-
Nutrients Jan 2022The gut microbiota is a key factor in the correct development of the gastrointestinal immune system. Studies have found differences between the gut microbiota of...
The gut microbiota is a key factor in the correct development of the gastrointestinal immune system. Studies have found differences between the gut microbiota of newborns delivered by cesarean section compared to those vaginally delivered. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of ingestion of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics during pregnancy and/or lactation on the development of the gut microbiota of the C-section newborns. We selected experimental studies in online databases from their inception to October 2021. Of the 83 records screened, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The probiotics used belonged to the genera , , , and , or a combination of those, with dosages varying between 2 × 10 and 9 × 10 CFU per day, and were consumed during pregnancy and/or lactation. Probiotic strains were combined with galacto-oligosaccharides, fructo-oligosaccharides, or bovine milk-derived oligosaccharides in the synbiotic formulas. Probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic interventions led to beneficial gut microbiota in cesarean-delivered newborns, closer to that in vaginally delivered newborns, especially regarding colonization. This effect was more evident in breastfed infants. The studies indicate that this beneficial effect is achieved when the interventions begin soon after birth, especially the restoration of bifidobacterial population. Changes in the infant microbial ecosystem due to the interventions seem to continue after the end of the intervention in most of the studies. More interventional studies are needed to elucidate the optimal synbiotic combinations and the most effective strains and doses for achieving the optimal gut microbiota colonization of C-section newborns.
Topics: Bifidobacterium; Breast Feeding; Cesarean Section; Ecosystem; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lactation; Lactobacillus; Male; Maternal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Prebiotics; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Probiotics; Synbiotics
PubMed: 35057522
DOI: 10.3390/nu14020341 -
Role of probiotic as adjuvant in treating various infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Infectious Diseases May 2024Research on the advantages of probiotics has attracted increasing interest based on the number of publications, products, and public awareness of their benefits. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Research on the advantages of probiotics has attracted increasing interest based on the number of publications, products, and public awareness of their benefits. This review evaluated the role of probiotics (single and multiple regimens) as an additional regimen to treat common infectious diseases, including Helicobacter. pylori, diarrheal infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs), upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), and HIV infections.
METHODS
We searched randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane and identified 6,950 studies. Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts were filtered. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (ROB 1.0 and 2.0). The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Data were extracted and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies were included in this study (22 H. pylori studies, 2 diarrheal infection studies, 6 UTI studies, and 2 HIV infection studies). There was no study on URTI. Probiotics, in addition to primary treatment, could improve the eradication of H. pylori versus the control (RR: 1.09; 95% CI:1.04 - 1.13, p value = 0.001) and achieve a cure range of Nugent score in UTI patients (RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.89, p value = 0.04). For eradicating H. pylori infection, subgroup analysis based on the therapy regimen showed that standard triple therapy was slightly superior compared to quadruple therapy in eradicating H. pylori (RR: 1.14 vs. 1.01, respectively). Single strain probiotics showed a similar effect to multiple strain probiotic regimens (both had an RR of 1.09). The effect estimates of the use of single strain probiotics as adjuvant therapy in eradicating H. pylori and the use of probiotics in UTI had a high certainty of evidence. Meta-analysis was not performed for infectious diarrheal because there were only two eligible studies with different probiotic supplementations and outcome parameters. Nonetheless, they showed that the diarrheal incidence was lower and complete remission of diarrheal was higher after the regimen of probiotics. Similarly, a meta-analysis was not performed for HIV infection because the two eligible studies used different designs and comparators with contradicting findings.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis showed beneficial use of single strain probiotics as adjuvant therapy in eradicating H. pylori and the use of probiotics in UTI. Probiotic supplementation might not be beneficial for patients given a quadruple therapy. Single-strain and multi-strain probiotic regimens had similar effects in increasing the eradication rate of H. pylori. Our study also suggested that the benefits of probiotics as an additional regimen in infectious diarrheal and HIV infections remain unclear; more studies are needed to confirm the benefits.
Topics: Probiotics; Humans; Diarrhea; Helicobacter Infections; Urinary Tract Infections; Respiratory Tract Infections; HIV Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Helicobacter pylori
PubMed: 38773400
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09259-3 -
Nutrients Aug 2021Micronutrient deficiencies are a worldwide public health concern. Emerging evidence supports the ability of probiotics to enhance micronutrient status, which could aid... (Review)
Review
Micronutrient deficiencies are a worldwide public health concern. Emerging evidence supports the ability of probiotics to enhance micronutrient status, which could aid in the prevention of non-communicable disease-associated malnutrition. This systematic review evaluated evidence of the efficacy of probiotic supplementation to improve micronutrient status in healthy subjects. The authors searched for published English language peer-reviewed journal articles in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar databases from inception to July 2020 using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB)2 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I tool). Fourteen original studies out of 2790 met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that, despite varying degrees of efficacy, the intake of certain probiotics in healthy subjects was associated with a positive impact on the status of certain micronutrients (vitamin B12, calcium, folate, iron and zinc). A limitation was that studies were widely heterogeneous in terms of participant age, probiotic strain, species, dosage, intervention duration, and form of administration. Additional clinical trials are warranted to determine the most effective strains of probiotics, doses and durations of interventions.
Topics: Bacteria; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Malnutrition; Micronutrients; Minerals; Nutritional Status; Probiotics; Trace Elements; Vitamins
PubMed: 34578878
DOI: 10.3390/nu13093001 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2011Acute gastroenteritis results from infection of the gastrointestinal tract, most commonly with a virus. It is characterised by rapid onset of diarrhoea with or without... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute gastroenteritis results from infection of the gastrointestinal tract, most commonly with a virus. It is characterised by rapid onset of diarrhoea with or without vomiting, nausea, fever, and abdominal pain. Diarrhoea is defined as the frequent passage of unformed, liquid stools. Regardless of the cause, the mainstay of management of acute gastroenteritis is provision of adequate fluids to prevent and treat dehydration.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent acute gastroenteritis in children? What are the effects of treatments for acute gastroenteritis in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 42 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of: rotavirus vaccines for the prevention of gastroenteritis; enteral rehydration solutions (oral or gastric), lactose-free feeds, loperamide, probiotics, and zinc for the treatment of gastroenteritis; and ondansetron for the treatment of vomiting.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Child; Dehydration; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Loperamide; Nausea; Probiotics; Time Factors
PubMed: 21791124
DOI: No ID Found -
Pharmacological Research Jan 2023Recent studies have demonstrated the effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on adiponectin and leptin levels; however, those findings remain contested. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
Recent studies have demonstrated the effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on adiponectin and leptin levels; however, those findings remain contested. The present study aimed to explore the impact of probiotics/synbiotics on appetite-regulating hormones and the desire to eat.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by searching the Medline (PubMed) and Scopus databases from inception to December 2021, using relevant keywords and MeSH terms, and appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were extracted. The standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated as part of the meta-analysis using a random-effect model to determine the mean effect sizes. Analysis of Galbraith plots and the Cochrane Chi-squared test were conducted to examine heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of data from a total of 26 RCTs (n = 1536) showed a significant decrease in serum/plasma leptin concentration following probiotic/synbiotic supplementation (SMD: -0.38, 95%CI= -0.638, -0.124); P-value= 0.004; I= 69.4%; P heterogeneity < 0.001). The leptin level decrease from probiotic/synbiotic supplementation was higher in patients with NAFLD than those with overweight/obesity or type 2 diabetes mellitus/ metabolic syndrome/ prediabetes. Probiotic/synbiotic supplementation was associated with a trending increase in adiponectin levels, stronger in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and prediabetes (SMD: 0.25, 95%CI= 0.04, 0.46) µg/mL; P-value= 0.021; I = 16.8%; P heterogeneity= 0.30). Additionally, supplementation with probiotic/synbiotic was linked to a slight increase in desire to eat (SMD: 0.34, 95%CI= 0.03, 0.66) P-value = 0.030; I = 39.4%; P heterogeneity= 0.16).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis indicates a favorable impact of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on regulating leptin and adiponectin secretion.
Topics: Humans; Synbiotics; Leptin; Metabolic Syndrome; Prediabetic State; Adiponectin; Appetite; Probiotics; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
PubMed: 36538981
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106614 -
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins Aug 2023Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic with increasing prevalence and mortality rates annually. Its main cause is myocardial infarction (MI), followed by rapid cardiac... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Anti-Inflammatory, Antioxidant, Metabolic and Gut Microbiota Modulation Activities of Probiotic in Cardiac Remodeling Condition: Evidence from Systematic Study and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic with increasing prevalence and mortality rates annually. Its main cause is myocardial infarction (MI), followed by rapid cardiac remodeling. Several clinical studies have shown that probiotics can improve the quality of life and reduce cardiovascular risk factors. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of probiotics in preventing HF caused by a MI according to a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42023388870). Four independent evaluators independently extracted the data using predefined extraction forms and evaluated the eligibility and accuracy of the studies. A total of six studies consisting of 366 participants were included in the systematic review. Probiotics are not significant in intervening left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) when compared between the intervention group and the control group due to inadequate studies supporting its efficacy. Among sarcopenia indexes, hand grip strength (HGS) showed robust correlations with the Wnt biomarkers (p < 0.05), improved short physical performance battery (SPPB) scores were also strongly correlated with Dickkopf-related protein (Dkk)-3, followed by Dkk-1, and sterol regulatory element-binding protein 1 (SREBP-1) (p < 0.05). The probiotic group showed improvement in total cholesterol (p = 0.01) and uric acid (p = 0.014) compared to the baseline. Finally, probiotic supplements may be an anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, metabolic, and intestinal microbiota modulator in cardiac remodeling conditions. Probiotics have great potential to attenuate cardiac remodeling in HF or post-MI patients while also enhancing the Wnt signaling pathway which can improve sarcopenia under such conditions.
Topics: Humans; Antioxidants; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Quality of Life; Stroke Volume; Hand Strength; Sarcopenia; Ventricular Remodeling; Ventricular Function, Left; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Anti-Inflammatory Agents
PubMed: 37349622
DOI: 10.1007/s12602-023-10105-2 -
Nutrients Dec 2021A growing number of studies in rodents indicate a connection between the intestinal microbiota and the brain, but comprehensive human data is scarce. Here, we...
A growing number of studies in rodents indicate a connection between the intestinal microbiota and the brain, but comprehensive human data is scarce. Here, we systematically reviewed human studies examining the connection between the intestinal microbiota and major depressive and bipolar disorder. In this review we discuss various changes in bacterial abundance, particularly on low taxonomic levels, in terms of a connection with the pathophysiology of major depressive and bipolar disorder, their use as a diagnostic and treatment response parameter, their health-promoting potential, as well as novel adjunctive treatment options. The diversity of the intestinal microbiota is mostly decreased in depressed subjects. A consistent elevation of phylum Actinobacteria, family Bifidobacteriaceae, and genus , and a reduction of family Ruminococcaceae, genus , and genus was reported. Probiotics containing and/or spp. seemed to improve depressive symptoms, and novel approaches with different probiotics and synbiotics showed promising results. Comparing twin studies, we report here that already with an elevated risk of developing depression, microbial changes towards a "depression-like" microbiota were found. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of the microbiota and the necessity for a better understanding of its changes contributing to depressive symptoms, potentially leading to new approaches to alleviate depressive symptoms via alterations of the gut microbiota.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Bacteroides; Bifidobacterium; Bipolar Disorder; Brain-Gut Axis; Depressive Disorder, Major; Faecalibacterium; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Lactobacillus; Male; Middle Aged; Probiotics; Synbiotics; Young Adult
PubMed: 35010912
DOI: 10.3390/nu14010037 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) May 2023Meta-analyses have not examined the prophylactic use of orally ingested probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for preventing gastrointestinal tract infections (GTIs) of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Orally Ingested Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotic Interventions as Countermeasures for Gastrointestinal Tract Infections in Nonelderly Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Meta-analyses have not examined the prophylactic use of orally ingested probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for preventing gastrointestinal tract infections (GTIs) of various etiologies in adult populations, despite evidence that these gut microbiota-targeted interventions can be effective in treating certain GTIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effects of prophylactic use of orally ingested probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on GTI incidence, duration, and severity in nonelderly, nonhospitalized adults. CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through January 2022. English-language, peer-reviewed publications of randomized, placebo-controlled studies testing an orally ingested probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic intervention of any dose for ≥1 wk in adults who were not hospitalized, immunosuppressed, or taking antibiotics were included. Results were analyzed using random-effects meta-analyses of intention-to-treat (ITT) and complete case (CC) cohorts. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. Seventeen publications reporting 20 studies of probiotics (n = 16), prebiotics (n = 3), and synbiotics (n = 1) were identified (n > 6994 subjects). In CC and ITT analyses, risk of experiencing ≥1 GTI was reduced with probiotics (CC analysis-risk ratio: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.01) and prebiotics (risk ratio: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.98). No effects on GTI duration or severity were observed. Sources of heterogeneity included the study population and number of probiotic strains administered but were often unexplained, and a high risk of bias was observed for most studies. The specific effects of individual probiotic strains and prebiotic types could not be assessed owing to a lack of confirmatory studies. Findings indicated that both orally ingested probiotics and prebiotics, relative to placebo, demonstrated modest benefit for reducing GTI risk in nonelderly adults. However, results should be interpreted cautiously owing to the low number of studies, high risk of bias, and unexplained heterogeneity that may include probiotic strain-specific or prebiotic-specific effects. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42020200670.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Prebiotics; Synbiotics; Probiotics; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Communicable Diseases
PubMed: 36822240
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.02.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing, with approximately 15% of pregnant women affected worldwide, varying by country, ethnicity and...
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing, with approximately 15% of pregnant women affected worldwide, varying by country, ethnicity and diagnostic thresholds. There are associated short- and long-term health risks for women and their babies.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of interventions for preventing GDM.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (6 August 2019) with key words 'gestational diabetes' OR 'GDM' to identify reviews pre-specifying GDM as an outcome. We included reviews of interventions in women who were pregnant or planning a pregnancy, irrespective of their GDM risk status. Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using ROBIS and GRADE tools. We assigned interventions to categories with graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit or harm (GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a confidence interval (CI) that did not cross the line of no effect); clear evidence of no effect or equivalence (GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a narrow CI crossing the line of no effect); possible benefit or harm (low-quality evidence with a CI that did not cross the line of no effect or GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a wide CI); or unknown benefit or harm (GRADE low-quality evidence with a wide CI or very low-quality evidence).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 Cochrane Reviews (71 trials, 23,154 women) with data on GDM. Nine additional reviews pre-specified GDM as an outcome, but did not identify GDM data in included trials. Ten of the 11 reviews were judged to be at low risk of bias and one review at unclear risk of bias. Interventions assessed included diet, exercise, a combination of diet and exercise, dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals, and management of other health problems in pregnancy. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. Diet Unknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of dietary advice versus standard care, on the risk of GDM: risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04; 5 trials; 1279 women; very low-quality evidence. There was unknown benefit or harm of a low glycaemic index diet versus a moderate-high glycaemic index diet on the risk of GDM: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31; 4 trials; 912 women; low-quality evidence. Exercise Unknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm for exercise interventions versus standard antenatal care on the risk of GDM: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.84; 3 trials; 826 women; low-quality evidence. Diet and exercise combined Possible benefit: combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy versus standard care possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 19 trials; 6633 women; moderate-quality evidence. Dietary supplements Clear evidence of no effect: omega-3 fatty acid supplementation versus none in pregnancy had no effect on the risk of GDM: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; 12 trials; 5235 women; high-quality evidence. Possible benefit: myo-inositol supplementation during pregnancy versus control possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.64; 3 trials; 502 women; low-quality evidence. Possible benefit: vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or control in pregnancy possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 4 trials; 446 women; low-quality evidence. Unknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of probiotic with dietary intervention versus placebo with dietary intervention (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 1 trial; 114 women; very low-quality evidence), or probiotic with dietary intervention versus control (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.92; 1 trial; 111 women; very low-quality evidence) on the risk of GDM. There was unknown benefit or harm of vitamin D + calcium supplementation versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.84; 1 trial; 54 women; very low-quality evidence) or vitamin D + calcium + other minerals versus calcium + other minerals (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.73; 1 trial; 1298 women; very low-quality evidence) on the risk of GDM. Pharmaceutical Possible benefit: metformin versus placebo given to obese pregnant women possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.19; 3 trials; 892 women; moderate-quality evidence. Unknown benefit or harm:eight small trials with low- to very low-quality evidence showed unknown benefit or harm for heparin, aspirin, leukocyte immunisation or IgG given to women with a previous stillbirth on the risk of GDM. Management of other health issues Clear evidence of no effect: universal versus risk based screening of pregnant women for thyroid dysfunction had no effect on the risk of GDM: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; 1 trial; 4516 women; moderate-quality evidence. Unknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of using fractional exhaled nitrogen oxide versus a clinical algorithm to adjust asthma therapy on the risk of GDM: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.77; 1 trial; 210 women; low-quality evidence. There was unknown benefit or harm of pharmacist led multidisciplinary approach to management of maternal asthma versus standard care on the risk of GDM: RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 99.82; 1 trial; 58 women; low-quality evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No interventions to prevent GDM in 11 systematic reviews were of clear benefit or harm. A combination of exercise and diet, supplementation with myo-inositol, supplementation with vitamin D and metformin were of possible benefit in reducing the risk of GDM, but further high-quality evidence is needed. Omega-3-fatty acid supplementation and universal screening for thyroid dysfunction did not alter the risk of GDM. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to establish the effect on the risk of GDM of diet or exercise alone, probiotics, vitamin D with calcium or other vitamins and minerals, interventions in pregnancy after a previous stillbirth, and different asthma management strategies in pregnancy. There is a lack of trials investigating the effect of interventions prior to or between pregnancies on risk of GDM.
Topics: Diabetes, Gestational; Diet, Diabetic; Dietary Supplements; Exercise; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Female; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Inositol; Metformin; Pregnancy; Probiotics; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Vitamin B Complex; Vitamin D; Vitamins
PubMed: 32526091
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012394.pub3 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Jul 2021Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that probiotics reduce the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC ≥ Stage II), late... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that probiotics reduce the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC ≥ Stage II), late onset sepsis (LOS), all-cause mortality, and feeding intolerance in preterm neonates. Data from observational studies is important to confirm probiotic effects in clinical practice. We aimed to compare outcomes before and after implementing routine probiotic supplementation (RPS) in preterm neonates (<37 weeks of gestation) by performing a systematic review of non-RCTs using Cochrane methodology. Databases including PubMed, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane Central library, and Google Scholar were searched in May 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Categorical measure of effect size was expressed as OR and 95% CI. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by the chi-squared test, I2 statistic. The level of evidence (LOE) was summarized using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines. Primary outcomes were NEC ≥ Stage II, LOS, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included probiotic sepsis. Thirty good-quality non-RCTs (n = 77,018) from 18 countries were included. The meta-analysis showed RPS was associated with significantly reduced: 1) NEC ≥ Stage II (30 studies, n = 77,018; OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.73; P <0.00001, I2: 65%; LOE: Moderate), 2) LOS: (21 studies, n = 65,858; OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.97; P = 0.02, I2: 74%; LOE: Low), and 3) all-cause mortality (27 non-RCTs, n = 70,977; OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.88; P = 0.0001, I2: 49%; LOE: Low). Subgroups: 1) extremely low birth weight (ELBW: birth weight <1000 g) neonates: RPS was associated with significantly reduced NEC ≥ Stage II (4.5% compared with 7.9%). However, there was no difference in LOS and mortality. 2) Multistrain RPS was more effective than single strain. One study reported 3 nonfatal cases of probiotic sepsis. In summary, moderate- to low-quality evidence indicates that RPS was associated with significantly reduced NEC ≥ Stage II, LOS, and all-cause mortality in neonates <37 weeks of gestation and NEC ≥ Stage II in ELBW neonates.
Topics: Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Probiotics; Sepsis
PubMed: 33460432
DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmaa164