WITHDRAWN: Rice-based oral rehydration solution for treating diarrhoea

Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea

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.

Polymer-based oral rehydration solution for treating acute watery diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Acute diarrhoea is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality among children in low-income countries. Glucose-based oral rehydration solution (ORS) helps replace fluid and prevent further dehydration from acute diarrhoea. Since 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended the osmolarity of less than 270 mOsm/L (ORS ≤ 270) versus greater than 310 mOsm/L formulation (ORS ≥ 310). Polymer-based ORS (for example, prepared using rice or wheat) slowly releases glucose and may be superior to glucose-based ORS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare polymer-based oral rehydration solution (polymer-based ORS) with glucose-based oral rehydration solution (glucose-based ORS) for treating acute watery diarrhoea.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following sources up to 5 September 2016: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to 5 September 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 5 September 2016), LILACS (1982 to 5 September 2016), and mRCT (2007 to 5 September 2016). We also contacted researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and searched reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people with acute watery diarrhoea (cholera and non-cholera associated) that compared polymer-based and glucose-based ORS (with identical electrolyte contents).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results and risk of bias, and extracted data. In multiple-treatment arms with two or more treatment groups, we combined outcomes as appropriate and compared collectively with the control group.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five trials that included 4284 participants met the inclusion criteria: 28 trials exclusively included children, five included adults, and two included both adults and children. Polymer-based ORS versus glucose-based ORS (osmolarity ≤ 270) Eight trials (752 participants) evaluated this comparison, and seven trials used rice as a polymer source. Polymer-based ORS may decrease mean stool output in the first 24 hours by 24 mL/kg (mean difference (MD) -24.60 mL/kg, 95% CI -40.69 to -8.51; one trial, 99 participants, low quality evidence). The average duration of diarrhoea may be reduced by eight hours (MD -8.24 hours, 95% CI -13.17 to -3.30; I² statistic = 86%, five trials, 364 participants, low quality evidence) with polymer ORS but results are heterogeneous. Limited trials showed no observed difference in the risk of unscheduled use of intravenous fluid (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.02; I² statistic = 30%; four trials, 376 participants, very low quality evidence), vomiting (very low quality evidence), and hyponatraemia (very low quality evidence). Polymer-based ORS versus glucose-based ORS (osmolarity ≥ 310) Twenty-seven trials (3532 participants) evaluated this comparison using a variety of polymers. On average, polymer ORS may reduce the total stool output in the first 24 hours by around 65 mL/kg (MD -65.47 mL/kg, 95% CI -83.92 to -47.03; 16 trials, 1483 participants, low quality evidence), and may reduce the duration of diarrhoea by around eight hours (MD -8.57 hours; SD -13.17 to -4.03; 16 trials, 1137 participants, low quality evidence) with substantial heterogeneity. The proportion of participants that required intravenous hydration was low in most trials with fewer in the polymer ORS group (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98; 19 trials, 1877 participant, low quality evidence) . Subgroup analysis by type of pathogen suggested an effect on unscheduled intravenous fluid in those infected with mixed pathogens (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96; 11 trials, 928 participants, low quality evidence), but not in participants positive for Vibrio cholerae (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; 7 trials, 535 participants, low quality evidence). No difference was observed in the number of patients who developed vomiting (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.14; 10 trials, 584 participants, very low quality evidence), hyponatraemia (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.44; 4 trials, 385 participants, very low quality evidence), hypokalaemia (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.25; 2 trials, 260 participants, low quality evidence), or persistent diarrhoea (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.41; 2 trials, 885 participants, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Polymer-based ORS shows advantages compared to glucose-based ORS (at ≥ 310 mOsm/L). Comparisons favoured polymer-based ORS over ORS ≤ 270 but analysis was underpowered.

Oral rehydration salt solution for treating cholera: ≤ 270 mOsm/L solutions vs ≥ 310 mOsm/L solutions

BACKGROUND

Oral rehydration solution (ORS) is used to treat the dehydration caused by diarrhoeal diseases, including cholera. ORS formulations with an osmolarity (a measure of solute concentration) of ≤ 270 mOsm/L (ORS ≤ 270) are safe and more effective than ORS formulations with an osmolarity of ≥ 310 mOsm/L (ORS ≥ 310) for treating non-cholera diarrhoea. As cholera causes rapid electrolyte loss, it is important to know if these benefits are similar for people suffering from cholera.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of ORS ≤270 with ORS ≥ 310 for treating dehydration due to cholera.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register (April 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2011), EMBASE (1974 to April 2011), and LILACS (1982 to April 2011). We also contacted organizations and searched reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing ORS ≤ 270 with ORS ≥ 310 for treating adults and children with acute diarrhoea due to cholera.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We pooled dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR), pooled continuous data using mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD), and presented the results with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

For glucose-based ORS, seven trials (718 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Biochemical hyponatraemia (blood sodium levels < 130 mmol/L) was more common with ORS ≤ 270 (RR 1.67, CI 1.09 to 2.57; 465 participants, four trials), while a higher level of severe biochemical hyponatraemia (blood sodium levels < 125 mmol/L) in the same group was not significant (RR 1.58, CI 0.62 to 4.04; 465 participants, four trials). No instances of symptomatic hyponatraemia or death were noted in the trials that intended to record them. We found no statistically significant difference in the need for unscheduled intravenous infusion. Analyses separating children and adults showed no obvious trends.Two trials also examined rice-based ORS. In the ORS ≤ 270 group, duration of diarrhoea was shorter (MD -11.42 hours, CI -13.80 to -9.04; 102 participants, two trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with cholera, ORS ≤ 270 is associated with biochemical hyponatraemia when compared with ORS ≥ 310, but there are no differences in terms of other outcomes. Although this risk does not appear to be associated with any serious consequences, the total patient experience in existing trials is small. Under wider practice conditions, especially where patient monitoring is difficult, caution is warranted.

Polymer-based oral rehydration solution for treating acute watery diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Acute diarrhoea is one of the principal causes of morbidity and mortality among children in low-income countries. Glucose-based ORS helps replace fluid and prevent further dehydration from acute diarrhoea. Since 2004, the World Health Organization has recommended the osmolarity < 270 mOsm/L (ORS </= 270 ) over the > 310 mOsm/L formulation (ORS >/= 310). Glucose polymer-based ORS (eg prepared using rice or wheat) slowly releases glucose and may be superior.

OBJECTIVES

To compare polymer-based ORS with glucose-based ORS for treating acute watery diarrhoea.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In September 2008, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and mRCT. We also contacted researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and searched reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of people with acute watery diarrhoea (cholera and non-cholera associated) comparing polymer-based and glucose-based ORS (with identical electrolyte contents).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the search results and risk of bias, and extracted data. In multiple treatment arms with two or more treatment groups, we combined outcomes as appropriate and compared collectively with the control group.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four trials involving 4214 participants met the inclusion criteria: 27 in children, five in adults and two in both. Twelve trials used adequate methods to conceal allocation. Most compared polymer-based ORS with ORS >/= 310. There were fewer unscheduled intravenous infusions in the polymer-based ORS group compared with glucose-based ORS (ORS >/= 310 and </= 270 groups combined) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.95; 2235 participants, 19 trials). Adults positive for Vibrio cholerae had a shorter duration of diarrhoea with polymer-based ORS than with ORS </= 270 (MD -7.11 hours, SD -11.91 to -2.32; 228 participants, 4 trials). Wheat-based ORS resulted in lower total stool output in the first 24 hours compared with ORS </= 270 (MD -119.85 g/kg, SD -114.73 to -124.97; 129 participants, 2 trials). Adverse effects were similar for polymer-based ORS and glucose-based ORS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Polymer-based ORS shows some advantages compared to ORS >/= 310 for treating all-cause diarrhoea, and in diarrhoea caused by cholera. Comparisons favoured the polymer-based ORS over ORS </= 270, but the analysis was underpowered. If specialists consider a potential role for polymer-based ORS, further trials against the current standard (ORS </= 270) will be required.

Oral versus intravenous rehydration for treating dehydration due to gastroenteritis in children

BACKGROUND

Dehydration associated with gastroenteritis is a serious complication. Oral rehydration is an effective and inexpensive treatment, but some physicians prefer intravenous methods.

OBJECTIVES

To compare oral with intravenous therapy for treating dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis in children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (March 2006), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006), EMBASE (1974 to March 2006), LILACS (1982 to March 2006), and reference lists. We also contacted researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous rehydration therapy (IVT) with oral rehydration therapy (ORT) in children up to 18 years of age with acute gastroenteritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Jadad score. We expressed dichotomous data as a risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT), and continuous data as a weighted mean difference (WMD). We used meta-regression for subgroup analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials (1811 participants), of poor to moderate quality, were included. There were more treatment failures with ORT (RD 4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1 to 7, random-effects model; 1811 participants, 18 trials; NNT = 25). Six deaths occurred in the IVT group and two in the ORT groups (4 trials). There were no significant differences in weight gain (369 participants, 6 trials), hyponatremia (248 participants, 2 trials) or hypernatremia (1062 participants, 10 trials), duration of diarrhea (960 participants, 8 trials), or total fluid intake at six hours (985 participants, 8 trials) and 24 hours (835 participants, 7 trials). Shorter hospital stays were reported for the ORT group (WMD -1.20 days, 95% CI -2.38 to -0.02 days; 526 participants, 6 trials). Phlebitis occurred more often in the IVT group (NNT 50, 95% CI 25 to 100) and paralytic ileus more often in the ORT group (NNT 33, 95% CI 20 to 100, fixed-effect model), but there was no significant difference between ORT using the low osmolarity solutions recommended by the World Health Organization and IVT (729 participants, 6 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT, the ORT group did have a higher risk of paralytic ileus, and the IVT group was exposed to risks of intravenous therapy. For every 25 children (95% CI 14 to 100) treated with ORT one would fail and require IVT.

Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution for treating cholera

BACKGROUND

Oral rehydration solution (ORS) is used to treat dehydration caused by diarrheal diseases including cholera. Reduced osmolarity formulations are safe and more effective than standard ORS for treating non-cholera diarrhea. As cholera causes rapid electrolyte loss, it is important to know if these benefits are similar for people with cholera.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution (ORS) with standard ORS for treating diarrhea due to cholera.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register (January 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1974 to January 2004), and LILACS (1982 to January 2004). We also contacted organizations and searched reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing reduced osmolarity ORS with standard ORS for treating adults and children with acute diarrhea due to cholera.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We pooled binary data using relative risks (RR), continuous data using weighted mean difference (WMD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD), and presented the results with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

For glucose-based reduced osmolarity ORS, seven trials (718 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Biochemical hyponatremia (serum sodium < 130 mmol/L) was more common with reduced osmolarity ORS (RR 1.67, CI 1.09 to 2.57; 465 participants, 4 trials); for severe biochemical hyponatremia (serum sodium < 125 mmol/L) this was not significant (RR 1.58, CI 0.62 to 4.04; 465 participants, 4 trials). No trials reported symptomatic hyponatremia or death. We found no statistically significant difference in the need for unscheduled intravenous infusion. Analyses separating children and adults showed no obvious trends. Two trials also examined rice-based ORS. In the reduced osmolarity group, duration of diarrhea was shorter (WMD -16.85 hours, CI -21.22 to -12.48; 102 participants, 2 trials).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with cholera, reduced osmolarity ORS is associated with biochemical hyponatremia when compared with standard ORS, although there are similar benefits in terms of other outcomes. Although this risk does not appear to be accompanied by serious consequences, the total patient experience in existing trials is small. Under wider practice conditions, especially where patient monitoring is difficult, caution is warranted.