-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Infantile colic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Infantile colic affects a large number of infants and their families worldwide. Its symptoms are broad and general, and while not indicative of disease, may represent a serious underlying condition in a small percentage of infants who may need a medical assessment. Probiotics are live microorganisms that alter the microflora of the host and provide beneficial health effects. The most common probiotics used are of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus. There is growing evidence to suggest that intestinal flora in colicky infants differ from those in healthy infants, and it is suggested that probiotics can redress this balance and provide a healthier intestinal microbiota landscape. The low cost and easy availability of probiotics makes them a potential prophylactic solution to reduce the incidence and prevalence of infantile colic.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic probiotics in preventing or reducing severity of infantile colic.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 10 other databases and two trials registers. In addition, we handsearched the abstracts of relevant meetings, searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies, and contacted authors and experts in the field, including the manufacturers of probiotics, to identify unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised control trials (RCTs) of newborn infants less than one month of age without the diagnosis of infantile colic at recruitment. We included any probiotic, alone or in combination with a prebiotic (also known as synbiotics), versus no intervention, another intervention(s) or placebo, where the focus of the study was the effect of the intervention on infantile colic.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search yielded 3284 records, and of these, we selected 21 reports for full-text review. Six studies with 1886 participants met our inclusion criteria, comparing probiotics with placebo. Two studies examined Lactobacillus reuteri DSM, two examined multi-strain probiotics, one examined Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and one examined Lactobacillus paracasei and Bifidobacterium animalis. Two studies began probiotics during pregnancy and continued administering them to the baby after birth.We considered the risk of bias for randomisation as low for all six trials; for allocation concealment as low in two studies and unclear in four others. All studies were blinded, and at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (1148 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to occurrence of new cases of colic: risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence; I = 72%.A random-effects meta-analysis of all six studies (1851 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to serious adverse effects (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.21; low-certainty evidence; I not calculable (only four serious events for one comparison, two in each group: meconium plug obstruction, patent ductus arteriosus and neonatal hepatitis).A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (707 participants) found a mean difference (MD) of -32.57 minutes per day (95% CI -55.60 to -9.54; low-certainty evidence; I = 93%) in crying time at study end in favour of probiotics.A subgroup analysis of the most studied agent, Lactobacillus reuteri, showed a reduction of 44.26 minutes in daily crying with a random-effects model (95% CI -66.6 to -21.9; I = 92%), in favour of probiotics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear evidence that probiotics are more effective than placebo at preventing infantile colic; however, daily crying time appeared to reduce with probiotic use compared to placebo. There were no clear differences in adverse effects.We are limited in our ability to draw conclusions by the certainty of the evidence, which we assessed as being low across all three outcomes, meaning that we are not confident that these results would not change with the addition of further research.
Topics: Bifidobacterium; Breast Feeding; Colic; Crying; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Limosilactobacillus reuteri; Prebiotics; Pregnancy; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30865287
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012473.pub2 -
Journal of Occupational Health 2023Prolonged and constant stress from work often leads to numerous adverse health effects. In recent years, interest in probiotics, living microorganisms that can benefit... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prolonged and constant stress from work often leads to numerous adverse health effects. In recent years, interest in probiotics, living microorganisms that can benefit their host when consumed in adequate amounts, to aid health and well-being has increased. This scoping review is to systematically evaluate the current state of science on the effects of probiotic supplements on health, stress, and stress-related symptoms among working adults in occupational settings.
METHODS
We performed a systematic scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley Framework. Studies that examined the effects of probiotics on workers' health and stress-related indicators/outcomes in occupational settings were included. A comprehensive search was performed from November 2021 to January 2022 using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 14 papers met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Probiotics consisted primarily of Lactobacillus and/or Bifidobacterium strains in various forms and doses. Three out of eight studies reported statistical differences in inflammatory markers or stress hormone levels between probiotic and placebo groups. Three of six reported reduced respiratory tract infection incidents in the probiotic groups and three out of four studies reported no differences in anxiety and depression between groups. Lastly, three studies found that absenteeism and presentism were lower in probiotic groups compared with placebo groups.
CONCLUSION
The potential benefits of probiotics exist; however, the measurements of outcomes, the types of probiotics used, and the characteristics of the intervention varied across studies. Further research is needed focusing on probiotics' direct and indirect mechanisms of action on the stress response and the standardization of strains and dosing.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Occupational Health; Probiotics; Lactobacillus; Absenteeism; Anxiety
PubMed: 37218068
DOI: 10.1002/1348-9585.12404 -
Allergologia Et Immunopathologia 2022The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of probiotics on allergic rhinitis (AR). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of probiotics on allergic rhinitis (AR).
METHODS
Collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with probiotics as intervention measures for AR, two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies, and used RevMan 5.3 software for meta-analysis to observe the effects of probiotics on Rhinitis Quality of Life (RQLQ) scores, Rhinitis Total Symptom Scores (RTSS), blood eosinophil count, total and antigen-specific serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels by using the fixed- or the random-effects model to calculate the pooled risk for significant heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 2708 patients were included in 30 RCTs. Meta-analysis results showed that the RQLQ global scores (mean difference [MD] = -9.43; P < 0.00001), RQLQ nasal scores (MD = -1.52; P = 0.03), and RTSS nasal scores (MD = -1.96; P = 0.02) significantly improved in the probiotic group when compared with those in the placebo group. There was no significant difference in blood eosinophil count (MD = -0.09; P=0.82), RQLQ eye scores (MD = -1.45; P = 0.07), RTSS global scores (MD = -2.24; P = 0.26), RTSS eye scores (MD = -0.39; P = 0.31), total and antigen-specific serum IgE levels (MD = -0.04; P = 0.7 and MD = -0.08; P = 0.81) between the probiotic and the placebo group.
CONCLUSION
Compared with the placebo group, the quality of life and symptoms of patients with AR significantly improved in the probiotic group, thus providing a new potential method for the application of probiotics in AR. However, because of the limited evidence for the current study outcomes, the heterogeneity of research, and the differences in research results, more high-quality studies are needed to in the future.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 35527653
DOI: 10.15586/aei.v50i3.507 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Nov 2023The early-life microbiome is formed during the perinatal period and is critical for infants' lifelong health. This is established by maternal-infant microbiome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of maternal probiotic supplementation on breast milk microbiome and infant gut microbiome and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
The early-life microbiome is formed during the perinatal period and is critical for infants' lifelong health. This is established by maternal-infant microbiome crosstalk, which is mediated by the breast milk microbiome. The milk microbiome is dependent on the maternal gut microbiome, suggesting that it could potentially be restored through oral probiotic supplements. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of maternal probiotic supplements on breast milk and infant gut microbiome composition and on infant health.
DATA SOURCES
The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Science Direct databases were searched until December 15, 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials following the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (population: pregnant or lactating women; intervention: probiotics; control: placebo or follow-up; outcome: breast milk and infant gut microbiome composition and infant health) principles were included.
METHODS
Using a random effect model, the standard mean difference, risk difference, and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval were used to measure each outcome. All analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat approach. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I statistics.
RESULTS
The final data set included 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 2761 mothers and 1756 infants. The overall effect of probiotics on the beneficial bacteria detection rate in breast milk had a risk difference of 24% (95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.37; P<.001; I=91.12%). The pooled mean beneficial and pathogenic bacteria abundance in breast milk had a standard mean difference of 1.22 log colony forming units/mL (95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.97; P<.001; I=95.51%) and -1.05 log colony forming unites/mL (95% confidence interval, -1.99 to -0.12; P=.03; I=96.79%), respectively. The overall abundance of beneficial bacteria in the infant gut had a standard mean difference of 0.89 log colony forming units/g (95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.56; P=.01; I=95.01%). It also controlled infant weight gain (standard mean difference, -0.49 kg/equivalent age; 95% confidence interval, -0.82 to -0.17; P<.001; I=0.00%) and decreased the occurrence of infantile colic (risk ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.57; P<.001; I=0.00%).
CONCLUSION
Maternal probiotic supplements effectively orchestrate the breast milk and infant gut microbiome with a wide range of clinical benefits and safety. Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus thermophilus, and S. boulardii can be used as maternal supplements to promote infant health.
Topics: Pregnancy; Humans; Infant; Female; Milk, Human; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Lactation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Microbiota; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37660760
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101148 -
Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen... Aug 2023Despite a large body of research, the effect of probiotic administration on the incidence and severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) shows conflicting results. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Despite a large body of research, the effect of probiotic administration on the incidence and severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) shows conflicting results. We aimed to investigate whether probiotic supplementation reduces the incidence and severity of AD. Three databases were systematically searched. A 22% lower incidence of AD was found in the probiotic group. The reduction in incidence was 49% when probiotics were given to pregnant and lactating mothers, and 27% when they were given to pregnant mothers and infants. A 39% reduction of AD incidence was achieved when administered to pregnant-breastfeeding mothers and infants. Significant differences in SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) favoring probiotics were observed, but the IDLQI remained unchanged. Lactobacillus (L.) rhamnosus was the most documented strain, but it turned out to be ineffective in reducing SCORAD. Conversely, L. paracasei and L. sakei showed a significant decrease in SCORAD. Probiotics are effective in the prevention of AD, but the effect is less conclusive for the treatment of AD, especially in infants <1 year. The intake of probiotics by breastfeeding mothers is an important measure and may become a novel preventive strategy. The preventive effect of probiotics against AD is not associated with family background or AD risk. L. paracasei and L. sakei show the greatest reduction in SCORAD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Pregnancy; Dermatitis, Atopic; Lactation; Lactobacillus; Probiotics; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 37345893
DOI: 10.1111/ddg.15120 -
Pharmacological Research Jan 2023Recent studies have demonstrated the effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on adiponectin and leptin levels; however, those findings remain contested. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
Recent studies have demonstrated the effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on adiponectin and leptin levels; however, those findings remain contested. The present study aimed to explore the impact of probiotics/synbiotics on appetite-regulating hormones and the desire to eat.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by searching the Medline (PubMed) and Scopus databases from inception to December 2021, using relevant keywords and MeSH terms, and appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were extracted. The standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated as part of the meta-analysis using a random-effect model to determine the mean effect sizes. Analysis of Galbraith plots and the Cochrane Chi-squared test were conducted to examine heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of data from a total of 26 RCTs (n = 1536) showed a significant decrease in serum/plasma leptin concentration following probiotic/synbiotic supplementation (SMD: -0.38, 95%CI= -0.638, -0.124); P-value= 0.004; I= 69.4%; P heterogeneity < 0.001). The leptin level decrease from probiotic/synbiotic supplementation was higher in patients with NAFLD than those with overweight/obesity or type 2 diabetes mellitus/ metabolic syndrome/ prediabetes. Probiotic/synbiotic supplementation was associated with a trending increase in adiponectin levels, stronger in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and prediabetes (SMD: 0.25, 95%CI= 0.04, 0.46) µg/mL; P-value= 0.021; I = 16.8%; P heterogeneity= 0.30). Additionally, supplementation with probiotic/synbiotic was linked to a slight increase in desire to eat (SMD: 0.34, 95%CI= 0.03, 0.66) P-value = 0.030; I = 39.4%; P heterogeneity= 0.16).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis indicates a favorable impact of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on regulating leptin and adiponectin secretion.
Topics: Humans; Synbiotics; Leptin; Metabolic Syndrome; Prediabetic State; Adiponectin; Appetite; Probiotics; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
PubMed: 36538981
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106614 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Jun 2022Sepsis due to the administered probiotic strain/s is a barrier against adoption of prophylactic probiotic supplementation in preterm infants to reduce the risk of... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Sepsis due to the administered probiotic strain/s is a barrier against adoption of prophylactic probiotic supplementation in preterm infants to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC ≥ Stage II), all-cause mortality, late-onset sepsis, and feeding intolerance. We aimed to conduct a systematic review for reports of probiotic sepsis in preterm infants (gestation < 37 weeks). Databases including PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Central library, and Google Scholar were searched in August 2021 and updated in Jan 2022. Probiotic sepsis was defined as positive blood/CSF culture isolating administered probiotic strain with symptoms suggestive of infection. Data collection included birth weight, gestation, comorbidities (e.g. gut surgery, NEC), presence of central venous catheters, treatment, and outcome. Literature search revealed 1569 studies. A total of 16 reports [randomised control trial (RCT): none; non-RCT: 1; case series: 8; case report: 7] involving 32 preterm infants with probiotic sepsis were included after exclusions for various reasons. Majority of the cases were born < 32 weeks' gestation. Bifidobacterium (N = 19) was the most commonly isolated organism followed by Lactobacillus (N = 10), and Saccharomyces (N = 3). A total of 25/32 cases were confirmed to be due to the administered probiotic strain on full genomic analysis. Two studies reported one neonatal death each. Twelve neonates had comorbidities. Majority were treated with antibiotics (29/32) whereas others (3/32) required antifungal treatment.
CONCLUSION
Probiotics sepsis is relatively an uncommon event in preterm infants. Majority of the cases recovered after antibiotic or antifungal treatment. The importance of optimal surveillance and treatment of probiotic sepsis and research towards alternatives to probiotics (e.g. postbiotics) is emphasised.
WHAT IS KNOWN
• Probiotics have been shown to reduce necrotising enterocolitis, late-onset sepsis, all-cause mortality, and time to reach full enteral feeds in preterm infants. • Despite the evidence, use of probiotics is not universal due to concerns regarding probiotic-associated sepsis in preterm infants.
WHAT IS NEW
• This comprehensive systematic review showed that probiotic sepsis is a relatively rare phenomenon in preterm infants. • All except one case where the diagnosis was uncertain recovered after antimicrobial therapy.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antifungal Agents; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis
PubMed: 35348825
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-022-04452-5 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract, in which the pathogenesis is believed to be partly influenced by the gut... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract, in which the pathogenesis is believed to be partly influenced by the gut microbiome. Probiotics can be used to manipulate the microbiome and have therefore been considered as a potential therapy for CD. There is some evidence that probiotics benefit other gastrointestinal conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome and ulcerative colitis, but their efficacy in CD is unclear. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the induction of remission in CD.
SEARCH METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (from inception to 6 July 2020), Embase (from inception to 6 July 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane IBD Review Group Specialised Trials Register, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared probiotics with placebo or any other non-probiotic intervention for the induction of remission in CD were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. The primary outcome was clinical remission. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
There were two studies that met criteria for inclusion. One study from Germany had 11 adult participants with mild-to-moderate CD, who were treated with a one-week course of corticosteroids and antibiotics (ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily and metronidazole 250 mg three times a day), followed by randomised assignment to Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG (two billion colony-forming units per day) or corn starch placebo. The other study from the United Kingdom (UK) had 35 adult participants with active CD (CDAI score of 150 to 450) randomised to receive a synbiotic treatment (comprised of freeze-dried Bifidobacterium longum and a commercial product) or placebo. The overall risk of bias was low in one study, whereas the other study had unclear risk of bias in relation to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding. There was no evidence of a difference between the use of probiotics and placebo for the induction of remission in CD (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.71; 2 studies, 46 participants) after six months. There was no difference in adverse events between probiotics and placebo (RR 2.55; 95% CI 0.11 to 58.60; 2 studies, 46 participants). The evidence for both outcomes was of very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence is very uncertain about the efficacy or safety of probiotics, when compared with placebo, for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. There is a lack of well-designed RCTs in this area and further research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bifidobacterium longum; Ciprofloxacin; Crohn Disease; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus; Metronidazole; Placebos; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction
PubMed: 32678465
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006634.pub3 -
Childhood Obesity (Print) Apr 2023Probiotics have been proposed as a prevention or treatment for pediatric overweight and obesity. Conduct a scoping review on probiotic use in children and adolescents... (Review)
Review
Probiotics have been proposed as a prevention or treatment for pediatric overweight and obesity. Conduct a scoping review on probiotic use in children and adolescents with overweight or obesity and those with weight-related conditions and to identify knowledge gaps and research priorities. Seven databases using keywords and medical subject heading terms for articles reporting probiotic use in children or adolescents with overweight or obesity published from database conception until initiation of the study. Articles reporting primary data on probiotics use in children or adolescents with overweight or obesity. We utilized the Arksey and O'Malley framework, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, followed a predetermined study protocol for level-one abstract and level-two full-text screenings, synthesized information into subject-area domains, and identified research gaps. Heterogeneity of probiotic interventions, host factors, and genomics. Database search yielded 1356 unique articles with 19 randomized placebo-controlled studies, 945 participants, duration of interventions from 8 weeks to 9 months. Disease indications included Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, insulin resistance, hypercholesterolemia, Prader-Willi Syndrome, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. Limited and heterogeneous evidence for probiotic use in children and adolescents with weight-related conditions noted. Heterogeneity among published articles in probiotic strains, doses, design, biomarkers, confirmation, and outcomes observed. Despite complex existing and limited data, studies to date of children and adolescents with overweight and obesity demonstrate potential beneficial treatment effects of probiotics on BMI, adiposity, metabolic parameters, inflammatory markers, fatty liver, transaminase levels, and glucose metabolism. Clinical trials to address heterogeneous results are needed.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Overweight; Pediatric Obesity; Probiotics; Adiposity; Metabolic Syndrome
PubMed: 35723657
DOI: 10.1089/chi.2022.0059