CONTEXT: Probiotics are live microorganisms intended to confer a health benefit when consumed. One condition for which probiotics have been advocated is the diarrhea that is a common adverse effect of antibiotic use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for probiotic use in the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic databases were searched (DARE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, MANTIS, TOXLINE, ToxFILE, NTIS, and AGRICOLA) and references of included studies and reviews were screened from database inception to February 2012, without language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers identified parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and/or Bacillus) for the prevention or treatment of AAD. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed trial quality. RESULTS: A total of 82 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The majority used Lactobacillus-based interventions alone or in combination with other genera; strains were poorly documented. The pooled relative risk in a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of 63 RCTs, which included 11 811 participants, indicated a statistically significant association of probiotic administration with reduction in AAD (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.68; P < .001; I(2), 54%; [risk difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.05], [number needed to treat, 13; 95% CI, 10.3 to 19.1]) in trials reporting on the number of patients with AAD. This result was relatively insensitive to numerous subgroup analyses. However, there exists significant heterogeneity in pooled results and the evidence is insufficient to determine whether this association varies systematically by population, antibiotic characteristic, or probiotic preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled evidence suggests that probiotics are associated with a reduction in AAD. More research is needed to determine which probiotics are associated with the greatest efficacy and for which patients receiving which specific antibiotics. ※ 파이프라인이 API로 수집·저장한 초록 원문 그대로. 한국어 핵심요약은 이 텍스트만을 근거로 작성됩니다.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics can disturb gastrointestinal microbiota which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live microbial preparations that, when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit to the host, and are a potential C. difficile prevention strategy. Recent clinical practice guidelines do not recommend probiotic prophylaxis, even though probiotics have the highest quality evidence among cited prophylactic therapies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing C.difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 21 March 2017. Additionally, we conducted an extensive grey literature search. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled (placebo, alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment control) trials investigating probiotics (any strain, any dose) for prevention of CDAD, or C. difficile infection were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (independently and in duplicate) extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was the incidence of CDAD. Secondary outcomes included detection of C. difficile infection in stool, adverse events, antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and length of hospital stay. Dichotomous outcomes (e.g. incidence of CDAD) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. Continuous outcomes (e.g. length of hospital stay) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of missing data on efficacy and safety outcomes. For the sensitivity analyses, we assumed that the event rate for those participants in the control group who had missing data was the same as the event rate for those participants in the control group who were successfully followed. For the probiotic group, we calculated effects using the following assumed ratios of event rates in those with missing data in comparison to those successfully followed: 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on probiotic species, dose, adult versus pediatric population, and risk of bias as well as a post hoc subgroup analysis on baseline risk of CDAD (low 0% to 2%; moderate 3% to 5%; high > 5%). The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was independently assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies (9955 participants) met the eligibility requirements for our review. Overall, 27 studies were rated as either high or unclear risk of bias. A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) among trials investigating CDAD (31 trials, 8672 participants) suggests that probiotics reduce the risk of CDAD by 60%. The incidence of CDAD was 1.5% (70/4525) in the probiotic group compared to 4.0% (164/4147) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52; GRADE = moderate). Twenty-two of 31 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 2% to 45%. Our complete case CDAD results proved robust to sensitivity analyses of plausible and worst-plausible assumptions regarding missing outcome data and results were similar whether considering subgroups of trials in adults versus children, inpatients versus outpatients, different probiotic species, lower versus higher doses of probiotics, or studies at high versus low risk of bias. However, in a post hoc analysis, we did observe a subgroup effect with respect to baseline risk of developing CDAD. Trials with a baseline CDAD risk of 0% to 2% and 3% to 5% did not show any difference in risk but trials enrolling participants with a baseline risk of > 5% for developing CDAD demonstrated a large 70% risk reduction (interaction P value = 0.01). Among studies with a baseline risk > 5%, the incidence of CDAD in the probiotic group was 3.1% (43/1370) compared to 11.6% (126/1084) in the control group (13 trials, 2454 participants; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.42; GRADE = moderate). With respect to detection of C. difficile in the stool pooled complete case results from 15 trials (1214 participants) did not show a reduction in infection rates. C. difficile infection was 15.5% (98/633) in the probiotics group compared to 17.0% (99/581) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10; GRADE = moderate). Adverse events were assessed in 32 studies (8305 participants) and our pooled complete case analysis indicates probiotics reduce the risk of adverse events by 17% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; GRADE = very low). In both treatment and control groups the most common adverse events included abdominal cramping, nausea, fever, soft stools, flatulence, and taste disturbance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials including 8672 patients, moderate certainty evidence suggests that probiotics are effective for preventing CDAD (NNTB = 42 patients, 95% CI 32 to 58). Our post hoc subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity indicated that probiotics are effective among trials with a CDAD baseline risk >5% (NNTB = 12; moderate certainty evidence), but not among trials with a baseline risk ≤5% (low to moderate certainty evidence). Although adverse effects were reported among 32 included trials, there were more adverse events among patients in the control groups. The short-term use of probiotics appears to be safe and effective when used along with antibiotics in patients who are not immunocompromised or severely debilitated. Despite the need for further research, hospitalized patients, particularly those at high risk of CDAD, should be informed of the potential benefits and harms of probiotics. ※ 파이프라인이 API로 수집·저장한 초록 원문 그대로. 한국어 핵심요약은 이 텍스트만을 근거로 작성됩니다.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastroenteritis develops in millions of children in the United States every year, and treatment with probiotics is common. However, data to support the use of probiotics in this population are limited. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial involving children 3 months to 4 years of age with acute gastroenteritis who presented to one of 10 U.S. pediatric emergency departments. Participants received a 5-day course of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG at a dose of 1×1010 colony-forming units twice daily or matching placebo. Follow-up surveys were conducted daily for 5 days and again 14 days after enrollment and 1 month after enrollment. The primary outcome was moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis, which was defined as an illness episode with a total score on the modified Vesikari scale of 9 or higher (scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), within 14 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the duration and frequency of diarrhea and vomiting, the duration of day-care absenteeism, and the rate of household transmission (defined as the development of symptoms of gastroenteritis in previously asymptomatic household contacts). RESULTS: Among the 971 participants, 943 (97.1%) completed the trial. The median age was 1.4 years (interquartile range, 0.9 to 2.3), and 513 participants (52.9%) were male. The modified Vesikari scale score for the 14-day period after enrollment was 9 or higher in 55 of 468 participants (11.8%) in the L. rhamnosus GG group and in 60 of 475 participants (12.6%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.35; P=0.83). There were no significant differences between the L. rhamnosus GG group and the placebo group in the duration of diarrhea (median, 49.7 hours in the L. rhamnosus GG group and 50.9 hours in the placebo group; P=0.26), duration of vomiting (median, 0 hours in both groups; P=0.17), or day-care absenteeism (median, 2 days in both groups; P=0.67) or in the rate of household transmission (10.6% and 14.1% in the two groups, respectively; P=0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Among preschool children with acute gastroenteritis, those who received a 5-day course of L. rhamnosus GG did not have better outcomes than those who received placebo. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01773967 .). ※ 파이프라인이 API로 수집·저장한 초록 원문 그대로. 한국어 핵심요약은 이 텍스트만을 근거로 작성됩니다.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteritis accounts for approximately 1.7 million visits to the emergency department (ED) by children in the United States every year. Data to determine whether the use of probiotics improves outcomes in these children are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving 886 children 3 to 48 months of age with gastroenteritis who presented to six pediatric EDs in Canada. Participants received a 5-day course of a combination probiotic product containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052, at a dose of 4.0×109 colony-forming units twice daily or placebo. The primary outcome was moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis, which was defined according to a post-enrollment modified Vesikari scale symptom score of 9 or higher (scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating more severe disease). Secondary outcomes included the duration of diarrhea and vomiting, the percentage of children who had unscheduled physician visits, and the presence or absence of adverse events. RESULTS: Moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis within 14 days after enrollment occurred in 108 of 414 participants (26.1%) who were assigned to probiotics and 102 of 413 participants (24.7%) who were assigned to placebo (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.46; P=0.72). After adjustment for trial site, age, detection of rotavirus in stool, and frequency of diarrhea and vomiting before enrollment, trial-group assignment did not predict moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.49; P=0.74). There were no significant differences between the probiotic group and the placebo group in the median duration of diarrhea (52.5 hours [interquartile range, 18.3 to 95.8] and 55.5 hours [interquartile range, 20.2 to 102.3], respectively; P=0.31) or vomiting (17.7 hours [interquartile range, 0 to 58.6] and 18.7 hours [interquartile range, 0 to 51.6], P=0.18), the percentages of participants with unscheduled visits to a health care provider (30.2% and 26.6%; odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.62; P=0.27), and the percentage of participants who reported an adverse event (34.8% and 38.7%; odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.11; P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In children who presented to the emergency department with gastroenteritis, twice-daily administration of a combined L. rhamnosus-L. helveticus probiotic did not prevent the development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis within 14 days after enrollment. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PROGUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01853124 .). ※ 파이프라인이 API로 수집·저장한 초록 원문 그대로. 한국어 핵심요약은 이 텍스트만을 근거로 작성됩니다.

BACKGROUND: Probiotics may improve a person's health by regulating their immune function. Some trials have shown that probiotic strains can prevent respiratory infections. Even though the previous version of our review showed benefits of probiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), several new studies have been published. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose), compared with placebo, in the prevention of acute URTIs in people of all ages, at risk of acute URTIs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to July week 3, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to July 2014), Web of Science (1900 to July 2014), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, which includes the China Biological Medicine Database (from 1978 to July 2014), the Chinese Medicine Popular Science Literature Database (from 2000 to July 2014) and the Masters Degree Dissertation of Beijing Union Medical College Database (from 1981 to July 2014). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials on 31 July 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics with placebo to prevent acute URTIs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials, and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs, although we could only extract data to meta-analyse 12 trials, which involved 3720 participants including children, adults (aged around 40 years) and older people. We found that probiotics were better than placebo when measuring the number of participants experiencing episodes of acute URTI (at least one episode: odds ratio (OR) 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.76, P value < 0.001, low quality evidence; at least three episodes: OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80, P value = 0.002, low quality evidence); the mean duration of an episode of acute URTI (mean difference (MD) -1.89; 95% CI -2.03 to -1.75, P value < 0.001, low quality evidence); reduced antibiotic prescription rates for acute URTIs (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.94, moderate quality evidence) and cold-related school absence (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.47, very low quality evidence). Probiotics and placebo were similar when measuring the rate ratio of episodes of acute URTI (rate ratio 0.83; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, P value = 0.12, very low quality evidence) and adverse events (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.19, P value = 0.40, low quality evidence). Side effects of probiotics were minor and gastrointestinal symptoms were the most common. We found that some subgroups had a high level of heterogeneity when we conducted pooled analyses and the evidence level was low or very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics were better than placebo in reducing the number of participants experiencing episodes of acute URTI, the mean duration of an episode of acute URTI, antibiotic use and cold-related school absence. This indicates that probiotics may be more beneficial than placebo for preventing acute URTIs. However, the quality of the evidence was low or very low. ※ 파이프라인이 API로 수집·저장한 초록 원문 그대로. 한국어 핵심요약은 이 텍스트만을 근거로 작성됩니다.