Systematic review and meta-analysis of Saccharomyces boulardii in adult patients

This article reviews the evidence for efficacy and safety of Saccharomyces boulardii(S.boulardii) for various disease indications in adults based on the peerreviewed,randomized clinical trials and pre-clinical studies from the published medical literature(Medline,Clinical Trial websites and meeting abstracts) between 1976 and 2009.For meta-analysis,only randomized,blinded controlled trials unrestricted by language were included.Pre-clinical studies,volunteer studies and uncontrolled studies were excluded from the review of efficacy and meta-analysis,but included in the systematic review.Of 31 randomized,placebo-controlled treatment arms in 27 trials(encompassing 5029 study patients),S.boulardii was found to be significantly efficacious and safe in 84% of those treatment arms.A meta-analysis found a significant therapeutic efficacy for S.boulardii in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea(AAD)(RR = 0.47,95% CI:0.35-0.63,P < 0.001).In adults,S.boulardii can be strongly recommended for the prevention of AAD and the traveler's diarrhea.Randomized trials also support the use of this yeast probiotic for prevention of enteral nutrition-related diarrhea and reduction of Heliobacter pylori treatment-related symptoms.S.boulardii shows promise for the prevention of C.difficile disease recurrences;treatment of irritable bowel syndrome,acute adult diarrhea,Crohn's disease,giardiasis,human immunodeficiency virus-related diarrhea;but more supporting evidence is recommended for these indications.The use of S.boulardii as a therapeutic probiotic is evidence-based for both efficacy and safety for several types of diarrhea.

Meta-analysis of single strain probiotics for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori and prevention of adverse events

AIM:To assess the efficacy and safety of single strain probiotics for the:(1) eradication of Helicobacter pylori(H.pylori);(2) prevention of adverse events;and(3) prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea associated with eradication therapy.METHODS:We searched Pub Med(1960-2014),EMBASE(1974-2014),Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews(1990-2014),and ISI Web of Science(2000-2014).Additionally,we conducted a grey literature search including contact with National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry,abstracts from annual infectious disease and gastroenterology meetings,experts in the field and correspondence with authors.Randomized controlled trials of H.pylori positive adults or children treated with eradication therapy and assessing the adjunctive therapy with a single strain of probiotics were included.The primary outcomes were the rates of eradication of H.pylori and frequency of patients with adverse events or antibiotic-associated diarrhea.Outcomes were pooled using fixed or random-effects models to calculate the relative risk and corresponding 95%CI and weighted on study size.To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity,a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on daily probiotic dose,study population,and quality of the study.The overall quality of the evidence for each probiotic strain was assessed using the GRADE criteria.RESULTS:A total of 25 randomized controlled trials(28 treatment arms,with a total of 3769 participants) assessed one of six single probiotic strains as adjunctive treatments to standard eradication therapy.Only one probiotic strain significantly improved H.pylori eradication rates:Saccharomyces boulardii(S.boulardii) CNCM I-745 [pooled relative risks(p RR) = 1.11,95%CI:1.07-1.16].Only one probiotic strain(S.boulardii CNCM I-745) significantly prevented any adverse events(p RR = 0.42,95%CI:0.28-0.62).Both S.boulardii CNCM I-745 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG significantlyreduced antibiotic-associated diarrhea(p RR = 0.47,95%CI:0.37-0.60 and p RR = 0.29,95%CI:0.17-0.48,respectively) associated with H.pylori eradication therapy.Meta-regression of sub-groups did not detect significant differences by dose,adult vs pediatric,symptom status,or study quality,but did find significant differences by the strain of probiotic.Potential mild publication bias was found for antibiotic-associated diarrhea,but not for eradication or adverse event outcomes.Analysis of the study quality illuminated areas for improvement in future studies(use of placebos,study size calculations,attrition reasons and discussion of limitations and generalizability).CONCLUSION:The pooled evidence suggests that the adjunctive use of a few probiotic strains may improve H.pylori eradication rates and prevent the development of adverse events and antibiotic-associated diarrhea in those treated with standard eradication therapies.The type of probiotic strain was the most important factor in predicting efficacy.

Meta-analysis of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome （IBS） is a chronic condition affecting 3%-25% of the general population. As no curative treatment is available, therapy is aimed at reducing symptoms, often with little success. Because alteration of the normal intestinal microflora has been observed in IBS, probiotics （beneficial microbes taken to improve health） may be useful in reducing symptoms. This paper systematically reviews randomized, controlled, blinded bials of probiotics for the treatment of IBS and synthesizes data on efficacy across trials of adequate quality. Pubr4ed, Medline, Google Scholar, NIH registry of clinical trials, metaRegister, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1982-2007. We also conducted secondary searches of reference lists, reviews, commentaries, relevant articles on associated diseases, books and meeting abstracts. Twenty trials with 23 probiotic treatment arms and a total of 1404 subjects met inclusion criteria. Probiotic use was associated with improvement in global IBS symptoms compared to placebo [pooled relative risk （RRpooled） 0.77, 95% confidence interval （95% CI） 0.62-0.94]. Probiotics were also associated with less abdominal pain compared to placebo [RRpooled = 0.78 （0.69-0.88）]. Too few studies reported data on other IBS symptoms or on specific probiotic strains to allow estimation of a pooled RR. While our analyses suggest that probiotic use may be associated with improvement in IBS symptoms compared to placebo, these results should be interpreted with caution, given the methodological limitations of contributing studies. Probiotics warrant further study as a potential therapy for IBS.

State-of-the-art of irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease research in 2008

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are two of the leading causes of chronic intestinal conditions in the world. This issue of World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG ) presents a series of papers from world experts who discuss the current knowledge and opinions on these important conditions. Although great strides have been made in the diagnosis, treatment and pathology of IBS and IBD; much has yet to be explained. The etiologies and risk factors of these multifactorial conditions remain elusive. Specific diagnostic biomarkers need to be developed and safer treatments developed. The burden of IBS and IBD on the healthcare system is felt with repeated medical care visits and high costs. IBS and IBD patients can account for 30%-50% of office visits at gastroenterology services/clinics. Over one million people have IBD in the United States, with 30 000 new cases being diagnosed every year. One-quarter million people in the UK are afflicted with IBD. The cost of medical care in the United States for IBD is estimated to be $1.8 billion/year.

Editorial statement

In the following eight articles we have provided an overview of the current research and epidemiology of two leading chronic gastrointestinal conditions that affect populations across the globe. The challenges of accurately diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are covered and the pathophysiology of constipation is thoroughly explored.

Application of meta-analysis to specific research fields:Lessons learned

Scientific research is challenged to translate findingsfrom multiple, often conflicting, clinical trials into a simple answer of whether a treatment works or not. The public and healthcare providers alike frequently voice their frustrations when the media reports a treatment working on one day, but seemingly the next day reports a study refuting the previous one. Meta-analyses are being used more commonly by researchers to convey an understandable summary of scientific studies to the general public and healthcare providers. As time goes by, we have learned how to improve meta-analytic techniques to reflect more valid results and when it is appropriate to pool or not to pool results from different studies. Retrospective reviews often don’t acknowledge this learning curve and may fail to recommend the most current valid guidelines. This editorial presents an example of how the current use of meta-analysis has shifted in one feld （the therapeutic effects of probiotics） and recommendations on how to correctly interpret the results of such an analysis.