-
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 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Mar 2024The use of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics or fermented foods can modulate the gut-brain axis and constitute a potentially therapeutic intervention in psychiatric... (Review)
Review
The use of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics or fermented foods can modulate the gut-brain axis and constitute a potentially therapeutic intervention in psychiatric disorders. This systematic review aims to identify current evidence regarding these interventions in the treatment of patients with DSM/ICD psychiatric diagnoses. Forty-seven articles from 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed in all included studies. Major depression was the most studied disorder (n = 19 studies). Studies frequently focused on schizophrenia (n = 11) and bipolar disorder (n = 5) and there were limited studies in anorexia nervosa (n = 4), ADHD (n = 3), Tourette (n = 1), insomnia (n = 1), PTSD (n = 1) and generalized anxiety disorder (n = 1). Except in MDD, current evidence does not clarify the role of probiotics and prebiotics in the treatment of mental illness. Several studies point to an improvement in the immune and inflammatory profile (e.g. CRP, IL6), which may be a relevant mechanism of action of the therapeutic response identified in these studies. Future research should consider lifestyle and dietary habits of patients as possible confounders that may influence inter-individual treatment response.
Topics: Humans; Prebiotics; Synbiotics; Probiotics; Mental Disorders
PubMed: 38280441
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105561 -
Nutrients Jul 2021Probiotic and prebiotic products have shown potential health benefits, including for the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of adverse effects in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Probiotic and prebiotic products have shown potential health benefits, including for the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of adverse effects in pregnant people and their infants associated with probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic intake, however, remains unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the evidence on adverse effects of maternal probiotic, prebiotic, and/or synbiotic supplementation during pregnancy and lactation and interpret the findings to help inform clinical decision-making and care of this population. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Scientific databases were searched using pre-determined terms, and risk of bias assessments were conducted to determine study quality. Inclusion criteria were English language studies, human studies, access to full-text, and probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic supplementation to the mother and not the infant. In total, 11/100 eligible studies reported adverse effects and were eligible for inclusion in quantitative analysis, and data were visualised in a GOfER diagram. Probiotic and prebiotic products are safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. One study reported increased risk of vaginal discharge and changes in stool consistency (relative risk [95% CI]: 3.67 [1.04, 13.0]) when administering and Adverse effects associated with probiotic and prebiotic use do not pose any serious health concerns to mother or infant. Our findings and knowledge translation visualisations provide healthcare professionals and consumers with information to make evidence-informed decisions about the use of pre- and probiotics.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactation; Prebiotics; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Probiotics; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Synbiotics
PubMed: 34371892
DOI: 10.3390/nu13072382 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Feb 2023Probiotics have shown potential to counteract sarcopenia, although the extent to which they can influence domains of sarcopenia such as muscle mass and strength in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Probiotics have shown potential to counteract sarcopenia, although the extent to which they can influence domains of sarcopenia such as muscle mass and strength in humans is unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the impact of probiotic supplementation on muscle mass, total lean mass and muscle strength in human adults. A literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception until June 2022. Eligible RCTs compared the effect of probiotic supplementation versus placebo on muscle and total lean mass and global muscle strength (composite score of all muscle strength outcomes) in adults (>18 years). To evaluate the differences between groups, a meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects inverse-variance model by utilizing standardized mean differences. Twenty-four studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the effects of probiotics on muscle mass, total lean mass and global muscle strength. Our main analysis (k = 10) revealed that muscle mass was improved following probiotics compared with placebo (SMD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.10-0.74, I = 57%, P = 0.009), although no changes were revealed in relation to total lean mass (k = 12; SMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.19 - 0.13, I = 0%, P = 0.69). Interestingly, a significant increase in global muscle strength was also observed among six RCTs (SMD: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.33-1.06, I = 64%, P = 0.0002). Probiotic supplementation enhances both muscle mass and global muscle strength; however, no beneficial effects were observed in total lean mass. Investigating the physiological mechanisms underpinning different ageing groups and elucidating appropriate probiotic strains for optimal gains in muscle mass and strength are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Sarcopenia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Muscle Strength; Muscles
PubMed: 36414567
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13132 -
Nutrients Jan 2020Obesity is associated with reduced gut microbial diversity and a high rate of micronutrient deficiency. Bariatric surgery, the therapy of choice for severe obesity,...
Obesity is associated with reduced gut microbial diversity and a high rate of micronutrient deficiency. Bariatric surgery, the therapy of choice for severe obesity, produces sustained weight loss and improvements in obesity-related comorbidities. Also, it significantly alters the gut microbiota (GM) composition and function, which might have an important impact on the micronutrient status as GM is able to synthesize certain vitamins, such as riboflavin, folate, B, or vitamin K. However, recent data have reported that GM is not fully restored after bariatric surgery; therefore, manipulation of GM through probiotics represents a promising therapeutic approach in bariatric patients. In this review, we discuss the latest evidence concerning the relationship between obesity, GM and micronutrients, the impact of bariatric surgery on GM in relation with micronutrients equilibrium, and the importance of the probiotics' supplementation in obese patients submitted to surgical treatment.
Topics: Animals; Bariatric Surgery; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Micronutrients; Nutritional Status; Obesity; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31963247
DOI: 10.3390/nu12010235 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Nov 2018Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional bowel disorder. Disturbances in the gastrointestinal microbiome may be involved in its aetiology. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional bowel disorder. Disturbances in the gastrointestinal microbiome may be involved in its aetiology.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in IBS.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to July 2017). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics or antibiotics with placebo or no therapy were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI.
RESULTS
The search identified 4017 citations. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics were sparse. Fifty-three RCTs of probiotics, involving 5545 patients, were eligible. Particular combinations of probiotics, or specific species and strains, appeared to have beneficial effects on global IBS symptoms and abdominal pain, but it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions about their efficacy. There were five trials of similar design that used rifaximin in non-constipated IBS patients, which was more effective than placebo (RR of symptoms persisting = 0.84; 95% CI 0.79-0.90). Adverse events were no more common with probiotics or antibiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Which particular combination, species or strains of probiotics are effective for IBS remains, for the most part, unclear. Rifaximin has modest efficacy in improving symptoms in non-constipated IBS.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifaximin; Synbiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30294792
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15001 -
PloS One 2018Clinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and...
INTRODUCTION
Clinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and continuously expanding product base, with most available products lacking evidence-based trials that support their use. Even when evidence exists, not all probiotic products are equally effective for all disease prevention or treatment indications. At this point in time, drug regulatory agencies offer limited assistance with regard to guidance and oversight in most countries, including the U.S.
METHODS
We reviewed the current medical literature and sources on the internet to survey the types of available probiotic products and to determine which probiotics had evidence-based efficacy data. Standard medical databases from inception to June 2018 were searched and discussions with experts in the field were conducted. We graded the strength of the evidence for probiotics having multiple, randomized controlled trials and developed a guide for the practical selection of current probiotic products for specific uses.
RESULTS
We found the efficacy of probiotic products is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Important factors involved in choosing the appropriate probiotic include matching the strain(s) with the targeted disease or condition, type of formulation, dose used and the source (manufacturing quality control and shelf-life). While we found many probiotic products lacked confirmatory trials, we found sufficient evidence for 22 different types of probiotics from 249 trials to be included. For example, several types of probiotics had strong evidence for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea [Saccharomyces boulardii I-745, a three-strain mixture (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei Lbc80r, L. rhamnosus CLR2) and L. casei DN114001]. Strong evidence was also found for four types of probiotics for the prevention of a variety of other diseases/conditions (enteral-feed associated diarrhea, travellers' diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolits and side-effects associated with H. pylori treatments. The evidence was most robust for the treatment of pediatric acute diarrhea based on 59 trials (7 types of probiotics have strong efficacy), while an eight-strain multi-strain mixture showed strong efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease and two types of probiotics had strong efficacy for irritable bowel disease. Of the 22 types of probiotics reviewed, 15 (68%) had strong-moderate evidence for efficacy for at least one type of disease.
CONCLUSION
The choice of an appropriate probiotic is multi-factored, based on the mode and type of disease indication and the specific efficacy of probiotic strain(s), as well as product quality and formulation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018103979.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30586435
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209205 -
Nutrients Sep 2019Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a frequent functional gastrointestinal disorder, and alterations in the gut microbiota composition contributes to symptom generation....
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a frequent functional gastrointestinal disorder, and alterations in the gut microbiota composition contributes to symptom generation. The exact mechanisms of probiotics in the human body are not fully understood, but probiotic supplements are thought to improve IBS symptoms through manipulation of the gut microbiota. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the latest randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of probiotic supplementation on symptoms in IBS patients. A literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed) until March 2019. RCTs published within the last five years evaluating effects of probiotic supplements on IBS symptoms were eligible. The search identified in total 35 studies, of which 11 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Seven studies (63.6%) reported that supplementation with probiotics in IBS patients significantly improved symptoms compared to placebo, whereas the remaining four studies (36.4%) did not report any significant improvement in symptoms after probiotic supplementation. Of note, three studies evaluated the effect of a mono-strain supplement, whereas the remaining eight trials used a multi-strain probiotic. Overall, the beneficial effects were more distinct in the trials using multi-strain supplements with an intervention of 8 weeks or more, suggesting that multi-strain probiotics supplemented over a period of time have the potential to improve IBS symptoms.
Topics: Bacteria; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics
PubMed: 31480656
DOI: 10.3390/nu11092048 -
Nutrients Jan 2022The gut microbiota impacts on central nervous system (CNS) function via the microbiota-gut-brain axis. Thus, therapeutics targeting the gut microbiota such as probiotics... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The gut microbiota impacts on central nervous system (CNS) function via the microbiota-gut-brain axis. Thus, therapeutics targeting the gut microbiota such as probiotics have the potential for improving mental health. This meta-analysis synthesizes the evidence regarding the impacts of probiotics on psychological well-being, psychiatric symptoms and CNS functioning.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were applied for executing this review using the databases PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The data were summarized at qualitative and quantitative level.
RESULTS
Fifty-four randomized placebo-controlled studies were included, of which 30 were eligible for meta-analysis. If investigated, the probiotics mostly exerted effects on CNS function. Most probiotics did not affect mood, stress, anxiety, depression and psychiatric distress when compared to placebo at the qualitative level. At quantitative level, depression and psychiatric distress improved slightly in the probiotic condition (depression: mean difference -0.37 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.20); ≤ 0.0001; psychiatric distress: mean difference -0.33 (95% CI: -0.53, -0.13); = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
To date it is unclear to which extent and in which specific areas next generation probiotics selected and developed for their ability to improve psychiatric condition and potentially other CNS functions are promising.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Central Nervous System; Depression; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 35276981
DOI: 10.3390/nu14030621 -
PloS One 2022Acute mastitis is one of the main reasons why breastfeeding women stop breastfeeding, and medication should be used with caution. Considering the uncertainty of mastitis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Acute mastitis is one of the main reasons why breastfeeding women stop breastfeeding, and medication should be used with caution. Considering the uncertainty of mastitis infection and the indications of antibiotic use, as well as the problem of drug resistance and the safety of medication during lactation, probiotics have become an alternative treatment choice. However, a meta-analysis of the effects of probiotics in preventing and treating lactational mastitis is still lacking. Therefore, we searched six electronic databases and the sites of clinical trial registration, a total of six randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis, which showed that oral probiotics during pregnancy can reduce the incidence of mastitis (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.69; p<0.0001). After oral administration of probiotics, the counts of bacteria in the milk of healthy people and mastitis patients were both significantly reduced (in healthy people: MD: -0.19, 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.16, p<0.00001; in mastitis patients: MD: -0.89, 95% CI: -1.34 to -0.43, p = 0.0001). These indicate that to a certain extent, probiotics are beneficial in reducing the incidence rate of mastitis during lactation and some related mastitis symptoms. However, high-quality multicenter clinical trials are still needed to support this result.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Breast Feeding; Female; Humans; Lactation; Mastitis; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36084006
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274467