-
Nutrients Jan 2021Recent evidence supports a role of probiotics in preventing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recent evidence supports a role of probiotics in preventing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants.
METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the role of probiotics in preventing NEC in preterm infants, focusing on the differential effect of type of feeding, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effects model was used; a subgroup analysis on exclusively human milk (HM)-fed infants vs. infants receiving formula (alone or with HM) was performed.
RESULTS
Fifty-one trials were included (10,664 infants, 29 probiotic interventions); 31 studies (19 different probiotic regimens) were suitable for subgroup analysis according to feeding. In the overall analysis, LB revealed the most promising effect for reducing NEC risk (odds ratio (OR), 0.03; 95% credible intervals (CrIs), 0.00-0.21). The subgroup analysis showed that Bb-12/B94 was associated with a reduced risk of NEC stage ≥2 in both feeding type populations, with a discrepancy in the relative effect size in favour of exclusively HM-fed infants (OR 0.04; 95% CrIs <0.01-0.49 vs. OR 0.32; 95% CrIs 0.10-0.36).
CONCLUSIONS
Bb-12/B94 could reduce NEC risk with a different size effect according to feeding type. Of note, most probiotic strains are evaluated in few trials and relatively small populations, and outcome data according to feeding type are not available for all RCTs. Further trials are needed to confirm the present findings.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Infant, Premature; Lactobacillus acidophilus; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics
PubMed: 33435456
DOI: 10.3390/nu13010192 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions has proven difficult. The gut microbiome (the composite of bacteria present in the intestines) influences host inflammatory pathways, glucose and lipid metabolism and, in other settings, alteration of the gut microbiome has been shown to impact on these host responses. Probiotics are one way of altering the gut microbiome but little is known about their use in influencing the metabolic environment of pregnancy. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the effects of probiotic supplements used either alone or in combination with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of GDM.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 March 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing the use of probiotic supplementation with either placebo or diet for the prevention of the development of GDM. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over design studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies presented only as abstracts with no subsequent full report of study results were only included if study authors confirmed that data in the abstract came from the final analysis. Otherwise, the abstract was left awaiting classification.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we included seven trials with 1647 participants. Two studies were in overweight and obese women, two in obese women and three did not exclude women based on their weight. All included studies compared probiotics with placebo. The included studies were at low risk of bias overall except for one study that had an unclear risk of bias. We excluded two studies, eight studies were ongoing and three studies are awaiting classification. Six included studies with 1440 participants evaluated the risk of GDM. It is uncertain if probiotics have any effect on the risk of GDM compared to placebo (mean risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.20; 6 studies, 1440 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity and wide CIs that included both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm. Probiotics increase the risk of pre-eclampsia compared to placebo (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.29; 4 studies, 955 women; high-certainty evidence) and may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.01, 4 studies, 955 women), although the CIs for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy also indicated probiotics may have no effect. There were few differences between groups for other primary outcomes. Probiotics make little to no difference in the risk of caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1520 women; high-certainty evidence), and probably make little to no difference in maternal weight gain during pregnancy (MD 0.30 kg, 95% CI -0.67 to 1.26; 4 studies, 853 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Probiotics probably make little to no difference in the incidence of large-for-gestational age infants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.36; 4 studies, 919 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in neonatal adiposity (2 studies, 320 infants; data not pooled; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adiposity as fat mass (MD -0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04), and one study reported adiposity as percentage fat (MD -0.10%, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.99). We do not know the effect of probiotics on perinatal mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 3 studies, 709 infants; low-certainty evidence), a composite measure of neonatal morbidity (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35; 2 studies, 623 infants; low-certainty evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (mean RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.92; 2 studies, 586 infants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on perineal trauma, postnatal depression, maternal and infant development of diabetes or neurosensory disability.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from six trials has not clearly identified the effect of probiotics on the risk of GDM. However, high-certainty evidence suggests there is an increased risk of pre-eclampsia with probiotic administration. There were no other clear differences between probiotics and placebo among the other primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence for this review's primary outcomes ranged from low to high, with downgrading due to concerns about substantial heterogeneity between studies, wide CIs and low event rates. Given the risk of harm and little observed benefit, we urge caution in using probiotics during pregnancy. The apparent effect of probiotics on pre-eclampsia warrants particular consideration. Eight studies are currently ongoing, and we suggest that these studies take particular care in follow-up and examination of the effect on pre-eclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In addition, the underlying potential physiology of the relationship between probiotics and pre-eclampsia risk should be considered.
Topics: Bias; Cesarean Section; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Humans; Obesity; Overweight; Placebos; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33870484
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2022Modifications in the microbiota caused by environmental and genetic reasons can unbalance the intestinal homeostasis, deregulating the host's metabolism and immune... (Review)
Review
Modifications in the microbiota caused by environmental and genetic reasons can unbalance the intestinal homeostasis, deregulating the host's metabolism and immune system, intensifying the risk factors for the development and aggravation of non-alcoholic fat liver disease (NAFLD). The use of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics have been considered a potential and promising strategy to regulate the gut microbiota and produce beneficial effects in patients with liver conditions. For this reason, this review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of probiotics, prebiotics, and symbiotics in patients with NAFLD and NASH. Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted, and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines were followed. The clinical trials used in this study demonstrated that gut microbiota interventions could improve a wide range of markers of inflammation, glycemia, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, obesity, liver injury (decrease of hepatic enzymes and steatosis and fibrosis). Although microbiota modulators do not play a healing role, they can work as an important adjunct therapy in pathological processes involving NAFLD and its spectrums, either by improving the intestinal barrier or by preventing the formation of toxic metabolites for the liver or by acting on the immune system.
Topics: Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Liver; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics
PubMed: 35955942
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158805 -
Nutrients Oct 2021Intestinal microbiota has been shown to be a potential determining factor in the development of obesity. The objective of this systematic review is to collect and learn,...
Intestinal microbiota has been shown to be a potential determining factor in the development of obesity. The objective of this systematic review is to collect and learn, based on the latest available evidence, the effect of the use of probiotics and synbiotics in randomized clinical trials on weight loss in people with overweight and obesity. A search for articles was carried out in PubMed, Web of science and Scopus until September 2021, using search strategies that included the terms "obesity", "overweight", "probiotic", "synbiotic", "", "" and "weight loss". Of the 185 articles found, only 27 complied with the selection criteria and were analyzed in the review, of which 23 observed positive effects on weight loss. The intake of probiotics or synbiotics could lead to significant weight reductions, either maintaining habitual lifestyle habits or in combination with energy restriction and/or increased physical activity for an average of 12 weeks. Specific strains belonging to the genus and were the most used and those that showed the best results in reducing body weight. Both probiotics and synbiotics have the potential to help in weight loss in overweight and obese populations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity; Overweight; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synbiotics; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss; Young Adult
PubMed: 34684633
DOI: 10.3390/nu13103627 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) May 2019: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex developmental condition typically characterized by deficits in social and communicative behaviors as well as repetitive...
: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex developmental condition typically characterized by deficits in social and communicative behaviors as well as repetitive patterns of behaviors. Despite its prevalence (affecting 0.1% to 1.8% of the global population), the pathogenesis of ASD remains incompletely understood. Patients with ASD are reported to have more frequent gastrointestinal (GI) complaints. There is some anecdotal evidence that probiotics are able to alleviate GI symptoms as well as improve behavioral issues in children with ASD. However, systematic reviews of the effect of prebiotics/probiotics on ASD and its associated symptoms are lacking. : Using the keywords (prebiotics OR probiotics OR microbiota OR gut) AND (autism OR social OR ASD), a systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar databases. The inclusion criteria were original clinical trials, published in English between the period 1st January 1988 and 1st February 2019. : A total of eight clinical trials were systematically reviewed. Two clinical trials examined the use of prebiotic and/or diet exclusion while six involved the use of probiotic supplementation in children with ASD. Most of these were prospective, open-label studies. Prebiotics only improved certain GI symptoms; however, when combined with an exclusion diet (gluten and casein free) showed a significant reduction in anti-sociability scores. As for probiotics, there is limited evidence to support the role of probiotics in alleviating the GI or behavioral symptoms in children with ASD. The two available double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials found no significant difference in GI symptoms and behavior. : Despite promising preclinical findings, prebiotics and probiotics have demonstrated an overall limited efficacy in the management of GI or behavioral symptoms in children with ASD. In addition, there was no standardized probiotics regimen, with multiple different strains and concentrations of probiotics, and variable duration of treatments.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics
PubMed: 31083360
DOI: 10.3390/medicina55050129 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance and organ support in people with organ failure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different pharmacological interventions in people with acute pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers to October 2016 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs performed in people with acute pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, severity, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We did not perform a network meta-analysis as planned because of the lack of information on potential effect modifiers and differences of type of participants included in the different comparisons, when information was available. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the binary outcomes and rate ratios with 95% CIs for count outcomes using a fixed-effect model and random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials.
SOURCE OF FUNDING
seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials.Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antioxidants; Confidence Intervals; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Pancreatitis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28431202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011384.pub2 -
Nutrients Mar 2023Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is prevalent with lasting health implications for the mother and offspring. Medical therapy is the foundation of GDM management, for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is prevalent with lasting health implications for the mother and offspring. Medical therapy is the foundation of GDM management, for achieving optimal glycemic control often requires treatment with insulin or metformin. Gut dysbiosis is a feature of GDM pregnancies, therefore, dietary manipulation of the gut microbiota may offer a new avenue for management. Probiotics are a relatively new intervention, which can reduce the mother's blood sugar levels and, furthermore, adjust glucose and lipid metabolism in both mother and offspring.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the effect of probiotics/synbiotics on glucose and lipid metabolism in women with GDM.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was conducted using the electronic databases Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and EBOSCO, published between 1 January 2012 and 1 November 2022. A total of 11 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were analyzed. The indicators included fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting serum insulin (FSI), the homoeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), total cholesterol (TC), HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides (TG), the mean weight at end of trial, and gestational weight gain (GWG).
RESULTS
Compared with the placebo, probiotics/synbiotics were associated with a statistically significant improvement in FPG (MD = -2.33, 95% CI = -4.27, -0.40, = 0.02), FSI (MD = -2.47 95% CI = -3.82, -1.12, = 0.0003), HOMA-IR (MD = -0.40, 95% CI = -0.74, -0.06, = 0.02), and TC (MD = -6.59, 95% CI = -12.23,--0.95, = 0.02), while other factors had no significant difference. The subgroup analysis revealed that the kind of supplement led to heterogeneity for FPG and FSI, while heterogeneity was not found for others.
CONCLUSION
Probiotics/synbiotics could control glucose and lipid metabolism in pregnant women with GDM. There was a significant improvement in FPG, FSI, HOMA-IR, and TC. The use of specific probiotic supplementation may be a promising prevention and therapeutic strategy for GDM. However, due to the heterogeneity among existing studies, further studies are warranted to address the limitations of existing evidence and better inform the management of GDM.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Synbiotics; Glucose; Blood Glucose; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Insulin; Insulin Resistance; Cholesterol, HDL; Lipid Metabolism
PubMed: 36986107
DOI: 10.3390/nu15061375 -
Gastroenterology Aug 2020We aimed to compare the effectiveness of single- vs multiple-strain probiotics in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND & AIMS
We aimed to compare the effectiveness of single- vs multiple-strain probiotics in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, and Google Scholar through January 1, 2019, for studies of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations on the outcomes of preterm, low-birth-weight neonates. We used a frequentist approach for network meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, severe necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (Bell stage II or more), and culture-proven sepsis.
RESULTS
We analyzed data from 63 trials involving 15,712 preterm infants. Compared with placebo, a combination of 1 or more Lactobacillus species (spp) and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp was the only intervention with moderate- or high-quality evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.80). Among interventions with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy compared with placebo, combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp, Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis, Lactobacillus reuteri, or Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced severe NEC (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.20-0.59]; OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.74]; OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91]; and OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.21-0.90], respectively). There was moderate- or high-quality evidence that combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp and Saccharomyces boulardii reduced the number of days to reach full feeding (mean reduction of 3.30 days [95% CI, reduction of 5.91-0.69 days]). There was moderate- or high-quality evidence that, compared with placebo, the single-species product B animalis subsp lactis or L reuteri significantly reduced duration of hospitalization (mean reduction of 13.00 days [95% CI, reduction of 22.71-3.29 days] and mean reduction of 7.89 days [95% CI, reduction of 11.60-4.17 days], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
In a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies to determine the effects of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations on outcomes of preterm, low-birth-weight neonates, we found moderate to high evidence for the superiority of combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp vs single- and other multiple-strain probiotic treatments. The combinations of Bacillus spp and Enterococcus spp, and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp and Streptococcus salivarius subsp thermophilus, might produce the largest reduction in NEC development. Further trials are needed.
Topics: Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Neonatal Sepsis; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32592699
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.096 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Antibiotics can disturb gastrointestinal microbiota which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics can disturb gastrointestinal microbiota which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live microbial preparations that, when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit to the host, and are a potential C. difficile prevention strategy. Recent clinical practice guidelines do not recommend probiotic prophylaxis, even though probiotics have the highest quality evidence among cited prophylactic therapies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing C.difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 21 March 2017. Additionally, we conducted an extensive grey literature search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled (placebo, alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment control) trials investigating probiotics (any strain, any dose) for prevention of CDAD, or C. difficile infection were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors (independently and in duplicate) extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was the incidence of CDAD. Secondary outcomes included detection of C. difficile infection in stool, adverse events, antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and length of hospital stay. Dichotomous outcomes (e.g. incidence of CDAD) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. Continuous outcomes (e.g. length of hospital stay) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of missing data on efficacy and safety outcomes. For the sensitivity analyses, we assumed that the event rate for those participants in the control group who had missing data was the same as the event rate for those participants in the control group who were successfully followed. For the probiotic group, we calculated effects using the following assumed ratios of event rates in those with missing data in comparison to those successfully followed: 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on probiotic species, dose, adult versus pediatric population, and risk of bias as well as a post hoc subgroup analysis on baseline risk of CDAD (low 0% to 2%; moderate 3% to 5%; high > 5%). The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was independently assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies (9955 participants) met the eligibility requirements for our review. Overall, 27 studies were rated as either high or unclear risk of bias. A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) among trials investigating CDAD (31 trials, 8672 participants) suggests that probiotics reduce the risk of CDAD by 60%. The incidence of CDAD was 1.5% (70/4525) in the probiotic group compared to 4.0% (164/4147) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52; GRADE = moderate). Twenty-two of 31 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 2% to 45%. Our complete case CDAD results proved robust to sensitivity analyses of plausible and worst-plausible assumptions regarding missing outcome data and results were similar whether considering subgroups of trials in adults versus children, inpatients versus outpatients, different probiotic species, lower versus higher doses of probiotics, or studies at high versus low risk of bias. However, in a post hoc analysis, we did observe a subgroup effect with respect to baseline risk of developing CDAD. Trials with a baseline CDAD risk of 0% to 2% and 3% to 5% did not show any difference in risk but trials enrolling participants with a baseline risk of > 5% for developing CDAD demonstrated a large 70% risk reduction (interaction P value = 0.01). Among studies with a baseline risk > 5%, the incidence of CDAD in the probiotic group was 3.1% (43/1370) compared to 11.6% (126/1084) in the control group (13 trials, 2454 participants; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.42; GRADE = moderate). With respect to detection of C. difficile in the stool pooled complete case results from 15 trials (1214 participants) did not show a reduction in infection rates. C. difficile infection was 15.5% (98/633) in the probiotics group compared to 17.0% (99/581) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10; GRADE = moderate). Adverse events were assessed in 32 studies (8305 participants) and our pooled complete case analysis indicates probiotics reduce the risk of adverse events by 17% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; GRADE = very low). In both treatment and control groups the most common adverse events included abdominal cramping, nausea, fever, soft stools, flatulence, and taste disturbance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials including 8672 patients, moderate certainty evidence suggests that probiotics are effective for preventing CDAD (NNTB = 42 patients, 95% CI 32 to 58). Our post hoc subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity indicated that probiotics are effective among trials with a CDAD baseline risk >5% (NNTB = 12; moderate certainty evidence), but not among trials with a baseline risk ≤5% (low to moderate certainty evidence). Although adverse effects were reported among 32 included trials, there were more adverse events among patients in the control groups. The short-term use of probiotics appears to be safe and effective when used along with antibiotics in patients who are not immunocompromised or severely debilitated. Despite the need for further research, hospitalized patients, particularly those at high risk of CDAD, should be informed of the potential benefits and harms of probiotics.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Clostridioides difficile; Diarrhea; Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous; Humans; Incidence; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29257353
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006095.pub4 -
Renal Failure Dec 2022The role of probiotics in the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) has been shown. Several current trials are investigating the effect of probiotics, which are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
The role of probiotics in the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) has been shown. Several current trials are investigating the effect of probiotics, which are widely used to modulate biomarkers of renal function, glucose, lipids, inflammation and oxidative stress in patients with DKD. However, their findings are controversial. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of probiotics on patients with DKD meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Wanfang Database and Chinese VIP Database were searched for relevant studies from the establishment of these databases to September 2021. The pooled results evaluated the impact of probiotics on renal function, glucose, lipids, inflammation and oxidative stress indicators in patients with DKD. Additionally, subgroup analysis was performed based on intervention duration, probiotic dose and probiotic consumption patterns, respectively.
RESULTS
Ten trials that included 552 participants were identified for analysis. Compared with the controls, probiotics significantly decreased serum creatinine (Scr) [WMD = -0.17 mg/dL; 95%CI = -0.29, -0.05; = 0.004], blood urea nitrogen (BUN) [WMD = -1.36 mg/dL; 95%CI = -2.20, -0.52; = 0.001], cystatin C (Cys C) [WMD = -29.50 ng/mL; 95%CI = -32.82, -26.18; < 0.00001], urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) [WMD = -16.05 mg/g; 95%CI = -27.12, -4.99; = 0.004] and natrium (Na) [WMD = -0.94 mmol/L; 95%CI = -1.82, -0.05; = 0.04] in patients with DKD. Enhanced glycemic control was observed in patients with DKD receiving probiotics compared with controls, as demonstrated by reduced levels of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), homeostasis model of assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and increased quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI). Probiotics affected lipid metabolism parameters with decreasing triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels in patients with DKD. Probiotics could also could improve inflammation and oxidative stress by decreasing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), plasma malondialdehyde (MDA), total antioxidant capacity (TAC), glutathione (GSH) and nitric oxide (NO). Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that those who received multiple species probiotics had a statistically significant difference in BUN, FPG, HOMA-IR, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), MDA, TAC, and NO. Meanwhile, Scr, LDL-c, HDL-c, MDA, and TAC were ameliorated when the intervention duration was more than eight weeks and BUN, FPG, HOMA-IR, and MDA were improved when the probiotic dose was greater than four billion CFU/day.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis revealed that probiotics could delay the progression of renal function injury, improve glucose and lipid metabolism, and reduce inflammation and oxidative stress in patients with DKD. Subgroup analysis showed that intervention duration, probiotic dose and probiotic consumption patterns had an effect of probiotics on outcomes.
Topics: Blood Glucose; C-Reactive Protein; Cholesterol, LDL; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Nephropathies; Glucose; Humans; Inflammation; Insulin Resistance; Kidney; Oxidative Stress; Probiotics
PubMed: 35611435
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2022.2079522