Share this article on:

Probiotics for the Prevention of Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea in Children

Szajewska, Hania; Canani, Roberto Berni; Guarino, Alfredo; Hojsak, Iva; Indrio, Flavia; Kolacek, Sanja; Orel, Rok; Shamir, Raanan; Vandenplas, Yvan; van Goudoever, Johannes B.; Weizman, Zvion Behalf of the ESPGHAN Working Group for ProbioticsPrebiotics

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: March 2016 - Volume 62 - Issue 3 - p 495–506
doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001081
Clinical Guideline

ABSTRACT This article provides recommendations, developed by the Working Group (WG) on Probiotics of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, for the use of probiotics for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) in children based on a systematic review of previously completed systematic reviews and of randomized controlled trials published subsequently to these reviews. The use of probiotics for the treatment of AAD is not covered. The recommendations were formulated only if at least 2 randomized controlled trials that used a given probiotic (with strain specification) were available. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. If the use of probiotics for preventing AAD is considered because of the existence of risk factors such as class of antibiotic(s), duration of antibiotic treatment, age, need for hospitalization, comorbidities, or previous episodes of AAD diarrhea, the WG recommends using Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (moderate QoE, strong recommendation) or Saccharomyces boulardii (moderate QoE, strong recommendation). If the use of probiotics for preventing Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea is considered, the WG suggests using S boulardii (low QoE, conditional recommendation). Other strains or combinations of strains have been tested, but sufficient evidence is still lacking.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

*Medical University of Warsaw, Department of Paediatrics, Warsaw, Poland

Department of Translational Medical Science

European Laboratory for The Investigation of Food Induced Diseases and CEINGE Advanced Biotechnology, University of Naples “Federico II,” Italy

§Department of Paediatrics, Children's Hospital Zagreb, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia

||Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Policlinico, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children's Hospital, University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Slovenia

#Institute of Gastroenterology, Nutrition and Liver Diseases, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

**Department of Pediatrics, UZ Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

††Department of Pediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital-AMC and VU Universit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

‡‡Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition Unit, Soroka Medical Center. Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Hania Szajewska, MD, Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of Warsaw, 02–091 Warsaw, Zwirki i Wigury 63A, Poland (e-mail: hania@ipgate.pl).

Received 7 December, 2015

Accepted 10 December, 2015

H.S. has received research support (study products only) from Biogaia and Dicofarm; has been a clinical investigator for Arla Foods (ongoing), Danone, Nestle; has participated as a speaker on probiotics/microbiota-related subjects for Arla, Biogaia, Biocodex, Danone, Dicofarm, Hipp, Nestle, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson, Merck, Sequoia, and Yakult; has been a member of Nestle Nutrition Institute faculty; and has served as an advisory board member for Fundacja Nutricia (Nutricia Foundation), funding research grants in the field of human nutrition. R.B.C. has participated as a clinical investigator, and/or speaker for Dicofarm, Heinz, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Menarini, Nutricia, and Wyeth (none related to the work submitted). A.G. was supported by Biocodex, Dicofarm, and Mead Johnson Nutrition. Others (such as personal fees for advisory boards, consultancy; personal speakers fee related to any of the products mentioned in the article and companies using/or selling them, as well as competitors)—none declared. Other industry relations not related to the content of the article: Astellas Pharma. I.H. has participated as a clinical investigator for Biogaia and Chr Hansen. F.I. has participated as a clinical investigator, consultant, and speaker for Arla Food, Biogaia, Noos, Nestle, and Nestle Nutrition Institute. S.K. received personal speaker fee for topics within the probiotic-related fields (never for probiotic product) from Biogaia, Medis, and Arla Foods. Clinical investigator without any personal fee or fee provided to the institution in the studies related to probiotic product of Dukat. Scientific grants delivered entirely and only to the Institution for probiotic-related clinical studies received from Chr. Hansen and Biogaia. Other activities nonrelated to probiotics were as follows: personal speaker fee received from Abbott, Danone, Nestle, Nutricia and MSD, and nonrestricted educational grants delivered to the Institution from Nestle, Nutricia, Podravka, AbbVie, Falk, Merck/MSD, Hospira and Pharmas. R.O. has participated as a clinical investigator for United Pharmaceuticals (probiotics were not involved) and for BioGaia (ongoing; investigator's initiated study); has participated as a speaker for Medis, Nutricia, Ewopharma, Biogaia, United Pharmaceuticals, Danone, Abbvie, and MSD. R.S. has a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Abbott, Danone Institute International, Danone, Enzymotec, Nestle, Nestle Nutrition Institute, and Nutricia; none related to the work submitted. Y.V. is consultant or member of advisory board for ASPEN, Ausnutria, Biocodex, Danone Belgium, and United Pharmaceuticals; has been a clinical investigator and speaker (sometimes probiotic related, sometimes not) for Abbott Nutrition, ARLA foods, ASPEN, Biogaia, Biocodex, Danone, Dumex, Hero, Hipp, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson, Merck, Menarini, Orafti, Pfizer, Phacobel, Sari Husada, Shire (Movetis), Sucampo, Takeda, United Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth and Yakult (grants, study, and advisory fees always paid to the institution). J.B.G. is member of the Dutch National Health Council, the Breastfeeding Council and founder and director of the Dutch Human Milk Bank; his institute received research grants from Danone and MJN; he received compensation for lectures by Danone, Nutricia, Nestle Nutrition Institute; he is consultant for Nutricia Nederland and holds 3 patents on the amino acid composition of infant formula. Z.W. has participated as a clinical investigator, speaker, and consultant for Biocodex and Biogaia.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website (www.jpgn.org).

Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is a common and challenging complication observed in the ambulatory and hospital settings alike that occurs in up to a third of all patients treated with antibiotics (1). It is defined as diarrhea that occurs in relation to antibiotic treatment with the exclusion of other etiologies. This relation does not necessarily translate into an immediate adverse reaction to antibiotics, because AAD may occur after a few weeks and even up to a few months after the administration of the antibiotics (2). Thus, in the latter situation, caution is needed to differentiate AAD from an episode of infectious gastroenteritis. The risk of AAD is higher when there is a use of aminopenicillins without/with clavulanate, cephalosporins, clindamycin, and, in general, any antibiotic that is active against anaerobes (3). Almost any oral and intravenous antibiotic treatment can, however, cause AAD (3). Clinically, AAD may present as mild diarrhea, but it can present as well as fulminant pseudomembranous colitis. Usually, no pathogen is identified. In the most severe forms and in an increasing number of patients with chronic conditions such as those with inflammatory bowel diseases, cystic fibrosis, and cancer, however, the causative agent is often identified as Clostridium difficile (4).

The use of probiotics, defined as live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host,” (5) and/or fermented products such as yogurt has been reported as a measure to prevent the occurrence of AAD. The rationale for the use of these products relies on the hypothesis that AAD is caused by dysbiosis that is triggered by antibiotic use and that the probiotic intervention favorably modulates the intestinal microbiota (1).

The aim of this position paper by the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Working Group (WG) on Probiotics and Prebiotics is to provide recommendations for the use of probiotics for preventing AAD in children.

Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS

The same methodology that had been used previously by the WG for developing guidelines on the use of probiotics for the management of acute gastroenteritis (6) was applied for developing the present position paper. In brief, the document provides a review of previously completed systematic reviews and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published subsequently to these reviews. For systematic reviews/meta-analyses, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched. For subsequently published trials (starting from the date of the most recent search in the included reviews), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched up to July 2015 and again in November 2015.

The focus was on 6 taxonomic groups (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and/or Bacillus). The list of individual probiotics to be considered was established based on the results of the Cochrane review evaluating probiotics for preventing AAD in children (7) and the list of commonly used probiotics developed by the World Gastroenterology Organization (8).

The WG is aware that taxonomically equivalent probiotic microorganisms may be supplied by different manufacturers. At least 1 study indicated that the manufacturing process may influence properties of probiotic bacteria (9). At present, whether or not these manufacturing differences translate into differences in vivo, as well as clinical outcomes, however, remains unclear. Consequently, the taxonomically equivalent probiotics are presented jointly, regardless of the manufacturer. The WG also realizes that the same brand may have a different composition in different locations; nevertheless, this position paper deals with strain(s) rather than brands or commercial names. Finally, depending on the country, the same probiotic microorganism(s) may be available as food supplements, available as registered pharmaceutical products, and/or incorporated into foods (10). In this document, the effectiveness of probiotics was analyzed regardless of the registration status. Health care professionals and consumers should, however, be aware of possible variations in the manufacturing and safety profiles of the products, which may be different when the strain is registered as a drug and also with regard to the claims allowed.

The primary outcome measures were diarrhea/AAD and C difficile-associated diarrhea (all as defined by the investigators).

To assess the methodological quality of the included RCTs (included in the previously published meta-analyses and subsequently published RCTs not included in the systematic reviews), the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. This tool includes the following criteria: adequacy of sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors; incomplete outcome data; and selective reporting (11).

For reporting the effect, the results for individual studies and pooled statistics are reported as the risk ratio (RR) between the experimental and control groups with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). In other circumstances, we report the findings as reported by the authors of the included studies.

When synthesizing the evidence, each section presents a summary of the evidence followed by the key recommendations. The GRADE system, developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group (12), was used to grade the strength of evidence and grades of recommendations used in these guidelines. In brief, the GRADE system offers 4 categories of the quality of the evidence (ie, high, moderate, low, and very low) and 2 categories of the strength of recommendation (ie, strong or conditional [weak]) (Table 1). The GRADE system suggests presenting recommendations in the active voice (13). Thus, we used the wording “the WG recommends” for strong recommendations, and “the WG suggests” for conditional [weak] recommendations.

Table 1

Table 1

As in our previous document (6), the WG adopted the position of the US Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry (14) that at least 2 adequate and well-controlled studies, each convincing on its own, are needed to establish the effectiveness of an intervention. Consequently, the recommendations were formulated only if at least 2 RCTs that used a given probiotic were available. If there was only 1 RCT, regardless of whether or not it showed a benefit, no recommendation was formulated. Moreover, if the strain specification was not given and/or the probiotic product was not otherwise identifiable, no recommendation was made.

For the sake of completeness, we report the pooled data (meta-analysis) of all probiotic trials. No recommendation on the use of probiotics in general was, however, made, because pooling data on different probiotics has been repeatedly questioned (15). Instead, because various probiotic strains differ in their effects, preference was given to reporting evidence and recommendations related to a specific probiotic strain or their combinations separately.

A draft of the position paper was sent to the WG members for review and further comments. All of the critical feedback was discussed through e-mail or during personal contacts, and changes were incorporated as necessary. Recommendations were formulated and graded. The WG members voted anonymously on each recommendation using an online electronic survey tool (SurveyMonkey Inc, Palo Alto, CA, www.surveymonkey.com). Any disagreement following voting was resolved by discussion, and for all recommendations, a full consensus was reached. A finalized document was submitted to the ESPGHAN Council for final acceptance before publication.

The WG recommendations may need to be modified by different countries considering differences in health care systems, local values and preferences, including availability, quality, and costs of probiotics, and should help local policy makers to decide whether to use routinely probiotics with documented efficacy for preventing AAD in children receiving antibiotics based on local cost-effectiveness analysis. This is particularly important in low- and middle-income countries.

Clearly, an individual patient's risk of developing AAD or C difficile-associated diarrhea depends on a number of factors such as class of antibiotic(s), duration of antibiotic treatment, age, need for hospitalization, comorbidities, and previous episodes of AAD or C difficile-associated diarrhea (1–3). These risk factors should be considered when making decisions on the use of probiotics in children for preventing AAD or C difficile-associated diarrhea. The WG acknowledges that the judicious use of antibiotics remains the best method of preventing AAD.

The conclusions of this document may require revision in the future as new information becomes available. It is the intention of the WG to revise the recommendations not later than 5 years from now and produce an updated document.

Back to Top | Article Outline

PROBIOTICS OVERALL

A number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that probiotics as a group are effective in preventing AAD (7,16,17).

A 2012 meta-analysis by Hempel et al (16) collected data from 82 RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of probiotics for preventing AAD in subjects of all ages. Probiotics, as a group, reduced the risk of AAD (63 RCTs, n = 11,811 participants, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50–0.68). Sixteen RCTs were carried out in infants and young children and reported a reduced risk of AAD with probiotic administration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.80). In the majority of trials, Lactobacillus-based interventions, alone or in combination with other genera, were used. Strains were poorly documented. The quality of evidence was low. Of 63 included trials, 59 lacked adequate information to assess the overall risk of bias. There was no placebo group in some trials. Included trials used different definitions of diarrhea/AAD, and in some, no definition of these outcomes was provided. Moreover, significant heterogeneity between trials for both primary and secondary outcomes was detected. The authors concluded that the evidence is insufficient to determine whether this association varies systematically by population, antibiotic characteristic, or probiotic preparation.

A 2013 systematic review with a meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing C difficile-associated diarrhea or C difficile infection in adults and children (17). A complete case analysis (ie, participants who completed the study) showed that compared with placebo or no treatment, administration of probiotics reduced the risk of C difficile-associated diarrhea by 64% (23 RCTs, n = 4213, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26–0.51) in adults and children. In children, probiotic administration reduced the risk of C difficile-associated diarrhea from 5.9% to 2.3% (3 RCTs, n = 605, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17–0.96) (17).

For this report, 21 RCTs involving 3255 children were included (18–38). Among them, 11 RCTs were included in 2 strain-specific systematic reviews initiated as part of the development of these guidelines (39,40). One unpublished study (29) was identified in the systematic review by Johnston et al (7). For characteristics of the included RCTs, see Table 2, and for a methodological quality summary, see Figure 1. The pooled results of 21 RCTs showed that compared with placebo or no intervention, probiotics as a class reduced the risk of AAD by 52% (21.2% vs 9.1%, respectively; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37–0.61) (Fig. 2 ). Only 2 probiotics were evaluated in >1 RCT. These were Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) and Saccharomyces boulardii. Compared with placebo, the administration of probiotics also reduced the risk of C difficile-associated diarrhea (4 RCTs, n = 938, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15–0.76) (Fig. 3).

Table 2

Table 2

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

PROBIOTICS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

L rhamnosus GG (LGG)

RECOMMENDATION. If the use of probiotics for preventing AAD in children is considered, the WG recommends using L rhamnosus GG.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Moderate.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong

A 2015 systematic review with a meta-analysis (40) identified 5 relevant RCTs (445 participants) (18–22). The methodological quality of the trials varied (Fig. 1). Only 1 trial was at a low risk of bias. In the remaining trials, the limitations included unclear random sequence generation, unclear or no allocation concealment, and unclear or no blinding of participants and personnel. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed in only 1 trial. Using the GRADE, the overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate (Table S1, http://links.lww.com/MPG/A587).

Compared with placebo or no treatment, LGG administration in children reduced the risk of AAD, regardless of the reason for which probiotics were used (ie, as part of Helicobacter pylori eradication or for other reasons), from 23% to 9.6% (5 RCTs, n = 445, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26–0.89; number needed to treat, NNT, 8, 95% CI 6–40) (Fig. 2 ). No significant heterogeneity was found (χ2 = 6.61, P = 0.16, I 2 = 40%). Only 1 trial (19) evaluated the effect of LGG on the risk of C difficile-associated diarrhea in children and found no effect (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.06–14.85) (Fig. 3).

The optimal daily dose of LGG for preventing AAD remains unclear (40). In children, the best effect (reduction in the risk of AAD by 71%) was achieved with the highest dose (1–2 × 1010 CFU) (18). A similar effect size was, however, not achieved in another trial using the same dose (19), perhaps because of a lower baseline risk of AAD. In adults, there was no clear link between the effect size and the LGG dose.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Saccharomyces boulardii

RECOMMENDATION. If the use of probiotics for preventing AAD in children is considered, the WG recommends using S boulardii for preventing AAD in children.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Moderate.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong.

RECOMMENDATION. If the use of probiotics for preventing C difficile-associated diarrhea in children is considered, the WG suggests using S boulardii.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Low.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Conditional.

A 2015 systematic review with a meta-analysis (39) identified 6 relevant RCTs (1653 participants) (23–28). The methodological quality of the trials varied. Only 1 trial was at a low risk of bias. In the remaining trials, the limitations included unclear random sequence generation, unclear or no allocation concealment, and unclear or no blinding of participants and personnel. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed in only 2 trials. Using the GRADE, the overall quality of evidence for AAD and C difficile-associated diarrhea was rated as moderate and low, respectively (Tables S2 and S3, http://links.lww.com/MPG/A587).

Compared with placebo or no treatment, S boulardii administration in children reduced the risk of diarrhea, regardless of the reason for which probiotics were used (ie, as part of H pylori eradication or for other reasons), from 20.9% to 8.8% (6 RCTs, n = 1653, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30–0.60, NNT 9, 95% CI 7–12). No significant heterogeneity was found (χ2 = 8.26, P = 0.14, I 2 = 39%) (Fig. 2 ).

The administration of S boulardii also reduced the risk of C difficile-associated diarrhea in children (2 RCTs, n = 579, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.73) (Fig. 3).

The optimal dose of S boulardii has not been established. A 2015 meta-analysis showed that various doses of S boulardii were used with no clear dose-dependent effect (39). Until more data on the optimal dose of S boulardii become available, a daily dose of not <250 mg but not >500 mg in children and not >1000 mg in adults could be used to match the doses used in RCTs.

Back to Top | Article Outline

PROBIOTICS WITH INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION

Single Probiotics

Bacillus clausii

A 2011 Cochrane review (7) identified 1 unpublished RCT (29). Compared with no intervention, administration of Bacillus clausii (strain specification not given) had no effect on the risk of AAD (n = 323, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.11–1.62).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Mixtures of Probiotics

Bacillus lactis/Streptococcus thermophilus

One RCT (n = 157) conducted in inpatients who were children (aged 6–36 months) showed that compared with the control formula, the administration of infant formula supplemented with B lactis Bb-12 and Streptococcus thermophilus significantly reduced the risk of AAD (31.2% vs 16.3%, respectively; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.95, NNT 7, 95% CI 4–62) (30).

Back to Top | Article Outline

L acidophilus/L bulgaricus

One small RCT (n = 38) showed that compared with placebo (lactose), administration of L acidophilus/L bulgaricus (strain specification not given) had no effect on the risk of AAD (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.61–1.5) (31).

Back to Top | Article Outline

L acidophilus/Bifidobacterium infantis

One small RCT (n = 18) showed that compared with placebo (sugar), administration of L acidophilus/B infantis (strain specification not given) had no effect on the risk of AAD (8/10 vs 3/8, respectively; RR 0.47, 95% 0.18–1.21) (32).

Back to Top | Article Outline

L acidophilus/Bifidobacterium breve

One small RCT (n = 40) showed no cases of AAD in either the L acidophilus/B infantis (strain specification not given) group or the placebo (sugar) group (0/20 vs 0/20, respectively). Thus, the efficacy of this probiotic combination could not be evaluated (37).

Back to Top | Article Outline

L rhamnosus GG/Bb-12/L acidophilus La-5

In a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT, children (n = 70), age 1 to 12 years, who were prescribed antibiotics were randomized to receive 200 g/day of either a yogurt containing L rhamnosus GG, Bb-12 and L acidophilus La-5 or a pasteurized placebo yogurt (containing Streptococcus thermophilus plus L bulgaricus) for the same duration as their antibiotic treatment. Compared with the placebo group, children in the probiotic group experienced a significant reduction in the risk of diarrhea (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.35) (33).

Back to Top | Article Outline

B longum PL03/L rhamnosus KL53A/L plantarum PL02

One RCT (n = 78) showed that compared with placebo, the administration of B longum, L rhamnosus, and L plantarum had no effect on the risk of AAD (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.04–5.03) (34).

Back to Top | Article Outline

L rhamnosus E/N, Oxy, Pen

One RCT involving 240 children showed that compared with placebo, the administration of L rhamnosus (strains E/N, Oxy and Pen) reduced the risk of any diarrhea (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21–0.95), but it did not have an effect on the risk of C difficile-associated diarrhea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.11–1.62) (35).

Back to Top | Article Outline

L acidophilus/L rhamnosus/L bulgaricus/L casei/Str thermophilus/B infantis/B breve

One RCT involving 66 children showed that compared with placebo, the administration of L acidophilus/L rhamnosus/L bulgaricus/L casei/Str thermophilus/B infantis/B breve (strain specification not given) reduced the risk of diarrhea (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06–1.09) (38).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Kefir

One RCT evaluated the effect of kefir (ie, a fermented milk containing Lactococcus lactis, Lactococcus plantarum, Lactococcus rhamnosus, Lactococcus casei, Lactococcus lactis subspecies diacetylactis, Leuconostoc cremoris, B longum, B breve, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and 1 yeast, Saccharomyces florentinus) on the risk of AAD. There was no significant difference between the kefir group and the group receiving heat-treated kefir (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.41–1.67) (36).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Yogurt

Yogurt is a form of fermented milk that contains symbiotic cultures of Streptococcus thermophilus and L delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. A 2015 systematic review with a meta-analysis identified 2 relevant RCTs, both low in methodological quality. Compared with no intervention, yogurt consumption had no effect on the risk of AAD (2 RCTs, n = 314, RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.11–1.75) (41).

Back to Top | Article Outline

SAFETY

The WG abstained from evaluating the safety of probiotics, as this was thoroughly reviewed in 2011 by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (for review, (42)). Although probiotics are safe for use in otherwise healthy populations, caution should be taken in specific patient groups. Risk factors for adverse events include immunosuppression, prematurity, critical illness, presence of structural heart disease, presence of a central venous catheter, and the potential for translocation of probiotics across the bowel wall. There is a lack of data that specifically address the safety of probiotics for preventing AAD in these vulnerable populations. The risk of side effects is, however, greater in people who have severe underlying health conditions.

Back to Top | Article Outline

SUMMARY

  • The WG questions pooling different probiotic strains together in a meta-analysis. Probiotic effects against AAD are strain specific; thus, the efficacy and safety of each should be established and recommendations for using these strains should be made accordingly.
  • The safety and clinical effects of 1 probiotic microorganism should not be extrapolated to other probiotic microorganisms.
  • A lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of a certain probiotic(s) does not mean that future studies will not establish efficacy in preventing AAD.
  • There is a lack of data that specifically address the safety of probiotics for preventing AAD in children who have severe underlying health conditions.
  • The WG recommends choosing a probiotic, the efficacy of which has been confirmed in well-conducted RCTs, from a manufacturer who has a regulated quality control of factors including the composition and content of the probiotic agent.
  • Risk factors for the occurrence of AAD or C difficile-associated diarrhea such as class of antibiotic(s), duration of antibiotic treatment, age, need for hospitalization, comorbidities, and previous episodes of AAD or C difficile-associated diarrhea should be considered when making decisions on the use of probiotics in children for preventing AAD.
  • If the use of probiotics for preventing AAD is considered, the WG recommends using L rhamnosus GG or S boulardii (moderate quality of evidence; strong recommendation).
  • If the use of probiotics for preventing C difficile-associated diarrhea is considered, the WG suggests using S boulardii (low quality of evidence; conditional recommendation).
Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Barbut F, Meynard JL. Managing antibiotic associated diarrhoea. BMJ 2002; 324:1345–1346.
2. McFarland LV. Epidemiology, risk factors and treatments for antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Dig Dis 1998; 16:292–307.
3. McFarland LV, Surawicz CM, Stamm WE. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile carriage and C. difficile-associated diarrhea in a cohort of hospitalized patients. J Infect Dis 1990; 162:678–684.
4. McFarland LV. Meta-analysis of probiotics for the prevention of antibiotic associated diarrhea and the treatment of Clostridium difficile disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:812–822.
5. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 11:506–514.
6. Szajewska H, Guarino A, Hojsak I, et al. European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. Use of probiotics for management of acute gastroenteritis: a position paper by the ESPGHAN Working Group for Probiotics and Prebiotics. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2014; 58:531–539.
7. Johnston BC, Goldenberg JZ, Vandvik PO, et al. Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; CD004827.
8. Guarner F, Khan AG, Garisch J, et al. World Gastroenterology Organization. World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines: probiotics and prebiotics October 2011. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46:468–481.
9. Grześkowiak Ł, Isolauri E, Salminen S, et al. Manufacturing process influences properties of probiotic bacteria. Br J Nutr 2011; 105:887–894.
10. Sanders ME, Guarner F, Guerrant R, et al. An update on the use and investigation of probiotics in health and disease. Gut 2013; 62:787–796.
11. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne AC. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In:Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Published 2011. Accessed July 2015.
12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336:924–926.
13. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66:719–725.
14. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: providing clinical evidence of effectiveness for human drug and biological products. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm078749.pdf. Published May 1998. Accessed July 2015.
15. Rijkers GT, Bengmark S, Enck P, et al. Guidance for substantiating the evidence for beneficial effects of probiotics: current status and recommendations for future research. J Nutr 2010; 140:671S–676S.
16. Hempel S, Newberry SJ, Maher AR, et al. Probiotics for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2012; 307:1959–1969.
17. Goldenberg JZ, Ma SS, Saxton JD, et al. Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 5: CD006095.
18. Vanderhoof JA, Whitney DB, Antonson DL, et al. Lactobacillus GG in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children. J Pediatrics 1999; 135:564–568.
19. Arvola T, Laiho K, Torkkeli S, et al. Prophylactic Lactobacillus GG reduces antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children with respiratory infections: a randomized study. Pediatrics 1999; 104:e64.
20. King SN, Chung AM, Vidal R. Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial to assess the efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in the pediatric internsive care unit (PICU). Pharmacotherapy 2010; 30:457–458.
21. Vaisanen LM, Leskinen M, Siitonen A, et al. Occurence of diarrhea in children receiving oral antibiotics with or without probiotic supplementation with Lactobacillus GG. Microb Ecol Health Dis 1998; 10:199–200.
22. Szajewska H, Albrecht P, Topczewska-Cabanek A. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial: effect of lactobacillus GG supplementation on Helicobacter pylori eradication rates and side effects during treatment in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2009; 48:431–436.
23. Kotowska M, Albrecht P, Szajewska H. Saccharomyces boulardii in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21:583–590.
24. Casem RAO. Saccharomyces boulardii in the prevention of antibiotic associated diarrhea in children: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis Soc Philipp J 2013; 14:70–76.
25. Erdeve O, Tiras U, Dallar Y. The probiotic effect of Saccharomyces boulardii in a pediatric age group. J Trop Pediatr 2004; 50:234–236.
26. Shan LS, Hou P, Wang ZJ, et al. Prevention and treatment of diarrhoea with Saccharomyces boulardii in children with acute lower respiratory tract infections. Benef Microbes 2013; 4:329–334.
27. Bin Z, Ya-Zheng X, Zhao-Hui D, et al. The efficacy of Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 in addition to standard Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment in children. Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr 2015; 18:17–22.
28. Zhao HM, Ou-Yang HJ, Duan BP, et al. Clinical effect of triple therapy combined with Saccharomyces boulardii in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in children. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 2014; 16:230–233.
29. Destura RV. Bacillus clausii in preventing antibiotic-associated diarrhea among Filipino infants and children: a multi-center, randomized, open-label clinical trial of efficacy and safety. Unpublished.
30. Correa NBO, Peret Filho LA, Penna FJ, et al. A Randomized formula controlled trial of Bifidobacterium lactis and Streptococcus thermophilus for prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in infants. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39:385–389.
31. Tankanow RM, Ross MB, Ertel IJ, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of Lactinex in the prophylaxis of amoxicillin-induced diarrhea. DICP 1990; 24:382–384.
32. Jirapinyo P, Densupsoontorn N, Thamonsiri N, et al. Prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in infants by probiotics. J Med Assoc Thai 2002; 85 (suppl 2):S739–S742.
33. Fox MJ, Ahuja KDK, Robertson IK, et al. Can probiotics yogurt prevent diarrhea in children on antibiotics? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. BMJ OPEN 2015; 5:e006474.
34. Szymański H, Armańska M, Kowalska-Duplaga K, et al. Bifidobacterium longum PL03, Lactobacillus rhamnosus KL53A, and Lactobacillus plantarum PL02 in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children: a randomized controlled pilot trial. Digestion 2008; 78:13–17.
35. Ruszczyński M, Radzikowski A, Szajewska H. Clinical trial: effectiveness of Lactobacillus rhamnosus (strains E/N, Oxy and Pen) in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 28:154–161.
36. Merenstein DJ, Foster J, D’Amico F. A randomized clinical trial measuring the influence of kefir on antibiotic-associated diarrhea: the measuring the influence of Kefir (MILK) Study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009; 163:750–754.
37. Contardi I. Oral bacterial therapy in prevention of antibiotic-induced diarrhea in childhood [Batterioterapia orale quale prevenzione della diarrea da antibiotici in eta pediatrica]. Clinica Terapeutica 1991; 136:409–413.
38. Khodadad A, Farahmand F, Najafi M, et al. Probiotics for the treatment of pediatric Helicobacter pylori infection: a randomized double blind clinical trial. Iran J Pediatr 2013; 23:79–84.
39. Szajewska H, Kołodziej M. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Saccharomyces boulardii in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015; 42:793–801.
40. Szajewska H, Kołodziej M. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Lactobacillus GG in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015; 42:1149–1157.
41. Patro-Gołab B, Sharmi R, Szajewska H. Yogurt for treating antibiotic-associated diarrhea: systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition 2015; 31:796–800.
42. Hempel S, Newberry S, Ruelaz A, et al. Safety of probiotics used to reduce risk and prevent or treat disease. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2011; 200:1–645.
Keywords:

Clostridium difficile; dysbiosis; guideline; infants; microbiota; probiotics; RCT; systematic review

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
© 2016 by European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology,