Search

Background: Antibiotic treatment may disturb the resistance of gastrointestinal flora to colonization. This may result in complications, the most serious of which is Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea (CDAD).Purpose: To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the prevention of CDAD in adults and children receiving antibiotics.Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Web of Science, and 12 gray-literature sources.Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials including adult or pediatric patients receiving antibiotics that compared any strain or dose of a specified probiotic with placebo or with no treatment control and reported the incidence of CDAD.Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles; extracted data on populations, interventions, and outcomes; and assessed risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines were used to independently rate overall confidence in effect estimates for each outcome.Data Synthesis: Twenty trials including 3818 participants met the eligibility criteria. Probiotics reduced the incidence of CDAD by 66% (pooled relative risk, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.49]; I(2) = 0%). In a population with a 5% incidence of antibiotic-associated CDAD (median control group risk), probiotic prophylaxis would prevent 33 episodes (CI, 25 to 38 episodes) per 1000 persons. Of probiotic-treated patients, 9.3% experienced adverse events, compared with 12.6% of control patients (relative risk, 0.82 [CI, 0.65 to 1.05]; I(2) = 17%).Limitations: In 13 trials, data on CDAD were missing for 5% to 45% of patients. The results were robust to worst-plausible assumptions regarding event rates in studies with missing outcome data.Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that probiotic prophylaxis results in a large reduction in CDAD without an increase in clinically important adverse events.Primary Funding Source: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dietary supplement use in the United States is widespread and increasing, especially among certain population groups, such as older Americans. The science surrounding dietary supplements has evolved substantially over the last few decades since their formal regulation in 1994. Much has been learned about the mechanisms of action of many dietary supplement ingredients, but the evidence on their health effects is still building. As is true of much nutrition research, there are many studies that point to health effects, but not all are at the level of scientific evidence (e.g., randomized controlled interventions), rigor, or quality needed for definitive statements of efficacy regarding clinical end points. New technologies and approaches are being applied to the science of dietary supplements, including nutrigenomics and microbiome analysis, data science, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning-all of which can elevate the science behind dietary supplements. Products can contain an array of bioactive compounds derived from foods as well as from medicinal plants, which creates enormous challenges in data collection and management. Clinical applications, particularly those aimed at providing personalized nutrition options for patients, have become more sophisticated as dietary supplements are incorporated increasingly into clinical practice and self-care. The goals of this article are to provide historical context for the regulation and science of dietary supplements, identify research resources, and suggest some future directions for science in this field., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Cognitive impairment is reported in a variety of clinical conditions including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's and 'long-COVID'. Interestingly, many of these clinical conditions are also associated with microbial dysbiosis. This comanifestation of cognitive and microbiome findings in seemingly unrelated maladies suggests that they could share a common mechanism and potentially presents a treatment target. Although a rapidly growing body of literature has documented this comorbid presentation within specific conditions, an overview highlighting potential parallels across healthy and clinical populations is lacking. The objective of this umbrella review, therefore, is to summarise and synthesise the findings of these systematic reviews., Methods and Analysis: On 2 April 2023, we searched MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase (Ovid), the Web of Science (Core Collection), the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos as well as grey literature sources, for systematic reviews on clinical conditions and interventions where cognitive and microbiome outcomes were coreported. An updated search will be conducted before completion of the project if the search-to-publication date is >1 year old. Screening, data abstraction and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) will be conducted independently and in duplicate, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Evidence certainty statements for each review's conclusions (eg, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)) will be extracted or constructed de novo. A narrative synthesis will be conducted and delineated by the review question. Primary study overlap will be visualised using a citation matrix as well as calculated using the corrected covered area method., Ethics and Dissemination: No participant-identifying information will be used in this review. No ethics approval was required due to our study methodology. Our findings will be presented at national and international conferences and disseminated via social media and press releases. We will recruit at least one person living with cognitive impairment to collaborate on writing the plain language summary for the review., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023412903., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

A precise understanding of the latency to post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE) following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is necessary for optimal patient care. This precision is currently lacking despite a surprising number of available data sources that could address this pressing need. Following guidance from the Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Briggs Institute, we conduct a systematic review to address the research questions: What is the cumulative incidence of PTE following mild TBI (mTBI; concussion), and what is the distribution of the latency to onset? We designed a comprehensive search of medical databases and gray literature sources. Citations will be screened on both abstract and full-text levels, independently and in duplicate. Studies will be evaluated for risk of bias independently and in duplicate using published instruments specific to incidence/prevalence studies. Data will be abstracted independently and in duplicate using piloted extraction forms. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. Evidence synthesis will involve pairwise and individual participant data meta-analysis with heterogeneity explored via a set of predetermined subgroups. The robustness of the findings will be subjected to sensitivity analyses based on the risk of bias, outlier studies, and mTBI definitional criteria. The overall certainty in the estimates will be reported using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). This protocol presents an innovative and impactful approach to build on the growing body of knowledge surrounding post-mTBI PTE. Through a precise understanding of the latency period, this study can contribute to early detection, tailored interventions, and improved outcomes, leading to a substantial impact on patient care and quality of life., (© Joshua Goldenberg et al., 2024; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Objective: To assess the impact of reducing saturated fat or fatty foods, or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes in adults., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and references of included studies for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in adults published in the past 10 years. Eligible reviews investigated reducing saturated fat or fatty foods or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using, for example, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. We assessed the quality of SRMAs using a modified version of AMSTAR-2. Results were summarized as absolute estimates of effect together with the certainty of effects using a narrative synthesis approach., Results: We included 17 SRMAs (13 reviews of observational studies with follow-up 1 to 34 years; 4 reviews of RCTs with follow-up 1 to 17 years). The quality of two-thirds of the SRMAs was critically low to moderate; the main limitations included deficient reporting of study selection, absolute effect estimates, sources of funding, and a priori subgroups to explore heterogeneity. Our included reviews reported > 100 estimates of effect across 11 critically important cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes. High quality SRMAs consistently and predominantly reported low to very low certainty evidence that reducing or replacing saturated fat was associated with a very small risk reduction in cancer and cardiometabolic endpoints. The risk reductions where approximately divided, some being statistically significant and some being not statistically significant. However, based on 2 moderate to high quality reviews, we found moderate certainty evidence for a small but important effect that was statistically significant for two outcomes (total mortality events [20 fewer events per 1000 followed] and combined cardiovascular events [16 fewer per 1000 followed]). Conversely, 4 moderate to high quality reviews showed very small effects on total mortality, with 3 of these reviews showing non-statistically significant mortality effects., Conclusion: Systematic reviews investigating the impact of SFA on mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes almost universally suggest very small absolute changes in risk, and the data is based primarily on low and very low certainty evidence., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020172141., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease., Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials., Data Sources: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to September 2021., Study Selection: Randomised trials of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease that compared dietary programmes with minimal intervention (eg, healthy diet brochure) or alternative programmes with at least nine months of follow-up and reporting on mortality or major cardiovascular events (such as stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). In addition to dietary intervention, dietary programmes could also include exercise, behavioural support, and other secondary interventions such as drug treatment., Outcomes and Measures: All cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and individual cardiovascular events (stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned cardiovascular interventions)., Review Methods: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methods to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome., Results: 40 eligible trials were identified with 35 548 participants across seven named dietary programmes (low fat, 18 studies; Mediterranean, 12; very low fat, 6; modified fat, 4; combined low fat and low sodium, 3; Ornish, 3; Pritikin, 1). At last reported follow-up, based on moderate certainty evidence, Mediterranean dietary programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for the prevention of all cause mortality (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92; patients at intermediate risk: risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 followed over five years), cardiovascular mortality (0.55, 0.39 to 0.78; 13 fewer per 1000), stroke (0.65, 0.46 to 0.93; 7 fewer per 1000), and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.48, 0.36 to 0.65; 17 fewer per 1000). Based on moderate certainty evidence, low fat programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all cause mortality (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95; 9 fewer per 1000) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.77, 0.61 to 0.96; 7 fewer per 1000). The absolute effects for both dietary programmes were more pronounced for patients at high risk. There were no convincing differences between Mediterranean and low fat programmes for mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction. The five remaining dietary programmes generally had little or no benefit compared with minimal intervention typically based on low to moderate certainty evidence., Conclusions: Moderate certainty evidence shows that programmes promoting Mediterranean and low fat diets, with or without physical activity or other interventions, reduce all cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Mediterranean programmes are also likely to reduce stroke risk. Generally, other named dietary programmes were not superior to minimal intervention., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016047939., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from Dalhousie University for the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. BCJ received a grant from Texas A&M AgriLife Research to fund investigator initiated research related to saturated and polyunsaturated fats. The grant was from Texas A&M AgriLife institutional funds from interest and investment earnings, not a sponsoring organisation, industry, or company., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a biomarker of the systemic inflammatory response. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to examine the literature on NLR and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Specialized Register, DOAJ, PDQT, Biosis Citation Index, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. A total of 2621 citations yielding 62 primary studies were synthesized under four categories: distinguishing patients with IBD from controls, disease activity differentiation, clinical outcome prediction, and association of NLR with other IBD biomarkers. Thirty-eight studies employed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to generate optimal NLR cutpoints for applications including disease activity differentiation and prediction of response to treatment. Among the most promising findings, NLR may have utility for clinical and endoscopic disease activity differentiation and prediction of loss of response to infliximab (IFX). Overall findings suggest NLR may be a promising IBD biomarker. Assessment of NLR is non-invasive, low cost, and widely accessible given NLR is easily calculated from blood count data routinely and serially monitored in patients with IBD. Further research is justified to elucidate how evaluation of NLR in research and clinical practice would directly impact the quality and cost of care for patients living with IBD.

Background: Naturopathy is one of seven distinct traditional medical systems acknowledged by the World Health Organization. Naturopathic principles and philosophies encourage a focus on multiple body systems during case-taking and the design of treatments. Little is known about whether such teaching translates into practice. This study aimed to characterise naturopathic practice as it relates to the identification of multiple physiological systems in the diagnosis and treatment of patients., Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted in collaboration with the World Naturopathic Federation. A survey capturing clinical diagnostic and treatment considerations for up to 20 consecutive patients was administered to naturopaths in 14 countries., Results: Naturopaths ( n  = 56) were mostly female (62.5%), aged between 36 and 45 years (37.5%), in practice for 5-10 years (44.6%), and consulting between 11 and 20 patients per week (35.7%). Participants completed the survey for 851 patient cases. Naturopaths reported a greater number of physiological systems relevant to clinical cases where the patients were working age (18-65 years) (IRR 1.3, p  = .042), elderly (65 years and over) (IRR 1.4, p  = .046), or considered by the naturopath to have a chronic health condition (IRR 1.2, p  = .003). The digestive system was weakly associated with patients based on chronicity of the health complaint ( V  = .1149, p  = .004), or having a musculoskeletal complaint ( V  = .1067, p  = .002) autoimmune pathophysiology ( V  = .1681, p  < .001), and considered relevant in respiratory ( V  = .1042, p  = .002), endocrine ( V  = .1023, p  = .003), female reproductive ( V  = .1009, p  = .003), and integumentary ( V  = .1382, p  < .001) systems., Conclusion: Naturopaths across the world adopt an integrative physiological approach to the diagnosis and treatment of chronic and complex health care complaints.., (© 2020 Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.)

This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomized controlled trials (RCT) of multinutrients consisting of at least four vitamins and/or minerals as interventions for participants with psychiatric symptoms. A systematic search identified 16 RCTs that fit the inclusion criteria ( n = 1719 participants) in six psychiatric categories: depression, post-disaster stress, antisocial behavior, behavioral deficits in dementia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and autism. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to rate the evidence base. Significant clinical benefit was assessed using minimal clinically important differences (MIDs). Due to heterogeneity in participants, multinutrient formulas, outcome measures, and absence of complete data, only the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) category was eligible for meta-analyses. In ADHD populations, statistically and clinically significant improvements were found in global functioning, Mean Difference (MD) -3.3, p = 0.001, MID -3.26; Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) -0.49 p = 0.001 MD -0.5), clinician ratings of global improvement (MD -0.58, p = 0.001, MID -0.5) and ADHD improvement (MD -0.54, p = 0.002, MID -0.5), and clinician (but not observer) measures of ADHD inattentive symptoms (MD -1.53, p = 0.05, MID -0.5). Narrative synthesis also revealed a pattern of benefit for global measures of improvement, for example: in autism, and in participants with behavioral deficits in dementia. Post-natural disaster anxiety and the number of violent incidents in prison populations also improved. Broad-spectrum formulas (vitamins + minerals) demonstrated more robust effects than formulas with fewer ingredients. This review highlights the need for robust methodology-RCTs that report full data, including means and standard deviations for all outcomes-in order to further elucidate the effects of multinutrients for psychiatric symptoms.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of Western herbal medicines in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)., Design: A computer-based search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, GreenFILE, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. A hand-search of the bibliographies of relevant papers and previous meta-analyses and reviews was also undertaken. Trials were included in the review if they were double-blind and placebo-controlled investigating the effects of Western herbal medicines on IBS-related symptoms or quality of life. There were no language restrictions. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. For herbal medicines where there was more than 1 trial of similar design, data were synthesised using relative risk of symptoms improving using the random effects model., Results: Thirty-three trials were identified that met all eligibility criteria. Seventeen of these evaluated peppermint essential oil, fifteen other Western herbal medicines, and one trial evaluated peppermint oil in one arm and aniseed essential oil in the other arm. Eighteen different herbal preparations were evaluated in these trials. Data suggests that a number of Western herbal medicines may provide relief of IBS symptoms. Meta-analyses suggest that peppermint essential oil is both efficacious and well-tolerated in the short-term management of IBS. Aloe vera and asafoetida also demonstrated efficacy in reducing global IBS symptoms in meta-analyses. The herbal formulas STW 5, STW 5-II and Carmint, along with Ferula assa-foetida, Pimpenella anisum oil, the combination of Curcumin and Foeniculum vulgare oil, and the blend of Schinopsis lorentzii, Aesculus hippocastanum, and peppermint essential oil also demonstrated efficacy in rigorously-designed clinical trials., Conclusion: A number of Western herbal medicines show promise in the treatment of IBS. With the exception of peppermint essential oil, Aloe vera, and asafoetida, however, none of the positive trials have been replicated. This lack of replication limits the capacity to make definitive statements of efficacy for these herbal medicines., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent condition that currently lacks highly effective therapies for its management. Biofeedback has been proposed as a therapy that may help individuals learn to exert conscious control over sympatho-vagal balance as an indirect method of symptom management., Objectives: Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of biofeedback-based interventions for IBS in adults and children., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Group Specialized Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) from inception to 24 July 2019. We also searched reference lists from published trials, trial registries, device manufacturers, conference proceedings, theses, and dissertations., Selection Criteria: We judged randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion if they met the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback definition of biofeedback, and if they compared a biofeedback intervention to an active, sham, or no-treatment control for the management of IBS., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were IBS global or clinical improvement scores and overall quality of life measures. Secondary outcome measures were adverse events, assessments of stool frequency and consistency, changes in abdominal pain, depression, and anxiety. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used GRADE criteria to assess the overall certainty of the evidence., Main Results: We identified eight randomized trials with a total of 300 adult participants for our analysis. We did not identify any trials in children. Four trials assessed thermal biofeedback. One trial assessed rectosigmoidal biofeedback. Two trials assessed heart rate variability biofeedback. Two trials assessed electrocutaneous biofeedback. Comparators were: no treatment (symptom monitoring group; three studies), attention control (pseudomeditation; two studies), relaxation control (one study), counseling (two studies), hypnotherapy (one study), standard therapy (one study), and sham biofeedback (one study). We judged all trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias. Global/Clinical improvement The clinical benefit of biofeedback plus standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone was uncertain (RR 4.20, 95% CI 1.40 to 12.58; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same study also compared biofeedback plus standard therapy to sham biofeedback plus standard therapy. The clinical benefit in the biofeedback group was uncertain (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.80; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of heart rate biofeedback compared to hypnotherapy was uncertain when measured with the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) (MD -58.80, 95% CI -109.11 to -8.49; 1 study, 61 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to counseling, the effect of heart rate biofeedback was unclear when measured with a composite symptom reduction score (MD 7.03, 95% CI -51.07 to 65.13; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated for clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.45; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of thermal biofeedback used in a multi-component psychological intervention (MCPI) compared to no treatment was uncertain when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 30.34, 95% CI 8.47 to 52.21; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to attention control, the effects of thermal biofeedback within an MCPI were unclear when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 4.02, 95% CI -21.41 to 29.45; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.69, 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life A single trial used overall quality of life as an outcome measure, and reported that both the biofeedback and cognitive therapy groups improved after treatment. The trial did not note any between-group differences, and did not report any outcome data. Adverse events Only one of the eight trials explicitly reported adverse events. This study reported no adverse events in either the biofeedback or cognitive therapy groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 29 participants; low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently not enough evidence to assess whether biofeedback interventions are effective for controlling symptoms of IBS. Given the positive results reported in small trials to date, biofeedback deserves further study in people with IBS. Future research should include active control groups that use high provider-participant interaction, in an attempt to balance non-specific effects of interventions between groups, and report both commonly used outcome measures (e.g. IBS-SSS) and historical outcome measures (e.g. the composite primary symptom reduction (CPSR) score) to allow for meta-analysis with previous studies. Future studies should be explicit in their reporting of adverse events., (Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) affect more than one-third of the general population and contribute a considerable burden on the health and wellbeing of the community and the economy. This study aims to examine the treatment approaches and outcomes of naturopathic management of individuals presenting with a non-specific FGID., Methods: We report a comparison of two clinical case studies of patients being treated by a naturopath for a functional gastrointestinal disorder. The care was provided by two different student practitioners under the supervision of an industry qualified mentor within a multidisciplinary academic clinic at the Endeavour College of Natural Health. A student practitioner and student observer conduct consultations under the supervision of an industry qualified mentor. The outcomes of care were measured by the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale., Results: Clinical notations partially correlate to Jane's outcomes measured by gastrointestinal rating scale scores, which remain stable. Significant changes in Rona's gastrointestinal rating scale scores equate to only generalizable minimal clinical notations., Conclusions: The holistic and individualised approach core to naturopathic medicine practice is also informed by traditional methods, research evidence and the pragmatic needs of the patient. The emphasis within naturopathic treatment approaches on dietary changes and lifestyle prescription alongside other ingestive therapies such as herbal and nutritional medicine underscores the need for clinical research designs which support evaluation of complex interventions in real-world settings.

Background: Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via providing gut barrier, restoration of the gut microflora, and other potential mechanisms of action., Objectives: The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children., Search Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Web of Science (inception to 28 May 2018) were searched along with registers including the ISRCTN and Clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched the NICE Evidence Services database as well as reference lists from relevant articles., Selection Criteria: Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of AAD, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea) as mean difference (MD), along with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. For studies reporting on microbiome characteristics using heterogeneous outcomes, we describe the results narratively. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE., Main Results: Thirty-three studies (6352 participants) were included. Probiotics assessed included Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. The risk of bias was determined to be high in 20 studies and low in 13 studies. Complete case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 33 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control.After 5 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (259/3232) compared to 19% (598/3120) in the control group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56; I² = 57%, 6352 participants; NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13; moderate certainty evidence). Nineteen studies had loss to follow-up ranging from 1% to 46%. After making assumptions for those lost, the observed benefit was still statistically significant using an extreme plausible intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, wherein the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 12% (436/3551) compared to 19% (664/3468) in the control group (7019 participants; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; P <0.00001; I² = 70%). An a priori available case subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity indicated that high dose (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) is more effective than low probiotic dose (< 5 billion CFUs per day), interaction P value = 0.01. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (162/2029) compared to 23% (462/2009) in the control group (4038 participants; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.46; P = 0.06; moderate certainty evidence). For the low dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (97/1155) compared to 13% (133/1059) in the control group (2214 participants; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.02). Again, assumptions for loss to follow-up using an extreme plausible ITT analysis was statistically significant. For high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 13% (278/2218) compared to 23% (503/2207) in control group (4425 participants; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; P <0.00001; I² = 68%; moderate certainty evidence).None of the 24 trials (4415 participants) that reported on adverse events reported any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Adverse event rates were low. After 5 days to 4 weeks follow-up, 4% (86/2229) of probiotics participants had an adverse event compared to 6% (121/2186) of control participants (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; P < 0.00001; I² = 75%; low certainty evidence). Common adverse events included rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, and constipation.After 10 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, eight studies recorded data on our secondary outcome, the mean duration of diarrhea; with probiotics reducing diarrhea duration by almost one day (MD -0.91; 95% CI -1.38 to -0.44; P <0.00001; low certainty evidence). One study reported on microbiome characteristics, reporting no difference in changes with concurrent antibiotic and probiotic use., Authors' Conclusions: The overall evidence suggests a moderate protective effect of probiotics for preventing AAD (NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13). Using five criteria to evaluate the credibility of the subgroup analysis on probiotic dose, the results indicate the subgroup effect based on high dose probiotics (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) was credible. Based on high-dose probiotics, the NNTB to prevent one case of diarrhea is 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). The overall certainty of the evidence for the primary endpoint, incidence of AAD based on high dose probiotics was moderate due to the minor issues with risk of bias and inconsistency related to a diversity of probiotic agents used. Evidence also suggests that probiotics may moderately reduce the duration of diarrhea, a reduction by almost one day. The benefit of high dose probiotics (e.g. Lactobacillus rhamnosus orSaccharomyces boulardii) needs to be confirmed by a large well-designed multi-centered randomized trial. It is premature to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy and safety of 'other' probiotic agents as an adjunct to antibiotics in children. Adverse event rates were low and no serious adverse events were attributable to probiotics. Although no serious adverse events were observed among inpatient and outpatient children, including small studies conducted in the intensive care unit and in the neonatal unit, observational studies not included in this review have reported serious adverse events in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation.

Introduction: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects 11% of the population, and up to 50% of patients report using complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) for it. To date, there is no research describing how providers of naturopathic medicine in North America, a well-defined CAM profession, approach IBS., Methods: A Delphi study was conducted over a 17-month period in 4 rounds with 15 North American naturopathic medicine experts in IBS. Consensus was defined as a median value of 75% or greater agreement with the relevant statement., Results: Consensus was met with 45 statements describing a "reasonable naturopathic approach" to IBS. These statements covered the domains of general, office visits, tracking progress, testing, interventions, and resources., Conclusion: These results represent the beginning of an evidence base depicting naturopathic interventions for IBS and should inform future randomized controlled clinical trials in this area. Future research should look to reflect on and revise these guidance consensus statements particularly extending to other stakeholders as well as geographic and regulatory jurisdictions in the naturopathic profession.

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional bowel disorder with a worldwide prevalence estimated between 10% and 20%. It has a significant impact on quality of life and societal expense. While there are pharmaceutical options available, few can be reliably recommended. Many IBS sufferers turn to complementary and alternative medicine including naturopathy. Naturopathic approaches to IBS are poorly studied to date., Methods: We aim to describe naturopathic approaches to IBS as well as establish pilot data on before and after changes in validated IBS instruments. The study will employ a multi-centered, international, prospective, observational, naturalistic design. The uncontrolled before-and-after study will examine the outcomes associated with individualized, whole system naturopathic care as determined by each provider. We will recruit adult patients diagnosed with IBS and presenting to a participating naturopathic academic teaching clinic. Participants' IBS symptoms will be measured using validated instruments (IBS-SSS and IBS-AR). Quality of life will be measured by using the PROMIS-29 profile. Adverse events will be tracked, as followed for treatment descriptions. Our primary outcomes will be before-and-after differences using week twelve as the primary endpoint. A p values will be set at 0.05, and descriptive and summary data will be presented., Discussion: This study is designed to plug significant evidence gaps and to gather preliminary evidence to guide the design of a follow-up randomized active controlled trial.Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12617001413314Version 1.1.

Clinical Question: In adults and children prescribed antibiotics, is co-administration of a probiotic associated with a lower risk of symptomatic Clostridium difficile infection without an increase in adverse events?, Bottom Line: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that probiotics are associated with a lower risk of C difficile infection and very low-quality evidence suggests that probiotics are associated with fewer adverse events vs placebo or no treatment.

OBJECTIVETo determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults and children.DESIGNIndividual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), adjusting for risk factors.METHODSWe searched 6 databases and 11 grey literature sources from inception to April 2016. We identified 32 RCTs (n=8,713); among them, 18 RCTs provided IPD (n=6,851 participants) comparing probiotic prophylaxis to placebo or no treatment (standard care). One reviewer prepared the IPD, and 2 reviewers extracted data, rated study quality, and graded evidence quality.RESULTSProbiotics reduced CDI odds in the unadjusted model (n=6,645; odds ratio [OR] 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.55) and the adjusted model (n=5,074; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.55). Using 2 or more antibiotics increased the odds of CDI (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.11-4.37), whereas age, sex, hospitalization status, and high-risk antibiotic exposure did not. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that, compared to no probiotics, multispecies probiotics were more beneficial than single-species probiotics, as was using probiotics in clinical settings where the CDI risk is ≥5%. Of 18 studies, 14 reported adverse events. In 11 of these 14 studies, the adverse events were retained in the adjusted model. Odds for serious adverse events were similar for both groups in the unadjusted analyses (n=4,990; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26) and adjusted analyses (n=4,718; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28). Missing outcome data for CDI ranged from 0% to 25.8%. Our analyses were robust to a sensitivity analysis for missingness.CONCLUSIONSModerate quality (ie, certainty) evidence suggests that probiotic prophylaxis may be a useful and safe CDI prevention strategy, particularly among participants taking 2 or more antibiotics and in hospital settings where the risk of CDI is ≥5%.TRIAL REGISTRATIONPROSPERO 2015 identifier: CRD42015015701Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;771-781.

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.

Clinical Question: In children prescribed an antibiotic, is the co-administration of a probiotic associated with lower rates of antibiotic-associated diarrhea without an increase in clinically important adverse events?, Bottom Line: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that probiotics are associated with lower rates of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children (aged 1 month to 18 years) without an increase in adverse events.

Background: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed in children. They alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract, commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via restoration of the gut microflora., Objectives: The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children., Search Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to November 2014) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD review group, CISCOM (Centralized Information Service for Complementary Medicine), NHS Evidence, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements as well as trial registries. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutraceutical and pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were also searched., Selection Criteria: Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, data extraction as well as methodological quality assessment using the risk of bias instrument was conducted independently and in duplicate by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as mean difference (MD), along with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, sensitivity analyses included available case versus extreme-plausible analyses and random- versus fixed-effect models. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, as well as risk of bias. We also conducted post hoc subgroup analyses by patient diagnosis, single versus multi-strain, industry sponsorship, and inpatient status. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria., Main Results: Twenty-three studies (3938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Eleven studies used a single strain probiotic, four combined two probiotic strains, three combined three probiotic strains, one combined four probiotic strains, two combined seven probiotic strains, one included ten probiotic strains, and one study included two probiotic arms that used three and two strains respectively. The risk of bias was determined to be high or unclear in 13 studies and low in 10 studies. Available case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 22/23 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (163/1992) compared to 19% (364/1906) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; I(2) = 55%, 3898 participants). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate. This benefit remained statistically significant in an extreme plausible (60% of children loss to follow-up in probiotic group and 20% loss to follow-up in the control group had diarrhea) sensitivity analysis, where the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 14% (330/2294) compared to 19% (426/2235) in the control group (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; I(2) = 63%, 4529 participants). None of the 16 trials (n = 2455) that reported on adverse events documented any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Meta-analysis excluded all but an extremely small non-significant difference in adverse events between treatment and control (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). The majority of adverse events were in placebo, standard care or no treatment group. Adverse events reported in the studies include rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, abdominal pain, vomiting, increased phlegm, chest pain, constipation, taste disturbance, and low appetite., Authors' Conclusions: Moderate quality evidence suggests a protective effect of probiotics in preventing AAD. Our pooled estimate suggests a precise (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61) probiotic effect with a NNT of 10. Among the various probiotics evaluated, Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day may be appropriate given the modest NNT and the likelihood that adverse events are very rare. It is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of other probiotic agents for pediatric AAD. Although no serious adverse events were observed among otherwise healthy children, serious adverse events have been observed in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation. Until further research has been conducted, probiotic use should be avoided in pediatric populations at risk for adverse events. Future trials would benefit from a standard and valid outcomes to measure AAD.

Background: Antibiotics are widely prescribed; however they can cause disturbances in gastrointestinal flora which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live organisms thought to balance the gastrointestinal flora., Objectives: The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) or C. difficile infection in adults and children., Search Methods: On February 21, 2013 we searched PubMed (1966-2013), EMBASE (1966-2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), CINAHL (1982-2013), AMED (1985-2013), and ISI Web of Science. Additionally, we conducted an extensive grey literature search including contact with industry representatives., 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 using pre-constructed, and piloted, data extraction forms. Any disagreements were resolved by a third adjudicator. For articles published in abstract form only, further information was sought by contacting principal authors. The primary outcome was the incidence of CDAD. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of C. difficile infection, 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 relative risk and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Continuous outcomes (e.g. length of hospital) 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 analysis were conducted on probiotic species, dose, adult versus pediatric population, and risk of bias.The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria., Main Results: A total of 1871 studies were identified with 31 (4492 participants) meeting eligibility requirements for our review. Overall 11 studies were rated as a high risk of bias due mostly to missing outcome data. A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) of those trials investigating CDAD (23 trials, 4213 participants) suggests that probiotics significantly reduce this risk by 64%. The incidence of CDAD was 2.0% in the probiotic group compared to 5.5% in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.51). Sixteen of 23 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 5% to 45%. These results proved robust to sensitivity analyses of plausible and worst-plausible assumptions regarding missing outcome data and were similar whether considering trials in adults versus children, lower versus higher doses, different probiotic species, or higher versus lower risk of bias. Our judgment is that the overall evidence warrants moderate confidence in this large relative risk reduction. We downgraded the overall quality of evidence for CDAD to 'moderate' due to imprecision. There were few events (154) and the calculated optimal information size (n = 8218) was more than the total sample size. With respect to the incidence of C. difficile infection, a secondary outcome, pooled complete case results from 13 trials (961 participants) did not show a statistically significant reduction. The incidence of C. difficile infection was 12.6% in the probiotics group compared to 12.7% in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.24). Adverse events were assessed in 26 studies (3964 participants) and our pooled complete case analysis indicates probiotics reduce the risk of adverse events by 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95). In both treatment and control groups the most common adverse events included abdominal cramping, nausea, fever, soft stools, flatulence, and taste disturbance. For the short-term use of probiotics in patients that are not immunocompromised or severely debilitated, we consider the strength of this evidence to be moderate., Authors' Conclusions: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials including 4213 patients, moderate quality evidence suggests that probiotics are both safe and effective for preventing Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea.

Background: Antibiotics alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics may prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) via restoration of the gut microflora. Antibiotics are prescribed frequently in children and AAD is common in this population., Objectives: The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children., Search Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to May 2010) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD review group, CISCOM (Centralized Information Service for Complementary Medicine), NHS Evidence, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements as well as trial registries. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutra/pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were also searched., Selection Criteria: Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, data extraction as well as methodological quality assessment using the risk of bias instrument was conducted independently and in duplicate by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using a pooled relative risk and risk difference (adverse events), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as weighted mean differences, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, sensitivity analyses included available case versus extreme-plausible analyses and random- versus fixed-effect models. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, antibiotic agent as well as risk of bias., Main Results: Sixteen studies (3432 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., or Streptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Nine studies used a single strain probiotic agent, four combined two probiotic strains, one combined three probiotic strains, one product included ten probiotic agents, and one study included two probiotic arms that used three and two strains respectively. The risk of bias was determined to be high in 8 studies and low in 8 studies. Available case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 15/16 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a large, precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 9% compared to 18% in the control group (2874 participants; RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I(2) = 56%). This benefit was not statistically significant in an extreme plausible (60% of children loss to follow-up in probiotic group and 20% loss to follow-up in the control group had diarrhea) intention to treat (ITT) sensitivity analysis. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 16% compared to 18% in the control group (3392 participants; RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; I(2) = 59%). An a priori available case subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity indicated that high dose (≥5 billion CFUs/day) is more effective than low probiotic dose (< 5 billion CFUs/day), interaction P value = 0.010. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% compared to 22% in the control group (1474 participants; RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55). For the low dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% compared to 11% in the control group (1382 participants; RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21). An extreme plausible ITT subgroup analysis was marginally significant for high dose probiotics. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 17% compared to 22% in the control group (1776 participants; RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I(2) = 58%). None of the 11 trials (n = 1583) that reported on adverse events documented any serious adverse events. Meta-analysis excluded all but an extremely small non-significant difference in adverse events between treatment and control (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02)., Authors' Conclusions: Despite heterogeneity in probiotic strain, dose, and duration, as well as in study quality, the overall evidence suggests a protective effect of probiotics in preventing AAD. Using 11 criteria to evaluate the credibility of the subgroup analysis on probiotic dose, the results indicate that the subgroup effect based on dose (≥5 billion CFU/day) was credible. Based on high-dose probiotics, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of diarrhea is seven (NNT 7; 95% CI 6 to 10). However, a GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary endpoint (incidence of diarrhea) was low due to issues with risk of bias (due to high loss to follow-up) and imprecision (sparse data, 225 events). The benefit for high dose probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Saccharomyces boulardii) needs to be confirmed by a large well-designed randomized trial. More refined trials are also needed that test strain specific probiotics and evaluate the efficacy (e.g. incidence and duration of diarrhea) and safety of probiotics with limited losses to follow-up. It is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of other probiotic agents for pediatric AAD. Future trials would benefit from a standard and valid outcomes to measure AAD.