Does probiotic bacteremia in premature infants impact clinically relevant outcomes? A case report and updated review of literature

Accounting for the health risk of probiotics

Probiotics have long been associated with a myriad of health benefits, so much so that their adverse effects whether mild or severe, are often neglected or overshadowed by the enormous volume of articles describing their beneficial effects in the current literature. Recent evidence has demonstrated several health risks of probiotics that warrant serious reconsideration of their applications and further investigations. This review aims to highlight studies that report on how probiotics might cause opportunistic systemic and local infections, detrimental immunological effects, metabolic disturbance, allergic reactions, and facilitating the spread of antimicrobial resistance. To offer a recent account of the literature, articles within the last five years were prioritized. The narration of these evidence was based on the nature of the studies in the following order of preference: clinical studies or human samples, in vivo or animal models, in situ, in vitro and/or in silico. We hope that this review will inform consumers, food scientists, and medical practitioners, on the health risks, while also encouraging research that will focus on and clarify the adverse effects of probiotics.

Probiotic sepsis in preterm neonates-a systematic review

Sepsis due to the administered probiotic strain/s is a barrier against adoption of prophylactic probiotic supplementation in preterm infants to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC ≥ Stage II), all-cause mortality, late-onset sepsis, and feeding intolerance. We aimed to conduct a systematic review for reports of probiotic sepsis in preterm infants (gestation < 37 weeks). Databases including PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Central library, and Google Scholar were searched in August 2021 and updated in Jan 2022. Probiotic sepsis was defined as positive blood/CSF culture isolating administered probiotic strain with symptoms suggestive of infection. Data collection included birth weight, gestation, comorbidities (e.g. gut surgery, NEC), presence of central venous catheters, treatment, and outcome. Literature search revealed 1569 studies. A total of 16 reports [randomised control trial (RCT): none; non-RCT: 1; case series: 8; case report: 7] involving 32 preterm infants with probiotic sepsis were included after exclusions for various reasons. Majority of the cases were born < 32 weeks' gestation. Bifidobacterium (N = 19) was the most commonly isolated organism followed by Lactobacillus (N = 10), and Saccharomyces (N = 3). A total of 25/32 cases were confirmed to be due to the administered probiotic strain on full genomic analysis. Two studies reported one neonatal death each. Twelve neonates had comorbidities. Majority were treated with antibiotics (29/32) whereas others (3/32) required antifungal treatment.

CONCLUSION

Probiotics sepsis is relatively an uncommon event in preterm infants. Majority of the cases recovered after antibiotic or antifungal treatment. The importance of optimal surveillance and treatment of probiotic sepsis and research towards alternatives to probiotics (e.g. postbiotics) is emphasised.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Probiotics have been shown to reduce necrotising enterocolitis, late-onset sepsis, all-cause mortality, and time to reach full enteral feeds in preterm infants. • Despite the evidence, use of probiotics is not universal due to concerns regarding probiotic-associated sepsis in preterm infants.

WHAT IS NEW

• This comprehensive systematic review showed that probiotic sepsis is a relatively rare phenomenon in preterm infants. • All except one case where the diagnosis was uncertain recovered after antimicrobial therapy.

Insights into the Composition of a Co-Culture of 10 Probiotic Strains (OMNi BiOTiC® AAD10) and Effects of Its Postbiotic Culture Supernatant

Background: We aimed to gain insights in a co-culture of 10 bacteria and their postbiotic supernatant. Methods: Abundances and gene expression were monitored by shotgun analysis. The supernatant was characterized by liquid chromatography mass spectroscopy (LC-MS) and gas chromatography mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). Supernatant was harvested after 48 h (S48) and 196 h (S196). Susceptibility testing included nine bacteria and C. albicans. Bagg albino (BALBc) mice were fed with supernatant or culture medium. Fecal samples were obtained for 16S analysis. Results: A time-dependent decrease of the relative abundances and gene expression of L. salivarius, L. paracasei, E. faecium and B. longum/lactis and an increase of L. plantarum were observed. Substances in LC-MS were predominantly allocated to groups amino acids/peptides/metabolites and nucleotides/metabolites, relating to gene expression. Fumaric, panthotenic, 9,3-methyl-2-oxovaleric, malic and aspartic acid, cytidine monophosphate, orotidine, phosphoserine, creatine, tryptophan correlated to culture time. Supernatant had no effect against anaerobic bacteria. S48 was reactive against S. epidermidis, L. monocytogenes, P. aeruginosae, E. faecium and C. albicans. S196 against S. epidermidis and Str. agalactiae. In vivo S48/S196 had no effect on alpha/beta diversity. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) and analysis of composition of microbiomes (ANCOM) revealed an increase of Anaeroplasma and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. Conclusions: The postbiotic supernatant had positive antibacterial and antifungal effects in vitro and promoted the growth of distinct bacteria in vivo.

Probiotics: Should All Patients Take Them?

The usefulness of probiotics in the treatment as well as prevention of many infections and disorders has been confirmed by previous clinical studies. They can protect not only against gastrointestinal diseases such as diarrhea or enteritis but they have proven efficacy against pneumonia, urogenital infection, depression/anxiety, cancer metastasis, obesity, and others. However, it should be mentioned that not all clinical trials have shown improvement of health in patients undergoing probiotic treatment, and very rarely have even reported that probiotic strains may be the causative agents of opportunistic infections. Studies have documented cases of sepsis/bacteremia, endocarditis, liver abscess, pneumonia, and fungemia caused by probiotic strains, mainly in high-risk groups. This review summarizes the cases of infections caused by probiotic strains and the potential hazard associated with the supplementation of probiotics in seriously ill and hospitalized patients.

Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 14: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2021

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of biological agents, intended for addition to food or feed, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge, safety concerns and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by 'qualifications'. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Schizochytrium limacinum, which is a synonym for Aurantiochytrium limacinum, was added to the QPS list. Of the 78 microorganisms notified to EFSA between October 2020 and March 2021, 71 were excluded; 16 filamentous fungi, 1 Dyella spp., 1 Enterococcus faecium, 7 Escherichia coli, 1 Streptomyces spp., 1 Schizochytrium spp. and 44 TUs that had been previously evaluated. Seven TUs were evaluated: Corynebacterium stationis and Kodamaea ohmeri were re-assessed because an update was requested for the current mandate. Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus, Bacillus paralicheniformis, Enterobacter hormaechei, Eremothecium ashbyi and Lactococcus garvieae were assessed for the first time. The following TUs were not recommended for QPS status: A. caldiproteolyticus due to the lack of a body of knowledge in relation to its use in the food or feed chain, E. hormaechei, L. garvieae and K. ohmeri due to their pathogenic potential, E. ashbyi and C. stationis due to a lack of body of knowledge on their occurrence in the food and feed chain and to their pathogenic potential. B. paralicheniformis was recommended for the QPS status with the qualification 'absence of toxigenic activity' and 'absence of genetic information to synthesize bacitracin'.