Department of Women's and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia.
Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD009951. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3.
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions has proven difficult. The gut microbiome (the composite of bacteria present in the intestines) influences host inflammatory pathways, glucose and lipid metabolism and, in other settings, alteration of the gut microbiome has been shown to impact on these host responses. Probiotics are one way of altering the gut microbiome but little is known about their use in influencing the metabolic environment of pregnancy. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.
To systematically assess the effects of probiotic supplements used either alone or in combination with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of GDM.
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 March 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing the use of probiotic supplementation with either placebo or diet for the prevention of the development of GDM. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over design studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies presented only as abstracts with no subsequent full report of study results were only included if study authors confirmed that data in the abstract came from the final analysis. Otherwise, the abstract was left awaiting classification.
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.
In this update, we included seven trials with 1647 participants. Two studies were in overweight and obese women, two in obese women and three did not exclude women based on their weight. All included studies compared probiotics with placebo. The included studies were at low risk of bias overall except for one study that had an unclear risk of bias. We excluded two studies, eight studies were ongoing and three studies are awaiting classification. Six included studies with 1440 participants evaluated the risk of GDM. It is uncertain if probiotics have any effect on the risk of GDM compared to placebo (mean risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.20; 6 studies, 1440 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity and wide CIs that included both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm. Probiotics increase the risk of pre-eclampsia compared to placebo (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.29; 4 studies, 955 women; high-certainty evidence) and may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.01, 4 studies, 955 women), although the CIs for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy also indicated probiotics may have no effect. There were few differences between groups for other primary outcomes. Probiotics make little to no difference in the risk of caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1520 women; high-certainty evidence), and probably make little to no difference in maternal weight gain during pregnancy (MD 0.30 kg, 95% CI -0.67 to 1.26; 4 studies, 853 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Probiotics probably make little to no difference in the incidence of large-for-gestational age infants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.36; 4 studies, 919 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in neonatal adiposity (2 studies, 320 infants; data not pooled; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adiposity as fat mass (MD -0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04), and one study reported adiposity as percentage fat (MD -0.10%, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.99). We do not know the effect of probiotics on perinatal mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 3 studies, 709 infants; low-certainty evidence), a composite measure of neonatal morbidity (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35; 2 studies, 623 infants; low-certainty evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (mean RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.92; 2 studies, 586 infants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on perineal trauma, postnatal depression, maternal and infant development of diabetes or neurosensory disability.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from six trials has not clearly identified the effect of probiotics on the risk of GDM. However, high-certainty evidence suggests there is an increased risk of pre-eclampsia with probiotic administration. There were no other clear differences between probiotics and placebo among the other primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence for this review's primary outcomes ranged from low to high, with downgrading due to concerns about substantial heterogeneity between studies, wide CIs and low event rates. Given the risk of harm and little observed benefit, we urge caution in using probiotics during pregnancy. The apparent effect of probiotics on pre-eclampsia warrants particular consideration. Eight studies are currently ongoing, and we suggest that these studies take particular care in follow-up and examination of the effect on pre-eclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In addition, the underlying potential physiology of the relationship between probiotics and pre-eclampsia risk should be considered.
妊娠糖尿病(GDM)与母婴多种不良妊娠结局相关。使用生活方式干预预防 GDM 已被证明存在困难。肠道微生物群(肠道中存在的细菌的组合)影响宿主炎症途径、葡萄糖和脂质代谢,在其他环境中,改变肠道微生物群已被证明会影响这些宿主反应。益生菌是改变肠道微生物群的一种方法,但关于其在影响妊娠代谢环境中的用途知之甚少。这是对 2014 年发表的一篇综述的更新。
系统评估单独使用或与药物和非药物干预联合使用益生菌补充剂预防 GDM 的效果。
我们检索了 Cochrane 妊娠和分娩组临床试验注册库、ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(2020 年 3 月 20 日)和检索研究的参考文献列表。
比较益生菌补充剂与安慰剂或饮食用于预防 GDM 发展的随机和整群随机试验。整群随机试验有资格纳入,但没有发现。不适合纳入本综述的半随机和交叉设计研究。仅作为摘要发表且无后续研究结果完整报告的研究,如果研究作者确认摘要中的数据来自最终分析,则仅纳入摘要。否则,摘要将被搁置等待分类。
两名综述作者独立评估研究纳入标准、提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。数据经过核对以确保准确性。
在本次更新中,我们纳入了 7 项涉及 1647 名参与者的试验。两项研究针对超重和肥胖女性,两项研究针对肥胖女性,三项研究未根据体重排除女性。所有纳入的研究均将益生菌与安慰剂进行比较。总体而言,纳入的研究偏倚风险较低,但有一项研究偏倚风险不明确。我们排除了两项研究,八项研究正在进行中,三项研究有待分类。六项纳入研究(1440 名参与者)评估了 GDM 的风险。与安慰剂相比,益生菌对 GDM 的风险的影响尚不确定(平均风险比(RR)0.80,95%置信区间(CI)0.54 至 1.20;6 项研究,1440 名女性;低质量证据)。证据质量低是由于存在显著的异质性和宽 CI,CI 既包括明显的获益也包括明显的危害。与安慰剂相比,益生菌增加了子痫前期的风险(RR 1.85,95%CI 1.04 至 3.29;4 项研究,955 名女性;高质量证据),并且可能增加妊娠高血压疾病的风险(RR 1.39,95%CI 0.96 至 2.01,4 项研究,955 名女性),尽管妊娠高血压疾病的 CI 也表明益生菌可能没有影响。其他主要结局的组间差异较小。益生菌对剖宫产(RR 1.00,95%CI 0.86 至 1.17;6 项研究,1520 名女性;高质量证据)和妊娠期间母亲体重增加(MD 0.30kg,95%CI -0.67 至 1.26;4 项研究,853 名女性;中等质量证据)的影响差异不大。益生菌可能对巨大儿的发生率(RR 0.99,95%CI 0.72 至 1.36;4 项研究,919 名婴儿;中等质量证据)影响不大,对新生儿肥胖(2 项研究,320 名婴儿;数据未合并;低质量证据)可能影响不大。一项研究报告了肥胖作为脂肪量(MD -0.04kg,95%CI -0.12 至 0.04),另一项研究报告了肥胖作为脂肪百分比(MD -0.10%,95%CI -1.19 至 0.99)。我们不知道益生菌对围产期死亡率(RR 0.33,95%CI 0.01 至 8.02;3 项研究,709 名婴儿;低质量证据)、新生儿发病率的综合衡量标准(RR 0.69,95%CI 0.36 至 1.35;2 项研究,623 名婴儿;低质量证据)或新生儿低血糖(平均 RR 1.15,95%CI 0.69 至 1.92;2 项研究,586 名婴儿;低质量证据)的影响。没有纳入的研究报告会阴创伤、产后抑郁、母婴糖尿病或神经感觉功能障碍。
来自六项试验的低质量证据尚未明确确定益生菌对 GDM 风险的影响。然而,高质量证据表明,益生菌治疗与子痫前期风险增加有关。其他主要结局在益生菌和安慰剂之间没有其他明显差异。本综述主要结局的证据质量从低到高不等,因研究间存在显著异质性、宽 CI 和低事件发生率而降级。鉴于潜在的危害和观察到的益处有限,我们强烈建议在妊娠期间谨慎使用益生菌。益生菌对子痫前期的明显影响尤其值得关注。目前有八项研究正在进行,我们建议这些研究在随访和检查对子痫前期和妊娠高血压疾病的影响时特别注意。此外,应考虑益生菌与子痫前期风险之间潜在的生理关系。