Back to Search Start Over

Microbial Preparations (Probiotics) for the Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of 6,851 Participants

Authors :
Lawrence Mbuagbauw
Ruzha Pancheva
Behnam Sadeghirad
Gary Foster
Joshua Z. Goldenberg
Li Wang
Dominik Mertz
Agostino Colli
Duolao Wang
Mark A. Miller
Bradley C. Johnston
Mary Hickson
Stephen Allen
Sandra Hirsch
Christian P. Selinger
Anna M. Maw
Calvin Ka-Fung Lo
Pietro Pozzoni
Lehana Thabane
Elisabet Lönnermark
Stephan Ehrhardt
John S. Sampalis
Samford Wong
Lyubov Lytvyn
Sue Plummer
Bengt Klarin
Hania Szajewska
Deniz Güney Duman
Johnston, Bradley C.
Lytvyn, Lyubov
Lo, Calvin Ka-Fung
Allen, Stephen J.
Wang, Duolao
Szajewska, Hania
Miller, Mark
Ehrhardt, Stephan
Sampalis, John
Duman, Deniz G.
Pozzoni, Pietro
Colli, Agostino
Lonnermark, Elisabet
Selinger, Christian P.
Wong, Samford
Plummer, Susan
Hickson, Mary
Pancheva, Ruzha
Hirsch, Sandra
Klarin, Bengt
Goldenberg, Joshua Z.
Wang, Li
Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
Foster, Gary
Maw, Anna
Sadeghirad, Behnam
Thabane, Lehana
Mertz, Dominik
Source :
Infection control and hospital epidemiology. 39(7)
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

OBJECTIVETo determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds ofClostridium difficileinfection (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 Epidemiol2018;771–781

Details

ISSN :
15596834 and 0899823X
Volume :
39
Issue :
7
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Infection control and hospital epidemiology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....20757c443fc47657ba317c50cd029de7