预防妊娠糖尿病的益生菌。

Sarah J Davidson, Helen L Barrett, Sarah A Price, Leonie K Callaway, Marloes Dekker Nitert
{"title":"预防妊娠糖尿病的益生菌。","authors":"Sarah J Davidson,&nbsp;Helen L Barrett,&nbsp;Sarah A Price,&nbsp;Leonie K Callaway,&nbsp;Marloes Dekker Nitert","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions has proven difficult. The gut microbiome (the composite of bacteria present in the intestines) influences host inflammatory pathways, glucose and lipid metabolism and, in other settings, alteration of the gut microbiome has been shown to impact on these host responses. Probiotics are one way of altering the gut microbiome but little is known about their use in influencing the metabolic environment of pregnancy. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically assess the effects of probiotic supplements used either alone or in combination with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of GDM.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 March 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing the use of probiotic supplementation with either placebo or diet for the prevention of the development of GDM. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over design studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies presented only as abstracts with no subsequent full report of study results were only included if study authors confirmed that data in the abstract came from the final analysis. Otherwise, the abstract was left awaiting classification.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>In this update, we included seven trials with 1647 participants. Two studies were in overweight and obese women, two in obese women and three did not exclude women based on their weight. All included studies compared probiotics with placebo. The included studies were at low risk of bias overall except for one study that had an unclear risk of bias. We excluded two studies, eight studies were ongoing and three studies are awaiting classification. Six included studies with 1440 participants evaluated the risk of GDM. It is uncertain if probiotics have any effect on the risk of GDM compared to placebo (mean risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.20; 6 studies, 1440 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity and wide CIs that included both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm. Probiotics increase the risk of pre-eclampsia compared to placebo (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.29; 4 studies, 955 women; high-certainty evidence) and may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.01, 4 studies, 955 women), although the CIs for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy also indicated probiotics may have no effect. There were few differences between groups for other primary outcomes. Probiotics make little to no difference in the risk of caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1520 women; high-certainty evidence), and probably make little to no difference in maternal weight gain during pregnancy (MD 0.30 kg, 95% CI -0.67 to 1.26; 4 studies, 853 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Probiotics probably make little to no difference in the incidence of large-for-gestational age infants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.36; 4 studies, 919 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in neonatal adiposity (2 studies, 320 infants; data not pooled; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adiposity as fat mass (MD -0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04), and one study reported adiposity as percentage fat (MD -0.10%, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.99). We do not know the effect of probiotics on perinatal mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 3 studies, 709 infants; low-certainty evidence), a composite measure of neonatal morbidity (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35; 2 studies, 623 infants; low-certainty evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (mean RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.92; 2 studies, 586 infants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on perineal trauma, postnatal depression, maternal and infant development of diabetes or neurosensory disability.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Low-certainty evidence from six trials has not clearly identified the effect of probiotics on the risk of GDM. However, high-certainty evidence suggests there is an increased risk of pre-eclampsia with probiotic administration. There were no other clear differences between probiotics and placebo among the other primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence for this review's primary outcomes ranged from low to high, with downgrading due to concerns about substantial heterogeneity between studies, wide CIs and low event rates. Given the risk of harm and little observed benefit, we urge caution in using probiotics during pregnancy. The apparent effect of probiotics on pre-eclampsia warrants particular consideration. Eight studies are currently ongoing, and we suggest that these studies take particular care in follow-up and examination of the effect on pre-eclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In addition, the underlying potential physiology of the relationship between probiotics and pre-eclampsia risk should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD009951"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Probiotics for preventing gestational diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah J Davidson,&nbsp;Helen L Barrett,&nbsp;Sarah A Price,&nbsp;Leonie K Callaway,&nbsp;Marloes Dekker Nitert\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions has proven difficult. The gut microbiome (the composite of bacteria present in the intestines) influences host inflammatory pathways, glucose and lipid metabolism and, in other settings, alteration of the gut microbiome has been shown to impact on these host responses. Probiotics are one way of altering the gut microbiome but little is known about their use in influencing the metabolic environment of pregnancy. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically assess the effects of probiotic supplements used either alone or in combination with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of GDM.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 March 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing the use of probiotic supplementation with either placebo or diet for the prevention of the development of GDM. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over design studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies presented only as abstracts with no subsequent full report of study results were only included if study authors confirmed that data in the abstract came from the final analysis. Otherwise, the abstract was left awaiting classification.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>In this update, we included seven trials with 1647 participants. Two studies were in overweight and obese women, two in obese women and three did not exclude women based on their weight. All included studies compared probiotics with placebo. The included studies were at low risk of bias overall except for one study that had an unclear risk of bias. We excluded two studies, eight studies were ongoing and three studies are awaiting classification. Six included studies with 1440 participants evaluated the risk of GDM. It is uncertain if probiotics have any effect on the risk of GDM compared to placebo (mean risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.20; 6 studies, 1440 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity and wide CIs that included both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm. Probiotics increase the risk of pre-eclampsia compared to placebo (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.29; 4 studies, 955 women; high-certainty evidence) and may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.01, 4 studies, 955 women), although the CIs for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy also indicated probiotics may have no effect. There were few differences between groups for other primary outcomes. Probiotics make little to no difference in the risk of caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1520 women; high-certainty evidence), and probably make little to no difference in maternal weight gain during pregnancy (MD 0.30 kg, 95% CI -0.67 to 1.26; 4 studies, 853 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Probiotics probably make little to no difference in the incidence of large-for-gestational age infants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.36; 4 studies, 919 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in neonatal adiposity (2 studies, 320 infants; data not pooled; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adiposity as fat mass (MD -0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04), and one study reported adiposity as percentage fat (MD -0.10%, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.99). We do not know the effect of probiotics on perinatal mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 3 studies, 709 infants; low-certainty evidence), a composite measure of neonatal morbidity (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35; 2 studies, 623 infants; low-certainty evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (mean RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.92; 2 studies, 586 infants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on perineal trauma, postnatal depression, maternal and infant development of diabetes or neurosensory disability.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Low-certainty evidence from six trials has not clearly identified the effect of probiotics on the risk of GDM. However, high-certainty evidence suggests there is an increased risk of pre-eclampsia with probiotic administration. There were no other clear differences between probiotics and placebo among the other primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence for this review's primary outcomes ranged from low to high, with downgrading due to concerns about substantial heterogeneity between studies, wide CIs and low event rates. Given the risk of harm and little observed benefit, we urge caution in using probiotics during pregnancy. The apparent effect of probiotics on pre-eclampsia warrants particular consideration. Eight studies are currently ongoing, and we suggest that these studies take particular care in follow-up and examination of the effect on pre-eclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In addition, the underlying potential physiology of the relationship between probiotics and pre-eclampsia risk should be considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":515753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"CD009951\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)与母亲和婴儿的一系列不良妊娠结局相关。使用生活方式干预预防GDM已被证明是困难的。肠道微生物组(肠道中存在的细菌的组合)影响宿主的炎症途径、葡萄糖和脂质代谢,在其他情况下,肠道微生物组的改变已被证明会影响宿主的这些反应。益生菌是改变肠道微生物群的一种方式,但对其在影响妊娠代谢环境方面的作用知之甚少。这是对2014年发表的一篇综述的更新。目的:系统评估益生菌补充剂单独使用或与药物和非药物干预联合使用对预防GDM的影响。检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩试验注册、ClinicalTrials.gov、WHO国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(2020年3月20日)和检索研究的参考文献列表。选择标准:随机和集群随机试验比较使用益生菌补充剂与安慰剂或饮食预防GDM的发展。集群随机试验符合纳入条件,但没有被确定。准随机和交叉设计研究不符合纳入本综述的条件。只有在研究作者确认摘要中的数据来自最终分析的情况下,才纳入仅作为摘要而没有后续研究结果完整报告的研究。否则,这篇摘要就只能等待分类。资料收集和分析:两位综述作者独立评估了纳入研究的研究资格,提取了资料并评估了偏倚风险。对数据进行了准确性检查。主要结果:在本次更新中,我们纳入了7项试验,共1647名受试者。两项研究的对象是超重和肥胖女性,两项研究的对象是肥胖女性,还有三项研究没有根据体重将女性排除在外。所有纳入的研究都将益生菌与安慰剂进行了比较。除了一项研究的偏倚风险不明确外,纳入的研究总体偏倚风险较低。我们排除了2项研究,8项研究正在进行中,3项研究正在等待分类。6项纳入1440名参与者的研究评估了GDM的风险。与安慰剂相比,益生菌是否对GDM风险有任何影响尚不确定(平均风险比(RR) 0.80, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.54至1.20;6项研究,1440名女性;确定性的证据)。证据是低确定性的,因为存在大量的异质性和广泛的ci,包括明显的益处和明显的危害。与安慰剂相比,益生菌增加先兆子痫的风险(RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04 - 3.29;4项研究,955名女性;高确定性证据)并可能增加妊娠期高血压疾病的风险(RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96至2.01,4项研究,955名妇女),尽管妊娠期高血压疾病的CI也表明益生菌可能没有影响。其他主要结果组间差异不大。益生菌对剖宫产的风险几乎没有影响(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 - 1.17;6项研究,1520名女性;高确定性证据),并且可能对怀孕期间母亲体重增加几乎没有影响(MD 0.30 kg, 95% CI -0.67至1.26;4项研究,853名女性;moderate-certainty证据)。益生菌可能对大胎龄婴儿的发生率几乎没有影响(RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72至1.36;4项研究,919名婴儿;中等确定性证据),并且可能对新生儿肥胖几乎没有影响(2项研究,320名婴儿;数据未汇总;确定性的证据)。一项研究报告肥胖为脂肪量(MD -0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.12至0.04),另一项研究报告肥胖为脂肪百分比(MD -0.10%, 95% CI -1.19至0.99)。我们不知道益生菌对围产期死亡率的影响(RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 ~ 8.02;3项研究,709名婴儿;低确定性证据),新生儿发病率的综合测量(RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36至1.35;2项研究,623名婴儿;低确定性证据)或新生儿低血糖(平均RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.69至1.92;2项研究,586名婴儿;确定性的证据)。没有关于会阴创伤、产后抑郁、母婴糖尿病发展或神经感觉障碍的纳入研究报道。作者的结论:来自6项试验的低确定性证据尚未明确确定益生菌对GDM风险的影响。然而,高度肯定的证据表明,服用益生菌会增加先兆子痫的风险。在其他主要结果中,益生菌和安慰剂之间没有其他明显差异。 本综述的主要结局证据的确定性从低到高不等,由于考虑到研究之间的实质性异质性、广泛的ci和低事件发生率,证据的确定性被降级。考虑到有害的风险和很少观察到的好处,我们敦促在怀孕期间谨慎使用益生菌。益生菌对先兆子痫的明显影响值得特别考虑。目前有8项研究正在进行中,我们建议这些研究特别注意随访和检查对先兆子痫和妊娠高血压疾病的影响。此外,益生菌与子痫前期风险之间的潜在生理学关系也应予以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Probiotics for preventing gestational diabetes.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions has proven difficult. The gut microbiome (the composite of bacteria present in the intestines) influences host inflammatory pathways, glucose and lipid metabolism and, in other settings, alteration of the gut microbiome has been shown to impact on these host responses. Probiotics are one way of altering the gut microbiome but little is known about their use in influencing the metabolic environment of pregnancy. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.

Objectives: To systematically assess the effects of probiotic supplements used either alone or in combination with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of GDM.

Search methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 March 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria: Randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing the use of probiotic supplementation with either placebo or diet for the prevention of the development of GDM. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over design studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies presented only as abstracts with no subsequent full report of study results were only included if study authors confirmed that data in the abstract came from the final analysis. Otherwise, the abstract was left awaiting classification.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.

Main results: In this update, we included seven trials with 1647 participants. Two studies were in overweight and obese women, two in obese women and three did not exclude women based on their weight. All included studies compared probiotics with placebo. The included studies were at low risk of bias overall except for one study that had an unclear risk of bias. We excluded two studies, eight studies were ongoing and three studies are awaiting classification. Six included studies with 1440 participants evaluated the risk of GDM. It is uncertain if probiotics have any effect on the risk of GDM compared to placebo (mean risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.20; 6 studies, 1440 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity and wide CIs that included both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm. Probiotics increase the risk of pre-eclampsia compared to placebo (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.29; 4 studies, 955 women; high-certainty evidence) and may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.01, 4 studies, 955 women), although the CIs for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy also indicated probiotics may have no effect. There were few differences between groups for other primary outcomes. Probiotics make little to no difference in the risk of caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1520 women; high-certainty evidence), and probably make little to no difference in maternal weight gain during pregnancy (MD 0.30 kg, 95% CI -0.67 to 1.26; 4 studies, 853 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Probiotics probably make little to no difference in the incidence of large-for-gestational age infants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.36; 4 studies, 919 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in neonatal adiposity (2 studies, 320 infants; data not pooled; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adiposity as fat mass (MD -0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04), and one study reported adiposity as percentage fat (MD -0.10%, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.99). We do not know the effect of probiotics on perinatal mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 3 studies, 709 infants; low-certainty evidence), a composite measure of neonatal morbidity (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35; 2 studies, 623 infants; low-certainty evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (mean RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.92; 2 studies, 586 infants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on perineal trauma, postnatal depression, maternal and infant development of diabetes or neurosensory disability.

Authors' conclusions: Low-certainty evidence from six trials has not clearly identified the effect of probiotics on the risk of GDM. However, high-certainty evidence suggests there is an increased risk of pre-eclampsia with probiotic administration. There were no other clear differences between probiotics and placebo among the other primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence for this review's primary outcomes ranged from low to high, with downgrading due to concerns about substantial heterogeneity between studies, wide CIs and low event rates. Given the risk of harm and little observed benefit, we urge caution in using probiotics during pregnancy. The apparent effect of probiotics on pre-eclampsia warrants particular consideration. Eight studies are currently ongoing, and we suggest that these studies take particular care in follow-up and examination of the effect on pre-eclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In addition, the underlying potential physiology of the relationship between probiotics and pre-eclampsia risk should be considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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