| Literature DB >> 35677540 |
Vali Musazadeh1,2, Neda Roshanravan3, Parvin Dehghan4,5, Sana Sedgh Ahrabi1.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become prevalent in recent decades, especially in developed countries; yet the approaches for preventing and treating NAFLD are not clear. This study aimed to summarize meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of probiotics on NAFLD. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Library databases up to August 2021. All Meta-analysis studies assessing the effect of probiotics on liver function tests [alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and Gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)] were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. The umbrella study covered ten eligible studies involving 5,162 individuals. Beneficial effects of probiotics supplementation were revealed on ALT (ES = -10.54 IU/L; 95% CI: -12.70, -8.39; p < 0.001; I 2 = 60.9%, p = 0.006), AST (ES = -10.19 IU/L, 95%CI: -13.08, -7.29, p < 0.001; I 2 = 79.8%, p < 0.001), and GGT (ES = -5.88 IU/L, 95% CI: -7.09, -4.67, p = 0.009; I 2 = 0.0%, p = 0.591) levels. Probiotics have ameliorating effects on ALT, AST, and GGT levels in patients with NAFLD. Overall, Probiotics could be recommended as an adjuvant therapeutic method for the management of NAFLD.Entities:
Keywords: liver enzyme; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; probiotics; systematic review; umbrella meta-analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35677540 PMCID: PMC9169800 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.844242
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
FIGURE 1Flow diagram of study selection.
Study characteristics of included studies.
| References | No. of studies in meta-analysis | Location | No. of participants in meta-analysis | Age (year) | Dose (mg/day) | Quality assessment scale and outcome |
| Gao et al. ( | 9 | China | 268 | 37 | Yes (Cochrane) | |
| Khan et al. ( | 12 | United States | 292 | 50 | Yes (Cochrane) | |
| Loman et al. ( | 11 | United States | 195 | 34 | Yes (adapted from Littell et al.) | |
| Sharpton et al. ( | 16 | United States | 322 | NR | Yes (Cochrane) | |
| Liu et al. ( | 15 | China | 673 | 37 | Yes (Cochrane) | |
| Lavekar et al. ( | 7 | India | 138 | NR | Yes (Jodad) | |
| Tang et al. ( | 22 | China | 879 | 30 | Yes (Cochrane) | |
| Xiao et al. ( | 28 | China | 420 | 40 | Yes (Cochrane) | |
| Koutnikova et al. ( | 99 | France | 1971 | NR | Yes (PEDro scale tool) | |
| Ma et al. ( | 4 | China | 268 | 44 | Yes (Jodad) |
PEDro, Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale tool.
Detailed evaluation of the methodological quality with AMSTARa.
| Study | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Quality score |
| Khan et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | NO | Yes | NO | Yes | NO | Yes | 8 |
| Lavekar et al. ( | Yes | CA | NO | Yes | NO | Yes | Yes | NO | Yes | CA | NO | 5 |
| Xiao et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 11 |
| Liu et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | NO | Yes | 10 |
| Loman et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 11 |
| Ma et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | NO | Yes | NO | NO | 8 |
| Sharpton et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | CA | Yes | NO | Yes | Yes | NO | 8 |
| Tang et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 11 |
| Gao et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | NO | NO | NO | NO | 7 |
FIGURE 2Forest plot (A) detailing mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and funnel plot (B) displaying publication bias in the studies reporting, the effects of probiotics supplementation on ALT levels.
Pooled estimates of probiotics effects on liver enzymes within different subgroups.
| Variables | No. study | Pooled effect size (95% CI) | I2 (%) | P heterogeneity | |
|
| |||||
| ≤45 | 3 | −13.89 (−22.66, −5.13) | 0.002 | 79.7 | 0.007 |
| >45 | 3 | −8.47 (−10.14, −6.80) | <0.001 | 32.5 | 0.227 |
| NR | 4 | −12.33 (−14.88, −9.77) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.432 |
|
| |||||
| <16 | 5 | −8.76 (−11.25, −6.28) | <0.001 | 30.2 | 0.22 |
|
| |||||
| China | 5 | −11.66 (−15.21, −8.21) | <0.001 | 75.3 | 0.003 |
|
| |||||
| ≤ 45 | 3 | −11.51 (−17.80, −5.23) | <0.001 | 52.6 | 0.121 |
| > 45 | 3 | −7.25 (−11.98, −2.52) | <0.001 | 91.2 | <0.001 |
| NR | 4 | −12.85 (−17.00, −8.70) | <0.001 | 44.7 | 0.164 |
|
| |||||
| <16 | 4 | −7.79 (−12.10, −3.49) | <0.001 | 77.0 | 0.005 |
|
| |||||
| China | 5 | −10.65 (−13.58, −7.71) | <0.001 | 53.3 | 0.073 |
FIGURE 3Forest plot (A) detailing mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and funnel plot (B) displaying publication bias in the studies reporting, the effects of probiotics supplementation on AST levels.
FIGURE 4Forest plot detailing mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the effects of probiotics supplementation on GGT levels.