-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia, sepsis, pyelonephritis and kidney dysfunction. Mortality rates are reported to be as high as 1% in men and 3% in women due to development of pyelonephritis. Because probiotic therapy is readily available without a prescription, a review of their efficacy in the prevention of UTI may aid consumers in making informed decisions about potential prophylactic therapy. Institutions and caregivers also need evidence-based synopses of current evidence to make informed patient care decisions.
OBJECTIVES
Compared to placebo or no therapy, did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality, when used to prevent UTI in susceptible patient populations?Compared to other prophylactic interventions, including drug and non-drug measures (e.g. continuous antibiotic prophylaxis, topical oestrogen, cranberry juice), did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality when used to prevent UTIs in susceptible patient populations?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 21 September 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of susceptible patients (e.g. past history of UTI) or healthy people in which any strain, formulation, dose or frequency of probiotic was compared to placebo or active comparators were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All RCTs and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at comparing probiotics to no therapy, placebo, or other prophylactic interventions were included. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that involved 735 people in this review. Four studies compared probiotic with placebo, two compared probiotic with no treatment, two compared probiotics with antibiotics in patients with UTI, and one study compared probiotic with placebo in healthy women. All studies aimed to measure differences in rates of recurrent UTI.Our risk of bias assessment found that most studies had small sample sizes and reported insufficient methodological detail to enable robust assessment. Overall, there was a high risk of bias in the included studies which lead to inability to draw firm conclusions and suggesting that any reported treatment effects may be misleading or represent overestimates.We found no significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI between patients treated with probiotics and placebo (6 studies, 352 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; I(2) = 23%) with wide confidence intervals, and statistical heterogeneity was low. No significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI was found between probiotic and antibiotic treated patients (1 study, 223 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33).The most commonly reported adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, constipation and vaginal symptoms. None of the included studies reported numbers of participants with at least one asymptomatic bacterial UTI, all-cause mortality or those with at least one confirmed case of bacteraemia or fungaemia. Two studies reported study withdrawal due to adverse events and the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event. One study reported withdrawal occurred in six probiotic participants (5.2%), 15 antibiotic participants (12.2%), while the second study noted one placebo group participant discontinued treatment due to an adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No significant benefit was demonstrated for probiotics compared with placebo or no treatment, but a benefit cannot be ruled out as the data were few, and derived from small studies with poor methodological reporting.There was limited information on harm and mortality with probiotics and no evidence on the impact of probiotics on serious adverse events. Current evidence cannot rule out a reduction or increase in recurrent UTI in women with recurrent UTI who use prophylactic probiotics. There was insufficient evidence from one RCT to comment on the effect of probiotics versus antibiotics.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 26695595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008772.pub2 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) May 2023Meta-analyses have not examined the prophylactic use of orally ingested probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for preventing gastrointestinal tract infections (GTIs) of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Orally Ingested Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotic Interventions as Countermeasures for Gastrointestinal Tract Infections in Nonelderly Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Meta-analyses have not examined the prophylactic use of orally ingested probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for preventing gastrointestinal tract infections (GTIs) of various etiologies in adult populations, despite evidence that these gut microbiota-targeted interventions can be effective in treating certain GTIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effects of prophylactic use of orally ingested probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on GTI incidence, duration, and severity in nonelderly, nonhospitalized adults. CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through January 2022. English-language, peer-reviewed publications of randomized, placebo-controlled studies testing an orally ingested probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic intervention of any dose for ≥1 wk in adults who were not hospitalized, immunosuppressed, or taking antibiotics were included. Results were analyzed using random-effects meta-analyses of intention-to-treat (ITT) and complete case (CC) cohorts. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. Seventeen publications reporting 20 studies of probiotics (n = 16), prebiotics (n = 3), and synbiotics (n = 1) were identified (n > 6994 subjects). In CC and ITT analyses, risk of experiencing ≥1 GTI was reduced with probiotics (CC analysis-risk ratio: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.01) and prebiotics (risk ratio: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.98). No effects on GTI duration or severity were observed. Sources of heterogeneity included the study population and number of probiotic strains administered but were often unexplained, and a high risk of bias was observed for most studies. The specific effects of individual probiotic strains and prebiotic types could not be assessed owing to a lack of confirmatory studies. Findings indicated that both orally ingested probiotics and prebiotics, relative to placebo, demonstrated modest benefit for reducing GTI risk in nonelderly adults. However, results should be interpreted cautiously owing to the low number of studies, high risk of bias, and unexplained heterogeneity that may include probiotic strain-specific or prebiotic-specific effects. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42020200670.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Prebiotics; Synbiotics; Probiotics; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Communicable Diseases
PubMed: 36822240
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.02.002 -
Maternal & Child Nutrition Jan 2022Infant regurgitation is common during infancy and can cause substantial parental distress. Regurgitation can lead to parental perception that their infant is in pain.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Infant regurgitation is common during infancy and can cause substantial parental distress. Regurgitation can lead to parental perception that their infant is in pain. Parents often present in general practitioner surgeries, community baby clinics and accident and emergency departments which can lead to financial burden on parents and the health care system. Probiotics are increasingly reported to have therapeutic effects for preventing and treating infant regurgitation. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of probiotic supplementation for the prevention and treatment of infant regurgitation. Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. A meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology where possible. Six RCTs examined the prevention or treatment with probiotics on infant regurgitation. A meta-analysis of three studies showed a statistically significant reduction in regurgitation episodes for the probiotic group compared to the placebo group (mean difference [MD]: -1.79 episodes/day: 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.30 to -0.27, N = 560), but there was high heterogeneity (96%). Meta-analysis of two studies found a statistically significant increased number of stools per day in the probiotic group compared to the placebo group at 1 month of age (MD: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.73, N = 488), with moderate heterogeneity (69%). Meta-analysis of two studies showed no statistical difference in body weight between the two groups (MD: -91.88 g, 95% CI: 258.40-74.63: I = 23%, N = 112) with minimal heterogeneity 23%. Probiotic therapy appears promising for infant regurgitation with some evidence of benefit, but most studies are small and there was relatively high heterogeneity. The use of probiotics could potentially be a noninvasive, safe, cost effective, and preventative positive health strategy for both women and their babies. Further robust, well controlled RCTs examining the effect of probiotics for infant regurgitation are warranted.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Probiotics
PubMed: 34908230
DOI: 10.1111/mcn.13290 -
Role of probiotic as adjuvant in treating various infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Infectious Diseases May 2024Research on the advantages of probiotics has attracted increasing interest based on the number of publications, products, and public awareness of their benefits. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Research on the advantages of probiotics has attracted increasing interest based on the number of publications, products, and public awareness of their benefits. This review evaluated the role of probiotics (single and multiple regimens) as an additional regimen to treat common infectious diseases, including Helicobacter. pylori, diarrheal infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs), upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), and HIV infections.
METHODS
We searched randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane and identified 6,950 studies. Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts were filtered. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (ROB 1.0 and 2.0). The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Data were extracted and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies were included in this study (22 H. pylori studies, 2 diarrheal infection studies, 6 UTI studies, and 2 HIV infection studies). There was no study on URTI. Probiotics, in addition to primary treatment, could improve the eradication of H. pylori versus the control (RR: 1.09; 95% CI:1.04 - 1.13, p value = 0.001) and achieve a cure range of Nugent score in UTI patients (RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.89, p value = 0.04). For eradicating H. pylori infection, subgroup analysis based on the therapy regimen showed that standard triple therapy was slightly superior compared to quadruple therapy in eradicating H. pylori (RR: 1.14 vs. 1.01, respectively). Single strain probiotics showed a similar effect to multiple strain probiotic regimens (both had an RR of 1.09). The effect estimates of the use of single strain probiotics as adjuvant therapy in eradicating H. pylori and the use of probiotics in UTI had a high certainty of evidence. Meta-analysis was not performed for infectious diarrheal because there were only two eligible studies with different probiotic supplementations and outcome parameters. Nonetheless, they showed that the diarrheal incidence was lower and complete remission of diarrheal was higher after the regimen of probiotics. Similarly, a meta-analysis was not performed for HIV infection because the two eligible studies used different designs and comparators with contradicting findings.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis showed beneficial use of single strain probiotics as adjuvant therapy in eradicating H. pylori and the use of probiotics in UTI. Probiotic supplementation might not be beneficial for patients given a quadruple therapy. Single-strain and multi-strain probiotic regimens had similar effects in increasing the eradication rate of H. pylori. Our study also suggested that the benefits of probiotics as an additional regimen in infectious diarrheal and HIV infections remain unclear; more studies are needed to confirm the benefits.
Topics: Probiotics; Humans; Diarrhea; Helicobacter Infections; Urinary Tract Infections; Respiratory Tract Infections; HIV Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Helicobacter pylori
PubMed: 38773400
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09259-3 -
Beneficial Microbes Sep 2023Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains challenging for clinicians. Probiotic fungi may act as candidate options for IBS treatment, but systematic evaluation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains challenging for clinicians. Probiotic fungi may act as candidate options for IBS treatment, but systematic evaluation of their clinical value remains scarce. This study is aimed to assess the efficacy and the safety of probiotic fungi for IBS treatment by means of systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were searched up to June 2022. Randomised controlled trials recruited subjects with prescriptions of probiotic fungi were eligible. Efficacy and safety of probiotic fungi were re-evaluated. Continuous data were pooled to obtain standardised difference in means (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval. The search strategy identified 120 articles of which 7 trial assessing 883 subjects were included in the analysis. Systematic data support that Saccharomyces helps to relieve abdominal pain/discomfort (SMD = -0.205, P = 0.005), and presented potential improvements on psychological outcomes, stool form for IBS patients. It is hard to demonstrate favourable effects on other symptoms (including distension, mucus passage, sense of incomplete evacuation, urgency, straining). The incidence of mild complications ranged from 0 to 51.4%, but no serious complications were observed in the included trials. Therefore, the partial response and the relative safe of probiotic fungi for IBS treatment have been demonstrated from the existing trials. However, it is premature to eventually declare the practical effects of probiotic fungi. Conducting more high-quality and large-scale trials and real-world studies, or even developing new fungal strains, is still necessary.
Topics: Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics; Humans; Fungi; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Saccharomyces; Abdominal Pain
PubMed: 38661391
DOI: 10.1163/18762891-20220134 -
Preventive Veterinary Medicine Sep 2021The aim of this study was to appraise the available evidence on the effectiveness of probiotic treatment on mature cattle immunity, inflammation, and disease prevention.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to appraise the available evidence on the effectiveness of probiotic treatment on mature cattle immunity, inflammation, and disease prevention. A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to analyse studies that were eligible to answer the following research question: "in cattle of at least 6-months of age, is the use of probiotics associated with immunomodulatory and inflammatory responses, and clinical disease outcomes?" Our literature search yielded 25 studies that fit the inclusion criteria. From these studies, only 19 were suitable for inclusion in the meta-analysis due to data limitations and differences in study population characteristics. Included studies were assessed for bias using a risk assessment tool adapted from the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. GRADE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the body of evidence at the outcome level. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager and R. The overall quality of evidence at the outcome level was assessed as being very low. On average, the treatment effect on immunoglobulin G (IgG), serum amyloid A (SAA), haptoglobin (Hp) and β-hydroxybutyrate (BoHB) for cows receiving probiotics did not differ from control cows. Exposure to probiotics was not associated with reduced risk of reproductive disorders (pooled RR = 1.02 95 % CI = 0.81-1.27, P = 0.88). There is insufficient evidence to support any significant positive effects of probiotics on cattle immunity and disease prevention. This lack of consistent evidence could be due to dissimilarities in the design of the included studies such as differences in dosage, dose schedule, diet composition and/or physiological state of the host at the time of treatment.
Topics: Animals; Biomarkers; Cattle; Cattle Diseases; Diet; Inflammation; Probiotics
PubMed: 34298303
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105433 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Aug 2021Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic skin disease affecting the pediatric population. Probiotics have been proposed to be effective in preventing the development... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic skin disease affecting the pediatric population. Probiotics have been proposed to be effective in preventing the development of pediatric atopic dermatitis. Although studies show promise for the use of probiotics, the evidence is still inconclusive due to significant heterogeneity and imprecision.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the comparative effectiveness of the different types of probiotic strains in preventing the development of atopic dermatitis among pediatric patients.
METHODOLOGY
A systematic search of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, TRIP Database, and Centre for Research and Dissemination was conducted. Manual search of the reference lists and search for unpublished articles were also done. All randomized controlled trials available from inception until April 12, 2020, on the use of probiotics in the prevention of atopic dermatitis among children were included. The comparator groups considered are other probiotic strains and placebo. The primary outcome of interest was the development of atopic dermatitis. Two authors independently searched for articles, screened the articles for inclusion, appraised the articles using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2, and extracted the data. In case of disagreement, the two authors discussed the source of disagreement until consensus was reached. If consensus was not reached, an independent third party reviewer was consulted. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14 software. The ranking probabilities and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were obtained to determine ranking of the different probiotic strains based on efficacy and safety data.
RESULTS
We included 21 original studies represented by 35 records and a total of 5406 children with atopic dermatitis as diagnosed by clinicians or fulfillment of validated diagnostic criteria. All studies were randomized placebo-controlled trials. The top 3 probiotic preparations in terms of efficacy in reducing the risk of atopic dermatitis are Mix8 (Lactobacillus paracasei ST11, Bifidobacterium longum BL999), LP (Lactobacillus paracasei ssp paracasei F19) and Mix3 (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Bifidobacterium animalis ssp lactis Bb-12). Mix8 compared with placebo probably reduces the risk of atopic dermatitis based on low-quality evidence (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.85). Mix3 compared with placebo also probably reduces the risk of atopic dermatitis based on low-quality evidence (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.94). It is uncertain whether LP compared with placebo reduces the risk of atopic dermatitis due to very-low-quality certainty of evidence (RR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.20-1.19). In terms of adverse events, LGG may slightly lead to less adverse events compared with placebo based on low-quality evidence (RR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.32-1.52). Mix4 may slightly lead to more adverse events compared with placebo based on low-quality evidence (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.02-51.88). Based on subgroup analysis of studies involving infants, Mix3 compared with placebo probably reduces the risk of atopic dermatitis based on low-quality evidence (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.97). In the subgroup analysis of studies where probiotics were administered to pregnant women and to infants, LRH compared with placebo probably reduces the risk of atopic dermatitis based on moderate-quality evidence (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.26-1.11).
CONCLUSION
Certain probiotic preparations demonstrate efficacy in reducing the risk of developing atopic dermatitis when administered to pregnant women, infants, or both.
Topics: Bifidobacterium animalis; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Female; Humans; Infant; Network Meta-Analysis; Pregnancy; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33811784
DOI: 10.1111/pai.13514 -
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Oct 2023Patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) exhibit compositional changes in their gut microbiome, which represents a potential therapeutic target.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) exhibit compositional changes in their gut microbiome, which represents a potential therapeutic target. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics are microbiome-targeted therapies that have been proposed as treatment for NAFLD. We aim to systematically review the effects of these therapies in liver-related outcomes of NAFLD patients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane, and EBSCOhost from inception to August 19, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that treated NAFLD patients with prebiotics and/or probiotics. We meta-analyzed the outcomes using standardized mean difference (SMD) and assessed study heterogeneity using Cochran's Q test and I statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool.
RESULTS
A total of 41 (18 probiotics, 17 synbiotics, and 6 prebiotics) RCTs were included. Pooled data demonstrated that the intervention had significantly improved liver steatosis (measured by ultrasound grading) (SMD: 4.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.27, 7.25), fibrosis (SMD: -0.61 kPa; 95% CI: -1.12, -0.09 kPa), and liver enzymes including alanine transaminase (SMD: -0.86 U/L; 95% CI: -1.16, -0.56 U/L), aspartate transaminase (SMD: -0.87 U/L; 95% CI: -1.22, -0.52 U/L), and gamma-glutamyl transferase (SMD: -0.77 U/L; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.29 U/L).
CONCLUSIONS
Microbiome-targeted therapies were associated with significant improvements in liver-related outcomes in NAFLD patients. Nevertheless, limitations in existing literature like heterogeneity in probiotic strains, dosage, and formulation undermine our findings. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022354562) and supported by the Nanyang Technological University Start-up Grant and Wang Lee Wah Memorial Fund.
Topics: Humans; Synbiotics; Prebiotics; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Probiotics
PubMed: 37409560
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.16256 -
Journal of Renal Nutrition : the... May 2019Gut dysbiosis has been implicated in the pathogenesis of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Restoring gut microbiota with prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplementation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Gut dysbiosis has been implicated in the pathogenesis of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Restoring gut microbiota with prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplementation has emerged as a potential therapeutic intervention but has not been systematically evaluated in the CKD population.
DESIGN AND METHODS
This is a systematic review. A structured search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal was conducted for articles published since inception until July 2017. Included studies were randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of prebiotic, probiotic, and/or synbiotic supplementation (>1 week) on uremic toxins, microbiota profile, and clinical and patient-centered outcomes in adults and children with CKD.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies investigating 645 adults met the inclusion criteria; 5 investigated prebiotics, 6 probiotics, and 5 synbiotics. The quality of the studies (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) ranged from moderate to very low. Prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplementation may have led to little or no difference in serum urea (9 studies, 345 participants: mean difference [MD] -0.30 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.20 to 1.61, P = .76, I = 53%), indoxyl sulfate (4 studies, 144 participants: MD -0.02 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05, P = .61, I = 0%), and p-cresyl sulfate (4 studies, 144 participants: MD -0.13 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.15, P = .35, I = 0%). Prebiotic supplementation may have slightly reduced serum urea concentration (4 studies, 105 participants: MD -2.23 mmol/L, 95% CI -3.83 to -0.64, P = .006, I = 11). Of the 2 studies investigating microbiota changes, synbiotic interventions significantly increased Bifidobacterium. Supplement effects on clinical outcomes were uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to support the use of prebiotics, probiotics, and/or synbiotics in CKD management.
Topics: Adult; Dietary Supplements; Dysbiosis; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Kidney; MEDLINE; Male; Patient Outcome Assessment; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Synbiotics
PubMed: 30366767
DOI: 10.1053/j.jrn.2018.08.008 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Jun 2024Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may benefit from probiotics and prebiotics, but the effects are unclear. To determine whether probiotics... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may benefit from probiotics and prebiotics, but the effects are unclear. To determine whether probiotics and prebiotics affect children with ADHD, a systematic review was conducted.
METHODS
The present systematic review analyzed cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that examined whether prebiotics and probiotics are associated with ADHD. Seven randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies met our inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Research on Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) probiotic supplementation showed that children with ADHD had better emotional, physical, social, and school functioning, and a higher health-related quality of life compared to the placebo group. The studies also showed that Synbiotic 2000 reduces markers of intestinal and vascular inflammation in children with ADHD, in part through increasing SCFA levels.
CONCLUSION
The use of probiotics and prebiotics as adjuvants therapy in patients with ADHD is beneficial. Further studies with longer duration, including more participants and a variety of age groups, and using various evaluation techniques such as in vivo observation are required to examine the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on ADHD.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics; Child; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38623929
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12437