Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

The study found no evidence that probiotic administration was effective in preventing antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (ADD). Although there was a trend towards reduced Clostridium difficile diarrhoea (CDD) in the probiotic arm, the administration of this probiotic seems unlikely to benefit older patients exposed to antibiotics. Alternative probiotic preparations may be effective in the prevention of AAD; however, a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying AAD and the strain specific effects of probiotics is required.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

SJ Allen,1,* K Wareham,2 D Wang,3 C Bradley,4 B Sewell,5 H Hutchings,1 W Harris,6 A Dhar,4 H Brown,4 A Foden,4 MB Gravenor,1 D Mack,1,7 CJ Phillips,5 

1 College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
2 Clinical Research Unit, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
3 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
4 County Durham and Darlington Foundation Trust, Darlington Memorial Hospital, Darlington, County Durham, UK
5 Swansea Centre for Health Economics, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
6 Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK
7 Bioscientia Labor Ingelheim, Institut für Medizinische Diagnostik GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany
* Corresponding author ; Email: s.j.allen@swansea.ac.uk

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue:{{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://dx.doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) occurs most commonly in older people admitted to hospital and within 12 weeks of exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics. Although usually a mild and self-limiting illness, the 15-39% of cases caused by Clostridium difficile infection [C. difficile diarrhoea (CDD)] may result in severe diarrhoea and death. Previous research has shown that probiotics, live microbial organisms that, when administered in adequate numbers, are beneficial to health, may be effective in preventing AAD and CDD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a high-dose, multistrain probiotic in the prevention of AAD and CDD in older people admitted to hospital.

DESIGN

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trial.

SETTING

Medical, surgical and elderly care inpatient wards in five NHS hospitals in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were aged â ¥â 65 years, were exposed to one or more oral or parenteral antibiotics and were without pre-existing diarrhoeal disorders, recent CDD or at risk of probiotic adverse effects. Out of 17,420 patients screened, 2981 (17.1%) were recruited. Participants were allocated sequentially according to a computer-generated random allocation sequence; 1493 (50.1%) were allocated to the probiotic and 1488 (49.9%) to the placebo arm.

INTERVENTIONS

Vegetarian capsules containing two strains of lactobacilli and two strains of bifidobacteria (a total of 6â Ã â 10(10) organisms per day) were taken daily for 21 days. The placebo was inert maltodextrin powder in identical capsules.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The occurrence of AAD within 8 weeks and CDD within 12 weeks of recruitment was determined by participant follow-up and checking hospital laboratory records by research nurses who were blind to arm allocation.

RESULTS

Analysis based on the treatment allocated included 2941 (98.7%) participants. Potential risk factors for AAD at baseline were similar in the two study arms. Frequency of AAD (including CDD) was similar in the probiotic (159/1470, 10.8%) and placebo arms [153/1471, 10.4%; relative risk (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.28; pâ =â 0.71]. CDD was an uncommon cause of AAD and occurred in 12/1470 (0.8%) participants in the probiotic and 17/1471 (1.2%) in the placebo arm (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.47; pâ =â 0.35). Duration and severity of diarrhoea, common gastrointestinal symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life measures were also similar in the two arms. Total health-care costs per patient did not differ significantly between the probiotic (£8020; 95% CI £7620 to £8420) and placebo (£8010; 95% CI £7600 to £8420) arms.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that probiotic administration was effective in preventing AAD. Although there was a trend towards reduced CDD in the probiotic arm, on balance, the administration of this probiotic seems unlikely to benefit older patients exposed to antibiotics. A better understanding of the pathogenesis of AAD and CDD and the strain-specific effects of probiotics is needed before further clinical trials of specific microbial preparations are undertaken. Evaluation of the effectiveness of other probiotics will be difficult where other measures, such as antibiotic stewardship, have reduced CDD rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN70017204.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) occurs most commonly in older people admitted to hospital and within 12 weeks of exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics. Although usually a mild and self-limiting illness, the 15-39% of cases caused by Clostridium difficile infection [C. difficile diarrhoea (CDD)] may result in severe diarrhoea and death. Previous research has shown that probiotics, live microbial organisms that, when administered in adequate numbers, are beneficial to health, may be effective in preventing AAD and CDD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a high-dose, multistrain probiotic in the prevention of AAD and CDD in older people admitted to hospital.

DESIGN

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trial.

SETTING

Medical, surgical and elderly care inpatient wards in five NHS hospitals in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were aged â ¥â 65 years, were exposed to one or more oral or parenteral antibiotics and were without pre-existing diarrhoeal disorders, recent CDD or at risk of probiotic adverse effects. Out of 17,420 patients screened, 2981 (17.1%) were recruited. Participants were allocated sequentially according to a computer-generated random allocation sequence; 1493 (50.1%) were allocated to the probiotic and 1488 (49.9%) to the placebo arm.

INTERVENTIONS

Vegetarian capsules containing two strains of lactobacilli and two strains of bifidobacteria (a total of 6â Ã â 10(10) organisms per day) were taken daily for 21 days. The placebo was inert maltodextrin powder in identical capsules.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The occurrence of AAD within 8 weeks and CDD within 12 weeks of recruitment was determined by participant follow-up and checking hospital laboratory records by research nurses who were blind to arm allocation.

RESULTS

Analysis based on the treatment allocated included 2941 (98.7%) participants. Potential risk factors for AAD at baseline were similar in the two study arms. Frequency of AAD (including CDD) was similar in the probiotic (159/1470, 10.8%) and placebo arms [153/1471, 10.4%; relative risk (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.28; pâ =â 0.71]. CDD was an uncommon cause of AAD and occurred in 12/1470 (0.8%) participants in the probiotic and 17/1471 (1.2%) in the placebo arm (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.47; pâ =â 0.35). Duration and severity of diarrhoea, common gastrointestinal symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life measures were also similar in the two arms. Total health-care costs per patient did not differ significantly between the probiotic (£8020; 95% CI £7620 to £8420) and placebo (£8010; 95% CI £7600 to £8420) arms.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that probiotic administration was effective in preventing AAD. Although there was a trend towards reduced CDD in the probiotic arm, on balance, the administration of this probiotic seems unlikely to benefit older patients exposed to antibiotics. A better understanding of the pathogenesis of AAD and CDD and the strain-specific effects of probiotics is needed before further clinical trials of specific microbial preparations are undertaken. Evaluation of the effectiveness of other probiotics will be difficult where other measures, such as antibiotic stewardship, have reduced CDD rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN70017204.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

 

Responses to this report

 

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions