Evaluating the bifidogenic effect of various infant formula supplementations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Fatemeh Mansouri, Mahnaz Mardani, Maryam Rezapour, Laura Bordoni, Rosita Gabbianelli
{"title":"Evaluating the bifidogenic effect of various infant formula supplementations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Fatemeh Mansouri, Mahnaz Mardani, Maryam Rezapour, Laura Bordoni, Rosita Gabbianelli","doi":"10.1017/S2040174425100196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to investigate the effects of infant formula supplements on <i>Bifidobacterium</i> level in the infant gut through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Systematic review included PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs evaluating the effects of formulas supplemented with prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics, β-palmitic acid, or combinations of β-palmitic acid with prebiotics on infant gut <i>Bifidobacterium</i> levels. A meta-analysis compared bifidogenic effects to standard formula. The main outcome was the relative abundance (RA) of <i>Bifidobacterium</i> in fecal samples measured by various microbiota assessment techniques, with effect sizes as mean differences and standard deviations. An overall effect estimate was derived using a random-effects model. NMA assessed formula effects using breastfeeding as the reference.Nineteen studies were included. Compared to standard formula, supplementation with prebiotics (<i>p</i> < 0.0001), synbiotics (<i>p</i> < 0.0001), β-palmitic acid (<i>p</i> = 0.0005), or β-palmitic acid combined with prebiotics (<i>p</i> < 0.0001) significantly increased <i>Bifidobacterium</i> levels in the infant gut. Probiotic supplementation showed no significant effect (<i>p</i> = 0.9755). NMA and p-score ranking, comparing formulas to breastmilk, indicated that prebiotic-supplemented formulas with the lowest ranking <i>p</i>-score (0.2764), most closely resembled breastfeeding's bifidogenic effect. However, prebiotics and probiotics were analyzed as broad categories, and group variability may affect outcomes. In conclusion, formula supplementation with prebiotics, synbiotics, β-palmitic acid, or combinations of β-palmitic acid with prebiotics increased the RA of <i>Bifidobacterium</i> in infant's gut, with prebiotic formula most closely mimicking the bifidogenic effects of breastfeeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":49167,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease","volume":"16 ","pages":"e35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040174425100196","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effects of infant formula supplements on Bifidobacterium level in the infant gut through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Systematic review included PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs evaluating the effects of formulas supplemented with prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics, β-palmitic acid, or combinations of β-palmitic acid with prebiotics on infant gut Bifidobacterium levels. A meta-analysis compared bifidogenic effects to standard formula. The main outcome was the relative abundance (RA) of Bifidobacterium in fecal samples measured by various microbiota assessment techniques, with effect sizes as mean differences and standard deviations. An overall effect estimate was derived using a random-effects model. NMA assessed formula effects using breastfeeding as the reference.Nineteen studies were included. Compared to standard formula, supplementation with prebiotics (p < 0.0001), synbiotics (p < 0.0001), β-palmitic acid (p = 0.0005), or β-palmitic acid combined with prebiotics (p < 0.0001) significantly increased Bifidobacterium levels in the infant gut. Probiotic supplementation showed no significant effect (p = 0.9755). NMA and p-score ranking, comparing formulas to breastmilk, indicated that prebiotic-supplemented formulas with the lowest ranking p-score (0.2764), most closely resembled breastfeeding's bifidogenic effect. However, prebiotics and probiotics were analyzed as broad categories, and group variability may affect outcomes. In conclusion, formula supplementation with prebiotics, synbiotics, β-palmitic acid, or combinations of β-palmitic acid with prebiotics increased the RA of Bifidobacterium in infant's gut, with prebiotic formula most closely mimicking the bifidogenic effects of breastfeeding.

评估各种婴儿配方补充剂的双歧效应:随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
本研究旨在通过随机对照试验(rct)的系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA),探讨婴儿配方奶粉补充剂对婴儿肠道双歧杆菌水平的影响。系统综述包括PubMed、EMBASE、MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane CENTRAL,以确定评估添加益生元、益生菌、合成菌、β-棕榈酸或β-棕榈酸与益生元组合的配方对婴儿肠道双歧杆菌水平影响的随机对照试验。一项荟萃分析比较了标准配方的双歧效应。主要结果是通过各种微生物群评估技术测量的粪便样本中双歧杆菌的相对丰度(RA),效应大小为平均差异和标准差。使用随机效应模型得出总体效应估计。NMA以母乳喂养为参照来评估配方奶粉的效果。纳入了19项研究。与标准配方奶粉相比,添加益生元(p < 0.0001)、合成益生元(p < 0.0001)、β-棕榈酸(p = 0.0005)或β-棕榈酸联合益生元(p < 0.0001)显著提高了婴儿肠道中的双歧杆菌水平。添加益生菌无显著影响(p = 0.9755)。NMA和p-score排序结果表明,添加益生元的配方奶与母乳相比,p-score排序最低(0.2764)的配方奶最接近母乳喂养的双致效应。然而,益生元和益生菌被分析为广泛的类别,群体差异可能会影响结果。综上所述,在配方奶粉中添加益生元、合成益生元、β-棕榈酸或β-棕榈酸与益生元的组合均可增加婴儿肠道双歧杆菌的RA,其中益生元配方奶粉最接近母乳喂养的双歧杆菌效应。
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
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
145
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: JDOHaD publishes leading research in the field of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD). The Journal focuses on the environment during early pre-natal and post-natal animal and human development, interactions between environmental and genetic factors, including environmental toxicants, and their influence on health and disease risk throughout the lifespan. JDOHaD publishes work on developmental programming, fetal and neonatal biology and physiology, early life nutrition, especially during the first 1,000 days of life, human ecology and evolution and Gene-Environment Interactions. JDOHaD also accepts manuscripts that address the social determinants or education of health and disease risk as they relate to the early life period, as well as the economic and health care costs of a poor start to life. Accordingly, JDOHaD is multi-disciplinary, with contributions from basic scientists working in the fields of physiology, biochemistry and nutrition, endocrinology and metabolism, developmental biology, molecular biology/ epigenetics, human biology/ anthropology, and evolutionary developmental biology. Moreover clinicians, nutritionists, epidemiologists, social scientists, economists, public health specialists and policy makers are very welcome to submit manuscripts. The journal includes original research articles, short communications and reviews, and has regular themed issues, with guest editors; it is also a platform for conference/workshop reports, and for opinion, comment and interaction.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信