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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |