Cargando…

Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the claim probiotics can correct dysbiosis of the normal microbiota resulting from disease or disruptive events. SETTING: Systematic review of published clinical trials of patients receiving a probiotic intervention for the prevention or treatment of various dis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: McFarland, Lynne V
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4156804/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25157183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005047
_version_ 1782333780786151424
author McFarland, Lynne V
author_facet McFarland, Lynne V
author_sort McFarland, Lynne V
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the claim probiotics can correct dysbiosis of the normal microbiota resulting from disease or disruptive events. SETTING: Systematic review of published clinical trials of patients receiving a probiotic intervention for the prevention or treatment of various diseases. DATA SOURCES: Sources searched (1985–2013): PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, AMED and ISI Web of Science. Three on-line clinical trial registries were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials and National Institutes of Health. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were randomised clinical trials of probiotic interventions having microbiological assays. Studies were evaluated following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for specific probiotic strains. A standard data extraction form was used to collect the raw data. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the degree of microbiota correction by specific probiotic strains. Secondary outcome was the association between the degree of dysbiosis correction and clinical efficacy. RESULTS: The review of the literature found three distinct study designs: model A (restoration) assayed patients enrolled with a healthy, undisturbed microbiota and then assayed postdisruptive event and probiotic therapy; model B (alteration) assayed patients with pre-existing disrupted microbiota and then postprobiotic therapy; model C (no dysbiosis) assayed volunteers with no disruptive event prebiotic and postprobiotic. From a total of 63 trials, 83% of the probiotic products using model A restored the microbiota, 56% using model B improved the microbiota and only 21% using model C had any effect on microbiota. Clinical efficacy was more commonly associated with strains capable of restoration of the normal microbiota. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to assess the degree of dysbiosis improvement is dependent on the enrolled population and the timing of microbiological assays. The functional claim for correcting dysbiosis is poorly supported for most probiotic strains and requires further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42014007224).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4156804
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41568042014-09-17 Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review McFarland, Lynne V BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the claim probiotics can correct dysbiosis of the normal microbiota resulting from disease or disruptive events. SETTING: Systematic review of published clinical trials of patients receiving a probiotic intervention for the prevention or treatment of various diseases. DATA SOURCES: Sources searched (1985–2013): PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, AMED and ISI Web of Science. Three on-line clinical trial registries were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials and National Institutes of Health. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were randomised clinical trials of probiotic interventions having microbiological assays. Studies were evaluated following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for specific probiotic strains. A standard data extraction form was used to collect the raw data. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the degree of microbiota correction by specific probiotic strains. Secondary outcome was the association between the degree of dysbiosis correction and clinical efficacy. RESULTS: The review of the literature found three distinct study designs: model A (restoration) assayed patients enrolled with a healthy, undisturbed microbiota and then assayed postdisruptive event and probiotic therapy; model B (alteration) assayed patients with pre-existing disrupted microbiota and then postprobiotic therapy; model C (no dysbiosis) assayed volunteers with no disruptive event prebiotic and postprobiotic. From a total of 63 trials, 83% of the probiotic products using model A restored the microbiota, 56% using model B improved the microbiota and only 21% using model C had any effect on microbiota. Clinical efficacy was more commonly associated with strains capable of restoration of the normal microbiota. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to assess the degree of dysbiosis improvement is dependent on the enrolled population and the timing of microbiological assays. The functional claim for correcting dysbiosis is poorly supported for most probiotic strains and requires further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42014007224). BMJ Publishing Group 2014-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4156804/ /pubmed/25157183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005047 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Research Methods
McFarland, Lynne V
Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review
title Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review
title_full Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review
title_fullStr Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review
title_short Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review
title_sort use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4156804/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25157183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005047
work_keys_str_mv AT mcfarlandlynnev useofprobioticstocorrectdysbiosisofnormalmicrobiotafollowingdiseaseordisruptiveeventsasystematicreview