Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJohnston, BC
dc.contributor.authorLytvyn, L
dc.contributor.authorLo, CK-F
dc.contributor.authorAllen, SJ
dc.contributor.authorWang, D
dc.contributor.authorSzajewska, H
dc.contributor.authorMiller, M
dc.contributor.authorEhrhardt, S
dc.contributor.authorSampalis, J
dc.contributor.authorDuman, DG
dc.contributor.authorPozzoni, P
dc.contributor.authorColli, A
dc.contributor.authorLönnermark, E
dc.contributor.authorSelinger, CP
dc.contributor.authorWong, S
dc.contributor.authorPlummer, S
dc.contributor.authorHickson, Mary
dc.contributor.authorPancheva, R
dc.contributor.authorHirsch, S
dc.contributor.authorKlarin, B
dc.contributor.authorGoldenberg, JZ
dc.contributor.authorWang, L
dc.contributor.authorMbuagbauw, L
dc.contributor.authorFoster, G
dc.contributor.authorMaw, A
dc.contributor.authorSadeghirad, B
dc.contributor.authorThabane, L
dc.contributor.authorMertz, D
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-20T11:09:04Z
dc.date.issued2018-07
dc.identifier.issn0899-823X
dc.identifier.issn1559-6834
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/11863
dc.description.abstract

OBJECTIVETo determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults and children.DESIGNIndividual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), adjusting for risk factors.METHODSWe 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.RESULTSProbiotics 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.CONCLUSIONSModerate 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%.TRIAL REGISTRATIONPROSPERO 2015 identifier: CRD42015015701Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;771-781.

dc.format.extent771-781
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherCambridge University Press (CUP)
dc.subjectAdolescent
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAnti-Bacterial Agents
dc.subjectChild
dc.subjectChild, Preschool
dc.subjectClostridium Infections
dc.subjectCross Infection
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectInfant
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectProbiotics
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.subjectRisk Factors
dc.subjectYoung Adult
dc.titleMicrobial Preparations (Probiotics) for the Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of 6,851 Participants.
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeMeta-Analysis
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29695312
plymouth.issue7
plymouth.volume39
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/ice.2018.84
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Health Professions
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-03-13
dc.rights.embargodate2019-4-26
dc.identifier.eissn1559-6834
dc.rights.embargoperiod12 months
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1017/ice.2018.84
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-07
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV