Comparing probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Clinical decisions made by health professionals to recommend either drug or probiotic interventions for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) should be supported by proper knowledge of the efficacy rates of both types of interventions. In this article, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of both probiotic- and drug interventions in IBS. Medline was searched between January 2015 - January 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) recruiting participants > 18 years old with IBS and examining the effect of probiotics or drugs were eligible for inclusion. The data of the primary outcome, i.e. the persistence of IBS symptoms (dichotomous symptom data), were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes, abdominal pain- and bloating scores (continuous data), were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. The search identified 269 citations of which 32 RCTs were eligible. Our meta-analysis indicated that both probiotic and drug interventions are able to improve the persistence of IBS symptoms (RR 0.60 [0.51; 0.92] versus 0.87 [0.81; 0.92], respectively) and abdominal pain scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35 [-0.56; -0.14] versus -0.10 [-0.20; 0.00], respectively). However, determining the overall efficacy of both intervention types is inherently complex and such results should be interpreted with care, due to the large diversity of probiotic- and drug types and doses, which is also complicated by variety in IBS subtypes. Hence, as a first step, more large scale randomised double blind placebo-controlled trials focussing on a specific IBS subtype targeted with specific probiotic strains or specific pharmaceutical modalities should be executed, enabling a more proper comparison between trials.

Inadequate safety reporting in the publications of randomised clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome: drug versus probiotic interventions.

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) offer a unique opportunity to obtain controlled efficacy and safety data to support clinical decisions. However, most RCT reporting has a stronger focus on efficacy rather than safety. This study aimed to identify the safety profile of both probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In connection to this paper, an accompanying paper was published in which a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of probiotic interventions compared to that of drug interventions in IBS. Together, these two studies provide a first assessment regarding the feasibility to determine a burden to benefit ratio for both probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. RCTs including participants (>18 years old) with IBS and comparing probiotic or drugs interventions with control groups were identified by a systematic search of MEDLINE (January 2015 - Jan 2021). Reported safety profiles in drug studies were completer and more detailed as compared with studies on probiotics. Several inconsistencies in safety reporting were identified between and within drug and probiotic studies, such as: didn't report on safety; only reported adverse reactions (ARs) or adverse events (AEs) with a certain severity; didn't report the total number of AEs; didn't split in the control- or experimental arm; didn't specify AEs; and used different thresholds for 'common' AEs. Hence, it is difficult to compare safety data from drug and probiotic RCTs across and between different studies. On the current approaches to safety reporting, we could not establish an unambiguous safety profile for neither probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. These shortcomings hamper a critical comparison of the burden to benefit ratio for IBS intervention.

Multispecies probiotics promote perceived human health and wellbeing: insights into the value of retrospective studies on user experiences.

When taking a broader perspective on the societal impact of probiotics, engagement of end-users is important to discover unmet needs, define relevant health benefits and identify key considerations for successful implementation in daily practice. This study therefore takes a retrospective approach and analyses a database of user experiences to review the effects of four multispecies probiotic formulations. The user experiences were analysed in a dependent sample manner (without control group) and complement previous randomised controlled trials that have been performed with the formulations. The database consisted of 584 evaluable user experiences regarding the impact of probiotic supplementation on perceived quality of life (QoL), gastrointestinal (GIT) symptoms and reported stool consistency after two weeks of consumption. Two different scales were used (n=344 in a 5-point scale; n=240 in a 10-point scale), which are presented as separate analyses. In the combined population of the 5-point-scale questionnaire, a significant increase in perceived QoL and a significant reduction in perceived GIT symptoms was observed. Descriptive summaries also indicate that diarrhoea- and constipation-like stool patterns are reduced following supplementation. Moreover, half of participants indicated that probiotic supplementation had a positive effect on their unmet medical need, and 64% of users were likely to continue using the product. Similar results were observed in the 10-point scale questionnaire. Considering the clinical relevance of probiotic supplementation in specific target groups, subgroup analyses were performed on participants who consumed the products for diarrhoea, constipation, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and antibiotic usage. Overall, findings support the potential of probiotics to advance perceived human health and support the daily wellbeing of users. This systematic analysis of user experiences thereby contributes to the external validity of studies evaluating clinical effects of probiotics and increases knowledge on their societal impact.