How helpful are probiotics?

Nobody really knows.  Claims about their efficacy are often based on poorly designed studies.  Efficacy of each strain for specific conditions and with specific dosing is often lacking.  One recent negative study demonstrates that probiotics are often not beneficial (J Pediatr 2012; 161: 40-3).

In this randomized, double-blind placebo controlled study of 106 Polish children (1-48 months of age), Lactobacillus reuteri had no effect in preventing nosocomial diarrhea in patients admitted for non-diarrheal illnesses.  While the authors contemplate that this could be due to the strain of probiotic chosen or the dose, it is clear that evidence that probiotics prevent infectious diarrhea “is still scant.”

This conclusion is backed by a large meta-analysis (JAMA 2012; 307: 1959-69).  While the study concludes that the use of probiotics is associated with a lower risk of antibiotic-associate diarrhea (RR 0.58), it predicted that the number to treat for one person to benefit would be 13.  The study was based on a systematic review of 82 randomized clinical studies.  Yet, overall the quality of the research was considered low; the studies were often had shortcomings:

  • 59 studies “lacked adequate information to assess the overall risk of bias”
  • 64 did not indicate if treatment randomization was blinded
  • 31 did not report an intent-to-treat analysis
  • 41 did not include a calculation of the study’s statistical power to detect differences
  • 17 trials were industry-sponsored and 52 did not clarify their funding/potential conflicts of interest
  • 59 did not report on adverse events specifically related to probiotic use; few trials addressed the risk of fungemia or sepsis
  • Trials rarely specified antibiotic agents; thus, it is difficult to know if a particular probiotic would be better with certain types of antibiotic therapy or duration.

Additional references/links:

  • Potential and pitfalls of probiotics with necrotizing enterocolitis
  • -JPGN 2010; 51:24. VSL#3 helpful for IBS, n=509 (4-18yr olds). 1 per day for <11yr, 2/day in 12-18yr olds
  • -Pediatrics 2008; 121:e850. Culturelle, during pregnancy and early infancy, not effective in preventing atopic dermatitis. Did increase wheezing.
  • -J Pediatr 2008; 152: 801. Probiotic helped reduce colic sx in 30 preterm infants, Lactobacillus reuteri
  • -Pediatrics 2007; 119; e124. Probiotics reduced colic in breastfed babies more than simethicone. n=83, Lactobacillus reuteri, 10-8th power per day. Decreased crying 18 minutes per day at 1 week compared to simethicone & by 94 minutes/day at 4 weeks (95% response vs 7% of simethicone)
  • -Neurogastroenterol Motili 2007 (Quigley EM, et al), 19: 166-72. Review of probiotics and IBS.
  • -NASPGHAN 2007, author: Brian Dunlap, H. Yu, Y Elitsur. abstract -most commercial yogurts have LOW concentrations of probiotics.
  • -JPGN 2006; 43: 550. Review of probiotics for specific conditions.
  • -J Pediatr 2006; 149: 367. Probiotics reduce risk of antibiotic assoc diarrhea. If 7 pts (on abx) are treated with probiotics, one fewer will develop AAD.
  • -JPGN 2006; 42: 454. Evidenced-based review of probiotics.
  • -Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1-4 & 171 editorial.  Probiotics decreased NEC in this study.
  • -Gastroenterol 2004; 126: 1620-33.  Review of probiotics, prebiotics and antibiotics in IBD.

Rifaximin for Crohn’s disease?

Rifaximin (Xifaxan®) shows promise as a new treatment for Crohn’s disease (Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 473-81).  Rifaximin is an oral medication with minimal systemic absorption; it has a good track record in a number of GI indications, including bacterial gastroenteritis (traveler’s diarrhea), bacterial overgrowth in irritable bowel disease, and hepatic encephalopathy.  There are a few reasons why rifaximin would be considered a good candidate treatment for Crohn’s disease:

  • The pathophysiology of Crohn’s disease involves interaction of adherent bacteria to the intestinal mucosa and with the immune system
  • Other antimicrobials have shown benefit for Crohn’s disease
  • Animal models do not manifest Crohn’s disease when in a bacteria-free environment

In this study of 402 patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, a multicenter randomized double-blind trial examined efficacy and safety of rifaximin at doses of 400mg, 800mg, and 1200mg twice daily.  The primary end point was remission based on Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI).

At the end of the 12-week treatment period, 62% of the 800mg group were in remission compared to 43% of the placebo group.  This difference was maintained 12 weeks afterwards with 45% maintaining remission compared with 43% of patients receiving placebo.  When looking at the other dosing regimens, at 12 weeks, 54% of the 400mg group and 47% of the 1200mg group were in remission based on CDAI.

Clinical response, but not remission, occurred in 56% of placebo patients compared with 63% for 400mg patients, 72% for 800mg patients, and 57% of 1200mg patients.  This trial may have been hampered by patient selection in that the placebo response was high.  This may be due to the fact that ~50% of patients had a low CRP value at baseline.

Safety was good in all patient groups.  However, one rifaximin-treated patient developed C difficile infection.

The fact that a clear dose response was not evident suggests the need for more studies.

Additional Rifaximin References:

  • -NEJM 2011; 364: 22 (pg 81-editorial).  About 10% improvement over placebo in pts with IBS-D.  (see abstract below).  Effects lasted up to 3 months.
  • -JPGN 2009; 49: 400-04. helped symptoms in 61% of IBD pts. n=23 (12 w Crohn). dose 10-30mg/kg/day.
  • -Aliment Pharm Ther 2005; 22: 31-35. Use in SBBO. n=90; 1200mg/day x 7 days. NL glucose breath test in 60% (vs 17% in low dose group); no side effects.
  • -Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 557-563. double-blind, randomized controlled trial, n=87 for IBS. 400mg tid x 10days. Rx resulted in greater IBS improvement, ~40% improvement vs 20% w placebo during 10 week study
  • -IBD 2006; 12: 335. open-label use of rifaximim (400mg BID) for 30 pts c UC flare on ASA products resulted in clinical remission in 23 of 30.
  • -J Infect 2011; 62: 34-38. Rx may lead to resistant staphylococci.
  • -Hepatology 2010; 52: 1484. Review.

Additional Crohn’s Antibiotic/Probiotic References:

  • -IBD 2009; 15; 17. 40% response to Cipro in treatment of peranal fistulas. n=25. No response to metronidazole.
  • -IBD 2008; 14: 1597, 1585. No proven role for probiotics and IBD except pouchitis (after Abx)
  • -Clin Gastro & Hep 2008; 6: 145. Pouch problems reviewed -excellent review.
  • -IBD 2006; 12: 335. open-label use of rifaximim (400mg BID) for 30 pts c UC flare on ASA products resulted in clinical remission in 23 of 30.
  • -Curr Med Res Opinion 2005; 8: 1165-70. Rx for traveler’s diarrhea.  May be useful for Crohn’s as well.
  • -Gastroenterology 2005; 128: 856. Use of ornidazole prophylaxis reduced recurrence p-op from 37.5% to 8%.
  • -IBD 2004; 10: 318-325. antibiotics & IBD review.
  • -Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 412-21. adherent-invasive E. coli associated with ileal mucosa in 22% of Crohn’s (n=63) ileal mucosa vs. 6% of controls (n=16); higher colonization noted in neo-terminal ileums (36%).