Dataset Information

Can probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics improve functional outcomes for older people: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Research evaluating the effect of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics (PPS) on laboratory markers of health (such as immunomodulatory and microbiota changes) is growing but it is unclear whether these markers translate to improved functional outcomes in the older population. This systematic review evaluates the effect of PPS on functional outcomes in older people.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the effect of PPS in older adults on functional outcomes (physical strength, frailty, mood and cognition, mortality and receipt of care). Four electronic databases were searched for studies published since year 2000.

Results

Eighteen studies (including 15 RCTs) were identified. One of five studies evaluating physical function reported benefit (improved grip strength). Two analyses of one prebiotic RCT assessed frailty by different methods with mixed results. Four studies evaluated mood with no benefit reported. Six studies evaluated cognition: four reported cognitive improvement in participants with pre-existing cognitive impairment receiving probiotics. Seven studies reported mortality as a secondary outcome with a trend to reduction in only one. Five studies reported length of hospital stay but only two peri-operative studies reported shorter stays.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence that probiotics may improve cognition in older people with pre-existing cognitive impairment but no clear evidence of benefit of PPS on physical function, frailty, mood, length of hospitalisation and mortality. Larger studies with more homogenous interventions, accounting for confounding factors, such as diet, co-morbidities and medications, are required. There is currently inadequate evidence to recommend PPS use to older people in general.

Prospero registration number

PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020173417. Date of PROSPERO registration: 01/05/20.

SUBMITTER: Coutts L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7515554 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Asthma is a common chronic disease with heavy burden. The number of asthma patients may continue to grow in the next 10 years. Existing conventional treatments have problems in which a small number of patients do not respond, often accompanied by side effects, or are too expensive. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics have been widely used in allergic and inflammatory diseases including asthma. However, their effectiveness and safety are still obscure and deserve further investigation. OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect and safety of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in treating asthma. METHODS:We will summarize and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for the treatment of asthma. RCTs comparing probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics with blank control, placebo, or conventional therapies will be included. RCTs comparing probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics plus conventional therapies with conventional therapies alone will also be included. The following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and Wanfang Data. The methodological quality of RCTs will be assessed using the Cochrane risk assessment tool. All trials included will be analyzed according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook. Review Manager 5.3, R-3.5.1 software will be used for publication bias analysis. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation pro GDT web solution will be used for evidence evaluation. RESULTS:This review will evaluate the effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on symptoms, lung function, asthma exacerbations, quality of life, and safety in patients with asthma. CONCLUSIONS:This review will provide clear evidence to assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for asthma. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER:DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/V7DM9.

Project description:There is little or no information available on the impact of funding by the food industry on trial outcomes and methodological quality of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics research in infants. The objective of this study was to compare the methodological quality, outcomes of food industry sponsored trials versus non industry sponsored trials, with regards to supplementation of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics in infant formula.A comprehensive search was conducted to identify published and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Cochrane methodology was used to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs in the following domains: 1) sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3) blinding; 4) incomplete outcome data; 5) selective outcome reporting; and 6) other bias. Clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions were reported in frequencies and percentages. The association between source of funding, risk of bias, clinical outcomes and conclusions were assessed using Pearson's Chi-square test and the Fisher's exact test. A p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant.Sixty seven completed and 3 on-going RCTs were included. Forty (59.7%) were funded by food industry, 11 (16.4%) by non-industry entities and 16 (23.9%) did not specify source of funding. Several risk of bias domains, especially sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, were not adequately reported. There was no significant association between the source of funding and sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting, majority of reported clinical outcomes or authors' conclusions. On the other hand, source of funding was significantly associated with the domains of incomplete outcome data, free of other bias domains as well as reported antibiotic use and conclusions on weight gain.In RCTs on infants fed infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics, the source of funding did not influence the majority of outcomes in favour of the sponsors' products. More non-industry funded research is needed to further assess the impact of funding on methodological quality, reported clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions.

Project description:Background and objectiveThe potential impact of gut health on general physical and mental well-being, particularly in relation to brain function, has led to a growing interest in the potential health advantages of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics for the management of ASD. A comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review was conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness and protection of many drugs targeted at manipulating the microbiota in the treatment of ASD.MethodsThe present study employed a comprehensive examination of various electronic databases yielded a total of 3,393 records that were deemed possibly pertinent to the study. RCTs encompassed a total of 720 individuals between the ages of 2 and 17, as well as 112 adults and participants ranging from 5 to 55 years old, all of whom had received a diagnosis of ASD.ResultsOverall, 10 studies reported Autism-Related Behavioral Symptoms (ARBS). Regarding the enhancement of autism-related behavioral symptoms, there wasn't a statistically significant difference between the intervention groups (combined standardized mean difference = -0.07, 95% confidence interval: -0.39 to 0.24, Z = 0.46, p = 0.65). We observed that in the patients with ASD treated with probiotic frontopolar's power decreased significantly from baseline to endpoints in beta band (Baseline: 13.09 ± 3.46, vs. endpoint: 10.75 ± 2.42, p = 0.043, respectively) and gamma band (Baseline: 5.80 ± 2.42, vs. endpoint: 4.63 ± 1.39, p = 0.033, respectively). Among all tested biochemical measures, a significant negative correlation was found between frontopolar coherence in the gamma band and TNF-α (r = -0.30, p = 0.04).ConclusionThe existing body of research provides a comprehensive analysis of the developing evidence that indicates the potential of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics as therapeutic therapies for ASD. Our findings revealed that those there was no significant effect of such therapy on autism-related behavioral symptoms, it has significant effect on the brain connectivity through frontopolar power in beta and gamma bands mediated by chemicals and cytokines, such as TNF-α. The psychobiotics showed no serious side-effects.

Project description:The impact of gut microbiota-targeted interventions on the incidence, duration, and severity of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in nonelderly adults, and factors moderating any such effects, are unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of orally ingested probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics compared with placebo on RTI incidence, duration, and severity in nonelderly adults, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. Studies were identified by searching CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to December 2021. English-language, peer-reviewed publications of randomized, placebo-controlled studies that tested an orally ingested probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic intervention of any dose for ≥1 wk in adults aged 18-65 y were included. Results were synthesized using intention-to-treat and per-protocol random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB2). Forty-two manuscripts reporting effects of probiotics (n = 38), prebiotics (n = 2), synbiotics (n = 1) or multiple -biotic types (n = 1) were identified (n = 9179 subjects). Probiotics reduced the risk of experiencing ≥1 RTI (relative risk = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.98; P = 0.01), and total days (rate ratio = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.83; P < 0.001), duration (Hedges' g = -0.23; 95% CI: -0.39, -0.08; P = 0.004), and severity (Hedges' g = -0.16; 95% CI: -0.29, -0.03; P = 0.02) of RTIs. Effects were relatively consistent across different strain combinations, doses, and durations, although reductions in RTI duration were larger with fermented dairy as the delivery matrix, and beneficial effects of probiotics were not observed in physically active populations. Overall risk of bias was rated as "some concerns" for most studies. In conclusion, orally ingested probiotics, relative to placebo, modestly reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of RTIs in nonelderly adults. Physical activity and delivery matrix may moderate some of these effects. Whether prebiotic and synbiotic interventions confer similar protection remains unclear due to few relevant studies. This trial was registered at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ as CRD42020220213.