Cargando…

Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Intestinal dysbiosis is highly pervasive among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and may play a key role in disease progression and complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate effects of biotic supplements on a large series of outcomes in renal patients. Ovid-ME...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pisano, Anna, D’Arrigo, Graziella, Coppolino, Giuseppe, Bolignano, Davide
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165363/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30181461
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10091224
_version_ 1783359819250401280
author Pisano, Anna
D’Arrigo, Graziella
Coppolino, Giuseppe
Bolignano, Davide
author_facet Pisano, Anna
D’Arrigo, Graziella
Coppolino, Giuseppe
Bolignano, Davide
author_sort Pisano, Anna
collection PubMed
description Intestinal dysbiosis is highly pervasive among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and may play a key role in disease progression and complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate effects of biotic supplements on a large series of outcomes in renal patients. Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any biotic (pre-, pro- or synbiotics) to standard therapy or placebo. Primary endpoints were change in renal function and cardiovascular events; secondary endpoints were change in proteinuria/albuminuria, inflammation, uremic toxins, quality of life and nutritional status. Seventeen eligible studies (701 participants) were reviewed. Biotics treatment did not modify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (mean difference (MD) 0.34 mL/min/1.73 m(2); 95% CI −0.19, 0.86), serum creatinine (MD −0.13 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.32, 0.07), C-reactive protein (MD 0.75 mg/dL; 95% CI −1.54, 3.03) and urea (standardized MD (SMD) −0.02; 95% CI −0.25, 0.20) as compared to control. Outcome data on the other endpoints of interest were lacking, sparse or in an unsuitable format to be analyzed collectively. According to the currently available evidence, there is no conclusive rationale for recommending biotic supplements for improving outcomes in renal patients. Large-scale, well-designed and adequately powered studies focusing on hard rather than surrogate outcomes are still awaited.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6165363
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61653632018-10-10 Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Pisano, Anna D’Arrigo, Graziella Coppolino, Giuseppe Bolignano, Davide Nutrients Review Intestinal dysbiosis is highly pervasive among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and may play a key role in disease progression and complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate effects of biotic supplements on a large series of outcomes in renal patients. Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any biotic (pre-, pro- or synbiotics) to standard therapy or placebo. Primary endpoints were change in renal function and cardiovascular events; secondary endpoints were change in proteinuria/albuminuria, inflammation, uremic toxins, quality of life and nutritional status. Seventeen eligible studies (701 participants) were reviewed. Biotics treatment did not modify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (mean difference (MD) 0.34 mL/min/1.73 m(2); 95% CI −0.19, 0.86), serum creatinine (MD −0.13 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.32, 0.07), C-reactive protein (MD 0.75 mg/dL; 95% CI −1.54, 3.03) and urea (standardized MD (SMD) −0.02; 95% CI −0.25, 0.20) as compared to control. Outcome data on the other endpoints of interest were lacking, sparse or in an unsuitable format to be analyzed collectively. According to the currently available evidence, there is no conclusive rationale for recommending biotic supplements for improving outcomes in renal patients. Large-scale, well-designed and adequately powered studies focusing on hard rather than surrogate outcomes are still awaited. MDPI 2018-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6165363/ /pubmed/30181461 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10091224 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Pisano, Anna
D’Arrigo, Graziella
Coppolino, Giuseppe
Bolignano, Davide
Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort biotic supplements for renal patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165363/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30181461
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10091224
work_keys_str_mv AT pisanoanna bioticsupplementsforrenalpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT darrigograziella bioticsupplementsforrenalpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT coppolinogiuseppe bioticsupplementsforrenalpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bolignanodavide bioticsupplementsforrenalpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis