-
Nutrients Sep 2023Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and rank the outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains or combinations in adults with IBS. We searched the literature up to June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS were included. A frequentist framework was used to perform this study. In total, 9253 participants from 81 RCTs were included in the study. Four probiotic strains and five mixtures were significantly superior to placebo in improving IBS Symptom Severity Scale, among which DDS-1 ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking, SUCRA, 92.9%). A mixture containing five probiotics (SUCRA, 100%) ranked first in improving the IBS-Quality of life. MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 96.9%) and Unique IS2 (SUCRA, 92.6%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving abdominal pain. Three probiotic strains and two mixtures were effective in alleviating abdominal bloating. Four probiotic strains and a mixture were significantly superior to placebo in reducing the bowel movement frequency in diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D). MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 99.6%) and CNCM I-3856 (SUCRA, 89.7%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving the Bristol stool form scale of IBS-D. Only some probiotics are effective for particular outcomes in IBS patients. This study provided the first ranking of outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains and combinations in IBS. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Abdominal Pain; Bacillus coagulans; Probiotics; Saccharomyces cerevisiae
PubMed: 37686889
DOI: 10.3390/nu15173856 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2015Prevalence of childhood constipation has been estimated at 1% to 30% in the general population worldwide; most children have no obvious aetiological factors. One third... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Prevalence of childhood constipation has been estimated at 1% to 30% in the general population worldwide; most children have no obvious aetiological factors. One third of children with chronic constipation continue to have problems beyond puberty. Half of the children with chronic faecal impaction and faecal incontinence have experienced an episode of painful defecation, and many children with chronic constipation exhibit withholding behaviour.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of fibre for children with chronic constipation? What are the effects of probiotics for children with chronic constipation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 12 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: fibre and probiotics.
Topics: Child; Constipation; Dietary Fiber; Humans; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25758093
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 2012Probiotics are live microorganisms that provide health benefits to the host when ingested in adequate amounts. The strains most frequently used as probiotics include... (Review)
Review
Probiotics are live microorganisms that provide health benefits to the host when ingested in adequate amounts. The strains most frequently used as probiotics include lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria. Probiotics have demonstrated significant potential as therapeutic options for a variety of diseases, but the mechanisms responsible for these effects have not been fully elucidated yet. Several important mechanisms underlying the antagonistic effects of probiotics on various microorganisms include the following: modification of the gut microbiota, competitive adherence to the mucosa and epithelium, strengthening of the gut epithelial barrier and modulation of the immune system to convey an advantage to the host. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that probiotics communicate with the host by pattern recognition receptors, such as toll-like receptors and nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-containing protein-like receptors, which modulate key signaling pathways, such as nuclear factor-ĸB and mitogen-activated protein kinase, to enhance or suppress activation and influence downstream pathways. This recognition is crucial for eliciting measured antimicrobial responses with minimal inflammatory tissue damage. A clear understanding of these mechanisms will allow for appropriate probiotic strain selection for specific applications and may uncover novel probiotic functions. The goal of this systematic review was to explore probiotic modes of action focusing on how gut microbes influence the host.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacterial Adhesion; Bifidobacterium; Gastrointestinal Tract; Humans; Immune System; Intestinal Mucosa; Lactobacillaceae; Metagenome; Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases; Models, Animal; NF-kappa B; Probiotics; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 23037511
DOI: 10.1159/000342079 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jun 2021In recent decades, the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of the microbiome changes and the impact of probiotic supplementation have increased rapidly. However, the...
OBJECTIVES
In recent decades, the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of the microbiome changes and the impact of probiotic supplementation have increased rapidly. However, the potential for clinical translation of microbiome research for children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders is unclear. This review examined available evidence related to gut microbiota as well as the impact of probiotic supplementation on psychiatric disorders in the pediatric population reported to date.
METHODS
We performed a literature search for the gut microbiota in child and adolescent population (0-18 years old) with mental health disorders from July 1999 through July 2019 in several databases: ClinicalTrials.gov, Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science.
RESULTS
A total of 7 studies met inclusion criteria consisting of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that examined various associations between psychiatric disorders and gut microbiota in youth. Six studies examined the effects of various treatment interventions such as probiotic supplementation on microbiota composition and behaviors. One study showed an increase in prosocial behavior in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and an increase in the Lachnospiraceae family following prebiotic supplementation. Another study suggested that prebiotic supplementation increased bifidobacterial populations for ASD and healthy controls. A study evaluating infant supplementation of prebiotics showed both a decreased likelihood of developing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or ASD and decreased gut Bifidobacterium. One study did not find significant differences in microbiome composition after micronutrient treatment.
CONCLUSION
The main goal of this systematic review was to comprehensively examine and summarize the current evidence focused on the potential effect of the relationship between microbiota gut composition as well as the effects of probiotic supplementation on psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents. This is a relatively new area of research and the number of included studies is limited. More studies are needed to determine whether gut dysbiosis leads to the development and/or contributes to the severity of mental disorders or whether gut dysbiosis is a result of other processes that accompany mental disorders.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
A better understanding of the specific bacteria contributions, gut-brain pathways, and role in pathophysiological mechanisms in neuropsychiatric disorders in the child and adolescent populations can possibly provide alternative tools for a clinical psychiatrist. Moreover, it may ultimately aid the clinician with intervention strategies, or detect populations at risk for developing neuropsychiatric disorders.
Topics: Adolescent; Brain-Gut Axis; Child; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Mental Disorders; Probiotics
PubMed: 33271210
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110187 -
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 -
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 -
Nutrients Aug 2016It has been reported that gut probiotics play a major role in the bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain. Probiotics may be essential to people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
It has been reported that gut probiotics play a major role in the bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain. Probiotics may be essential to people with depression, which remains a global health challenge, as depression is a metabolic brain disorder. However, the efficacy of probiotics for depression is controversial. This study aimed to systematically review the existing evidence on the effect of probiotics-based interventions on depression. Randomized, controlled trials, identified through screening multiple databases and grey literature, were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software using a fixed-effects model. The meta-analysis showed that probiotics significantly decreased the depression scale score (MD (depressive disorder) = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.51--0.09), p = 0.005) in the subjects. Probiotics had an effect on both the healthy population (MD = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.47--0.03), p = 0.03) and patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) (MD = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.37--0.09), p = 0.03). Probiotics had an effect on the population aged under 60 (MD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.72--0.13), p = 0.005), while it had no effect on people aged over 65 (MD = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47-0.11), p = 0.22). This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis with the goal of determining the effect of probiotics on depression. We found that probiotics were associated with a significant reduction in depression, underscoring the need for additional research on this potential preventive strategy for depression.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Animals; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dysbiosis; Evidence-Based Medicine; Global Health; Humans; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 27509521
DOI: 10.3390/nu8080483 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022To evaluate Safety and efficacy of probiotic supplementation in inflammatory arthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate Safety and efficacy of probiotic supplementation in inflammatory arthritis.
METHODS
The literature on the treatment of inflammatory arthritis with probiotics has been collected in databases such as CNKI, Pubmed, Cochrane library, Embase, etc. The search time is for them to build the database until May 2022. The included literatures are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics in the treatment of hyperuricemia and gout. The Cochrane risk assessment tool was used for quality evaluation, and the Rev Man5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 37 records were finally included, involving 34 RCTs and 8 types of autoimmune disease (Hyperuricemia and gout, Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis [JIA], Osteoarthritis [OA], Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, Psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Spondyloarthritis). RA involved 10 RCTs (632 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention reduced CRP. Psoriasis involved 4 RCTs (214 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention could reduce PASI scores. Spondyloarthritis involved 2 RCTs (197 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. Osteoporosis and Ostepenia involving 10 RCTs (1156 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved bone mineral density in patients. Hyperuricemia and gout involving 4 RCTs (294 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved serum uric acid in patients. OA involving 1 RCTs (433 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. JIA involving 2 RCTs (72 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis involving 1 RCTs (120 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. All of the above RCTs showed that probiotics did not increase the incidence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Probiotic supplements may improve Hyperuricemia and gout, Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis, JIA, OA, Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, Psoriasis, RA, Spondyloarthritis. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to determine the efficacy and optimal dosing design of probiotics.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021286425, identifier CRD42021286425.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Chronic Disease; Dietary Supplements; Gout; Humans; Hyperuricemia; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Osteoporosis; Probiotics; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylarthritis; Uric Acid
PubMed: 36217542
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.961325 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of probiotics in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of probiotics in allergic rhinitis; however, evidence for their use has yet to be firmly established.
OBJECTIVE
We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to address the effect and safety of probiotics on allergic rhinitis.
METHODS
We systematically searched databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials] from inception until June 1, 2021. Qualified literature was selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included. The results showed that probiotics significantly relieved allergic rhinitis symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.44, -0.13]; = 0.0003, = 89%), decreased Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores compared with the control group (SMD, -0.64, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.49], < 0.00001, = 97%), and increased T helper cell 1(Th1)/Th2 ratio (mean difference [MD], -2.47, 95% CI [-3.27, -1.68], < 0.00001, = 72%). There was no significant change in overall or specific IgE levels between probiotic-treated and placebo-treated subjects (SMD, 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34], = 0%, and SMD, -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.13], = 0.72, = 0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
To sum up, probiotic supplement seems to be effective in ameliorating allergic rhinitis symptoms and improving the quality of life, but there is high heterogeneity in some results after subgroup analysis and clinicians should be cautious when recommending probiotics in treating allergic rhinitis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO (CRD42021242645).
Topics: Humans; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35663980
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.848279 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology May 2010This article reviews the evidence for efficacy and safety of Saccharomyces boulardii (S. boulardii) for various disease indications in adults based on the peer-reviewed,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This article reviews the evidence for efficacy and safety of Saccharomyces boulardii (S. boulardii) for various disease indications in adults based on the peer-reviewed, randomized clinical trials and pre-clinical studies from the published medical literature (Medline, Clinical Trial websites and meeting abstracts) between 1976 and 2009. For meta-analysis, only randomized, blinded controlled trials unrestricted by language were included. Pre-clinical studies, volunteer studies and uncontrolled studies were excluded from the review of efficacy and meta-analysis, but included in the systematic review. Of 31 randomized, placebo-controlled treatment arms in 27 trials (encompassing 5029 study patients), S. boulardii was found to be significantly efficacious and safe in 84% of those treatment arms. A meta-analysis found a significant therapeutic efficacy for S. boulardii in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) (RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.35-0.63, P < 0.001). In adults, S. boulardii can be strongly recommended for the prevention of AAD and the traveler's diarrhea. Randomized trials also support the use of this yeast probiotic for prevention of enteral nutrition-related diarrhea and reduction of Helicobacter pylori treatment-related symptoms. S. boulardii shows promise for the prevention of C. difficile disease recurrences; treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, acute adult diarrhea, Crohn's disease, giardiasis, human immunodeficiency virus-related diarrhea; but more supporting evidence is recommended for these indications. The use of S. boulardii as a therapeutic probiotic is evidence-based for both efficacy and safety for several types of diarrhea.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Contraindications; Diarrhea; Enteral Nutrition; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Intestinal Diseases; Intestines; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Saccharomyces; Travel; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20458757
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i18.2202