TY - JOUR
T1 - Microbial Preparations (Probiotics) for the Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children
T2 - An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of 6,851 Participants
AU - Johnston, Bradley C.
AU - Lytvyn, Lyubov
AU - Lo, Calvin Ka Fung
AU - Allen, Stephen J.
AU - Wang, Duolao
AU - Szajewska, Hania
AU - Miller, Mark
AU - Ehrhardt, Stephan
AU - Sampalis, John
AU - Duman, Deniz G.
AU - Pozzoni, Pietro
AU - Colli, Agostino
AU - Lönnermark, Elisabet
AU - Selinger, Christian P.
AU - Wong, Samford
AU - Plummer, Susan
AU - Hickson, Mary
AU - Pancheva, Ruzha
AU - Hirsch, Sandra
AU - Klarin, Bengt
AU - Goldenberg, Joshua Z.
AU - Wang, Li
AU - Mbuagbauw, Lawrence
AU - Foster, Gary
AU - Maw, Anna
AU - Sadeghirad, Behnam
AU - Thabane, Lehana
AU - Mertz, Dominik
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults and children. DESIGN: Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), adjusting for risk factors. METHODS: We searched 6 databases and 11 grey literature sources from inception to April 2016. We identified 32 RCTs (n=8,713); among them, 18 RCTs provided IPD (n=6,851 participants) comparing probiotic prophylaxis to placebo or no treatment (standard care). One reviewer prepared the IPD, and 2 reviewers extracted data, rated study quality, and graded evidence quality. RESULTS: Probiotics reduced CDI odds in the unadjusted model (n=6,645; odds ratio [OR] 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.55) and the adjusted model (n=5,074; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23–0.55). Using 2 or more antibiotics increased the odds of CDI (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.11–4.37), whereas age, sex, hospitalization status, and high-risk antibiotic exposure did not. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that, compared to no probiotics, multispecies probiotics were more beneficial than single-species probiotics, as was using probiotics in clinical settings where the CDI risk is ≥5%. Of 18 studies, 14 reported adverse events. In 11 of these 14 studies, the adverse events were retained in the adjusted model. Odds for serious adverse events were similar for both groups in the unadjusted analyses (n=4,990; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89–1.26) and adjusted analyses (n=4,718; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89–1.28). Missing outcome data for CDI ranged from 0% to 25.8%. Our analyses were robust to a sensitivity analysis for missingness. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality (ie, certainty) evidence suggests that probiotic prophylaxis may be a useful and safe CDI prevention strategy, particularly among participants taking 2 or more antibiotics and in hospital settings where the risk of CDI is ≥5%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2015 identifier: CRD42015015701 Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;1–11
AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults and children. DESIGN: Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), adjusting for risk factors. METHODS: We searched 6 databases and 11 grey literature sources from inception to April 2016. We identified 32 RCTs (n=8,713); among them, 18 RCTs provided IPD (n=6,851 participants) comparing probiotic prophylaxis to placebo or no treatment (standard care). One reviewer prepared the IPD, and 2 reviewers extracted data, rated study quality, and graded evidence quality. RESULTS: Probiotics reduced CDI odds in the unadjusted model (n=6,645; odds ratio [OR] 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.55) and the adjusted model (n=5,074; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23–0.55). Using 2 or more antibiotics increased the odds of CDI (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.11–4.37), whereas age, sex, hospitalization status, and high-risk antibiotic exposure did not. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that, compared to no probiotics, multispecies probiotics were more beneficial than single-species probiotics, as was using probiotics in clinical settings where the CDI risk is ≥5%. Of 18 studies, 14 reported adverse events. In 11 of these 14 studies, the adverse events were retained in the adjusted model. Odds for serious adverse events were similar for both groups in the unadjusted analyses (n=4,990; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89–1.26) and adjusted analyses (n=4,718; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89–1.28). Missing outcome data for CDI ranged from 0% to 25.8%. Our analyses were robust to a sensitivity analysis for missingness. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality (ie, certainty) evidence suggests that probiotic prophylaxis may be a useful and safe CDI prevention strategy, particularly among participants taking 2 or more antibiotics and in hospital settings where the risk of CDI is ≥5%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2015 identifier: CRD42015015701 Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;1–11
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046006446&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/ice.2018.84
DO - 10.1017/ice.2018.84
M3 - Article
C2 - 29695312
AN - SCOPUS:85046006446
SN - 0899-823X
VL - 39
SP - 771
EP - 781
JO - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
JF - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
IS - 7
ER -
