36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Probiotics for Prevention and Treatment of Diarrhea

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Probiotics have been extensively studied over the past several years in the prevention and, to a larger extent, in the treatment of diarrheal diseases, especially in pediatric populations. Diarrhea is a symptom, and not a disease. This review will not address chronic disorders associated with diarrhea, or Clostridium difficile-induced diarrhea. Rather it will focus on published clinical trials performed on acute-onset, likely infectious diarrhea occurring in the settings of day-care centers, in the community, acquired in the hospital, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, and treatment of acute infectious diarrhea. For prevention of diarrhea acquired in day-care centers, 9 randomized and placebo-controlled trials have been published, conducted in different parts of the world. Probiotics tested were Lactobacillus GG, Bifidobacterium lactis (alone or in combination with Streptococcus thermophilus, and Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus rhamnosus (not GG), and Lactobacillus acidophilus, in various trials either alone or in comparison with each other. The evidence of their efficacy in these settings is only modest for the prevention of diarrhea, although somewhat better for prevention of upper respiratory infections. In the community, new trails conducted in underprivileged areas of India, again with modest efficacy. Previous trials that examined the potential role of probiotics in preventing the spreading of diarrhea in hospitalized children had yielded conflicting results. More recently, a large trial in Poland showed, however, rather good evidence of efficacy for Lactobacillus GG. The prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea has been the subject of many investigations, both in children and in adults. Most commonly used probiotics were Lactobacillus GG, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Bifidobacterium ssp, Streptococcus ssp, and the yeast Saccharomyces boulardii. In general, most of these trials do show clear evidence of efficacy, with the 2 most effective strains being Lactobacillus GG and S. boulardii. Evidence is also emerging on the importance of the dose in reducing the incidence of this type of diarrhea, and the incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated postantibiotic diarrhea. As for treatment, a large body of data is available, especially in children, on the effect of several strains of probiotics in treating sporadic infectious diarrhea. The vast majority of the published trials show a statistically significant benefit and moderate clinical benefit of a few, well-identified probiotic strains-mostly Lactobacillus GG and S. boulardii-in the treatment of acute watery diarrhea, and particularly those due to rotavirus. Such a beneficial effect results, on average, in a reduction of diarrhea duration of approximately 1 day. The effect is strain-dependent and dose-dependent.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The effect of oral rehydration solution and recommended home fluids on diarrhoea mortality

          Background Most diarrhoeal deaths can be prevented through the prevention and treatment of dehydration. Oral rehydration solution (ORS) and recommended home fluids (RHFs) have been recommended since 1970s and 1980s to prevent and treat diarrhoeal dehydration. We sought to estimate the effects of these interventions on diarrhoea mortality in children aged <5 years. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify studies evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of ORS and RHFs and abstracted study characteristics and outcome measures into standardized tables. We categorized the evidence by intervention and outcome, conducted meta-analyses for all outcomes with two or more data points and graded the quality of the evidence supporting each outcome. The CHERG Rules for Evidence Review were used to estimate the effectiveness of ORS and RHFs against diarrhoea mortality. Results We identified 205 papers for abstraction, of which 157 were included in the meta-analyses of ORS outcomes and 12 were included in the meta-analyses of RHF outcomes. We estimated that ORS may prevent 93% of diarrhoea deaths. Conclusions ORS is effective against diarrhoea mortality in home, community and facility settings; however, there is insufficient evidence to estimate the effectiveness of RHFs against diarrhoea mortality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dose-response efficacy of a proprietary probiotic formula of Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R for antibiotic-associated diarrhea and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea prophylaxis in adult patients.

            Standard therapies for antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) have limited efficacy. Probiotic prophylaxis is a promising alternative for reduction of AAD and CDAD incidence. In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study, we randomized 255 adult inpatients to one of three groups: two probiotic capsules per day (Pro-2, n=86), one probiotic capsule and one placebo capsule per day (Pro-1, n=85), or two placebo capsules per day (n=84). Each probiotic capsule contained 50 billion c.f.u. of live organisms (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 +Lactobacillus casei LBC80R Bio-K+ CL1285). Probiotic prophylaxis began within 36 h of initial antibiotic administration, continued for 5 days after the last antibiotic dose, and patients were followed for an additional 21 days. Pro-2 (15.5%) had a lower AAD incidence vs. Pro-1 (28.2%). Each probiotic group had a lower AAD incidence vs. placebo (44.1%). In patients who acquired AAD, Pro-2 (2.8 days) and Pro-1 (4.1 days) had shorter symptom duration vs. placebo (6.4 days). Similarly, Pro-2 (1.2%) had a lower CDAD incidence vs. Pro-1 (9.4%). Each treatment group had a lower CDAD incidence vs. placebo (23.8%). Gastrointestinal symptoms were less common in the treatment groups vs. placebo and in Pro-2 vs. Pro-1. The proprietary probiotic blend used in this study was well tolerated and effective for reducing risk of AAD and, in particular, CDAD in hospitalized patients on antibiotics. A dose-ranging effect was shown with 100 billion c.f.u., yielding superior outcomes and fewer gastrointestinal events compared to 50 billion c.f.u. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00958308).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lactobacillus GG in the prevention of nosocomial gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections.

              The incidence of nosocomial infections, predominantly gastrointestinal and respiratory, in children in developed countries is high, ranging from 5% to 44%. There is no effective strategy for preventing these infections. The objective of our study was to investigate the role of Lactobacillus GG (LGG) in preventing nosocomial gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections at a pediatric hospital. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 742 hospitalized children. They were randomly allocated to receive for their hospitalization LGG at a dose of 10(9) colony-forming units in 100 mL of a fermented milk product (LGG group, n = 376) or placebo that was the same postpasteurized fermented milk product without LGG (placebo group, n = 366). In the LGG group, compared with the placebo group, we found a significantly reduced risk for gastrointestinal infections (relative risk [RR]: 0.40 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.70]; number needed to treat: 15 [95% CI: 9-34)], respiratory tract infections (RR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.18-0.85]; number needed to treat: 30 [95% CI: 16-159]), vomiting episodes (RR: 0.5 [95% CI: 0.3-0.9]), diarrheal episodes (RR: 0.24 [95% CI: 0.10-0.50]), episodes of gastrointestinal infections that lasted >2 days (RR: 0.40 [95% CI: 0.25-0.70]), and episodes of respiratory tract infections that lasted >3 days (RR: 0.4 [95% CI: 0.2-0.9]). Groups did not differ in hospitalization duration (P = .1). LGG administration can be recommended as a valid measure for decreasing the risk for nosocomial gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections in pediatric facilities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
                Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0192-0790
                2011
                2011
                : 45
                : S149-S153
                Article
                10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182257e98
                21992955
                c019cb85-1d60-455d-94e8-1beb2980e021
                © 2011
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article