Faculty Opinions recommendation of Systematic review with meta-analysis: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in children and adults.

Author(s):  
Sunit Singhi
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (33) ◽  
pp. 4999-5016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ya-Ting Li ◽  
Hong Xu ◽  
Jian-Zhong Ye ◽  
Wen-Rui Wu ◽  
Ding Shi ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (11) ◽  
pp. 1376-1384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hania Szajewska ◽  
Maciej Kołodziej ◽  
Dorota Gieruszczak-Białek ◽  
Agata Skórka ◽  
Marek Ruszczyński ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (11) ◽  
pp. 5349-5374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiong-Li Fan ◽  
Xiu-Mei Yu ◽  
Quan-Xing Liu ◽  
Wang Yang ◽  
Qin Chang ◽  
...  

Objective Probiotics may be efficacious in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to clarify the efficacy of different types of probiotics for preventing VAP. Methods This systematic review and NMA was conducted according to the updated preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search of public databases from inception to 17 June 2018 was performed. Results NMA showed that “ Bifidobacterium longum +  Lactobacillus bulgaricus +  Streptococcus thermophiles” was more efficacious than “ Ergyphilus” in preventing VAP (odds ratio: 0.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.94). According to pairwise meta-analysis, “ B. longum + L. bulgaricus +  S. thermophiles” and “ Lactobacillus rhamnosus” were superior to placebo in preventing VAP. Treatment rank based on surface under the cumulative ranking curves revealed that the most efficacious treatment for preventing VAP was “ B. longum +  L. bulgaricus +  S. thermophiles” (66%). In terms of reducing hospital mortality and ICU mortality, the most efficacious treatment was Synbiotic 2000FORTE (34% and 46%, respectively). Conclusions Based on efficacy ranking, “ B. longum +  L. bulgaricus +  S. thermophiles” should be the first choice for prevention of VAP, while Synbiotic 2000FORTE has the potential to reduce in-hospital mortality and ICU mortality.


2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 1212-1221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marisel Segarra-Newnham

Objective: To review the literature on the use of probiotics to treat or prevent recurrences of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) by replacing normal gastric flora. Data Sources: PubMed (1970–March 2007) was searched using the terms probiotics, Clostridium difficile, colitis, diarrhea, prevention, and treatment. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Case reports, case series, and clinical trials describing the use of probiotics in the treatment or prevention of recurrences of CDAD as primary outcome were included. Data Synthesis: A variety of controlled trials, case series, and case reports have evaluated probiotics to treat first or recurrent episodes of CDAD. In addition, a meta-analysis has been conducted to try to determine the rote of probiotics in CDAD. In general, most case series and case reports have shown favorable results with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG or Saccharomyces boulardii. However, other reports have shown lack of benefit. The meta-analysis showed that these probiotics may be useful in treating or preventing recurrences of CDAD. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of the studies makes definite conclusions difficult. In addition, several cases of bacteremia or fungemia associated with probiotic use have been reported, particularly in the last decade. Patients most commonly affected by these complications are immunosuppressed. Unfortunately, these are also the patients more likely to have severe CDAD or are at risk for recurrences. Conclusions: Additional experience with and study of probiotics are warranted due to numerous unanswered questions. Given the potential for complications in debilitated and immunosuppressed patients, the risks may outweigh benefits, and rational antibiotic use may be a better option to prevent a first episode or recurrence of CDAD.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hauna Sheyholislami ◽  
Kristin L. Connor

AbstractProbiotic and prebiotic products are increasingly popular due to their potential health benefits, including in pregnancy where probiotic supplementation has been associated with prevention of gestational diabetes and mastitis. The incidence of adverse effects in pregnant people and their infants associated with probiotic, prebiotic and/or synbiotic product intake, however, remains unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the evidence on adverse effects of maternal probiotic, prebiotic and/or synbiotic supplementation before and during pregnancy and lactation and interpret the findings to help inform clinical decision-making and care of pre-pregnant, pregnant and lactating people. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Scientific databases were searched using pre-determined terms, and risk of bias assessments were conducted to determine study quality. Inclusion criteria were English language studies, human studies, access to full-text, and probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic supplementation to the mother and not the infant. 11/70 eligible studies reported adverse effects and were eligible for inclusion in quantitative analysis, and data were visualised in a GOfER diagram. Probiotic and prebiotic products are safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. Only one study reported increased risk of vaginal discharge and changes in stool consistence (Relative Risk [95% CI]: 3.67 [1.04, 12.2]) when administering Lactobacillus rhamnosus and L. reuteri. Adverse effects associated with probiotic and prebiotic use do not pose any serious health concerns to mother or infant. Our findings and knowledge translation visualisations provide healthcare professionals and consumers with information to make evidence-informed decisions about the use of pre- and probiotics.


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.V. McFarland

Meta-analyses are used to evaluate pooled effects of a wide variety of investigational agents, but the interpretation of the results into clinical practices may be difficult. This mini-review offers a three-step process to enable healthcare providers to decipher pooled meta-analysis estimates into results that are useful for therapeutic decisions. As an example of how meta-analyses should be interpreted, a recent meta-analysis of probiotics for the prevention of paediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) and the prevention of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) will be used. First, the pooled results of this meta-analysis indicates a significant protective efficacy for AAD is found when the 16 different types of probiotics are combined (pooled relative risk (RR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.33-0.56) and also a significant reduction of paediatric CDI (pooled RR=0.34, 95%CI=0.16-0.74) was found pooling four different types of probiotics. Secondly, because the efficacy of probiotics is strain-specific, it is necessary to do a sensitivity analysis, restricting the meta-analysis to one specific strain. Two strains, Saccharomyces boulardii lyo and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG showed significant efficacy for paediatric AAD when pooled (pooled RR for S. boulardii = 0.43, 95%CI=0.21-0.86 and pooled RR for L. rhamnosus GG = 0.44, 95%CI=0.20-0.95). Thirdly, if studies within probiotic types have different results, it is prudent to examine these studies individually to determine the reasons why non-significant differences in efficacy were found. By drilling down through these three analytic layers, physicians will be confident in recommending the correct probiotic strain to their patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document