Clinical safety of Lactobacillus casei shirota as a probiotic in critically ill children

Probiotic Strain Limosilactobacillus reuteri 29B is Proven Safe and Exhibits Potential Probiotic Traits in a Murine Vaginal Model

Lactobacilli, the most common group of bacteria found in a healthy vaginal microbiota, have been demonstrated to act as a defence against colonisation and overgrowth of vaginal pathogens. These groups of bacteria have sparked interests in incorporating them as probiotics aimed at re-establishing balance within the urogenital ecosystem. In this study, the safety characteristics of Limosilactobacillus reuteri 29B (L29B) strain were evaluated through whole genome sequencing (WGS) and animal study. Cell culture assay and 16S rDNA analysis were done to evaluate the ability of the strain to colonise and adhere to the mouse vaginal tract, and RAST analysis was performed to screen for potential genes associated with probiotic trait. The histological study on the mice organs and blood analysis of the mice showed there was no incidence of inflammation. We also found no evidence of bacterial translocation. The cell culture assay on HeLa cells showed 85% of adhesion, and there was a significant reduction of Candida strain viability in displacement assay. As for the 16S rDNA analysis, there was a significant amount of L29B colonisation of the vaginal microflora. Taken together, the intravaginal administration of L29B significantly reduced the number Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcaceae that were present in mouse vaginal tract. It also improved and promoted a balanced vaginal microflora environment without causing any harm or irritation to mice. Limosilactobacillus 29B (L29B) is safe to be administered intravaginally.

Blenderized formulations in home enteral nutrition: a narrative review about challenges in nutritional security and food safety

Blenderized formulations (BFs) are prepared by homogenization of food that is normally used in oral nutrition. BFs are mainly used in home enteral nutrition (HEN), although their use has also been reported by hospitals when commercial enteral formulas are not available. HEN is applied when the patient has been discharged from the hospital. This nutritional therapy promotes the patient's reintegration into the family nucleus and promotes humanized care, and decreases treatment costs. However, the patient should continue to receive health and nutritional care, ranging from periodic nutritional re-evaluation to adaptation of the dietary plan. HEN provides the patient a greater contact with the family, whereas BFs promote the adaptation of the diet with food, respecting the food diversity and culture, lower cost, and easier access to food. Disadvantages of BFs include more time spent by the professional to calculate the dietary plan, greater difficulty in adjusting daily needs, and less microbiological and chemical stability. In this review, the nutritional, food security, and safety aspects of BF used in HEN are discussed. Technological quality aspects that are essential knowledge in the preparation of the patient's dietary plan also are presented.

Utilizing Probiotics for the Prevention and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Diseases

Probiotics are heavily advertised to promote a healthy gastrointestinal tract and boost the immune system. This review article summarizes the history and diversity of probiotics, outlines conventional in vitro assays and in vivo models, assesses the pharmacologic effects of probiotic and pharmaceutical co-administration, and the broad impact of clinical probiotic utilization for gastrointestinal disease indications.

Assessment of the Safety of Lactobacillus casei IMV B-7280 Probiotic Strain on a Mouse Model

Probiotics, in particular Lactobacillus (lactic acid bacteria, LAB) strains, are widely used in clinical practice. Despite that these probiotics have GRAS (generally regarded as safe) and qualified presumption of safety (QPS) statuses, the safety of particular strains still needs to be thoroughly studied. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of Lact. casei IMV B-7280 strain by investigating toxicity and the effects on gut microbiota in experimental animal model. Male BALB/c mice (7-8 weeks, weight 20-24 g) were treated with amounts of Lact. casei IMV B-7280 strain: 5 × 10⁶, 5 × 10⁸, or 5 × 10⁹ CFU/animal once per day during 7 days, or in the amount of 1 × 10¹⁰ CFU/animal once per day during 3 days (most of the proposed probiotic doses for humans-from 10⁸ to 10⁹ CFU) and monitored during 14 days. Blood tests and serum biochemistry were conducted; the cecal content from mice of the experimental and control groups were freshly collected and analyzed. At the end of the experiments (15th day), the presence of LAB in the heart, liver, kidney, and mesenteric lymph nodes and peripheral blood was determined; histology of the brain, liver, heart, fragments of the small and large intestine, and mesenteric lymph nodes was conducted. Survival rate of BALB/c mice treated with Lact. casei IMV B-7280 strain in different concentrations in toxicity experiments during 14 days was 100%. We observed no signs of toxicity as changes in gait, lethargy, sleep, somatomotor activity as well as changes in fur, eyes, skin and mucous membranes, tremors, behavior pattern, convulsions, salivation, diarrhea, and local injuries in mice from all experimental groups. After administration of probiotic strain, the number of opportunistic bacteria in cecal contents, such as Staphylococcus spp., Candida spp., Pseudomonas spp., and total aerobic and optionally anaerobic bacteria decreased compared to controls; the population of beneficial bacteria such as lactobacilli increased in cecal contents of these mice. LAB were not detected in the peripheral blood, heart, liver, kidneys, and mesenteric lymph nodes after administration of this strain to intact mice. Lact. casei IMV B-7280 strain is safe at dose up to 10¹⁰ CFU/animal during 3- and 7-day oral administration to mice and has a positive effect on the gut microbiota composition; it could be potentially considered as safe probiotic for humans.

Nutrition and the gut microbiome during critical illness: A new insight of nutritional therapy

Changes in the microbiome in response to environmental influences can affect the overall health. Critical illness is considered one of the major environmental factors that can potentially influence the normal gut homeostasis. It is associated with pathophysiological effects causing damage to the intestinal microbiome. Alteration of intestinal microbial composition during critical illness may subsequently compromise the integrity of the intestinal epithelial barrier and intestinal mucosa absorptive function. Many factors can impact the microbiome of critically ill patients including ischemia, hypoxia and hypotension along with the iatrogenic effects of therapeutic agents and the lack of enteral feeds. Factors related to disease state and medication are inevitable and they are part of the intensive care unit (ICU) exposure. However, a nutritional intervention targeting gut microbiota might have the potential to improve clinical outcomes in the critically ill population given the extensive vascular and lymphatic links between the intestines and other organs. Although nutrition is considered an integral part of the treatment plan of critically ill patients, still the role of nutritional intervention is restricted to improve nitrogen balance. What is dismissed is whether the nutrients we provide are adequate and how they are processed and utilised by the host and the microbiota. Therefore, the goal of nutrition therapy during critical illness should be extended to provide good quality feeds with balanced macronutrient content to feed up the entire body including the microbiota and host cells. The main aim of this review is to examine the current literature on the effect of critical illness on the gut microbiome and to highlight the role of nutrition as a factor affecting the intestinal microbiome-host relationship during critical illness.

Safety of Probiotics: Functional Fruit Beverages and Nutraceuticals

Over the last decade, fruit juice consumption has increased. Their rise in popularity can be attributed to the belief that they are a quick way to consuming a dietary portion of fruit. Probiotics added to fruit juices produce various bioactive compounds, thus probiotic fruit juices can be considered as a new type of functional foods. Such combinations could improve nutritional properties and provide health benefits of fruit juices, due to delivering positive health attributes from both sources (fruit juices and probiotics). However, this review discusses the other side of the same coin, i.e., the one that challenges general beliefs that probiotics are undoubtedly safe. This topic deserves more acknowledgments from the medical and nutritional literature, as it is highly important for health care professionals and nutritionists who must be aware of potential probiotic issues. Still, clinical trials have not adequately questioned the safety of probiotics, as they are generally considered safe. Therefore, this reviews aims to give an evidence-based perspective of probiotic safety, focusing on probiotic fruit beverages and nutraceuticals, by providing documented clinical case reports and studies. Finally, the paper deals with some additional insights from the pharmacological and toxicological point of views, such as pharmacological repercussions of probiotics on health.

Effectiveness of probiotics in infantile colic: A rapid review

Background

Infantile colic (IC) is a troubling condition with limited treatment options for young infants. This rapid review aims to synthesize the evidence for probiotics in the treatment and prevention of IC in healthy term infants.

Methods

We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews (SRs), and randomized control trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 2000 and July 11, 2018. Trials were included if they recruited healthy full-term infants who received probiotics for treatment or prevention of colic. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. As supplementary information, the safety of probiotics in infants was searched within the reviewed studies and other recent publications.

Results

We identified four SRs and meta-analyses that included six RCTs, and found an additional three RCTs evaluating probiotics for the treatment of IC. One SR and six RCTs were identified for prevention of IC; four of the RCTs were included in the SR and two were published later. The probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri was used in the majority (five of eight) of treatment trials, and was found to significantly reduce crying in colicky breast-fed infants compared to placebo. Only two of the six prevention trials showed a significant decrease in crying time compared to placebo, although another two trials showed other benefits of probiotics, including reduced use of medications (simethicone and cimetropium bromide) and physician visits. No adverse events were identified in the included studies; other research suggests probiotics are generally safe in healthy children.

Conclusion

This rapid review identified limited but favourable evidence of benefit of using probiotics for the treatment of IC in full-term breast-fed infants. While routine use of probiotics for treating or preventing IC cannot yet be recommended, it can be an option to manage IC.

Oral administration of Lactobacillus casei Shirota improves recovery of hand functions after distal radius fracture among elder patients: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized trial

Background

To evaluate the effect of oral Lactobacillus casei Shirota (LcS) administration on recovery of hand functions in senior patients diagnosed with an acute distal radius fracture.

Methods

This clinical trial is double-blind and placebo-controlled, in which 293 senior patients with distal radius fracture were initially enrolled. After exclusion, 264 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive oral placebo or LcS daily for a period of 3 months after the fracture. Treatment outcomes were Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) score, radial deviation and inclination, and ulnar deviation and variance, all of which were monitored and measured every month.

Results

Throughout the length of this study, MHQ score, radial deviation and inclination, and ulnar deviation and variance of patients on oral LcS displayed a significantly faster improvement in comparison to those receiving placebo, over the 3-month intervention period.

Conclusion

Oral administration of LcS dramatically accelerated hand function recovery in senior patients with distal radius fracture.

Septicemia from Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, from a Probiotic Enriched Yogurt, in a Patient with Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Probiotic-rich foods are consumed without much restriction. We report here, a case of septic shock caused by yogurt derived Lactobacillus species in a 54-year-old male patient with acute promyelocytic leukemia, in second complete remission, and who was an autologous stem cell transplantation recipient. He received high dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. He ingested commercially available probiotic-enriched yogurt because of severe diarrhea. One week later, he developed septic shock, and the pathogen was determined by strain-specific PCR analysis as Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (ATCC 53103), which was found to be identical with the strain in the yogurt he consumed. Thus, because even low virulent Lactobacilli in the probiotic products can be pathogenic in the compromised hosts, ingestion of such products should be considered with caution in neutropenic patients with severe diarrhea, such as stem cell transplantation recipients.

Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via providing gut barrier, restoration of the gut microflora, and other potential mechanisms of action.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Web of Science (inception to 28 May 2018) were searched along with registers including the ISRCTN and Clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched the NICE Evidence Services database as well as reference lists from relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of AAD, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea) as mean difference (MD), along with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. For studies reporting on microbiome characteristics using heterogeneous outcomes, we describe the results narratively. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three studies (6352 participants) were included. Probiotics assessed included Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. The risk of bias was determined to be high in 20 studies and low in 13 studies. Complete case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 33 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control.After 5 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (259/3232) compared to 19% (598/3120) in the control group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56; I² = 57%, 6352 participants; NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13; moderate certainty evidence). Nineteen studies had loss to follow-up ranging from 1% to 46%. After making assumptions for those lost, the observed benefit was still statistically significant using an extreme plausible intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, wherein the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 12% (436/3551) compared to 19% (664/3468) in the control group (7019 participants; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; P <0.00001; I² = 70%). An a priori available case subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity indicated that high dose (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) is more effective than low probiotic dose (< 5 billion CFUs per day), interaction P value = 0.01. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (162/2029) compared to 23% (462/2009) in the control group (4038 participants; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.46; P = 0.06; moderate certainty evidence). For the low dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (97/1155) compared to 13% (133/1059) in the control group (2214 participants; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.02). Again, assumptions for loss to follow-up using an extreme plausible ITT analysis was statistically significant. For high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 13% (278/2218) compared to 23% (503/2207) in control group (4425 participants; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; P <0.00001; I² = 68%; moderate certainty evidence).None of the 24 trials (4415 participants) that reported on adverse events reported any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Adverse event rates were low. After 5 days to 4 weeks follow-up, 4% (86/2229) of probiotics participants had an adverse event compared to 6% (121/2186) of control participants (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; P < 0.00001; I² = 75%; low certainty evidence). Common adverse events included rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, and constipation.After 10 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, eight studies recorded data on our secondary outcome, the mean duration of diarrhea; with probiotics reducing diarrhea duration by almost one day (MD -0.91; 95% CI -1.38 to -0.44; P <0.00001; low certainty evidence). One study reported on microbiome characteristics, reporting no difference in changes with concurrent antibiotic and probiotic use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The overall evidence suggests a moderate protective effect of probiotics for preventing AAD (NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13). Using five criteria to evaluate the credibility of the subgroup analysis on probiotic dose, the results indicate the subgroup effect based on high dose probiotics (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) was credible. Based on high-dose probiotics, the NNTB to prevent one case of diarrhea is 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). The overall certainty of the evidence for the primary endpoint, incidence of AAD based on high dose probiotics was moderate due to the minor issues with risk of bias and inconsistency related to a diversity of probiotic agents used. Evidence also suggests that probiotics may moderately reduce the duration of diarrhea, a reduction by almost one day. The benefit of high dose probiotics (e.g. Lactobacillus rhamnosus orSaccharomyces boulardii) needs to be confirmed by a large well-designed multi-centered randomized trial. It is premature to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy and safety of 'other' probiotic agents as an adjunct to antibiotics in children. Adverse event rates were low and no serious adverse events were attributable to probiotics. Although no serious adverse events were observed among inpatient and outpatient children, including small studies conducted in the intensive care unit and in the neonatal unit, observational studies not included in this review have reported serious adverse events in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation.

Probiotics for treating eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common chronic skin condition. Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema; their use is increasing, as numerous clinical trials are under way. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008, which suggested that probiotics may not be an effective treatment for eczema but identified areas in which evidence was lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of probiotics for treating patients of all ages with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also handsearched a number of conference proceedings. We updated the searches of the main databases in January 2018 and of trials registries in March 2018, but we have not yet incorporated these results into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of probiotics (live orally ingested micro-organisms) compared with no treatment, placebo, or other active intervention with no probiotics for the treatment of eczema diagnosed by a doctor.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We recorded adverse events from the included studies and from a separate adverse events search conducted for the first review. We formally assessed reporting bias by preparing funnel plots, and we performed trial sequential analysis for the first primary outcome - eczema symptoms at the end of active treatment.We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome (in italic font).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 randomised controlled trials involving 2599 randomised participants. We included participants of either gender, aged from the first year of life through to 55 years (only six studies assessed adults), who had mild to severe eczema. Trials were undertaken in primary and secondary healthcare settings, mainly in Europe or Asia. Duration of treatment ranged from four weeks to six months, and duration of follow-up after end of treatment ranged from zero to 36 months. We selected no standard dose: researchers used a variety of doses and concentrations of probiotics. The probiotics used were bacteria of the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria species, which were taken alone or combined with other probiotics, and were given with or without prebiotics. Comparators were no treatment, placebo, and other treatments with no probiotics.For all results described in this abstract, the comparator was no probiotics. Active treatment ranged from six weeks to three months for all of the following results, apart from the investigator-rated eczema severity outcome, for which the upper limit of active treatment was 16 weeks. With regard to score, the higher the score, the more severe were the symptoms. All key results reported in this abstract were measured at the end of active treatment, except for adverse events, which were measured during the active treatment period.Probiotics probably make little or no difference in participant- or parent-rated symptoms of eczema (13 trials; 754 participants): symptom severity on a scale from 0 to 20 was 0.44 points lower after probiotic treatment (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to 0.33; moderate-quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis shows that target sample sizes of 258 and 456, which are necessary to demonstrate a minimum mean difference of -2 and -1.5, respectively, with 90% power, have been exceeded, suggesting that further trials with similar probiotic strains for this outcome at the end of active treatment may be futile.We found no evidence suggesting that probiotics make a difference in QoL for patients with eczema (six studies; 552 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.42; low-quality evidence) when measured by the participant or the parent using validated disease-specific QoL instruments.Probiotics may slightly reduce investigator-rated eczema severity scores (24 trials; 1596 participants). On a scale of 0 to 103 for total Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), a score combining investigator-rated eczema severity score and participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss was 3.91 points lower after probiotic treatment than after no probiotic treatment (95% CI -5.86 to -1.96; low-quality evidence). The minimum clinically important difference for SCORAD has been estimated to be 8.7 points.We noted significant to extreme levels of unexplainable heterogeneity between the results of individual studies. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias; six studies had high attrition bias, and nine were at low risk of bias overall.We found no evidence to show that probiotics make a difference in the risk of adverse events during active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.63; seven trials; 402 participants; low-quality evidence). Studies in our review that reported adverse effects described gastrointestinal symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that, compared with no probiotic, currently available probiotic strains probably make little or no difference in improving patient-rated eczema symptoms. Probiotics may make little or no difference in QoL for people with eczema nor in investigator-rated eczema severity score (combined with participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss); for the latter, the observed effect was small and of uncertain clinical significance. Therefore, use of probiotics for the treatment of eczema is currently not evidence-based. This update found no evidence of increased adverse effects with probiotic use during studies, but a separate adverse events search from the first review revealed that probiotic treatment carries a small risk of adverse events.Results show significant, unexplainable heterogeneity between individual trial results. Only a small number of studies measured some outcomes.Future studies should better measure QoL scores and adverse events, and should report on new probiotics. Researchers should also consider studying subgroups of patients (e.g. patients with atopy or food allergies, adults) and standardising doses/concentrations of probiotics given.

Oral Administration of Probiotic Lactobacillus Casei Shirota Decreases Pneumonia and Increases Pulmonary Functions after Single Rib Fracture: A Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Considerate proportion of elderly patients with a rib fracture is susceptible to pulmonary complications, especially pneumonia. We aimed to assess the effect of oral administration of the probiotic Lactobacillus casei Shirota (LcS) on pneumonia and pulmonary functions among elderly patients with single rib fracture. The current study including 204 eligible elderly patients with a single rib fracture was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral administration of skimmed milk containing either a commercial probiotic LcS or placebo daily for 1 mo after the fracture, followed by pneumonia assessments, pulmonary function testing including forced expiratory volume (FEV), negative inspiratory pressure (NIP), and forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as evaluation of potential adverse effects including myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, nonunion of fractured bone, or stroke. After 1 mo consumption, patients in the LcS group exhibited decreased pneumonia and increased recovery of pulmonary functions, in terms of FEV, FVC, and NIP, compared to the placebo group. No difference was observed in incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups. In patients with a single rib fracture, oral administration of the probiotic LcS was associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia and increased pulmonary functions without causing severe adverse effects.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

To conclude, after 1-mo LcS consumption, in patients with a single rib fracture, oral administration of the probiotic LcS was associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia and increased pulmonary functions without causing severe adverse effects.

Lactobacillus reuteri to Treat Infant Colic: A Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Lactobacillus reuteri DSM17938 has shown promise in managing colic, but conflicting study results have prevented a consensus on whether it is truly effective.

OBJECTIVE

Through an individual participant data meta-analysis, we sought to definitively determine if L reuteri DSM17938 effectively reduces crying and/or fussing time in infants with colic and whether effects vary by feeding type.

DATA SOURCES

We searched online databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane), e-abstracts, and clinical trial registries.

STUDY SELECTION

These were double-blind randomized controlled trials (published by June 2017) of L reuteri DSM17398 versus a placebo, delivered orally to infants with colic, with outcomes of infant crying and/or fussing duration and treatment success at 21 days.

DATA EXTRACTION

We collected individual participant raw data from included studies modeled simultaneously in multilevel generalized linear mixed-effects regression models.

RESULTS

Four double-blind trials involving 345 infants with colic (174 probiotic and 171 placebo) were included. The probiotic group averaged less crying and/or fussing time than the placebo group at all time points (day 21 adjusted mean difference in change from baseline [minutes] -25.4 [95% confidence interval (CI): -47.3 to -3.5]). The probiotic group was almost twice as likely as the placebo group to experience treatment success at all time points (day 21 adjusted incidence ratio 1.7 [95% CI: 1.4 to 2.2]). Intervention effects were dramatic in breastfed infants (number needed to treat for day 21 success 2.6 [95% CI: 2.0 to 3.6]) but were insignificant in formula-fed infants.

LIMITATIONS

There were insufficient data to make conclusions for formula-fed infants with colic.

CONCLUSIONS

L reuteri DSM17938 is effective and can be recommended for breastfed infants with colic. Its role in formula-fed infants with colic needs further research.

The Role of Probiotics in Cancer Treatment: Emphasis on their In Vivo and In Vitro Anti-metastatic Effects

Probiotics are defined as live bacteria and yeasts that exert beneficial effects for health. Among their various effects, anti-cancer properties have been highlighted in recent years. Such effects include suppression of the growth of microbiota implicated in the production of mutagens and carcinogens, alteration in carcinogen metabolism and protection of DNA from oxidative damage as well as regulation of immune system. We performed a computerized search of the MEDLINE/PUBMED databases with key words: cancer, probiotics, lactobacilli, metastasis and invasion. Cell line studies as well as animal models and human studies have shown the therapeutic effects of probiotics in reduction of invasion and metastasis in cancer cells. These results support the beneficial effects of probiotics both in vitro and in vivo. However, pre-clinical or clinical studies are not enough to decide about their application.

The effect of probiotic treatment on elderly patients with distal radius fracture: a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial

Probiotic treatment has been shown to improve bone formation, increase bone mass density and prevent bone loss. We aimed to assess the effect of probiotic treatment on functional recovery in elderly patients with a distal radius fracture. A total of 417 elderly patients with an acute distal radius fracture were enrolled in this double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. They were randomised to receive skimmed milk containing either a commercial probiotic (Lactobacillus casei Shirota) or placebo daily for a period of 6 months after the fracture. Treatment outcomes were the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) score, pain, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) score, active range of motion and grip strength, all of which were measured on a monthly basis. Throughout the duration of the study, DASH score, pain, CRPS score, wrist flexion and grip strength of patients receiving probiotics exhibited a significantly faster pace of improvement than those on placebo, with treatment outcomes of patients receiving Lactobacillus casei Shirota at month 4 at comparable levels with those of patients receiving placebo at month 6. In elderly patients with a fracture of the distal radius, administration of the probiotic could greatly accelerating the healing process.

Antiviral activity of Lactobacillus reuteri Protectis against Coxsackievirus A and Enterovirus 71 infection in human skeletal muscle and colon cell lines

Background

Recurrence of hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) pandemics continues to threaten public health. Despite increasing awareness and efforts, effective vaccine and drug treatment have yet to be available. Probiotics have gained recognition in the field of healthcare worldwide, and have been extensively prescribed to babies and young children to relieve gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances and diseases, associated or not with microbial infections. Since the faecal-oral axis represents the major route of HFMD transmission, transient persistence of probiotic bacteria in the GI tract may confer some protection against HFMD and limit transmission among children.

Methods

In this work, the antiviral activity of two commercially available probiotics, namely Lactobacillus reuteri Protectis (L. reuteri Protectis) and Lactobacillus casei Shirota (L. casei Shirota), was assayed against Coxsackieviruses and Enterovirus 71 (EV71), the main agents responsible for HFMD. In vitro infection set-ups using human skeletal muscle and colon cell lines were designed to assess the antiviral effect of the probiotic bacteria during entry and post-entry steps of the infection cycle.

Results

Our findings indicate that L. reuteri Protectis displays a significant dose-dependent antiviral activity against Coxsackievirus type A (CA) strain 6 (CA6), CA16 and EV71, but not against Coxsackievirus type B strain 2. Our data support that the antiviral effect is likely achieved through direct physical interaction between bacteria and virus particles, which impairs virus entry into its mammalian host cell. In contrast, no significant antiviral effect was observed with L. casei Shirota.

Conclusions

Should the antiviral activity of L. reuteri Protectis observed in vitro be translated in vivo, such probiotics-based therapeutic approach may have the potential to address the urgent need for a safe and effective means to protect against HFMD and limit its transmission among children.

Probiotics in critically ill children

Gut microflora contribute greatly to immune and nutritive functions and act as a physical barrier against pathogenic organisms across the gut mucosa. Critical illness disrupts the balance between host and gut microflora, facilitating colonization, overgrowth, and translocation of pathogens and microbial products across intestinal mucosal barrier and causing systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis. Commonly used probiotics, which have been developed from organisms that form gut microbiota, singly or in combination, can restore gut microflora and offer the benefits similar to those offered by normal gut flora, namely immune enhancement, improved barrier function of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), and prevention of bacterial translocation. Enteral supplementation of probiotic strains containing either Lactobacillus alone or in combination with Bifidobacterium reduced the incidence and severity of necrotizing enterocolitis and all-cause mortality in preterm infants. Orally administered Lactobacillus casei subspecies rhamnosus, Lactobacillus reuteri, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus were effective in the prevention of late-onset sepsis and GIT colonization by Candida in preterm very low birth weight infants. In critically ill children, probiotics are effective in the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Oral administration of a mix of probiotics for 1 week to children on broad-spectrum antibiotics in a pediatric intensive care unit decreased GIT colonization by Candida, led to a 50% reduction in candiduria, and showed a trend toward decreased incidence of candidemia. However, routine use of probiotics cannot be supported on the basis of current scientific evidence. Safety of probiotics is also a concern; rarely, probiotics may cause bacteremia, fungemia, and sepsis in immunocompromised critically ill children. More studies are needed to answer questions on the effectiveness of a mix versus single-strain probiotics, optimum dosage regimens and duration of treatment, cost effectiveness, and risk-benefit potential for the prevention and treatment of various critical illnesses.

Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics are frequently prescribed in children. They alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract, commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via restoration of the gut microflora.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to November 2014) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD review group, CISCOM (Centralized Information Service for Complementary Medicine), NHS Evidence, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements as well as trial registries. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutraceutical and pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction as well as methodological quality assessment using the risk of bias instrument was conducted independently and in duplicate by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as mean difference (MD), along with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, sensitivity analyses included available case versus extreme-plausible analyses and random- versus fixed-effect models. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, as well as risk of bias. We also conducted post hoc subgroup analyses by patient diagnosis, single versus multi-strain, industry sponsorship, and inpatient status. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (3938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Eleven studies used a single strain probiotic, four combined two probiotic strains, three combined three probiotic strains, one combined four probiotic strains, two combined seven probiotic strains, one included ten probiotic strains, and one study included two probiotic arms that used three and two strains respectively. The risk of bias was determined to be high or unclear in 13 studies and low in 10 studies. Available case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 22/23 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (163/1992) compared to 19% (364/1906) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; I(2) = 55%, 3898 participants). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate. This benefit remained statistically significant in an extreme plausible (60% of children loss to follow-up in probiotic group and 20% loss to follow-up in the control group had diarrhea) sensitivity analysis, where the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 14% (330/2294) compared to 19% (426/2235) in the control group (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; I(2) = 63%, 4529 participants). None of the 16 trials (n = 2455) that reported on adverse events documented any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Meta-analysis excluded all but an extremely small non-significant difference in adverse events between treatment and control (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). The majority of adverse events were in placebo, standard care or no treatment group. Adverse events reported in the studies include rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, abdominal pain, vomiting, increased phlegm, chest pain, constipation, taste disturbance, and low appetite.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence suggests a protective effect of probiotics in preventing AAD. Our pooled estimate suggests a precise (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61) probiotic effect with a NNT of 10. Among the various probiotics evaluated, Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day may be appropriate given the modest NNT and the likelihood that adverse events are very rare. It is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of other probiotic agents for pediatric AAD. Although no serious adverse events were observed among otherwise healthy children, serious adverse events have been observed in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation. Until further research has been conducted, probiotic use should be avoided in pediatric populations at risk for adverse events. Future trials would benefit from a standard and valid outcomes to measure AAD.

Beneficial effect of butyrate, Lactobacillus casei and L-carnitine combination in preference to each in experimental colitis

AIM: To investigate the beneficial effect of the combination of butyrate, Lactobacillus casei, and L-carnitine in a rat colitis model.

METHODS: Rats were divided into seven groups. Four groups received oral butyrate, L-carnitine, Lactobacillus casei and the combination of three agents for 10 consecutive days. The remaining groups included negative and positive controls and a sham group. Macroscopic, histopathological examinations, and biomarkers such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interlukin-1β (IL-1β), myeloperoxidase (MPO), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), and ferric reduced ability of plasma (FRAP) were determined in the colon.

RESULTS: The combination therapy exhibited a significant beneficial effect in alleviation of colitis compared to controls. Overall changes in reduction of TNF-α (114.66 ± 18.26 vs 171.78 ± 9.48 pg/mg protein, P < 0.05), IL-1β (24.9 ± 1.07 vs 33.06 ± 2.16 pg/mg protein, P < 0.05), TBARS (0.2 ± 0.03 vs 0.49 ± 0.04 μg/mg protein, P < 0.01), MPO (15.32 ± 0.4 vs 27.24 ± 3.84 U/mg protein, P < 0.05), and elevation of FRAP (23.46 ± 1.2 vs 15.02 ± 2.37 μmol/L, P < 0.05) support the preference of the combination therapy in comparison to controls. Although the monotherapies were also effective in improvement of colitis markers, the combination therapy was much better in improvement of colon oxidative stress markers including FRAP, TBARS, and MPO.

CONCLUSION: The present combination is a suitable mixture in control of experimental colitis and should be trialed in the clinical setting.

A systematic review of the safety of probiotics

INTRODUCTION

There is growing evidence on the use of probiotics in various diseases, especially in gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. Although probiotics have been found helpful in many illnesses, they do not always seem to be safe. Through interference with commensal microflora, they can result in opportunistic performances in the host due to bacterimia and fungemia. Since considerable numbers of consumers use probiotic products worldwide, assurance of safety of these products is necessary.

AREAS COVERED

This review evaluates all the existing information about the safety of probiotics in humans and animal models up to May 2013. In all eligible published studies in which adverse effects and tolerability of probiotics were investigated and reported, no language limitations were applied. The main key search terms were 'probiotics,' 'safety,' 'side effects,' 'clinical trial' and 'adverse effects.' The vast majority of trials investigated Bifidobacterium (B) and Lactobacillus (L) species.

EXPERT OPINION

The main observed adverse effects of probiotics were sepsis, fungemia and GI ischemia. Generally, critically ill patients in intensive care units, critically sick infants, postoperative and hospitalized patients and patients with immune-compromised complexity were the most at-risk populations. While the overwhelming existing evidence suggests that probiotics are safe, complete consideration of risk-benefit ratio before prescribing is recommended.

A Lactobacillus casei Shirota probiotic drink reduces antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in patients with spinal cord injuries: a randomised controlled trial

Certain probiotics may prevent the development of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD), but their effectiveness depends on both strain and dose. There are few data on nutritional interventions to control AAD/CDAD in the spinal cord injury (SCI) population. The present study aimed to assess (1) the efficacy of consuming a commercially produced probiotic containing at least 6·5 × 10⁹ live Lactobacillus casei Shirota (LcS) in reducing the incidence of AAD/CDAD, and (2) whether undernutrition and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are risk factors for AAD/CDAD. A total of 164 SCI patients (50·1 (sd 17·8) years) with a requirement for antibiotics (median 21 d, range 5-366) were randomly allocated to receive LcS (n 76) or no probiotic (n 82). LcS was given once daily for the duration of the antibiotic course and continued for 7 days thereafter. Nutritional risk was assessed by the Spinal Nutrition Screening Tool. The LcS group had a significantly lower incidence of AAD (17·1 v. 54·9%, P< 0·001). At baseline, 65% of patients were at undernutrition risk. Undernutrition (64·1 v. 33·3%, P< 0·01) and the use of PPI (38·4 v. 12·1 %, P= 0·022) were found to be associated with AAD. However, no significant difference was observed in nutrient intake between the groups. The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified poor appetite ( < 1/2 meals eaten) (OR 5·04, 95% CI 1·28, 19·84) and no probiotic (OR 8·46, 95% CI 3·22, 22·20) as the independent risk factors for AAD. The present study indicated that LcS could reduce the incidence of AAD in hospitalised SCI patients. A randomised, placebo-controlled study is needed to confirm this apparent therapeutic success in order to translate into improved clinical outcomes.

Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics may prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) via restoration of the gut microflora. Antibiotics are prescribed frequently in children and AAD is common in this population.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to May 2010) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD review group, CISCOM (Centralized Information Service for Complementary Medicine), NHS Evidence, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements as well as trial registries. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutra/pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction as well as methodological quality assessment using the risk of bias instrument was conducted independently and in duplicate by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using a pooled relative risk and risk difference (adverse events), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as weighted mean differences, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, sensitivity analyses included available case versus extreme-plausible analyses and random- versus fixed-effect models. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, antibiotic agent as well as risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies (3432 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., or Streptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Nine studies used a single strain probiotic agent, four combined two probiotic strains, one combined three probiotic strains, one product included ten probiotic agents, and one study included two probiotic arms that used three and two strains respectively. The risk of bias was determined to be high in 8 studies and low in 8 studies. Available case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 15/16 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a large, precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 9% compared to 18% in the control group (2874 participants; RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I(2) = 56%). This benefit was not statistically significant in an extreme plausible (60% of children loss to follow-up in probiotic group and 20% loss to follow-up in the control group had diarrhea) intention to treat (ITT) sensitivity analysis. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 16% compared to 18% in the control group (3392 participants; RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; I(2) = 59%). An a priori available case subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity indicated that high dose (≥5 billion CFUs/day) is more effective than low probiotic dose (< 5 billion CFUs/day), interaction P value = 0.010. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% compared to 22% in the control group (1474 participants; RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55). For the low dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% compared to 11% in the control group (1382 participants; RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21). An extreme plausible ITT subgroup analysis was marginally significant for high dose probiotics. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 17% compared to 22% in the control group (1776 participants; RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I(2) = 58%). None of the 11 trials (n = 1583) that reported on adverse events documented any serious adverse events. Meta-analysis excluded all but an extremely small non-significant difference in adverse events between treatment and control (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite heterogeneity in probiotic strain, dose, and duration, as well as in study quality, the overall evidence suggests a protective effect of probiotics in preventing AAD. Using 11 criteria to evaluate the credibility of the subgroup analysis on probiotic dose, the results indicate that the subgroup effect based on dose (≥5 billion CFU/day) was credible. Based on high-dose probiotics, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of diarrhea is seven (NNT 7; 95% CI 6 to 10). However, a GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary endpoint (incidence of diarrhea) was low due to issues with risk of bias (due to high loss to follow-up) and imprecision (sparse data, 225 events). The benefit for high dose probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Saccharomyces boulardii) needs to be confirmed by a large well-designed randomized trial. More refined trials are also needed that test strain specific probiotics and evaluate the efficacy (e.g. incidence and duration of diarrhea) and safety of probiotics with limited losses to follow-up. It is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of other probiotic agents for pediatric AAD. Future trials would benefit from a standard and valid outcomes to measure AAD.

Role of probiotic in preventing acute diarrhoea in children: a community-based, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled field trial in an urban slum

Acute diarrhoea remains a major public health challenge in developing countries. We examined the role of a probiotic in the prevention of acute diarrhoea to discover if there was an effect directed towards a specific aetiology. A double-blind, randomized, controlled field trial involving 3758 children aged 1-5 years was conducted in an urban slum community in Kolkata, India. Participants were given either a probiotic drink containing Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota or a nutrient drink daily for 12 weeks. They were followed up for another 12 weeks. The primary outcome of this study was the occurrence of first episodes of diarrhoea. We assessed this during 12 weeks of intake of study agent and also for 12 weeks of follow-up. There were 608 subjects with diarrhoea in the probiotic group and 674 subjects in the nutrient group during the study period of 24 weeks. The level of protective efficacy for the probiotic was 14% (95% confidence interval 4-23, P<0·01 in adjusted model). The reduced occurrence of acute diarrhoea in the probiotic group compared to nutrient group was not associated with any specific aetiology. No adverse event was observed in children of either probiotic or nutrient groups. The study suggests that daily intake of a probiotic drink can play a role in prevention of acute diarrhoea in young children in a community setting of a developing country.

Neonatal mucosal immunization with a non-living, non-genetically modified Lactococcus lactis vaccine carrier induces systemic and local Th1-type immunity and protects against lethal bacterial infection

Safe and effective immunization of newborns and infants can significantly reduce childhood mortality, yet conventional vaccines have been largely unsuccessful in stimulating the neonatal immune system. We explored the capacity of a novel mucosal antigen delivery system consisting of non-living, non-genetically modified Lactococcus lactis particles, designated as Gram-positive enhancer matrix (GEM), to induce immune responses in the neonatal setting. Yersinia pestis LcrV, used as model protective antigen, was displayed on the GEM particles. Newborn mice immunized intranasally with GEM-LcrV developed LcrV-specific antibodies, Th1-type cell-mediated immunity, and were protected against lethal Y. pestis (plague) infection. The GEM particles activated and enhanced the maturation of neonatal dendritic cells (DCs) both in vivo and in vitro. These DCs showed increased capacities for secretion of proinflammatory and Th1-cell polarizing cytokines, antigen presentation and stimulation of CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells. These data show that mucosal immunization with L. lactis GEM particles carrying vaccine antigens represents a promising approach to prevent infectious diseases early in life.

Safety of probiotics in patients receiving nutritional support: a systematic review of case reports, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized trials

BACKGROUND

Probiotics are increasingly used in patients receiving nutritional support; however, some case reports and trials have questioned their safety in such patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate the safety of probiotics in patients receiving nutritional support through a systematic review of case reports, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and nonrandomized trials.

DESIGN

The systematic review followed Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. Six electronic databases were searched, a hand search of conference proceedings and reference lists was performed, and experts were contacted. Case reports, RCTs, and nonrandomized trials of probiotic use in patients also receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition were included in the review. Two reviewers independently screened the relevant articles and extracted the data.

RESULTS

In total, 1966 articles were identified, of which 72 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were 20 case reports of adverse events in 32 patients, all of which were infections due to Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG or Saccharomyces boulardii; the risk factors included central venous catheters and disorders associated with increased bacterial translocation. There were 52 articles reporting 53 trials in which 4131 patients received probiotics. Most trials showed either no effect or a positive effect on outcomes related to safety (eg, mortality and infections). Only 3 trials showed increased complications, which were largely noninfectious in nature and in specific patient groups (eg, transplant and pancreatitis). In 2 of these trials, the probiotic was administered through a postpyloric tube.

CONCLUSION

Many probiotics have been used safely in patients receiving nutritional support, although some probiotic products (strains or combinations) have been shown to increase the risk of complications in specific patient groups.

Pro- and synbiotics to control inflammation and infection in patients with multiple injuries

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized clinical trial of our group disclosed considerable reduction of the infective sequelae after administration of a synbiotic formula, namely Synbiotic 2000FORTE, in patients with multiple injuries, the latter being a preparation of four probiotics. The mechanism of action of synbiotics was studied.

METHODS

A total of 72 patients with severe multiple injuries were allocated to a 15-day administration of either placebo or the synbiotic formula. The association of bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), and endotoxins (LPS) were studied.

RESULTS

Sepsis in the field of bacteremia occurred in 13 patients treated with placebo (36.1%) compared with 5 patients treated with Synbiotic 2000FORTE (13.9%, p = 0.028 between groups). The time to progression to primary bacteremia was longer among patients treated with Synbiotic 2000FORTE compared with placebo (p = 0.0237 between groups). Twelve (33.3%) and five (13.9%) placebo-treated and probiotic-treated patients, respectively, developed ventilator-associated pneumonia with Acinetobacter baumannii as a bacterial cause (p = 0.047 between groups). Treatment with synbiotics was accompanied by reduction of white blood cell counts and LPS and CRP levels in either patients who did or did not develop sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

Synbiotics contained in the studied formula decrease significantly the risk for sepsis by bloodstream infections and the occurrence of VAP by A. baumannii. The mechanisms of action might involve direct immunomodulatory effect, prevention of bacterial translocation, or most likely a combination of both.

Probiotics, critical illness, and methodologic bias

It has been proposed that probiotics can favorably influence the course of critically ill patients. To address this question, a limited systematic review was undertaken (MEDLINE search for articles published in English) to identify randomized, controlled trials that compared a group of critically ill patients taking probiotics with a group that did not. Ten such trials, mostly with high risks of methodologic bias, were identified. When the data were combined, the probiotics did not appear to influence mortality or duration of hospitalization. However, the recipients of the probiotics had fewer infectious episodes (absolute risk difference-21%). This effect was seen particularly in trials employing one combination of probiotic agents (Pediococcus pentosaceus, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactobacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus plantarum). Unfortunately, this effect may be overly optimistic, as methodologic shortcomings could have introduced biases into the trials. Three trials of patients with severe acute pancreatitis were not included in this primary analysis because not all of the patients were in the intensive care unit. The largest of these, and the one with the lowest risk of bias, demonstrated that probiotics increased mortality, in part because of the precipitation of ischemic bowel disease (in patients who were also receiving postpyloric enteral nutrition infusions). Probiotics also appeared to reduce the incidence of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients, although these trials did not specifically focus only on those who were critically ill. In summary, it is not clear that probiotics are beneficial (and they may even be harmful) in the critically ill patient group.

Probiotics for treating eczema

BACKGROUND

Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema, and recently a number of clinical trials have been undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of probiotics for the treatment of eczema

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (to April 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2,2008) MEDLINE (from 2003 to April 2008), EMBASE (from 2005 to April 2008), PsycINFO, AMED and LILACS (from inception to April 2008) and ISI Web of Science (to December 2006) and reference lists of articles. We also searched registries of ongoing clinical trials, conference proceedings and searched for adverse events.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of live orally ingested microorganisms for the treatment of eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed the quality of trials and extracted data. We contacted study authors for more information where necessary. We recorded adverse events from the included studies, and from the separate adverse events search.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve randomised controlled trials involving 781 participants met the inclusion criteria. All trial participants were children. There was no significant difference in participant or parent-rated symptom scores in favour of probiotic treatment (5 trials, 313 participants). Symptom severity on a scale from 0 to 20 was 0.90 points lower after probiotic treatment than after placebo (95%CI -1.04, 2.84; p = 0.36).There was also no significant difference in participant or parent-rated overall eczema severity in favour of probiotic treatment (3 trials, 150 participants). There was no significant difference in investigator rated eczema severity between probiotic and placebo treatments (7 trials, 588 participants). On a scale from 0 to 102 investigator rated eczema severity was 2.46 points lower after probiotic treatment than after placebo treatment (95%CI -2.53, 7.45 p = 0.33). Significant heterogeneity was noted between the results of individual studies, which may be explained by the use of different probiotic strains. Subgroup analysis by age of participant, severity of eczema, presence of atopy or presence of food allergy did not identify a population with different treatment outcomes to the population as a whole. The adverse events search identified some case reports of infections and bowel ischaemia caused by probiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that probiotics are not an effective treatment for eczema, and probiotic treatment carries a small risk of adverse events.

Effect of probiotic treatment on deranged neutrophil function and cytokine responses in patients with compensated alcoholic cirrhosis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endotoxaemia contributes to neutrophil dysfunction, infection risk and mortality in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. As probiotics may decrease Gram-negative gut organisms, we hypothesised that probiotic treatment would restore neutrophil function.

METHODS

In an open-label study, patients with alcoholic cirrhosis (n=12) received Lactobacillus casei Shirota (6.5 x 10(9)) 3 times daily for 4 weeks. Data were compared to healthy controls (n=13) and cirrhotic patients (n=8) who did not receive probiotics. Neutrophil oxidative burst, phagocytosis, toll-like-receptor (TLR) expression, plasma cytokines and ex vivo endotoxin-stimulated cytokine production were measured.

RESULTS

Baseline neutrophil phagocytic capacity in patients was significantly lower compared to healthy controls (73% versus 98%, p<0.05), but normalised at the end of the study (n=10, 100%, p<0.05). No improvement was seen in disease controls. Soluble TNF-receptor (sTNFR)-1 and-2 and interleukin (IL)10 were significantly elevated in patients' plasma but did not change during the study. Ex vivo endotoxin-stimulated levels of sTNFR1, sTNFR2 and IL10 were significantly lower at the end of the study (p<0.05). TLR2, 4 and 9 were overexpressed in patients. TLR4 expression normalised by the end of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide a proof-of-concept that probiotics restore neutrophil phagocytic capacity in cirrhosis, possibly by changing IL10 secretion and TLR4 expression, warranting larger randomised controlled and mechanistic studies.

Probiotic use in the critically ill

Probiotics are "live microbes which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit to the host" (FAO/WHO joint group). Their potential role in bio-ecological modification of pathological internal milieu of the critically ill is under evaluation. Probiotics are available as single microbial strain (e.g., Bacillus clausii, Lactobacillus) or as a mix of multiple strains of Lactobacillus (acidophilus, sporogenes, lactis, reuteri RC-14, GG, and L. plantarum 299v), Bifidobacterium (bifidum, longum, infantis), Streptococcus (thermophillus, lactis, fecalis), Saccharomyces boulardii etc. Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria are gram-positive, anaerobic, lactic acid bacteria. These are normal inhabitant of human gut and colonize the colon better than others. Critical illness and its treatment create hostile environment in the gut and alters the micro flora favoring growth of pathogens. Therapy with probiotics is an effort to reduce or eliminate potential pathogens and toxins, to release nutrients, antioxidants, growth factors and coagulation factors, to stimulate gut motility and to modulate innate and adaptive immune defense mechanisms via the normalization of altered gut flora. Scientific evidence shows that use of probiotics is effective in prevention and therapy of antibiotic associated diarrhea. However, available probiotics strains in currently used doses do not provide much needed early benefits, and need long-term administration to have clinically beneficial effects (viz, a reduction in rate of infection, severe sepsis, ICU stay, ventilation days and mortality) in critically ill surgical and trauma patients. Possibly, available strains do not adhere to intestinal mucosa early, or may require higher dose than what is used. Gap exists in our knowledge regarding mechanisms of action of different probiotics, most effective strains--single or multiple, cost effectiveness, risk-benefit potential, optimum dose, frequency and duration of treatment etc. More information is needed on safety profile of probiotics in immunocompromised state of the critically ill in view of rare reports of fungemia and sepsis and a trend toward possible increase in nosocomial infection. At present, despite theoretical potential benefits, available evidence is not conclusive to recommend probiotics for routine use in the critically ill.

Probiotics in children

The gastrointestinal flora plays a complex and important role in the development of healthy immunologic and digestive function in children. Probiotics are safe in healthy children and effective in reducing the risk of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and the duration of acute infectious diarrhea. Probiotics may also be effective in preventing community-acquired diarrheal infections, in reducing the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants, and in the prevention and treatment of atopic dermatitis. The exact strain or combination of strains most effective for common clinical indications has yet to be determined, but the exact strain used seems less important than whether an adequate dose is used (typically 5 to 10 billion CFUs per day or higher). Clinicians should familiarize themselves with the products available because there is a wide range in their quality.

Enteral-tube-feeding diarrhoea: manipulating the colonic microbiota with probiotics and prebiotics

Diarrhoea is a common and serious complication of enteral tube feeding. Its pathogenesis involves antibiotic prescription, enteropathogenic colonization and abnormal colonic responses, all of which involve an interaction with the colonic microbiota. Alterations in the colonic microbiota have been identified in patients receiving enteral tube feeding and these changes may be associated with the incidence of diarrhoea. Preventing negative alterations in the colonic microbiota has therefore been investigated as a method of reducing the incidence of diarrhoea. Probiotics and prebiotics may be effective because of their suppression of enteropathogenic colonization, stimulation of immune function and modulation of colonic metabolism. Randomized controlled trials of probiotics have produced contrasting results, although Saccharomyces boulardii has been shown to reduce the incidence of diarrhoea in patients in the intensive care unit receiving enteral tube feeding. Prebiotic fructo-oligosaccharides have been shown to increase the concentration of faecal bifidobacteria in healthy subjects consuming enteral formula, although this finding has not yet been confirmed in patients receiving enteral tube feeding. Furthermore, there are no clinical trials investigating the effect of a prebiotic alone on the incidence of diarrhoea. Further trials of the efficacy of probiotics and prebiotics, alone and in combination, in preventing diarrhoea in this patient group are warranted.

Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics may prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) via restoration of the gut microflora. Antibiotics are prescribed frequently in children and AAD is common in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children. To assess adverse events associated with the use of probiotics when co-administered with antibiotics in children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL , AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to August 2006) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD Review Group, CISCOM, Chalmers PedCAM Research Register and trial registries from inception to 2005. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutra/pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were hand searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, parallel, controlled (placebo, active, or no treatment) trials comparing co-administered probiotics with antibiotics for the prevention of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use in children (0 to 18 years).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors (BCJ, AS). Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using pooled relative risks, and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as weighted mean differences, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Adverse events were summarized using risk difference. For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, a priori sensitivity analyses included per protocol versus intention to treat, random versus fixed effects, and methodological quality criterion. Subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, and antibiotic agent.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Lactobacilli spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Streptococcus spp., or Saccharomyces boulardii alone or in combination. Six studies used a single strain probiotic agent and four combined two probiotic strains. The per protocol analysis for 9/10 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show statistically significant results favouring probiotics over active/non active controls (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74). However, intention to treat analysis showed non-significant results overall (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.63). Five of ten trials monitored for adverse events (n = 647); none reported a serious adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Probiotics show promise for the prevention of pediatric AAD. While per protocol analysis yields treatment effect estimates that are both statistically and clinically significant, as does analysis of high quality studies, the estimate from the intention to treat analysis was not statistically significant. Future studies should involve probiotic strains and doses with the most promising evidence (e.g., Lactobacillus GG, Lactobacillus sporogenes, Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day). Research done to date does not permit determination of the effect of age (e.g., infant versus older children) or antibiotic duration (e.g., 5 days versus 10 days). Future trials would benefit from a validated primary outcome measure for antibiotic-associated diarrhea that is sensitive to change and reflects what treatment effect clinicians, parents, and children consider important. The current data are promising, but it is premature to routinely recommend probiotics for the prevention of pediatric AAD.

Potential uses of probiotics in the neonate

Probiotics are specific microbes that, when consumed, contribute to the management of disease or to reducing the risk of disease. Probiotic bacteria have been shown to have several effects that might be of benefit to the neonate, including: modulating the establishment of intestinal microbiota, degrading antigens, promoting mucosal barrier functions and inhibiting mucosal pathogen adherence, and enhancing the maturation of the innate and adaptive immune systems. Results from clinical trials suggest that specific probiotics might be useful in reducing the risk of necrotising enterocolitis and infectious disease in infancy. In addition, probiotic supplementation commenced in the neonatal period might reduce the risk of atopic disease in later life. These data are preliminary, and a number of issues need to be resolved before general guidelines regarding the use of probiotics in the neonatal period can be given.