1.
Effects of Probiotics on Autism Spectrum Disorder in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.
He, X, Liu, W, Tang, F, Chen, X, Song, G
Nutrients. 2023;15(6)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain and is characterized by a series of neurodevelopmental disorders, including language and social disorders, restricted interests, and repetitive stereotyped activities. The aim of this study was to explore whether probiotics could improve the overall severity of ASD symptoms in children. This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven studies. Results showed that probiotic supplementation did not improve the associated behavioural symptoms in children with ASD. However, multiple-strain probiotic blend intervention exhibited a positive therapeutic effect on children with ASD and was more effective than single-strain probiotics in subgroup analyses. Authors concluded that to demonstrate the therapeutic effects of probiotics on children with ASD, randomised, double-blind, and placebo-controlled studies following strict trial guidelines are needed.
Abstract
Many studies have explored the efficacy of probiotics on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children, but there is no consensus on the curative effect. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively investigate whether probiotics could improve behavioral symptoms in children with ASD. A systematic database search was conducted and a total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. We found a nonsignificant overall effect size of probiotics on behavioral symptoms in children with ASD (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.60 to 0.11, p = 0.18). However, a significant overall effect size was found in the subgroup of the probiotic blend (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.02, p = 0.04). Additionally, these studies provided limited evidence for the efficacy of probiotics due to their small sample sizes, a shorter intervention duration, different probiotics used, different scales used, and poor research quality. Thus, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled studies following strict trial guidelines are needed to precisely demonstrate the therapeutic effects of probiotics on ASD in children.
2.
Comparative analysis of the efficacies of probiotic supplementation and glucose-lowering drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Liang, T, Xie, X, Wu, L, Li, L, Yang, L, Gao, H, Deng, Z, Zhang, X, Chen, X, Zhang, J, et al
Frontiers in nutrition. 2022;9:825897
-
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a serious medical condition often requiring antidiabetic drug management. Although commonly used antidiabetic drugs effectively control glucose levels, their tolerability profiles differ, causing various side effects. Probiotics can be used as single or multi strains to reduce glycaemic and lipid indicators and avoid the negative effects of antidiabetic medications. The study included twenty-five randomised controlled trials, of which fourteen studies assessed the effectiveness of probiotics (single probiotics, multi-strain probiotics, and probiotics with co-supplements), and eleven studies included different antidiabetic drugs such as Thiazolidinedione (TZD), Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), Dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP-4i), and Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i). This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of probiotic and antidiabetic drugs on glycaemia, lipid profile and blood pressure in T2D patients. Probiotics were less effective than specific antidiabetic drugs in reducing fasting blood sugar levels (FBS), HbA1c levels, and triglycerides. Different probiotic formulations were effective in reducing the HOMA-IR index, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and systolic and diastolic pressure (SBP and DBP). A subgroup analysis showed a greater reduction in FBS, HbA1c, TC, TG, and SBP in obese and elderly participants, those who participated for a longer duration, and those from Eastern origins. Considering the high heterogeneity in baseline study characteristics among the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, further studies are required to evaluate the effects of probiotics and antidiabetic drugs. However, healthcare professionals can use the study to understand the effect of probiotics and antidiabetic drugs in reducing glycaemic, lipid and hypertension profiles.
Expert Review
Conflicts of interest:
None
Take Home Message:
- Glucose-lowering drugs, except for DPP-4i, reduced FBS and HbA1c more than probiotics; and SGLT-2i induced the greatest decrease in HbA1c
- A BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 showed a significant decrease in FBS and the HOMA-IR index compared with those with lower BMI
- Weight loss induced by glucose-lowering drugs and probiotic supplementation plays an important role in glycaemic control in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.
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
This meta-analysis compared the effects of probiotics and glucose-lowering drugs thiazolidinedione [TZD], glucagon-like pep-tide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RA], dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors [SGLT-2i]) on various outcome measures in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Methods
A search was performed on PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane Library between January 2015 - April 2021.
Results
25 randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included (2843 participants). 14 RCTs (842 participants) involved the administration of single probiotics, multi-strain probiotics, and probiotics with co-supplements, and 11 RCTs (2001 participants) involved TZD, GLP-1 RA, SGLT-2i, and DPP-4i. Participants in 7 of the studies had T2D, aged ≤ 55 years old. 8 RCTs included participants with a mean BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, and 11 RCTs participants had a mean BMI < 30 kg/m2.
Effects of probiotics:
- Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS): A reduction (−1.42, −0.32 mg/dL, p=0.000)
- Glycated hemaglobin (HbA1c): No reduction (p = 0.000)
- Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR): A decrease (−0.64, −0.31; p = 0.780), regardless of probiotic strain or with a co-supplement
- Insulin: Not significant (p = 0.000). Subgroup analysis: no reduction
- Total Cholesterol (TC): No difference (p = 0.941). Subgroup analysis: reduction from multi-species probiotics (−0.36, −0.01 mg/dL, p = 0.871)
- Triglycerides: Difference (−0.25 mg/dL, p = 0.958)
- LDL-C: No changes (p = 0.189)
- HDL-C: No increase (p = 0.014)
- Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): A decrease (−6.44, −0.08 mmHg, p = 0.044)
- Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): A reduction (−4.53, −0.80 mmHg, p = 0.206).
Effects of glucose-lowering drugs:
- FBS: A decrease (−4.22 mg/dL, −1.24 mg/dL, p = 0.000)
- HbA1c: A decrease (−2.51%, −0.52%, p = 0.000) with TZD, GLP-1 RA, SGLT-2i, and DPP- 4i; a reduction with SGLT-2i (p = 0.003)
- TC: No difference (p = 0.000). Subgroup: no decrease with single species probiotics and probiotics with co-supplements, TZD, GLP-1 RA, and DPP-4i)
- TG: No difference (p = 0.000)
- . HDL-C: No increase (p = 0.000). Subgroup: a decrease with TZDs (−2.37, −0.72 mg/dL). No difference with probiotic strains, or probiotics with co-supplements, GLP-1 RA, and DPP-4i
- LDL-C: No changes (p = 0.000), Subgroups: no difference with probiotic strains, probiotics with co-supplements, TZD, GLP-1 RA, and DPP-4i).
Limitations
Limited number of studies for TZD and SGLT-2i, making results potentially unreliable.
Conclusions
Multi species probiotics are worth considering as an adjunct to glucose-lowering drugs, and for improving lipid profiles and hypertension.
Clinical practice applications:
- Probiotic supplementation reduced the HOMA-IR index
- Multi-species probiotics were associated with reduction in TC and TG levels
- DPP-4i only decreased TG levels
- TZD was associated with decrease in HDL-C, whereas probiotic supplementation was associated with higher decrease in SBP and DBP and that GLP-1 RA increases the risk of hypoglycaemia.
Considerations for future research:
- Semaglutide was associated with an increased risk for hypoglycaemia compared with a placebo, indicating that the safety of semaglutide needs further study
- Dietary and physical activity should be considered in future studies
- Heterogeneity in some indicators may be due to differences in study baseline characteristics,Larger trials needed to support the results of this meta-analysis.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of probiotics and glucose-lowering drugs (thiazolidinedione [TZD], glucagon-like pep-tide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RA], dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors [SGLT-2i]) in patients with type 2 diabetes from randomized con-trolled trials (RCTs). The PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched on the treatment effects of probiotics and glucose-lowering drugs on glycemia, lipids, and blood pressure metabolism published between Jan 2015 and April 2021. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We included 25 RCTs (2,843 participants). Overall, GLP-1RA, SGLT-2i, and TZD significantly reduce fasting blood sugar (FBS) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), whereas GLP-1 RA increased the risk of hypoglycaemia. Multispecies probiotics decrease FBS, total cholesterol (TC), and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Moreover, subgroup analyses indicated that participants aged >55 years, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, longer duration of intervention, and subjects from Eastern countries, showed significantly higher reduction in FBS and HbA1c, TC, TG and SBP. This meta-analysis revealed that including multiple probiotic rather than glucose-lowering drugs might be more beneficial regarding T2D prevention who suffering from simultaneously hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension.
3.
Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiological studies.
Chen, X, Zhang, Z, Yang, H, Qiu, P, Wang, H, Wang, F, Zhao, Q, Fang, J, Nie, J
Nutrition journal. 2020;19(1):86
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Unhealthy diets are recognized as a major determinant of the occurrence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The aim of this study was to summarize the evidence for the association between ultra-processed food (UPFs) consumption and health outcomes. This study is a systemic review of 20 published epidemiological studies (12 cohort and 8 cross-sectional studies), with a total of 334,114 participants and 10 diseases. Results indicate a positive association between UPFs consumption and risk of all-cause mortality, overall cardiovascular diseases, coronary heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, overweight and obesity, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, overall cancer, postmenopausal breast cancer, gestational obesity, adolescent asthma and wheezing, and frailty. However, on the contrary, there was not an obvious association with cardiovascular disease mortality, prostate and colorectal cancer, gestational diabetes mellitus and gestational overweight. Authors conclude that their findings encouraged a decrease in UPFs consumption and an increase in the proportion of unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as fruits and vegetables.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) plays a potential role in the development of obesity and other diet-related noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), but no studies have systematically focused on this. This study aimed to summarize the evidence for the association between UPFs consumption and health outcomes. METHODS A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify all relevant studies. Epidemiological studies were included, and identified studies were evaluated for risk of bias.A narrative review of the synthesized findings was provided to assess the association between UPFs consumption and health outcomes. RESULTS 20 studies (12 cohort and 8 cross-sectional studies) were included in the analysis, with a total of 334,114 participants and 10 health outcomes. In a narrative review, high UPFs consumption was obviously associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, overall cardiovascular diseases, coronary heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, overweight and obesity, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, overall cancer, postmenopausal breast cancer, gestational obesity, adolescent asthma and wheezing, and frailty. It showed no significant association with cardiovascular disease mortality, prostate and colorectal cancers, gestational diabetes mellitus and gestational overweight. CONCLUSIONS This study indicated a positive association between UPFs consumption and risk of several health outcomes. Large-scale prospective designed studies are needed to confirm our findings.
4.
Probiotics for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Huang, R, Ning, H, Shen, M, Li, J, Zhang, J, Chen, X
Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology. 2017;7:392
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
It is estimated that atopic dermatitis (AD) affects around 10-20% of children. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the evidence for using probiotics for the treatment of AD in children. 13 randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included in the review, all but one were of a double-blind design. They included a total of 1070 children, 553 receiving probiotics and 517 controls. Overall, a beneficial effect of probiotics in AD was observed. Subgroup analysis showed a) positive results in children aged 1-18 years, but probiotics being ineffective in infants younger than 1 year; b) probiotics reduced AD in Asian, but not European studies, and c) certain strains proved beneficial (Lactobacillus salivarius, Lactobacillus fermentum and a multi-strain probiotic), whilst Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Lactobacillus plantarum showed no effect. The authors discuss that their meta-analysis is limited by the heterogeneity among the trials and inclusion of studies with small sample sizes. They conclude that probiotics may be of benefit in children with AD but that more adequately powered trials assessing specific probiotics and dosages are needed, to inform the best treatment protocols.
Abstract
Objective: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent, burdensome, and psychologically important pediatric concern. Probiotics have been suggested as a treatment for AD. Some reports have explored this topic; however, the utility of probiotics for AD remains to be firmly established. Methods: To assess the effects of probiotics on AD in children, the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library Scopus, and OVID databases were searched for reports published in the English language. Results: Thirteen studies were identified. Significantly higher SCORAD values favoring probiotics over controls were observed (mean difference [MD], -3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.12 to -0.03; P < 0.001). The reported efficacy of probiotics in children < 1 year old was -1.03 (95%CI, -7.05 to 4.99) and that in children 1-18 years old was -4.50 (95%CI, -7.45 to -1.54; P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that in Europe, SCORAD revealed no effect of probiotics, whereas significantly lower SCORAD values were reported in Asia (MD, -5.39; 95%CI, -8.91 to -1.87). Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (MD, 3.29; 95%CI, -0.30 to 6.88; P = 0.07) and Lactobacillus plantarum (MD, -0.70; 95%CI, -2.30 to 0.90; P = 0.39) showed no significant effect on SCORAD values in children with AD. However, Lactobacillus fermentum (MD, -11.42; 95%CI, -13.81 to -9.04), Lactobacillus salivarius (MD, -7.21; 95%CI, -9.63 to -4.78), and a mixture of different strains (MD, -3.52; 95%CI, -5.61 to -1.44) showed significant effects on SCORAD values in children with AD. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicated that the research to date has not robustly shown that probiotics are beneficial for children with AD. However, caution is needed when generalizing our results, as the populations evaluated were heterogeneous. Randomized controlled trials with larger samples and greater power are necessary to identify the species, dose, and treatment duration of probiotics that are most efficacious for treating AD in children.