-
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studies, and contacted authors and experts in the field, including the manufacturers of probiotics, to identify unpublished trials.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 -
Nutrients Jul 2021Probiotic and prebiotic products have shown potential health benefits, including for the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of adverse effects in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Probiotic and prebiotic products have shown potential health benefits, including for the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of adverse effects in pregnant people and their infants associated with probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic intake, however, remains unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the evidence on adverse effects of maternal probiotic, prebiotic, and/or synbiotic supplementation during pregnancy and lactation and interpret the findings to help inform clinical decision-making and care of this population. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Scientific databases were searched using pre-determined terms, and risk of bias assessments were conducted to determine study quality. Inclusion criteria were English language studies, human studies, access to full-text, and probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic supplementation to the mother and not the infant. In total, 11/100 eligible studies reported adverse effects and were eligible for inclusion in quantitative analysis, and data were visualised in a GOfER diagram. Probiotic and prebiotic products are safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. One study reported increased risk of vaginal discharge and changes in stool consistency (relative risk [95% CI]: 3.67 [1.04, 13.0]) when administering and Adverse effects associated with probiotic and prebiotic use do not pose any serious health concerns to mother or infant. Our findings and knowledge translation visualisations provide healthcare professionals and consumers with information to make evidence-informed decisions about the use of pre- and probiotics.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactation; Prebiotics; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Probiotics; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Synbiotics
PubMed: 34371892
DOI: 10.3390/nu13072382 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via providing gut barrier, restoration of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via providing gut barrier, restoration of the gut microflora, and other potential mechanisms of action.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children.
SEARCH METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Web of Science (inception to 28 May 2018) were searched along with registers including the ISRCTN and Clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched the NICE Evidence Services database as well as reference lists from relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of AAD, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea) as mean difference (MD), along with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. For studies reporting on microbiome characteristics using heterogeneous outcomes, we describe the results narratively. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-three studies (6352 participants) were included. Probiotics assessed included Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. The risk of bias was determined to be high in 20 studies and low in 13 studies. Complete case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 33 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control.After 5 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (259/3232) compared to 19% (598/3120) in the control group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56; I² = 57%, 6352 participants; NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13; moderate certainty evidence). Nineteen studies had loss to follow-up ranging from 1% to 46%. After making assumptions for those lost, the observed benefit was still statistically significant using an extreme plausible intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, wherein the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 12% (436/3551) compared to 19% (664/3468) in the control group (7019 participants; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; P <0.00001; I² = 70%). An a priori available case subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity indicated that high dose (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) is more effective than low probiotic dose (< 5 billion CFUs per day), interaction P value = 0.01. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (162/2029) compared to 23% (462/2009) in the control group (4038 participants; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.46; P = 0.06; moderate certainty evidence). For the low dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (97/1155) compared to 13% (133/1059) in the control group (2214 participants; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.02). Again, assumptions for loss to follow-up using an extreme plausible ITT analysis was statistically significant. For high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 13% (278/2218) compared to 23% (503/2207) in control group (4425 participants; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; P <0.00001; I² = 68%; moderate certainty evidence).None of the 24 trials (4415 participants) that reported on adverse events reported any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Adverse event rates were low. After 5 days to 4 weeks follow-up, 4% (86/2229) of probiotics participants had an adverse event compared to 6% (121/2186) of control participants (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; P < 0.00001; I² = 75%; low certainty evidence). Common adverse events included rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, and constipation.After 10 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, eight studies recorded data on our secondary outcome, the mean duration of diarrhea; with probiotics reducing diarrhea duration by almost one day (MD -0.91; 95% CI -1.38 to -0.44; P <0.00001; low certainty evidence). One study reported on microbiome characteristics, reporting no difference in changes with concurrent antibiotic and probiotic use.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The overall evidence suggests a moderate protective effect of probiotics for preventing AAD (NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13). Using five criteria to evaluate the credibility of the subgroup analysis on probiotic dose, the results indicate the subgroup effect based on high dose probiotics (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) was credible. Based on high-dose probiotics, the NNTB to prevent one case of diarrhea is 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). The overall certainty of the evidence for the primary endpoint, incidence of AAD based on high dose probiotics was moderate due to the minor issues with risk of bias and inconsistency related to a diversity of probiotic agents used. Evidence also suggests that probiotics may moderately reduce the duration of diarrhea, a reduction by almost one day. The benefit of high dose probiotics (e.g. Lactobacillus rhamnosus orSaccharomyces boulardii) needs to be confirmed by a large well-designed multi-centered randomized trial. It is premature to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy and safety of 'other' probiotic agents as an adjunct to antibiotics in children. Adverse event rates were low and no serious adverse events were attributable to probiotics. Although no serious adverse events were observed among inpatient and outpatient children, including small studies conducted in the intensive care unit and in the neonatal unit, observational studies not included in this review have reported serious adverse events in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31039287
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004827.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 17 December 2019, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 12, 2019), in the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from studies and reviews. We included additional studies identified during external review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were measures of diarrhoea duration (diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours; duration of diarrhoea). Secondary outcomes were number of people hospitalized in community studies, duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies, diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 82 studies with a total of 12,127 participants. These studies included 11,526 children (age < 18 years) and 412 adults (three studies recruited 189 adults and children but did not specify numbers in each age group). No cluster-randomized trials were included. Studies varied in the definitions used for "acute diarrhoea" and "end of the diarrhoeal illness" and in the probiotic(s) tested. A total of 53 trials were undertaken in countries where both child and adult mortality was low or very low, and 26 where either child or adult mortality was high. Risk of bias was high or unclear in many studies, and there was marked statistical heterogeneity when findings for the primary outcomes were pooled in meta-analysis. Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted. Publication bias was demonstrated from funnel plots for the main outcomes. In our main analysis of the primary outcomes in studies at low risk for all indices of risk of bias, no difference was detected between probiotic and control groups for the risk of diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 2 trials, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or for duration of diarrhoea (mean difference (MD) 8.64 hours shorter, 95% CI 29.4 hours shorter to 12.1 hours longer; 6 trials, 3058 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Effect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre-specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies. These included analyses limited to the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. In six trials (433 participants) of Lactobacillus reuteri, there was consistency amongst findings (I² = 0%), but risk of bias was present in all included studies. Heterogeneity also was not explained by types of participants (age, nutritional/socioeconomic status captured by mortality stratum, region of the world where studies were undertaken), diarrhoea in children caused by rotavirus, exposure to antibiotics, and the few studies of children who were also treated with zinc. In addition, there were no clear differences in effect size for the primary outcomes in post hoc analyses according to decade of publication of studies and whether or not trials had been registered. For other outcomes, the duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies on average was shorter in probiotic groups than in control groups but there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I² = 96%; MD -18.03 hours, 95% CI -27.28 to -8.78, random-effects model: 24 trials, 4056 participants). No differences were detected between probiotic and control groups in the number of people with diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.53; 9 studies, 2928 participants) or in risk of hospitalization in community studies (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.89; 6 studies, 2283 participants). No serious adverse events were attributed to probiotics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Probiotics probably make little or no difference to the number of people who have diarrhoea lasting 48 hours or longer, and we are uncertain whether probiotics reduce the duration of diarrhoea. This analysis is based on large trials with low risk of bias.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Humans; Infant; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33295643
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003048.pub4 -
Gastroenterology Aug 2020We aimed to compare the effectiveness of single- vs multiple-strain probiotics in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND & AIMS
We aimed to compare the effectiveness of single- vs multiple-strain probiotics in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, and Google Scholar through January 1, 2019, for studies of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations on the outcomes of preterm, low-birth-weight neonates. We used a frequentist approach for network meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, severe necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (Bell stage II or more), and culture-proven sepsis.
RESULTS
We analyzed data from 63 trials involving 15,712 preterm infants. Compared with placebo, a combination of 1 or more Lactobacillus species (spp) and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp was the only intervention with moderate- or high-quality evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.80). Among interventions with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy compared with placebo, combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp, Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis, Lactobacillus reuteri, or Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced severe NEC (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.20-0.59]; OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.74]; OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91]; and OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.21-0.90], respectively). There was moderate- or high-quality evidence that combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp and Saccharomyces boulardii reduced the number of days to reach full feeding (mean reduction of 3.30 days [95% CI, reduction of 5.91-0.69 days]). There was moderate- or high-quality evidence that, compared with placebo, the single-species product B animalis subsp lactis or L reuteri significantly reduced duration of hospitalization (mean reduction of 13.00 days [95% CI, reduction of 22.71-3.29 days] and mean reduction of 7.89 days [95% CI, reduction of 11.60-4.17 days], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
In a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies to determine the effects of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations on outcomes of preterm, low-birth-weight neonates, we found moderate to high evidence for the superiority of combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp vs single- and other multiple-strain probiotic treatments. The combinations of Bacillus spp and Enterococcus spp, and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp and Streptococcus salivarius subsp thermophilus, might produce the largest reduction in NEC development. Further trials are needed.
Topics: Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Neonatal Sepsis; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32592699
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.096 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 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 -
PloS One 2018Clinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and...
INTRODUCTION
Clinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and continuously expanding product base, with most available products lacking evidence-based trials that support their use. Even when evidence exists, not all probiotic products are equally effective for all disease prevention or treatment indications. At this point in time, drug regulatory agencies offer limited assistance with regard to guidance and oversight in most countries, including the U.S.
METHODS
We reviewed the current medical literature and sources on the internet to survey the types of available probiotic products and to determine which probiotics had evidence-based efficacy data. Standard medical databases from inception to June 2018 were searched and discussions with experts in the field were conducted. We graded the strength of the evidence for probiotics having multiple, randomized controlled trials and developed a guide for the practical selection of current probiotic products for specific uses.
RESULTS
We found the efficacy of probiotic products is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Important factors involved in choosing the appropriate probiotic include matching the strain(s) with the targeted disease or condition, type of formulation, dose used and the source (manufacturing quality control and shelf-life). While we found many probiotic products lacked confirmatory trials, we found sufficient evidence for 22 different types of probiotics from 249 trials to be included. For example, several types of probiotics had strong evidence for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea [Saccharomyces boulardii I-745, a three-strain mixture (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei Lbc80r, L. rhamnosus CLR2) and L. casei DN114001]. Strong evidence was also found for four types of probiotics for the prevention of a variety of other diseases/conditions (enteral-feed associated diarrhea, travellers' diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolits and side-effects associated with H. pylori treatments. The evidence was most robust for the treatment of pediatric acute diarrhea based on 59 trials (7 types of probiotics have strong efficacy), while an eight-strain multi-strain mixture showed strong efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease and two types of probiotics had strong efficacy for irritable bowel disease. Of the 22 types of probiotics reviewed, 15 (68%) had strong-moderate evidence for efficacy for at least one type of disease.
CONCLUSION
The choice of an appropriate probiotic is multi-factored, based on the mode and type of disease indication and the specific efficacy of probiotic strain(s), as well as product quality and formulation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018103979.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30586435
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209205 -
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Nov 2022Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have examined the effects of probiotics used perinatally on prevention or treatment of atopic disease in infants and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have examined the effects of probiotics used perinatally on prevention or treatment of atopic disease in infants and children. However, to date, no review has examined randomized controlled trials of Lactobacillus rhamnosus, specifically, administered both prenatally and postnatally and its effect over a long period of time.
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to determine if L. rhamnosus either used solely or in conjunction with other probiotics demonstrates a long-term preventive effect on atopic disease in pediatric patients when used perinatally.
METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken to identify those studies where L. rhamnosus was used (either solely or in conjunction with other probiotics). The following databases were searched from the year 2000 through December 8, 2021: PubMed, Cochrane Reviews and Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials; systematic reviews were hand searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Meta-analytic statistical techniques were then employed. Evaluation of the incidence of atopic eczema was also examined longitudinally based on timeframe. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessments were employed to determine the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trials were identified which examined L. rhamnosus in its effect on atopy. Risk of bias was low on the majority of the domains assessed. Meta-analysis of the timeframes ≤ 2 years (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.75; p < 0.00001) and 6-7 years (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.75; p < 0.00001) demonstrated statistically significant reductions in atopic eczema with use of L. rhamnosus. For the 4 to 5-year (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-1.00; p = 0.05) and 10-11-year (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37-1.27; p = 0.23) timeframes there was no statistically significant reduction. GRADE assessment for each timeframe was considered moderate in two, owing to high attrition rates in all of the studies, and low in two due to imprecision.
CONCLUSION
Based on the meta-analysis and GRADE assessments, the use of L. rhamnosus with or without other probiotics appears to have a positive effect in reducing the incidence of atopic eczema in pediatric patients at least out to 7 years. Attrition rates temper these findings.
Topics: Child; Databases, Factual; Dermatitis, Atopic; Female; Humans; Infant; Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus; Pregnancy; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36161401
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-022-00723-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been hypothesised that the use of micro-organisms, such as probiotics and synbiotics (a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics), might change the composition of bacterial colonies in the bowel and reduce inflammation, as well as promote normal gut physiology and reduce functional symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers from inception to October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in patients aged between 4 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of functional abdominal pain disorder according to the Rome II, Rome III or Rome IV criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes were treatment success as defined by the primary studies, complete resolution of pain, improvement in the severity of pain and improvement in the frequency of pain. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, adverse events, school performance or change in school performance or attendance, social and psychological functioning or change in social and psychological functioning, and quality of life or change in quality life measured using any validated scoring tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs assessing the effectiveness of probiotics and synbiotics in reducing the severity and frequency of pain, involving a total of 1309 patients. Probiotics may achieve more treatment success when compared with placebo at the end of the treatment, with 50% success in the probiotic group versus 33% success in the placebo group (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.36; 554 participants; 6 studies; I = 70%; low-certainty evidence). It is not clear whether probiotics are more effective than placebo for complete resolution of pain, with 42% success in the probiotic group versus 27% success in the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.56; 460 participants; 6 studies; I = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the evidence to be of very low certainty due to high inconsistency and risk of bias. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of the pain severity and pain frequency outcomes due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between probiotics (1/275) and placebo (1/269) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.12). The results were identical for the total patients with any reported adverse event outcome. However, these results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. Synbiotics may result in more treatment success at study end when compared with placebo, with 47% success in the probiotic group versus 35% success in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.74; 310 participants; 4 studies; I = 0%; low certainty). One study used Bifidobacterium coagulans/fructo-oligosaccharide, one used Bifidobacterium lactis/inulin, one used Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/inulin and in one study this was not stated). Synbiotics may result in little difference in complete resolution of pain at study end when compared with placebo, with 52% success in the probiotic group versus 32% success in the placebo group (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 131 participants; 2 studies; I = 18%; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of pain severity or frequency of pain due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between synbiotics (8/155) and placebo (1/147) (RR 4.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 26.19), or in any reported adverse events (3/96 versus 1/93, RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.92). These results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. There were insufficient data to analyse by subgroups of specific functional abdominal pain syndrome (irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, abdominal migraine, functional abdominal pain - not otherwise specified) or by specific strain of probiotic. There was insufficient evidence on school performance or change in school performance/attendance, social and psychological functioning, or quality of life to draw conclusions about the effects of probiotics or synbiotics on these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results from this review demonstrate that probiotics and synbiotics may be more efficacious than placebo in achieving treatment success, but the evidence is of low certainty. The evidence demonstrates little to no difference between probiotics or synbiotics and placebo in complete resolution of pain. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of probiotics or synbiotics on the frequency and severity of pain as the evidence was all of very low certainty due to significant unexplained heterogeneity or imprecision. There were no reported cases of serious adverse events when using probiotics or synbiotics amongst the included studies, although a review of RCTs may not be the best context to assess long-term safety. The available evidence on adverse effects was of very low certainty and no conclusions could be made in this review. Safety will always be a priority in paediatric populations when considering any treatment. Reporting of all adverse events, adverse events needing withdrawal, serious adverse events and, particularly, long-term safety outcomes are vital to meaningfully move forward the evidence base in this field. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies to confirm the safety of specific strains not yet investigated and studies to investigate long-term follow-up of patients are both warranted.
Topics: Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Inulin; Probiotics; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Abdominal Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36799531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012849.pub2 -
Translational Pediatrics Dec 2021If acute diarrhea in children is not treated promptly and effectively, it can lead to severe dehydration and serious sequelae. Due to the imbalance of intestinal...
BACKGROUND
If acute diarrhea in children is not treated promptly and effectively, it can lead to severe dehydration and serious sequelae. Due to the imbalance of intestinal bacteria in children with acute diarrhea, the supplementation with probiotics is important, which can improve the intestinal microenvironment, promote immunity, and enhance resistance. This meta-analysis provides further evidence and discussion of the therapeutic effect of probiotics on acute diarrhea in children.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched by rapid matching. The input keywords were as follows: (probiotics/synbiotics) and (child/children) and (acute diarrhea/acute gastroenteritis). Articles reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics in treating acute diarrhea in children were retrieved. The studies were published from 2010 to 2020. After screening and quality evaluation, Stata 16.0 software was used for the analysis.
RESULTS
Twelve articles with 744 patients were included in the study, and the overall quality of the articles was excellent. Meta-analysis showed that the duration of diarrhea in the probiotics group was shorter than that in the control group [standard mean difference (SMD) =-0.74, 95% CI: -1.11 to -0.37, Z=-3.935, P=0.000], the 2-day treatment efficacy for diarrhea in the probiotics group was greater than that in the control group [odds ratio (OR) =2.12, 95% CI: 1.47-3.05, Z=3.998, P=0.000], and the length of hospital stay in the probiotics group was shorter than that of the control group (SMD =-0.60, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.47, Z=-8.781, P=0.000). In the subgroup analysis, combined probiotics shortened the duration of diarrhea compared with single probiotic use, and and had a better therapeutic effect than or .
DISCUSSION
In the treatment of acute diarrhea in children, the addition of probiotics can shorten the duration of diarrhea, increase treatment efficacy after 2 days of treatment, and shorten the length of hospital stay. However, because of possible publication bias in the current study, further high-quality RCT studies in clinical settings are needed to verify the current results and continue the exploration of this topic.
PubMed: 35070839
DOI: 10.21037/tp-21-511