-
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2018
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Behavior Therapy; Constipation; Diarrhea; Diet; Dietary Fiber; Dietary Supplements; Exercise; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Mentha piperita; Parasympatholytics; Plant Oils; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synbiotics
PubMed: 29950604
DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0084-x -
Nutrients Mar 2023Many studies have explored the efficacy of probiotics on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children, but there is no consensus on the curative effect. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Many studies have explored the efficacy of probiotics on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children, but there is no consensus on the curative effect. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively investigate whether probiotics could improve behavioral symptoms in children with ASD. A systematic database search was conducted and a total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. We found a nonsignificant overall effect size of probiotics on behavioral symptoms in children with ASD (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.60 to 0.11, = 0.18). However, a significant overall effect size was found in the subgroup of the probiotic blend (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.02, = 0.04). Additionally, these studies provided limited evidence for the efficacy of probiotics due to their small sample sizes, a shorter intervention duration, different probiotics used, different scales used, and poor research quality. Thus, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled studies following strict trial guidelines are needed to precisely demonstrate the therapeutic effects of probiotics on ASD in children.
Topics: Humans; Child; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36986145
DOI: 10.3390/nu15061415 -
Nutrients Oct 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if probiotic supplementation in pregnancy reduced maternal Group B streptococcus (GBS) recto-vaginal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if probiotic supplementation in pregnancy reduced maternal Group B streptococcus (GBS) recto-vaginal colonization in pregnant women at 35-37 weeks of gestation. Electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception up to February 2022. We included RCTs assessing the effects of probiotic supplementation in pregnancy on GBS recto-vaginal colonization. The primary outcome was GBS-positive recto-vaginal cultures performed at 35-37 weeks of gestation. Secondarily, we evaluated obstetric and short-term neonatal outcomes. A total of 132 publications were identified; 9 full-length articles were reviewed to finally include 5 studies. Probiotic supplementation reduced vaginal GBS colonization: the GBS positive culture rate was estimated at 31.9% (96/301) in the intervention group compared to 38.6% (109/282) in the control group (OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, I2 4.8%, = 0.38). The treatment started after 30 weeks of gestation and was more effective in reducing GBS colonization (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.78, I2 0%, = 0.55). Probiotic administration during pregnancy, namely in the third trimester, was associated with a reduced GBS recto-vaginal colonization at 35-37 weeks and a safe perinatal profile. Whether this new strategy could reduce the exposition of pregnant women to significant doses of antibiotics in labor needs to be evaluated in other trials.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Pregnant Women; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus agalactiae; Vagina; Probiotics; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious
PubMed: 36364782
DOI: 10.3390/nu14214520 -
Ciencia & Saude Coletiva Sep 2021This review aims to understand and analyse the effects of probiotics on depression, anxiety and psychological stress. These disorders are among the leading causes of...
This review aims to understand and analyse the effects of probiotics on depression, anxiety and psychological stress. These disorders are among the leading causes of disability worldwide. Conventional pharmacotherapies usually have a poor response or adverse side effects. In this context, recent studies have demonstrated a dense bi-directional communication named gut-brain axis. Evidences are demonstrating the relationship between disturbance in the enteric microbiome and psychiatric disorders, paving the way for the emergence of alternative therapies. A systematic search for randomized double/triple blind placebo-controlled clinical trials was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Lilacs. The studies selection followed the recommendations of the main items for report systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Nine articles met the criteria and were analysed for effects on depression, anxiety, psychological stress and biomarkers. Seven found positive results in at least one of the items. We concluded that the use of probiotics to alleviate depressive symptoms and anxiety is promising, mainly due to its potential anti-inflammatory effect, but additional and more rigorous double blind randomized clinical trials are necessary to endorse such conclusions.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Complementary Therapies; Depression; Humans; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34586262
DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232021269.21342020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Eczema is a common chronic skin condition. Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema; their use is increasing, as numerous clinical trials are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Eczema is a common chronic skin condition. Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema; their use is increasing, as numerous clinical trials are under way. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008, which suggested that probiotics may not be an effective treatment for eczema but identified areas in which evidence was lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of probiotics for treating patients of all ages with eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also handsearched a number of conference proceedings. We updated the searches of the main databases in January 2018 and of trials registries in March 2018, but we have not yet incorporated these results into the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of probiotics (live orally ingested micro-organisms) compared with no treatment, placebo, or other active intervention with no probiotics for the treatment of eczema diagnosed by a doctor.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We recorded adverse events from the included studies and from a separate adverse events search conducted for the first review. We formally assessed reporting bias by preparing funnel plots, and we performed trial sequential analysis for the first primary outcome - eczema symptoms at the end of active treatment.We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome (in italic font).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 39 randomised controlled trials involving 2599 randomised participants. We included participants of either gender, aged from the first year of life through to 55 years (only six studies assessed adults), who had mild to severe eczema. Trials were undertaken in primary and secondary healthcare settings, mainly in Europe or Asia. Duration of treatment ranged from four weeks to six months, and duration of follow-up after end of treatment ranged from zero to 36 months. We selected no standard dose: researchers used a variety of doses and concentrations of probiotics. The probiotics used were bacteria of the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria species, which were taken alone or combined with other probiotics, and were given with or without prebiotics. Comparators were no treatment, placebo, and other treatments with no probiotics.For all results described in this abstract, the comparator was no probiotics. Active treatment ranged from six weeks to three months for all of the following results, apart from the investigator-rated eczema severity outcome, for which the upper limit of active treatment was 16 weeks. With regard to score, the higher the score, the more severe were the symptoms. All key results reported in this abstract were measured at the end of active treatment, except for adverse events, which were measured during the active treatment period.Probiotics probably make little or no difference in participant- or parent-rated symptoms of eczema (13 trials; 754 participants): symptom severity on a scale from 0 to 20 was 0.44 points lower after probiotic treatment (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to 0.33; moderate-quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis shows that target sample sizes of 258 and 456, which are necessary to demonstrate a minimum mean difference of -2 and -1.5, respectively, with 90% power, have been exceeded, suggesting that further trials with similar probiotic strains for this outcome at the end of active treatment may be futile.We found no evidence suggesting that probiotics make a difference in QoL for patients with eczema (six studies; 552 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.42; low-quality evidence) when measured by the participant or the parent using validated disease-specific QoL instruments.Probiotics may slightly reduce investigator-rated eczema severity scores (24 trials; 1596 participants). On a scale of 0 to 103 for total Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), a score combining investigator-rated eczema severity score and participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss was 3.91 points lower after probiotic treatment than after no probiotic treatment (95% CI -5.86 to -1.96; low-quality evidence). The minimum clinically important difference for SCORAD has been estimated to be 8.7 points.We noted significant to extreme levels of unexplainable heterogeneity between the results of individual studies. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias; six studies had high attrition bias, and nine were at low risk of bias overall.We found no evidence to show that probiotics make a difference in the risk of adverse events during active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.63; seven trials; 402 participants; low-quality evidence). Studies in our review that reported adverse effects described gastrointestinal symptoms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that, compared with no probiotic, currently available probiotic strains probably make little or no difference in improving patient-rated eczema symptoms. Probiotics may make little or no difference in QoL for people with eczema nor in investigator-rated eczema severity score (combined with participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss); for the latter, the observed effect was small and of uncertain clinical significance. Therefore, use of probiotics for the treatment of eczema is currently not evidence-based. This update found no evidence of increased adverse effects with probiotic use during studies, but a separate adverse events search from the first review revealed that probiotic treatment carries a small risk of adverse events.Results show significant, unexplainable heterogeneity between individual trial results. Only a small number of studies measured some outcomes.Future studies should better measure QoL scores and adverse events, and should report on new probiotics. Researchers should also consider studying subgroups of patients (e.g. patients with atopy or food allergies, adults) and standardising doses/concentrations of probiotics given.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Eczema; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Middle Aged; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Symptom Assessment; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 30480774
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006135.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Probiotics are live micro-organisms that may give a beneficial physiological effect when administered in adequate amounts. Some trials show that probiotic strains can... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Probiotics are live micro-organisms that may give a beneficial physiological effect when administered in adequate amounts. Some trials show that probiotic strains can prevent respiratory infections. Even though our previously published review showed the benefits of probiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), several new studies have been published. This is an update of a review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose), compared with placebo or no treatment, in the prevention of acute URTIs in people of all ages, at risk of acute URTIs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to May week 2, 2022), Embase (1974 to 10 May 2022), Web of Science (1900 to 10 May 2022), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, which includes the China Biological Medicine Database (from 1978 to 10 May 2022), the Chinese Medicine Popular Science Literature Database (from 2000 to 10 May 2022), and the Master's Degree Dissertation of Beijing Union Medical College Database (from 1981 to 10 May 2022). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials on 10 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included individual randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs comparing probiotics with placebo or no treatment to prevent acute URTIs. The participants were children, adults, or the elderly in the community, care facilities, schools, or hospitals. Our main outcomes were the number of participants diagnosed with URTIs (at least one event and at least three events), the incidence rate (number of cases/person year) of acute URTIs, and the mean duration of an episode of URTIs. Our secondary outcomes were the number of participants who were absent from childcare centre, school, or work due to acute URTIs; the number of participants who used prescribed antibiotics for acute URTIs; and the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event from probiotics. We excluded studies if they did not specify acute respiratory infections as 'upper'; studies with more than 50% of participants vaccinated against influenza or other acute URTIs within the last 12 months; and studies with significantly different proportions of vaccinated participants between the probiotics arm and the placebo or no treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials and extracted data using standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We analysed both intention-to-treat and per-protocol data and used a random-effects model. We expressed results as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 individual RCTs and one cluster-RCT. As one of the individual RCTs did not report outcomes in a usable way, we could only meta-analyse data from 23 trials, involving a total of 6950 participants including children (aged from one month to 11 years old), adults (mean age 37.3), and older people (mean age 84.6 years). One trial reported 22.5% flu-vaccine participants within the last 12 months, and 25.4% flu-vaccine participants during the intervention. Probiotics were more likely to be given with milk-based food in children; administered in powder form in adults; and given with milk-based food or in capsules in the elderly. Most of the studies used one or two strains (e.g. Lactobacillus plantarum HEAL9, Lactobacillus paracasei (8700:2 or N1115)) and 10 or 10 colony-forming units (CFU)/day of probiotics for more than three months. We found that probiotics may reduce the number of participants diagnosed with URTIs (at least one event) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87; P < 0.001; 16 studies, 4798 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce the number of participants diagnosed with URTIs (at least three events) (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.91; P = 0.02; 4 studies, 763 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce the incidence rate (number of cases/person year) of URTIs (rate ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92, P = 0.001; 12 studies, 4364 participants; low-certainty evidence); may reduce the mean duration of an episode of acute URTIs (MD -1.22 days, 95% CI -2.12 to -0.33; P = 0.007; 6 studies, 2406 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce the number of participants who used prescribed antibiotics for acute URTIs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.81; P = 0.001; 6 studies, 1548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may not increase the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.15; P = 0.79; 8 studies, 2456 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence showing a decrease in the number of people absent from childcare centre, school, or work due to acute URTIs with probiotics is very uncertain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events from probiotics were minor, and most commonly gastrointestinal symptoms, such as vomiting, flatulence, diarrhoea, and bowel pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found that probiotics were better than placebo or no treatment in preventing acute URTIs.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 36001877
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006895.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Infantile colic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Infantile colic affects a large number of infants and their families worldwide. Its symptoms are broad and general, and while not indicative of disease, may represent a serious underlying condition in a small percentage of infants who may need a medical assessment. Probiotics are live microorganisms that alter the microflora of the host and provide beneficial health effects. The most common probiotics used are of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus. There is growing evidence to suggest that intestinal flora in colicky infants differ from those in healthy infants, and it is suggested that probiotics can redress this balance and provide a healthier intestinal microbiota landscape. The low cost and easy availability of probiotics makes them a potential prophylactic solution to reduce the incidence and prevalence of infantile colic.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic probiotics in preventing or reducing severity of infantile colic.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 10 other databases and two trials registers. In addition, we handsearched the abstracts of relevant meetings, searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies, and contacted authors and experts in the field, including the manufacturers of probiotics, to identify unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised control trials (RCTs) of newborn infants less than one month of age without the diagnosis of infantile colic at recruitment. We included any probiotic, alone or in combination with a prebiotic (also known as synbiotics), versus no intervention, another intervention(s) or placebo, where the focus of the study was the effect of the intervention on infantile colic.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search yielded 3284 records, and of these, we selected 21 reports for full-text review. Six studies with 1886 participants met our inclusion criteria, comparing probiotics with placebo. Two studies examined Lactobacillus reuteri DSM, two examined multi-strain probiotics, one examined Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and one examined Lactobacillus paracasei and Bifidobacterium animalis. Two studies began probiotics during pregnancy and continued administering them to the baby after birth.We considered the risk of bias for randomisation as low for all six trials; for allocation concealment as low in two studies and unclear in four others. All studies were blinded, and at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (1148 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to occurrence of new cases of colic: risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence; I = 72%.A random-effects meta-analysis of all six studies (1851 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to serious adverse effects (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.21; low-certainty evidence; I not calculable (only four serious events for one comparison, two in each group: meconium plug obstruction, patent ductus arteriosus and neonatal hepatitis).A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (707 participants) found a mean difference (MD) of -32.57 minutes per day (95% CI -55.60 to -9.54; low-certainty evidence; I = 93%) in crying time at study end in favour of probiotics.A subgroup analysis of the most studied agent, Lactobacillus reuteri, showed a reduction of 44.26 minutes in daily crying with a random-effects model (95% CI -66.6 to -21.9; I = 92%), in favour of probiotics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear evidence that probiotics are more effective than placebo at preventing infantile colic; however, daily crying time appeared to reduce with probiotic use compared to placebo. There were no clear differences in adverse effects.We are limited in our ability to draw conclusions by the certainty of the evidence, which we assessed as being low across all three outcomes, meaning that we are not confident that these results would not change with the addition of further research.
Topics: Bifidobacterium; Breast Feeding; Colic; Crying; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Limosilactobacillus reuteri; Prebiotics; Pregnancy; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30865287
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012473.pub2 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Jul 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of probiotics supplementation on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of probiotics supplementation on glycaemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of probiotics supplementation on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) based on the data from the randomised clinical trials (RCTs).
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from the inception to October 2022, and RCTs about probiotics and T2DM were collected. The standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate the effects of probiotics supplementation on glycaemic control related parameters, e.g. fasting blood glucose (FBG), insulin, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and homeostasis model of assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).
RESULTS
Thirty RCTs including 1,827 T2MD patients were identified. Compared with the placebo group, the probiotics supplementation group had a significant decrease in the parameters of glycaemic control, including FBG (SMD = - 0.331, 95% CI - 0.424 to - 0.238, P < 0.001), insulin (SMD = - 0.185, 95% CI - 0.313 to - 0.056, P = 0.005), HbA1c (SMD = - 0.421, 95% CI - 0.584 to - 0.258, P < 0.001), and HOMA-IR (SMD = - 0.224, 95% CI - 0.342 to - 0.105, P < 0.001). Further subgroup analyses showed that the effect was larger in the subgroups of Caucasians, high baseline body mass index (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m), Bifidobacterium and food-type probiotics (P < 0.050).
CONCLUSION
This study supported that probiotics supplementation had favourable effects on glycaemic control in T2DM patients. It may be a promising adjuvant therapy for patients with T2DM.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Glycated Hemoglobin; Blood Glucose; Glycemic Control; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Probiotics; Insulin Resistance; Insulin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37415167
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-023-04306-0 -
Nutrients Jun 2022To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in the treatment of constipation-predominant irritable bowel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and Safety of Probiotics for Patients with Constipation-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials.
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in the treatment of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C), we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotic care versus placebos for patients with IBS-C in five comprehensive databases (March 2022). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RevMan 5.3 was used to perform a meta-analysis on stool consistency, abdominal pain, bloating, quality of life (QoL), fecal Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus counts, and adverse events. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Ten RCTs involving 757 patients were included. Only three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis results show that, compared to the placebo, probiotics significantly improved stool consistency (MD = 0.72, 95% CI (0.18, 1.26), p < 0.05, low quality) and increased the number of fecal Bifidobacteria (MD = 1.75, 95% CI (1.51, 2.00), p < 0.05, low quality) and Lactobacillus (MD = 1.69, 95% CI (1.48, 1.89), p < 0.05, low quality), while no significant differences were found in abdominal pain scores, bloating scores, QoL scores, or the incidence of adverse events (p > 0.05). The low-to-very low certainty evidence suggests that probiotics might improve the stool consistency of patients with IBS-C and increase the number of Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli in feces with good safety. However, more high-quality studies with large samples are needed to verify the findings.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Bifidobacterium; Constipation; Flatulence; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Lactobacillus; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35745212
DOI: 10.3390/nu14122482 -
PloS One 2018Many interventions have shown effectiveness in reducing the duration of acute diarrhea and gastroenteritis (ADG) in children. Yet, there is lack of comparative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many interventions have shown effectiveness in reducing the duration of acute diarrhea and gastroenteritis (ADG) in children. Yet, there is lack of comparative efficacy of interventions that seem to be better than placebo among which, the clinicians must choose. Our aim was to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of the pharmacological and nutritional interventions for reducing the duration of ADG in children.
METHODS
Data sources included Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, and Global-Health up to May 2017. Eligible trials compared zinc (ZN), vitamin A, micronutrients (MN), probiotics, prebiotics, symbiotics, racecadotril, smectite(SM), loperamide, diluted milk, lactose-free formula(LCF), or their combinations, to placebo or standard treatment (STND), or among them. Two reviewers independently performed screening, review, study selection and extraction. The primary outcome was diarrhea duration. Secondary outcomes were stool frequency at day 2, diarrhea at day 3, vomiting and side effects. We performed a random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine the direct and indirect evidence for each outcome. Mean differences and odds ratio with their credible intervals(CrI) were calculated. Coherence and transitivity assumptions were assessed. Meta-regression, subgroups and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of effect modifiers. Summary under the cumulative curve (SUCRA) values with their CrI were calculated. We assessed the evidence quality and classified the best interventions using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE) approach for each paired comparison.
RESULTS
A total of 174 studies (32,430 children) proved eligible. Studies were conducted in 42 countries of which most were low-and middle-income countries (LMIC). Interventions were grouped in 27 categories. Most interventions were better than STND. Reduction of diarrhea varied from 12.5 to 51.1 hours. The combinations Saccharomyces boulardii (SB)+ZN, and SM+ZN were considered the best interventions (i.e., GRADE quality of evidence: moderate to high, substantial superiority to STND, reduction in duration of 35 to 40 hours, and large SUCRA values), while symbiotics (combination of probiotics+prebiotics), ZN, loperamide and combinations ZN+MN and ZN+LCF were considered inferior to the best and better than STND [Quality: moderate to high, superior to STND, and reduction of 17 to 25 hours]. In subgroups analyses, effect of ZN was higher in LMIC and was not present in high-income countries (HIC). Vitamin A, MN, prebiotics, kaolin-pectin, and diluted milk were similar to STND [Quality: moderate to high]. The remainder of the interventions had low to very-low evidence quality. Loperamide was the only intervention with more side effects than STND [Quality: moderate].
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Most interventions analyzed (except vitamin A, micronutrients, prebiotics, and kaolin-pectin) showed evidence of superiority to placebo in reducing the diarrhea. With moderate-to high-quality of evidence, SB+ZN and SM+ZN, demonstrated the best combination of evidence quality and magnitude of effect while symbiotics, loperamide and zinc proved being the best single interventions, and loperamide was the most unsafe. Nonetheless, the effect of zinc, SB+ZN and SM+ZN might only be applied to children in LMIC. Results suggest no further role for studies comparing interventions against no treatment or placebo, or studies testing loperamide, MN, kaolin-pectin, vitamin A, prebiotics and diluted milk.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42015023778.
Topics: Antidiarrheals; Bayes Theorem; Child; Diarrhea; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Loperamide; Network Meta-Analysis; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Saccharomyces boulardii; Treatment Outcome; Zinc
PubMed: 30517196
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207701