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.

Dealing with the remaining controversies of probiotic safety.

A clear safety profile of probiotics in clinical practice is essential in decision-making for all stakeholders and regulators. Probiotics have been investigated in different target populations, conditions and age groups. This also includes the use of probiotics in critically ill patients. Despite promising results reported with the use of probiotics and synbiotics, there is still a lively discussion regarding the proper and safe use of probiotics among physicians, researchers and regulators. This doubt and debate was sparked by the high incidence in mortality reported in a study with critically ill patients. Whereas no causal relationship has been established since, safety of probiotic has been questioned. In response, an overwhelming body of evidence suggesting that probiotics are safe has been compiled. Moreover, data indicates that probiotics reduce the number of adverse events compared to the control. However, due to a lack of standardised safety reporting in clinical studies, a strong evidence base on probiotic safety remains to be established. Here, we will discuss: (1) the rationale for using probiotics in the critically ill; (2) what happened during the Dutch Pancreatitis trial; (3) what are the known safety risks of probiotics based on the available data; and finally (4) how standardisation in safety reporting can drive probiotic innovation. Building a strong safety profile for probiotic strains will solidify its use in individuals that can benefit the most from microbial modulation.

Safety of probiotics and synbiotics in children under 18 years of age.

This study aimed to systematically evaluate safety of probiotics and synbiotics in children ageing 0-18 years. This study is the third and final part in a safety trilogy and an update is provided using the most recent available clinical data (2008-2013) by means of the Common Terminology Clinical Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.0) classification. Safety aspects are represented and related to number of participants per probiotic strain/culture, study duration, dosage, clinical condition and selected afflictions. Analysis of 74 clinical studies indicated that probiotic and/or synbiotic administration in children is safe with regard to the specific evaluated strains, dosages and duration. The population of children include healthy, immune compromised and obese subjects, as well as subjects with intestinal disorders, infections and inflammatory disorders. This study revealed no major safety concerns, as the adverse events (AEs) were unrelated, or not suspected to be related, to the probiotic or synbiotic product. In general the study products were well tolerated. Overall, AEs occurred more frequent in the control arm compared to children receiving probiotics and/or synbiotics. Furthermore, the results indicate inadequate reporting and classification of AEs in the majority of the studies. In addition, generalizability of conclusions are greatly limited by the inconsistent, imprecise and potentially incomplete reporting as well as the variation in probiotic strains, dosages, administration regimes, study populations and reported outcomes.

Improving the bowel habits of elderly residents in a nursing home using probiotic fermented milk.

Our aim was to determine whether a fermented milk drink containing probiotics could improve the bowel habits of frail elderly individuals living in a nursing home. A total of 135 participants were enrolled in this pilot study. The bowel habits (stool quality and bowel movements) were recorded by nursing staff during a baseline period of 3 weeks. After this period participants received daily a fermented milk drink containing minimally 6.5×10(9) colony forming units of Lactobacillus casei Shirota (LcS) for 6 weeks. During this period, bowel habits were recorded and compared to baseline period. Forty-four participants (74-99 years old) were compliant and used for analysis. Consumption of fermented milk containing LcS significantly increased the percentage of ideal stool types per week (P<0.01), lowered the percentage of constipation stool types per week (P<0.01) and significantly lowered the percentage of diarrhoea stool types per week (P=0.016) as compared to the baseline period. The study product had no significant effect on bowel movements. During the study, no changes in laxative usage or adverse events associated with the study product were reported. Our results suggest that a fermented milk containing LcS significantly improves the bowel habits of frail elderly residents in a nursing home. These promising results should be further substantiated by a confirmatory study.

The administration of probiotics and synbiotics in immune compromised adults: is it safe?

This study aimed to systematically evaluate safety of probiotics and synbiotics in immune compromised adults (≥18 years). Safety was analysed using the Common Terminology Clinical Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.0) classification, thereby providing an update on previous reports using the most recent available clinical data (2008-2013). Safety aspects are represented and related to number of participants per probiotic strain/culture, study duration, dosage, clinical condition and selected afflictions. Analysis of 57 clinical studies indicates that probiotic and/or synbiotic administration in immune compromised adults is safe with regard to the current evaluated probiotic strains, dosages and duration. Individuals were considered immune compromised if HIV-infected, critically ill, underwent surgery or had an organ- or an autoimmune disease. There were no major safety concerns in the study, as none of the serious adverse events (AE)s were related, or suspected to be related, to the probiotic or synbiotic product and the study products were well tolerated. Overall, AEs occurred less frequent in immune compromised subjects receiving probiotics and/or synbiotics compared to the control group. In addition, the results demonstrated a flaw in precise reporting and classification of AE in most studies. Furthermore, generalisability of conclusions are greatly limited by the inconsistent, imprecise and potentially incomplete reporting as well as the variation in probiotic strains, dosages, administration regimes, study populations and reported outcomes. We argue that standardised reporting on adverse events (CTCAE) in 'food' studies should be obligatory, thereby improving reliability of data and re-enforcing the safety profile of probiotics.

Probiotic and synbiotic safety in infants under two years of age.

In this study, we systematically evaluated safety aspects in clinical trials with probiotics and synbiotics in young infants (0-2 years of age). This study is an update of earlier reports and covers the recent literature from 2008-2013. The safety evaluation is performed along the Common Terminology Clinical Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 scale, hereby also providing guidance for future studies. Safety aspects are represented and related to number of participants per probiotic strain/culture, study duration, dosage, clinical condition and selected afflictions. The results show a deficiency in the precise reporting and classification of adverse events in most studies. Analysis of 57 clinical trials with probiotics and synbiotics in combination with eight follow-up studies indicate that probiotic administration to infants between 0 and 24 months is safe with regard to the evaluated strains in infants with a particular health status or susceptibility. Most adverse events and serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the study product, and there were no major safety concerns. Almost all studies concluded that none of the adverse effects were related to the study product; the study products are generally well tolerated. Finally, inconsistent, imprecise and potentially incomplete reporting as well as the variation in probiotic strains, dosages, administration regimes, study populations and reported outcomes, greatly limit the generalizability of conclusions and argue convincingly for obligatory and standardised behaviour on adverse events (CTCAE) reporting in 'food' studies.