Literature DB >> 26644891

Efficacy of probiotic use in acute rotavirus diarrhea in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Elaheh Ahmadi1, Reza Alizadeh-Navaei2, Mohammad Sadegh Rezai3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Probiotic therapies with different strains demonstrated some beneficial effects, although some studies did not show any significant effects. This study assessed systematically the current knowledge on the effect of probiotic bacteria on duration of acute rotavirus diarrhea in children compared with control.
METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (CCTR) and Ovid (Wolters Kluwer Health) were searched between 1980 to June 15, 2013. Randomized controlled trials including the administration of probiotics for treatment of rotavirus diarrhea in infants and children were reviewed.
RESULTS: A total number of 1244 articles were found through the aforementioned search. 203 articles were selected after the first screening of title and abstract. The intervention group included subjects who received probiotic strains and dosage in any conditions. Placebo or any similar vehicle without probiotic was used in the controlled trials. Finally, 14 articles were selected. The outcomes from each study were considered in the duration of diarrhea. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata software. The pooled estimate of efficacy of probiotics in prevention or treatment of disease yielded in all studies a mean difference of 0.41 (CI 95%: -0.56 to -0.25; p<0.001). The pooled estimate of efficacy of lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and other probiotics significantly reduced the duration of diarrhea. Among trials, the overall reduction of LGG was 0.47 (CI 95%: -0.80 to -0.14; P= 0.020).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, probiotics exert positive effect in reducing the duration of acute rotavirus diarrhea compared with control.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute Diarrhea; Children; Probiotics; Rotavirus

Year:  2015        PMID: 26644891      PMCID: PMC4649266     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Caspian J Intern Med        ISSN: 2008-6164


Diarrhea is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in both developed and developing countries (1, 2). Rotavirus has been recognized as the most common cause of severe diarrhea in children and infants all over the world since the 1970s (3, 4). Annually, 600,000 child deaths from rotavirus occurred in children under 5 years globally (5, 6). Nearly 85% of rotavirus-associated-diarrhea are observed in the poorest regions of Africa and Asia (7-12). The treatment of rotavirus diarrhea has remained approximately unchanged over the past 35 years (4). Oral rehydration, breast feeding, and early refeeding are still the most important approaches in the control of rotavirus diarrhea in infants and children (3). Several vaccines are currently being used against rotavirus infection; although challenges to vaccination still remains to be resolved (13, 14). Adjuvant therapy has been examined for oral rehydration solution (ORS) with probiotics since 1998 (1, 15). Recently, probiotic therapy has been investigated in several studies in which the therapeutic effect on rotavirus-associated diarrhea in children was distinguished (16-18), so they have been included in the recent guidelines for the management of acute diarrhea in children of the European Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases (ESPID) (19-22). Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms which when administered in adequate numbers confer a health benefit on the host (23-26). A previous study concluded that pooled estimates found that probiotics offer a safe and effective method to prevent and treat acute pediatric diarrhea (27). The mechanisms responsible for the beneficial role of probiotics, are studies that have documented direct antimicrobial effects, improve mucosal barrier function, and immunomodulating activities due to the effects of probiotics on both innate and adaptive immunity (28, 29). Lactobacillus, bifidobacterium and saccharomyces are the most commonly used probiotic strains in the treatment of diarrhea, but other microorganisms, including enterococcus, streptococcus, Escherichia coli species have also been used (21, 30). After oral administration, probiotic bacteria remain transiently in the human intestine. The efficiency of probiotic, bacteria in the treatment of infectious diarrhea in adults and infants was shown in several studies (31-33). In some studies, the efficiency of probiotics in reducing the course of acute diarrhea in young children was attributed to the consumption of fermented milk (24, 34-36). In some research studies, lactobacillus GG was effective in the treatment of rotavirus diarrhea (26, 31, 35, 37-40). Whereas, lactobacillus acidophilus and bifidobacteria did not manage rotavirus diarrhea in some studies (1). Probiotic therapies with different strains of bacteria indicated some beneficial effects, although some studies did not show any significant effects (20). In this regard, the aim of this study was to review systematically the current knowledge on the effect of probiotic bacteria on duration of acute rotavirus diarrhea in children compared with control.

Methods

The papers in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (CCTR) and Ovid (Wolters Kluwer Health) which were published between 1980 to June 15, 2013 were searched. Furthermore, the references of other clinical trial and review articles have been searched. The search terms included “probiotic”, “treatment”, “rotavirus” and “diarrhea”. A total number of 1244 articles were generated through the aforementioned search. 203 articles were selected after the first screening of title and abstract. The graphical demonstration of the process of opting eligible trails is presented in figure1.
Figure 1

Flow design of the identification eligibility trial for inclusion

Randomized controlled trials (RTCs) that administer probiotics for treatment of rotavirus diarrhea in infants and children were included in this review. The intervention group was subjected to receive probiotic strains and dosage in any conditions. Placebo or any similar vehicle without probiotic was used in the controlled trials. Moreover, abstract studies and non-randomized controlled trial (non-RCT) articles as well as studies published in languages other than English were excluded from the review. In addition, the present review did not deal with the studies carried out through methodology of prevention or incidence of rotavirus diarrhea, non-rotavirus diarrhea, and antibiotic-associated diarrhea, animal model studies. Consequently, 14 articles were selected regarding these exclusion criteria. For their reviews, the outcomes were abstracted data from each study using outcomes that included duration of diarrhea. The length of time diarrhea lasts often depends on what caused it. We surveyed the duration agent in these trials, since the results of frequency are insufficient. The full articles extracted from the selected studies including the inclusion criteria were reviewed by two persons (M.S.R) and (E.A), and the reviewers assessed the data extraction independently and entered the data into a computer program. All studies were examined according to the list: author, year of publication, study design, age of patients, type of intervention (strain, dose, duration and vehicle), control group, concomitant treatment, diarrhea duration and the outcomes described above them that showed in tables 1.
Table1

Initial features of trials

Diarrhea duration Concomitant treatment Control group Probiotic treatment Age range (Months) Location Study
Vehicle Duration(day) Dose (CFU) Strain
< 3 dORSPlacebo (non-probiotic yogurt)yogurt3 times per day107L. acidophilus &Bifidobacteria6-72IranAbbaskhaniyan et al. 2012 [1]
< 3 dORTPlaceboTablet dispersed in waterTwice a day for 5 days6 × 107Lactobacillus Sporogenes (Bacillus coagulans)6-24IndiaDutta et al. 2011 [20]
< 96 hORSOral and / or parenteral solutions.Once a day for 5 days.250 mgSaccharomyces boulardii1-28TurkeyDalgic et al. 2011 [3]
ORTPlaceboDissolved in waterTwice a day for 5 daysGroup A. Saccharomyces boulardii, Group B.A compound Containing L. acidophilus & L. rhamnosus& B. longum& S. boulardii1-23BoliviaGrandy et al. 2010 [9]
< 7 daysORS or intravenous solution with Ringer’s lactatePlaceboCapsule contained 5 ml of sterile Nacl 0.9 %3 times for 3 days5 × 109 Lactobacillus casei strain GG4-24Australian Ritchie et al. 2010 [46]
≤ 3 dStandard therapy (ORS)placeboSachets3 times for 14 days1 sachetProbiotic (Bifilac)3-36IndiaNarayanappa D, 2008 [47]
1 - 5 dPlacebo Freezed dried Twice daily for 5 days1.2 × 1010 Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG2 – 72(Rotavirus infection : 45% )Poland Szymanski et al. 2006 [48]
< 48 hORSPlacebo (Whey-protein / skim-milk powder blend)ORSTwice daily for 5 days5× 1010 L. paracasei4-24BangladeshSarker et al. 2005 [49]
≤ 7 dPlaceboConsisted of lyophilizedTwice daily for 5 days4× 1010L. rhamnosus 19070-2 &L.reuteri DSM 122466-36DenmarkRosenfeldt et al. 2002 [50]
ORSORS + PlaceboORSAt least 1010 CFU/250mlLactobacillus GG1-36Guandalini et al. 2000 [51]
< 5 daysORT for the first 4 hours. Second, undiluted formula or breast milk fed with ORS.Placebo SachetTwice daily for 5 days5× 109 L. acidophilus LB3-24ThailandSimakachorn et al. 2000 [52]
< 5 daysORTPlacebo(the cellulose powder) Bag of dried power in 5 ml of water & mixed with ORS or another drink or foodTwice daily for 5 days5 × 109LGG1-36RussiaShornikova et al. 1997 [53]
PlaceboOnce a day up to 5 daysSmall dosage (107CFU)Large dosage (1010CFU) L. reuteri 6-36Shornikova et al. 1997 [44]
<7daysORT twicePlacebo (fermented-then-pasteurized yogurt, with <103cfu lactic acid bacteria)Fermented milk product125 gr twice daily1010-11 L. casei strain GG7-37FinlandKaila et al. 1992 [39]

CFU, colony-forming units

To measure the duration of diarrhea, each study was analyzed separately. Trials were divided into three main subdivisions. Measurements of diarrhea duration were converted to days, maintaining the number of significant digits in the original units of time. We could not calculate frequency, since the frequency symptom was not reported in major trials. We calculated an absolute difference between probiotics and control groups for each of the outcomes in each study. In the meta-analysis, outcomes across the included studies were examined for evidence of publication bias using funnel plots. Initial features of trials CFU, colony-forming units A priori Subgroup analysis was planned to distinguish the modification of reductions in diarrhea by LGG type in LGG probiotics group and non-LGG probiotics groups. The Stata 9 software (Stata Corp, College Station, Tex) was used for statistical analysis to perform the meta-analysis of the RCTs with random effect. Continuous outcomes (duration of diarrhea) are presented as standardized mean difference (SMD) between the probiotic treatment and controls with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeniuity of data was tested by I2 index and sources of heterogeneity were identified through accomplishing subgroup analysis. Flow design of the identification eligibility trial for inclusion

Results

The literature review resulted to 1224 documents, of which 14 were assessed for eligibility and were included in the meta-analysis. Finally, a total of 1149 patients were included in these studies. We categorized these trials as kind of probiotics to three subgroup analysis, lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and non-LGG, and all trials were categorized as the other group (n=14). Major strain of probiotic used was L. rhamnosus GG. The age range of patients were 1-72 months. In the major trials, they administered the probiotics available either as capsules, tablets, powders, or granules. In two trials they used them by premixing with a selection of food vehicle such as fermented milk or yogurt. The pooled estimate of efficacy of probiotics in the prevention of disease yielded in all studies a mean difference of 0.41 (95% CI -0.56 to –0.25; p<0.001) and a heterogeneity (I2) of 39.9% (figure 2). The pooled estimate of efficacy of LGG probiotics and others had significant reduction in duration of diarrhea and non-LGG probiotics show low I2 score (figures 3 and 4). Among trials with the data on the effects of LGG, two results had positive point estimates and six results attained statistical significance with an overall reduction of 0.47 (95% CI -0.80 to -0.14; P=0.020) and a heterogeneity (I2) of 57.8%. The funnel plot for publication bias had an asymmetrical distribution (figure 5). Among trials, administering probiotics available as capsules, tablets, granules and powders with a selection of food vehicle had no significant difference in the protective point estimates. And the protective effect by mode of delivery was not influenced by the patient’s age.
Figure 2

The effect size for the overall effects of probiotics in the duration of diarrhea

Figure 3

The effect size for effects of non-LGG probiotics in the duration of diarrhea

Figure 4

The effect size for effects of non-LGG probiotics in the duration of diarrhea

Figure 5

Funnel plot for enrolled studies

The effect size for the overall effects of probiotics in the duration of diarrhea The effect size for effects of non-LGG probiotics in the duration of diarrhea The effect size for effects of non-LGG probiotics in the duration of diarrhea Funnel plot for enrolled studies

Discussion

In this meta-analysis, the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of acute rotavirus diarrhea in children was investigated by reviewing several studies, which yielded contradictory results. The results of the present study showed that probiotics had a positive effect in reducing the duration of acute rotavirus diarrhea in children in comparison with control. Previously published meta-analyses used from studies that focused on researches related to high-income countries in the hospital, were restricted to infants and children (26, 41). The results of one-meta-analysis which compared lactobacillus rhamnosus 66 with placebo, demonstrated reduction of healthcare-associated diarrhea (42). We selected 14 trials according to inclusion criteria and surveyed the duration agent in these trials. The major trials had protective point estimates; most of them attained statistical significance. Three trials had statistically non-significance and non-protective point estimates. Significant differences in effectiveness have been observed in different species. This can be seen in several illustrations of these RCTs that Rosenfeldt et al. showed that lactobacillus rhamnosus and lactobacillus reuteri improved acute diarrhea in hospitalized children and reduced the duration of rotavirus expulsion (42). In line with the recent finding, Szajewska et al. noted that the use of probiotics can reduce the period of diarrhea, especially rotavirus diarrhea between 20 to 24 hours (25). In one such study reported that the bifidobacterium lactis had a complementary role in the treatment of rotavirus gastroenteritis and other probiotics may also have a positive effect in rotavirus diarrhea compared with placebo (43). Moreover, the efficacy of lactobacillus reuteri in hospitalized children with rotavirus diarrhea was demonstrated in one study. These bacteria shortened the duration of diarrhea with a dose-dependent effect (44). Lactobacillus GG (3× 109 cfu/g twice daily for a maximum of 6 d) reduced the first half period of diarrhea in outpatient children and significantly reduced rotavirus shedding (45). Another study indicated that there is a dose-response relevance involved. Although these differences were statistically significant, but further studies are still recommended. In conclusion, the value of meta-analysis is that it provides an instrument to incorporate trials with the above differences and reach to a pooled estimate of the efficacy of different probiotics. The extracted data from the RCTs demonstrated adequate evidence for the positive significant effect of probiotics in the reduction of duration of acute rotavirus diarrhea. To prove this evidence requires such research with identical dosage and methodology to be performed before further conclusions can be drawn.
  48 in total

Review 1.  Prophylactic and therapeutic uses of probiotics: a review.

Authors:  L Kopp-Hoolihan
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2001-02

Review 2.  Multistep entry of rotavirus into cells: a Versaillesque dance.

Authors:  Susana López; Carlos F Arias
Journal:  Trends Microbiol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 17.079

3.  Clinical evaluation of the addition of lyophilized, heat-killed Lactobacillus acidophilus LB to oral rehydration therapy in the treatment of acute diarrhea in children.

Authors:  N Simakachorn; V Pichaipat; P Rithipornpaisarn; C Kongkaew; P Tongpradit; W Varavithya
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.839

Review 4.  Prevention and treatment of enteric viral infections: possible benefits of probiotic bacteria.

Authors:  Florence Colbère-Garapin; Sandra Martin-Latil; Bruno Blondel; Laurence Mousson; Isabelle Pelletier; Arnaud Autret; Alan François; Violeta Niborski; Gianfranco Grompone; Guillaume Catonnet; Ariane van de Moer
Journal:  Microbes Infect       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 2.700

Review 5.  2008 estimate of worldwide rotavirus-associated mortality in children younger than 5 years before the introduction of universal rotavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jacqueline E Tate; Anthony H Burton; Cynthia Boschi-Pinto; A Duncan Steele; Jazmin Duque; Umesh D Parashar
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 25.071

Review 6.  Probiotics in the treatment and prevention of acute infectious diarrhea in infants and children: a systematic review of published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Authors:  H Szajewska; J Z Mrukowicz
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.839

7.  Probiotic, zinc and lactose-free formula in children with rotavirus diarrhea: are they effective?

Authors:  Nazan Dalgic; Mesut Sancar; Banu Bayraktar; Mine Pullu; Ozlem Hasim
Journal:  Pediatr Int       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.524

8.  Hospitalizations and deaths from diarrhea and rotavirus among children <5 years of age in the United States, 1993-2003.

Authors:  Thea Kølsen Fischer; Cécile Viboud; Umesh Parashar; Mark Malek; Claudia Steiner; Roger Glass; Lone Simonsen
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2007-03-06       Impact factor: 5.226

Review 9.  Rotavirus infection and the current status of rotavirus vaccines.

Authors:  Shou-Chien Chen; Lia-Beng Tan; Li-Min Huang; Kow-Tong Chen
Journal:  J Formos Med Assoc       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  Oral bacterial therapy reduces the duration of symptoms and of viral excretion in children with mild diarrhea.

Authors:  A Guarino; R B Canani; M I Spagnuolo; F Albano; L Di Benedetto
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.839

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Using Diverse Model Systems to Define Intestinal Epithelial Defenses to Enteric Viral Infections.

Authors:  Elisha Segrist; Sara Cherry
Journal:  Cell Host Microbe       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 21.023

2.  Pathogen-Specific Effects of Probiotics in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis Seeking Emergency Care: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Stephen B Freedman; Yaron Finkelstein; Xiao Li Pang; Linda Chui; Phillip I Tarr; John M VanBuren; Cody Olsen; Bonita E Lee; Carla A Hall-Moore; Robert Sapien; Karen O'Connell; Adam C Levine; Naveen Poonai; Cindy Roskind; Suzanne Schuh; Alexander Rogers; Seema Bhatt; Serge Gouin; Prashant Mahajan; Cheryl Vance; Katrina Hurley; Elizabeth C Powell; Ken J Farion; David Schnadower
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 20.999

Review 3.  Rotavirus infection.

Authors:  Sue E Crawford; Sasirekha Ramani; Jacqueline E Tate; Umesh D Parashar; Lennart Svensson; Marie Hagbom; Manuel A Franco; Harry B Greenberg; Miguel O'Ryan; Gagandeep Kang; Ulrich Desselberger; Mary K Estes
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 52.329

4.  Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea.

Authors:  Shelui Collinson; Andrew Deans; April Padua-Zamora; Germana V Gregorio; Chao Li; Leonila F Dans; Stephen J Allen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-12-08

5.  The Efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum BORI and Lactobacillus acidophilus AD031 Probiotic Treatment in Infants with Rotavirus Infection.

Authors:  Myeong Soo Park; Bin Kwon; Seockmo Ku; Geun Eog Ji
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.717

6.  Effect of probiotics on digestibility and immunity in infants: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lingli Xiao; Guodong Ding; Yifang Ding; Chaoming Deng; Xiaolei Ze; Liang Chen; Yao Zhang; Lihua Song; Hongli Yan; Fang Liu; Xiaoming Ben
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.889

7.  Oral administration of Bifidobacterium bifidum G9-1 alleviates rotavirus gastroenteritis through regulation of intestinal homeostasis by inducing mucosal protective factors.

Authors:  Tomohiro Kawahara; Yutaka Makizaki; Yosuke Oikawa; Yoshiki Tanaka; Ayako Maeda; Masaki Shimakawa; Satoshi Komoto; Kyoko Moriguchi; Hiroshi Ohno; Koki Taniguchi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Bifidobacterium adolescentis (DSM 20083) and Lactobacillus casei (Lafti L26-DSL): Probiotics Able to Block the In Vitro Adherence of Rotavirus in MA104 Cells.

Authors:  Karem Prunella Fernandez-Duarte; Nury Nathalia Olaya-Galán; Sandra Patricia Salas-Cárdenas; Jazmin Lopez-Rozo; Maria Fernanda Gutierrez-Fernandez
Journal:  Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.609

Review 9.  Therapeutics and Immunoprophylaxis Against Noroviruses and Rotaviruses: The Past, Present, and Future.

Authors:  Souvik Ghosh; Yashpal Singh Malik; Nobumichi Kobayashi
Journal:  Curr Drug Metab       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 3.731

10.  Anti-biofilm Properties of the Fecal Probiotic Lactobacilli Against Vibrio spp.

Authors:  Sumanpreet Kaur; Preeti Sharma; Namarta Kalia; Jatinder Singh; Sukhraj Kaur
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 5.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.