Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Electronic address: zheng_yii@hotmail.com
  • 2 Department of Dietetics & Nutrition, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, 1 Jurong East Street 21, Singapore 609606
  • 3 Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada
  • 4 Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
  • 5 Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore; Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
  • 6 Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 7 Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
  • 8 Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
Clin Nutr, 2023 Apr;42(4):519-531.
PMID: 36857961 DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2023.01.019

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials concluded that probiotics administration in critically ill patients was safe and associated with reduced rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia and diarrhea. However, a recent large multicenter trial found probiotics administration, compared to placebo, was not efficacious and increased adverse events. An updated meta-analysis that controls for type-1 and -2 errors using trial sequential analysis, with a detailed account of adverse events associated with probiotic administration, is warranted to confirm the safety and efficacy of probiotic use in critically ill patients.

METHODS: RCTs that compared probiotics or synbiotics to usual care or placebo and reported clinical and diarrheal outcomes were searched in 4 electronic databases from inception to March 8, 2022 without language restriction. Four reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the study qualities using the Critical Care Nutrition (CCN) Methodological Quality Scoring System. Random-effect meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were used to synthesize the results. The primary outcome was ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The main subgroup analysis compared the effects of higher versus lower quality studies (based on median CCN score).

RESULTS: Seventy-five studies with 71 unique trials (n = 8551) were included. In the overall analysis, probiotics significantly reduced VAP incidence (risk ratio [RR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.88; I2 = 65%; 16 studies). However, such benefits were demonstrated only in lower (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32, 0.69; I2 = 44%; 7 studies) but not higher quality studies (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73, 1.08; I2 = 43%; 9 studies), with significant test for subgroup differences (p = 0.004). Additionally, TSA showed that the VAP benefits of probiotics in the overall and subgroup analyses were type-1 errors. In higher quality trials, TSA found that future trials are unlikely to demonstrate any benefits of probiotics on infectious complications and diarrhea. Probiotics had higher adverse events than control (pooled risk difference: 0.01, 95% CI 0.01, 0.02; I2 = 0%; 22 studies).

CONCLUSION: High-quality RCTs did not support a beneficial effect of probiotics on clinical or diarrheal outcomes in critically ill patients. Given the lack of benefits and the increased incidence of adverse events, probiotics should not be routinely administered to critically ill patients.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022302278.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.