TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy of Probiotics in Irritable Bowel Syndrome
T2 - Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
AU - Goodoory, Vivek C.
AU - Khasawneh, Mais
AU - Black, Christopher J.
AU - Quigley, Eamonn M.M.
AU - Moayyedi, Paul
AU - Ford, Alexander C.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Dr Cesare Cremon, Dr Giovanni Barbara, and Dr Tao Bai for responding to our queries about their studies and for providing us with extra data. Vivek Goodoory, MBChB (Conceptualization: Equal; Data curation: Equal; Formal analysis: Supporting; Methodology: Supporting; Writing – original draft: Supporting; Writing – review & editing: Supporting). Mais Khasawneh, MBBS (Conceptualization: Equal; Data curation: Equal; Formal analysis: Supporting; Methodology: Supporting; Writing – original draft: Supporting; Writing – review & editing: Supporting). Christopher Black, PhD (Conceptualization: Equal; Data curation: Supporting; Formal analysis: Supporting; Methodology: Supporting; Writing – original draft: Supporting; Writing – review & editing: Supporting). Eamonn Quigley, MD (Conceptualization: Equal; Methodology: Supporting; Writing – original draft: Supporting; Writing – review & editing: Equal). Paul Moayyedi, PhD (Conceptualization: Equal; Methodology: Supporting; Writing – original draft: Supporting; Writing – review & editing: Equal). Alexander C. Ford, MD (Conceptualization: Equal; Data curation: Equal; Formal analysis: Lead; Methodology: Equal; Writing – original draft: Lead; Writing – review & editing: Equal). Funding None.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - Background & Aims: Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled. Results: We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics. Conclusions: Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.
AB - Background & Aims: Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled. Results: We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics. Conclusions: Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.
KW - Abdominal Bloating
KW - Abdominal Pain
KW - Irritable Bowel Syndrome
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Probiotics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85172475039&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85172475039&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.018
DO - 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 37541528
AN - SCOPUS:85172475039
SN - 0016-5085
VL - 165
SP - 1206
EP - 1218
JO - Gastroenterology
JF - Gastroenterology
IS - 5
ER -