1.
Effects of Probiotics in Adults with Gastroenteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.
Mitra, AK, Asala, AF, Malone, S, Mridha, MK
Diseases (Basel, Switzerland). 2023;11(4)
-
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Gastroenteritis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally and symptoms can range from mild to life-threatening. Some studies have suggested benefits of probiotics in the treatment of gastroenteritis in children whilst in adults, results are inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of probiotics on acute and chronic gastroenteritis in adults. 35 clinical trials were included in the systematic review and 22 in the meta-analysis. Of these, 23 dealt with inflammatory bowel disease, 5 with pouchitis, 3 with antibiotic-induced diarrhoea, 2 with Helicobacter pylori infection and one each with diverticulitis and acute watery diarrhoea. 27 (77%) of studies showed some benefits of probiotic administration. The meta-analysis of 22 studies did not show a statistically significant benefit of probiotics. Although statistical analysis showed the studies to be homogenous, the authors point out that studies differed widely in aetiologies and probiotics used. A subgroup analysis of 8 studies in patients with ulcerative colitis also showed no benefit. In all studies, probiotics were well tolerated and no adverse side effects were reported. The authors concluded that further research is needed to help identify the most appropriate use of probiotics for the different types of gastroenteritis.
Expert Review
Conflicts of interest:
None
Take Home Message:
- For chronic inflammatory gastroenteritis conditions in adults, probiotics were effective in treating and preventing relapse
- In ulcerative colitis, probiotics were not effective and adverse events outweighed the benefits
- No safety concerns were found for probiotic use in any studies
- Aetiologies, disease severity and duration as well as the type of probiotics used were widely diverse.
Evidence Category:
-
X
A: Meta-analyses, position-stands, randomized-controlled trials (RCTs)
-
B: Systematic reviews including RCTs of limited number
-
C: Non-randomized trials, observational studies, narrative reviews
-
D: Case-reports, evidence-based clinical findings
-
E: Opinion piece, other
Summary Review:
Introduction
To date, evidence has been mixed for probiotic effectiveness in gastrointestinal syndromes associated with gastroenteritis. The aim of this study was to review current evidence on the effect of probiotics on gastroenteritis in adults.
Methods
This was a systematic review (n=35; total sample size 4577, median 44) and meta-analysis (n=22) of randomised controlled trials. Quality was assessed using CADIMA as per a rating scale (0 to 4) and standards of critical appraisal.
Results
All 35 studies on gastroenteritis included participants with chronic diarrhoea of diverse aetiologies such as IBD, antibiotic-associated, except one which had acute watery diarrhoea.
51% (n=18) of studies assessed the effects of probiotics in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). 60% (n=21) used multiple strains of probiotics while the rest used single strains. Lactobacilli, Bifidobacteria, Escherichia and Streptococcus were the most common and only a few studies administered probiotics with another conventional treatment.
19 studies (55%) rated highly in terms of quality while 15 (43%) scored moderately. The majority (63%) of the 27 studies where probiotics were shown to be effective were of high quality.
Systematic review results:
- 27/53 studies (77%) showed a favourable response after using probiotics (resolution, improvement, remission or no relapse), mostly in patients with IBDs
- 7 studies (20%) found probiotics to be ineffective
- 1 study was inconclusive
- Multiple strain probiotics (VSL #3) was found to be most effective in IBD
- All administered probiotics were well tolerated with no adverse side effects although caution in immunocompromised patients was mentioned in several studies.
The meta-analysis results:
- Overall effectiveness for 22 studies (p=0.37) highlighted there was not enough evidence that the intervention was more protective than controls.
- Probiotics were not effective in UC (p = 0.28), and adverse events caused by probiotics may outweigh the benefits in studies with UC patients.
Conclusion
While benefits of effectiveness were found for probiotic use in gastroenteritis in adults, results from the systematic review and meta-analysis showed a mixed effect.
Clinical practice applications:
- Based on the systematic review, probiotics may be an effective treatment or adjuvant treatment for gastroenteritis but ineffective for around 20% of patients
- It is worth noting that combined therapy with standard treatment showed effective results
- Beneficial effects of probiotics in other key clinical outcomes including disease prevention, relapse, quality of life, morbidity were found
- While the results are interesting it is difficult to apply them in practice as the type of probiotics used were widely different as were the causes, severity and duration of gastroenteritis.
Considerations for future research:
- Further and larger studies would be beneficial to understand the benefits of probiotics in terms of single therapy or in combination with standard treatment particularly for UC, CDs, gastroenteritis not due to viral infection
- Individual-level data instead of aggregated data could give a better idea of effectiveness of probiotics in the future
- In this study aetiologies and the type, dosage, duration of probiotics used were widely diverse therefore systematic reviews and meta-analysis on specific conditions, specific probiotic strains and combinations would be beneficial.
Abstract
Probiotics have been widely used in gastroenteritis due to acute and chronic illnesses. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of probiotics in different health conditions is inconclusive and conflicting. The aim of this study was to review the existing literature on the effects of probiotics on gastroenteritis among adults. Only original articles on clinical trials that demonstrated the effects of probiotics in adults with gastroenteritis were used for this analysis. Multiple databases, such as PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE and Scopus databases, were searched for the data. The study followed standard procedures for data extraction using a PRISMA flow chart. A quality appraisal of the selected studies was conducted using CADIMA. Finally, a meta-analysis was performed. Thirty-five articles met the selection criteria; of them, probiotics were found effective in the treatment and/or prevention of chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease in 17 (49%), and the treatment of pouchitis in 4 (11.4%), antibiotic-induced diarrhea in 3 (8.6%), Helicobacter pylori infection in 2 (5.7%) and diverticulitis in 1 (2.9%), while the remaining 7 (20%) were ineffective, and 1 study's results were inconclusive. The meta-analysis did not demonstrate any significant protective effects of probiotics. Having a τ2 value of zero and I2 of 6%, the studies were homogeneous and had minimum variances. Further studies are suggested to evaluate the beneficial effects of probiotics in IBDs and other chronic bowel diseases.
2.
The anxiolytic effect of probiotics: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical and preclinical literature.
Reis, DJ, Ilardi, SS, Punt, SEW
PloS one. 2018;13(6):e0199041
-
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The microbiome-gut-brain axis in general and the possibility of altering the microbiome through administration of probiotics to support physical and mental health has received much attention in recent years. Here, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to evaluate the clinical and preclinical evidence for the use of probiotics in anxiety. 22 preclinical (rodent) studies were included in the meta-analysis and showed an overall significant anxiolytic effect of probiotics in diseased, but not healthy, animals. Studies were heterogenous with regards to species and strains of probiotic used. Subgroup analysis showed that only Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced anxiety-like behaviour. 14 human studies were included in the meta-analysis and overall no anxiolytic effect was observed. Only three out of the 14 studies showed a positive effect (vs 12 out of the 22 animal studies), one of which used L. rhamnosus. Due to the small number of trials no subgroup analysis could be performed. Apart from the small number and heterogeneity of human studies, the authors discuss further possible reasons for the discrepancy between animal and human studies: • Dose: Dosages were typically 100 times higher (per kg) in animals than in humans. • Diseased vs healthy subjects: In animal studies, only those which investigated animals displaying anxiety related behaviour improved with probiotic administration. None of the human studies specifically recruited anxious individuals, eight of the studies included healthy subjects, the other six selected participants for other disorders, including four for irritable bowel syndrome. The authors conclude that more research into an anxiolytic effect of probiotics in humans is warranted, especially using L. rhamnosus, studying patients with anxiety, and using higher dosages and longer study duration.
Expert Review
Conflicts of interest:
None
Take Home Message:
- While preclinical animal studies suggest that probiotics may help reduce anxiety, such findings have not yet translated to clinical research in humans.
- Further investigation of probiotic treatment for clinically relevant anxiety is warranted, particularly with respect to the probiotic species L. rhamnosus.
Evidence Category:
-
X
A: Meta-analyses, position-stands, randomized-controlled trials (RCTs)
-
B: Systematic reviews including RCTs of limited number
-
C: Non-randomized trials, observational studies, narrative reviews
-
D: Case-reports, evidence-based clinical findings
-
E: Opinion piece, other
Summary Review:
This review highlights how important it is for future studies to focus on clinically anxious patients and also to consider exploring the effects of differing doses of probiotics in this population.
Clinical practice applications:
Anxiety disorders affect as many as 3 in 10 people at some point during their lifetime. On that basis, it would be great to have a viable non-pharmaceutical option to help with some of the symptoms.
Considerations for future research:
If the results from the pre-clinical studies can be corroborated in human populations, this could have widespread clinical implications.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Probiotics have generated intensive research interest in recent years as a novel mode of treatment for physical and mental illness. Nevertheless, the anxiolytic potential of probiotics remains unclear. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical and preclinical (animal model) evidence regarding the effect of probiotic administration on anxiety. METHODS The PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were reviewed for preclinical and clinical studies that met the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The effects of probiotics on anxiety-like behavior and symptoms of anxiety were analyzed by meta-analyses. Separate subgroup analyses were conducted on diseased versus healthy animals, specific preclinical probiotic species, and clinical versus healthy human samples. RESULTS Data were extracted from 22 preclinical studies (743 animals) and 14 clinical studies (1527 individuals). Overall, probiotics reduced anxiety-like behavior in animals (Hedges' g = -0.47, 95% CI -0.77 --0.16, p = 0.004). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant reduction only among diseased animals. Probiotic species-level analyses identified only Lactobacillus (L.) rhamnosus as an anxiolytic species, but these analyses were broadly under-powered. Probiotics did not significantly reduce symptoms of anxiety in humans (Hedges' g = -0.12, 95% CI -0.29-0.05, p = 0.151), and did not differentially affect clinical and healthy human samples. CONCLUSIONS While preclinical (animal) studies suggest that probiotics may help reduce anxiety, such findings have not yet translated to clinical research in humans, perhaps due to the dearth of extant research with clinically anxious populations. Further investigation of probiotic treatment for clinically relevant anxiety is warranted, particularly with respect to the probiotic species L. rhamnosus.