Dataset Information

The Improving Effect and Safety of Probiotic Supplements on Patients with Osteoporosis and Osteopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Probiotics are considered to be bone metabolism regulators, and their efficacy as an adjuvant treatment option for osteoporosis is still controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the available data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) of probiotics in the treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia.

Methods

As of June 2021, databases such as Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Central Cochrane Library have been used for English-language literature searches and CNKI and China Biomedical Database have been used for Chinese-language literature searches. RevMan 5.3 was used for bias risk assessment, heterogeneity detection, and meta-analysis. This research has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020085934).

Results

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 10 RCTs involving 1156. Compared with the placebo, the absolute value of lumbar spine's BMD was not statistically significant (WMD 0.04 (-0.00, 0.09), P=0.07, random effect model), while the percentage of lumbar spine's BMD was higher (SMD 1.16 (0.21, 2.12), P=0.02, random effect model). Compared with the control group, the percentage of total hip's BMD was not statistically significant (SMD 0.52 (-0.69, 1.73), P=0.40, random effect model). The safety analysis showed that, compared with control group, the adverse events in the experimental group were not statistically significant (RR 1.02 (0.92, 1.12), P=0.70, fixed effect model).

Conclusion

Probiotics may be safety supplements to improve the lumbar spine's BMD of patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia. More large-sample, random-controlled, high-quality RCTs are needed to further verify the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in intervening osteoporosis or osteopenia.

SUBMITTER: Zeng L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8328694 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProbiotic supplements may be seen as a promising way to improve glucose metabolism. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of probiotic supplements on blood glucose, insulin resistance/sensitivity, and prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) among pregnant women.MethodsEleven electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2020. Two authors independently identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessed the eligibility and quality of the included studies, and then extracted data. The primary outcomes were fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 1 h and 2 h plasma glucose after 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), HbA1c, fasting plasma insulin, insulin resistance, and insulin sensitivity. Fixed and random effect models were used to pool the results.ResultsA total of 20 RCTs involving 2972 participants were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled results of this research showed that probiotic supplements could reduce the level of FPG (mean difference (MD) = -0.11; 95% CI = -0.15 to -0.04; P=0.0007), serum insulin (MD = -1.68; 95% CI = -2.44 to -0.92; P < 0.00001), insulin resistance (MD = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.53 to -0.20; P < 0.00001), and insulin sensitivity (MD = -21.80; 95% CI = -31.92 to -11.67; P < 0.00001). Regarding the subgroup analysis of different pregnant women, the effects of probiotics on FPG, insulin, and insulin resistance were more obvious among GDM and healthy women than among overweight/obese women. Furthermore, the differences were not significant in HbA1c (MD = -0.05; 95% CI = -0.12 to 0.03; P=0.23), 1 h OGTT (MD = -0.07; 95% CI = -0.25 to 0.10; P=0.42), and 2 h OGTT (MD = -0.03; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.12; P=0.72).ConclusionThis review found that probiotic supplements had certain functions to reduce the level of FPG and improve insulin, insulin resistance, and insulin sensitivity, especially for GDM and healthy pregnant women.

Project description:ObjectiveGut flora imbalance characterizes patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although biotic supplementation has been proposed to lessen inflammation and oxidative stress and, thus, reduce the risk of progressive kidney damage and cardiovascular disease, the effects remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the therapeutic benefits of biotics in CKD.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that evaluated any biotic (prebiotic, probiotic, synbiotics) supplements in patients with CKD (CKD, stage 3-4 to end-stage renal disease). Primary endpoints included changes in renal function, markers of inflammation, and oxidative stress. Secondary endpoints included changes in levels of uremic toxins and variations in lipid metabolism.ResultsTwenty-three eligible studies included 842 participants. In a pooled-analysis, biotics did not change estimated glomerular filtration rate (mean difference [MD] = 0.08, P = .92) or serum albumin (MD = -0.01, P = .86), although prebiotics reduced serum creatinine (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.23, P = .009) and blood urea nitrogen (MD = -6.05, P < .00001). Biotics improved total antioxidative capacity (SMD = 0.37, P = .007) and malondialdehyde (SMD = -0.96, P = .006) and reduced the inflammatory marker interleukin-6 (SMD = -0.30, P = .01) although not C-reactive protein (SMD = -0.22, P = .20). Biotic intervention reduced some uremic toxins, including p-cresol sulfate (SMD = -2.18, P < .0001) and indoxyl sulfate (MD = -5.14, P = .0009), which decreased in dialysis-dependent patients. Another toxin, indole-3-acetic acid (MD = -0.22, P = .63), did not change. Lipids were unaffected by biotic intervention (total cholesterol: SMD = -0.01, P = .89; high-density lipoprotein: SMD = -0.08, P = .76; low-density lipoprotein: MD = 3.54, P = .28; triglyceride: MD = -2.26, P = .58).ConclusionThe results highlight the favorable influence of biotics on circulating markers of creatinine, oxidant stress (malondialdehyde, total antioxidative capacity), inflammation (interleukin-6), and uremic toxins (p-cresol sulfate) in patients with CKD. Biotics did not affect estimated glomerular filtration rate, albumin, indole-3-acetic acid, or lipids in either predialysis or dialysis patients.