1
|
Pal R, Athamneh AI, Deshpande R, Ramirez JAR, Adu KT, Muthuirulan P, Pawar S, Biazzo M, Apidianakis Y, Sundekilde UK, de la Fuente-Nunez C, Martens MG, Tegos GP, Seleem MN. Probiotics: insights and new opportunities for Clostridioides difficile intervention. Crit Rev Microbiol 2023; 49:414-434. [PMID: 35574602 PMCID: PMC9743071 DOI: 10.1080/1040841x.2022.2072705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2021] [Revised: 04/17/2022] [Accepted: 04/28/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a life-threatening disease caused by the Gram-positive, opportunistic intestinal pathogen C. difficile. Despite the availability of antimicrobial drugs to treat CDI, such as vancomycin, metronidazole, and fidaxomicin, recurrence of infection remains a significant clinical challenge. The use of live commensal microorganisms, or probiotics, is one of the most investigated non-antibiotic therapeutic options to balance gastrointestinal (GI) microbiota and subsequently tackle dysbiosis. In this review, we will discuss major commensal probiotic strains that have the potential to prevent and/or treat CDI and its recurrence, reassess the efficacy of probiotics supplementation as a CDI intervention, delve into lessons learned from probiotic modulation of the immune system, explore avenues like genome-scale metabolic network reconstructions, genome sequencing, and multi-omics to identify novel strains and understand their functionality, and discuss the current regulatory framework, challenges, and future directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rusha Pal
- Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
| | - Ahmad I.M. Athamneh
- Department of Comparative Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
| | | | - Jose A. R Ramirez
- ProbioWorld Consulting Group, James Cook University, 4811, Queensland, Australia
| | - Kayode T. Adu
- ProbioWorld Consulting Group, James Cook University, 4811, Queensland, Australia
- Cann Group, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, La Trobe University, Victoria 3083, Australia
| | | | - Shrikant Pawar
- The Anlyan Center Yale Center for Genomic Analysis, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven CT USA
| | - Manuele Biazzo
- The Bioarte Ltd Laboratories at Life Science Park, San Gwann, Malta
| | | | | | - Cesar de la Fuente-Nunez
- Machine Biology Group, Departments of Psychiatry and Microbiology, Institute for Biomedical Informatics, Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Departments of Bioengineering and Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Penn Institute for Computational Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | - Mark G. Martens
- Reading Hospital, Tower Health, West Reading, PA 19611, USA
- Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 19129, USA
| | - George P. Tegos
- Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 19129, USA
| | - Mohamed N. Seleem
- Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
- Center for Emerging, Zoonotic and Arthropod-borne Pathogens, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wang G, Feng D. Therapeutic effect of Saccharomyces boulardii combined with Bifidobacterium and on cellular immune function in children with acute diarrhea. Exp Ther Med 2019; 18:2653-2659. [PMID: 31572514 PMCID: PMC6755444 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2019.7836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2018] [Accepted: 07/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Clinical effect of Saccharomyces boulardii combined with bifidobacterium and its effect on cellular immune function in children with acute diarrhea were studied. In total 116 cases of children with acute diarrhea admitted to Xuzhou Children's Hospital from March 2015 to March 2017 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. There were 59 children treated with Saccharomyces boulardii as control group and 57 children treated with Saccharomyces boulardii combined with bifidobacterium as experimental group. The clinical effect, stool frequency in different time periods, mean antidiarrheal time, mean antipyretic time and length of stay, and immune function of children in the two groups after treatment were analyzed. The cure rate (73.68%) and the total effective rate (87.72%) in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group (47.46 and 71.19%) (P<0.05). The stool frequency in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group 3 days after treatment (P<0.05). The mean antidiarrheal time in the experimental group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (P<0.05). The length of stay in the control group was significantly longer than that in the experimental group (P<0.05). CD3+, CD4+ and CD4+/CD8+ increased significantly in the experimental group after treatment while CD8+ decreased significantly (P<0.05). After treatment, the ratio of Th1 and Th2 in the two groups decreased significantly compared with before treatment (P<0.05), and the experimental group was significantly lower than the control group (P<0.05). After treatment, Th1/Th2 ratio was significantly higher than that before treatment (P<0.05), and the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.05). In conclusion, treatment of acute diarrhea in children with Saccharomyces boulardii combined with bifidobacterium can effectively shorten the duration of diarrhea and hospital stay, reduce the number of diarrhea and enhance the cellular immune function.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guangmeng Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Xuzhou Children's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221000, P.R. China
| | - Dongjin Feng
- Department of Gastroenterology, Xuzhou Children's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221000, P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Guo Q, Goldenberg JZ, Humphrey C, El Dib R, Johnston BC. Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 4:CD004827. [PMID: 31039287 PMCID: PMC6490796 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004827.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 90] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qin Guo
- West China Second University Hospital, West China Women's and Children's HospitalDepartment of PediatricsChengduChina
| | - Joshua Z Goldenberg
- National University of Natural MedicineHelfgott Research Institute2220 SW 1st AvePortlandORUSA97102
| | | | - Regina El Dib
- Institute of Science and Technology, UNESP ‐ Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartment of Biosciences and Oral DiagnosisSão José dos CamposSPBrazil
| | - Bradley C Johnston
- Dalhousie UniversityDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology5790 University AvenueHalifaxNSCanadaB3H 1V7
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Goldenberg JZ, Lytvyn L, Steurich J, Parkin P, Mahant S, Johnston BC. Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD004827. [PMID: 26695080 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004827.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 78] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antibiotics are frequently prescribed in children. They alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract, commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via restoration of the gut microflora. 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, AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to November 2014) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD review group, CISCOM (Centralized Information Service for Complementary Medicine), NHS Evidence, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements as well as trial registries. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutraceutical and pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were also searched. 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 as well as methodological quality assessment using the risk of bias instrument was conducted independently and in duplicate by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as mean difference (MD), along with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, sensitivity analyses included available case versus extreme-plausible analyses and random- versus fixed-effect models. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, as well as risk of bias. We also conducted post hoc subgroup analyses by patient diagnosis, single versus multi-strain, industry sponsorship, and inpatient status. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-three studies (3938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Eleven studies used a single strain probiotic, four combined two probiotic strains, three combined three probiotic strains, one combined four probiotic strains, two combined seven probiotic strains, one included ten probiotic strains, and one study included two probiotic arms that used three and two strains respectively. The risk of bias was determined to be high or unclear in 13 studies and low in 10 studies. Available case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 22/23 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (163/1992) compared to 19% (364/1906) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; I(2) = 55%, 3898 participants). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate. This benefit remained statistically significant in an extreme plausible (60% of children loss to follow-up in probiotic group and 20% loss to follow-up in the control group had diarrhea) sensitivity analysis, where the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 14% (330/2294) compared to 19% (426/2235) in the control group (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; I(2) = 63%, 4529 participants). None of the 16 trials (n = 2455) that reported on adverse events documented any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Meta-analysis excluded all but an extremely small non-significant difference in adverse events between treatment and control (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). The majority of adverse events were in placebo, standard care or no treatment group. Adverse events reported in the studies include rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, abdominal pain, vomiting, increased phlegm, chest pain, constipation, taste disturbance, and low appetite. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Moderate quality evidence suggests a protective effect of probiotics in preventing AAD. Our pooled estimate suggests a precise (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61) probiotic effect with a NNT of 10. Among the various probiotics evaluated, Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day may be appropriate given the modest NNT and the likelihood that adverse events are very rare. It is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of other probiotic agents for pediatric AAD. Although no serious adverse events were observed among otherwise healthy children, serious adverse events have been observed in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation. Until further research has been conducted, probiotic use should be avoided in pediatric populations at risk for adverse events. Future trials would benefit from a standard and valid outcomes to measure AAD.
Collapse
|
5
|
Shin MK, Yoo HS. Animal vaccines based on orally presented yeast recombinants. Vaccine 2013; 31:4287-92. [DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.07.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2013] [Revised: 07/08/2013] [Accepted: 07/13/2013] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
6
|
Johnston BC, Goldenberg JZ, Vandvik PO, Sun X, Guyatt GH. Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD004827. [PMID: 22071814 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004827.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 107] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antibiotics alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics may prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) via restoration of the gut microflora. Antibiotics are prescribed frequently in children and AAD is common in this population. 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, AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to May 2010) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD review group, CISCOM (Centralized Information Service for Complementary Medicine), NHS Evidence, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements as well as trial registries. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutra/pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were also searched. 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 as well as methodological quality assessment using the risk of bias instrument was conducted independently and in duplicate by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using a pooled relative risk and risk difference (adverse events), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as weighted mean differences, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, sensitivity analyses included available case versus extreme-plausible analyses and random- versus fixed-effect models. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, antibiotic agent as well as risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS Sixteen studies (3432 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., or Streptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Nine studies used a single strain probiotic agent, four combined two probiotic strains, one combined three probiotic strains, one product included ten probiotic agents, and one study included two probiotic arms that used three and two strains respectively. The risk of bias was determined to be high in 8 studies and low in 8 studies. Available case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 15/16 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a large, precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 9% compared to 18% in the control group (2874 participants; RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I(2) = 56%). This benefit was not statistically significant in an extreme plausible (60% of children loss to follow-up in probiotic group and 20% loss to follow-up in the control group had diarrhea) intention to treat (ITT) sensitivity analysis. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 16% compared to 18% in the control group (3392 participants; RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; I(2) = 59%). An a priori available case subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity indicated that high dose (≥5 billion CFUs/day) is more effective than low probiotic dose (< 5 billion CFUs/day), interaction P value = 0.010. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% compared to 22% in the control group (1474 participants; RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55). For the low dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% compared to 11% in the control group (1382 participants; RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21). An extreme plausible ITT subgroup analysis was marginally significant for high dose probiotics. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 17% compared to 22% in the control group (1776 participants; RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I(2) = 58%). None of the 11 trials (n = 1583) that reported on adverse events documented any serious adverse events. Meta-analysis excluded all but an extremely small non-significant difference in adverse events between treatment and control (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Despite heterogeneity in probiotic strain, dose, and duration, as well as in study quality, the overall evidence suggests a protective effect of probiotics in preventing AAD. Using 11 criteria to evaluate the credibility of the subgroup analysis on probiotic dose, the results indicate that the subgroup effect based on dose (≥5 billion CFU/day) was credible. Based on high-dose probiotics, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of diarrhea is seven (NNT 7; 95% CI 6 to 10). However, a GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary endpoint (incidence of diarrhea) was low due to issues with risk of bias (due to high loss to follow-up) and imprecision (sparse data, 225 events). The benefit for high dose probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Saccharomyces boulardii) needs to be confirmed by a large well-designed randomized trial. More refined trials are also needed that test strain specific probiotics and evaluate the efficacy (e.g. incidence and duration of diarrhea) and safety of probiotics with limited losses to follow-up. It is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of other probiotic agents for pediatric AAD. Future trials would benefit from a standard and valid outcomes to measure AAD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bradley C Johnston
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Johnston BC, Supina AL, Ospina M, Vohra S. Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD004827. [PMID: 17443557 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004827.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antibiotics alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics may prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) via restoration of the gut microflora. Antibiotics are prescribed frequently in children and AAD is common in this population. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children. To assess adverse events associated with the use of probiotics when co-administered with antibiotics in children. SEARCH STRATEGY MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL , AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to August 2006) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD Review Group, CISCOM, Chalmers PedCAM Research Register and trial registries from inception to 2005. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutra/pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were hand searched. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized, parallel, controlled (placebo, active, or no treatment) trials comparing co-administered probiotics with antibiotics for the prevention of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use in children (0 to 18 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors (BCJ, AS). Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using pooled relative risks, and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as weighted mean differences, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Adverse events were summarized using risk difference. For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, a priori sensitivity analyses included per protocol versus intention to treat, random versus fixed effects, and methodological quality criterion. Subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, and antibiotic agent. MAIN RESULTS Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Lactobacilli spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Streptococcus spp., or Saccharomyces boulardii alone or in combination. Six studies used a single strain probiotic agent and four combined two probiotic strains. The per protocol analysis for 9/10 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show statistically significant results favouring probiotics over active/non active controls (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74). However, intention to treat analysis showed non-significant results overall (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.63). Five of ten trials monitored for adverse events (n = 647); none reported a serious adverse event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Probiotics show promise for the prevention of pediatric AAD. While per protocol analysis yields treatment effect estimates that are both statistically and clinically significant, as does analysis of high quality studies, the estimate from the intention to treat analysis was not statistically significant. Future studies should involve probiotic strains and doses with the most promising evidence (e.g., Lactobacillus GG, Lactobacillus sporogenes, Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day). Research done to date does not permit determination of the effect of age (e.g., infant versus older children) or antibiotic duration (e.g., 5 days versus 10 days). Future trials would benefit from a validated primary outcome measure for antibiotic-associated diarrhea that is sensitive to change and reflects what treatment effect clinicians, parents, and children consider important. The current data are promising, but it is premature to routinely recommend probiotics for the prevention of pediatric AAD.
Collapse
|