Importance of strain subgroup analysis in probiotic meta-analyses

The methodological quality and clinical applicability of meta-analyses on probiotics in 2020: A cross-sectional study

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SR/MA) are frequently conducted to investigate clinical efficacy of probiotics. However, only rigorously prepared analyses can serve as the highest level of evidence for a specified research question. We have aimed to determine (1) what is the methodological quality of recent SR/MA conducted to assess the efficacy of probiotics; (2) whether the results of SR/MA have a clinical application; and (3) what are factors associated with better quality and applicability of the SR/MA. We systematically searched 4 databases for SR/MA on the probiotics efficacy published in 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42020222716). The AMSTAR 2 tool and pre-defined authors' criteria were used to evaluate methodological quality and clinical applicability, respectively. A total of 114 SR/MA were appraised. In the case of 88 papers (77%), the overall confidence in the results was rated as "critically low". The most prevalent flaws were lack of list of excluded studies with justification (79.8%), lack of study protocol (60.5%), and problems with appropriate results combination(54.4%). A declaration of conduction a probiotic efficacy SR/MA could have been misleading in case of 18 studies that included also synbiotics, paraprobiotics, and prebiotics trials in analyses. Only 14 SR/MA provided results that can be apply in clinical practice. Higher journal impact factor and European affiliation of the 1st and corresponding authors were most consistently associated with higher odds of AMSTAR 2 items fulfillments. Based on our findings, SR/MA of probiotics trials cannot be treated as the highest level of evidence without a careful evaluation of their methodological validity.

Strain-Specificity and Disease-Specificity of Probiotic Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

As the use and diversity of probiotic products expands, the choice of an appropriate type of probiotic is challenging for both medical care professionals and the public alike. Two vital factors in choosing the appropriate probiotic are often ignored, namely, the probiotic strain-specificity and disease-specificity for efficacy. Reviews and meta-analyses often pool together different types of probiotics, resulting in misleading conclusions of efficacy.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature (1970-2017) assessing strain-specific and disease-specific probiotic efficacy was conducted. Trials were included for probiotics with an identifiable strain (either single strain or mixtures of strains) that had at least two randomized, controlled trials for each type of disease indication. The goal was to determine if probiotic strains have strain and/or disease-specific efficacy.

Results

We included 228 trials and found evidence for both strain specificity and disease specificity for the efficacy of specific probiotic strains. Significant efficacy evidence was found for 7 (70%) of probiotic strain(s) among four preventive indications and 11 (65%) probiotic strain(s) among five treatment indications. Strain-specific efficacy for preventing adult antibiotic-associated diarrhea was clearly demonstrated within the Lactobacillus species [e.g., by the mixture of Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus CLR2 (Bio-K+^®), by L. casei DN114001 (Actimel^®) and by Lactobacillus reuteri 55730], while other Lactobacillus strains did not show efficacy. Significant disease-specific variations in efficacy was demonstrated by L. rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745, as well as other probiotic strains.

Conclusion

Strong evidence was found supporting the hypothesis that the efficacy of probiotics is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Clinical guidelines and meta-analyses need to recognize the importance of reporting outcomes by both specific strain(s) of probiotics and the type of disease. The clinical relevance of these findings indicates that health-care providers need to take these two factors into consideration when recommending the appropriate probiotic for their patient.

Is there a role for modified probiotics as beneficial microbes: a systematic review of the literature

Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis for the use of modified (heat-killed or sonicated) probiotics for the efficacy and safety to prevent and treat various diseases. Recent clinical research has focused on living strains of probiotics, but use in high-risk patients and potential adverse reactions including bacteremia has focused interest on alternatives to the use of live probiotics. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Alt Health Watch, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, from inception to February 14, 2017 for randomised controlled trials involving modified probiotic strains. The primary outcome was efficacy to prevent or treat disease and the secondary outcome was incidence of adverse events. A total of 40 trials were included (n=3,913): 14 trials (15 arms with modified probiotics and 20 control arms) for the prevention of diseases and 26 trials (29 arms with modified probiotics and 32 control arms) for treatment of various diseases. Modified microbes were compared to either placebo (44%), or the same living probiotic strain (39%) or to only standard therapies (17%). Modified microbes were not significantly more or less effective than the living probiotic in 86% of the preventive trials and 69% of the treatment trials. Modified probiotic strains were significantly more effective in 15% of the treatment trials. Incidence rates of adverse events were similar for modified and living probiotics and other control groups, but many trials did not collect adequate safety data. Although several types of modified probiotics showed significant efficacy over living strains of probiotics, firm conclusions could not be reached due to the limited number of trials using the same type of modified microbe (strain, daily dose and duration) for a specific disease indication. Further research may illuminate other strains of modified probiotics that may have potential as clinical biotherapeutics.

Primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infections - how difficult can it be?

C. difficile infections (CDI) have been a challenging disease to treat, much less to prevent, for decades. Efforts for primary prevention have mainly focused on improving infection control practices, but CDI outbreaks continue to plague healthcare facilities. Areas covered: A literature search from 1970-December 2016 found 13 facility-level and 2 patient-level strategies that were evidence-based. The aim of this manuscript is to assess the current state of the literature on primary prevention of CDI and offer insights into which strategies may be more effective. Expert commentary: The strongest evidence for primary prevention is based on multi-faceted infection control bundles, while there is promising moderate evidence involving facility-wide use of specific probiotics. Moderate-level evidence was found for patient-level use of specific probiotics and low level evidence for vaccines. Future suggestions include use of consistent outcome metrics, measurements of implementation compliance and program sustainability.