Article

Therapeutic Use of Prebiotics, Probiotics, and Postbiotics to Prevent Necrotizing Enterocolitis: What is the Current Evidence?

Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, 2015 Uppergate Drive Northeast, 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Clinics in perinatology (Impact Factor: 2.13). 03/2013; 40(1):11-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.clp.2012.12.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality, and preventive therapies that are both effective and safe are urgently needed. Current evidence from therapeutic trials suggests that probiotics are effective in decreasing NEC in preterm infants, and probiotics are currently the most promising therapy for this devastating disease. However, concerns regarding safety and optimal dosing have limited the widespread adoption of routine clinical use of probiotics in preterm infants. This article summarizes the current evidence regarding the use of probiotics, prebiotics, and postbiotics in the preterm infant, including their therapeutic role in preventing NEC.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Ravi Mangal Patel, Mar 04, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
227 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary goal of palliative cancer care is typically to relieve suffering and improve quality of life. Most approaches to diet in this setting have focused only on eating as many calories as possible to avoid cachexia. However, as the concept of palliative care has evolved to include all aspects of cancer survivorship and not just end of life care, there is an increasing need to thoughtfully consider diet and nutrition approaches that can impact not only quality of life but overall health outcomes and perhaps even positively affect cancer recurrence and progression. In this regard, there has been a recent emphasis in the literature on nutrition and cancer as an important factor in both quality of life and in the pathophysiology of cancer. Hence, the primary purpose of this paper is to review the current data on diet and nutrition as it pertains to a wide range of cancer patients in the palliative care setting.
    Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 10/2013; 2013:917647. DOI:10.1155/2013/917647 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The field of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) research has been in existence for over 60 years. During the first five decades little progress in NEC prevention and no definitive progress in treatment was achieved. One of the major determinants of this ineffectiveness may have been a global propensity to lump NEC into a single disease entity rather than a spectrum of diseases with a common outcome. The driver of this philosophy was most likely statistical, in that researchers desired large cohorts to optimize statistical power. Additionally, in the past quarter century, our preterm NEC cohorts were (and in some cases still are) contaminated with spontaneous intestinal perforations (SIP). This completely different acquired neonatal intestinal disease (ANID) markedly alters clinical characteristics and outcomes in NEC cohorts and subsets if not addressed. Unfortunately, cohort size has been proven to be less important than data quality when it comes to NEC over this last decade of research. Emerging progress in NEC prevention has been greatly enhanced as a result of dividing well-defined NEC into subsets of disease origin and investigating these entities individually. The purpose of this review is to offer the bedside clinician a concise, up-to-date review of recent advances in NEC reductionism. The reader should understand the history and basic theory behind NEC subsets, their application to NEC prevention, and comprehend that prevention of NEC requires a comprehensive quality improvement strategy that is likely best realized with a zero tolerance approach. We are entering a new era of NEC prevention. NICUs that embrace and achieve effective NEC prevention strategies will rapidly outpace their contemporaries. Because NEC is still the major driver of morbidity and mortality in most NICUs today, those who reject or fail in this pursuit will likely face increasingly severe consequences due to growing requirements for outcomes transparency.
    Pathophysiology 12/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.11.015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To evaluate outcome data in an observational cohort of very low birth weight infants of the German Neonatal Network stratified to prophylactic use of Lactobacillus acidophilus/Bifidobacterium infantis probiotics. Study design Within the observational period (September 1, 2010, until December 31, 2012, n = 5351 infants) study centers were categorized into 3 groups based on their choice of Lactobacillus acidophilus/Bifidobacterium infantis use: (1) no prophylactic use (12 centers); (2 a/b) change of strategy nonuser to user during observational period (13 centers); and (3) use before start of observation (21 centers). Primary outcome data of all eligible infants were determined according to center-specific strategy. Results The use of probiotics was associated with a reduced risk for necrotizing enterocolitis surgery (group 1 vs group 3: 4.2 vs 2.6%, P = .028; change of strategy: 6.2 vs 4.0%, P < .001), any abdominal surgery, and hospital mortality. Infants treated with probiotics had improved weight gain/day, and probiotics had no effect on the risk of blood-culture confirmed sepsis. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, probiotics were protective for necrotizing enterocolitis surgery (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91; P = .017), any abdominal surgery (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.95; P = .02), and the combined outcome abdominal surgery and/or death (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.33-0.56; P < .001). Conclusions Our observational data support the use of Lactobacillus acidophilus/Bifidobacterium infantis probiotics to reduce the risk for gastrointestinal morbidity but not sepsis in very low birth weight infants.
    Journal of Pediatrics 08/2014; 165(2):285–289.e1. DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.04.029 · 3.74 Impact Factor
Show more