-
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2018To define probiotic monotherapy effect on () status by performing a systematic review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To define probiotic monotherapy effect on () status by performing a systematic review.
METHODS
Methods of analysis and inclusion criteria were based on PRISMA recommendations. Relevant publications were identified by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Science Direct, and EMBASE. The end-point was to estimate eradication rate and urea breath test delta value before and after probiotic monotherapy across all studies and, overall, with a pooled data analysis. Adverse events of probiotic therapy were evaluated. The data were expressed as proportions/percentages, and 95%CIs were calculated. For continuous variables, we evaluated the weighted mean difference. Odd ratios (ORs) were calculated according to the Peto method for the comparison of eradication rates between probiotics and placebo.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were selected. Probiotics eradicated in 50 out of 403 cases. The mean weighted eradication rate was 14% (95%CI: 2%-25%, = 0.02). Lactobacilli eradicated the bacterium in 30 out of 235 patients, with a mean weighted rate of 16% (95%CI: 1%-31%). achieved eradication in 6 out of 63 patients, with a pooled eradication rate of 12% (95%CI: 0%-29%). Multistrain combinations were effective in 14 out of 105 patients, with a pooled eradication rate of 14% (95%CI: 0%-43%). In the comparison of probiotics placebo, we found an OR of 7.91 in favor of probiotics (95%CI: 2.97-21.05, < 0.001). Probiotics induced a mean reduction in delta values higher than placebo (8.61% with a 95%CI: 5.88-11.34, 0.19% for placebo, < 0.001). Finally, no significant difference in adverse events was found between probiotics and placebo (OR = 1, 95%CI: 0.06-18.08).
CONCLUSION
Probiotics alone show a minimal effect on clearance, thus suggesting a likely direct role.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Breath Tests; Chi-Square Distribution; Child; Female; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Probiotics; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 29358890
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i1.139 -
Gastroenterology Nov 2023Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled.
RESULTS
We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.
Topics: Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Abdominal Pain; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 37541528
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.018 -
BMC Medicine Jul 2023Probiotics are often used to prevent antibiotic-induced low-diversity dysbiosis, however their effect is not yet sufficiently summarized in this regard. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics are often used to prevent antibiotic-induced low-diversity dysbiosis, however their effect is not yet sufficiently summarized in this regard. We aimed to investigate the effects of concurrent probiotic supplementation on gut microbiome composition during antibiotic therapy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting the differences in gut microbiome diversity between patients on antibiotic therapy with and without concomitant probiotic supplementation. The systematic search was performed in three databases (MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)) without filters on 15 October 2021. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021282983).
RESULTS
Of 11,769 identified articles, 15 were eligible in the systematic review and 5 in the meta-analyses. Quantitative data synthesis for Shannon (MD = 0.23, 95% CI: [(-)0.06-0.51]), Chao1 (MD = 11.59 [(-)18.42-41.60]) and observed OTUs (operational taxonomic unit) (MD = 17.15 [(-)9.43-43.73]) diversity indices revealed no significant difference between probiotic supplemented and control groups. Lacking data prevented meta-analyzing other diversity indices; however, most of the included studies reported no difference in the other reported α- and ß-diversity indices between the groups. Changes in the taxonomic composition varied across the eligible studies but tended to be similar in both groups. However, they showed a potential tendency to restore baseline levels in both groups after 3-8 weeks. This is the first meta-analysis and the most comprehensive review of the topic to date using high quality methods. The limited number of studies and low sample sizes are the main limitations of our study. Moreover, there was high variability across the studies regarding the indication of antibiotic therapy and the type, dose, and duration of antimicrobials and probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results showed that probiotic supplementation during antibiotic therapy was not found to be influential on gut microbiome diversity indices. Defining appropriate microbiome diversity indices, their standard ranges, and their clinical relevance would be crucial.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Probiotics; Dietary Supplements; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dysbiosis
PubMed: 37468916
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-02961-0 -
Nutrition Reviews Feb 2023The safety and efficacy of probiotics during severe illness has been a subject of ongoing interest. The impact of probiotics can worsen nutritional status, which could... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
The safety and efficacy of probiotics during severe illness has been a subject of ongoing interest. The impact of probiotics can worsen nutritional status, which could potentially result in a deterioration of the patient's overall life-threatening status.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of probiotics in reducing intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections in adult critically ill patients.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Cochrane library databases for the period 2011-2020 were searched.
DATA EXTRACTION
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) methodology was used to search for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of probiotics among critically ill patients.
DATA ANALYSIS
No significant difference was observed between probiotics and control groups in terms of the mortality rate (risk ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval .82 to 1.55, P = .46). Probiotics, however, provided a significant reduction in ICU-acquired infections (risk ratio .73, 95% confidence interval .58 to .93, P = .01).
CONCLUSION
The use of probiotics seems to play a role in decreasing the incidence of ICU-acquired infections. Also, a potential reduction in terms of the incidence of diarrhea has been reported, with no examples of adverse incidents, suggesting probiotics are safe.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Critical Illness; Probiotics; Diarrhea; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 35985275
DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuac059 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Dietary supplementation with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 Feb 2020), Embase Ovid (1974 to 17 Feb 2020), Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid (1971 to 17 Feb 2020), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 18 Feb 2020). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotic supplementation with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset infection, and severe neurodevelopmental impairment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 trials in which 10,812 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 149). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were the main potential sources of bias in about half of the trials. Trials varied by the formulation of the probiotics. The most commonly used preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., and Streptococcus spp. alone or in combinations. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65 (54 trials, 10,604 infants; I² = 17%); RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 33, 95% CI 25 to 50. Evidence was assessed as low certainty because of the limitations in trials design, and the presence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with publication bias. Sensitivity meta-analysis of trials at low risk of bias showed a reduced risk of NEC: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89 (16 trials, 4597 infants; I² = 25%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100. Meta-analyses showed that probiotics probably reduce mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.89; (51 trials, 10,170 infants; I² = 0%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 50 to 100), and late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; (47 trials, 9762 infants; I² = 19%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100). Evidence was assessed as moderate certainty for both these outcomes because of the limitations in trials design. Sensitivity meta-analyses of 16 trials (4597 infants) at low risk of bias did not show an effect on mortality or infection. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may have little or no effect on severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26 (five trials, 1518 infants; I² = 0%). The certainty on this evidence is low because of limitations in trials design and serious imprecision of effect estimate. Few data (from seven of the trials) were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants. Meta-analyses did not show effects on NEC, death, or infection (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the low to moderate level of certainty about the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants, further, large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient quality and applicability to inform policy and practice.
Topics: Cause of Death; Cross Infection; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; Infusions, Parenteral; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33058137
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005496.pub5 -
Journal of Global Health May 2023Probiotics are non-invasive therapies composed of live bacteria and yeast. Administration of prebiotics improved the health status of pregnant and lactating women, as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics are non-invasive therapies composed of live bacteria and yeast. Administration of prebiotics improved the health status of pregnant and lactating women, as well as newborns. This review aimed to appraise the evidence concerning the effectiveness of probiotics on the mental health of pregnant women, lactating mother and the microbiota of the newborn.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis ascertained quantitative studies published in Medline (PubMed), Clinical Key, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and Google scholar. Two authors independently screened and extracted the data from the primary studies that analysed the efficacy of probiotics on the mental health of pregnant and lactating women and the microbiota of the newborn. We adopted Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The qualities of included trials were assessed by Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool (ROB-2).
RESULTS
Sixteen trials comprised 946 pregnant women, 524 were lactating mothers, and 1678 were infants. The sample size of primary studies ranged from 36 to 433. Probiotics were administered as interventions, using either a single strain of Bifidobacterium or Lactobacillus or a double-strain combination of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. Probiotics supplementation reduced anxiety in pregnant (n = 676, standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.28,0.30, P = 0.04, I = 70) and lactating women (n = 514, SMD = -0.17; 95% CI = -1.62,1.27, P = 0.98, I = 0). Similarly, probiotics decreased depression in pregnant (n = 298, SMD = 0.05; 95% CI = -0.24,0.35, P = 0.20, I = 40) and lactating women (n = 518, SMD = -0.10; 95% CI = -1.29,-1.05, P = 0.11, I = 60%). Similarly, probiotics supplementation improved the gut microbiota and reduced the duration of crying, abdominal distension, abdominal colic and diarrhoea.
CONCLUSION
Non-invasive probiotic therapies are more useful to pregnant and lactating women and newborns.
REGISTRATION
The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022372126).
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Depression; Lactation; Probiotics; Anxiety; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 37218177
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.13.04038 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Aug 2023This paper aimed to examine the effects of probiotics on eight factors in overweight or obese children by meta-analysis, namely, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This paper aimed to examine the effects of probiotics on eight factors in overweight or obese children by meta-analysis, namely, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), adiponectin, leptin and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and summarize the mechanisms of action of probiotics based on the existing researches.
METHODS
Six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed and CNKI) were searched until March 2023. Review Manager 5.4 was used for meta-analysis. The data were analysed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) under a fixed effect model or random effect model to observe the effects of probiotic administration on the included indicators.
RESULTS
Four publications with a total of 206 overweight or obesity children were included. According to the meta-analysis, probiotics were able to significantly decrease the levels of HDL-C (MD, 0.06; 95% CI 0.03, 0.09; P = 0.0001), LDL-C (MD, - 0.06; 95% CI - 0.12, - 0.00; P = 0.04), adiponectin (MD, 1.39; 95% CI 1.19, 1.59; P < 0.00001), leptin (MD, - 2.72; 95% CI - 2.9, - 2.54; P < 0.00001) and TNF-α (MD, - 4.91; 95% CI - 7.15, - 2.67; P < 0.0001) compared to those in the placebo group. Still, for BMI, the palcebo group seemed to be better than the probiotic group (MD, 0.85; 95% CI 0.04, 1.66; P = 0.04). TC (MD, - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.12, 0.02; P = 0.14) and TG (MD, - 0.16; 95% CI - 0.36, 0.05; P = 0.14) were not different between two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
This review drew that probiotics might act as a role in regulating HDL-C, LDL-C, adiponectin, leptin and TNF-α in overweight or obesity children. Additionally, our systematic review yielded that probiotics might regulate lipid metabolism and improve obese associated symptoms by some paths. This meta-analysis has been registered at PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023408359.
Topics: Humans; Child; Overweight; Leptin; Pediatric Obesity; Cholesterol, LDL; Adiponectin; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Probiotics; Triglycerides; Cholesterol, HDL
PubMed: 37542325
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-023-04319-9 -
Nutrients Nov 2022Prebiotic and probiotic supplementation and yogurt consumption (a probiotic food) alter gut microbial diversity, which may influence colorectal carcinogenesis. This... (Review)
Review
Prebiotic and probiotic supplementation and yogurt consumption (a probiotic food) alter gut microbial diversity, which may influence colorectal carcinogenesis. This systematic review evaluates the existing literature on the effect of these nutritional supplements and yogurt consumption on colorectal neoplasia incidence among adults. We systematically identified ten randomized controlled trials and observational studies in adults age ≥ 18 without baseline gastrointestinal disease. Prebiotics included inulin, fructooligosaccharides, galactooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, isomaltooligosaccharides, and β-glucans. Probiotics included bacterial strains of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Bacillus, Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, and Escherichia coli. Synbiotic supplements, a mixture of both prebiotic and probiotic supplements, and yogurt, a commonly consumed dietary source of live microbes, were also included. We defined colorectal neoplasia as colorectal adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, and colorectal cancer (CRC). Overall, findings suggest a moderate decrease in risk of adenoma and CRC for high levels of yogurt consumption compared to low or no consumption. Prebiotic supplementation was not associated with colorectal neoplasia risk. There was some evidence that probiotic supplementation may be associated with lower risk of adenomas but not with CRC incidence. Higher yogurt consumption may be associated with lower incidence of colorectal neoplasia. We found little evidence to suggest that prebiotic or probiotic supplements are associated with significant decreases in CRC occurrence.
Topics: Humans; Prebiotics; Yogurt; Synbiotics; Probiotics; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 36432622
DOI: 10.3390/nu14224937 -
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2022Oral mucositis is a common adverse effect of cancer therapy. Probiotics have been shown to exert anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Oral mucositis is a common adverse effect of cancer therapy. Probiotics have been shown to exert anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate whether probiotics can prevent cancer therapy−induced oral mucositis. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for trials related to probiotics and oral mucositis published before September 2022; no language restrictions were applied. The primary outcome was the incidence of oral mucositis and severe oral mucositis. Secondary outcomes were the requirement for enteral nutrition during treatment, body weight loss, and decreased quality of life. The study has been registered in PROSPERO (number: CRD 42022302339). Eight RCTs, including 708 patients, were reviewed; however, a meta-analysis of only seven trials could be performed. Three trials using Lactobacilli-based probiotics reported that the incidence of oral mucositis in the probiotic group was significantly low (risk ratio [RR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77−0.93, p = 0.0004). Seven trials reported a significantly low incidence of severe oral mucositis in the probiotic group (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.53−0.81, p < 0.0001). The requirement of enteral nutrition was significantly low in the probiotic group (odds ratio = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13−0.92, p < 0.05). This study demonstrated the effectiveness of probiotics in the prevention and mitigation of cancer therapy−induced oral mucositis. We recommend the use of probiotics to prevent and treat oral mucositis during cancer therapy.
Topics: Humans; Probiotics; Stomatitis; Neoplasms; Lactobacillus; Enteral Nutrition
PubMed: 36362057
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232113268 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2023This review aims to evaluate the effects of probiotic supplementation on performance and performance-related conditions in athletes by evaluating randomized controlled... (Review)
Review
This review aims to evaluate the effects of probiotic supplementation on performance and performance-related conditions in athletes by evaluating randomized controlled studies from the MEDLINE (Pubmed), Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO) databases. From a total of 2304 relevant articles, 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven studies concern endurance athletes, one to rugby players, three refer to non-specified athletes, one to badminton players, and one involves baseball players. The evidence suggests that the integration of athletes' diets with some bacterial strains and also the consumption of multi-strain compounds may lead to an improvement in performance and can positively affect performance-related aspects such as fatigue, muscle pain, body composition, and cardiorespiratory fitness. However, the type of supplementation and sport is very variable among the studies examined. Therefore, to obtain more solid evidence, further controlled and comparable studies are needed to expand the research regarding the possible repercussions of probiotics use on athletes' performance.
Topics: Humans; Athletic Performance; Athletes; Probiotics; Cardiorespiratory Fitness; Fatigue
PubMed: 36767593
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20032226