Association of a probiotic to a Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen does not increase efficacy or decreases the adverse effects of the treatment: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Probiotic knowledge of adults with cystic fibrosis is limited but is associated with probiotic use: A cross-sectional survey study

Background: Probiotics are used by people with cystic fibrosis (CF) and other chronic diseases to manage gastrointestinal symptoms. Aim: To describe probiotic knowledge; its relationship with probiotic use, probiotic information sources and factors influencing choice in adults with CF and a general population control group. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted in adults with CF (n = 205) and Controls (n = 158). Probiotic knowledge was compared between CF and Controls using a knowledge score (maximum 5) based on predefined criteria: (1a) bacteria/microorganism; (1b) live; (2a) administered; (2b) adequate dose and (3) health benefit, using independent samples t-test. Two-way analysis of variance explored knowledge scores between CF and Control and between Ever User and Never User groups. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests compared knowledge criterion, probiotic sources and influences on probiotic choice between groups. Thematic analysis of open-text responses explored probiotic-related knowledge and influences on probiotic decision making. Results: Knowledge scores (mean ± SD) did not differ between CF (1.70 ± 1.12) and Controls (1.89 ± 0.99), p = 0.13. Probiotic use was associated with knowledge score (p < 0.001). More CF Ever Users than Never Users correctly identified criteria 1a (65% vs. 38%), 1b (16% vs. 0%), 2a (45% vs. 22%) and 3 (73% vs. 42%) (all p < 0.005). CF participants considered 'dairy yoghurt' (69%), 'live cultures' (64%) and 'fermented foods' (37%) as 'all/mostly' probiotic sources. The internet was the commonest source of probiotic-related information. Conclusion: Probiotic knowledge and use were associated in adults with CF. Understanding of probiotic characteristics and sources were limited. Education is needed to help guide patient probiotic decision making.

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.

Themes, communities and influencers of online probiotics chatter: A retrospective analysis from 2009-2017

We build on recent examinations questioning the quality of online information about probiotic products by studying the themes of content, detecting virtual communities and identifying key influencers in social media using data science techniques. We conducted topic modelling (n = 36,715 tweets) and longitudinal social network analysis (n = 17,834 tweets) of probiotic chatter on Twitter from 2009-17. We used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to build the topic models and network analysis tool Gephi for building yearly graphs. We identified the top 10 topics of probiotics-related communication on Twitter and a constant rise in communication activity. However the number of communities grew consistently to peak in 2014 before dipping and levelling off by 2017. While several probiotics industry actors appeared and disappeared during this period, the influence of one specific actor rose from a hub initially to an authority in the latter years. With multi-brand advertising and probiotics promotions mostly occupying the Twitter chatter, scientists, journalists, or policymakers exerted minimal influence in these communities. Consistent with previous research, we find that probiotics-related content on social media veers towards promotions and benefits. Probiotic industry actors maintain consistent presence on Twitter while transitioning from hubs to authorities over time; scientific entities assume an authoritative role without much engagement. The involvement of scientific, journalistic or regulatory stakeholders will help create a balanced informational environment surrounding probiotic products.

Nonfood Prebiotic, Probiotic, and Synbiotic Use Has Increased in US Adults and Children From 1999 to 2018

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Public interest in pre-, pro-, and synbiotic products is increasing because of interactions between gut microbiota and human health. Our aim was to describe nonfood (from dietary supplements or medication) pre-, pro-, and synbiotic use by US adults and children and reported reasons.

METHODS

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), we text-mined dietary supplement and prescription medication labels and ingredients to identify pre-, pro-, and synbiotic products used in the past 30 days. We describe trends in use from 1999 to 2018 (n = 101,199) and prevalence in 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 (n = 19,215) by age groups, sex, ethnicity/race, education, income, self-reported diet and health quality, and prescription gastrointestinal medication use stratified by children (<19 years) and adults (19+ years).

RESULTS

Nonfood pre-, pro-, and synbiotic use increased up to 3-fold in recent cycles. Prevalence of use for all ages for prebiotics was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-2.9), for probiotics was 4.5% (95% CI, 3.5-5.6), and for synbiotics was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.8-1.5). Use was highest among older adults (8.8% [95% CI, 5.4-13.3] among those aged 60-69 years for probiotics), non-Hispanic Whites, those with higher educational attainment and income, those with more favorable self-reported diet or health quality, and those with concurrent prescription gastrointestinal medication use. The top reasons for use were for digestive health and to promote/maintain general health. Less than 30% reported using these products based on a health care provider's recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 20 US adults or children use nonfood pre-, pro-, or synbiotic products, and use has sharply increased in recent years. Most individuals voluntarily take these products for general digestive or overall health reasons.

Probiotics and the Microbiome-How Can We Help Patients Make Sense of Probiotics?

The notion of probiotics as microbes that confer health benefits has its origins in the speculative ideas that are more than a century old, yet remain largely unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. The recent advances in microbiome science have highlighted the importance of intestinal microbes in human physiology and disease pathogenesis. These developments have provided a boost to the probiotics industry, which continues to experience exponential growth driven mainly by creative marketing. Consumers, patients, and most health care providers are not able to discern the underlying science or differentiate the permitted claims that promise vague health benefits from disease-specific claims reserved for drugs. No probiotic product has been able to satisfy the regulatory requirements to be categorized as a drug, a substance intended to cure, mitigate, or prevent disease. However, patients take probiotic products in the belief that they will help to treat their intestinal or systemic diseases. Thus far, the regulators have failed to create policies that would assist to inform the public in this area. In fact, the existing regulatory regime actually creates formidable barriers to research that could provide evidence for clinical efficacy of probiotic products. We propose a potential solution to this vexing problem, where a committee created through a partnership of academia, professional organizations, and industry, but free of potential conflicts of interest, would be charged with rigorous evaluation of specific probiotic products and the evidence in support of their different claims. Companies that would submit to this process would earn the trust of consumers and healthcare providers, as well as a distinction in the marketplace.

Choosing an appropriate probiotic product for your patient: An evidence-based practical guide

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and continuously expanding product base, with most available products lacking evidence-based trials that support their use. Even when evidence exists, not all probiotic products are equally effective for all disease prevention or treatment indications. At this point in time, drug regulatory agencies offer limited assistance with regard to guidance and oversight in most countries, including the U.S.

METHODS

We reviewed the current medical literature and sources on the internet to survey the types of available probiotic products and to determine which probiotics had evidence-based efficacy data. Standard medical databases from inception to June 2018 were searched and discussions with experts in the field were conducted. We graded the strength of the evidence for probiotics having multiple, randomized controlled trials and developed a guide for the practical selection of current probiotic products for specific uses.

RESULTS

We found the efficacy of probiotic products is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Important factors involved in choosing the appropriate probiotic include matching the strain(s) with the targeted disease or condition, type of formulation, dose used and the source (manufacturing quality control and shelf-life). While we found many probiotic products lacked confirmatory trials, we found sufficient evidence for 22 different types of probiotics from 249 trials to be included. For example, several types of probiotics had strong evidence for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea [Saccharomyces boulardii I-745, a three-strain mixture (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei Lbc80r, L. rhamnosus CLR2) and L. casei DN114001]. Strong evidence was also found for four types of probiotics for the prevention of a variety of other diseases/conditions (enteral-feed associated diarrhea, travellers' diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolits and side-effects associated with H. pylori treatments. The evidence was most robust for the treatment of pediatric acute diarrhea based on 59 trials (7 types of probiotics have strong efficacy), while an eight-strain multi-strain mixture showed strong efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease and two types of probiotics had strong efficacy for irritable bowel disease. Of the 22 types of probiotics reviewed, 15 (68%) had strong-moderate evidence for efficacy for at least one type of disease.

CONCLUSION

The choice of an appropriate probiotic is multi-factored, based on the mode and type of disease indication and the specific efficacy of probiotic strain(s), as well as product quality and formulation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018103979.

Gut Health in the era of the human gut microbiota: from metaphor to biovalue

The human intestinal ecosystem, previously called the gut microflora is now known as the Human Gut Microbiota (HGM). Microbiome research has emphasized the potential role of this ecosystem in human homeostasis, offering unexpected opportunities in therapeutics, far beyond digestive diseases. It has also highlighted ethical, social and commercial concerns related to the gut microbiota. As diet factors are accepted to be the major regulator of the gut microbiota, the modulation of its composition, either by antibiotics or by food intake, should be regarded as a fascinating tool for improving the human health. Scientists, the food industry, consumers and policymakers alike are involved in this new field of nutrition. Defining how knowledge about the HGM is being translated into public perception has never been addressed before. This raises the question of metaphors associated with the HGM, and how they could be used to improve public understanding, and to influence individual decision-making on healthcare policy. This article suggests that a meeting of stakeholders from the social sciences, basic research and the food industry, taking an epistemological approach to the HGM, is needed to foster close, innovative partnerships that will help shape public perception and enable novel behavioural interventions that would benefit public health.

Probiotics and prebiotics: prospects for public health and nutritional recommendations

Probiotics and prebiotics are useful interventions for improving human health through direct or indirect effects on the colonizing microbiota. However, translation of these research findings into nutritional recommendations and public health policy endorsements has not been achieved in a manner consistent with the strength of the evidence. More progress has been made with clinical recommendations. Conclusions include that beneficial cultures, including probiotics and live cultures in fermented foods, can contribute towards the health of the general population; prebiotics, in part due to their function as a special type of soluble fiber, can contribute to the health of the general population; and a number of challenges must be addressed in order to fully realize probiotic and prebiotic benefits, including the need for greater awareness of the accumulated evidence on probiotics and prebiotics among policy makers, strategies to cope with regulatory roadblocks to research, and high-quality human trials that address outstanding research questions in the field.

Helicobacter pylori: Future perspectives in therapy reflecting three decades of experience

The rising prevalence of antibiotic resistance has created a need to reassess the established Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication protocols, and to develop new ones. Various bacterial and host factors are evaluated, and their contribution to eradication failure is estimated. For a long time being considered the cornerstone eradication scheme, the standard triple therapy has been replaced with novel, more efficient regimens, namely sequential and concomitant, along with the emergence of a new design of bismuth quadruple therapy. A rescue levofloxacin based regimen has overcome the fear of therapy failure due to higher prevalence of dual resistant (clarithromycin and metronidazole) H. pylori. Culture-free and efficient susceptibility test are reestablishing the concept of tailored therapy, making eradication success close to originally desirable rates. Alleviating therapy side effects and improving patient compliance are as important as choosing appropriate eradication schemes, so various probiotic compound supplements are taken into consideration. Finally, we summarize the emerging efforts and obstacles in creating efficient H. pylori vaccine.

Patient experience and use of probiotics in community-based health care settings

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient experience with probiotics and factors that influence probiotic use among adult patients.

METHOD

Patients were invited to complete a questionnaire that assessed their experiences and opinions regarding probiotics. Questionnaires were distributed to patients seeking primary health care services at a family and community medicine practice site and a community pharmacy. Patients were invited to complete the questionnaire while awaiting the physician or waiting for prescriptions to be filled.

RESULTS

Overall, 162 surveys were completed and returned (66% response rate) from patients aged 18 to 89 years of age (mean 49.5 years). Most patients (n=107; 65%) were familiar with the term "probiotic", and 49 patients (29.9%) had personally used the supplements in the past. Of those who had used probiotics, the majority (57%) had used the supplements to maintain "good gastrointestinal health" and most (59%) felt that the supplements had been beneficial. However, most (59%) had not informed their health care provider about their use of the supplements.

CONCLUSION

Use of probiotic supplements is common among consumers, but may not be reported to health care providers.