Probiotics to prevent infantile colic

Effects of a nine-strain bacterial synbiotic compared to simethicone in colicky babies - an open-label randomised study

The aim of the study was to determine effects of administration of simethicone and a multi-strain synbiotic on the crying behaviour of colicky babies. The study design consisted of an open-label, two parallel treatment group study involving 87 infants aged 3-6 weeks with infantile colic (defined as crying episodes lasting 3 or more hours per day and occurring at least 3 days per week within 3 weeks prior to enrolment) randomly, unequally [1:1.5] assigned to receive simethicone (n=33) or a multi-strain synbiotic (n=54) orally for 4 weeks. The multi-strain synbiotic contained Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-14, Lacticaseibacillus casei R0215, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei Lp-115, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG, Ligilactobacillus salivarius Ls-33, Bifidobacterium lactis Bl-04, Bifidobacterium bifidum R0071, Bifidobacterium longum R0175 and fructooligosaccharides). Primary outcome measures were the responder rates (effect ≥50% reduction from baseline) of the measures 'crying days last 3 weeks', 'average evening crying duration last 3 weeks' and 'reduction of average number of crying phases per day last three weeks' at the end of treatment. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT04487834. Significantly higher responder rates (effect ≥50% reduction from baseline) of the multi-strain synbiotic compared to simethicone were found for the measures 'crying days last 3 weeks' (72% vs 18%, P<0.0001) and 'average evening crying duration last 3 weeks' (85% vs 39%, P=0.0001). No significant difference was found for the measure 'reduction of average number of crying phases per day last three weeks' (50% vs 42%, P=0.4852). No adverse effects were reported for the two treatment groups. Based on these results, the multi-strain synbiotic can be considered as an interesting therapeutic possibility for the treatment of infantile colic, worthwhile to be investigated further in non-clinical and clinical studies.

Parent training programmes for managing infantile colic

BACKGROUND

Infantile colic has an effect on both infants and their parents, who become exhausted and concerned as they attempt to comfort their child. Common approaches have focused upon physical treatments to reduce symptoms, with inconclusive evidence as to their effectiveness. An alternative approach seeks to provide training, support and psychological interventions for parents. This approach is known as parent training programmes. Programmes can include soothing techniques, advice on feeding or normalisation material in any form. The teaching format can vary including face-to-face courses, online learning, printed materials, home visits and remote support and counselling. Here, we aim to collate the evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions and examine their effectiveness at reducing infantile colic symptoms and parental anxiety levels, and their safety.

OBJECTIVES

1. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parent training programmes for managing colic in infants under four months of age. 2. To identify the educational content and attributes of such published programmes.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers. We also handsearched conference abstracts, inspected the references of included studies and contacted leaders in the field for more trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the effectiveness of any form of parental training programmes, alone or in combination, versus another intervention(s) or control, on infantile colic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias within the included studies. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse the data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search found 6064 records from which we selected 20 for full-text review. From these, we identified seven studies with 1187 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All of the studies included infants under the age of four months suffering from infantile colic. Four studies were conducted in the USA, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands and one in Iran. Four studies stated their funding sources, which included national research institutes, foundations and nutritional companies. Five studies assessed parent training versus a control group that received reassurance or routine care; and of these, one study was three-armed and also examined the effectiveness of using a specialised baby seat. One study examined parent training programmes against a milk-exclusion diet and one study assessed a parent training programme versus the same parent training programme plus swaddling. The duration of the interventions varied, with the shortest being six days and the longest being three months. Generally, most studies had low participant numbers and were at high risk of bias, prone to selection bias, performance bias, and the placebo effect. We could not complete the planned qualitative analysis (objective 2) due to lack of data in study reports and no further information being supplied by authors on request. Instead, we completed a descriptive content analysis with the limited information available. The parent training interventions were found to focus on one or a combination of the following: soothing techniques for crying infants (six studies); general care advice, including sleep (four studies); feeding advice (two studies); stress reduction and empathic programme for parents (two studies); and positive play interaction advice (one study). One study taught 'kangaroo care', a specific form of skin-to-skin cuddling. The control groups consisted of reassurance (two studies), advice to rock the infant in the crib (one study), or no intervention (two studies). Parent training versus control We conducted a meta-analysis using data from three studies (157 infants) that assessed the primary outcome of 'crying time at completion of study period'. Parent training was more effective than control: mean difference (MD) -113.58 m/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) -144.19 m/d to -82.96 m/d; low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to imprecision and some concerns with risk of bias). Parent training versus specialised baby seat One study (38 participants) found no difference in mean crying time at completion between the parent training group and the specialised baby seat group, but did not report specific figures. Parent training versus a milk-exclusion/soy milk formula One study (20 participants) comparing parent training with a milk-exclusion/soy milk formula found crying time at completion of the study to be 2.03 hours versus 1.08 hours, respectively. Parent training versus parent training plus swaddling One study (398 participants) comparing parental training with the same intervention plus training on how to swaddle an infant did not report separate data for each group. No adverse effects were reported, but these were not explicitly reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of parent training programmes for managing infantile colic. Despite a single meta-analysis showing that parent training may reduce crying times for infants, compared to control, the certainty of the evidence was low. Evidence for other comparisons was sparse. We were unable to identify comprehensively the educational content and attributes of the included programmes due to a lack of information in study reports. Further RCTs are needed: they should define interventions clearly to ensure replicability, address all appropriate outcome measures, and minimise risk of bias in order to assess definitively the role of parent training programmes in managing infantile colic.

Probiotics to prevent infantile colic

BACKGROUND

Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Infantile colic affects a large number of infants and their families worldwide. Its symptoms are broad and general, and while not indicative of disease, may represent a serious underlying condition in a small percentage of infants who may need a medical assessment. Probiotics are live microorganisms that alter the microflora of the host and provide beneficial health effects. The most common probiotics used are of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus. There is growing evidence to suggest that intestinal flora in colicky infants differ from those in healthy infants, and it is suggested that probiotics can redress this balance and provide a healthier intestinal microbiota landscape. The low cost and easy availability of probiotics makes them a potential prophylactic solution to reduce the incidence and prevalence of infantile colic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic probiotics in preventing or reducing severity of infantile colic.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 10 other databases and two trials registers. In addition, we handsearched the abstracts of relevant meetings, searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies, and contacted authors and experts in the field, including the manufacturers of probiotics, to identify unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCTs) of newborn infants less than one month of age without the diagnosis of infantile colic at recruitment. We included any probiotic, alone or in combination with a prebiotic (also known as synbiotics), versus no intervention, another intervention(s) or placebo, where the focus of the study was the effect of the intervention on infantile colic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search yielded 3284 records, and of these, we selected 21 reports for full-text review. Six studies with 1886 participants met our inclusion criteria, comparing probiotics with placebo. Two studies examined Lactobacillus reuteri DSM, two examined multi-strain probiotics, one examined Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and one examined Lactobacillus paracasei and Bifidobacterium animalis. Two studies began probiotics during pregnancy and continued administering them to the baby after birth.We considered the risk of bias for randomisation as low for all six trials; for allocation concealment as low in two studies and unclear in four others. All studies were blinded, and at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (1148 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to occurrence of new cases of colic: risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence; I² = 72%.A random-effects meta-analysis of all six studies (1851 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to serious adverse effects (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.21; low-certainty evidence; I² not calculable (only four serious events for one comparison, two in each group: meconium plug obstruction, patent ductus arteriosus and neonatal hepatitis).A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (707 participants) found a mean difference (MD) of -32.57 minutes per day (95% CI -55.60 to -9.54; low-certainty evidence; I² = 93%) in crying time at study end in favour of probiotics.A subgroup analysis of the most studied agent, Lactobacillus reuteri, showed a reduction of 44.26 minutes in daily crying with a random-effects model (95% CI -66.6 to -21.9; I² = 92%), in favour of probiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence that probiotics are more effective than placebo at preventing infantile colic; however, daily crying time appeared to reduce with probiotic use compared to placebo. There were no clear differences in adverse effects.We are limited in our ability to draw conclusions by the certainty of the evidence, which we assessed as being low across all three outcomes, meaning that we are not confident that these results would not change with the addition of further research.

Three-Month Feeding Integration With Bifidobacterium Strains Prevents Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Healthy Newborns

Infantile functional gastrointestinal disorders are common in the first months of life. Their pathogenesis remains unknown although evidences suggest multiple independent causes, including gut microbiota modifications. Feeding type, influencing the composition of intestinal microbiota, could play a significant role in the pathogenesis. Previous studies supported probiotic supplementation success against colics, however mainly Lactobacillus spp. were tested. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness against functional gastrointestinal disorders of a Bifidobacterium breve based probiotic formulation including in the study both breast-fed and bottle-fed subjects. Two hundred and sixty-eight newborns were enrolled within 15 days from birth. One hundred and fifty-five of them effectively entered the study and were randomized in probiotic and placebo group, receiving the formulation for 90 days. The probiotic formulation consists of a 1:1 mixture of 2 strains of B. breve prepared in an oily suspension and administered in a daily dosage of 5 drops containing 108 CFU of each strain. Absolute quantification of selected microbial groups in the faeces was performed using qPCR. Anthropometric data, daily diary minutes of crying, number of regurgitations, vomits and evacuations, and colour and consistency of stools were evaluated before and after treatment. The study confirmed the positive role of breast milk in influencing the counts of target microbial groups, in particular the bifidobacteria community. No adverse events upon probiotic administration were reported, suggesting the safety of the product in this regimen. B. breve counts increased significantly in all administered newborns (p < 0.02). The study demonstrates that a 3 months treatment with B. breve strains in healthy breast-fed newborns helps to prevent functional gastrointestinal disorders, in particular reducing 56% of daily vomit frequency (p < 0.03), decreasing 46.5% of daily evacuation over time (p < 0.03), and improving the stool consistency (type 6 at the Bristol Stool chart instead of type 5) in those at term (p < 0.0001). Moreover, a significant reduction (8.65 vs. 7.98 LogCFU/g of feces, p < 0.03) of B. fragilis in the bottle-fed group receiving the probiotic formulation was observed.