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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |