Lisa Hanson1, Leona VandeVusse2, Emily Malloy3, Mauricio Garnier-Villarreal4, Lauren Watson5, Alissa Fial6, Marie Forgie7, Katrina Nardini8, Nasia Safdar9. 1. Klein Endowed Professor and Associate Director, Marquette University College of Nursing, Midwifery Program, Milwaukee, WI USA. Electronic address: lisa.hanson@mu.edu. 2. Associate Professor Emerita, Marquette University College of Nursing Milwaukee, WI USA. 3. PhD student, Marquette University College of Nursing; Nurse-Midwife, Midwifery and Wellness Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Advocate Aurora Health Care, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 4. Assistant Professor, Sociology department, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. 5. Laboratory Manager, UW Madison School of Medicine and Infectious Disease, Madison, WI, USA. 6. Research & Instruction Services, Associate Librarian, Raynor Memorial Libraries, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 7. Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Advocate Aurora Women's Health Care, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 8. Associate Chief, Midwifery Division, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 9. Professor, Infectious Disease, UW Madison School of Medicine. Madison WI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse studies of the efficacy of probiotics to reduce antenatal Group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonisation. PARTICIPANTS: Antenatal participants with known positive GBS colonisation or unknown GBS status. INTERVENTION: Probiotic interventions containing species of Lactobacillus or Streptococcus. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: The systematic review included 10 studies. Five articles contained in vitro studies of probiotic interventions to determine antagonistic activity against GBS. Six clinical trials of probiotics to reduce antenatal GBS were systematically reviewed and meta-analysed. The meta-analysis revealed that the use of an antenatal probiotic decreased the probability of a positive GBS result by 44% (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 8.7%, 194.1%, p = 0.02) (n = 709). However, only one clinical trial of 10 had a low risk of bias. KEY CONCLUSIONS: The probiotic interventions subjected to in vitro testing showed antagonistic activity against GBS through the mechanisms of acidification, immune modulation, and adhesion. The findings of the meta-analysis of the clinical trials revealed that probiotics are a moderately effective intervention to reduce antenatal GBS colonisation. More well-controlled trials with diverse participants and with better elucidation of variables influencing GBS colonisation rates are needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Probiotic interventions appear to be a safe and effective primary prevention strategy for antenatal GBS colonisation. Application of this low-risk intervention needs more study but may reduce the need for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis in countries or regions where antenatal GBS screening is used. Midwives can be instrumental in conducting and supporting larger well-controlled clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse studies of the efficacy of probiotics to reduce antenatal Group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonisation. PARTICIPANTS: Antenatal participants with known positive GBS colonisation or unknown GBS status. INTERVENTION: Probiotic interventions containing species of Lactobacillus or Streptococcus. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: The systematic review included 10 studies. Five articles contained in vitro studies of probiotic interventions to determine antagonistic activity against GBS. Six clinical trials of probiotics to reduce antenatal GBS were systematically reviewed and meta-analysed. The meta-analysis revealed that the use of an antenatal probiotic decreased the probability of a positive GBS result by 44% (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 8.7%, 194.1%, p = 0.02) (n = 709). However, only one clinical trial of 10 had a low risk of bias. KEY CONCLUSIONS: The probiotic interventions subjected to in vitro testing showed antagonistic activity against GBS through the mechanisms of acidification, immune modulation, and adhesion. The findings of the meta-analysis of the clinical trials revealed that probiotics are a moderately effective intervention to reduce antenatal GBS colonisation. More well-controlled trials with diverse participants and with better elucidation of variables influencing GBS colonisation rates are needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Probiotic interventions appear to be a safe and effective primary prevention strategy for antenatal GBS colonisation. Application of this low-risk intervention needs more study but may reduce the need for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis in countries or regions where antenatal GBS screening is used. Midwives can be instrumental in conducting and supporting larger well-controlled clinical trials.
Authors: Mesküre Capan-Melser; Ghyslain Mombo Ngoma; Daisy Akerey-Diop; Arti Basra; Heike Würbel; Mirjam Groger; Jean R Mackanga; Rella Zoleko-Manego; Ulla Schipulle; Julia Schwing; Felix Lötsch; Khalid Rehman; Pierre-Blaise Matsiegui; Selidji T Agnandji; Ayôla A Adegnika; Sabine Bélard; Raquel González; Peter G Kremsner; Clara Menendez; Michael Ramharter Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Melissa K Van Dyke; Christina R Phares; Ruth Lynfield; Ann R Thomas; Kathryn E Arnold; Allen S Craig; Janet Mohle-Boetani; Ken Gershman; William Schaffner; Susan Petit; Shelley M Zansky; Craig A Morin; Nancy L Spina; Kathryn Wymore; Lee H Harrison; Kathleen A Shutt; Joseph Bareta; Sandra N Bulens; Elizabeth R Zell; Anne Schuchat; Stephanie J Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laura Filkins; Jocelyn R Hauser; Barbara Robinson-Dunn; Robert Tibbetts; Bobby L Boyanton; Paula Revell Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Anna C Seale; Hannah Blencowe; Fiorella Bianchi-Jassir; Nicholas Embleton; Quique Bassat; Jaume Ordi; Clara Menéndez; Clare Cutland; Carmen Briner; James A Berkley; Joy E Lawn; Carol J Baker; Linda Bartlett; Michael G Gravett; Paul T Heath; Margaret Ip; Kirsty Le Doare; Craig E Rubens; Samir K Saha; Stephanie Schrag; Ajoke Sobanjo-Ter Meulen; Johan Vekemans; Shabir A Madhi Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: V Parente; R H Clark; L Ku; C Fennell; M Johnson; E Morris; A Romaine; U Utin; D K Benjamin; J A Messina; P B Smith; R G Greenberg Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 3.225