-
BMJ Open Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton pump inhibitors and simethicone) on colic symptoms including infant crying time, sleep distress and adverse events.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Mantis for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and guidelines that used evidence and expert panel opinion. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Selected studies were assessed for quality using modified standardised checklists by two authors. Meta-analysed data for our outcomes of interest were extracted and narrative conclusions were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected. High-level evidence showed that probiotics were most effective for reducing crying time in breastfed infants (range -25 min to -65 min over 24 hours). Manual therapies had moderate to low-quality evidence showing reduced crying time (range -33 min to -76 min per 24 hours). Simethicone had moderate to low evidence showing no benefit or negative effect. One meta-analysis did not support the use of proton pump inhibitors for reducing crying time and fussing. Three national guidelines unanimously recommended the use of education, parental reassurance, advice and guidance and clinical evaluation of mother and baby. Consensus on other advice and treatments did not exist.
CONCLUSIONS
The strongest evidence for the treatment of colic was probiotics for breastfed infants, followed by weaker but favourable evidence for manual therapy indicated by crying time. Both forms of treatment carried a low risk of serious adverse events. The guidance reviewed did not reflect these findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139074.
Topics: Antifoaming Agents; Colic; Humans; Infant; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Review Literature as Topic; Simethicone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32102827
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035405 -
Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal Feb 2020Treatments that target alterations in gut microbiota may be beneficial for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A systematic review and meta-analysis was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatments that target alterations in gut microbiota may be beneficial for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics. Factors considered in the analysis included global IBS symptoms and/or abdominal pain, secondary symptoms and the frequency of adverse events. A total of 33 RCTs involving 4,321 patients were identified. Overall, probiotics significantly improved global IBS symptoms compared to placebos (standardised mean difference = -0.32, 95% confidence interval: -0.48 to -0.15; <0.001), with significant heterogeneity between studies ( = 72%; <0.001). This remained apparent in both single- and multi-strain probiotic interventions as well as synbiotic formulations. However, evidence regarding prebiotics was scarce. There were no significant inter-group differences in terms of the frequency of adverse events. Future RCTs should address methodological limitations, including short follow-up periods and patient adherence.
Topics: Adult; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Male; Middle Aged; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synbiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32190365
DOI: 10.18295/squmj.2020.20.01.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up to 25% of visits to paediatric gastroenterologists. Probiotic preparations may sufficiently alter the gut microbiome and promote normal gut physiology in a way that helps relieve functional constipation. Several studies have sought to address this hypothesis, as well as the role of probiotics in other functional gut disorders. Therefore, it is important to have a focused review to assess the evidence to date.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the management of chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children.
SEARCH METHODS
On 28 June 2021, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, WHO ICTR, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with no language, date, publication status, or document type limitations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) compared to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in people aged between 0 and 18 years old with a diagnosis of functional constipation according to consensus criteria (such as Rome IV).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (1127 randomised participants): 12 studies assessed probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation, whilst two studies investigated synbiotic preparations. Three studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to the frequency of defecation at study end, but we did not pool them as there was very significant unexplained heterogeneity. Four studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to treatment success. There may be no difference in global improvement/treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26; 313 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, with the pooled effect suggesting there may be no difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.95; 357 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pooled estimate from three studies that compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone found there may be no difference in frequency of defecation (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.56; 268 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to global improvement/treatment success, and found there may be no difference between the treatments (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies compared probiotics plus osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, but it is unclear if there is a difference between them (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.35; 268 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics versus magnesium oxide. It is unclear if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.14; 36 participants), treatment success (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57; 36 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04; 77 participants). The certainty of the evidence is very low for these outcomes. One study assessed the role of a synbiotic preparation in comparison to placebo. There may be higher treatment success in favour of synbiotics compared to placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.47; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study assessed a synbiotic plus paraffin compared to paraffin alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.74, 95% CI -0.96, 2.44; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or treatment success (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study compared a synbiotic preparation to paraffin. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD -1.53, 95% CI -3.00, -0.06; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or in treatment success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65, 1.13; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. All secondary outcomes were either not reported or reported in a way that did not allow for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether probiotics are efficacious in successfully treating chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children or changing the frequency of defecation, or whether there is a difference in withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There is limited evidence from one study to suggest a synbiotic preparation may be more likely than placebo to lead to treatment success, with no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to draw efficacy or safety conclusions about the use of probiotics in combination with or in comparison to any of the other interventions reported. The majority of the studies that presented data on serious adverse events reported that no events occurred. Two studies did not report this outcome. Future studies are needed to confirm efficacy, but the research community requires guidance on the best context for probiotics in such studies, considering where they should be best considered in a potential treatment hierarchy and should align with core outcome sets to support future interpretation of findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Constipation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35349168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014257.pub2 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Supplementation of infant and follow-up formula with probiotics or synbiotics has become a common practice. In 2011 and 2017, the evidence regarding the impact of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Supplementation of infant and follow-up formula with probiotics or synbiotics has become a common practice. In 2011 and 2017, the evidence regarding the impact of these interventions was analysed systematically. Recently new evidence was published. To evaluate through a systematic review with network meta-analysis the evidence on the impact of infant formula supplemented with probiotics or synbiotics for healthy infants and 36-month-old toddlers. RCTs published between 1999-2019 for infant formulas supplemented with probiotics alone or synbiotics in healthy infants and toddlers were identified. Data analysis included clinical (gastrointestinal symptoms, risk reduction of infectious diseases, use of antibiotics, weight/height gain and frequency of adverse events) and non-clinical outcomes (changes in faecal microbiota and immune parameters). A random effect model was used. Hedges' standard mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) were calculated. Rank analysis was performed to evaluate the superiority of each intervention. Twenty-six randomised controlled trials with 35 direct comparisons involving 1957 children receiving probiotic-supplemented formula and 1898 receiving control formula were reviewed. The mean duration of intervention was 5.6 ± 2.84 months. Certain strains demonstrated a reduction in episodes of colic, number of days with fever and use of antibiotics; however, there was considerable heterogeneity which reduced the level of certainty of effect. No significant effects were observed on weight, height or changes in faecal proportions of or . Although there is some evidence that may support a potential benefit of probiotic or synbiotic supplementation of infant formulas, variation in the quality of existing trials and the heterogeneity of the data preclude the establishment of robust recommendations.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Child, Preschool; Infant Formula; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Synbiotics; Bifidobacterium; Weight Gain; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36501205
DOI: 10.3390/nu14235175 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract, in which the pathogenesis is believed to be partly influenced by the gut... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract, in which the pathogenesis is believed to be partly influenced by the gut microbiome. Probiotics can be used to manipulate the microbiome and have therefore been considered as a potential therapy for CD. There is some evidence that probiotics benefit other gastrointestinal conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome and ulcerative colitis, but their efficacy in CD is unclear. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the induction of remission in CD.
SEARCH METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (from inception to 6 July 2020), Embase (from inception to 6 July 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane IBD Review Group Specialised Trials Register, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared probiotics with placebo or any other non-probiotic intervention for the induction of remission in CD were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. The primary outcome was clinical remission. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
There were two studies that met criteria for inclusion. One study from Germany had 11 adult participants with mild-to-moderate CD, who were treated with a one-week course of corticosteroids and antibiotics (ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily and metronidazole 250 mg three times a day), followed by randomised assignment to Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG (two billion colony-forming units per day) or corn starch placebo. The other study from the United Kingdom (UK) had 35 adult participants with active CD (CDAI score of 150 to 450) randomised to receive a synbiotic treatment (comprised of freeze-dried Bifidobacterium longum and a commercial product) or placebo. The overall risk of bias was low in one study, whereas the other study had unclear risk of bias in relation to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding. There was no evidence of a difference between the use of probiotics and placebo for the induction of remission in CD (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.71; 2 studies, 46 participants) after six months. There was no difference in adverse events between probiotics and placebo (RR 2.55; 95% CI 0.11 to 58.60; 2 studies, 46 participants). The evidence for both outcomes was of very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence is very uncertain about the efficacy or safety of probiotics, when compared with placebo, for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. There is a lack of well-designed RCTs in this area and further research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bifidobacterium longum; Ciprofloxacin; Crohn Disease; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus; Metronidazole; Placebos; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction
PubMed: 32678465
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006634.pub3 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Probiotics play a vital role in treating immune and inflammatory diseases by improving intestinal barrier function; however, a comprehensive evaluation is missing. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics play a vital role in treating immune and inflammatory diseases by improving intestinal barrier function; however, a comprehensive evaluation is missing. The present study aimed to explore the impact of probiotics on the intestinal barrier and related immune function, inflammation, and microbiota composition. A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted.
METHODS
Four major databases (PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, CENTRAL, and Embase) were thoroughly searched. Weighted mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), heterogeneity among studies was evaluated utilizing I2 statistic (Chi-Square test), and data were pooled using random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of data from a total of 26 RCTs (n = 1891) indicated that probiotics significantly improved gut barrier function measured by levels of TER (MD, 5.27, 95% CI, 3.82 to 6.72, P < 0.00001), serum zonulin (SMD, -1.58, 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.66, P = 0.0007), endotoxin (SMD, -3.20, 95% CI, -5.41 to -0.98, P = 0.005), and LPS (SMD, -0.47, 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.09, P = 0.02). Furthermore, probiotic groups demonstrated better efficacy over control groups in reducing inflammatory factors, including CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6. Probiotics can also modulate the gut microbiota structure by boosting the enrichment of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus.
CONCLUSION
The present work revealed that probiotics could improve intestinal barrier function, and alleviate inflammation and microbial dysbiosis. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to achieve a more definitive conclusion.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=281822, identifier CRD42021281822.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Inflammation; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Bifidobacterium
PubMed: 37168869
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1143548 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia, sepsis, pyelonephritis and kidney dysfunction. Mortality rates are reported to be as high as 1% in men and 3% in women due to development of pyelonephritis. Because probiotic therapy is readily available without a prescription, a review of their efficacy in the prevention of UTI may aid consumers in making informed decisions about potential prophylactic therapy. Institutions and caregivers also need evidence-based synopses of current evidence to make informed patient care decisions.
OBJECTIVES
Compared to placebo or no therapy, did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality, when used to prevent UTI in susceptible patient populations?Compared to other prophylactic interventions, including drug and non-drug measures (e.g. continuous antibiotic prophylaxis, topical oestrogen, cranberry juice), did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality when used to prevent UTIs in susceptible patient populations?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 21 September 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of susceptible patients (e.g. past history of UTI) or healthy people in which any strain, formulation, dose or frequency of probiotic was compared to placebo or active comparators were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All RCTs and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at comparing probiotics to no therapy, placebo, or other prophylactic interventions were included. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that involved 735 people in this review. Four studies compared probiotic with placebo, two compared probiotic with no treatment, two compared probiotics with antibiotics in patients with UTI, and one study compared probiotic with placebo in healthy women. All studies aimed to measure differences in rates of recurrent UTI.Our risk of bias assessment found that most studies had small sample sizes and reported insufficient methodological detail to enable robust assessment. Overall, there was a high risk of bias in the included studies which lead to inability to draw firm conclusions and suggesting that any reported treatment effects may be misleading or represent overestimates.We found no significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI between patients treated with probiotics and placebo (6 studies, 352 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; I(2) = 23%) with wide confidence intervals, and statistical heterogeneity was low. No significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI was found between probiotic and antibiotic treated patients (1 study, 223 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33).The most commonly reported adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, constipation and vaginal symptoms. None of the included studies reported numbers of participants with at least one asymptomatic bacterial UTI, all-cause mortality or those with at least one confirmed case of bacteraemia or fungaemia. Two studies reported study withdrawal due to adverse events and the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event. One study reported withdrawal occurred in six probiotic participants (5.2%), 15 antibiotic participants (12.2%), while the second study noted one placebo group participant discontinued treatment due to an adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No significant benefit was demonstrated for probiotics compared with placebo or no treatment, but a benefit cannot be ruled out as the data were few, and derived from small studies with poor methodological reporting.There was limited information on harm and mortality with probiotics and no evidence on the impact of probiotics on serious adverse events. Current evidence cannot rule out a reduction or increase in recurrent UTI in women with recurrent UTI who use prophylactic probiotics. There was insufficient evidence from one RCT to comment on the effect of probiotics versus antibiotics.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 26695595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008772.pub2 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Apr 2021The gut fermentation syndrome (GFS), also known as the endogenous alcohol fermentation syndrome or auto brewery syndrome, is a rare and underdiagnosed medical condition...
BACKGROUND
The gut fermentation syndrome (GFS), also known as the endogenous alcohol fermentation syndrome or auto brewery syndrome, is a rare and underdiagnosed medical condition where consumed carbohydrates are converted to alcohol by the microbiota in the gastrointestinal or urinary tract. The symptoms of GFS can have severe impact on patients' wellbeing and can have social and legal consequences. Unfortunately, not much is reported about GFS. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence for GFS, causal micro-organisms, diagnostics, and possible treatments.
METHODS
A protocol was developed prior to initiation of the systematic review (PROSPERO 207182). We performed a literature search for clinical studies on 1 September 2020 using PubMed and Embase. We included all clinical studies, including case reports that described the GFS.
RESULTS
In total, 17 case reports were included, consisting of 20 patients diagnosed with GFS. The species that caused the GFS included Klebsiella pneumoniae, Candida albicans, C. glabrata, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, C. intermedia, C. parapsilosis, and C. kefyr.
CONCLUSIONS
GFS is a rare but underdiagnosed disease in daily practice. The disease is mostly reported by Saccharomyces and Candida genera, and some cases were previously treated with antibiotics. Studies in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver disease suggest a bacterial origin of endogenous alcohol-production, which might also be causal micro-organisms in GFS. Current treatments for GFS include antibiotics, antifungal medication, low carbohydrate diet, and probiotics. There might be a potential role of fecal microbiota transplant in the treatment of GFS.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antifungal Agents; Bias; Candida; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Dietary Carbohydrates; Ethanol; Fecal Microbiota Transplantation; Fermentation; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Medical Records; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Probiotics; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Syndrome
PubMed: 33887125
DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12062 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2015To investigate the efficacy of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To investigate the efficacy of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane library, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrial.gov databases were searched for literature published between September 2007 and December 2013. The applied Mesh terms were "probiotics," "irritable bowel syndrome," and "irritable bowel syndrome treatment." The collected data contained24 clinical trials, of which 15 were eligible for meta-analysis and nine were reviewed systematically. All studies were randomized placebo-controlled trials in patients with IBS that investigated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS improvement. The Jadad score was used to assess the methodological quality of trials. The quality scale ranges from 0 to 5 points, with a score ≤ 2 indicating a low quality report, and a score of ≥ 3 indicating a high quality report. Relative risk (RR), standardized effect size, and 95%CI were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method. The Cochran Q test was used to test heterogeneity with P < 0.05. Funnel plots were constructed and Egger's and Begg-Mazumdar tests were performed to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 1793 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The RR of responders to therapies based on abdominal pain score in IBS patients for two included trials comparing probiotics to placebo was 1.96 (95%CI: 1.14-3.36; P = 0.01). RR of responders to therapies based on a global symptom score in IBS patients for two included trials comparing probiotics with placebo was 2.43 (95%CI: 1.13-5.21; P = 0.02). For adequate improvement of general symptoms in IBS patients, the RR of seven included trials (six studies) comparing probiotics with placebo was 2.14 (95%CI: 1.08-4.26; P = 0.03). Distension, bloating, and flatulence were evaluated using an IBS severity scoring system in three trials (two studies) to compare the effect of probiotic therapy in IBS patients with placebo, the standardized effect size of mean differences for probiotics therapy was -2.57 (95%CI: -13.05--7.92).
CONCLUSION
Probiotics reduce pain and symptom severity scores. The results demonstrate the beneficial effects of probiotics in IBS patients in comparison with placebo.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Flatulence; Humans; Intestines; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Recovery of Function; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25780308
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.3072 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. Mastitis is an inflammation of the breast, with or without infection. It can be viewed as a continuum of disease, from non-infective inflammation of the breast to infection that may lead to abscess formation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of preventive strategies (for example, breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies) on the occurrence or recurrence of non-infective or infective mastitis in breastfeeding women post-childbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. Quasi-randomised controlled trials and trials reported only in abstract form were eligible. We attempted to contact the authors to obtain any unpublished results, wherever possible. Interventions for preventing mastitis may include: probiotics, specialist breastfeeding advice and holistic approaches. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (3034 women). Nine trials (2395 women) contributed data. Generally, the trials were at low risk of bias in most domains but some were high risk for blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Selection bias (allocation concealment) was generally unclear. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and to imprecision (low numbers of women participating in the trials). Conflicts of interest on the part of trial authors, and the involvement of industry funders may also have had an impact on the certainty of the evidence. Most trials reported our primary outcome of incidence of mastitis but there were almost no data relating to adverse effects, breast pain, duration of breastfeeding, nipple damage, breast abscess or recurrence of mastitis. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may reduce the risk of mastitis more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.75; 2 trials; 399 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if probiotics reduce the risk of breast pain or nipple damage because the certainty of evidence is very low. Results for the biggest of these trials (639 women) are currently unavailable due to a contractual agreement between the probiotics supplier and the trialists. Adverse effects were reported in one trial, where no woman in either group experienced any adverse effects. Antibiotics versus placebo or usual care The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and usual care or placebo (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; 3 trials; 429 women; low-certainty evidence). The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and fusidic acid ointment (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81; 1 trial; 36 women; low-certainty evidence) or mupirocin ointment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.89; 1 trial; 44 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. None of the trials reported adverse effects. Topical treatments versus breastfeeding advice The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.22; 1 trial; 40 women; low-certainty evidence) and mupirocin ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; 1 trial; 48 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. One trial (42 women) compared topical treatments to each other. The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid and mupirocin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.00; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Specialist breastfeeding education versus usual care The risk of mastitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.95; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.37; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Anti-secretory factor-inducing cereal versus standard cereal The risk of mastitis (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72; 1 trial; 29 women; low-certainty evidence) and recurrence of mastitis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.57; 1 trial; 7 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Acupoint massage versus routine care Acupoint massage probably reduces the risk of mastitis compared to routine care (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78;1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; 1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment versus routine care Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may reduce risk of mastitis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 1 trial; 300 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence that acupoint massage is probably better than routine care, probiotics may be better than placebo, and breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may be better than routine care for preventing mastitis. However, it is important to note that we are aware of at least one large trial investigating probiotics whose results have not been made public, therefore, the evidence presented here is incomplete. The available evidence regarding other interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, suggests these may be little better than routine care for preventing mastitis but our conclusions are uncertain due to the low certainty of the evidence. Future trials should recruit sufficiently large numbers of women in order to detect clinically important differences between interventions and results of future trials should be made publicly available.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Breast Feeding; Edible Grain; Female; Fusidic Acid; Humans; Massage; Mastitis; Mupirocin; Neuropeptides; Ointments; Patient Education as Topic; Placebos; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32987448
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007239.pub4