Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Probióticos para pacientes con fibrosis quística

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Bruzzese 2007 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Bruzzese E, Raia V, Spagnuolo MI, Volpicelli M, De Marco G, Maiuri L, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus GG supplementation on pulmonary exacerbations in patients with cystic fibrosis: a pilot study. Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) 2007;26(3):322‐8. [CFGD Register: GN115a]CENTRAL
Guarino A, Giannattasio A. Probiotics in cystic fibrosis: help from old friends. Pediatric Pulmonology 2008;43 Suppl 31:130. [CFGD Register: GN115b]CENTRAL

Bruzzese 2014 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Bruzzese E, Callegari ML, Raia V, Viscovo S, Scotto R, Ferrari S, et al. Disrupted intestinal microbiota and intestinal inflammation in children with cystic fibrosis and its restoration with Lactobacillus GG: a randomised clinical trial. PloS one 2014;9(2):e87796. [CFGD Register: GN115c]CENTRAL
EUCTR2009‐011289‐27‐IT. Probiotics in Cystic Fibrosis ‐ ND. apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial3.aspx?trialid=EUCTR2009‐011289‐27‐IT (date of registration 27 April 2009). CENTRAL
NCT01961661. Probiotics on intestinal inflammation in cystic fibrosis [Effect of probiotics on intestinal inflammation and microflora in cystic fibrosis: a pilot study]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01961661 (first posted 11 October 2013). CENTRAL

Bruzzese 2018 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Bruzzese E, Raia V, Ruberto E, Scotto R, Giannattasio A, Bruzzese D, et al. Lack of efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in reducing pulmonary exacerbations and hospital admissions in children with cystic fibrosis: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2018;17(3):375‐82. [CFGD Register: GN267; DOI: 10.1016/j.jcf.2017.10.014]CENTRAL
NCT01956916. Probiotics in cystic fibrosis [Effects of LGG administration in children with cystic fibrosis: a randomized controlled trial]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01956916 (first posted 8 October 2013). CENTRAL

de Freitas 2018a {published data only}

de Freitas MB, Moreira EA, Oliveira DL, Tomio C, da Rosa JS, Moreno YM, et al. Effect of synbiotic supplementation in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis: a randomized controlled clinical trial. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2018;72(5):736‐43. [PUBMED: 29277839]CENTRAL

del Campo 2009 {published data only}

del Campo R, Garriga M, Agrimbau J, Lamas A, Maiz L, Canton, et al. Improvement of intestinal comfort in cystic fibrosis patients after probiotics consumption. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2009;8 Suppl 2:S789. [Abstract no: 356; CFGD Register: GN226a]CENTRAL

del Campo 2014 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Garriga M, de Blas A, Burreros M, Guallarte P, Perez‐Aragon A, Lamas A, et al. Probiotic intake improves the gastrointestinal health of cystic fibrosis patients. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2013;12 Suppl 1:S6. [Abstract no.: WS3.6; CFGD Register: GN243b]CENTRAL
del Campo R, Garriga M, Perez‐Aragon A, Guallarte P, Lamas A, Maiz L, et al. Improvement of digestive health and reduction in proteobacterial populations in the gut microbiota of cystic fibrosis patients using a Lactobacillus reuteri probiotic preparation: a double blind prospective study. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2014;13(6):716‐22. [CFGD Register: GN243a]CENTRAL

Di Benedetto 1998 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Di Benedetto L, Raia V, Pastore A, Albano F, Spagnuolo MI, De Vizia B, et al. Lactobacillus casei strain GG as adjunctive treatment to children with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 1998;26(5):542. [CFGD Register: GN268]CENTRAL

Di Nardo 2014 {published data only}

Di Nardo G, Oliva S, Menichella A, Pistelli R, De Biase RV, Patriarchi F, et al. Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC55730 in cystic fibrosis. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2014;58(1):81‐6. [CFGD Register: GN244]CENTRAL
NCT01737983. Effect of Lactobacillus reuteri in cystic fibrosis [Lactobacillus reuteri reduces pulmonary exacerbations and upper respiratory tract infections in CF patients with mild‐to‐moderate lung disease. LR administration might have a beneficial effect on the disease course of cystic fibrosis.]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01737983 (first posted 30 November 2012). CENTRAL

Fallahi 2013 {published data only}

Fallahi G, Motamed F, Yousefi A, Shafieyoun A, Najafi M, Khodadad A, et al. The effect of probiotics on fecal calprotectin in patients with cystic fibrosis. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 2013;55(5):475‐8. [CFGD Register: GN248]CENTRAL
Yousefi A, Shafieyoun A, Fallahi G, Rezaei N. Probiotics on fecal calprotectin of cystic fibrosis. Reply. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 2014;56(3):333. CENTRAL

Jafari 2013 {published data only}

Jafari SA, Mehdizadeh‐Hakkak A, Kianifar HR, Hebrani P, Ahanchian H, Abbasnejad E. Effects of probiotics on quality of life in children with cystic fibrosis; a randomized controlled trial. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics 2013;23(6):669‐74. [CFGD Register: GN269]CENTRAL

NCT01201434 {published and unpublished data}

NCT01201434. Effect of probiotics on sputum inflammation and pulmonary infections in patients with cystic fibrosis [The effect of probiotics on sputum bacteria, sputum inflammation, and pulmonary infections in patients with cystic fibrosis: a double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01201434 (first posted 14 September 2010). CENTRAL

Van Biervliet 2018 {published and unpublished data}

Van Biervliet S, Hauser B, Verhulst S, Stepman H, Delanghe J, Warzee JP, et al. Probiotics in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients: a double blind cross‐over placebo controlled study. Pilot study from the ESPGHAN Working Group on Pancreas/CF. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN 2018;27:59‐65. [CFGD Register: GN266b]CENTRAL
Van Biervliet S, Hauser B, Verhulst S, Stepman H, Delanghe J, Warzee JP, et al. Probiotics in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients: a double blind cross‐over study. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2017;16 Suppl 1:S42. [CFGD Register: GN266a]CENTRAL

References to studies excluded from this review

Bruzzese 2004 {published data only}

Bruzzese E, Raia V, Gaudiello G, Polito G, Buccigrossi V, Formicola V, et al. Intestinal inflammation is a frequent feature of cystic fibrosis and is reduced by probiotic administration. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2004;20(7):813‐9. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1365‐2036.2004.02174.x]CENTRAL

References to studies awaiting assessment

IRCT201201258778N3 {published data only}

IRCT201201258778N3. Effect of probiotics on intestinal inflammation in CF patients whit age more than 4 years [Effect of probiotics on intestinal inflammation in CF patients whit age more than 4 years based on fecal calportectine a double blind clinical trial]. https://en.irct.ir/trial/9275 (first received 12 March 2012). [CFGD Register: GN279; WHO ICTRP: www.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=IRCT201201258778N3]CENTRAL

IRCT201205219823N1 {published data only}

IRCT201205219823N1. Probiotic effect on growth and quality of life in children with cystic fibrosis. www.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=IRCT201205219823N1 (first received 25 July 2012). [CFGD Register: GN280]CENTRAL

ACTRN12616000797471 {published data only}

ACTRN12616000797471. Probiotics and the EARly Life effects on intestinal bacteria and inflammation in children with Cystic Fibrosis (“PEARL‐CF”). www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370881 (first posted 17 June 2016). CENTRAL

IRCT2017011732004N1 {published data only}

IRCT2017011732004N1. Effect of synbiotic supplementation in comparison with placebo on anthropometric indices, quality of life and clinical outcome in children with cystic fibrosis. en.irct.ir/trial/25032 (first posted 14 February 2017). CENTRAL

NCT01837355 {published data only}

NCT01837355. Modulation of intestinal and pulmonary inflammation by lactobacillus diet supplementation in pediatric cystic fibrosis (MoHuM‐1). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01837355 (first posted 23 April 2013). CENTRAL

RBR‐5byrsc {published data only}

RBR‐5byrsc, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina ‐ Florianópolis, S. C. Brazil, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina ‐ Florianópolis, S. C. Brazil, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina ‐ Florianópolis, S. C. Brazil. Effect of supplementation with a synbiotic on markers of the inflammatory response in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis. apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=RBR‐5byrsc (first posted 11 March 2016). CENTRAL

Anathan 2016

Ananthan A, Balasubramanian H, Rao S, Patole S. Probiotic supplementation in children with cystic fibrosis‐a systematic review. European Journal of Pediatrics 2016;175(10):1255‐66.

Anderson 2017

Anderson JL, Miles C, Tierney AC. Effect of probiotics on respiratory, gastrointestinal and nutritional outcomes in patients with cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2017;16(2):186‐97.

Antosca 2019

Antosca KM, Chernikova DA, Price CE, Ruoff KL, Li K, Guill MF, et al. Altered stool microbiota of infants with cystic fibrosis shows a reduction in genera associated with immune programming from birth. Journal of Bacteriology 2019;201(16):pii: e00274‐19. [DOI: 10.1128/JB.00274‐19; PUBMED: 31209076]

Arrieta 2014

Arrieta MC, Stiemsma LT, Amenyogbe N, Brown EM, Finlay B. The intestinal microbiome in early life: health and disease. Frontiers in Immunology 2014;5:427. [PUBMED: 25250028]

Burke 2017

Burke DG, Fouhy F, Harrison MJ, Rea MC, Cotter PD, O'Sullivan O, et al. The altered gut microbiota in adults with cystic fibrosis. BMC Microbiology 2017;17(1):58. [PUBMED: 28279152]

CF Foundation 2017

CF Foundation. About cystic fibrosis. www.cff.org/What‐is‐CF/About‐Cystic‐Fibrosis (accessed 09 June 2017).

Corey 1988

Corey M, McLaughlin FJ, Williams M, Levison H. A comparison of survival, growth, and pulmonary function in patients with cystic fibrosis in Boston and Toronto. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1988;41(6):583‐91. [PUBMED: 3260274]

Covidence 2019 [Computer program]

Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, accessed 30 January 2019.

de Clercq 2017

de Clercq N, Frissen MN, Groen AK, Nieuwdorp M. Gut microbiota and the gut‐brain axis: new insights in the pathophysiology of metabolic syndrome. Psychosomatic Medicine 2017;79(8):874‐9. [DOI: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000495; PUBMED: 28557822]

de Freitas 2018b

de Freitas MB, Moreira EA, Tomio C, Moreno YM, Daltoe FP, Barbosa E, et al. Altered intestinal microbiota composition, antibiotic therapy and intestinal inflammation in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis. PloS One 2018;13(6):e0198457. [PUBMED: 29933382]

Debyser 2016

Debyser G, Mesuere B, Clement L, Van de Weygaert J, Van Hecke P, Duytschaever G, et al. Faecal proteomics: a tool to investigate dysbiosis and inflammation in patients with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2016;15(2):242‐50. [PUBMED: 26330184]

Deeks 2011

Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, editor(s) on behalf of the CSMG. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analysis. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Derwa 2017

Derwa Y, Gracie DJ, Hamlin PJ, Ford AC. Systematic review with meta‐analysis: the efficacy of probiotics in inflammatory bowel disease. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2017;46(4):389‐400. [PUBMED: 28653751]

Dhaliwal 2015

Dhaliwal J, Leach S, Katz T, Nahidi L, Pang T, Lee JM, et al. Intestinal inflammation and impact on growth in children with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2015;60(4):521‐6.

Duytschaever 2011

Duytschaever G, Huys G, Bekaert M, Boulanger L, De Boeck K, Vandamme P. Cross‐sectional and longitudinal comparisons of the predominant fecal microbiota compositions of a group of pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis and their healthy siblings. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2011;77(22):8015‐24. [PUBMED: 21926193]

Faith 2013

Faith JJ, Guruge JL, Charbonneau M, Subramanian S, Seedorf H, Goodman AL, et al. The long‐term stability of the human gut microbiota. Science (New York, N.Y.) 2013;341(6141):1237439. [PUBMED: 23828941]

FAO/WHO 2002

Food, Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World Health Organization. Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food: report of a joint FAO/WHO Working Group on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. 2002. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/en/probiotic_guidelines.pdf (accessed prior to 25 September 2017). [FAO/WHO 2002]

Farrell 2008

Farrell PM, Rosenstein BJ, White TB, Accurso FJ, Castellani C, Cutting GR, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in newborns through older adults: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Consensus Report. Journal of Pediatrics 2008;153(2):S4‐S14.

Fouhy 2017

Fouhy F, Ronan NJ, O'Sullivan O, McCarthy Y, Walsh AM, Murphy DM, et al. A pilot study demonstrating the altered gut microbiota functionality in stable adults with Cystic Fibrosis. Scientific Reports 2017;7(1):6685. [PUBMED: 28751714]

Fuchs 1994

Fuchs HJ, Borowitz DS, Christiansen DH, Morris EM, Nash ML, Ramsey BW, et al. Effect of aerosolized recombinant human DNase on exacerbations of respiratory symptoms and on pulmonary function in patients with cystic fibrosis. The Pulmozyme Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(10):637‐42.

Garg 2017

Garg M, Leach ST, Coffey MJ, Katz T, Strachan R, Pang T, et al. Age‐dependent variation of fecal calprotectin in cystic fibrosis and healthy children. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2017;16(5):631‐6. [PUBMED: 28416415]

Garg 2018

Garg M, Leach ST, Pang T, Needham B, Coffey MJ, Katz T, et al. Age‐related levels of fecal M2‐pyruvate kinase in children with cystic fibrosis and healthy children 0 to 10 years old. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2018;17(1):109‐13. [PUBMED: 28754328]

Gibson 2017

Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME, Prescott SL, Reimer RA, Salminen SJ, et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology 2017;14(8):491‐502. [PUBMED: 28611480]

Goldenberg 2013

Goldenberg JZ, Ma SS, Saxton JD, Martzen MR, Vandvik PO, Thorlund K, et al. Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile‐associated diarrhea in adults and children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006095.pub3; PUBMED: 23728658]

Goldenberg 2015

Goldenberg JZ, Lytvyn L, Steurich J, Parkin P, Mahant S, Johnston BC. Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic‐associated diarrhea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004827.pub4; PUBMED: 26695080]

Hao 2015

Hao Q, Dong BR, Wu T. Probiotics for preventing acute upper respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006895.pub3; PUBMED: 25927096]

Higgins 2003

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60.

Higgins 2011a

Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Higgins 2011b

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s) on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Higgins 2011c

Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, editor(s), on behalf of the CSMG. Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Hoen 2015

Hoen AG, Li J, Moulton LA, O'Toole GA, Housman ML, Koestler DC, et al. Associations between gut microbial colonization in early life and respiratory outcomes in cystic fibrosis. Journal of Pediatrics 2015;167(1):138‐47.e1‐3. [PUBMED: 25818499]

Jadin 2011

Jadin SA, Wu GS, Zhang Z, Shoff SM, Tippets BM, Farrell PM, et al. Growth and pulmonary outcomes during the first 2 y of life of breastfed and formula‐fed infants diagnosed with cystic fibrosis through the Wisconsin Routine Newborn Screening Program. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2011;93(5):1038‐47. [PUBMED: 21430114]

Kaakoush 2016

Kaakoush NO, Pickford R, Jaffe A, Ooi CY. Is there a role for stool metabolomics in cystic fibrosis?. Pediatrics International : Official Journal of the Japan Pediatric Society 2016;58(8):808‐11.

Lee 2012

Lee JM, Leach ST, Katz T, Day AS, Jaffe A, Ooi CY. Update of faecal markers of inflammation in children with cystic fibrosis. Mediators of Inflammation 2012;2012:948367. [PUBMED: 22988347]

Li 2014

Li L, Somerset S. The clinical significance of the gut microbiota in cystic fibrosis and the potential for dietary therapies. Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) 2014;33(4):571‐80. [PUBMED: 24767984]

Madan 2012

Madan JC, Koestler DC, Stanton BA, Davidson L, Moulton LA, Housman ML, et al. Serial analysis of the gut and respiratory microbiome in cystic fibrosis in infancy: interaction between intestinal and respiratory tracts and impact of nutritional exposures. mBio 2012;3(4):e00251‐12. [PUBMED: 22911969]

Marsland 2015

Marsland BJ, Trompette A, Gollwitzer ES. The gut‐lung axis in respiratory disease. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2015;12 Suppl 2:S150‐6. [PUBMED: 26595731]

McCormick 2010

McCormick J, Mehta G, Olesen HV, Viviani L, Macek M, Mehta A. Comparative demographics of the European cystic fibrosis population: a cross‐sectional database analysis. Lancet 2010;375(9719):1007‐13. [PUBMED: 20304245]

Metchnikoff 1908

Metchnikoff E. The prolongation of life; optimistic studies. New York & London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1908.

Neri 2019

Neri LC, Taminato M, Filho LV. A systematic review of probiotics for cystic fibrosis patients: moving forward. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2019;68(3):394‐99. [DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000002185; PUBMED: 30358738]

Nielsen 2016

Nielsen S, Needham B, Leach ST, Day AS, Jaffe A, Thomas T, et al. Disrupted progression of the intestinal microbiota with age in children with cystic fibrosis. Scientific Reports 2016;6:24857. [DOI: 10.1038/srep24857]

Nikniaz 2017

Nikniaz Z, Nikniaz L, Bilan N, Somi MH, Faramarzi E. Does probiotic supplementation affect pulmonary exacerbation and intestinal inflammation in cystic fibrosis: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. World Journal of Pediatrics 2017;13(4):307‐13. [DOI: 10.1007/s12519‐017‐0033‐6; PUBMED: 28470579]

Ooi 2015a

Ooi CY, Pang T, Leach ST, Katz T, Day AS, Jaffe A. Fecal human beta‐defensin 2 in children with cystic fibrosis: is there a diminished intestinal innate immune response?. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 2015;60(10):2946‐52.

Ooi 2018

Ooi CY, Syed SA, Rossi L, Garg M, Needham B, Avolio J, et al. Impact of CFTR modulation with ivacaftor on gut microbiota and intestinal inflammation. Scientific Reports 2018;8(1):17834. [PUBMED: 30546102]

Pang 2015

Pang T, Leach ST, Katz T, Jaffe A, Day AS, Ooi CY. Elevated fecal M2‐pyruvate kinase in children with cystic fibrosis: a clue to the increased risk of intestinal malignancy in adulthood?. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2015;30(5):866‐71.

Plaza‐Diaz 2017

Plaza‐Diaz J, Ruiz‐Ojeda FJ, Vilchez‐Padial LM, Gil A. Evidence of the anti‐inflammatory effects of probiotics and synbiotics in intestinal chronic diseases. Nutrients 2017;9(6):pii: E555. [DOI: 10.3390/nu9060555; PUBMED: 28555037]

Quigley 2013

Quigley EM. Gut bacteria in health and disease. Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2013;9(9):560‐9. [PUBMED: 24729765]

Quittner 2009

Quittner AL, Modi AC, Wainwright C, Otto K, Kirihara J, Montgomery AB. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference scores for the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire‐Revised Respiratory Symptom Scale in two populations of patients with cystic fibrosis and chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway infection. Chest 2009;135(6):1610‐8.

Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]

Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Rogers 2016

Rogers GB, Narkewicz MR, Hoffman LR. The CF gastrointestinal microbiome: structure and clinical impact. Pediatric Pulmonology 2016;51 Suppl 44:S35‐44. [PUBMED: 27662102]

Sanders 2019

Sanders ME, Merenstein DJ, Reid G, Gibson GR, Rastall RA. Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: from biology to the clinic. Nature Reviews. Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2019 Jul 11 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI: 10.1038/s41575‐019‐0173‐3; PUBMED: 31296969]

Schippa 2013

Schippa S, Iebba V, Santangelo F, Gagliardi A, De Biase RV, Stamato A, et al. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) allelic variants relate to shifts in faecal microbiota of cystic fibrosis patients. PloS one 2013;8(4):e61176. [PUBMED: 23613805]

Schünemann 2011a

Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH on behalf of the CA and RMG and the CSMG. Chapter 11: Presenting results and ‘Summary of findings’ tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Shoff 2006

Shoff SM, Ahn HY, Davis L, Lai H. Temporal associations among energy intake, plasma linoleic acid, and growth improvement in response to treatment initiation after diagnosis of cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics 2006;117(2):391‐400. [PUBMED: 16452358]

Smyth 2000

Smyth RL, Croft NM, O'Hea U, Marshall TG, Ferguson A. Intestinal inflammation in cystic fibrosis. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2000;82(5):394‐9. [PUBMED: 10799435]

Sterne 2011

Sterne JA, Egger M, Moher D, editor(s), on behalf of the CBMG. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook forSystematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Sullivan 2015

Sullivan JS, Hounchell J, Pecott‐Grimm H, Cowan K, Lahiri T. Probiotic use and antibiotic associated gastrointestinal symptoms in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis. Pediatric Pulmonology 2015;50 Suppl 41:407. [Abstract no.: 567]

Sutherland 2018

Sutherland R, Katz T, Liu V, Quintano J, Brunner R, Tong CW, et al. Dietary intake of energy‐dense, nutrient‐poor and nutrient‐dense food sources in children with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2018;17(6):804‐10. [PUBMED: 29724576]

Tabori 2017

Tabori H, Arnold C, Jaudszus A, Mentzel HJ, Renz DM, Reinsch S, et al. Abdominal symptoms in cystic fibrosis and their relation to genotype, history, clinical and laboratory findings. PLoS ONE 2017;12(5):e0174463. [PUBMED: 28472055]

Tomas 2016

Tomas J, Mulet C, Saffarian A, Cavin JB, Ducroc R, Regnault B, et al. High‐fat diet modifies the PPAR‐gamma pathway leading to disruption of microbial and physiological ecosystem in murine small intestine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2016;113(40):E5934‐43. [PUBMED: 27638207]

Turck 2016

Turck D, Braegger CP, Colombo C, Declercq D, Morton A, Pancheva R, et al. ESPEN‐ESPGHAN‐ECFS guidelines on nutrition care for infants, children, and adults with cystic fibrosis. Clinical Nutrition 2016;35(3):557‐77. [PUBMED: 27068495]

Van Biervliet 2017

Van Biervliet S, Declercq D, Somerset S. Clinical effects of probiotics in cystic fibrosis patients: a systematic review. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN 2017;18:37‐43. [PUBMED: 29132736]

Vernocchi 2018

Vernocchi P, Del Chierico F, Russo A, Majo F, Rossitto M, Valerio M, et al. Gut microbiota signatures in cystic fibrosis: Loss of host CFTR function drives the microbiota enterophenotype. PloS One 2018;13(12):e0208171. [PUBMED: 30521551]

von Roon 2007

von Roon AC, Karamountzos L, Purkayastha S, Reese GE, Darzi AW, Teare JP, et al. Diagnostic precision of fecal calprotectin for inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal malignancy. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2007;102(4):803‐13. [PUBMED: 17324124]

Werlin 2010

Werlin SL, Benuri‐Silbiger I, Kerem E, Adler SN, Goldin E, Zimmerman J, et al. Evidence of intestinal inflammation in patients with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2010;51(3):304‐8. [PUBMED: 20512061]

Yatsunenko 2012

Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, Dominguez‐Bello MG, Contreras M, et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 2012;486(7402):222‐7. [PUBMED: 22699611]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Bruzzese 2007

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: cross‐over, without a washout period.

Randomisation method: randomisation was constructed using the random numbers table with a block design for groups of 10 participants.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Children with CF diagnosed by an elevated sweat chloride concentration.

  • Moderate/severe disease evaluated according to the criteria of the CF Foundation.

  • Chronic colonisation with P aeruginosa defined as a positive sputum for at least 6 months in at least 3 consecutive cultures.

  • Pancreatic insufficiency as judged by steatorrhea and clinical symptoms.

Exclusion criteria

  • Clinical instability (clinical stability was defined as the absence of substantial, acute onset clinical problems that could affect the outcome measures included in the clinical protocol, at the time of enrolment, shift of treatment and/or exit from treatment).

Baseline characteristics

  • Participants: total n = 38.

  • Age, mean (SD) years: 13.2 (4.2).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 16 (42.1%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 16 (42.1%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 38 (100%).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: Lactobacillus GG (6 x 109 CFU/day) dissolved in ORS.

  • Dose (probiotic): 6 x 109CFU/day.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Placebo

  • Preparation: ORS.

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Number of pulmonary exacerbations (defined using CF Foundation criteria).

  • Duration (days) of antibiotic therapy for pulmonary exacerbations.

  • Number and duration (days) of hospital admissions for pulmonary exacerbations.

  • Route of administration of antibiotics (oral vs intravenous).

  • Lung function (FEV1 % predicted), mean change from baseline.

  • Weight (kg), mean change from baseline.

  • BMI (kg/m²), mean change from baseline.

  • Serum immunoglobulin concentrations: IgA, IgG and IgM (mg/dL), mean change from baseline

Secondary outcome measures

  • Adverse events including serious adverse reactions, adverse reactions and mortality.

Time points for measurements: baseline 6 months for each period (baseline, 6 months, 7 months, 13 months).

Length of follow‐up: 56 weeks.

Identification

Country: Italy.

Setting: Department of Pediatrics, University of Naples "Federico II".

Author's name: Alfredo Guarino.

Institution: Department of Pediatrics, University of Naples "Federico II".

Email: [email protected].

Address: Department of Pediatrics, University of Naples "Federico II", Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Funding Source

Fondazione per la ricerca sulla fibrosi cistica (grant).

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

No conflicts of interest exists for any author.

Notes

Pretreatment: Group A (started on Lactobacillus GG first then ORS) had higher mean value of FEV1 %, P < 0.05

Population: in text age range (5 ‐ 23 years) does not match table 1 (5 ‐ 18 years); number of males in text (16) does not match table 1 (17), mean FEV1 % predicted = 63.57 (19.5) in Group A and mean FEV1 % predicted = 45.37 (13.3) in Group B.
Outcomes: weight mean (SD) 1.98 (1.93) kg in probiotic group vs 0.78 (1.97) kg in placebo group for first phase; MD 1.2 (95% CI 0.08 ‐ 2.48).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "The randomisation was constructed using the random numbers table with a block design for groups of ten patients."

Judgement comment: block design for groups of 10 participants used ‐ methods to prevent selection bias not taken as stringent inclusion criteria taken to limit baseline group differences.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: unclear about allocation concealment mechanism.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "LGG or ORS were assumed, blindly, in a single daily dose by the patients."

Judgement comment: participants blinded. Investigators (except outcome assessor) not blinded, however, this is unlikely to affect objective outcome measures.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "The outcome measures of efficacy were recorded by one of the investigators who was unaware about the administration of LGG/ORS."

Judgement comment: outcome assessor blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "Clinical stability was defined as the absence of substantial, acute onset clinical problems that could affect the outcome measures included in the clinical protocol, at the time of enrolment, shift of treatment and/or exit from treatment."

Quote: "One of the 5 patients who did not complete the study was unable to receive probiotics because of vomiting, and whereas the other 4 were clinically unstable at the end of probiotic or ORS administration."

Quote: "Thirty‐eight of the 43 patients enrolled, completed the study"

Judgement comment: 4 clinically unstable participants were not analysed, this may skew outcome measures.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Judgement comment: data not given for not significant results, e.g. mean duration of hospital stay per pulmonary episode, mean duration of pulmonary exacerbations, otherwise reported on everything in methods ‐ no protocol available.

Other bias

Low risk

Judgement comment: Fondazione Ricerca Fibrosi Cistica funding. No conflicts declared.

Bruzzese 2014

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel groups.

Randomisation method: not specified ("generated by a statistician not involved in patient management").

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Confirmed diagnosis of CF documented by sweat chloride test over 60 mmol/L and confirmed by genotype analysis with the presence of F508del/F508del or F508del/other.

  • Boys and girls between 2 and 18 years of age.

  • Clinical stability at enrolment, defined as no clinical evidence of acute exacerbation, no modifications in the therapeutic regimen and no hospitalisation in the last 2 weeks.

  • Pancreatic insufficiency.

  • Baseline FEV1 above 50% of predicted value.

Exclusion criteria

  • Colonization of respiratory tract with Burkholderia cepacia spp.

  • Steroid therapy within 1 month before enrolment.

  • Pregnancy and fertile women taking oral contraceptives.

  • Parenteral or oral antibiotics therapy within 2 weeks before enrolment.

  • Regular assumption of probiotics.

  • Regular assumption of azithromycin.

Baseline characteristics

  • Participants: total n = 22 (probiotic group n = 10; placebo group n = 12).

  • Age, median (range; years): 7 (2 ‐ 9).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 13 (59.1%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 12 (54.5%).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: Lactobacillus GG (60 mg), maltodextrin (163 mg), gelatin capsule (75 mg) and magnesium stearate (2 mg).

  • Dose (probiotic): 6 x 109 CFU.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 1 month.

Placebo

  • Preparation: maltodextrin (223 mg), gelatin capsule (75 mg), and magnesium stearate (2 mg).

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 1 month.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • FISH analysis for bacterial loads of Bacteroides, F prauznitzii and E rectale (×1010/mL), mean change from baseline.

  • Faecal calprotectin (µg/g), mean change from baseline.

Time points for measurements: baseline and 1 month.

Length of follow‐up: 4 weeks.

Identification

Country: Italy

Setting: Department of Pediatrics, University of Naples "Federico II".

Author's name: Alfredo Guarino.

Institution: Department of Translational Medical Science, Section of Pediatrics, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Department of Translational Medical Science, Section of Pediatrics University of Naples Federico II Naples, Italy.

Funding Source

Grants from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Therapeutics (GUARIN10A0/2009) and the Fondazione Italiana Ricerca Fibrosis Cistica (FC 23/2009).

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

The authors declared that no competing interests existed.

Notes

Baseline calprotectin, mean (SD): LGG group 164 (70), placebo group 251 (174).

This trial recruited healthy controls (without CF) to act as a reference for normal (e.g. inflammatory markers): data from these healthy participants are not included in the review.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "The randomisation protocol was generated by a statistician not involved in patient management."

Judgement comment: not clear what type of randomisation process was used.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "Patients were randomly assigned to the treatment or placebo arms."

Judgement comment: not clear who performed the allocation and if concealed.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "double‐blind randomized clinical trial"

Quote: "LGG and placebo capsules were identical in appearance, taste, and colour, and only a numeric code differentiated the two formulations."

Quote: "LGG and placebo formulations were masked and coded appropriately to ensure blindness."

Judgement comment: protocol confirms blinding of participants, care providers and investigators.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Judgement comment: unclear if outcome assessors were blinded but outcome measures are objective.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Judgement comment: 25 participants were assessed for eligibility. All 22 participants randomised were analysed.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Quote: "Children with CF who were treated with LGG showed a significant decrease in fecal CLP concentration as compared with those treated with placebo (164 +/‐ 70 vs. 78 +/‐ 54 µg/g, P<0.05; 251 +/‐ 174 vs. 176 +/‐ 125 µg/g, P = 0.3, respectively)."

Judgement comment: comparison within groups but not between groups. Adverse events not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Judgement comment: competitive grant funding with no influence on trial design and nil competing interests disclosed.

Bruzzese 2018

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: Pocock‐Simon covariate‐adaptive randomisation scheme was adopted with a bias parameter equal to 2/3. The stratification variables considered were sex (2 levels) and age (3 levels). Randomisation was centralised.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Confirmed diagnosis of CF documented by sweat chloride test over 60 mmol/L and confirmed by genotype analysis with the presence of F508del/F508del or F508del/other.

  • Boys and girls between 2 and 16 years of age.

  • Clinical stability at enrolment, defined as no clinical evidence of acute exacerbation, no modifications in the therapeutic regimen and no hospitalisation in the last 2 weeks.

  • Pancreatic insufficiency (faecal elastase 200 μ/g).

  • Baseline FEV1 % predicted over 50%.

Exclusion criteria

  • Colonization of respiratory tract with Burkholderia cepacia spp.

  • Steroid therapy within 1 month before enrolment.

  • Pregnancy and fertile women taking oral contraceptives.

  • Parenteral or oral antibiotics therapy within 2 weeks before enrolment.

  • Regular assumption of probiotics.

  • Regular assumption of azithromycin.

Pretreatment: no overt group differences between those on probiotic and those on placebo.

Baseline characteristics

Overall

  • Participants: total n = 81.

  • Age, range years: 2 ‐ 17.

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 41 (50.6%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 36 (44%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 81 (100%).

Probiotic

  • Participants: n = 41.

  • Age, median (range) years: 8.7 (2.4 ‐ 16.8).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 21 (52.1%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 19 (46.3%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 41 (100%).

  • BMI median (range) kg/m²: 16.3 (14.5 ‐ 24.6).

  • FEV1 % predicted median (range): 94.7% (57% ‐ 129.4%).

  • MMEF 25 ‐ 75%, median (range) %: 86.2% (32.5% ‐ 161.9%).

Placebo

  • Participants: n = 40.

  • Age, median (range) years: 7.3 (2.1 ‐ 15.7).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 20 (50%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 17 (42.5%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 40 (100%).

  • BMI median (range) kg/m²: 17.1 (13.5 ‐ 26.7).

  • FEV1 % predicted median (range): 97% (61% ‐ 151%).

  • MMEF 25‐75%, median (range) %: 73% (35.4% ‐ 140.5%).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: Lactobacillus GG 60 mg (6x109 CFU/day) capsule, maltodextrin (163 mg), gelatin capsule (75 mg), magnesium stearate (2 mg).

  • Dose (probiotic): 6x109 CFU/day (1 capsule).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 12 months.

Placebo

  • Preparation: maltodextrin (163 mg) capsule, gelatin capsule (75 mg), magnesium stearate (2 mg)

  • Dose (probiotic): 0 (1 capsule).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 12 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Proportion of participants with at least 1 pulmonary exacerbation during the intervention period (12 months).

  • Proportion of participants with at least 1 hospitalisation during the intervention period (12 months).

Secondary outcome measures

  • Number of pulmonary exacerbations (defined as an acute event with respiratory symptoms requiring antibiotic therapy (oral/parenteral) for at least 7 days as defined by the specialist at the reference centre).

  • Duration (days) of antibiotic therapy for pulmonary exacerbations.

  • Number of hospital admissions.

  • Lung function (FEV1 % predicted and MMEF 25‐75%), mean change from baseline.

  • BMI (kg/m²), mean change from baseline.

Time points for measurements: ‐ 6 months (pre‐allocation), 0 months (baseline), 6 months (midway), 12 months (completion).

Length of follow‐up: 52 weeks.

Identification

Country: Italy.

Setting: multicentre study with 5 CF Regional Centres.

Author's name: Alfredo Guarino.

Institution: Department of Translational Medicine, Section of Paediatrics, University of Naples.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Department of Translational Medicine, Section of Pediatrics, University of Naples“Federico II”, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Funding Source

Grant funding from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Therapeutics (GUARIN10A0).

Probiotic and placebo was supplied by DICOFARM.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

Alfredo Guarino received research grant funding from DICOFARM not related to the present trial.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Pocock‐Simon covariate‐adaptive randomisation scheme was adopted".

Judgement comment: appropriate randomisation scheme.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomisation was centralised."

Quote: "randomised"

Judgement comment: appropriate allocation concealment using random sequence.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "LGG and placebo preparations were identical in appearance, taste, and colour to ensure blindness, the numeric code being the only distinctive feature."

Judgement comment: double‐blind study (participants and investigators) confirmed in study study protocol. Identical probiotic and placebo formulations.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: blinding of outcome assessors was not described.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Judgement comment: 81 participants randomised, 4 (5%) lost to follow‐up (3 probiotic group and 1 control group).

Quote: "Respiratory function tests were performed only in compliant subjects with CF in accordance to the protocol."

Judgement comment: unclear how many participants were included in the FEV1 and MMEF analyses.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Quote: "Intestinal inflammation"

Judgement comment: as outlined in protocol, intestinal inflammation, abdominal pain and intestinal microbiota not reported in study. Adverse events not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Judgement comment: funding sources and Dicofarm did not appear to influence the study design, conduct or results.

de Freitas 2018a

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: block randomisation with strata for age and gender.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

CF group

  • Children and adolescents aged 1 year to 16 years.

  • Diagnosed with CF (chloride sweat test ≥ 60 mmol/L).

  • Clinically stable for at least 30 days prior to the data collection process.

Exclusion criteria

  • Participants with fever, trauma, inflammatory diseases (asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatic disease), psychiatric, degenerative, cardiovascular, diabetes, glucose intolerance, renal failure, primary or secondary immunodeficiency.

  • Participants being treated with antibiotics at baseline; hormones, non‐hormonal anti‐inflammatory drugs, immunosuppressants and antihistamines, up to 30 days prior to data collection.

  • Participants experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation.

Pretreatment: placebo group had significantly worse nutritional status and inflammatory markers at baseline compared with intervention group.

Baseline characteristics

Overall

  • Participants: n = 41.

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 22 (53.7%).

Probiotic

  • Participants: n = 22.

  • Age, mean (SD) years: 9.6 (2.8).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 12 (54.5%).

  • FEV1 % predicted, median (IQR): 88.9% (58.6% ‐ 97.0%).

Placebo

  • Participants: n = 19.

  • Age, mean (SD) years: 10.7 (2.5).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 10 (52.6%).

  • FEV1 % predicted, median (IQR): 74.4% (51.2% ‐ 97.0%)

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: FOS (5.5 g), L paracasei (108 ‐ 109 CFU/day), L rhamnosus (108 ‐ 109 CFU/day), L acidophilus (108 ‐ 109 CFU/day), and B lactis (108 ‐ 109 CFU/day) as a powder.

  • Dose (probiotic): 4x 108 to 4x 109 CFU (108 – 109 CFU/day each strain) (1 sachet).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 90 days.

Placebo

  • Preparation: maltodextrin (6 g).

  • Dose (probiotic): 0 (1 sachet).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 90 days.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Lung function (FEV1 % predicted), mean change from baseline.

  • Weight (kg), mean change from baseline.

  • Height (kg), mean change from baseline.

  • BMI (kg/m²), mean change from baseline.

  • Serum inflammatory marker concentrations: IL‐12, TNF‐ α, IL‐10, IL‐6, IL‐1β, IL‐8, MPO and NOx, mean change from baseline.

Time points for measurements: 0 days (baseline), 90 days (completion).

Length of follow‐up: 13 weeks.

Identification

Country: Brasil.

Setting: Joana de Gusmão Children’s Hospital.

Author's name: Emilia Addison Machado Moreira.

Institution: Department of Nutrition, Graduate Program in Nutrition, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.

Email: [email protected].

Funding Source

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. UNIEDU‐Santa Catarina and the CAPES. Farmoquímica.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

No conflicts declared.

Notes

This trial recruited healthy children and adolescents aged between 1 and 16 years without CF to act as a reference for normal (e.g. inflammatory markers). These children were clinically stable for at least 30 days prior to the data collection process. Data from these healthy participants are not included in the review.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "a block randomisation process and stratified by sex and age".

Judgement comment: appropriate randomisation scheme.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "The non‐probabilistic, convenience sample was composed of 72 children and adolescents allocated".

Judgement comment: allocation concealment mechanism not specified.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind trial"

Judgement comment: participants and personnel blinded.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Judegement comment: assessor blinding not specified, however double‐blind study and all outcomes of interest objective.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "Five sets of imputed data were created".

Judegement comment: 5 sets of missing data; intention‐to‐treat analysis including a principal analysis using multiple imputations.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Judegement comment: CRP, lymphocytes and monocytes reported at baseline but not completion. Not all markers in protocol have been measured or recorded. This includes: serum IL‐17A, TGF‐beta, INF‐gamma, faecal calprotectin, intestinal microbiota and handshaking force. Adverse events not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Quote: "The authors declare that they have no competing interests."

Judegement comment: no conflicts for authors., competitive grant funding, synbiotic donated.

del Campo 2009

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: randomisation between 2 probiotic preparations, method not specified.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Participants with CF.

Exclusion criteria

  • Not specified.

Baseline characteristics

  • Participants: n = 40.

  • Age, range years: 4 ‐ 44.

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 22 (55%).

Interventions

Probiotic 1

  • Preparation: CasenBiotic (CasenFleet) 100 million (108 CFU/day), L reuteri Protectis (DSM 17938), sweeteners (isomaltose (E‐953), xylitol (E‐967)), calcium stearate, palmitic acid, citric acid, strawberry aroma as a capsule.

  • Dose (probiotic): 1 x 108 CFU/day (1 capsule).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Probiotic 2

  • Preparation: VLS3 (Faes Farma) 450 million, B breve, B longum, B infantis, L acidophilus, L plantarum, L paracasei, L delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, S thermophilus as a powder sachet.

  • Dose (probiotic): 9 x 10^11 (2 sachets).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Gastrointestinal symptoms measured using GIQLI, mean change from baseline.

  • HRQoL measured using the short form 12 (SF‐12), mean change from baseline.

Time points for measurements: baseline, 6 months.

Length of follow‐up: 24 weeks.

Identification

Sponsorship source: no stated.

Country: Spain.

Setting: Cystic Fibrosis Unit, Hospital.

Author's name: Rosa del Campo.

Institution: Cystic Fibrosis Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal. Ctra. Colmenar Km 9,1. 28034 Madrid, Spain.

Funding Source

Not specified.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

Not specified.

Notes

Abstract only.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "randomized protocol assigned correlatively"

Judgement comment: randomisation not specified.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: no specified allocation concealment method.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "capsule/day of CasenBiotic, (CasenFleet), and group B consumed 2 package/day of VLS3 (Faes Farma)."

Judgement comment: no clear blinding process. Both groups consumed probiotics and one intervention was given in a capsule and the other as a powder in a sachet.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: no clear blinding process.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: unclear how many were enrolled and how many completed.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: specific results not reported in the abstract. Adverse events not reported.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: unclear funding source or other sources of bias given abstract.

del Campo 2014

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: cross‐over, without a washout period.

Randomisation method: not specified, performed by the Biostatistics Unit of Hospital Ramón y Cajal.

Participants

Incluson criteria

  • Fully‐informed individuals with CF.

  • Aged older than 4 years who consented (their parents if under 18 years old) to participate.

Excluded criteria

  • Terminal stage of the disease.

  • Acute pulmonary exacerbation.

  • Immune‐deficient condition.

Baseline characteristics

Overall

  • Participants: n = 30.

  • Age, median (range) years: 17.7 (4 ‐ 44).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 21 (70%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 11 (37%).

  • BMI, median (range) kg/m²: 19.9 (17.6 ‐ 24.5).

  • FEV1 % predicted, median (range): 77.0% (32% ‐ 118%).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: L reuteri DSM 17938 (1 x 108 CFU/day) chewable tablet.

  • Dose (probiotic): 1 x 108 CFU/day.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Placebo

  • Preparation: chewable tablet (contents not specified).

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Gastrointestinal symptoms measured using GIQLI, post treatment absolute mean.

  • HRQoL measured using the short form 12 (SF‐12), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Weight (kg), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Height (m), post treatment absolute mean.

  • BMI (kg/m²), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Lung function (FEV1 % predicted and MMEF 25 ‐ 75%), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Faecal fat absorption measured by NIRA (gr%), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Fat absorption coefficient (%), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Faecal calprotectin (µg/g), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Faecal inflammatory interleukins: IL‐8, IL‐1β, IL‐6, IL‐10, TNF‐α and IL‐12p70 (pg/ml), post treatment absolute mean.

Secondary outcome measures

  • Adverse events including serious adverse reactions, adverse reactions and mortality.

  • Metagenomic analysis of faecal microbiota using tag‐encoded 16S rRNA gene pyro‐sequencing, post treatment relative abundance of bacterial phyla and sequence density.

Time points for measurements: 6 months.

Length of follow‐up: 24 weeks.

Identification

Country: Spain.

Setting: 2 separate CF‐Units in Spain (Madrid and Granada).

Author's name: Rosa del Campo.

Institution: Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal. Ctra. Colmenar Km 9,1. 28034 Madrid, Spain.

Funding Source

FP‐7‐HEALTHF3‐2011‐EVOTAR‐282004 project and the PI12/00734 and PI13/00205 projects supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness) and co‐financed by the European Development Regional Fund “A Way toAchieve Europe,” ERDF, and the Spanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD12/0015).

BioGaia provided the placebo formulation.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

No declaration made.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "patients were randomized".

Judgement comment: Randomisation not specified.

Author correspondence: The Biostatistics Unit of Hospital Ramón y Cajal prepared the randomisation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: allocation method not specified.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "Only the manufacturers knew the significance of the product labels and the double blind code was opened only at the end of the study".

Quote: "Active and placebo tablets and packaging were identical".

Judgement comment: only manufacturer knew labels of probiotic and placebo so all participants and personnel should have been blinded.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Judgement comment: unblinding only at the end of the trial.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "although finally only 25 pairs offered sufficient quality results, due to bad processing or abundance of unspecific sequences".

Quote: "Thirty‐nine CF patients were initially enrolled, and 30 completed the entire protocol".

Judgement comment: 23% of participants did not complete the entire protocol.16S rRNA analysis only included 25/30 pairs of samples (83%).

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Quote: "Anthropometric data, clinical status, antibiotic treatments, hospital admittances".

Judgement comment: no protocol available, unclear if clinical status data (listed) were collected throughout as not presented.

Judgement comment: 3 Spanish hospitals reported in 2013 abstract (Oral presentation in the 36th ECFC, Lisbon, 2013), however only 2 centres reported in this article.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: cross‐over study design with no true baseline data collected. Post‐probiotic and post‐placebo data pooled. Competitive grant funding. No conflicts reported.

Di Benedetto 1998

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: cross‐over, without a washout period.

Randomisation method: not specified.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Children with CF.

Exclusion criteria

  • Not specified.

Baseline characteristics

  • Participants: n = 24.

  • Age, median (range) years: 9 (5).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 13 (54.2%).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: L rhamnosus strain GG (6x 109 CFU/day) dissolved in ORS.

  • Dose (probiotic): 6x 109 CFU/day

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Placebo

  • Preparation: ORS.

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Weight (kg), mean change from baseline.

  • Incidence of abdominal pain (defined as pain on a daily basis for at least 3 days recurring at least 3 times per month for at least 3 months).

  • Number of episodes of infections requiring antibiotic treatment.

  • Steatorrhoea (measured using steatocrit method).

  • Serum iron levels, mean change from baseline.

Time points for measurements: onset, end of treatment administration, and end of subsequent placebo administration.

Length of follow‐up: 52 weeks.

Identification

Country: Italy.

Setting: CF Centre.

Author's name: Alfredo Guarino.

Institution: Department of Pediatrics, University of Naples ‘‘Federico II’’, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Email: [email protected].

Funding Source

Not specified.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

No declaration.

Notes

Abstract only.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "randomly assigned".

Judgement comment: not sure method of randomisation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: not specified.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "child's family was blind to the treatment or placebo regimen".

Judgement comment: participants blinded to treatment however investigators not.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: outcome assessors not clearly blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Judgement comment: all 24 children included.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Judgement comment: all outcome measures reported in abstract. Adverse events not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Judgement comment: no conflicts reported in abstract.

Di Nardo 2014

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: random permuted blocks algorithm.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • People with CF diagnosed based on elevated sweat chloride concentration (> 60 mEq/L).

  • FEV1 over 70% predicted.

  • No inhaled or systemic steroids.

  • No antiinflammatory drugs, anti‐leukotrienes, and mast cell membrane stabilizers.

  • No serious organ involvement.

Exclusion criteria

  • History of pulmonary exacerbation or upper respiratory infection in the previous 2 months.

  • Change of medication in the last 2 months.

  • History of haemoptysis in the last 2 months.

  • Colonization with Burkholderia cepacia or mycobacteria.

Pretreatment: mean (SD) values for FEV1 % predicted for probiotic and placebo groups were 94.7% (15.4) and 97.5% (15.2) respectively (not significant).

Baseline characteristics

Overall

  • Participants: n = 61.

  • Age, mean (SD) years: 17.5 (6 ‐ 29).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 39 (64%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 33 (54%).

Probiotic

  • Participants: n = 30.

  • Age, mean (SD) years: 19.1 (7.3).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 19 (63%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 15 (50%).

  • FEV1 % predicted, mean (SD): 94.7% (15.4%).

  • Age of P aeruginosa colonisation, mean (range) years: 7.5 (2 ‐ 14).

Placebo

  • Participants: n = 31.

  • Age, mean (SD) years: 17.2 (6.3).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 20 (65%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 18 (58%).

  • FEV1 % predicted, mean (SD): 97.5% (15.2%).

  • Age of P aeruginosa colonisation, mean (range) years: 8.1 (1 ‐ 16).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: L reuteri ATCC55730 (1010 CFU/day)

  • Dose (probiotic): 5 drops (1010 CFU/day).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Placebo

  • Preparation: placebo drops (contents not specified).

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Number of pulmonary exacerbations (defined using CF Foundation Criteria).

  • Duration (days) of antibiotic therapy for pulmonary exacerbations.

  • Number and duration (days) of hospitalisation for pulmonary exacerbations.

  • Number of gastrointestinal tract infections (diarrhoea with 3 loose or watery stools within 24 hours with or without vomiting), confirmed by physicians of the CF staff.

  • Number of respiratory tract infections (rhinitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis and otitis), confirmed by physicians of the CF staff.

Secondary outcome measures

  • Adverse events including serious adverse reactions, adverse reactions and mortality.

  • Lung function (FEV1 % predicted), mean change from baseline.

  • Faecal calprotectin (µg/g), mean change from baseline.

  • Change in qualitative and quantitative bacteria present in sputum.

  • Sputum inflammatory interleukins: IL‐8 and TNF‐α (pg/ml), mean change from baseline.

  • Serum inflammatory interleukins: IL‐8 and TNF‐α (pg/ml), mean change from baseline.

Time‐points for measurements: baseline, 6 months.

Length of follow‐up: 26 weeks.

Identification

Country: Italy.

Setting: Regional Center for CF of the Department of Pediatrics, University of Rome "La Sapienza".

Author's name: Laura Stronati.

Institution: ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Rome, Italy.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Section of Toxicology and Biomedical Sciences, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, ENEA – Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy.

Funding Source

Italchimici (Pomezia, Italy) supplied probiotic and placebo.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "allocation schedule was computer generated, using a random permuted blocks algorithm".

Judgement comment: appropriate sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "The allocation schedule was fully concealed from the doctors working in the Regional Center for CF who recruited patients to the study".

Judgement comment: appropriate allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "The unblinding procedures were performed after the study was completed and the statistical analysis carried out".

Quote: "The placebo was packed in identical bottles, had the same colour, weight, smell, and taste of the probiotic formulation".

Judgement comment: participants and personnel adequately blinded.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "Outcome measures of efficacy were recorded by investigators totally unaware of LR or placebo administration to patients".

Judgement comment: adequate blinding of assessors.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "A premature discontinuation occurred only in 1 of the placebo group for with‐ drawn consent after randomisation".

Judgement comment: 61 randomised, 1 (1.6%) withdrew consent after randomisation (placebo).

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "The duration in days of each episode corresponded to the duration of the antibiotic therapy".

Judgement comment: number of days for treatment of pulmonary exacerbation not presented.

Other bias

Low risk

Quote: "Both products were supplied by Italchimici (Pomezia, Italy), who had no role in the conception, design, conduct of the study, or in the analysis and interpretation of the data".

Judgement comment: the authors report not conflicts and pharmaceutical company played no role in study.

Fallahi 2013

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: simple randomisation.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Participants with CF, diagnosed with 2 positive sweat tests.

  • Children aged between 4 and 18 years.

  • Pancreatic insufficiency.

Exclusion criteria

  • Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID) during the last 2 weeks.

  • On antibiotic therapy at the time of the study.

Baseline characteristics

Overall

  • Participants: n = 47.

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 47 (100%).

Probiotic

  • Participants: n = 24.

  • Age, mean (SD) years: 8.56 (4.19).

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 24 (100%).

Placebo

  • Participants: n = 23.

  • Age, mean (SD) years: 8.65 (3.29).

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 23 (100%).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: Protexin Restor sachet, which contains of FOS and a mixture of 1x 109 CFU/sachet bacteria (L casei, L rhamnosus, S thermophilus, B breve, L acidophilus, B infantis, L bulgaricus).

  • Dose (probiotic): 1g sachet (1x 109 CFU/sachet).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 1 month.

Placebo

  • Preparation: 1g maltodextrin (sachet)

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 1 month.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Faecal calprotectin (µg/g), mean change from baseline

Time points for measurements: baseline, 1 month.

Length of follow‐up: 4 weeks.

Identification

Country: Iran.

Setting: The Pediatrics Center of Excellence in Iran.

Author's name: Nima Rezaei.

Institution: Molecular Immunology Research Center, and Department of Immunology, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Children Medical Center, 62 Gharib St, 14194 Tehran, Iran.

Funding Source

Sponsored by Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

No conflicts disclosed.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "patients were simply randomly divided into two groups".

Judgement comment: unclear about method of randomisation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: not specified.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "As a double‐blind study, neither the patients nor the doctors/researchers were aware of the placebo or probiotic packs".

Judgement comment: participants and personnel all blinded.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Judgement comment: not specified but outcome measure objective.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "Although 50 patients were initially selected for this study, three patients later decided not to participate in this study and did not bring the stool samples. Therefore, 47 patients were enrolled in the study".

Judgement comment: 50 participants enrolled and 47 randomised (all included).

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Judgement comment: stool calprotectin only outcome measure reported. Consistent with the protocol. Adverse events not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Judgement comment: sponsored by Tehran University of Medical Sciences. No conflicts disclosed.

Jafari 2013

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: not specified, "randomly divided".

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • CF with a positive elevated sweat chloride concentration (> 60 mEq/L), clinical symptoms and common mutations.

  • Aged 2 ‐ 12 years.

  • Absence of chronic illnesses other than CF.

  • Informed consent by parents.

Exclusion criteria

  • Congenital heart disease.

  • Abnormalities of the central nervous system.

  • Intolerance to the medication.

  • No parental consent.

  • Inability to consume probiotic because of severe disease.

Baseline characteristics

Overall

  • Participants: n = 37.

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 20 (54.1%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient (number; %): 37 (100%).

Probiotic

  • Participants: n = 20.

  • Age, median (range) years: 5.36 (2.66).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 13 (65%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient (number; %): 20 (100%).

Placebo

  • Participants: n = 17.

  • Age, median (range) years: 5.50 (2.55).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 7 (41.2%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient (number; %): 17 (100%).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: Protexin capsule containing L casei, L rhamnosus, S thermophilus, B breve, L acidophilus, B infantis, and L bulgaricus.

  • Dose (probiotic): 2 x 109 CFU/day (2 capsules).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 1 month.

Placebo

  • Preparation: capsule (contents not specified).

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 1 month.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • HRQoL measured using the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15, post treatment absolute mean 3 and 6 months after completing the intervention period.

  • Number of pulmonary exacerbations (defined using CF Foundation Criteria), post treatment absolute mean 3 months after completing the intervention period.

  • Duration (days) of hospitalisation for pulmonary exacerbations.

Time points for measurements: baseline, 1 month (end intervention), 4 months (3 months post treatment) and 7 months (6 months post treatment).

Length of follow‐up: 30 weeks.

Identification

Country: Iran.

Setting: Dr. Sheikh Pediatric Hospital CF clinic, Mashhad, Iran.

Author's name: Atieh Mehdizadeh‐Hakkak.

Institution: Cystic Fibrosis Clinic, Dr. Sheikh Pediatric Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Number 21, 12th Felestin Street, Mashhad, Iran.

Funding Source

Research Chancellor of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

No conflicts of interest.

Notes

The authors have compared probiotic participants with themselves in the previous year instead of against the placebo cohort; these data were not included in our review.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "Patients were randomly divided into two groups of probiotic and placebo".

Judgement comment: randomisation process not specified.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: not specified.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "placebo capsules which contained all ingredients of probiotic capsules except the effective substance".

Judgement comment: participants were blinded. Protocol states investigators were not blinded.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "The questionnaires were filled out by a trained nurse who was unaware about the principles of study".

Judgement comment: HRQoL assessment blinded. Pulmonary exacerbation assessment not blinded but defined based on consensus criteria.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "All patients enrolled in both groups (placebo group: 7 females, 13 males, mean age 5.36±2.66 years; placebo group: 10 females, 7 males, mean age 5.50±2.55 years) completed the study period".

Judgement comment: all participants completed.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Judgement comment: growth outcomes (weight, height, head circumference and arm circumference) included in protocol (IRCT201205219823N1 ‐ this differs from registration number listed in the article which cannot be found) and not reported in paper. Also unclear why pulmonary exacerbations were not compared between probiotic and placebo groups. Adverse events not reported.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: unclear if Probiotics International Company, UK also provided the placebo product and if they had any influence on the study.

NCT01201434

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: cross‐over design.

Randomisation method: not specified.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Mild to moderate CF.

  • At least 3 pulmonary exacerbations requiring antibiotics per year.

  • P aeruginosa in the sputum.

  • Able to produce sputum.

Exclusion criteria

  • Severe pulmonary disease.

  • Less than 3 pulmonary exacerbations per year.

  • Unable to produce sputum.

Baseline characteristics

Overall

  • Participants: n = 12 (terminated early).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: 2.5×1010 CFU/day; L acidophilus, B bifidum, L rhamnosus, L lactis, L casei, B breve, S thermophilus, B longum, L paracasei, L plantarum, B infantis (Bio‐25 probiotic).

  • Dose (probiotic): 2.5×1010 CFU/day (2 tablets).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Placebo

  • Preparation: tablet (contents not specified).

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 6 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measure

  • Rate of pulmonary exacerbations (requiring IV and oral antibiotic treatment).

Secondary outcome measures

  • Sputum bacteria.

  • Sputum inflammatory markers.

  • Gastrointestinal inflammation.

Time points for measurements: not specified.

Length of follow‐up: not specified.

Identification

Country: Israel.

Setting: Edmond and Lily Safra Children's Hospital, Sheba Medical Center.

Author's name: Dr Batia Weiss.

Institution: Pediatric Gastroenterology Unit, Edmond and Lily Safra Children's Hospital, Sheba Medical Center, Israel.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Emek Ha’ela 31, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Funding Source

Not specified.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

Not specified.

Notes

Trial was terminated in December 2013 after a severe allergic reaction (severe urticaria) for 1 participant in the probiotic group. 12 participants were enrolled at the time of termination.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information available.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information available.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Insufficient information available.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Insufficient information available.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Insufficient information available.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information available.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias).

Van Biervliet 2018

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: cross‐over, with a 1‐month washout period.

Randomisation method: not specified.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • CF diagnosis: 2 sweat tests with chloride > 60 meq/L.

  • Clinically stable: no need for acute antibiotic treatment at start of trial.

  • Pre‐pubertal children.

  • Able to perform pulmonary function test.

  • Preventive antibiotic treatment or antibiotic inhalation is allowed as long as taken 2 hours apart from probiotic and continued throughout the trial.

  • Assent from the child and consent from parents or guardian.

Exclusion criteria

  • Recent CF diagnosis (less than 6 months).

  • Commenced tube feeding in 6 months prior to trial.

  • Oral or intravenous antibiotic treatment in the last month.

  • Oral or IV steroid treatment in the last 2 months.

  • New CF complications in the last 3 months: diabetes, liver disease.

  • New colonisation in the past 3 months.

Baseline characteristics

Overall

  • Participants: n = 31.

  • Age, median (range) years: 9.3 (6.9 ‐ 12.2).

  • Gender distribution, number (%) males: 13 (41.9%).

  • F508del / F508del, number (%): 12 (38.7%).

  • Pancreatic insufficient, number (%): 26 (83.9%).

  • BMI, median (range) z score: ‐0.5 (‐1.5 ‐ 0.08).

  • FEV1 % predicted, median (range): 100% (87.2% ‐ 106.6%).

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: L rhamnosus SP1 (DSM 21690) and B animalis lactis spp. BLC1 (LMG 23512)® Vésale Pharma (vial, preparation not specified).

  • Dose (probiotic): 1010 CFU/day.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 4 months.

Placebo

  • Preparation: placebo (vial, preparation not specified).

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 4 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Number of pulmonary exacerbations (defined as a period where, due to increased pulmonary symptoms, a patient was treated with antibiotics).

  • Duration (days) of antibiotic therapy for pulmonary exacerbations.

  • BMI (z score), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Height (z score), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Weight (z score), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Lung function (FEV1 % predicted), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Lung function (FVC % predicted), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Days of abdominal pain.

  • Faecal calprotectin (mg/kg), post treatment absolute mean.

  • Gut permeability test using lactulose/mannitol, measuring urinary lactulose/mannitol; normal intestinal permeability (defined as < 0.03), % normal.

Secondary outcome measures

  • Adverse events including serious adverse reactions, adverse reactions and mortality.

  • Serum CRP (mg/mL).

  • Serum total IgG (pg/mL).

Time points for measurements: baseline, 4 months (end), 5 months (washout) and 9 months (end).

Length of follow‐up: 39 weeks.

Identification

Sponsorship source: not stated.

Country: Belgium.

Setting: 3 CF centres (Ghent, Antwerp and Brussels).

Authors name: S. Van Biervliet.

Institution: Ghent University Hospital.

Email: [email protected].

Address: Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding Source

A company (Vésale Pharma) provided the probiotic. No funding source(s) declared.

Declaration of Interest Among the Primary Researchers

No conflicts of interest statement declared.

Notes

In the first phase, 17 and 14 participants commenced the probiotic and placebo respectively.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: not specified; randomisation provided by the company who provided the probiotic.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Judgement comment: not specified.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "A double blind cross over study".

Judgement comment: probiotic and placebo vials were differentiated only by a number (personal communication).

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Judgement comment: outcome assessors were blinded (personal communication).

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Quote: "we didn't reach the acquired number needed to treat to draw firm conclusions".

Quote: "31 patients agreed, only 25 finished (3 non‐starters, 1 stopped due to diarrhoea, 2 not compliant)".

Judgement comment: 20% of participants did not finish.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Quote: "a blood sample was taken for analysis of CRP and total IgG".

Judgement comment: most reported outcomes presented but serum CRP and IgG not presented. No published protocol available.

Other bias

Low risk

Judgement comment: no conflicts identified.

B: bifidobacterium
BMI: body mass index
CF: cystic fibrosis
CFU: colony forming units
CRP: C‐reactive protein
FEV1 % predicted: forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted
FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridisation
FOS: fructooligosaccharides
FVC: forced vital capacity
GIQLI: Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index
HRQoL: health‐related quality of life
IQR: interquartile range
IV: intravenous
L: lactobacillus
LGG: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG
MD: mean difference
MMEF 25 ‐ 75%: maximal (mid‐) expiratory flow
MPO: myeloperoxidase
NIRA: near‐infrared reflectance analysis
NOx: nitric oxide metabolites
ORS: oral rehydration solution
P aeruginosa: Pseudomonas aeruginosa
PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15: Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 Short form questionnaire
RCT: randomised controlled trial
S: streptococcus
SD: standard deviation
vs: versus

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Bruzzese 2004

Ineligible design, case control trial.

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

IRCT201201258778N3

Methods

Double‐blind RCT.

Design: parallel.

Duration: 4 weeks.

Location: single centre (Children Medical Center, Tehran).

Participants

Inclusion criteria: children with CF aged between 4 and 18 years of age; either gender; pancreatic insufficient ; no NSAIDs for 2 weeks prior to enrolment.

Exclusion criteria: younger than 4 years of age; pancreatic sufficient; used NSAIDs during 2 weeks prior to enrolment.

Target sample size: 25.

Interventions

Intervention: protexin 2 sachet per day which can be mixed with yoghurt.

Placebo: maltodextrin 2 sachet per day which can be mixed in yoghurt.

Outcomes

Change in fecal calprotectin at 1 month.

Notes

Funding source: drug and placebo send by manufacturer free of charge and no payment to the Tehran Medical University for running the trial.

Contact: A/Professor Dr Farzaneh Motamed, Pediatric Gasteroentrologist, Children Medical Center, 62 Gharib St, 14194 Tehran, Iran ([email protected]).

IRCT201205219823N1

Methods

RCT.

Design: parallel.

Duration: 1 month.

Participants

Inclusion criteria: aged 2 to 12 years old; CF diagnosed by sweat testing, clinical symptoms and common mutations.

Exclusion criteria: participant intolerance to the medication; no parental consent; unable to consume probiotic because of severe disease.

37 participants randomised.

Age, range: 2 ‐ 12 years.

Gender: both.

Interventions

Intervention (n = 20): protexin, 2 capsules daily for 1 month.

Control (n = 17): usual treatment only.

Outcomes

Number of pulmonary exacerbations (at 1 and 3 months post‐intervention)

QoL (PedsQL 4.0) (at baseline and 3 and 6 months post‐intervention)

Height (at baseline and 1 and 3 months post‐intervention)

Weight (at baseline and 1 and 3 months post‐intervention)

Head circumference (at baseline and 1 and 3 months post‐intervention)

Arm circumference (at baseline and 1 and 3 months post‐intervention)

Notes

Funding source: 100% Vice Chancellor of Research, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran.

Contact: Dr. Hamidreza Kianifar, Department of Paediatrics, Ghaem Hospital, Iran ([email protected]).

CF: cystic fibrosis
NSAIDs: non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs
QoL: quality of life
RCT: randomised controlled trial

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

ACTRN12616000797471

Trial name or title

Probiotics and the EARly Life effects on intestinal bacteria and inflammation in children with Cystic Fibrosis (PEARL‐CF).

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: block randomisation.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Children aged 0 to 6 years.

  • Participants with CF must fulfil the diagnostic criteria for CF (sweat chloride ≥ 60 mmol/L and/or 2 CF‐causing mutations).

  • Healthy controls include healthy full‐term infants (38 ‐ 40 weeks gestation; > 2.5 kg birth weight), and who do not have any major non‐CF disease (e.g. spina bifida) or gut disease (e.g. inflammatory bowel disease).

Exclusion criteria

  • Participants with CF who have had previous intestinal surgery (e.g. meconium ileus) and/or have intestinal resection resulting in short gut syndrome.

  • Participants with CF already on probiotics, but who are not willing to stop supplementation for 3 months prior to randomisation.

  • Healthy controls on probiotics who are not willing to stop.

Target sample size

Probiotic group: n = 32.

Placebo group: n = 32.

Healthy controls: n = 64.

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: total of 15 strains ‐ CFU per 1 g: 10.2 Billion; B lactis BI‐04 3 Billion, L rhamnosus GG 2 Billion, L paracasei Lpc‐37 1 Billion, L plantarum Lp‐115 1 Billion, L rhamnosus HN001 500 Million, L rhamnosus Lr32 500 Million, B animalis HN019 500 Million, L salivarius subsp. salivarius Ls‐33 400 Million, S thermophiles St21 400 Million, B breve Bb‐03 200 Million, L gasseri Lg 36 200 Million, B longum BI‐05 180 Million, B infantis Bi‐26 100 Million, L reuteri 1e1 100 Million,L bulgaricus Lb‐64 100 Million. Excipient: Litesse Ultra (Polydextrose) 950 mg.

  • Dose (probiotic): 2x 1010 CFU/day (0 ‐ 3 year olds) and 3x 1010 CFU/day (over 3 years and up to 6 years).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 12 months.

Placebo

  • Preparation: placebo.

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 12 months.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Intestinal microbial alpha diversity (richness and Shannon Index).

  • Intestinal microbial beta diversity (Bray‐Curtis dissimilarity).

Secondary outcome measures

  • Faecal calprotectin (mg/kg).

  • Faecal metabolome.

  • Faecal proteome.

  • Growth (height, weight and BMI) z scores.

  • Number of pulmonary exacerbations (defined using Fuch's criteria).

  • Number of therapeutic antibiotic courses.

  • Number of hospitalisations.

  • (OPTIONAL) lung function testing.

  • HRQoL (PedsQL).

  • Gastrointestinal symptoms (PedsQL).

  • Adverse events including serious adverse reactions, adverse reactions and mortality.

Time points for measurements: baseline, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 8 months, 10 months, 12 months (end), 15 months (i.e. 3 months post‐intervention), 18 months, 21 months and 24 months (i.e. 12 months post‐intervention).

Length of follow‐up: 104 weeks.

Starting date

17 June 2016.

Contact information

Associate Professor (Keith) Chee Y. Ooi

Sydney Children's Hospital Randwick

High Street, Randwick 2031, New South Wales

Australia

Phone: +61293821752

Fax: +61293821401

Email: [email protected]

Notes

Multicentre at 5 sites: Sydney (Randwick and Westmead), Melbourne, Brisbane and Christchurch (New Zealand).

This trial is recruiting healthy controls (without CF) to act as a reference for normal (e.g. intestinal microbiota and inflammatory markers): Data from these healthy participants will not be included in the review.

IRCT2017011732004N1

Trial name or title

Effect of synbiotic supplementation in comparison with placebo on anthropometric indices, quality of life and clinical outcome in children with cystic fibrosis.

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: table of random numbers.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Children with CF.

  • Aged 5 ‐ 12 years.

Exclusion criteria

  • Having other disease including diabetes; cirrhosis; hypo‐albominemia; ventilator dependent respiratory failure.

Interventions

Probiotic

  • 2 synbiotic capsules/day containing: 109 bacteria namely L casei, L ramnosus, L bolgaricus, S thermophilus, B longum and fructo‐oligosaccharides prebiotic.

Placebo

  • 2 placebo capsules/day containing corn starch.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Anthropocentric measures (before supplementation and every month after supplementation for 6 months).

  • Antibiotic treatment (oral and IV therapy) (before supplementation and 2, 4 and 6 months after supplementation).

  • Diarrhea (before supplementation and every month after supplementation for 6 months).

  • Hospitalization (before supplementation and every month after supplementation for 6 months).

  • Quality of life (before supplementation and every month after supplementation for 6 months).

Secondary outcome measures

  • Serum total antioxidant (before and after 6 months of supplementation).

Starting date

14 February 2017.

Contact information

Assistant Professor Zeinab Nikniaz

Liver and Gastrointestinal Disease Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran.

Phone: +98 41 3336 7473.

Email address: [email protected].

Notes

NCT01837355

Trial name or title

Modulation of Intestinal and Pulmonary Inflammation by Lactobacillus Diet Supplementation in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis (MoHuM‐1).

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: cross‐over, with 1‐week washout period.

Randomisation method: not specified.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

  • Moderate to severe CF disease.

  • Aged 6 years to 20 years.

Exclusion criteria

  • Acute gastroenteritis 2 weeks prior to inclusion.

  • Chronic disease other than CF (except CF‐associated disorders).

  • Oral or parenteral antibiotics 2 weeks prior to inclusion.

  • Systemic steroids 4 weeks prior to inclusion.

  • Any probiotic intake.

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: L rhamnosus (dose and preparation not specified).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 12 weeks.

Placebo

  • Preparation: placebo (dose and preparation not specified).

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 12 weeks.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Faecal calprotectin

  • Pulmonary calprotectin

Time points for measurements: baseline, 12 weeks, 24 weeks.

Length of follow‐up: 25 weeks.

Starting date

March 2013.

Contact information

Dr Christian Kahlert, MD

Childrens's Hospital of Eastern Switzerland

St. Gallen, SG, Switzerland, 9008

Phone: +41714941111

Email address: [email protected]

Notes

RBR‐5byrsc

Trial name or title

Effect of supplementation with a synbiotic on markers of the inflammatory response in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis.

Methods

Trial design: RCT.

Trial grouping: parallel group.

Randomisation method: not specified.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

CF group

  • Children and adolescents from age zero up to 15 years.

  • Diagnosis of CF based on the sweat test (sweat chloride 60 mmol/L).

  • Clinically stable at least 30 days prior to data collection.

Controls without CF

  • Children and adolescents from age zero up to 15 years.

  • No CF.

  • Clinically stable at least 30 days prior to data collection.

Exclusion criteria

  • With fever, trauma, inflammatory diseases (asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatic disease), psychiatric, degenerative, cardiovascular, diabetes, glucose intolerance, renal failure, primary or secondary immunodeficiency.

  • Using antibiotics at baseline.

  • Using hormones, non‐hormonal anti‐inflammatory drugs, immunosuppressants and antihistamines, up to 30 days prior to data collection.

  • Experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation.

Target sample size

Probiotic group: n = 25.

Placebo group: n = 25.

Interventions

Probiotic

  • Preparation: 6 g synbiotic (fructo‐oligosaccharides, L paracasei, L rhamnosus, L acidophilus and B lactis) (dose and preparation not specified)

  • Dose (probiotic): 6 g.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 90 days.

Placebo

  • Preparation: maltodextrin 6 g (preparation not specified).

  • Dose (probiotic): 0.

  • Frequency of administration: daily.

  • Duration: 90 days.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures

  • Inflammatory markers measured by flow cytometry: IL‐1beta, IL‐8, IL‐10, IL‐17A, TGF‐beta, TNF‐alpha, INF‐gamma.

  • Intestinal microbiota (FISH).

  • Faecal calprotectin.

Secondary outcome measures

  • Pulmonary function data ‐ FEV1 % predicted, FVC.

  • Anthropometric biochemistry (BMI/age, weight/age, height/age).

  • Body composition (fat area of the arm, arm muscle area,% body fat).

  • Functional indicator of nutritional status (handshaking force).

  • Shwachman‐Kulczycki score.

  • Biochemical Indicators (total leukocytes, neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes).

Time points for measurements: baseline, 90 days.

Length of follow‐up: 13 weeks.

Starting date

03 October 2014.

Contact information

Emilia Addison Machado Moreira

Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Campus Universitário, Trindade 88.040‐97 Florianópolis Brazil

Phone: +55(48) 3721 9784

Email: [email protected]

Notes

B: bifidobacterium
BMI: body mass index
CF: cystic fibrosis
FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second
FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridisation
FVC: forced vital capacity
HRQoL: health‐related quality of life
IV: intravenous
L: lactobacillus
RCT: randomised controlled trial
S: streptococcus

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Probiotic versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pulmonary exacerbation (mean number per participant) Show forest plot

4

225

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐0.68, 0.03]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 1 Pulmonary exacerbation (mean number per participant).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 1 Pulmonary exacerbation (mean number per participant).

1.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

3

148

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.80, 0.02]

1.2 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.75, 0.95]

2 Pulmonary exacerbation (duration of antibiotic therapy ‐ any route) Show forest plot

2

127

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐9.04, 8.14]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 2 Pulmonary exacerbation (duration of antibiotic therapy ‐ any route).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 2 Pulmonary exacerbation (duration of antibiotic therapy ‐ any route).

2.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐12.89, 8.89]

2.2 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.10 [‐11.88, 16.08]

3 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) Show forest plot

4

177

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐47.41 [‐93.28, ‐1.54]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 3 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 3 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g).

3.1 Up to 3 months

2

69

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐105.02 [‐205.23, ‐4.81]

3.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

2

108

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐32.14 [‐83.73, 19.45]

4 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

3

130

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐31.17 [‐81.56, 19.22]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 4 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 4 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis.

4.1 Up to 3 months

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐11.0 [‐246.06, 224.06]

4.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

2

108

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐32.14 [‐83.73, 19.45]

5 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

3

119

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐45.46 [‐176.25, 85.32]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 5 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 5 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis.

5.1 Up to 3 months

2

69

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐107.29 [‐171.20, ‐43.38]

5.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

77.0 [3.11, 150.89]

6 Serum cytokines Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 6 Serum cytokines.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 6 Serum cytokines.

6.1 TNF‐α (pg/ml)

2

89

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.72, 1.13]

6.2 IL‐8 (pg/ml)

2

95

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

26.93 [‐46.25, 100.11]

6.3 IL‐1β (pg/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.28, 0.88]

6.4 IL‐6 (pg/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.68, 0.10]

6.5 IL‐10 (pg/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.05 [‐0.43, 0.33]

6.6 NOx (μmol/L)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.26, 0.42]

6.7 IL‐12 (pg/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.10, 0.96]

6.8 MPO (mU/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.14, 0.24]

7 Sputum cytokines ‐ change from baseline Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 7 Sputum cytokines ‐ change from baseline.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 7 Sputum cytokines ‐ change from baseline.

7.1 TNF‐α (pg/ml)

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.94, 0.54]

7.2 IL‐8 (pg/ml)

1

54

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.92, 0.52]

8 Adverse events Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 8 Adverse events.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 8 Adverse events.

8.1 Mortality (all causes)

5

310

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 Serious adverse reaction

5

310

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 67.06]

8.3 Adverse reaction

5

310

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.49, 18.46]

9 Height (z score) ‐ post treatment Show forest plot

2

91

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.27, 0.47]

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 9 Height (z score) ‐ post treatment.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 9 Height (z score) ‐ post treatment.

9.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [‐0.62, 1.04]

9.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.34, 0.48]

10 Weight (z score) ‐ post treatment Show forest plot

2

91

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐0.51, 0.05]

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 10 Weight (z score) ‐ post treatment.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 10 Weight (z score) ‐ post treatment.

10.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.4 [‐0.70, ‐0.10]

10.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.30, 0.08]

11 Weight (kg) ‐ change from baseline Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 11 Weight (kg) ‐ change from baseline.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 11 Weight (kg) ‐ change from baseline.

11.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.2 [‐0.04, 2.44]

12 BMI (z score) Show forest plot

2

91

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.02 [‐0.25, 0.22]

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 12 BMI (z score).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 12 BMI (z score).

12.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.54, 0.32]

12.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.26, 0.31]

13 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) Show forest plot

5

284

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.36 [‐1.20, 3.91]

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 13 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 13 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted).

13.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐8.07 [‐19.87, 3.73]

13.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

3

166

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.22 [‐0.51, 4.94]

13.3 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.80 [‐12.13, 6.53]

14 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

3

166

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.22 [‐0.51, 4.94]

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 14 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 14 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis.

14.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

3

166

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.22 [‐0.51, 4.94]

15 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

3

168

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.31 [‐7.10, 4.48]

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 15 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 15 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis.

15.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.40 [‐14.48, 11.68]

15.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐8.85, 9.05]

15.3 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.80 [‐12.13, 6.53]

16 Hospitalisations (number ‐ all causes) Show forest plot

2

115

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐1.41, 0.54]

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 16 Hospitalisations (number ‐ all causes).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 16 Hospitalisations (number ‐ all causes).

16.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.0 [‐1.74, ‐0.26]

16.2 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.25, 0.25]

17 HRQoL (validated questionnaire) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 17 HRQoL (validated questionnaire).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 17 HRQoL (validated questionnaire).

17.1 PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 ‐ Parent Report (performed 3 months post 1 month intervention period)

1

37

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.19, 1.55]

17.2 PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 ‐ Child Report (performed 3 months post 1 month intervention period)

1

37

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [‐0.07, 1.26]

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 1 Pulmonary exacerbation (mean number per participant).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 1 Pulmonary exacerbation (mean number per participant).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 2 Pulmonary exacerbation (duration of antibiotic therapy ‐ any route).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 2 Pulmonary exacerbation (duration of antibiotic therapy ‐ any route).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 3 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 3 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 4 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 4 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 5 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 5 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 6 Serum cytokines.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 6 Serum cytokines.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 7 Sputum cytokines ‐ change from baseline.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 7 Sputum cytokines ‐ change from baseline.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 8 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 8 Adverse events.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 9 Height (z score) ‐ post treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 9 Height (z score) ‐ post treatment.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 10 Weight (z score) ‐ post treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 10 Weight (z score) ‐ post treatment.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 11 Weight (kg) ‐ change from baseline.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 11 Weight (kg) ‐ change from baseline.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 12 BMI (z score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 12 BMI (z score).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 13 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 13 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 14 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 14 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 15 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 15 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 16 Hospitalisations (number ‐ all causes).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 16 Hospitalisations (number ‐ all causes).

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 17 HRQoL (validated questionnaire).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Probiotic versus placebo, Outcome 17 HRQoL (validated questionnaire).

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Probiotics compared to placebo for children and adults with CF

Probiotics compared to placebo for children and adults with CF

Patient or population: children and adults with CF
Setting: outpatients
Intervention: probiotics
Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(RCTs)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with placebo

Risk with probiotics

Number of pulmonary exacerbations
Follow‐up: 4 weeks ‐ 12 months

The mean (range) number of pulmonary exacerbations in the placebo group was 1.42 (0.37 to 2.2) episodes per participant.

The mean number of pulmonary exacerbations in the probiotics group was 0.32 episodes per participant lower (0.68 lower to 0.03 higher).

NA

225
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
lowa,b,c

Probiotics probably reduce pulmonary exacerbations (mean number per participant) slightly.

Faecal calprotectin
Follow‐up: 4 weeks ‐ 6 months

The mean (range) faecal calprotectin in the placebo group was 132.9 µg/g (67 µg/g to 182.1 µg/g).

The mean faecal calprotectin in the probiotics group was 47.4 µg/g lower (93.28 lower to 1.54 lower).

NA

177
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
lowa,c

Probiotics result in a reduction in faecal calprotectin.

Adverse events (serious adverse reaction and adverse reaction)
Follow‐up: 4 months ‐ 6 months

There were 0 adverse events in the placebo group.

There were 4 adverse events in the probiotics group.

RR 3.00
(0.49 to 18.46)

310
(5 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
lowa,b,c

Probiotics result in a small number of adverse events. The terminated RCT reported a serious adverse event (severe urticaria) in 1 participant on probiotics. No mortalities were reported in any included RCTs.

Weight (z score)
Follow‐up: up to 6 months

The mean (range) weight (z score) in the placebo group was ‐1.2 (‐1.79 to ‐0.81).

The mean weight (z score) in the probiotics group was0.24 SD lower (0.52 lower to 0.05 higher).

NA

91
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
lowa,b,c

Insufficient evidence to determine if probiotics result in little to no difference in weight. A third RCT (n = 38) reported weight in kg and also reported no significant difference in weight.

Lung function (FEV1 % predicted)
Follow‐up: 3 months ‐ 4 months

The mean (range) FEV1 (% predicted) in the placebo group was 84.8% (52.7% to 104%)

The mean FEV1 (% predicted) in the probiotics group was 1.36% higher (1.20 lower to 3.91 higher).

NA

284
(5 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
lowa,b,c

Insufficient evidence to determine if probiotics result in little to no difference in lung function (FEV1 % predicted).

Hospitalisations (all causes)
Follow‐up: 3 months ‐ 12 months

The mean number of hospitalisations (all causes) in the placebo group was 0.53 admissions per participant.

The mean number of hospitalisations in the probiotics group was 0.44 admissions per participant lower (1.41 lower to 0.54 higher).

NA

115
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
lowa,b,c

Insufficient evidence to determine if probiotics result in little to no difference in hospitalisation rates.

HRQoL (PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 (Scale from: 0 to 100))
Follow‐up: median 4 weeks

The mean HRQoL score from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 ‐ Parent Report in the placebo group was 81.4.

The standardised mean HRQoL score from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 ‐ Parent Report in the probiotics group was 0.87 SD higher (0.19 higher to 1.55 higher).

NA

37
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
lowa,c,d

Insufficient evidence to determine if probiotics result in a small effect in HRQoL.

The mean HRQoL score from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 ‐ Child Report in the placebo group was 85.9.

The standardised mean HRQoL score from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 ‐ Child Report in the probiotics group was 0.59 SD higher (0.07 lower to 1.26 higher).

NA

37
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
lowa,c,d

Insufficient evidence to determine if probiotics result in a small effect in HRQoL.

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; FEV1 : forced expiratory volume in 1 second; HRQoL: health‐related quality of life; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SD: standard deviation.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

a Downgraded once due to high risk of bias due to selective reporting.

b Downgraded due to high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data.

c Downgraded due to lack of generalisability as majority of the studies only include children.

d Downgraded due to high risk of bias due to blinding.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Probiotics compared to placebo for children and adults with CF
Comparison 1. Probiotic versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pulmonary exacerbation (mean number per participant) Show forest plot

4

225

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐0.68, 0.03]

1.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

3

148

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.80, 0.02]

1.2 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.75, 0.95]

2 Pulmonary exacerbation (duration of antibiotic therapy ‐ any route) Show forest plot

2

127

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐9.04, 8.14]

2.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐12.89, 8.89]

2.2 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.10 [‐11.88, 16.08]

3 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) Show forest plot

4

177

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐47.41 [‐93.28, ‐1.54]

3.1 Up to 3 months

2

69

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐105.02 [‐205.23, ‐4.81]

3.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

2

108

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐32.14 [‐83.73, 19.45]

4 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

3

130

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐31.17 [‐81.56, 19.22]

4.1 Up to 3 months

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐11.0 [‐246.06, 224.06]

4.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

2

108

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐32.14 [‐83.73, 19.45]

5 Faecal calprotectin (µg/g) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

3

119

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐45.46 [‐176.25, 85.32]

5.1 Up to 3 months

2

69

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐107.29 [‐171.20, ‐43.38]

5.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

77.0 [3.11, 150.89]

6 Serum cytokines Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 TNF‐α (pg/ml)

2

89

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.72, 1.13]

6.2 IL‐8 (pg/ml)

2

95

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

26.93 [‐46.25, 100.11]

6.3 IL‐1β (pg/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.28, 0.88]

6.4 IL‐6 (pg/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.68, 0.10]

6.5 IL‐10 (pg/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.05 [‐0.43, 0.33]

6.6 NOx (μmol/L)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.26, 0.42]

6.7 IL‐12 (pg/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.10, 0.96]

6.8 MPO (mU/ml)

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.14, 0.24]

7 Sputum cytokines ‐ change from baseline Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 TNF‐α (pg/ml)

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.94, 0.54]

7.2 IL‐8 (pg/ml)

1

54

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.92, 0.52]

8 Adverse events Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Mortality (all causes)

5

310

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 Serious adverse reaction

5

310

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 67.06]

8.3 Adverse reaction

5

310

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.49, 18.46]

9 Height (z score) ‐ post treatment Show forest plot

2

91

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.27, 0.47]

9.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [‐0.62, 1.04]

9.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.34, 0.48]

10 Weight (z score) ‐ post treatment Show forest plot

2

91

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐0.51, 0.05]

10.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.4 [‐0.70, ‐0.10]

10.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.30, 0.08]

11 Weight (kg) ‐ change from baseline Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.2 [‐0.04, 2.44]

12 BMI (z score) Show forest plot

2

91

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.02 [‐0.25, 0.22]

12.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.54, 0.32]

12.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.26, 0.31]

13 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) Show forest plot

5

284

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.36 [‐1.20, 3.91]

13.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐8.07 [‐19.87, 3.73]

13.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

3

166

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.22 [‐0.51, 4.94]

13.3 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.80 [‐12.13, 6.53]

14 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ change from baseline ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

3

166

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.22 [‐0.51, 4.94]

14.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

3

166

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.22 [‐0.51, 4.94]

15 Lung function (FEV1 % predicted) ‐ post treatment ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

3

168

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.31 [‐7.10, 4.48]

15.1 Up to 3 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.40 [‐14.48, 11.68]

15.2 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐8.85, 9.05]

15.3 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.80 [‐12.13, 6.53]

16 Hospitalisations (number ‐ all causes) Show forest plot

2

115

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐1.41, 0.54]

16.1 Over 3 months and up to 6 months

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.0 [‐1.74, ‐0.26]

16.2 Over 9 months and up to 12 months

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.25, 0.25]

17 HRQoL (validated questionnaire) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

17.1 PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 ‐ Parent Report (performed 3 months post 1 month intervention period)

1

37

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.19, 1.55]

17.2 PedsQLTM 4.0 SF 15 ‐ Child Report (performed 3 months post 1 month intervention period)

1

37

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [‐0.07, 1.26]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Probiotic versus placebo