4.5 Review

Probiotics for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in older patients: A systematic review

期刊

TRAVEL MEDICINE AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 128-134

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2015.03.001

关键词

Probiotics; Prevention; Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea; Older patients; Systematic review

资金

  1. Research Fund of Chongqing Municipal Health Bureau [2009-2-345]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Here, we evaluated the efficacy of probiotic interventions in prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) and Clostridium difficile diarrhoea (CDD) in older patients. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from their dates of inception to May 2014. Only randomised controlled trials reporting data on probiotics including Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and Bacillus-alone or in combination-versus placebo or absence of treatment in older patients (age >= 65 years) were included. Risk ratios (RRs) for AAD and CDD relative to placebo or absence of treatment were estimated. Results: Six trials with a total of 3562 patients were included. Only one trial showed that Bacillus licheniformis was effective for preventing AAD in older patients. However, there was no preventive effect for AAD and CDD with Lactobacillus acidophilus (Florajen), Lactobacillus casei Shirota, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (boulardii) lyo, mixture of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidum (Cultech strains), and mixture of Lactobacillus acidophilus CUL60, CUL21, Bifidobacterium bifidum CUL20 and B. lactis CUL34. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that probiotics may not reduce the risk of AAD and CDD in older patients. However, with current published data, it is difficult to draw concrete conclusions. To confirm these findings, sample sizes, multi-centre, double-blind studies that consider factors such as probiotic strains and types of antibiotics are required. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据