Article

A Meta-Analysis of Probiotic Efficacy for Gastrointestinal Diseases

Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 04/2012; 7(4):e34938. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034938
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Meta-analyses on the effects of probiotics on specific gastrointestinal diseases have generally shown positive effects on disease prevention and treatment; however, the relative efficacy of probiotic use for treatment and prevention across different gastrointestinal diseases, with differing etiology and mechanisms of action, has not been addressed.
We included randomized controlled trials in humans that used a specified probiotic in the treatment or prevention of Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, Traveler's Diarrhea, or Necrotizing Enterocolitis. Random effects models were used to evaluate efficacy as pooled relative risks across the eight diseases as well as across probiotic species, single vs. multiple species, patient ages, dosages, and length of treatment. Probiotics had a positive significant effect across all eight gastrointestinal diseases with a relative risk of 0.58 (95% (CI) 0.51-0.65). Six of the eight diseases: Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, and Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, showed positive significant effects. Traveler's Diarrhea and Necrotizing Enterocolitis did not show significant effects of probiotcs. Of the 11 species and species mixtures, all showed positive significant effects except for Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Bifidobacterium infantis. Across all diseases and probiotic species, positive significant effects of probiotics were observed for all age groups, single vs. multiple species, and treatment lengths.
Probiotics are generally beneficial in treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal diseases. Efficacy was not observed for Traveler's Diarrhea or Necrotizing Enterocolitis or for the probiotic species L. acidophilus, L. plantarum, and B. infantis. When choosing to use probiotics in the treatment or prevention of gastrointestinal disease, the type of disease and probiotic species (strain) are the most important factors to take into consideration.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
259 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Probiotics and prebiotics are increasingly being added to foodstuffs with claims of health benefits. Probiotics are live microorganisms that are thought to have beneficial effects on the host, whereas prebiotics are ingredients that stimulate the growth and/or function of beneficial intestinal microorganisms. But can these products directly modulate immune function and influence inflammatory diseases? Here, Nature Reviews Immunology asks four experts to discuss these issues and provide their thoughts on the future application of probiotics as a disease therapy.
    Nature reviews. Immunology 09/2012; 12(10):728-734. DOI:10.1038/nri3312 · 33.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We evaluated the effectiveness of a synbiotic in the treatment of childhood functional abdominal pain (FAP). Probiotics are effective in the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders in adult patients, but there is lack of information in children. Children with FAP, based on the Rome III criteria (n = 115, aged 6-18 years), were randomized to receive either synbiotic (Bacillus coagulans, Unique IS-2, 150 million spore plus FOS, 100 mg) twice daily or placebo for four weeks. Treatment response was defined as ≥ 2-point reduction in the 6-point self-rated pain scale or "no pain". Physician-rated global severity and improvement were also evaluated. Patients were followed for a total of 12 weeks. Eighty-eight patients completed the trial (45 with synbiotic). Response rate was higher with synbiotic than placebo after medication (60% vs. 39.5%, P = 0.044), but was not different between the two groups at week 12 (64.4% vs. 53.4%, P = 0.204). Difference between the two groups regarding the physician-rated global severity over the study period was not statistically significant (z = -1.87, P = 0.062). There was no significant difference between the two groups in physician-rated global improvement (week 4, P = 0.437; week 12, P = 0.111). Receiving synbiotic (OR 2.608, 95% CI: 1.01-6.68) and baseline pain score (OR 2.21, 95% CI: 1.19-4.10) were predictors of treatment response after medication. The synbiotic containing Bacillus coagulans and FOS seems to be effective in the treatment of childhood FAP. Further trials are recommended in this regard.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diarrhea is the most common health issue affecting travelers to destinations across the world. This paper reviews the options for initial treatment of acute traveler’s diarrhea (TD). Its prevention, including but not limited to vaccines and safe travel and eating habits, is an important consideration but is beyond the scope of this paper. Treatment of TD has three arms: volume repletion, antibiotics, and antimotility/antisecretory agents. Patients should be advised to continue a diet that they can tolerate and maintain adequate fluid intake. In most cases, neither oral rehydration therapy nor dietary restrictions are likely to provide significant benefit. As yet, there is no evidence to support probiotic use for treatment of this type of diarrhea. Given that bacteria are the most frequent cause of TD, adult patients with moderate to severe disease should be treated empirically with a short course of antibiotics. In many instances, these will be prescribed pre-travel with instructions for proper usage when typical symptoms occur while abroad. However, such travelers should be advised to see a physician or seek emergency treatment if symptoms are severe or persist beyond 3 days. Antibiotic selection must take into account the epidemiology of resistant enteric pathogens. Fluoroquinolones are usually effective, although resistance of Campylobacter to this class of drugs in South and Southeast Asia warrants azithromycin as first-line empiric therapy in travelers to those regions. One day of therapy is often sufficient but can be extended to 3 days. Rifaximin is an alternative in non-invasive disease only. The antimotility agent loperamide is safe and effective and should be considered as adjunctive therapy in most cases of TD and can similarly be prescribed pre-travel. In non-pregnant adults, bismuth subsalicylate can also provide some symptomatic relief. Where available, racecadotril may be a safe alternative in both adults and children, although never specifically studied in TD. In cases of severe symptoms, or those lasting longer than 3 days, the patient should be evaluated for non-bacterial etiologies as well as possible Clostridium difficile infection. Certain travelers are more vulnerable to severe complications related to TD. Children, particularly infants, may need more aggressive fluid resuscitation with oral rehydration therapy. Several of the antidiarrheal agents must be avoided. Elderly patients and those with impaired cardiovascular reserve or immune-deficient states are more prone to complications as well. Treatment recommendations also differ for pregnant women. We generally advise adult non-pregnant travelers to follow smart eating and drinking practices and to bring a supply of bismuth subsalicylate and loperamide. We also prescribe an empiric antibiotic course (ciprofloxacin or azithromycin for up to 3 days) that is to be used for moderate to severe cases of TD.
    03/2015; 7(1). DOI:10.1007/s40506-015-0039-3

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
8 Downloads
Available from
Oct 13, 2014