-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jul 2019With growing interest in the gut microbiome, prebiotics and probiotics have received considerable attention as potential treatments for depression and anxiety. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
With growing interest in the gut microbiome, prebiotics and probiotics have received considerable attention as potential treatments for depression and anxiety. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of 34 controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on depression and anxiety. Prebiotics did not differ from placebo for depression (d = -.08, p = .51) or anxiety (d = .12, p = .11). Probiotics yielded small but significant effects for depression (d = -.24, p < .01) and anxiety (d = -.10, p = .03). Sample type was a moderator for probiotics and depression, with a larger effect observed for clinical/medical samples (d = -.45, p < .001) than community ones. This effect increased to medium-to-large in a preliminary analysis restricted to psychiatric samples (d = -.73, p < .001). There is general support for antidepressant and anxiolytic effects of probiotics, but the pooled effects were reduced by the paucity of trials with clinical samples. Additional randomized clinical trials with psychiatric samples are necessary fully to evaluate their therapeutic potential.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics
PubMed: 31004628
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.023 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... May 2017Probiotics are microorganisms, mainly bacteria, which benefit the host's health. Many studies support the role of probiotics as a contributor to gastrointestinal health,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Probiotics are microorganisms, mainly bacteria, which benefit the host's health. Many studies support the role of probiotics as a contributor to gastrointestinal health, and nowadays many authors are trying to prove its influence in oral health maintenance.
OBJECTIVES
To review the published literature with the purpose of knowing the importance of using probiotics as a preventive and therapeutic method for oral infectious diseases management.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search in PubMed database with the keywords "oral health AND probiotics AND dentistry" was conducted. The inclusion criteria were: randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assess the action of any probiotic strain in the treatment and / or prevention of an infectious oral disease, RCTs that assess the action of any probiotic strain on counting colony forming units (CFU) of oral pathogens, systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The Jadad scale was used to assess the high quality of RCTs.
RESULTS
Fifteen articles were considered for this review. Of which, 12 were RCTs of good / high quality (Jadad scale), two meta-analysis and one systematic review.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature reviewed suggests probiotics usage could be beneficial for the maintenance of oral health, due to its ability to decrease the colony forming units (CFU) counts of the oral pathogens. However, randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up periods are needed to confirm their efficacy in reducing the prevalence/incidence of oral infectious diseases. Furthermore, the recognition of specific strains with probiotic activity for each infectious oral disease is required, in order to determine exact dose, treatment time and ideal vehicles.
Topics: Dental Caries; Humans; Mouth Diseases; Oral Health; Periodontal Diseases; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28390121
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21494 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2022An emerging body of literature demonstrates differences in the gut microbiome (GMB) of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to healthy controls (HC),... (Review)
Review
An emerging body of literature demonstrates differences in the gut microbiome (GMB) of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to healthy controls (HC), as well as the potential benefits of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic treatment. We conducted a systematic review of 24 observational studies (n = 2817), and 19 interventional trials (n = 1119). We assessed alpha diversity, beta diversity, and taxa abundance changes in patients with MDD relative to HC, as well as the effect of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on depressive symptoms in individuals with clinical or subclinical depression. We observed no significant differences in alpha diversity but a significant difference in beta diversity between patients with MDD and HC. There were fluctuations in the abundance of specific taxa in patients with MDD relative to HC. Probiotic and synbiotic, but not prebiotic, treatment showed a modest benefit in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with MDD over four to nine weeks. The GMB profiles of patients with MDD differ significantly from HC, but further studies are needed to elucidate the benefits of prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic treatments relative to antidepressants and over longer follow-up before these therapies are implemented into clinical practice.
Topics: Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics
PubMed: 35562885
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23094494 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2022Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition. Studies regarding the treatment of IBS with probiotics have not yielded consistent results, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition. Studies regarding the treatment of IBS with probiotics have not yielded consistent results, and the best probiotics has not yet been confirmed. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative rank order of different probiotics for IBS.
METHOD
We searched for RCTs on the efficacy of probiotics for IBS until August 25, 2021. The primary outcome was the symptom relief rate, as well as global symptoms, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. The NMA was conducted using Stata 15.0. We also used meta-regression to explore whether the treatment length and dose influenced the efficacy.
RESULTS
Forty-three RCTs, with 5,531 IBS patients, were included in this analysis. Firstly, we compared the efficacy of different probiotic species. exhibited the highest probability to be the optimal probiotic specie in improving IBS symptom relief rate, as well as global symptom, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. In regard to the secondary outcomes, ranked first in ameliorating the QOL of IBS patients, but without any significant differences compared with other probiotic species in standardized mean differences (SMD) estimates. Moreover, patients received had lowest incidence of adverse events. The meta-regression revealed that no significant differences were found between participants using different doses of probiotics in all outcomes, while the treatment length, as a confounder, can significantly influence the efficacy of probiotics in ameliorating abdominal pain (Coef = -2.30; p = 0.035) and straining (Coef = -3.15; p = 0.020) in IBS patients. Thus, we performed the subgroup analysis on treatment length subsequently in these two outcomes, which showed that efficacy of using 8 weeks ranked first both in improving the abdominal pain and straining scores. Additionally, still had significant efficacy compared to different types of probiotic combinations in present study.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this NMA suggested that had prominent efficacy in treating IBS patients, and incorporating into a probiotic combination, or genetically engineering it to amplify its biological function may be a future research target to treat IBS patients. With few direct comparisons available between individual therapies today, this NMA may have utility in forming treatment guideline for IBS with probiotics.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35433498
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.859967 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Apr 2017The present study conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of current evidence to assess the efficacy of probiotics in preventing or treating small intestinal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The present study conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of current evidence to assess the efficacy of probiotics in preventing or treating small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). Relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, until May 2016, were assimilated. The prevention efficacy was assessed by the incidence of SIBO in the probiotic group, and the treatment efficacy by the SIBO decontamination rate, reduction in H2 concentration, and symptom improvement. The relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as effect measures and the random-effects model used for meta-analysis. A total of 14 full-text articles and 8 abstracts were included for the systematic review, and 18 studies were eligible for data synthesis. Patients on probiotic usage showed an insignificant trend toward low SIBO incidence [RR=0.54; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.19-1.52; P=0.24]. The pooled SIBO decontamination rate was 62.8% (51.5% to 72.8%). The probiotics group showed a significantly higher SIBO decontamination rate than the nonprobiotic group (RR=1.61; 95% CI, 1.19-2.17; P<0.05). Also, the H2 concentration was significantly reduced among probiotic users (WMD=-36.35 ppm; 95% CI, -44.23 to -28.47 ppm; P<0.05). Although probiotics produced a marked decrease in the abdominal pain scores (WMD=-1.17; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.04; P<0.05), it did not significantly reduce the daily stool frequency (WMD=-0.09; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.29). Therefore, the present findings indicated that probiotics supplementation could effectively decontaminate SIBO, decrease H2 concentration, and relieve abdominal pain, but were ineffective in preventing SIBO.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; Humans; Jejunal Diseases; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28267052
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000814 -
BMJ Open Aug 2021To evaluate existing evidence for the use of probiotics in preventing antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) in adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate existing evidence for the use of probiotics in preventing antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) in adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
We performed a literature search of the electronic databases CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Web of Science from database inception to May 2021 as well as hand searching of trial registries and reference lists of related reviews.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers identified whether RCTs met the following inclusion criteria: adult population to whom antibiotics were administered; a probiotic intervention; a placebo, alternative dose, alternative probiotic strain or no treatment control; and incidence of AAD as the outcome.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently collected data and assessed risk of bias using preconstructed data extraction forms. We used a random effects model for all analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate species-specific and dose-specific response.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies (11,305 participants) were included in this review. The pooled analysis suggests that co-administration of probiotics with antibiotics reduces the risk of AAD in adults by 37% (risk ratio (RR)=0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), p<0.00001). The overall quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria was found to be moderate. In subgroup analyses, high dose compared with low dose of the same probiotic demonstrated a positive protective effect (RR 0.54 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.76), p<0.01), and only certain species, mainly of the lactobacillus and bifidobacteria genera, were found to be effective. Studies with a low baseline AAD risk did not show any difference in risk but studies with moderate or high baseline AAD risk demonstrated a significant risk reduction.
CONCLUSIONS
Probiotics are effective for preventing AAD. Secondary analyses of higher dosages and certain species have shown increased effectiveness. Our results may not be applicable in clinical scenarios of lower baseline AAD risk.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diarrhea; Humans; Incidence; Lactobacillus; Probiotics
PubMed: 34385227
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043054 -
Nutrients Jan 2020Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in...
Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in alleviating the frequency and severity of symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the general adult population. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective studies on GERD, heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspepsia, without any limitation on sample size. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials. In total, 13 prospective studies that were published in 12 articles were included in the analysis and scored per the Jadad scale as high- (five studies), medium- (two), and low- (six) quality. One article reported on two probiotic groups; thus, 14 comparisons were included in the selected studies, of which 11 (79%) reported positive benefits of probiotics on symptoms of GERD. Five out of 11 positive outcomes (45%) noted benefits on reflux symptoms: three noted reduced regurgitation; improvements in reflux or heartburn were seen in one study; five (45%) saw improvements in dyspepsia symptoms; and nine (81%) saw improvements in other upper gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea (three studies), abdominal pain (five), and gas-related symptoms (four), such as belching, gurgling, and burping. In conclusion, probiotic use can be beneficial for GERD symptoms, such as regurgitation and heartburn. However, proper placebo-controlled, randomized, and double-blinded clinical trials with a sufficient number of participants are warranted to confirm its efficacy in alleviating these symptoms. Further, interventions with longer durations and an intermediate analysis of endpoints should be considered to determine the proper therapeutic window.
Topics: Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 31906573
DOI: 10.3390/nu12010132 -
JAMA May 2012Probiotics are live microorganisms intended to confer a health benefit when consumed. One condition for which probiotics have been advocated is the diarrhea that is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Probiotics are live microorganisms intended to confer a health benefit when consumed. One condition for which probiotics have been advocated is the diarrhea that is a common adverse effect of antibiotic use.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence for probiotic use in the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD).
DATA SOURCES
Twelve electronic databases were searched (DARE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, MANTIS, TOXLINE, ToxFILE, NTIS, and AGRICOLA) and references of included studies and reviews were screened from database inception to February 2012, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Two independent reviewers identified parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and/or Bacillus) for the prevention or treatment of AAD.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed trial quality.
RESULTS
A total of 82 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The majority used Lactobacillus-based interventions alone or in combination with other genera; strains were poorly documented. The pooled relative risk in a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of 63 RCTs, which included 11 811 participants, indicated a statistically significant association of probiotic administration with reduction in AAD (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.68; P < .001; I(2), 54%; [risk difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.05], [number needed to treat, 13; 95% CI, 10.3 to 19.1]) in trials reporting on the number of patients with AAD. This result was relatively insensitive to numerous subgroup analyses. However, there exists significant heterogeneity in pooled results and the evidence is insufficient to determine whether this association varies systematically by population, antibiotic characteristic, or probiotic preparation.
CONCLUSIONS
The pooled evidence suggests that probiotics are associated with a reduction in AAD. More research is needed to determine which probiotics are associated with the greatest efficacy and for which patients receiving which specific antibiotics.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diarrhea; Humans; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22570464
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.3507 -
Nutrients Sep 2023Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and rank the outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains or combinations in adults with IBS. We searched the literature up to June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS were included. A frequentist framework was used to perform this study. In total, 9253 participants from 81 RCTs were included in the study. Four probiotic strains and five mixtures were significantly superior to placebo in improving IBS Symptom Severity Scale, among which DDS-1 ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking, SUCRA, 92.9%). A mixture containing five probiotics (SUCRA, 100%) ranked first in improving the IBS-Quality of life. MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 96.9%) and Unique IS2 (SUCRA, 92.6%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving abdominal pain. Three probiotic strains and two mixtures were effective in alleviating abdominal bloating. Four probiotic strains and a mixture were significantly superior to placebo in reducing the bowel movement frequency in diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D). MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 99.6%) and CNCM I-3856 (SUCRA, 89.7%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving the Bristol stool form scale of IBS-D. Only some probiotics are effective for particular outcomes in IBS patients. This study provided the first ranking of outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains and combinations in IBS. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Abdominal Pain; Bacillus coagulans; Probiotics; Saccharomyces cerevisiae
PubMed: 37686889
DOI: 10.3390/nu15173856 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jun 2021In recent decades, the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of the microbiome changes and the impact of probiotic supplementation have increased rapidly. However, the...
OBJECTIVES
In recent decades, the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of the microbiome changes and the impact of probiotic supplementation have increased rapidly. However, the potential for clinical translation of microbiome research for children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders is unclear. This review examined available evidence related to gut microbiota as well as the impact of probiotic supplementation on psychiatric disorders in the pediatric population reported to date.
METHODS
We performed a literature search for the gut microbiota in child and adolescent population (0-18 years old) with mental health disorders from July 1999 through July 2019 in several databases: ClinicalTrials.gov, Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science.
RESULTS
A total of 7 studies met inclusion criteria consisting of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that examined various associations between psychiatric disorders and gut microbiota in youth. Six studies examined the effects of various treatment interventions such as probiotic supplementation on microbiota composition and behaviors. One study showed an increase in prosocial behavior in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and an increase in the Lachnospiraceae family following prebiotic supplementation. Another study suggested that prebiotic supplementation increased bifidobacterial populations for ASD and healthy controls. A study evaluating infant supplementation of prebiotics showed both a decreased likelihood of developing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or ASD and decreased gut Bifidobacterium. One study did not find significant differences in microbiome composition after micronutrient treatment.
CONCLUSION
The main goal of this systematic review was to comprehensively examine and summarize the current evidence focused on the potential effect of the relationship between microbiota gut composition as well as the effects of probiotic supplementation on psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents. This is a relatively new area of research and the number of included studies is limited. More studies are needed to determine whether gut dysbiosis leads to the development and/or contributes to the severity of mental disorders or whether gut dysbiosis is a result of other processes that accompany mental disorders.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
A better understanding of the specific bacteria contributions, gut-brain pathways, and role in pathophysiological mechanisms in neuropsychiatric disorders in the child and adolescent populations can possibly provide alternative tools for a clinical psychiatrist. Moreover, it may ultimately aid the clinician with intervention strategies, or detect populations at risk for developing neuropsychiatric disorders.
Topics: Adolescent; Brain-Gut Axis; Child; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Mental Disorders; Probiotics
PubMed: 33271210
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110187