Industry funding effect on positive results of probiotic use in the management of acute diarrhea: a systematized review

Characterization of controlled trials on probiotic supplementation to dairy calves: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review was to identify, describe, and characterize the literature on probiotic supplementation in dairy calves. Eligible studies were nonrandomized, quasi-randomized and randomized controlled trials in English, Spanish, or Portuguese that evaluated the effect of probiotic supplementation on growth and health of dairy calves. The search strategies were based on a modification of the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) framework and used synonyms and words related to "dairy calves" (population), "probiotics" (intervention), and "growth and health measurements" (outcomes). No restrictions for publication year or language were applied. Searches were conducted in Biosis, CAB Abstracts, Medline, Scopus, and the Dissertations and Theses Database. In total, the search identified 4,467 records, of which 103 studies (110 controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria. The studies were published between 1980 and 2021 and originated from 28 countries. Trials were randomized (80.0%), nonrandomized (16.4%), and quasi-randomized (3.6%), ranging in sample size from 5 to 1,801 dairy calves (mode = 24; average = 64). Enrolled calves were frequently Holstein (74.5%), males (43.6%), and younger than 15 d at the beginning of probiotic supplementation (71.8%). Often, trials were conducted in research facilities (47.3%). Trials evaluated probiotics with single or multiple species of the same genus: Lactobacillus (26.4%), Saccharomyces (15.4%), Bacillus (10.0%), Enterococcus (3.6%), or multiple species of various genera (31.8%). Eight trials did not report the probiotic species used. Lactobacillus acidophilus and Enterococcus faecium were the species most supplemented to calves. The duration of probiotic supplementation ranged from 1 to 462 d (mode = 56; average = 50). In trials with a constant dose, it ranged from 4.0 × 106 to 3.7 × 1011 cfu/calf per day. Most probiotics were administered mixed solely into feed (88.5%; whole milk, milk replacer, starter, or total mixed ration) and less frequently orally as a drench or oral paste (7.9%). Most trials evaluated weight gain (88.2%) as a growth indicator and fecal consistency score (64.5%) as a health indicator. Our scoping review summarizes the breadth of controlled trials evaluating probiotic supplementation in dairy calves. Differences in intervention design (mode of probiotic administration, dose, and duration of probiotic supplementation) and outcomes evaluation (type and methods) justify future efforts toward standardized guidelines in clinical trials.

Evidence for stratified conflicts of interest policies in research contexts: a methodological review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to conduct a methodological review of research on the effects of conflicts of interest (COIs) in research contexts.

DESIGN

Methodological review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies published between 1986 and 2021 conducting quantitative assessments of relationships between industry funding or COI and four target outcomes: positive study results, methodological biases, reporting quality and results-conclusions concordance.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We assessed key facets of study design: our primary analysis identified whether studies stratified industry funding or COI variables by magnitude (ie, number of COI or disbursement amount), type (employment, travel fees, speaking fees) or if they assessed dichotomous variables (ie, conflict present or absent). Secondary analyses focused on target outcomes and available effects measures.

RESULTS

Of the 167 articles included in this study, a substantial majority (98.2%) evaluated the effects of industry sponsorship. None evaluated associations between funding magnitude and outcomes of interest. Seven studies (4.3%) stratified industry funding based on the mechanism of disbursement or funder relationship to product (manufacturer or competitor). A fifth of the articles (19.8%) assessed the effects of author COI on target outcomes. None evaluated COI magnitude, and three studies (9.1%) stratified COI by disbursement type and/or reporting practices. Participation of an industry-employed author showed the most consistent effect on favourability of results across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial evidence demonstrates that industry funding and COI can bias biomedical research. Evidence-based policies are essential for mitigating the risks associated with COI. Although most policies stratify guidelines for managing COI, differentiating COIs based on the type of relationship or monetary value, this review shows that the available research has generally not been designed to assess the differential risks of COI types or magnitudes. Targeted research is necessary to establish an evidence base that can effectively inform policy to manage COI.

Comparison of Publication of Pediatric Probiotic vs Antibiotic Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

IMPORTANCE

The published evidence in support of probiotic use is conflicting, which may be a result of selective publication of probiotic trials.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the proportion of registered trials that evaluate pediatric probiotics vs those that evaluate antibiotics that are published and to identify study-related factors associated with publication status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study evaluated eligible trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trials registry, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2016. Eligible studies included participants younger than 18 years, evaluated a probiotic or 1 of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children and adolescents, and randomized study participants. All searches were updated and finalized as of September 9, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Probiotic or antibiotic.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was study publication status. In addition, exposure status (probiotic vs antibiotic), trial result, and funding source were assessed for independent association with publication status. Whether study design elements, publication journal impact factor, and the interval from study completion to publication differed by exposure status were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 401 unique trials (265 probiotic and 136 antibiotic) met eligibility criteria. A greater proportion of antibiotic compared with probiotic studies were published (83 [61.0%] vs 119 [44.9%]; difference, 16.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-25.9%]). After adjustment for funding source, blinding, and purpose, studies evaluating an antibiotic were more likely to be published (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]). No other covariates included in the model were independently associated with publication status. Antibiotic trials, compared with probiotic trials, were more likely to have a therapeutic purpose (114 [83.8%] vs 117 [44.2%]; difference, 39.6% [95% CI, 31.1%-48.3%]) and to be multicenter (46 [33.8%] vs 46 [17.4%]; difference, 16.5% [95% CI, 7.5%-25.7%]). The median impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published was higher for the antibiotic trials (7.2 [IQR, 2.8-20.5] vs 3.0 [IQR, 2.3-4.2]; P < .001). The median number of days to publication did not differ between the probiotic and antibiotic trials (683 [IQR, 441-1036] vs 801 [IQR, 550-1183]; P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that probiotic studies are less likely to be published than antibiotic trials. No other study characteristics were associated with publication status. This finding raises concerns regarding the results of meta-analyses of probiotic trials.

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.