背景:基于出版物的数量,对益生菌优势的研究引起了越来越多的兴趣,产品,以及公众对其利益的认识。这篇综述评估了益生菌(单一和多种方案)作为治疗常见感染性疾病的额外方案的作用。包括螺杆菌.pylori,腹泻感染,尿路感染(UTI),上呼吸道感染(URTIs),和艾滋病毒感染。
方法:我们搜索了PubMed的随机对照试验,Scopus,Embase,和Cochrane并确定了6,950项研究。已删除重复项,标题和摘要被过滤。使用Cochrane偏差风险工具进行随机试验(ROB1.0和2.0)评估偏差。使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。提取数据并使用RevMan进行荟萃分析。
结果:本研究共纳入32项研究(22项幽门螺杆菌研究,2个腹泻感染研究,6UTI研究,和2项HIV感染研究)。没有关于URTI的研究。益生菌,除了初级治疗,与对照组相比,可以改善幽门螺杆菌的根除(RR:1.09;95%CI:1.04-1.13,p值=0.001),并在UTI患者中达到Nugent评分的治愈范围(RR1.38;95%CI:1.01-1.89,p值=0.04).为了根除幽门螺杆菌感染,基于治疗方案的亚组分析显示,标准三联疗法在根除幽门螺杆菌方面略优于四联疗法(RR:1.14vs.分别为1.01)。单菌株益生菌显示出与多菌株益生菌方案相似的效果(两者的RR均为1.09)。使用单一菌株益生菌作为根除H.pylori的辅助疗法和在UTI中使用益生菌的效果估计具有很高的证据确定性。未对感染性腹泻进行荟萃分析,因为只有两项具有不同益生菌补充剂和结果参数的合格研究。尽管如此,他们显示,在接受益生菌治疗后,腹泻的发病率较低,腹泻的完全缓解率较高。同样,未对HIV感染进行荟萃分析,因为两项符合条件的研究使用了不同的设计和比较方法,结果相互矛盾.
结论:这项荟萃分析显示,单菌株益生菌作为根除幽门螺杆菌的辅助疗法以及益生菌在UTI中的使用是有益的。益生菌补充剂可能对接受四联疗法的患者没有益处。单菌株和多菌株益生菌方案在增加幽门螺杆菌的根除率方面具有相似的效果。我们的研究还表明,益生菌作为感染性腹泻和HIV感染的额外治疗方案的益处仍不清楚;需要更多的研究来确认益处。
BACKGROUND: Research on the advantages of probiotics has attracted increasing interest based on the number of publications, products, and public awareness of their benefits. This
review evaluated the role of probiotics (single and multiple regimens) as an additional regimen to treat common infectious diseases, including Helicobacter. pylori, diarrheal infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs), upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), and HIV infections.
METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane and identified 6,950 studies. Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts were filtered. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (ROB 1.0 and 2.0). The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Data were extracted and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan.
RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included in this study (22 H. pylori studies, 2 diarrheal infection studies, 6 UTI studies, and 2 HIV infection studies). There was no study on URTI. Probiotics, in addition to primary treatment, could improve the eradication of H. pylori versus the control (RR: 1.09; 95% CI:1.04 - 1.13, p value = 0.001) and achieve a cure range of Nugent score in UTI patients (RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.89, p value = 0.04). For eradicating H. pylori infection, subgroup analysis based on the therapy regimen showed that standard triple therapy was slightly superior compared to quadruple therapy in eradicating H. pylori (RR: 1.14 vs. 1.01, respectively). Single strain probiotics showed a similar effect to multiple strain probiotic regimens (both had an RR of 1.09). The effect estimates of the use of single strain probiotics as adjuvant therapy in eradicating H. pylori and the use of probiotics in UTI had a high certainty of evidence. Meta-analysis was not performed for infectious diarrheal because there were only two eligible studies with different probiotic supplementations and outcome parameters. Nonetheless, they showed that the diarrheal incidence was lower and complete remission of diarrheal was higher after the regimen of probiotics. Similarly, a meta-analysis was not performed for HIV infection because the two eligible studies used different designs and comparators with contradicting findings.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed beneficial use of single strain probiotics as adjuvant therapy in eradicating H. pylori and the use of probiotics in UTI. Probiotic supplementation might not be beneficial for patients given a quadruple therapy. Single-strain and multi-strain probiotic regimens had similar effects in increasing the eradication rate of H. pylori. Our study also suggested that the benefits of probiotics as an additional regimen in infectious diarrheal and HIV infections remain unclear; more studies are needed to confirm the benefits.