Artículo de revista
Microbial preparations (probiotics) for the prevention of Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: an individual patient data meta-analysis of 6,851 participants
Fecha
2018-07Registro en:
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology; 39(7), julio 2018, 771-781 pp.
0899-823X
10.1017/ice.2018.84
Autor
Johnston, Bradley C.
Lytvyn, Lyubov
Calvin, Ka-Fung Lo
Allen, Stephen
Wang, Duolao
Szajewska, Hania
Miller, Mark
Ehrhardt, Stephan
Sampalis, John
Duman, Deniz
Pozzoni, Pietro
Colli, Agostino
Lonnermark, Elisabet
Selinger, Christian
Wong, Samford
Plummer, Susan
Hickson, Mary
Pancheva, Ruzha
Hirsch Birn, Sandra
Klarin, Bengt
Goldenberg, Joshua
Wang, Li
Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
Foster, Gary
Maw, Anna
Sadeghirad, Behnam
Thabane, Lehana
Mertz, Dominik
Institución
Resumen
OBJECTIVE. To determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults and children.
DESIGN. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), adjusting for risk factors.
METHODS. We searched 6 databases and 11 grey literature sources from inception to April 2016. We identified 32 RCTs (n=8,713); among them, 18 RCTs provided IPD (n=6,851 participants) comparing probiotic prophylaxis to placebo or no treatment (standard care). One reviewer prepared the IPD, and 2 reviewers extracted data, rated study quality, and graded evidence quality.
RESULTS. Probiotics reduced CDI odds in the unadjusted model (n=6,645; odds ratio [OR] 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.55) and the adjusted model (n=5,074; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.55). Using 2 or more antibiotics increased the odds of CDI (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.11-4.37), whereas age, sex, hospitalization status, and high-risk antibiotic exposure did not. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that, compared to no probiotics, multispecies probiotics were more beneficial than single-species probiotics, as was using probiotics in clinical settings where the CDI risk is 5%. Of 18 studies, 14 reported adverse events. In 11 of these 14 studies, the adverse events were retained in the adjusted model. Odds for serious adverse events were similar for both groups in the unadjusted analyses (n=4,990; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26) and adjusted analyses (n=4,718; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28). Missing outcome data for CDI ranged from 0% to 25.8%. Our analyses were robust to a sensitivity analysis for missingness.
CONCLUSIONS. Moderate quality (ie, certainty) evidence suggests that probiotic prophylaxis may be a useful and safe CDI prevention strategy, particularly among participants taking 2 or more antibiotics and in hospital settings where the risk of CDI is >= 5%.