Efficacy of synbiotic supplementation in obesity treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Understanding the Role of the Gut Microbiome and Microbial Metabolites in Obesity and Obesity-Associated Metabolic Disorders: Current Evidence and Perspectives

PURPOSE

In this review, we summarize current evidence on the gut microbiome and microbial metabolites in relation to obesity and obesity-associated metabolic disorders. Special emphasis is given on mechanisms interconnecting gut microbiome and microbial metabolites with metabolic disorders as well as on potential preventive and therapeutic perspectives with a "bench to bedside" approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data have highlighted the role of gut dysbiosis in the etiology and pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Overall, most studies have demonstrated a reduction in gut microbiome diversity and richness in obese subjects, but there is still much debate on the exact microbial signature of a healthy or an obese gut microbiome. Despite the controversial role of an altered gut microbiome as a cause or consequence of obesity in human studies, numerous animal studies and certain human studies suggest beneficial metabolic effects of certain microbial intestinal metabolites, such as butyrate, that could be used in the prevention and treatment of obesity and its comorbidities. More randomized controlled trials and larger prospective studies including well-defined cohorts as well as a multi-omics approach are warranted to better identify the associations between the gut microbiome, microbial metabolites, and obesity and its metabolic complications.

Efficacy of synbiotic supplementation in obesity treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Several investigations have been reported the beneficial effects of synbiotic in participants with obesity, but these findings have been inconsistent. Therefore, we systematically reviewed available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to elucidate the overall effects of synbiotic supplementation on anthropometric indices among participants with overweight or obesity. Five electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched up to October 2018. All RCTs using synbiotic supplements to treat obesity included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was pooled using a random-effects model. The present meta-analysis of 23 randomized trials indicated that supplementation with synbiotic can decrease body weight (WMD: -0.80 kg; 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.03, p = 0.04) and WC (WMD: -2.07 cm; 95% CI: -3.11 to -1.03, p < 0.001). In contrast, synbiotic did not have favorite effects on BMI (WMD: -0.12 kg/m²; 95% CI: -0.40 to 0.16, p = 0.39) and body fat (WMD: 0.02%; 95% CI: -1.27 to 1.87, p = 0.74) compared with the placebo group. Meta-regression analyses revealed that the dosage of probiotic did not have any effect on anthropometric measures. Based on our findings, modulation of gut microbiota composition through synbiotic supplementation might have modest effects on body weight and waist circumference. In this field, however, our knowledge is progressing.

Harms Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions Aimed at Modifying Microbiota: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics are used increasingly, although the safety and potential harms of these interventions are poorly understood.

PURPOSE

To examine how harms-related information is reported in publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (without language restrictions) from 1 January 2015 to 20 March 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs assessing the safety or efficacy of at least 1 intervention involving probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics alone or in combination with another intervention compared with any control (such as a placebo or an antibiotic) for any clinical condition.

DATA EXTRACTION

4 reviewers independently assessed study characteristics, the reporting of harms, and the presentation of safety results.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 384 trials conducted in healthy volunteers (n = 136) or patients with any of several medical conditions (n = 248), 339 (88%) were published in specialty journals. Trials most often evaluated probiotics (n = 265 [69%]). Studies in persons with medical conditions enrolled outpatients (n = 195) and high-risk patients (n = 53). No harms-related data were reported for 106 trials (28%), safety results were not reported for 142 (37%), and the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) per study group was not given for 309 (80%). Of 242 studies mentioning harms-related results, 37% (n = 89) used only generic statements to describe AEs and 16% (n = 38) used inadequate metrics. Overall, 375 trials (98%) did not give a definition for AEs or SAEs, the number of participant withdrawals due to harms, or the number of AEs and SAEs per study group with denominators.

LIMITATION

Journal publication processes may have affected the completeness of reporting; only English-language publications were examined.

CONCLUSION

Harms reporting in published reports of RCTs assessing probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics often is lacking or inadequate. We cannot broadly conclude that these interventions are safe without reporting safety data.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

No specific funding.