol of the study has been registered at protocols.io (DOI dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.14egn218yg5d/v1).
RESULTS
Six double-blind (N = 970) placebo-control RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria and overall, nine different strains of probiotics were examined. No significant reduction in IBS-SSS (WMD -43.2, 95% CI -87.5 to 1.0, I = 82.9%) was demonstrated, whereas a significant decrease regarding abdominal pain (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.35, I = 92,2) was shown. Furthermore, no correlation between improvement of QoL and the use of probiotics (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.00, I = 93,9%) was shown. However, probiotics were associated with a significant reduction in bloating (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.09, I = 36,0%). A qualitative synthesis was conducted about adverse events and showed that the use of probiotics' is safe without severe adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
The administration of probiotics to IBS-patients demonstrated a positive effect on pain and bloating, but due to significant heterogeneity and confounding factors, that were not examined in the included studies, a definitive statement cannot be made. Moreover, probiotics did not lead to an improvement in other parameters. There is a need for larger RCTs in IBS-patients diagnosed according to Rome IV (not III) criteria and especially it is essential to be conducted RCTs which examine the administration of specific strains and have similar methodological characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Abdominal Pain; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37031468
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2023.03.019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Child; Colitis, Ulcerative; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Sample Size; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 32128795
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005573.pub3 -
Gastroenterology Nov 2023Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled.
RESULTS
We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.
Topics: Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Abdominal Pain; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 37541528
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Dietary supplementation with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 Feb 2020), Embase Ovid (1974 to 17 Feb 2020), Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid (1971 to 17 Feb 2020), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 18 Feb 2020). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotic supplementation with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset infection, and severe neurodevelopmental impairment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 trials in which 10,812 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 149). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were the main potential sources of bias in about half of the trials. Trials varied by the formulation of the probiotics. The most commonly used preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., and Streptococcus spp. alone or in combinations. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65 (54 trials, 10,604 infants; I² = 17%); RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 33, 95% CI 25 to 50. Evidence was assessed as low certainty because of the limitations in trials design, and the presence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with publication bias. Sensitivity meta-analysis of trials at low risk of bias showed a reduced risk of NEC: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89 (16 trials, 4597 infants; I² = 25%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100. Meta-analyses showed that probiotics probably reduce mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.89; (51 trials, 10,170 infants; I² = 0%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 50 to 100), and late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; (47 trials, 9762 infants; I² = 19%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100). Evidence was assessed as moderate certainty for both these outcomes because of the limitations in trials design. Sensitivity meta-analyses of 16 trials (4597 infants) at low risk of bias did not show an effect on mortality or infection. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may have little or no effect on severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26 (five trials, 1518 infants; I² = 0%). The certainty on this evidence is low because of limitations in trials design and serious imprecision of effect estimate. Few data (from seven of the trials) were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants. Meta-analyses did not show effects on NEC, death, or infection (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the low to moderate level of certainty about the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants, further, large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient quality and applicability to inform policy and practice.
Topics: Cause of Death; Cross Infection; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; Infusions, Parenteral; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33058137
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005496.pub5