Probiotics for adults with major depressive disorder compared with antidepressants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Shilin Zhao, Suisha Liang, Jun Tao, Ye Peng, Siqi Chen, Hogan K F Wai, Feng-Ying Chung, Zhen Y Sin, Matthew K L Wong, Andrea M Haqq, Wing C Chang, Michael Y Ni, Francis K L Chan, Siew C Ng, Hein M Tun
{"title":"Probiotics for adults with major depressive disorder compared with antidepressants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Shilin Zhao, Suisha Liang, Jun Tao, Ye Peng, Siqi Chen, Hogan K F Wai, Feng-Ying Chung, Zhen Y Sin, Matthew K L Wong, Andrea M Haqq, Wing C Chang, Michael Y Ni, Francis K L Chan, Siew C Ng, Hein M Tun","doi":"10.1093/nutrit/nuad171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Despite recent advances in antidepressants in treating major depression (MDD), their usage is marred by adverse effects and social stigmas. Probiotics may be an efficacious adjunct or standalone treatment, potentially circumventing the aforementioned issues with antidepressants. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials between these 2 interventions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and acceptability of these 2 interventions in treating MDD.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Six databases and registry platforms for the clinical trial were systematically searched to identify the eligible double-blinded, randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Data exaction: </strong>Two authors selected independently the placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants and microbiota-targeted interventions (prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics) used for the treatment of MDD in adults (≥18 years old). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of depressive symptom scores from individual trials were pooled for network meta-analysis (PROSPERO no. CRD42020222305).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-two eligible trials covering 22 interventions were identified, of which 16 were found to be effective in MDD treatment and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. When all trials were considered, compared with placebo, SMDs of interventions ranged from -0.16 (95% credible interval: -0.30, -0.04) for venlafaxine to -0.81 (-1.06, -0.52) for escitalopram. Probiotics were superior to brexpiprazole (SMD [95% credible interval]: -0.42 [-0.68, -0.17]), cariprazine (-0.44 [-0.69, -0.24]), citalopram (-0.37 [-0.66, -0.07]), duloxetine (-0.26, [-0.51, -0.04]), desvenlafaxine (-0.38 [-0.63, -0.14]), ketamine (-0.32 [-0.66, -0.01]), venlafaxine (-0.47 [-0.73, -0.23]), vilazodone (-0.37 [-0.61, -0.12]), vortioxetine (-0.39 [-0.63, -0.15]), and placebo (-0.62 [-0.86, -0.42]), and were noninferior to other antidepressants. In addition, probiotics ranked the second highest in the treatment hierarchy after escitalopram. Long-term treatment (≥8 weeks) using probiotics showed the same tolerability as antidepressants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Probiotics, compared with antidepressants and placebo, may be efficacious as an adjunct or standalone therapy for treating MDD.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020222305.</p>","PeriodicalId":19469,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition reviews","volume":" ","pages":"72-82"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuad171","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Despite recent advances in antidepressants in treating major depression (MDD), their usage is marred by adverse effects and social stigmas. Probiotics may be an efficacious adjunct or standalone treatment, potentially circumventing the aforementioned issues with antidepressants. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials between these 2 interventions.

Objective: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and acceptability of these 2 interventions in treating MDD.

Data sources: Six databases and registry platforms for the clinical trial were systematically searched to identify the eligible double-blinded, randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2022.

Data exaction: Two authors selected independently the placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants and microbiota-targeted interventions (prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics) used for the treatment of MDD in adults (≥18 years old). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of depressive symptom scores from individual trials were pooled for network meta-analysis (PROSPERO no. CRD42020222305).

Results: Forty-two eligible trials covering 22 interventions were identified, of which 16 were found to be effective in MDD treatment and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. When all trials were considered, compared with placebo, SMDs of interventions ranged from -0.16 (95% credible interval: -0.30, -0.04) for venlafaxine to -0.81 (-1.06, -0.52) for escitalopram. Probiotics were superior to brexpiprazole (SMD [95% credible interval]: -0.42 [-0.68, -0.17]), cariprazine (-0.44 [-0.69, -0.24]), citalopram (-0.37 [-0.66, -0.07]), duloxetine (-0.26, [-0.51, -0.04]), desvenlafaxine (-0.38 [-0.63, -0.14]), ketamine (-0.32 [-0.66, -0.01]), venlafaxine (-0.47 [-0.73, -0.23]), vilazodone (-0.37 [-0.61, -0.12]), vortioxetine (-0.39 [-0.63, -0.15]), and placebo (-0.62 [-0.86, -0.42]), and were noninferior to other antidepressants. In addition, probiotics ranked the second highest in the treatment hierarchy after escitalopram. Long-term treatment (≥8 weeks) using probiotics showed the same tolerability as antidepressants.

Conclusion: Probiotics, compared with antidepressants and placebo, may be efficacious as an adjunct or standalone therapy for treating MDD.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020222305.

治疗成人重度抑郁症的益生菌与抗抑郁药的比较:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
背景:尽管抗抑郁药在治疗重度抑郁症(MDD)方面取得了最新进展,但其不良反应和社会烙印使其使用受到影响。益生菌可能是一种有效的辅助疗法或独立疗法,有可能避免抗抑郁药的上述问题。然而,目前还缺乏这两种干预措施之间的正面临床试验:目的:通过系统回顾和网络荟萃分析,比较这两种干预方法治疗 MDD 的疗效和可接受性:系统检索了6个数据库和临床试验登记平台,以确定2015年至2022年间发表的符合条件的双盲随机对照试验:两位作者独立选择了用于治疗成人(≥18 岁)MDD 的抗抑郁药和微生物群靶向干预(益生元、益生菌和合成益生菌)的安慰剂对照试验。将各试验中抑郁症状评分的标准化平均差(SMDs)汇总后进行网络荟萃分析(PROSPERO编号:CRD42020222305):共确定了42项符合条件的试验,涉及22种干预措施,其中16项被认为对MDD治疗有效,证据的确定性为中度到极低。考虑到所有试验,与安慰剂相比,干预措施的SMD从文拉法辛的-0.16(95%可信区间:-0.30,-0.04)到艾司西酞普兰的-0.81(-1.06,-0.52)不等。益生菌优于布来哌唑(SMD[95%可信区间]:-0.42 [-0.68, -0.17])、卡哌拉嗪(-0.44 [-0.69, -0.24])、西酞普兰(-0.37 [-0.66, -0.07])、度洛西汀(-0.26, [-0.51, -0.04])、文拉法辛(-0.38 [-0.63, -0.14])、氯胺酮(-0.32[-0.66,-0.01])、文拉法辛(-0.47[-0.73,-0.23])、维拉唑酮(-0.37[-0.61,-0.12])、伏替西汀(-0.39[-0.63,-0.15])和安慰剂(-0.62[-0.86,-0.42]),与其他抗抑郁药相比无劣效。此外,益生菌在治疗等级中排名第二,仅次于艾司西酞普兰。益生菌的长期治疗(≥8周)显示出与抗抑郁药相同的耐受性:结论:与抗抑郁药和安慰剂相比,益生菌作为治疗 MDD 的辅助疗法或独立疗法可能具有疗效:系统综述注册:PROSPERO 注册号:CRD4202022230CRD42020222305。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nutrition reviews
Nutrition reviews 医学-营养学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
121
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition Reviews is a highly cited, monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the publication of authoritative and critical literature reviews on current and emerging topics in nutrition science, food science, clinical nutrition, and nutrition policy. Readers of Nutrition Reviews include nutrition scientists, biomedical researchers, clinical and dietetic practitioners, and advanced students of nutrition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信