Search

Systemic inflammation plays a central role in many diseases and is, therefore, an important therapeutic target. In a scoping review, we assessed the evidence base for the anti-inflammatory effects of pre-, pro-, and synbiotics in children. Of the 1254 clinical trials published in English in Ovid Medline and Cochrane Library PubMed from January 2003 to September 2022, 29 were included in the review. In six studies of healthy children (n = 1552), one reported that fructo-oligosaccharides added to infant formula significantly reduced pro-inflammatory biomarkers, and one study of a single-strain probiotic reported both anti- and pro-inflammatory effects. No effects were seen in the remaining two single-strain studies, one multi-strain probiotic, and one synbiotic study. In 23 studies of children with diseases (n = 1550), prebiotics were tested in 3, single-strain in 16, multi-strain probiotics in 6, and synbiotics in 2 studies. Significantly reduced inflammatory biomarkers were reported in 7/10 studies of atopic/allergic conditions, 3/5 studies of autoimmune diseases, 1/2 studies of preterm infants, 1 study of overweight/obesity, 2/2 studies of severe illness, and 2/3 studies of other diseases. However, only one or two of several biomarkers were often improved; increased pro-inflammatory biomarkers occurred in five of these studies, and a probiotic increased inflammatory biomarkers in a study of newborns with congenital heart disease. The evidence base for the effects of pre-, pro-, and synbiotics on systemic inflammation in children is weak. Further research is needed to determine if anti-inflammatory effects depend on the specific pre-, pro-, and synbiotic preparations, health status, and biomarkers studied.

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., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

OBJECTIVETo determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults and children.DESIGNIndividual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), adjusting for risk factors.METHODSWe searched 6 databases and 11 grey literature sources from inception to April 2016. We identified 32 RCTs (n=8,713); among them, 18 RCTs provided IPD (n=6,851 participants) comparing probiotic prophylaxis to placebo or no treatment (standard care). One reviewer prepared the IPD, and 2 reviewers extracted data, rated study quality, and graded evidence quality.RESULTSProbiotics reduced CDI odds in the unadjusted model (n=6,645; odds ratio [OR] 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.55) and the adjusted model (n=5,074; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.55). Using 2 or more antibiotics increased the odds of CDI (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.11-4.37), whereas age, sex, hospitalization status, and high-risk antibiotic exposure did not. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that, compared to no probiotics, multispecies probiotics were more beneficial than single-species probiotics, as was using probiotics in clinical settings where the CDI risk is ≥5%. Of 18 studies, 14 reported adverse events. In 11 of these 14 studies, the adverse events were retained in the adjusted model. Odds for serious adverse events were similar for both groups in the unadjusted analyses (n=4,990; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26) and adjusted analyses (n=4,718; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28). Missing outcome data for CDI ranged from 0% to 25.8%. Our analyses were robust to a sensitivity analysis for missingness.CONCLUSIONSModerate quality (ie, certainty) evidence suggests that probiotic prophylaxis may be a useful and safe CDI prevention strategy, particularly among participants taking 2 or more antibiotics and in hospital settings where the risk of CDI is ≥5%.TRIAL REGISTRATIONPROSPERO 2015 identifier: CRD42015015701Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;771-781.

Exposure to antibiotics is the major risk factor for Clostridium difficile diarrhea (CDD), suggesting that impairment of colonization resistance due to depletion of the gut flora is a significant underlying disease susceptibility factor. Many properties of probiotic organisms indicate that they may be able to replenish the depleted gut flora and restore colonization resistance. However, despite numerous clinical trials, the evidence base for probiotics in the prevention of CDD remains weak. A recent large trial of a multistrain, high-dose probiotic did not show clear evidence of efficacy. The role of probiotics in the prevention of CDD remains unclear., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate a multistrain, high-dose probiotic in the prevention of eczema., Design: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial., Settings: Antenatal clinics, research clinic, children at home., Patients: Pregnant women and their infants., Interventions: Women from 36 weeks gestation and their infants to age 6 months received daily either the probiotic (Lactobacillus salivarius CUL61, Lactobacillus paracasei CUL08, Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis CUL34 and Bifidobacterium bifidum CUL20; total of 10(10) organisms/day) or matching placebo., Main Outcome Measure: Diagnosed eczema at age 2 years. Infants were followed up by questionnaire. Clinical examination and skin prick tests to common allergens were done at 6 months and 2 years., Results: The cumulative frequency of diagnosed eczema at 2 years was similar in the probiotic (73/214, 34.1%) and placebo arms (72/222, 32.4%; OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.6). Among the secondary outcomes, the cumulative frequency of skin prick sensitivity at 2 years was reduced in the probiotic (18/171; 10.5%) compared with the placebo arm (32/173; 18.5%; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.98). The statistically significant differences between the arms were mainly in sensitisation to cow's milk and hen's egg proteins at 6 months. Atopic eczema occurred in 9/171 (5.3%) children in the probiotic arm and 21/173 (12.1%) in the placebo arm (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.91)., Conclusions: The study did not provide evidence that the probiotic either prevented eczema during the study or reduced its severity. However, the probiotic seemed to prevent atopic sensitisation to common food allergens and so reduce the incidence of atopic eczema in early childhood., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN26287422., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) occurs most commonly in older people admitted to hospital and within 12 weeks of exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics. Although usually a mild and self-limiting illness, the 15-39% of cases caused by Clostridium difficile infection [C. difficile diarrhoea (CDD)] may result in severe diarrhoea and death. Previous research has shown that probiotics, live microbial organisms that, when administered in adequate numbers, are beneficial to health, may be effective in preventing AAD and CDD., Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a high-dose, multistrain probiotic in the prevention of AAD and CDD in older people admitted to hospital., Design: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trial., Setting: Medical, surgical and elderly care inpatient wards in five NHS hospitals in the UK., Participants: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 65 years, were exposed to one or more oral or parenteral antibiotics and were without pre-existing diarrhoeal disorders, recent CDD or at risk of probiotic adverse effects. Out of 17,420 patients screened, 2981 (17.1%) were recruited. Participants were allocated sequentially according to a computer-generated random allocation sequence; 1493 (50.1%) were allocated to the probiotic and 1488 (49.9%) to the placebo arm., Interventions: Vegetarian capsules containing two strains of lactobacilli and two strains of bifidobacteria (a total of 6 × 10(10) organisms per day) were taken daily for 21 days. The placebo was inert maltodextrin powder in identical capsules., Main Outcome Measures: The occurrence of AAD within 8 weeks and CDD within 12 weeks of recruitment was determined by participant follow-up and checking hospital laboratory records by research nurses who were blind to arm allocation., Results: Analysis based on the treatment allocated included 2941 (98.7%) participants. Potential risk factors for AAD at baseline were similar in the two study arms. Frequency of AAD (including CDD) was similar in the probiotic (159/1470, 10.8%) and placebo arms [153/1471, 10.4%; relative risk (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.28; p = 0.71]. CDD was an uncommon cause of AAD and occurred in 12/1470 (0.8%) participants in the probiotic and 17/1471 (1.2%) in the placebo arm (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.47; p = 0.35). Duration and severity of diarrhoea, common gastrointestinal symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life measures were also similar in the two arms. Total health-care costs per patient did not differ significantly between the probiotic (£8020; 95% CI £7620 to £8420) and placebo (£8010; 95% CI £7600 to £8420) arms., Conclusion: We found no evidence that probiotic administration was effective in preventing AAD. Although there was a trend towards reduced CDD in the probiotic arm, on balance, the administration of this probiotic seems unlikely to benefit older patients exposed to antibiotics. A better understanding of the pathogenesis of AAD and CDD and the strain-specific effects of probiotics is needed before further clinical trials of specific microbial preparations are undertaken. Evaluation of the effectiveness of other probiotics will be difficult where other measures, such as antibiotic stewardship, have reduced CDD rates., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN70017204., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) occurs most frequently in older (≥65 years) inpatients exposed to broad-spectrum antibiotics. When caused by Clostridium difficile, AAD can result in life-threatening illness. Although underlying disease mechanisms are not well understood, microbial preparations have been assessed in the prevention of AAD. However, studies have been mostly small single-centre trials with varying quality, providing insufficient data to reliably assess effectiveness. We aimed to do a pragmatic efficacy trial in older inpatients who would be representative of those admitted to National Health Service (NHS) and similar secondary care institutions and to recruit a sufficient number of patients to generate a definitive result., Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pragmatic, efficacy trial of inpatients aged 65 years and older and exposed to one or more oral or parenteral antibiotics. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used to allocate participants (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive either a multistrain preparation of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, with a total of 6 × 10(10) organisms, one per day for 21 days, or an identical placebo. Patients, study staff, and specimen and data analysts were masked to assignment. The primary outcomes were occurrence of AAD within 8 weeks and C difficile diarrhoea (CDD) within 12 weeks of recruitment. Analysis was by modified intention-to-treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN70017204., Findings: Of 17,420 patients screened, 1493 were randomly assigned to the microbial preparation group and 1488 to the placebo group. 1470 and 1471, respectively, were included in the analyses of the primary endpoints. AAD (including CDD) occurred in 159 (10·8%) participants in the microbial preparation group and 153 (10·4%) participants in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1·04; 95% CI 0·84-1·28; p=0·71). CDD was an uncommon cause of AAD and occurred in 12 (0·8%) participants in the microbial preparation group and 17 (1·2%) participants in the placebo group (RR 0·71; 95% CI 0·34-1·47; p=0·35). 578 (19·7%) participants had one or more serious adverse event; the frequency of serious adverse events was much the same in the two study groups and none was attributed to participation in the trial., Interpretation: We identified no evidence that a multistrain preparation of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria was effective in prevention of AAD or CDD. An improved understanding of the pathophysiology of AAD is needed to guide future studies., Funding: Health Technology Assessment programme; National Institute for Health Research, UK., (Copyright © 2013 Allen et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antibiotic associated diarrhoea complicates 5-39% of courses of antibiotic treatment. Major risk factors are increased age and admission to hospital. Of particular importance is C. difficile associated diarrhoea which occurs in about 4% of antibiotic courses and may result in severe illness, death and high healthcare costs. The emergence of the more virulent 027 strain of C. difficile has further heightened concerns. Probiotics may prevent antibiotic associated diarrhoea by several mechanisms including colonization resistance through maintaining a healthy gut flora., Methods: This study aims to test the hypothesis that administration of a probiotic comprising two strains of lactobacilli and two strains of bifidobacteria alongside antibiotic treatment prevents antibiotic associated diarrhoea. We have designed a prospective, parallel group trial where people aged 65 years or more admitted to hospital and receiving one or more antibiotics are randomly allocated to receive either one capsule of the probiotic or a matching placebo daily for 21 days. The primary outcomes are the frequency of antibiotic associated and C. difficile diarrhoea during 8-12 weeks follow-up. To directly inform routine clinical practice, we will recruit a sufficient number of patients to demonstrate a 50% reduction in the frequency of C. difficile diarrhoea with a power of 80%. To maximize the generalizability of our findings and in view of the well-established safety record of probiotics, we will recruit a broad range of medical and surgical in-patients from two different health regions within the UK., Discussion: Antibiotic associated diarrhoea constitutes a significant health burden. In particular, current measures to prevent and control C. difficile diarrhoea are expensive and disrupt clinical care. This trial may have considerable significance for the prevention of antibiotic associated diarrhoea in hospitals., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN70017204.

Background: Probiotics may offer a safe intervention in acute infectious diarrhoea to reduce the duration and severity of the illness., Objectives: To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group's trials register (July 2010), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2010), EMBASE (1988 to July 2010), and reference lists from studies and reviews. We also contacted organizations and individuals working in the field, and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing probiotic agents., Selection Criteria: Randomized and quasi-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 reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the trial and extracted data. Primary outcomes were the mean duration of diarrhoea, stool frequency on day 2 after intervention and ongoing diarrhoea on day 4. A random-effects model was used., Main Results: Sixty-three studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 8014 participants. Of these, 56 trials recruited infants and young children. The trials varied in the definition used for acute diarrhoea and the end of the diarrhoeal illness, as well as in the risk of bias. The trials were undertaken in a wide range of different settings and also varied greatly in organisms tested, dosage, and participants' characteristics. No adverse events were attributed to the probiotic intervention.Probiotics reduced the duration of diarrhoea, although the size of the effect varied considerably between studies.The average of the effect was significant for mean duration of diarrhoea (mean difference 24.76 hours; 95% confidence interval 15.9 to 33.6 hours; n=4555, trials=35) diarrhoea lasting ≥4 days (risk ratio 0.41; 0.32 to 0.53; n=2853, trials=29) and stool frequency on day 2 (mean difference 0.80; 0.45 to 1.14; n=2751, trials=20).The differences in effect size between studies was not explained by study quality, probiotic strain, the number of different strains, the viability of the organisms, dosage of organisms, the causes of diarrhoea, or the severity of the diarrhoea, or whether the studies were done in developed or developing countries., Authors' Conclusions: Used alongside rehydration therapy, probiotics appear to be safe and have clear beneficial effects in shortening the duration and reducing stool frequency in acute infectious diarrhoea. However, more research is needed to guide the use of particular probiotic regimens in specific patient groups.

Lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria are increasingly being administered to pregnant women and infants with the intention of improving health. Although these organisms have a long record of safe use, it is important to identify any adverse effects in potentially vulnerable populations. In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we evaluated the safety of a bacterial dietary supplement for the prevention of atopy in infants. Two strains of lactobacilli (Lactobacillus salivarius CUL61 and Lactobacillus paracasei CUL08) and bifidobacteria (Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis CUL34 and Bifidobacterium bifidum CUL20) with a total of 1 x 10(10) colony-forming units were administered daily to women during the last month of pregnancy and to infants aged 0-6 mo. Adverse events (AE) were classified according to WHO International Statistical Classification of Diseases criteria. Common symptoms were recorded by regular questionnaires. Baseline characteristics of 220 mother-infant dyads in the treatment and 234 in the placebo group were similar. Compliance with the trial interventions, loss to follow-up, symptoms, drug usage, infant growth, method of feeding, visits to the doctor, and mothers' assessment of infant health were similar in the 2 groups. Fifteen (6.8%) mothers and 73 (33.2%) infants in the treatment group and 21 (9.0%) mothers and 75 (32.1%) infants in the placebo group reported AE (P = 0.49 and P = 0.84, respectively). Severe AE occurred in 18 mothers and 63 infants with a similar frequency in each group. None of the AE were attributed to the intervention. Our findings support the safe use of this consortium of organisms during pregnancy and early infancy.

Background: The clinical effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) is widely debated because of a lack of clinical trials. The internet may provide an effective and economical approach for undertaking randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of low-risk interventions. We investigated whether the internet could be used to perform an internet-based RCT of a CAM fulfilling the revised CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement quality checklist for reporting of RCTs. A secondary aim was to examine the effect of probiotics compared to placebo in terms of well-being over 12 weeks., Methods: People aged > or =18 years with confirmed spondyloarthropathy living in the United Kingdom with internet access were invited to participate in an internet-based RCT of probiotic compared to placebo for improving well-being and bowel symptoms. The intervention was a probiotic containing 4 strains of live bacteria or identical placebo taken by mouth daily for 3 months. The primary outcome measure was the performance of the trial according to the revised CONSORT statement., Results: 147 people were randomised into the trial. The internet-based trial of the CAM fulfilled the revised CONSORT statement such as efficient blinding, allocation concealment, intention to treat analysis and flow of participants through the trial. Recruitment of the required number of participants was completed in 19 months. Sixty-five percent (96/147) completed the entire 3 months of the trial. The trial was low cost and demonstrated that in an intention to treat analysis, probiotics did not improve well-being or bowel symptoms., Conclusion: The internet-based RCT proved to be a successful and economical method for examining this CAM intervention. Recruitment, adherence and completion rate were all similar to those reported with conventional RCTs but at a fraction of the cost. Internet-based RCTs can fulfil all the criteria of the revised CONSORT statement and are an appropriate method for studying low-risk interventions., Trial Registration: ISRCTN36133252.

Background: Probiotics are microbial cell preparations or components of microbial cells that have a beneficial effect on the health and well being of the host. Probiotics may offer a safe intervention in acute infectious diarrhoea to reduce the duration and severity of the illness., Objectives: To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed infectious diarrhoea., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group's trials register (December 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (1988 to 2002), and reference lists from studies and reviews. We also contacted organizations and individuals working in the field, and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing probiotic agents., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with 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 reviewers independently assessed trial methodological quality and extracted data., Main Results: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1917 participants, mainly in countries with low overall mortality rates. Trials varied in relation to the probiotic(s) tested, dosage, methodological quality, and the diarrhoea definitions and outcomes. Probiotics reduced the risk of diarrhoea at 3 days (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.77, random effects model; 15 studies) and the mean duration of diarrhoea by 30.48 hours (95% confidence interval 18.51 to 42.46 hours, random effects model, 12 studies). Subgroup analysis by probiotic(s) tested, rotavirus diarrhoea, national mortality rates, and age of participants did not fully account for the heterogeneity., Reviewers' Conclusions: Probiotics appear to be a useful adjunct to rehydration therapy in treating acute, infectious diarrhoea in adults and children. More research is needed to inform the use of particular probiotic regimens in specific patient groups.