Efficacy of probiotics regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication: A systematic review, pairwise, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.9 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Mohammad Tanashat, Mohamed Abuelazm, Mohamed Abouzid, Yazan A Al-Ajlouni, Alaa Ramadan, Sumaya Alsalah, Abdulrahman Sharaf, Dina Ayman, Hesham Elharti, Sara Zhana, Obieda Altobaishat, Basel Abdelazeem, Fouad Jaber
{"title":"Efficacy of probiotics regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication: A systematic review, pairwise, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Mohammad Tanashat, Mohamed Abuelazm, Mohamed Abouzid, Yazan A Al-Ajlouni, Alaa Ramadan, Sumaya Alsalah, Abdulrahman Sharaf, Dina Ayman, Hesham Elharti, Sara Zhana, Obieda Altobaishat, Basel Abdelazeem, Fouad Jaber","doi":"10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.11.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection increases the risks of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer diseases, and the incidence of gastric cancer. However, antibiotic resistance and adverse effects led to the emergence of alternative treatments such as probiotics supplementation. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of incorporating probiotics into the various eradication regimens for H. pylori.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science from inception to May 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard therapy (triple or quadrable therapy). for H. pylori with or without probiotic supplementation. Dichotomous data was reported using an odds ratio (OR) for intention-to-treat (ITT) and risk ratios (RR) for side effects with a 95 % confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 91 RCTs involving 13,680 patients. Adding probiotics to standard treatment was associated with a higher H. pylori eradication rate in the ITT analysis (78.75 % vs 62.43 %, OR = 1.62, 95 % CI: 1.41 to 1.87, P < 0.0001), and per-protocol (PP) analysis (80.33 % vs 72.63 %, OR = 1.60, 95 % CI: 1.34 to 1.91, P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, dyspepsia, gastric ulcer, and peptic ulcer were comparable in both groups. The probiotics group was associated with significantly fewer side effects including, abdominal pain (RR = 0.68, 95 % CI: 0.54 to 0.86), bad taste (RR = 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.53 to 0.78), diarrhea (RR = 0.49, 95 % CI: 0.40 to 0.61), epigastric pain/bloating (RR = 0.76, 95 % CI: 0.65 to 0.88), headache/dizziness (RR = 0.46, 95 % CI: 0.29 to 0.74), (RR = 0.65, 95 % CI: 0.55 to 0.77), or nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.56 to 0.83). The network meta-analysis showed that, compared to the placebo, Bifidobacterium longum had the highest efficacy in eradicating H. pylori (ITT: 81.06 % vs 64.88 %, PP: 88 % vs 75.71 %) (OR = 2.52, 95 % CI: 1.18 to 5.49).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adding probiotics to standard H. pylori therapy not only increased the rate of eradication but also reduced some of the adverse reactions throughout therapy, particularly nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, epigastric pain/bloating, and taste issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":10352,"journal":{"name":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","volume":" ","pages":"424-444"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.11.016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection increases the risks of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer diseases, and the incidence of gastric cancer. However, antibiotic resistance and adverse effects led to the emergence of alternative treatments such as probiotics supplementation. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of incorporating probiotics into the various eradication regimens for H. pylori.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science from inception to May 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard therapy (triple or quadrable therapy). for H. pylori with or without probiotic supplementation. Dichotomous data was reported using an odds ratio (OR) for intention-to-treat (ITT) and risk ratios (RR) for side effects with a 95 % confidence interval (CI).

Results: We included 91 RCTs involving 13,680 patients. Adding probiotics to standard treatment was associated with a higher H. pylori eradication rate in the ITT analysis (78.75 % vs 62.43 %, OR = 1.62, 95 % CI: 1.41 to 1.87, P < 0.0001), and per-protocol (PP) analysis (80.33 % vs 72.63 %, OR = 1.60, 95 % CI: 1.34 to 1.91, P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, dyspepsia, gastric ulcer, and peptic ulcer were comparable in both groups. The probiotics group was associated with significantly fewer side effects including, abdominal pain (RR = 0.68, 95 % CI: 0.54 to 0.86), bad taste (RR = 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.53 to 0.78), diarrhea (RR = 0.49, 95 % CI: 0.40 to 0.61), epigastric pain/bloating (RR = 0.76, 95 % CI: 0.65 to 0.88), headache/dizziness (RR = 0.46, 95 % CI: 0.29 to 0.74), (RR = 0.65, 95 % CI: 0.55 to 0.77), or nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.56 to 0.83). The network meta-analysis showed that, compared to the placebo, Bifidobacterium longum had the highest efficacy in eradicating H. pylori (ITT: 81.06 % vs 64.88 %, PP: 88 % vs 75.71 %) (OR = 2.52, 95 % CI: 1.18 to 5.49).

Conclusion: Adding probiotics to standard H. pylori therapy not only increased the rate of eradication but also reduced some of the adverse reactions throughout therapy, particularly nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, epigastric pain/bloating, and taste issues.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical nutrition ESPEN
Clinical nutrition ESPEN NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.30%
发文量
512
期刊介绍: Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is an electronic-only journal and is an official publication of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). Nutrition and nutritional care have gained wide clinical and scientific interest during the past decades. The increasing knowledge of metabolic disturbances and nutritional assessment in chronic and acute diseases has stimulated rapid advances in design, development and clinical application of nutritional support. The aims of ESPEN are to encourage the rapid diffusion of knowledge and its application in the field of clinical nutrition and metabolism. Published bimonthly, Clinical Nutrition ESPEN focuses on publishing articles on the relationship between nutrition and disease in the setting of basic science and clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is available to all members of ESPEN and to all subscribers of Clinical 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