Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea

School of Medicine, Swansea University, Room 314, The Grove Building, Singleton Park, Swansea, West Glamorgan, UK, SA2 8PP.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2010; 129(11):CD003048. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003048.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Probiotics may offer a safe intervention in acute infectious diarrhoea to reduce the duration and severity of the illness.
To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea.
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group's trials register (July 2010), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2010), EMBASE (1988 to July 2010), and reference lists from studies and reviews. We also contacted organizations and individuals working in the field, and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing probiotic agents.
Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent.
Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the trial and extracted data. Primary outcomes were the mean duration of diarrhoea, stool frequency on day 2 after intervention and ongoing diarrhoea on day 4. A random-effects model was used.
Sixty-three studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 8014 participants. Of these, 56 trials recruited infants and young children. The trials varied in the definition used for acute diarrhoea and the end of the diarrhoeal illness, as well as in the risk of bias. The trials were undertaken in a wide range of different settings and also varied greatly in organisms tested, dosage, and participants' characteristics. No adverse events were attributed to the probiotic intervention.Probiotics reduced the duration of diarrhoea, although the size of the effect varied considerably between studies.The average of the effect was significant for mean duration of diarrhoea (mean difference 24.76 hours; 95% confidence interval 15.9 to 33.6 hours; n=4555, trials=35) diarrhoea lasting ≥4 days (risk ratio 0.41; 0.32 to 0.53; n=2853, trials=29) and stool frequency on day 2 (mean difference 0.80; 0.45 to 1.14; n=2751, trials=20).The differences in effect size between studies was not explained by study quality, probiotic strain, the number of different strains, the viability of the organisms, dosage of organisms, the causes of diarrhoea, or the severity of the diarrhoea, or whether the studies were done in developed or developing countries.
Used alongside rehydration therapy, probiotics appear to be safe and have clear beneficial effects in shortening the duration and reducing stool frequency in acute infectious diarrhoea. However, more research is needed to guide the use of particular probiotic regimens in specific patient groups.

Download full-text


Available from: Stephen J Allen, Jun 28, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (L.GG) was present in all adenoids of children receiving the L. GG product. However, since L.GG was also found from the placebo group, one cannot confirm its effect on the occurrence of rhinovirus (RV) or enterovirus (EV). The present study was conducted to determine whether a 3-week oral consumption of L.GG would lead to presence of the probiotic in adenoid tissue. Furthermore, nasopharyngeal RV and EV findings and symptom data were investigated. The tissue samples were collected from 40 children aged 1-5 years about to undergo adenotomy due to recurrent acute/secretory otitis media, chronic rhinitis, or recurrent sinusitis after a 3-week daily consumption of L.GG (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20). Strain-specific real-time PCR was used to detect RV, EV, and L.GG in adenoid tissue. L.GG was recovered in the adenoid sample in 100% of children in the L.GG group and in 76% in the placebo group (p = 0.07). Both RV and EV were found in 31% of children in the L.GG group and in 18% of children in the placebo group (p = 0.67). The majority of the positive samples were positive for both RV and EV. Study diaries showed no differences in symptoms between the groups.
    Acta oto-laryngologica 03/2015; DOI:10.3109/00016489.2015.1027412 · 0.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prebiotics are non-digestible food ingredients (oligosaccharides) that reach the colon and are used as substrate by microorganisms producing energy, metabolites and micronutrients used for the host; in addition they also stimulate the selective growth of certain beneficial species (mainly bifidobacteria and lactobacilli) in the intestinal microbiota. In this article, a multidisciplinary approach to understand the concept of prebiotic carbohydrates, their properties and beneficial effects in humans has been carried out. Definitions of prebiotics, reported by relevant international organizations and researchers, are described. A comprehensive description of accepted prebiotics having strong scientific evidence of their beneficial properties in humans (inulin-type fructans, FOS, GOS, lactulose and human milk oligosaccharides) is reported. Emerging prebiotics and those which are in the early stages of study have also included in this study. Taken into account that the chemical structure greatly influences carbohydrates prebiotic properties, the analytical techniques used for their analysis and characterization are discussed. In vitro and in vivo models used to evaluate the gastrointestinal digestion, absorption resistance and fermentability in the colon of prebiotics as well as major criteria to design robust intervention trials in humans are described. Finally, a comprehensive summary of the beneficial effects of prebiotics for health at systemic and intestinal levels is reported. The research effort on prebiotics has been intensive in last decades and has demonstrated that a multidisciplinary approach is necessary in order to claim their health benefits. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This editorial has also been recorded as a podcast; please click here to access.As if a natural disaster was not enough, Vibrio cholerae emerged to make the situation worse in post-flood Pakistan, and for the first time since the 1960s in post-earthquake Haiti . How do we, as researchers, policy-makers and human beings, respond to such situations? In response to the tsunami on 26 December 2004, concerned reviewers within The Cochrane Collaboration established Evidence Aid - an initiative that pools together systematic reviews that might be useful to disaster response agencies and decision-makers in crisis situations. In support of the Evidence Aid initiative, The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (the publishers of The Cochrane Library) make the content in the Evidence Aid collections free to all. Additionally, areas in need have been assisted, such as Pakistan, which has now been granted free access to The Cochrane Library for the duration of the crisis.Following the recent floods in Pakistan, The Cochrane Library published an Evidence Aid collection on water safety and water-related diseases . This collection includes a section of Cochrane Reviews dedicated to general diarrhoea prevention, management, and treatment. It highlights to first responders, governments and providers that oral rehydration solution is equally effective as intravenous rehydration in children with gastroenteritis , and that zinc treatment for diarrhoea can shorten the duration of the disease in children aged six months to five years . Further, it includes one updated and one new Cochrane Review on probiotics from the November 2010 issue of The Cochrane Library . The updated Cochrane Review shows that probiotics seem to be beneficial when used with rehydration therapy in treating acute, infectious diarrhoea in children and in adults and the new Cochrane Review shows that probiotics may be effective in treating persistent diarrhoea in children . To prevent the spread of diarrhoeal disease, the collection includes effectiveness reviews available for water safety and waste management, including a hand-washing review that equates the benefits of hand-washing to the benefits of clean-water access . A further Cochrane Review evaluates the effectiveness of injected oral cholera vaccines . However, although some of the trials included in these reviews were conducted in low- and middle-income countries or among at-risk populations, it is unlikely that any were conducted during a real-life emergency.The types of review that are needed to truly assist in disaster management supersede the current, excellent reviews of existing research evidence on effects, in areas like vaccines, zinc, and probiotics. The Cochrane Reviews included in the Evidence Aid water safety collection tell us what works and doesn't work, and what remains unproven. However, what is needed beyond these reviews is systems synthesis looking at the complex issues of how societies organise themselves for prevention and care, for access to clean water and sanitation, and how they communicate and initiate behaviour change among the displaced or fragile populations. What matters most: the building of embankments, the distance to clean water, or the time from incident to response? We cannot be sure, and decision-makers need this knowledge if they are to achieve their goals of doing the best they can to improve health and speed recovery. Recent examples of varying responses and outcomes were seen following the recent cyclones in South Asia. There was a relative success in Bangladesh in terms of lives saved and response co-ordination after Cyclone Sidr in November 2007, compared with the devastating loss of 78,000 lives after Cyclone Nargis in Burma in May 2008 .Perhaps most useful would be a review of how governments and international agencies co-ordinate their responses to crisis situations, and the impact this has on lives saved, services delivered and recovery post-disaster. Even though the methodology for such a review and the evidence it would synthesise might not lend itself to inclusion within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, such reviews are needed, alongside reviews on interventions to prevent cholera, to treat fractured legs, etc. Further, there might also be benefit in synthesising the differences between the preparation and the responses across settings, so that guidelines can be developed for future crises to prevent human suffering in the first place, rather than having to react later to alleviate it.The initial stimuli for Evidence Aid were high-profile tragedies that attract the attention and funding of international agencies and people around the world. Less newsworthy are the chronic disasters that are a constant presence in low- and middle-income countries. More than 4,000 children die each day from diarrhoeal disease , and to a large extent, we know which interventions are effective at preventing these deaths, thanks in part to systematic reviews such as those in the Evidence Aid portal. Thus, what is needed now may not be more trials and other new research on the effectiveness of single interventions like zinc, hand-washing, immunisations against rotavirus or cholera, or even more systematic reviews where the effects are already clear. The continuing challenge that needs to be overcome is how to get what we know works into the hands, mouths, and bodies of the children who need it, and to the people who can deliver it to them. What is needed now is more implementation research, more operational research and more health systems research. Systematic reviews of this research, accompanied by effective packages of knowledge translation, with an eye on taking these life-saving interventions to scale, will allow the transformation of the knowledge in Evidence Aid into the practice that saves lives and promotes health .Image credit: Reproduced with permission from Mike Clarke, Director of the UK Cochrane Centre.Keywords: Infectious diseases Global health.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2010; 2011(11):ED000014. DOI:10.1002/14651858.ED000014 · 5.94 Impact Factor