-
Nutrients Dec 2021Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative disorders affecting mostly the elderly. It is characterized by the presence of Aβ and...
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative disorders affecting mostly the elderly. It is characterized by the presence of Aβ and neurofibrillary tangles (NFT), resulting in cognitive and memory impairment. Research shows that alteration in gut microbial diversity and defects in gut brain axis are linked to AD. Probiotics are known to be one of the best preventative measures against cognitive decline in AD. Numerous in vivo trials and recent clinical trials have proven the effectiveness of selected bacterial strains in slowing down the progression of AD. It is proven that probiotics modulate the inflammatory process, counteract with oxidative stress, and modify gut microbiota. Thus, this review summarizes the current evidence, diversity of bacterial strains, defects of gut brain axis in AD, harmful bacterial for AD, and the mechanism of action of probiotics in preventing AD. A literature search on selected databases such as PubMed, Semantic Scholar, Nature, and Springer link have identified potentially relevant articles to this topic. However, upon consideration of inclusion criteria and the limitation of publication year, only 22 articles have been selected to be further reviewed. The search query includes few sets of keywords as follows. (1) Probiotics OR gut microbiome OR microbes AND (2) Alzheimer OR cognitive OR aging OR dementia AND (3) clinical trial OR in vivo OR animal study. The results evidenced in this study help to clearly illustrate the relationship between probiotic supplementation and AD. Thus, this systematic review will help identify novel therapeutic strategies in the future as probiotics are free from triggering any adverse effects in human body.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Brain-Gut Axis; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 35010895
DOI: 10.3390/nu14010020 -
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 -
International Journal of Molecular... Feb 2023Depression is one of the main mental disorders. Pharmacological treatment of depression is often associated with delayed effects or insufficient efficacy. Consequently,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Depression is one of the main mental disorders. Pharmacological treatment of depression is often associated with delayed effects or insufficient efficacy. Consequently, there is a need to discover new therapeutic methods to cope with depression faster and more effectively. Several lines of evidence indicate that the use of probiotic therapy reduces depressive symptoms. Nonetheless, the exact mechanisms linking the gut microbiota and the central nervous system, as well as the potential mechanisms of action for probiotics, are still not entirely clarified. The aim of this review was to systematically summarize the available knowledge according to PRISMA guidelines on the molecular mechanisms linking probiotics and healthy populations with subclinical depression or anxiety symptoms, as well as depressed patients with or without comorbid somatic illnesses. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. Twenty records were included. It has been found that probiotic administration is linked to a significant increase in BDNF levels during probiotic treatment compared to the placebo (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI [0.07, 0.68], = 0.02) when considering the resolution of depressive symptoms in depressed patients with or without comorbid somatic illnesses. CRP levels were significantly lower (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI [0.75, -0.19], = 0.001), and nitric oxide levels were significantly higher (SMD = 0.97, 95% CI [0.58, 1.36], < 0.0001) in probiotic-treated patients compared to the placebo, however, only among depressed patients with somatic co-morbidities. There were no significant differences in IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, and cortisol levels after probiotic administration between the intervention and control groups (all > 0.05). Firm conclusions on the effectiveness of probiotics and their possible association with inflammatory markers in the healthy population (only with subclinical depressive or anxiety symptoms) cannot be drawn. The advent of clinical trials examining the long-term administration of probiotics could evaluate the long-term effectiveness of probiotics in treating depression and preventing its recurrence.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Anxiety; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 36834489
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24043081 -
Nutrients Aug 2018Acute diarrhea is a burdensome disease with potentially harmful consequences, especially in childhood. Despite its large use in clinical practice, the efficacy of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acute diarrhea is a burdensome disease with potentially harmful consequences, especially in childhood. Despite its large use in clinical practice, the efficacy of the probiotic in treating acute childhood diarrhea remains unclear. Our objective was to systematically review the efficacy of in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea. The following electronic databases were systematically searched up to October 2017: MEDLINE (via PubMed/OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials (via CENTRAL), Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The overall effect for the meta-analysis was derived by using a random effects model. Six randomized controlled trials (1298 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Data arising from pooled analysis showed that significantly reduced the duration of diarrhea (mean difference = -9.12 h; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -16.49 to -1.75, = 0.015), and the duration of hospitalization (mean difference = -0.85 days; 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.15, = 0.017), compared with control. There was a trend of decreasing stool frequency after administration compared with the control group (mean difference = -0.19 diarrheal motions; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.06, = 0.14). may represent an effective therapeutic option in acute childhood diarrhea, with a good safety profile.
Topics: Acute Disease; Age of Onset; Bacillus clausii; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Humans; Infant; Length of Stay; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30103531
DOI: 10.3390/nu10081074 -
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... Dec 2020Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 17 December 2019, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 12, 2019), in the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from studies and reviews. We included additional studies identified during external review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were measures of diarrhoea duration (diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours; duration of diarrhoea). Secondary outcomes were number of people hospitalized in community studies, duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies, diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 82 studies with a total of 12,127 participants. These studies included 11,526 children (age < 18 years) and 412 adults (three studies recruited 189 adults and children but did not specify numbers in each age group). No cluster-randomized trials were included. Studies varied in the definitions used for "acute diarrhoea" and "end of the diarrhoeal illness" and in the probiotic(s) tested. A total of 53 trials were undertaken in countries where both child and adult mortality was low or very low, and 26 where either child or adult mortality was high. Risk of bias was high or unclear in many studies, and there was marked statistical heterogeneity when findings for the primary outcomes were pooled in meta-analysis. Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted. Publication bias was demonstrated from funnel plots for the main outcomes. In our main analysis of the primary outcomes in studies at low risk for all indices of risk of bias, no difference was detected between probiotic and control groups for the risk of diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 2 trials, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or for duration of diarrhoea (mean difference (MD) 8.64 hours shorter, 95% CI 29.4 hours shorter to 12.1 hours longer; 6 trials, 3058 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Effect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre-specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies. These included analyses limited to the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. In six trials (433 participants) of Lactobacillus reuteri, there was consistency amongst findings (I² = 0%), but risk of bias was present in all included studies. Heterogeneity also was not explained by types of participants (age, nutritional/socioeconomic status captured by mortality stratum, region of the world where studies were undertaken), diarrhoea in children caused by rotavirus, exposure to antibiotics, and the few studies of children who were also treated with zinc. In addition, there were no clear differences in effect size for the primary outcomes in post hoc analyses according to decade of publication of studies and whether or not trials had been registered. For other outcomes, the duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies on average was shorter in probiotic groups than in control groups but there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I² = 96%; MD -18.03 hours, 95% CI -27.28 to -8.78, random-effects model: 24 trials, 4056 participants). No differences were detected between probiotic and control groups in the number of people with diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.53; 9 studies, 2928 participants) or in risk of hospitalization in community studies (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.89; 6 studies, 2283 participants). No serious adverse events were attributed to probiotics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Probiotics probably make little or no difference to the number of people who have diarrhoea lasting 48 hours or longer, and we are uncertain whether probiotics reduce the duration of diarrhoea. This analysis is based on large trials with low risk of bias.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Humans; Infant; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33295643
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003048.pub4 -
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 -
Pediatric Research Dec 2023Bifidobacterium infantis has special abilities to utilise human milk oligosaccharides. Hence we hypothesised that probiotic supplements containing B. infantis may confer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bifidobacterium infantis has special abilities to utilise human milk oligosaccharides. Hence we hypothesised that probiotic supplements containing B. infantis may confer greater benefits to preterm infants than probiotic supplements without B. infantis.
METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted according to standard guidelines. We selected RCTs evaluating probiotics compared to placebo or no treatment in preterm and/or low birth weight infants. Probiotic effects on Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC), Late Onset Sepsis (LOS) and Mortality were analysed separately for RCTs in which the supplemented probiotic product contained B. infantis and those that did not contain B. infantis.
RESULTS
67 RCTs were included (n = 14,606), of which 16 used probiotics containing B. infantis (Subgroup A) and 51 RCTs did not (Subgroup B) Meta-analysis of all RCTs indicated that probiotics reduced the risk of NEC, LOS, and mortality. The subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated greater reduction in the incidence of NEC in subgroup A than subgroup B [(relative risk in subgroup A: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) versus (0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.81) in subgroup B; p value for subgroup difference: 0.01].
CONCLUSIONS
These results provide indirect evidence that probiotic supplements that include B. infantis may be more beneficial for preterm infants. Well-designed RCTs are necessary to confirm these findings.
IMPACT
Evidence is emerging that beneficial effects of probiotics are species and strain specific. This systematic review analyses if B. infantis supplementation provides an advantage to preterm infants. This is the first systematic review evaluating the effects of probiotics containing B. infantis in preterm infants. The results of this systematic review provides indirect evidence that probiotics that include B. infantis may be more beneficial for preterm infants. These results will help in guiding future research and clinical practice for using B. infantis as a probiotic in preterm infants.
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Infant, Premature; Bifidobacterium longum subspecies infantis; Probiotics; Dietary Supplements; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Sepsis
PubMed: 37460707
DOI: 10.1038/s41390-023-02716-w -
Beneficial Microbes Dec 2020This review aims to present a comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis of the bidirectional crosstalk between gut microbiota and the central nervous system (CNS). The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This review aims to present a comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis of the bidirectional crosstalk between gut microbiota and the central nervous system (CNS). The literature concerning the potential effects of gut microbiota on psychiatric disorders through neural pathways comprising the 'gut-brain axis' were gathered. In addition, the influence of probiotics and prebiotics and dairy-rich diets combined with the intake of probiotics and prebiotics on gut microbiota and the subsequent relationship with brain function was reviewed. However, a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of probiotic supplementation in psychiatric disorders is lacking. Therefore, a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from January 1969 to December 2019 was conducted. It led to the identification of a total of 844 research articles. Of these, a total of 23 studies met the meta-analysis criteria. Statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the symptoms of schizophrenia, stress, and anxiety between probiotic and placebo groups, post-intervention. Probiotic administration reduced depressive symptoms among patients with depression in a statistically significant manner (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.87; 95% confidence interval (95% confidence interval): -1.66, -0.99; =0.03). Further evidence from larger and more rigorous studies with longer duration of probiotic administration, as well as well-defined populations, homogenous probiotic intervention and outcome measures, are needed to clarify the potential therapeutic effects of probiotics on psychiatric symptoms. Based on the current literature, it seems that not all probiotic-/prebiotic-/dairy-rich diet-based treatments exhibited a psychobiotic effect on the CNS. Among the parameters determining the success of the given treatment, the most significant were probiotic composition (multi-strain formulation), the quantity of ingested psychobiotics and the duration of the study.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Brain; Diet; Diet Therapy; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Schizophrenia; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 33191776
DOI: 10.3920/BM2020.0063 -
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2022Oral mucositis is a common adverse effect of cancer therapy. Probiotics have been shown to exert anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Oral mucositis is a common adverse effect of cancer therapy. Probiotics have been shown to exert anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate whether probiotics can prevent cancer therapy−induced oral mucositis. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for trials related to probiotics and oral mucositis published before September 2022; no language restrictions were applied. The primary outcome was the incidence of oral mucositis and severe oral mucositis. Secondary outcomes were the requirement for enteral nutrition during treatment, body weight loss, and decreased quality of life. The study has been registered in PROSPERO (number: CRD 42022302339). Eight RCTs, including 708 patients, were reviewed; however, a meta-analysis of only seven trials could be performed. Three trials using Lactobacilli-based probiotics reported that the incidence of oral mucositis in the probiotic group was significantly low (risk ratio [RR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77−0.93, p = 0.0004). Seven trials reported a significantly low incidence of severe oral mucositis in the probiotic group (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.53−0.81, p < 0.0001). The requirement of enteral nutrition was significantly low in the probiotic group (odds ratio = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13−0.92, p < 0.05). This study demonstrated the effectiveness of probiotics in the prevention and mitigation of cancer therapy−induced oral mucositis. We recommend the use of probiotics to prevent and treat oral mucositis during cancer therapy.
Topics: Humans; Probiotics; Stomatitis; Neoplasms; Lactobacillus; Enteral Nutrition
PubMed: 36362057
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232113268