Cow's milk and rice fermented with Lactobacillus paracasei CBA L74 prevent infectious diseases in children: A randomized controlled trial.

Probiotics are considered as the twenty-first century panpharmacon due to their competent remedial power to cure from gastrointestinal dysbiosis, systematic metabolic diseases, and genetic impairments up to complicated neurodegenerative disorders. They paved the way for an innovative managing of various severe diseases through palatable food products. The probiotics' role as a "bio-therapy" increased their significance in food and medicine due to many competitive advantages over traditional treatment therapies. Their prophylactic and therapeutic potential has been assessed through hundreds of preclinical and clinical studies. In addition, the food industry employs probiotics as functional and nutraceutical ingredients to enhance the added value of food product in terms of increased health benefits. However, regardless of promising health-boosting effects, the probiotics' efficacy still needs an in-depth understanding of systematic mechanisms and factors supporting the healthy actions.

/pdf/therapeutic-prophylactic-and-functional-use-of-probiotics-a-1868ltgz70.pdf

Therapeutic, Prophylactic, and Functional Use of Probiotics: A Current Perspective.

Probiotics are live micro-organisms that may give a beneficial physiological effect when administered in adequate amounts. Some trials show that probiotic strains can prevent respiratory infections. Even though our previously published review showed the benefits of probiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), several new studies have been published. This is an update of a review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015.To assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose), compared with placebo or no treatment, in the prevention of acute URTIs in people of all ages, at risk of acute URTIs.We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to May week 2, 2022), Embase (1974 to 10 May 2022), Web of Science (1900 to 10 May 2022), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, which includes the China Biological Medicine Database (from 1978 to 10 May 2022), the Chinese Medicine Popular Science Literature Database (from 2000 to 10 May 2022), and the Master's Degree Dissertation of Beijing Union Medical College Database (from 1981 to 10 May 2022). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials on 10 May 2022.We included individual randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs comparing probiotics with placebo or no treatment to prevent acute URTIs. The participants were children, adults, or the elderly in the community, care facilities, schools, or hospitals. Our main outcomes were the number of participants diagnosed with URTIs (at least one event and at least three events), the incidence rate (number of cases/person year) of acute URTIs, and the mean duration of an episode of URTIs. Our secondary outcomes were the number of participants who were absent from childcare centre, school, or work due to acute URTIs; the number of participants who used prescribed antibiotics for acute URTIs; and the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event from probiotics. We excluded studies if they did not specify acute respiratory infections as 'upper'; studies with more than 50% of participants vaccinated against influenza or other acute URTIs within the last 12 months; and studies with significantly different proportions of vaccinated participants between the probiotics arm and the placebo or no treatment arm.Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials and extracted data using standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We analysed both intention-to-treat and per-protocol data and used a random-effects model. We expressed results as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.We included 23 individual RCTs and one cluster-RCT. As one of the individual RCTs did not report outcomes in a usable way, we could only meta-analyse data from 23 trials, involving a total of 6950 participants including children (aged from one month to 11 years old), adults (mean age 37.3), and older people (mean age 84.6 years). One trial reported 22.5% flu-vaccine participants within the last 12 months, and 25.4% flu-vaccine participants during the intervention. Probiotics were more likely to be given with milk-based food in children; administered in powder form in adults; and given with milk-based food or in capsules in the elderly. Most of the studies used one or two strains (e.g. Lactobacillus plantarum HEAL9, Lactobacillus paracasei (8700:2 or N1115)) and 109 or 1011 colony-forming units (CFU)/day of probiotics for more than three months. We found that probiotics may reduce the number of participants diagnosed with URTIs (at least one event) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87; P < 0.001; 16 studies, 4798 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce the number of participants diagnosed with URTIs (at least three events) (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.91; P = 0.02; 4 studies, 763 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce the incidence rate (number of cases/person year) of URTIs (rate ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92, P = 0.001; 12 studies, 4364 participants; low-certainty evidence); may reduce the mean duration of an episode of acute URTIs (MD -1.22 days, 95% CI -2.12 to -0.33; P = 0.007; 6 studies, 2406 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce the number of participants who used prescribed antibiotics for acute URTIs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.81; P = 0.001; 6 studies, 1548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may not increase the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.15; P = 0.79; 8 studies, 2456 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence showing a decrease in the number of people absent from childcare centre, school, or work due to acute URTIs with probiotics is very uncertain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events from probiotics were minor, and most commonly gastrointestinal symptoms, such as vomiting, flatulence, diarrhoea, and bowel pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found that probiotics were better than placebo or no treatment in preventing acute URTIs. 

Probiotics for preventing acute upper respiratory tract infections

OBJECTIVES: The risk of infections is higher in children attending child care compared with children cared for at home. This study examined the effect of a combination of probiotics on absence from child care because of respiratory and gastrointestinal infections in healthy infants aged 8 to 14 months at the time of enrollment in child care. METHODS: The ProbiComp study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. A total of 290 infants were randomly allocated to receive a placebo or a combination of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis and Lactobacillus rhamnosus in a dose of 10 9 colony-forming units of each daily for a 6-month intervention period. Absence from child care, occurrence of infant symptoms of illness, and doctor visits were registered by the parents using daily and weekly Web-based questionnaires. RESULTS: Median absence from child care was 11 days (interquartile range: 6–16). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference between the probiotics and placebo groups ( P = .19). Additionally, there was no difference in any of the secondary outcomes between groups; the number of children with doctor-diagnosed upper or lower respiratory tract infections, the number of doctor visits, antibiotic treatments, occurrence and duration of diarrhea, and days with common cold symptoms, fever, vomiting, or caregivers’ absence from work. CONCLUSIONS: A daily administration of a combination of B animalis subsp lactis and L rhamnosus for 6 months did not reduce the number of days absent from child care in healthy infants at the time of enrollment in child care.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/140/2/e20170735.full.pdf

Probiotics and Child Care Absence Due to Infections: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Acute otitis media (AOM), or acute middle ear infection, is one of the most frequently occurring childhood diseases, and the most common reason given for prescribing antibiotics in this age group Guidelines often recommend antibiotics as first-line treatment for severe AOM However, antibiotics also lead to antibiotic resistance, so preventing episodes of AOM is an urgent priority Objectives To assess the effects of probiotics to prevent the occurrence and reduce the severity of acute otitis media in children Search methods We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three other databases (October 2018), two trial registers (October 2018), and conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis (August 2018) We did not apply any language, publication date, or publication status restrictions Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of children (aged up to 18 years), comparing probiotics with placebo, usual care, or no probiotic Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion and risk of bias of the included trials, and extracted data using pre-piloted data extraction forms We analysed dichotomous data as either risk ratio (RR) or odds ratios (OR) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) Main results We included 17 RCTs involving 3488 children, of which 16 RCTs were included in the meta-analyses Of the 16 RCTs that reported the mean age of children, mean age overall was 24 years; in 4 RCTs the mean age of children participating in the trial was less than 1 year old; in 2 RCTs the mean age was between 1 and 2 years old; and in 10 RCTs the mean age was older than 2 years Probiotic strains evaluated by the trials varied, with 11 of the included RCTs evaluating Lactobacillus-containing probiotics, and six RCTs evaluating Streptococcus-containing probioticsThe proportion of children (ie the number of children in each group) experiencing one or more episodes of AOM during the treatment was lower for those taking probiotics (RR 077, 95% confidence interval (CI) 063 to 093; 16 trials; 2961 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; moderate-certainty evidence)Post hoc subgroup analysis found that among children not prone to otitis media, a lower proportion of children receiving probiotics experienced AOM (RR 064, 95% CI 049 to 084; 11 trials; 2227 participants; NNTB = 9; moderate-certainty evidence) However, among children who were otitis prone, there was no difference between probiotic and comparator groups (RR 097, 95% CI 085 to 111; 5 trials; 734 participants; high-certainty evidence) The test for subgroup differences was significant (P = 0007)None of the included trials reported on the severity of AOMThe proportion of children experiencing adverse events did not differ between the probiotic and comparator groups (OR 154, 95% CI 060 to 394; 4 trials; 395 participants; low-certainty evidence)Probiotics decreased the proportion of children taking antibiotics for any infection (RR 066, 95% CI 051 to 086; 8 trials; 1768 participants; NNTB = 8; moderate-certainty evidence) Test for subgroup differences (use of antibiotic specifically for AOM, use of antibiotic for infections other than AOM) was not significantThere was no difference in the mean number of school days lost (MD -095, 95% CI -247 to 057; 5 trials; 1280 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) There was no difference between groups in the level of compliance in taking the intervention (RR 102, 95% CI 099 to 105; 5 trials; 990 participants)Probiotics decreased the proportion of children having other infections (RR 075, 95% CI 065 to 087; 11 trials; 3610 participants; NNTB = 12; moderate-certainty evidence) Test for subgroup differences (acute respiratory infections, gastrointestinal infections) was not significantProbiotic strains trialled and their dose, frequency, and duration of administration varied considerably across studies, which likely contributed to the substantial levels of heterogeneity Sensitivity testing of funnel plots did not reveal publication bias Authors' conclusions Probiotics may prevent AOM in children not prone to AOM, but the inconsistency of the subgroup analyses suggests caution in interpreting these results Probiotics decreased the proportion of children taking antibiotics for any infection The proportion of children experiencing adverse events did not differ between the probiotic and comparator groups The optimal strain, duration, frequency, and timing of probiotic administration still needs to be established

/pdf/probiotics-for-preventing-acute-otitis-media-in-children-23jawyj1sk.pdf

Probiotics for preventing acute otitis media in children

Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis in prevention of common infections in healthy children attending day care centers – Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Tanja Kos

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis in prevention of common infections in healthy children attending day care centers – Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study