-
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Feb 2024This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that employed probiotics and symbiotics for treating infantile colic. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that employed probiotics and symbiotics for treating infantile colic.
METHODS
We performed electronic systematic literature searches in Embase, PubMed and Web of Science, to identify articles published between 1950 and April 2023. Only RCT involving infants with infantile colic under 3 months were included. The treatment plan comprised 15 probiotics, which included Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 and Bifidobacterium animalis lactis BB-12. The probiotics were administered alone or in combination with a prebiotic, vs. no intervention or a placebo.
RESULTS
Probiotics resulted in an average reduction of 51 min of crying per day (p = 0.001). Further analysis of subgroups showed that the reduction was -39.30 min for vaginal delivery (p = 0.003), -64.66 min for Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 (p = 0.03), -40.45 min for other strains (p < 0.00001), -74.28 min for exclusively breastfed infants (p = 0.0003) and -48.04 min for mixed feeding (p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
All probiotic strains seem effective in treating infantile colic. Exclusively breastfed infants have demonstrated more significant reduction in crying time. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of probiotics in formula-fed and caesarean-born infants is limited.
Topics: Infant; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Colic; Breast Feeding; Probiotics; Emotions; Prebiotics; Limosilactobacillus reuteri
PubMed: 37962097
DOI: 10.1111/apa.17036 -
Nutrients Mar 2023Many studies have explored the efficacy of probiotics on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children, but there is no consensus on the curative effect. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Many studies have explored the efficacy of probiotics on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children, but there is no consensus on the curative effect. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively investigate whether probiotics could improve behavioral symptoms in children with ASD. A systematic database search was conducted and a total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. We found a nonsignificant overall effect size of probiotics on behavioral symptoms in children with ASD (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.60 to 0.11, = 0.18). However, a significant overall effect size was found in the subgroup of the probiotic blend (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.02, = 0.04). Additionally, these studies provided limited evidence for the efficacy of probiotics due to their small sample sizes, a shorter intervention duration, different probiotics used, different scales used, and poor research quality. Thus, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled studies following strict trial guidelines are needed to precisely demonstrate the therapeutic effects of probiotics on ASD in children.
Topics: Humans; Child; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36986145
DOI: 10.3390/nu15061415 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) May 2019: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex developmental condition typically characterized by deficits in social and communicative behaviors as well as repetitive...
: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex developmental condition typically characterized by deficits in social and communicative behaviors as well as repetitive patterns of behaviors. Despite its prevalence (affecting 0.1% to 1.8% of the global population), the pathogenesis of ASD remains incompletely understood. Patients with ASD are reported to have more frequent gastrointestinal (GI) complaints. There is some anecdotal evidence that probiotics are able to alleviate GI symptoms as well as improve behavioral issues in children with ASD. However, systematic reviews of the effect of prebiotics/probiotics on ASD and its associated symptoms are lacking. : Using the keywords (prebiotics OR probiotics OR microbiota OR gut) AND (autism OR social OR ASD), a systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar databases. The inclusion criteria were original clinical trials, published in English between the period 1st January 1988 and 1st February 2019. : A total of eight clinical trials were systematically reviewed. Two clinical trials examined the use of prebiotic and/or diet exclusion while six involved the use of probiotic supplementation in children with ASD. Most of these were prospective, open-label studies. Prebiotics only improved certain GI symptoms; however, when combined with an exclusion diet (gluten and casein free) showed a significant reduction in anti-sociability scores. As for probiotics, there is limited evidence to support the role of probiotics in alleviating the GI or behavioral symptoms in children with ASD. The two available double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials found no significant difference in GI symptoms and behavior. : Despite promising preclinical findings, prebiotics and probiotics have demonstrated an overall limited efficacy in the management of GI or behavioral symptoms in children with ASD. In addition, there was no standardized probiotics regimen, with multiple different strains and concentrations of probiotics, and variable duration of treatments.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics
PubMed: 31083360
DOI: 10.3390/medicina55050129 -
Autism Research : Official Journal of... Sep 2021The emerging role of a microbiota-gut-brain axis in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) suggests that modulating gut microbial composition may offer a tractable approach to... (Review)
Review
The emerging role of a microbiota-gut-brain axis in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) suggests that modulating gut microbial composition may offer a tractable approach to addressing the lifelong challenges of ASD. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview and critically evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of probiotic, prebiotic, synbiotic, and fecal microbiota transplantation therapies for core and co-occurring behavioral symptoms in individuals with ASD. Comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were performed from inception to March 5, 2020, and two update searches were completed on October 25, 2020, and April 22, 2021, respectively. A total of 4306 publications were identified, of which 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a preconstructed form. Results of probiotic studies do not confirm the supposed beneficial effect of probiotics on ASD, whereas prebiotics and synbiotic combinations appear to be efficacious in selective behavioral symptoms. Evidence of the efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation in ASD is still scarce but supports further research. Overall, the current evidence base to suggest beneficial effects of these modalities in ASD is limited and inconclusive. More clinical trials are currently looking at the use of microbial-based therapies in ASD. With a robust double-blind randomized controlled protocol to investigate the efficacy, these trials should provide significant and definitive results. LAY SUMMARY: There is a link between altered gut bacteria and autism spectrum disorder. Some people believe that modulating bacterial composition in the gut may help reduce autism symptoms, but evidence from human studies suggesting beneficial effects of probiotic, prebiotic, and combination thereof as well as fecal transplants in autism spectrum disorder is limited and inconclusive. Current data should not encourage use of these modalities. Further clinical studies are needed.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Behavioral Symptoms; Fecal Microbiota Transplantation; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synbiotics
PubMed: 34173726
DOI: 10.1002/aur.2560 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Probiotics play a vital role in treating immune and inflammatory diseases by improving intestinal barrier function; however, a comprehensive evaluation is missing. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics play a vital role in treating immune and inflammatory diseases by improving intestinal barrier function; however, a comprehensive evaluation is missing. The present study aimed to explore the impact of probiotics on the intestinal barrier and related immune function, inflammation, and microbiota composition. A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted.
METHODS
Four major databases (PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, CENTRAL, and Embase) were thoroughly searched. Weighted mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), heterogeneity among studies was evaluated utilizing I2 statistic (Chi-Square test), and data were pooled using random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of data from a total of 26 RCTs (n = 1891) indicated that probiotics significantly improved gut barrier function measured by levels of TER (MD, 5.27, 95% CI, 3.82 to 6.72, P < 0.00001), serum zonulin (SMD, -1.58, 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.66, P = 0.0007), endotoxin (SMD, -3.20, 95% CI, -5.41 to -0.98, P = 0.005), and LPS (SMD, -0.47, 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.09, P = 0.02). Furthermore, probiotic groups demonstrated better efficacy over control groups in reducing inflammatory factors, including CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6. Probiotics can also modulate the gut microbiota structure by boosting the enrichment of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus.
CONCLUSION
The present work revealed that probiotics could improve intestinal barrier function, and alleviate inflammation and microbial dysbiosis. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to achieve a more definitive conclusion.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=281822, identifier CRD42021281822.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Inflammation; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Bifidobacterium
PubMed: 37168869
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1143548 -
Nutrients Oct 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if probiotic supplementation in pregnancy reduced maternal Group B streptococcus (GBS) recto-vaginal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if probiotic supplementation in pregnancy reduced maternal Group B streptococcus (GBS) recto-vaginal colonization in pregnant women at 35-37 weeks of gestation. Electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception up to February 2022. We included RCTs assessing the effects of probiotic supplementation in pregnancy on GBS recto-vaginal colonization. The primary outcome was GBS-positive recto-vaginal cultures performed at 35-37 weeks of gestation. Secondarily, we evaluated obstetric and short-term neonatal outcomes. A total of 132 publications were identified; 9 full-length articles were reviewed to finally include 5 studies. Probiotic supplementation reduced vaginal GBS colonization: the GBS positive culture rate was estimated at 31.9% (96/301) in the intervention group compared to 38.6% (109/282) in the control group (OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, I2 4.8%, = 0.38). The treatment started after 30 weeks of gestation and was more effective in reducing GBS colonization (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.78, I2 0%, = 0.55). Probiotic administration during pregnancy, namely in the third trimester, was associated with a reduced GBS recto-vaginal colonization at 35-37 weeks and a safe perinatal profile. Whether this new strategy could reduce the exposition of pregnant women to significant doses of antibiotics in labor needs to be evaluated in other trials.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Pregnant Women; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus agalactiae; Vagina; Probiotics; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious
PubMed: 36364782
DOI: 10.3390/nu14214520 -
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 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Supplementation of infant and follow-up formula with probiotics or synbiotics has become a common practice. In 2011 and 2017, the evidence regarding the impact of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Supplementation of infant and follow-up formula with probiotics or synbiotics has become a common practice. In 2011 and 2017, the evidence regarding the impact of these interventions was analysed systematically. Recently new evidence was published. To evaluate through a systematic review with network meta-analysis the evidence on the impact of infant formula supplemented with probiotics or synbiotics for healthy infants and 36-month-old toddlers. RCTs published between 1999-2019 for infant formulas supplemented with probiotics alone or synbiotics in healthy infants and toddlers were identified. Data analysis included clinical (gastrointestinal symptoms, risk reduction of infectious diseases, use of antibiotics, weight/height gain and frequency of adverse events) and non-clinical outcomes (changes in faecal microbiota and immune parameters). A random effect model was used. Hedges' standard mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) were calculated. Rank analysis was performed to evaluate the superiority of each intervention. Twenty-six randomised controlled trials with 35 direct comparisons involving 1957 children receiving probiotic-supplemented formula and 1898 receiving control formula were reviewed. The mean duration of intervention was 5.6 ± 2.84 months. Certain strains demonstrated a reduction in episodes of colic, number of days with fever and use of antibiotics; however, there was considerable heterogeneity which reduced the level of certainty of effect. No significant effects were observed on weight, height or changes in faecal proportions of or . Although there is some evidence that may support a potential benefit of probiotic or synbiotic supplementation of infant formulas, variation in the quality of existing trials and the heterogeneity of the data preclude the establishment of robust recommendations.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Child, Preschool; Infant Formula; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Synbiotics; Bifidobacterium; Weight Gain; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36501205
DOI: 10.3390/nu14235175 -
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology... Mar 2016This article provides recommendations, developed by the Working Group (WG) on Probiotics of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This article provides recommendations, developed by the Working Group (WG) on Probiotics of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, for the use of probiotics for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) in children based on a systematic review of previously completed systematic reviews and of randomized controlled trials published subsequently to these reviews. The use of probiotics for the treatment of AAD is not covered. The recommendations were formulated only if at least 2 randomized controlled trials that used a given probiotic (with strain specification) were available. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. If the use of probiotics for preventing AAD is considered because of the existence of risk factors such as class of antibiotic(s), duration of antibiotic treatment, age, need for hospitalization, comorbidities, or previous episodes of AAD diarrhea, the WG recommends using Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (moderate QoE, strong recommendation) or Saccharomyces boulardii (moderate QoE, strong recommendation). If the use of probiotics for preventing Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea is considered, the WG suggests using S boulardii (low QoE, conditional recommendation). Other strains or combinations of strains have been tested, but sufficient evidence is still lacking.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Infant; Probiotics; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26756877
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001081 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via providing gut barrier, restoration of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via providing gut barrier, restoration of the gut microflora, and other potential mechanisms of action.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children.
SEARCH METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Web of Science (inception to 28 May 2018) were searched along with registers including the ISRCTN and Clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched the NICE Evidence Services database as well as reference lists from relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of AAD, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea) as mean difference (MD), along with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. For studies reporting on microbiome characteristics using heterogeneous outcomes, we describe the results narratively. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-three studies (6352 participants) were included. Probiotics assessed included Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. The risk of bias was determined to be high in 20 studies and low in 13 studies. Complete case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 33 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control.After 5 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (259/3232) compared to 19% (598/3120) in the control group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56; I² = 57%, 6352 participants; NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13; moderate certainty evidence). Nineteen studies had loss to follow-up ranging from 1% to 46%. After making assumptions for those lost, the observed benefit was still statistically significant using an extreme plausible intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, wherein the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 12% (436/3551) compared to 19% (664/3468) in the control group (7019 participants; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; P <0.00001; I² = 70%). An a priori available case subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity indicated that high dose (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) is more effective than low probiotic dose (< 5 billion CFUs per day), interaction P value = 0.01. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (162/2029) compared to 23% (462/2009) in the control group (4038 participants; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.46; P = 0.06; moderate certainty evidence). For the low dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (97/1155) compared to 13% (133/1059) in the control group (2214 participants; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.02). Again, assumptions for loss to follow-up using an extreme plausible ITT analysis was statistically significant. For high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 13% (278/2218) compared to 23% (503/2207) in control group (4425 participants; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; P <0.00001; I² = 68%; moderate certainty evidence).None of the 24 trials (4415 participants) that reported on adverse events reported any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Adverse event rates were low. After 5 days to 4 weeks follow-up, 4% (86/2229) of probiotics participants had an adverse event compared to 6% (121/2186) of control participants (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; P < 0.00001; I² = 75%; low certainty evidence). Common adverse events included rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, and constipation.After 10 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, eight studies recorded data on our secondary outcome, the mean duration of diarrhea; with probiotics reducing diarrhea duration by almost one day (MD -0.91; 95% CI -1.38 to -0.44; P <0.00001; low certainty evidence). One study reported on microbiome characteristics, reporting no difference in changes with concurrent antibiotic and probiotic use.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The overall evidence suggests a moderate protective effect of probiotics for preventing AAD (NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13). Using five criteria to evaluate the credibility of the subgroup analysis on probiotic dose, the results indicate the subgroup effect based on high dose probiotics (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) was credible. Based on high-dose probiotics, the NNTB to prevent one case of diarrhea is 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). The overall certainty of the evidence for the primary endpoint, incidence of AAD based on high dose probiotics was moderate due to the minor issues with risk of bias and inconsistency related to a diversity of probiotic agents used. Evidence also suggests that probiotics may moderately reduce the duration of diarrhea, a reduction by almost one day. The benefit of high dose probiotics (e.g. Lactobacillus rhamnosus orSaccharomyces boulardii) needs to be confirmed by a large well-designed multi-centered randomized trial. It is premature to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy and safety of 'other' probiotic agents as an adjunct to antibiotics in children. Adverse event rates were low and no serious adverse events were attributable to probiotics. Although no serious adverse events were observed among inpatient and outpatient children, including small studies conducted in the intensive care unit and in the neonatal unit, observational studies not included in this review have reported serious adverse events in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31039287
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004827.pub5