Lynne V McFarland1, Shan Goh2. 1. Department of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. Electronic address: lvmcfarl@u.washington.edu. 2. Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, United Kingdom. Electronic address: s.goh5@herts.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Travellers' diarrhea (TD) impacts annually over 20 million tourists, business travellers and military troops on a worldwide basis. Reliance on antibiotic prophylaxis and educational programs has not lead to a significant reduction in TD rates. Previous reviews of probiotics for TD have not accounted for the strain-specificity of probiotic efficacy nor have investigated prebiotics for the prevention of TD. METHODS: Standard literature databases were searched from 1977 to June 2018 unrestricted by language. Inclusion criteria included: Probiotic, probiotic or symbiotic interventions, randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and ≥2 RCTs with the same probiotic strain or mixture. RESULTS: Of 158 screened articles, 12 RCT were included in the systematic review and 6 RCTs (with nine treatment different arms) were included in the meta-analysis. Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 showed a significant reduction in TD incidence (RR = 0.79, 95% C.I. 0.72-0.87, p < 0.001), while L. rhamnosus GG showed a trend (p = 0.08) and L. acidophilus showed no significant (p = 0.16) reduction of TD. CONCLUSIONS: The number of trials using probiotics or prebiotics for the prevention of TD continues to be limited in number. Only one of three probiotics showed significant efficacy for the prevention of TD. More research is needed for other probiotics strains and prebiotics to determine if they could also prevent TD.
BACKGROUND: Travellers' diarrhea (TD) impacts annually over 20 million tourists, business travellers and military troops on a worldwide basis. Reliance on antibiotic prophylaxis and educational programs has not lead to a significant reduction in TD rates. Previous reviews of probiotics for TD have not accounted for the strain-specificity of probiotic efficacy nor have investigated prebiotics for the prevention of TD. METHODS: Standard literature databases were searched from 1977 to June 2018 unrestricted by language. Inclusion criteria included: Probiotic, probiotic or symbiotic interventions, randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and ≥2 RCTs with the same probiotic strain or mixture. RESULTS: Of 158 screened articles, 12 RCT were included in the systematic review and 6 RCTs (with nine treatment different arms) were included in the meta-analysis. Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 showed a significant reduction in TD incidence (RR = 0.79, 95% C.I. 0.72-0.87, p < 0.001), while L. rhamnosus GG showed a trend (p = 0.08) and L. acidophilus showed no significant (p = 0.16) reduction of TD. CONCLUSIONS: The number of trials using probiotics or prebiotics for the prevention of TD continues to be limited in number. Only one of three probiotics showed significant efficacy for the prevention of TD. More research is needed for other probiotics strains and prebiotics to determine if they could also prevent TD.
Authors: Shreyas V Kumbhare; Patricia A Francis-Lyon; Dashyanng Kachru; Tejaswini Uday; Carmel Irudayanathan; Karthik M Muthukumar; Roshni R Ricchetti; Simitha Singh-Rambiritch; Juan Ugalde; Parambir S Dulai; Daniel E Almonacid; Ranjan Sinha Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 5.640