Dataset Information

Strain-specific and outcome-specific efficacy of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Consistent guidance for choosing an appropriate probiotic for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome is lacking.

Methods

Literature databases searched included: PubMed, Google Scholar and NIH registry of clinical trials from inception to June 2021. Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adult or pediatric IBS patients comparing probiotics against controls and ≥ 2 RCTs with common IBS outcome measures within each type of probiotic. Five common measures of IBS symptoms (changes in global Irritable Bowel Syndrome Severity Scoring System or IBS-SSS scores, frequency of global responders, changes in bloating or abdominal pain scores and frequency of abdominal pain relief) were used. This study was registered at Prospero (#CRD42018109169).

Findings

We screened 521 studies and included 42 randomized controlled trials (45 treatment arms, N = 3856). Four probiotics demonstrated significant reduction in abdominal pain relief: B. coagulans MTCC5260 (RR= 4^.9, 95% C.I. 3^.3, 7^.3), L. plantarum 299v (RR= 4^.6, 95% CI 1^.9, 11^.0), S. boulardii CNCM I-745 (RR= 1^.5, 95% C.I. 1^.1, 2^.1) and S. cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 (RR= 1^.3, 95% C.I. 1^.04, 1^.6). Mild-moderate adverse events were reported in 51% of the trials, none were more associated with the probiotic compared to controls.

Interpretation

Although the analysis of probiotic efficacy was limited by the diversity of IBS outcomes used in trials and lack of confirmatory trials for some strains, six single-strain probiotics and three different types of probiotic mixtures showed significant efficacy for at least one IBS outcome measure. These results might be relevant to clinical practice and policy.

SUBMITTER: McFarland LV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8529205 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Strain-specific and outcome-specific efficacy of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

McFarland Lynne V LV Karakan Tarkan T Karatas Ali A

EClinicalMedicine 20211018

<h4>Background</h4>Consistent guidance for choosing an appropriate probiotic for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome is lacking.<h4>Methods</h4>Literature databases searched included: PubMed, Google Scholar and NIH registry of clinical trials from inception to June 2021. Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adult or pediatric IBS patients comparing probiotics against controls and ≥ 2 RCTs with common IBS outcome measures within each type of probiotic. Five comm ...[more]

PMID: 34712929

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition. Studies regarding the treatment of IBS with probiotics have not yielded consistent results, and the best probiotics has not yet been confirmed. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative rank order of different probiotics for IBS.MethodWe searched for RCTs on the efficacy of probiotics for IBS until August 25, 2021. The primary outcome was the symptom relief rate, as well as global symptoms, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. The NMA was conducted using Stata 15.0. We also used meta-regression to explore whether the treatment length and dose influenced the efficacy.ResultsForty-three RCTs, with 5,531 IBS patients, were included in this analysis. Firstly, we compared the efficacy of different probiotic species. B.coagulans exhibited the highest probability to be the optimal probiotic specie in improving IBS symptom relief rate, as well as global symptom, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. In regard to the secondary outcomes, L.plantarum ranked first in ameliorating the QOL of IBS patients, but without any significant differences compared with other probiotic species in standardized mean differences (SMD) estimates. Moreover, patients received L.acidophilus had lowest incidence of adverse events. The meta-regression revealed that no significant differences were found between participants using different doses of probiotics in all outcomes, while the treatment length, as a confounder, can significantly influence the efficacy of probiotics in ameliorating abdominal pain (Coef = -2.30; p = 0.035) and straining (Coef = -3.15; p = 0.020) in IBS patients. Thus, we performed the subgroup analysis on treatment length subsequently in these two outcomes, which showed that efficacy of B.coagulans using 8 weeks ranked first both in improving the abdominal pain and straining scores. Additionally, B. coagulans still had significant efficacy compared to different types of probiotic combinations in present study.ConclusionsThe findings of this NMA suggested that B.coagulans had prominent efficacy in treating IBS patients, and incorporating B.coagulans into a probiotic combination, or genetically engineering it to amplify its biological function may be a future research target to treat IBS patients. With few direct comparisons available between individual therapies today, this NMA may have utility in forming treatment guideline for IBS with probiotics.

Project description:In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupoint catgut embedding for the treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. We searched seven online databases to collect studies published up to Feb 29th, 2020. Study quality of each included article was evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were conducted based on the Cochrane systematic review method by using RevMan 5.3 software. Among the included trials, acupoint catgut embedding alone or plus oral western medicine or plus other acupoint-based therapies, or plus oral traditional Chinese medicine were the main therapies in the experimental groups. Interventions in control groups mainly include oral western medicine alone, other acupoint-based therapies alone, or other acupoint-based therapies alone. Primary outcomes in this study include recovery rate, accumulative marked effective rate, accumulative effective rate, and recurrence rate. Finally, 30 trials involving 1889 participants were included. The results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses show that acupoint catgut embedding alone or plus oral western medicine or plus other acupoint-based therapy or plus oral traditional Chinese medicine was significantly better compared with using oral western medicine alone in terms of efficacy for IBS-C and IBS-D. In addition, acupoint catgut embedding alone or plus oral western medicine or plus other acupoint-based therapy or plus oral traditional Chinese medicine could improve the effective rate and decrease the recurrence rate for IBS-D compared with using oral western medicine, other acupoint-based therapies, or oral traditional Chinese medicine alone. Adverse events of acupoint catgut embedding include local induration, redness, swelling, and itchiness, but they were all mild and disappeared swiftly with ordinary local interventions. There is an urgent need for RCTs of high quality and large sample size and with longer treatment duration and follow-up periods of acupoint catgut embedding for IBS.

Project description:ObjectivesIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition with a heterogeneous pathophysiology. An altered gut microbiome has been identified in some IBS patients, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been suggested to treat IBS. We performed meta-analyses and systematic review of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of FMT in IBS.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. Selection criteria included RCTs of FMT vs placebo using FMT excipients or autologous FMT in IBS. Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of combined studies for primary outcome of improvement in global IBS symptoms as measured by accepted integrative symptom questionnaires or dichotomous responses to questions of overall symptom improvement.ResultsAmong 742 citations identified, 7 were deemed to be potentially relevant, of which 4 studies involving 254 participants met eligibility. No significant difference in global improvement of IBS symptoms was observed at 12 weeks in FMT vs placebo (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.48-1.79). Heterogeneity among studies was significant (I = 79%). Subgroup analyses revealed benefits of single-dose FMT using colonoscopy and nasojejunal tubes in comparison with autologous FMT for placebo treatment (number needed to treat = 5, RR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.06-2.39; I = 0%) and a reduction in likelihood of improvement of multiple-dose capsule FMT RCTs (number needed to harm = 3, RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.34-0.85; I = 13%). Placebo response was 33.7% in nonoral FMT RCTs and 67.8% in capsule FMT RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation quality of the body of evidence was very low.DiscussionCurrent evidence from RCTs does not suggest a benefit of FMT for global IBS symptoms. There remain questions regarding the efficacy of FMT in IBS as well as the lack of a clean explanation on the discrepant results among RCTs in subgroup analyses.

Dataset Information

Strain-specific and outcome-specific efficacy of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Publications

Strain-specific and outcome-specific efficacy of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets