Who uses probiotics and why? A survey study conducted among general gastroenterology patients

Effects of Probiotic Use on Gastrointestinal Symptoms in the Late Postoperative Period of Bariatric Surgery: A Cross-Over, Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

Despite the benefits associated with weight reduction, the anatomical and functional changes of bariatric surgery may favor the development of undesirable side effects such as the appearance of gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of using probiotics in individuals with GIS 1 year after being submitted to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an experimental, prospective, randomized, cross-over, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study, carried out with patients 1 year after being submitted to RYGB and who reported at least one moderate GIS. Subjects were randomized into two groups and completed the two research periods: in one they received placebo capsules, in the other 50 billion CFU of probiotics (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus plantarum, Bifidobacterium bifidum and Lactobacillus gasseri), both for 8 weeks, with 8 weeks of wash-out period in between, and were evaluated for the presence of Small Intestine Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO) and GIS, through the Hydrogen breath test and Gastric Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of a total of 56 participants, 47 individuals completed the study. No significant effects were observed in neither the gastrointestinal symptoms or in the prevalence of SIBO with the use of probiotics.

CONCLUSION

Supplementation of the probiotics chosen for this study does not seem to alleviate GIS or influence the improvement of SIBO in symptomatic patients after 1 year of RYGB.

A Prospective Real-World Study of Bacillus clausii Evaluating Use, Treatment Habits and Patient Satisfaction in Italian Community Pharmacies: The PEGASO Study

BACKGROUND

Ailments such as diarrhoea and antibiotic-associated gut symptoms are generally self-managed using probiotics. Real-world data on reasons behind self-medication with over-the-counter (OTC) products and patient-reported outcomes can be investigated strategically by the pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the use of Bacillus clausii (Enterogermina®) at the Italian community pharmacies among self-medicating patients, their treatment habits and perceived benefits.

DESIGN

This is a multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study which included two visits [at screening (T0) and end of the study (T1) when symptoms had subsided, ≤ 30 days from T0]. Patients who were already inclined to buy B. clausii were enrolled and instructed to complete a questionnaire at T0 and T1. The primary objective was to evaluate the reasons for taking B. clausii. Secondary objectives assessed treatment duration, perceived effectiveness, quality of life (QoL), treatment satisfaction and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 268 patients were enrolled; 99.6% of them were evaluated at T0 and 97.4% at T1, and safety was evaluated in 97.8% who had ≥ 1 dose of B. clausii. At T0, mean age was 50.7 years and majority were females (62.2%). In the interview, main reason stated for using B. clausii at T0 was diarrhoea (56.93%), followed by other gastrointestinal symptoms. Treatment duration was shorter in those with diarrhoea or abdominal pain versus those with constipation or abdominal tension. More than 90% perceived their symptoms to have improved or improved very much. Overall QoL improved in all the aspects measured. Treatment satisfaction was reported by nearly 90% of patients as satisfied, very satisfied or extremely satisfied. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

This is the first pharmacy-based study in Italy that evaluated the real-world usage of an OTC probiotic containing B. clausii among self-medicating adults. Diarrhoea was the most common reason for use, with high-level of perceived effectiveness and patient satisfaction with B. clausii.

Online information in Spanish on probiotics, yoghurt, kefir, kombucha, fibre and prebiotics: an analysis of the quality of information and the certainty of the evidence supporting health claims

OBJECTIVE

To examine the certainty of the evidence supporting health claims about probiotics, yoghurt, kefir, kombucha, fibre and prebiotics, and to assess the quality of online information in Spanish.

DESIGN

Content analysis.

METHODS

We compiled a data set of 114 web pages by searching six popular search phrases in Spanish relating to probiotics, yoghurt, kefir, kombucha, fibre and prebiotics on Google.es and coded them for typology and health claims. We examined the certainty of the evidence for health claims from systematic reviews. Information quality was assessed according to 10 criteria, where a web page: mentions scientific publications and reports their conclusions; quantifies relative and absolute effects; acknowledges some limitations; discusses certainty of evidence; reports the potential harms, alternatives and costs; and does not argue based on personal experiences.

RESULTS

Gastrointestinal health (86.0%), general health (57.9%), cardiovascular health (53.5%) and immune system health (50.9%) were the most widely mentioned topics. Half of claims (52.6%, 70/133) were supported by evidence from systematic reviews. Probiotics had the highest number of claims supported by evidence and kombucha the lowest. The highest certainty was found for antibiotic-associated diarrhoea, necrotising enterocolitis and otitis (moderate) in probiotics and yoghurt, infectious diarrhoea and hepatic encephalopathy (moderate) in prebiotics, and cardiovascular health (high to moderate) and colorectal cancer (moderate) in fibre. On a scale of 0-10, the median information quality score for all web pages was 3. Only 18.4% reported study conclusions, 7.9% quantified the effects, 28.9% acknowledged some limitations in the research and 42.1% reported potential harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Most online health claims for dietary interventions intended for improving health through the gut microbiome are supported by low or very low certainty of evidence. Online information does not align with the evidence and is incomplete or unbalanced.