Are Probiotics and Prebiotics Safe for Use during Pregnancy and Lactation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sheyholislami H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8308823 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Probiotics are living microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit. It has been speculated that probiotics might help prevent preterm birth, but in two previous systematic reviews possible major increases in this risk have been suggested. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women taking probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics.We searched six electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science's Core collection and BIOSIS Preview) up to September 2016 and contacted authors for additional data. We included randomized controlled trials in which women with a singleton pregnancy received a probiotic, prebiotic or synbiotic intervention. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a piloted form and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool the results.We identified 2574 publications, screened 1449 non-duplicate titles and abstracts and read 160 full text articles. The 49 publications that met our inclusion criteria represented 27 studies. No study used synbiotics, one used prebiotics and the rest used probiotics. Being randomized to take probiotics during pregnancy neither increased nor decreased the risk of preterm birth <?34 weeks (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.29-3.64, I2 0%, 1017 women in 5 studies), preterm birth <?37 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.63, I2 0%, 2484 women in 11 studies), or most of our secondary outcomes, including gestational diabetes mellitus.We found no evidence that taking probiotics or prebiotics during pregnancy either increases or decreases the risk of preterm birth or other infant and maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes.We prospectively published the protocol for this study in the PROSPERO database ( CRD42016048129 ).
| S-EPMC5759212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The gut microbiota is a key factor in the correct development of the gastrointestinal immune system. Studies have found differences between the gut microbiota of newborns delivered by cesarean section compared to those vaginally delivered. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of ingestion of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics during pregnancy and/or lactation on the development of the gut microbiota of the C-section newborns. We selected experimental studies in online databases from their inception to October 2021. Of the 83 records screened, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The probiotics used belonged to the genera Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Propionibacterium, and Streptococcus, or a combination of those, with dosages varying between 2 × 106 and 9 × 1011 CFU per day, and were consumed during pregnancy and/or lactation. Probiotic strains were combined with galacto-oligosaccharides, fructo-oligosaccharides, or bovine milk-derived oligosaccharides in the synbiotic formulas. Probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic interventions led to beneficial gut microbiota in cesarean-delivered newborns, closer to that in vaginally delivered newborns, especially regarding Bifidobacterium colonization. This effect was more evident in breastfed infants. The studies indicate that this beneficial effect is achieved when the interventions begin soon after birth, especially the restoration of bifidobacterial population. Changes in the infant microbial ecosystem due to the interventions seem to continue after the end of the intervention in most of the studies. More interventional studies are needed to elucidate the optimal synbiotic combinations and the most effective strains and doses for achieving the optimal gut microbiota colonization of C-section newborns.
| S-EPMC8778982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFunctional dyspepsia (FD) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Evidence suggests that disturbance of the gastrointestinal microbiota may be implicated in FD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics and probiotics for FD.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (through September 2018). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adults with FD and that compared prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics with placebo or no therapy were eligible. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of remaining symptomatic after therapy. Continuous data were pooled using a standardized or weighted mean difference with a 95% CI.ResultsThe search strategy identified 1062 citations. Five RCTs were eligible for inclusion. The RR of FD symptoms improving with probiotics or probiotics vs placebo was 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.30). Probiotics and prebiotics had beneficial effects on symptom scores of FD. Data for synbiotics in the context of FD were sparse, and no definite conclusions could be drawn.Ethics and disseminationThis study belongs to the category of systematic reviews, not clinical trials. Therefore, it does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in influential international academic journals related to this topic.ConclusionProbiotics and prebiotics seemed to be effective treatments for FD, although the individual species and strains that are the most beneficial remain unclear. Using only probiotics failed to improve the symptoms of FD. Further evidence is required before the role of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in FD can be fully understood.
| S-EPMC7035106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous reviews (2005 to 2009) on preterm infants given probiotics or prebiotics with breast milk or mixed feeds focused on prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, sepsis and diarrhea. This review assessed if probiotics, prebiotics led to improved growth and clinical outcomes in formula fed preterm infants.Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared preterm formula containing probiotic(s) or prebiotic(s) to conventional preterm formula in preterm infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and a chi² test. An I² test assessed inconsistencies across studies. I²> 50% represented substantial heterogeneity.Four probiotics studies (N=212), 4 prebiotics studies (N=126) were included. Probiotics: There were no significant differences in weight gain (MD 1.96, 95% CI: -2.64 to 6.56, 2 studies, n=34) or in maximal enteral feed (MD 35.20, 95% CI: -7.61 to 78.02, 2 studies, n=34), number of stools per day increased significantly in probiotic group (MD 1.60, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.00, 1 study, n=20). Prebiotics: Galacto-oligosaccharide/Fructo-oligosaccharide (GOS/FOS) yielded no significant difference in weight gain (MD 0.04, 95% CI: -2.65 to 2.73, 2 studies, n=50), GOS/FOS yielded no significant differences in length gain (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04, 2 studies, n=50). There were no significant differences in head growth (MD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.00, 2 studies, n=76) or age at full enteral feed (MD -0.79, 95% CI: -2.20 to 0.61, 2 studies, n=86). Stool frequency increased significantly in prebiotic group (MD 0.80, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.1, 2 studies, n=86). GOS/FOS and FOS yielded higher bifidobacteria counts in prebiotics group (MD 2.10, 95% CI: 0.96 to 3.24, n=27) and (MD 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.68, n=56).There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation with probiotics or prebiotics results in improved growth and clinical outcomes in exclusively formula fed preterm infants.
| S-EPMC3487753 | biostudies-other
Project description:There is a growing interest in probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic supplements for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, a systematic review and evaluation is lacking. The purpose of the present study is to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics for non-dialysis or non-renal transplant patients with CKD.An extensive literature search will be undertaken to identify potentially eligible studies from electronic databases including PubMed (1946 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), Web of Science (1900 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years). No language restriction will be applied to the search. Both parallel and crossover randomised controlled trials will be included. The risk of bias of each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcome measures are uraemic toxins. Secondary outcomes include kidney function, adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, cause-specific death, progression to end-stage kidney disease, quality of life, gastrointestinal function and adverse events. Data will be synthesised using appropriate statistical methods. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.No ethical approval is required as no primary data will be collected. We will publish findings from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the data set will be made freely available.CRD42017079177.
| S-EPMC6067341 | biostudies-other
Project description:With growing interest in the gut microbiome, prebiotics and probiotics have received considerable attention as potential treatments for depression and anxiety. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of 34 controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on depression and anxiety. Prebiotics did not differ from placebo for depression (d?=?-.08, p?=?.51) or anxiety (d?=?.12, p?=?.11). Probiotics yielded small but significant effects for depression (d?=?-.24, p?<?.01) and anxiety (d?=?-.10, p?=?.03). Sample type was a moderator for probiotics and depression, with a larger effect observed for clinical/medical samples (d?=?-.45, p?<?.001) than community ones. This effect increased to medium-to-large in a preliminary analysis restricted to psychiatric samples (d?=?-.73, p?<?.001). There is general support for antidepressant and anxiolytic effects of probiotics, but the pooled effects were reduced by the paucity of trials with clinical samples. Additional randomized clinical trials with psychiatric samples are necessary fully to evaluate their therapeutic potential.
| S-EPMC6584030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 exhibit diverse clinical manifestations and severity including enteric involvement. Commensal gut bacteria can contribute to defense against potential pathogens by promoting beneficial immune interactions. Interventions targeting the gut microbiome may have systemic anti-viral effects in SARS-CoV-2 infection.Scope and approachTo summarise alterations of gut microbiota in patients with COVID-19 including impact of specific bacteria on disease severity, discuss current knowledge on the role of probiotics, prebiotics and dietary approaches including vitamin D in preventing and reducing disease susceptibility and review clinical studies using probiotics to target coronavirus. A literature review on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, gut microbiome and immunity was undertaken and relevant literature was summarised and critically examined.Key findings and conclusionsIntegrity of gut microbiome was perturbed in SARS-CoV-2 infections and associated with disease severity. Poor prognosis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in subjects with underlying co-morbidities who had increased gut permeability and reduced gut microbiome diversity. Dietary microbes, including probiotics or selected prebiotics of Chinese origin, had anti-viral effects against other forms of coronavirus, and could positively impact host immune functions during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Numerous studies are investigating the role of probiotics in preventing and reducing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers, household contacts and affected patients. An approach to strengthen intestinal barrier and lower pro-inflammatory states by adopting a more diversified diet during COVID-19 pandemic.SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with immune dysfunction and gut microbiota alterations. Delineating mechanisms of probiotics, prebiotics and diet with anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity present opportunities for discovery of microbial therapeutics to prevent and treat COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7833886 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6882644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeResearch 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsEighteen 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.ConclusionThere 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 numberPROSPERO registration number is CRD42020173417. Date of PROSPERO registration: 01/05/20.
| S-EPMC7515554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProbiotics as a potential adjuvant therapy may improve the restoration of the intestinal CD4+ T-cell population in HIV-infected patients, whereas findings from clinical trials are inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to quantify the effects of probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic supplementation on CD4 counts in HIV-infected patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant articles published up to March 20, 2020. Two authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled by using the random effects model, and weighted mean difference (WMD) was considered the summary effect size. Publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot and Egger's test.ResultsThe search strategy identified 1712 citations. After screening, a total of 16 RCTs with 19 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of the extracted data indicated no significant difference between the probiotics/prebiotics/synbiotics and placebo groups on CD4 counts (WMD = 3.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.72 to 32.45, P = 0.791). In subgroup analysis, a significant increase in CD4 counts was found in the study with high risk of bias (WMD = 188, 95% CI 108.74 to 227.26, P ≤ 0.001). Egger's test showed no evidence of significant publication bias (P = 0.936).ConclusionsIn summary, the evidence for the efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in improving HIV-infected patients' CD4 counts as presented in currently published RCTs is insufficient. Therefore, further comprehensive studies are needed to reveal the exact effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on CD4+ cell counts.
| S-EPMC7718054 | biostudies-literature