Jankiewicz Mateusz, Łukasik Jan, Kotowska Maja, Kołodziej Maciej, Szajewska Hania
From the Department of Paediatrics, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warszawa, Poland.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2023 Feb 1;76(2):227-231. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003675. Epub 2022 Dec 1.
The dogma of probiotic strain-specificity is widely accepted. However, only the genus- and species-specific effects of probiotics are supported by evidence from clinical trials. The aim of this rapid review was to assess clinical evidence supporting the claim that the efficacy of probiotics in the pediatric population is strain-specific.
The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched (up to August 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children aged 0-18 years evaluating the effects of prophylactic or therapeutic administration of probiotics (well-characterized at the strain level) for conditions such as antibiotic-associated diarrhea, acute diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolitis, respiratory tract infections, Helicobacter pylori infection, and atopic dermatitis. To allow evaluation of strain-specificity, a trial could only be included in the review if at least one additional RCT assessed the effect of a different strain of the same species against the same comparator. RCTs without proper strain-level data were excluded. In the absence of identifying head-to-head strain versus strain RCTs, indirect comparisons were made between interventions.
Twenty-three RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Out of the 11 performed comparisons, with 1 exception (two Lacticaseibacillus paracasei strains in reducing atopic dermatitis symptoms), no significant differences between the clinical effects of different strains of the same probiotic species were found.
Head-to-head comparison is an optimal study design to compare probiotic strains, but such comparisons are lacking. Based on indirect comparisons, this rapid review demonstrates insufficient clinical evidence to support or refute the claim that probiotic effects in children are strain-specific.
益生菌菌株特异性的教条已被广泛接受。然而,临床试验证据仅支持益生菌的属特异性和种特异性效应。本快速综述的目的是评估支持益生菌在儿科人群中的疗效具有菌株特异性这一说法的临床证据。
检索Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库(截至2022年8月),查找针对0至18岁儿童进行的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验评估了益生菌(在菌株水平上特征明确)预防性或治疗性给药对诸如抗生素相关性腹泻、急性腹泻、坏死性小肠结肠炎、呼吸道感染、幽门螺杆菌感染和特应性皮炎等病症的影响。为了评估菌株特异性,只有当至少一项额外的RCT评估了同一物种的不同菌株对相同对照的效果时,该试验才能被纳入综述。没有适当菌株水平数据的RCT被排除。在缺乏菌株与菌株直接对比的RCT的情况下,对干预措施进行间接比较。
23项RCT符合纳入标准。在进行的11项比较中,除1项例外(两株副干酪乳杆菌在减轻特应性皮炎症状方面),未发现同一益生菌物种的不同菌株在临床效果上有显著差异。
直接对比是比较益生菌菌株的最佳研究设计,但此类比较尚缺乏。基于间接比较,本快速综述表明,支持或反驳益生菌对儿童的作用具有菌株特异性这一说法的临床证据不足。