Fatemeh Mansouri, Mahnaz Mardani, Maryam Rezapour, Laura Bordoni, Rosita Gabbianelli
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Evaluating the bifidogenic effect of various infant formula supplementations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
