An observation on inappropriate probiotic subgroup classifications in the meta-analysis by Lau and Chamberlain

The effects of pro-, pre-, and synbiotics supplementation on polycystic ovary syndrome: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Background

Synbiotics, refer to a combination of probiotics and prebiotics in a form of synergism that beneficially affect the host's health by alternating the composition and/or function of the gut microbiota. Numerous meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials have proven that pro, pre-, and synbiotics supplementation has health outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, the strength and quality of this evidence in aggregate have not yet been synthesized in great detail.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Google Scholar were searched up to March 2023. We pooled the mean difference and its 95% confidence interval (CI) by applying a random-effects model.

Results

Overall, nine meta-analyses including a total of 12 trials were identified. The results of the present study indicated that probiotic supplementation significantly reduced the homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; WMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.02, p = 0.03, n = 4; moderate certainty) and fasting glucose concentration (FGC; WMD: -7.5 mg/dL, 95% CI: -13.60 to -0.51, p = 0.03; n = 4; low certainty). Moreover, synbiotic supplementation had beneficial effects on glycemic control, lipid profile, and hormonal parameters, but the certainty of the evidence was rated as low to very low. However, supplementation with pro-/synbiotics did not affect inflammation and oxidative stress in women with PCOS. Furthermore, waist/hip circumference, fasting glucose concentration, lipid profile, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and hirsutism score were significantly reduced after prebiotics supplementation with low certainty of evidence.

Conclusion

Although pro-, pre-, and synbiotics supplementation had beneficial effects on some PCOS-related outcomes, the certainty of the evidence was rated as low to very low. Therefore, further well-designed RCTs might help to confirm our findings in women with PCOS.

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.

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.

Short and long-term effects of a synbiotic on clinical signs, the fecal microbiome, and metabolomic profiles in healthy research cats receiving clindamycin: a randomized, controlled trial

Background

Antibiotic-associated gastrointestinal signs (AAGS) occur commonly in cats. Co-administration of synbiotics is associated with decreased AAGS in people, potentially due to stabilization of the fecal microbiome and metabolome. The purpose of this double-blinded randomized-controlled trial was to compare AAGS and the fecal microbiome and metabolome between healthy cats that received clindamycin with a placebo or synbiotic.

Methods

16 healthy domestic shorthair cats from a research colony were randomized to receive 150 mg clindamycin with either a placebo (eight cats) or commercially-available synbiotic (eight cats) once daily for 21 days with reevaluation 603 days thereafter. All cats ate the same diet. Food consumption, vomiting, and fecal score were recorded. Fecal samples were collected daily on the last three days of baseline (days 5–7), treatment (26–28), and recovery (631–633). Sequencing of 16S rRNA genes and gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry was performed. Clinical signs, alpha and beta diversity metrics, dysbiosis indices, proportions of bacteria groups, and metabolite profiles were compared between treatment groups using repeated measures ANOVAs. Fecal metabolite pathway analysis was performed. P < 0.05 was considered significant. The Benjamini & Hochberg’s False Discovery Rate was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.

Results

Median age was six and five years, respectively, for cats in the placebo and synbiotic groups. Hyporexia, vomiting, diarrhea, or some combination therein were induced in all cats. Though vomiting was less in cats receiving a synbiotic, the difference was not statistically significant. Bacterial diversity decreased significantly on days 26–28 in both treatment groups. Decreases in Actinobacteria (Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, Slackia), Bacteriodetes (Bacteroides), Lachnospiraceae (Blautia, Coprococcus, Roseburia), Ruminococcaceae (Faecilobacterium, Ruminococcus), and Erysipelotrichaceae (Bulleidia, [Eubacterium]) and increases in Clostridiaceae (Clostridium) and Proteobacteria (Aeromonadales, Enterobacteriaceae) occurred in both treatment groups, with incomplete normalization by days 631–633. Derangements in short-chain fatty acid, bile acid, indole, sphingolipid, benzoic acid, cinnaminic acid, and polyamine profiles also occurred, some of which persisted through the terminal sampling timepoint and differed between treatment groups.

Discussion

Cats administered clindamycin commonly develop AAGS, as well as short- and long-term dysbiosis and alterations in fecal metabolites. Despite a lack of differences in clinical signs between treatment groups, significant differences in their fecal metabolomic profiles were identified. Further investigation is warranted to determine whether antibiotic-induced dysbiosis is associated with an increased risk of future AAGS or metabolic diseases in cats and whether synbiotic administration ameliorates this risk.

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.

Primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infections with a specific probiotic combining Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. casei, and L. rhamnosus strains: assessing the evidence

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has become the leading healthcare-associated infection and cause of outbreaks around the world. Although various innovative treatments have been developed, preventive strategies using multi-faceted infection control programmes have not been successful in reducing CDI rates. The major risk factor for CDI is the disruption of the normally protective gastrointestinal microbiota, typically by antibiotic use. Supplementation with specific probiotics has been effective in preventing various negative outcomes, including antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and CDI. However, a consensus of which probiotic strains might prevent CDI has not been reached and meta-analyses report high degrees of heterogeneity when studies of different probiotic products are pooled together. We searched the literature for probiotics with sufficient evidence to assess clinical efficacy for the prevention of CDI and focused on one specific probiotic formulation comprised of three lactobacilli strains (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R, Lactobacillus rhamnosus CLR2, Bio-K+) for its ability to prevent CDI in healthcare settings. A literature search on this probiotic formulation was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar), abstracts from infectious disease and infection control meetings, and communications from the probiotic company. Supporting evidence was found for its mechanisms of action against CDI and that it has an excellent safety and tolerability profile. Evidence from randomized controlled trials and facility-level interventions that administer Bio-K+ show reduced incidence rates of CDI. This probiotic formulation may have a role in primary prevention of healthcare-associated CDI when administered to patients who receive antibiotics.

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.

Probiotics and prevention of Clostridium difficile infection

The role of probiotics as adjunctive measures in the prevention of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been controversial. However, a growing body of evidence has suggested that they have a role in primary prevention of CDI. Elements of this controversy are reviewed and the proposed mechanisms of action, the value and cost effectiveness of probiotics are addressed with a focus on three agents, Saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and the combination of Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R, Lactobacillus rhamnosus CLR2 (Bio-K+).