Dataset Information

Probiotic supplementation during pregnancy or infancy for the prevention of asthma and wheeze: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the association of probiotic supplementation during pregnancy or infancy with childhood asthma and wheeze.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane Library) databases from inception to August 2013, plus the World Health Organization's international clinical trials registry platform and relevant conference proceedings for the preceding five years. Included trials and relevant reviews were forward searched in Web of Science.

Review methods

Two reviewers independently identified randomised controlled trials evaluating probiotics administered to mothers during pregnancy or to infants during the first year of life. The primary outcome was doctor diagnosed asthma; secondary outcomes included wheeze and lower respiratory tract infection.

Results

We identified 20 eligible trials including 4866 children. Trials were heterogeneous in the type and duration of probiotic supplementation, and duration of follow-up. Only five trials conducted follow-up beyond participants' age of 6 years (median 24 months), and none were powered to detect asthma as the primary outcome. The overall rate of doctor diagnosed asthma was 10.7%; overall rates of incident wheeze and lower respiratory tract infection were 33.3% and 13.9%, respectively. Among 3257 infants enrolled in nine trials contributing asthma data, the risk ratio of doctor diagnosed asthma in participants randomised to receive probiotics was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.21, I(2)=0%). The risk ratio of incident wheeze was 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09, I(2)=0%, 9 trials, 1949 infants). Among 1364 infants enrolled in six trials, the risk ratio of lower respiratory tract infection after probiotic supplementation was 1.26 (0.99 to 1.61, I(2)=0%). We adjudicated most trials to be of high (ten trials) or unclear (nine trials) risk of bias, mainly due to attrition.

Conclusions

We found no evidence to support a protective association between perinatal use of probiotics and doctor diagnosed asthma or childhood wheeze. Randomised controlled trials to date have not yielded sufficient evidence to recommend probiotics for the primary prevention of these disorders. Extended follow-up of existing trials, along with further clinical and basic research, are needed to accurately define the role of probiotics in the prevention of childhood asthma.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (CRD42013004385).

SUBMITTER: Azad MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3898421 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVitamin D deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of asthma. This study aimed to quantify the effect of early life vitamin D status on asthma and wheeze later in life.MethodsPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and CNKI databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched up to July 2017. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with vitamin D level in blood (maternal or cord or infant) or intake (maternal intake during pregnancy or infant intake) and asthma and/or wheeze. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to summarize the risk estimates of comparisons between highest vs. lowest vitamin D categories.ResultsOf the 1485 studies identified, three RCTs and 33 cohort studies were included. We did not include the RCTs (1619 participants) in the meta-analysis as the comparators and outcome definitions were heterogenous. Three RCTs reported a non-statistically significant effect of vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy on offspring wheeze/asthma at 3 years of age. Pooled estimates of cohort studies suggest no association between antenatal blood vitamin D levels or vitamin D intake and offspring asthma assessed either > 5 years or ≤ 5 years. The estimate for blood vitamin D remained unchanged when two studies assessing asthma in adulthood were excluded, but a significant inverse association emerged between vitamin D intake and childhood asthma. We found no association between antenatal vitamin D level and wheeze. On the other hand, vitamin D intake during pregnancy may have a protective effect against wheeze.ConclusionsThe pooled estimates from cohort studies show no association between antenatal blood vitamin D level and asthma/wheeze in later life. Whereas, the pooled estimates from cohort studies suggest that antenatal vitamin D intake may have an effect on childhood asthma > 5 years or childhood wheeze. The inconsistent results from studies assessing vitamin D either in blood or intake may be explained by previously reported non-linear association between blood vitamin D3 and childhood asthma. Further trials with enough power and longer follow-up time should be conducted to confirm the results.

Project description:BackgroundLower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been associated with greater risk of recurrent wheezing and subsequent asthma. However, it is still unclear whether this association is causal or not. RSV-specific monoclonal antibodies have been shown to reduce RSV-related hospitalisations in high-risk infants, i.e. those born pre-term, but the longer term follow-up has given conflicting evidence for the prevention of recurrent wheeze or asthma.ObjectiveWe aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether or not prophylaxis with a monoclonal antibody for prevention of RSV-bronchiolitis reduces the risk of subsequent recurrent wheeze or asthma. If so, this would support the hypothesis that the association between RSV and recurrent wheeze and/or asthma is causative.MethodsTo identify relevant studies, we will search a number of databases including Medline, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science and will also manually look for unpublished data by contacting the manufacturers of monoclonal antibodies. The intervention being investigated is RSV-specific monoclonal antibody prophylaxis, and the outcome being measured is recurrent wheeze and/or asthma. Studies will be screened according to inclusion/exclusion criteria, to include primary studies of any study design type. Eligible studies will then be evaluated for quality and assessed for bias independently by three reviewers using the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) approach. The results of the studies will be extracted into 2 × 2 outcome tables, and a meta-analysis will be carried out to produce forest plots based on relative risk. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic. The statistical software we will use is StatsDirect.DiscussionThis review will aid in determining if the relationship between RSV and asthma development is a causal one, by showing the effect (if any) of RSV prophylaxis on subsequent recurrent wheeze/asthma. If this study shows RSV prophylaxis to have no effect on the outcome of recurrent wheeze/asthma, the question of causality remains.

Project description:ImportanceThere is growing evidence that vitamin D plays a role in the pathogenesis of asthma but it is unclear whether supplementation during childhood may improve asthma outcomes.ObjectivesThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment or adjunct treatment for asthma.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL through July 2014.Study selectionWe included RCTs that evaluated vitamin D supplementation in children versus active control or placebo for asthma.Data extraction and synthesisOne reviewer extracted data and one reviewer verified data accuracy. We qualitatively summarized the main results of efficacy and safety and meta-analyzed data on comparable outcomes across studies. We used GRADE for strength of evidence.Main outcome measuresMain planned outcomes measures were ED visits and hospitalizations. As secondary outcomes, we examined measures of asthma control, including frequency of asthma exacerbations, asthma symptom scores, measures of lung function, β2-agonist use and daily steroid use, adverse events and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.ResultsEight RCTs (one parallel, one crossover design) comprising 573 children aged 3 to 18 years were included. One study (moderate-quality, n = 100) reported significantly less ED visits for children treated with vitamin D. No other studies examined the primary outcome (ED visits and hospitalizations). There was a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations in children receiving vitamin D (low-quality; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.63, 3 studies, n = 378). There was no significant effect for asthma symptom scores and lung function. The serum 25(OH)D level was higher in the vitamin D group at the end of the intervention (low-quality; MD 19.66 nmol/L, 95% CI 5.96 nmol/L to 33.37 nmol/L, 5 studies, n = 167).LimitationsWe identified a high degree of clinical diversity (interventions and outcomes) and methodological heterogeneity (sample size and risk of bias) in included trials.Conclusions and relevanceRandomized controlled trials provide some low-quality evidence to support vitamin D supplementation for the reduction of asthma exacerbations. Evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation for other asthma-related outcomes in children is either limited or inconclusive. We recommend that future trials focus on patient-relevant outcomes that are comparable across studies, including standardized definitions of asthma exacerbations.

Project description:Fermented dairy foods (FDFs) and probiotics are promising tools for the prevention and management of cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs), respectively. The relation between the regular consumption of FDFs and CMD risk factors was assessed by prospective cohort studies (PCSs), and the effect of probiotic supplementation added into a dairy matrix on CMD parameters was evaluated by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Moreover, the effects of probiotic supplementation added into a dairy matrix were compared with those administered in capsule/powder form. Twenty PCSs and 52 RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis. In PCSs, fermented milk was associated with a 4% reduction in risk of stroke, ischemic heart disease, and cardiovascular mortality [RR (95% CI); 0.96 (0.94, 0.98)]; yogurt intake was associated with a risk reduction of 27% [RR (95% CI); 0.73 (0.70, 0.76)] for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and 20% [RR (95% CI); 0.80 (0.74, 0.87)] for metabolic syndrome development. In RCTs, probiotic supplementation added into dairy matrices produced a greater reduction in lipid biomarkers than when added into capsules/powder in hypercholesterolemic subjects, and probiotic supplementation by capsules/powder produced a greater reduction in T2D biomarkers than when added into dairy matrices in diabetic subjects. Both treatments (dairy matrix and capsules/powder) resulted in a significant reduction in anthropometric parameters in obese subjects. In summary, fermented milk consumption is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk, while yogurt intake is associated with a reduced risk of T2D and metabolic syndrome development in the general population. Furthermore, probiotic supplementation added into dairy matrices could be considered beneficial for lowering lipid concentrations and reducing anthropometric parameters. Additionally, probiotic capsule/powder supplementation could contribute to T2D management and reduce anthropometric parameters. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the studies and the different probiotic strains used in the studies. This trial is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018091791) and the protocol can be accessed at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091791.

Project description:BackgroundIn February 2008, the results of the PRObiotics in PAncreatitis TRIAl (PROPATRIA) were published. This study investigated the use of probiotics in patients suffering from severe acute pancreatitis. No differences between the groups were found for any of the primary endpoints. However, mortality in the probiotics group was significantly higher than in the placebo group. This result was unexpected in light of the results of the animal studies referred to in the trial protocol. We used the methods of systematic review and meta-analysis to take a closer look at the relation between the animal studies on probiotics and pancreatitis and the PROPATRIA-trial, focussing on indications for harmful effects and efficacy.Methods and resultsBoth PubMed and Embase were searched for original articles concerning the effects of probiotics in experimental acute pancreatitis, yielding thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data on mortality, bacterial translocation and histological damage to the pancreas were extracted, as well as study quality indicators. Meta-analysis of the four animal studies published before PROPATRIA showed that probiotic supplementation did not diminish mortality, reduced the overall histopathological score of the pancreas and reduced bacterial translocation to pancreas and mesenteric lymph nodes. Comparable results were found when all relevant studies published so far were taken into account.ConclusionsA more thorough analysis of all relevant animal studies carried out before (and after) the publication of the study protocol of the PROPATRIA trial could not have predicted the harmful effects of probiotics found in the PROPATRIA-trial. Moreover, meta-analysis of the preclinical animal studies did show evidence for efficacy. It may be suggested, however, that the most appropriate animal experiments in relation to the design of the human trial have not yet been conducted, which compromises a fair comparison between the results of the animal studies and the PROPATRIA trial.

Project description:Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that probiotics reduce the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC ≥ Stage II), late onset sepsis (LOS), all-cause mortality, and feeding intolerance in preterm neonates. Data from observational studies is important to confirm probiotic effects in clinical practice. We aimed to compare outcomes before and after implementing routine probiotic supplementation (RPS) in preterm neonates (<37 weeks of gestation) by performing a systematic review of non-RCTs using Cochrane methodology. Databases including PubMed, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane Central library, and Google Scholar were searched in May 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Categorical measure of effect size was expressed as OR and 95% CI. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by the chi-squared test, I2 statistic. The level of evidence (LOE) was summarized using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines. Primary outcomes were NEC ≥ Stage II, LOS, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included probiotic sepsis. Thirty good-quality non-RCTs (n = 77,018) from 18 countries were included. The meta-analysis showed RPS was associated with significantly reduced: 1) NEC ≥ Stage II (30 studies, n = 77,018; OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.73; P <0.00001, I2: 65%; LOE: Moderate), 2) LOS: (21 studies, n = 65,858; OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.97; P = 0.02, I2: 74%; LOE: Low), and 3) all-cause mortality (27 non-RCTs, n = 70,977; OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.88; P = 0.0001, I2: 49%; LOE: Low). Subgroups: 1) extremely low birth weight (ELBW: birth weight <1000 g) neonates: RPS was associated with significantly reduced NEC ≥ Stage II (4.5% compared with 7.9%). However, there was no difference in LOS and mortality. 2) Multistrain RPS was more effective than single strain. One study reported 3 nonfatal cases of probiotic sepsis. In summary, moderate- to low-quality evidence indicates that RPS was associated with significantly reduced NEC ≥ Stage II, LOS, and all-cause mortality in neonates <37 weeks of gestation and NEC ≥ Stage II in ELBW neonates.