Positive Health Outcomes Associated with Live Microbe Intake from Foods, Including Fermented Foods, Assessed using the NHANES Database.

BACKGROUND: Live dietary microbes have been hypothesized to contribute to human health but direct evidence is lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether the dietary consumption of live microbes is linked to improved health outcomes. METHODS: Data from the NHANES 2001-2018 were used to assess microbial intake and their adjusted associations with selected physiological parameters (e.g., blood pressure, anthropometric measures, and biomarkers) among adults aged 19 y and older. Regression models were constructed to assess the microbial intake with each physiological parameter and adjusted for demographics and other covariates. Microbial intake was assessed as both a continuous variable and a 3-level categorical variable. Fermented foods were assessed in a separate model. RESULTS: In continuous models, an additional 100-g intake of microbe-containing foods was associated with a lower systolic blood pressure (regression coefficient: -0.331; 95% CI: -0.447, -0.215 mm Hg), C-reactive protein (-0.013; 95% CI: -0.019, -0.008 mg/dL), plasma glucose -0.347; 95% CI: -0.570, -0.124 mg/dL), plasma insulin (-0.201; 95% CI: -0.304, -0.099 µU/mL), triglyceride (-1.389; 95% CI: -2.672, -0.106 mg/dL), waist circumference (-0.554; 95% CI: -0.679, -0.428 cm), and BMI -0.217; 95% CI: -0.273, -0.160 kg/m2) levels and a higher level of high density lipoprotein cholesterols (0.432; 95% CI: 0.289, 0.574 mg/dL). Patterns were broadly similar when microbial intake was assessed categorically and when fermented foods were assessed separately. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to quantify, in a nationally representative data set of American adults and using stable sets of covariates in the regression models, the adjusted associations of dietary intakes of live microbes with a variety of outcomes, such as anthropometric measures, biomarkers, and blood pressure levels. Our findings suggest that foods with higher microbial concentrations are associated with modest health improvements across a range of outcomes.

Considerations for determining safety of probiotics: A USP perspective.

A history of safe use is a backbone of safety assessments for many current probiotic species, however, there is no global harmonization regarding requirements for establishing probiotic safety for use in foods and supplements. As probiotic manufacturers are increasingly seeking to use new strains, novel species, and next-generation probiotics, justification based on a significant history of use may be challenged. There are efforts underway by a variety of stakeholders, including the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), to develop best practices guidelines for assessing the quality and safety of probiotics. A current initiative of the USP seeks to provide expert advice specific to safety considerations for probiotics. Toward this goal, this review provides a helpful summary guide to global regulatory guidelines. We question the suitability of traditional animal toxicology studies designed for testing chemicals for relevance in assessing probiotic safety. This includes discussion of the use of excessive dose levels, the length of repeated dose toxicity studies needed, and the most suitable animal species used in toxicology studies. In addition, the importance of proper manufacturing practices with regard to final product safety are also included. Thus, an outline of essential parameters of a comprehensive safety assessment for a probiotic are provided.

Should There Be a Recommended Daily Intake of Microbes?

The collective findings from human microbiome research, randomized controlled trials on specific microbes (i.e., probiotics), and associative studies of fermented dairy consumption provide evidence for the beneficial effects of the regular consumption of safe live microbes. To test the hypothesis that the inclusion of safe, live microbes in the diet supports and improves health, we propose assessment of the types and evidentiary quality of the data available on microbe intake, including the assembly and evaluation of evidence available from dietary databases. Such an analysis would help to identify gaps in the evidence needed to test this hypothesis, which can then be used to formulate and direct initiatives focused on prospective and randomized controlled trials on live microbe consumption. Outcomes will establish whether or not the evidence exists, or can be generated, to support the establishment of dietary recommendations for live microbes.

Does probiotic consumption reduce antibiotic utilization for common acute infections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Overall reduction of antibiotic use is a widely adopted public health goal. Given evidence that consuming probiotics reduce the incidence, duration and/or severity of certain types of common acute infections, we hypothesized that probiotics are associated with reduced antibiotic use. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the impact of probiotic supplementation (any strain, dose or duration), compared to placebo, on antibiotic utilization for common, acute infections in otherwise healthy people of all ages. METHODS: We searched 13 electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 17th January 2017. Backward and forward citation searches were also conducted. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We assessed risk of bias for individual studies using criteria adapted from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE system. Studies that evaluated similar outcomes were pooled statistically in meta-analyses using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We screened 1533 citations, and of these, 17 RCTs met our predefined inclusion criteria. All 17 were conducted in infants and/or children with a primary aim of preventing acute respiratory tract infections, acute lower digestive tract infections or acute otitis media. Included studies used 13 probiotic formulations, all comprising single or combination Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium delivered in a range of food or supplement products. Mean duration of probiotic supplementation ranged from 4 days to 9 months. Trial quality was variable. Meta-analysis demonstrated that infants and children who received probiotics to prevent acute illnesses had a lower risk of being prescribed antibiotics, relative to those who received placebo (Pooled Relative Risk = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94). When restricted to five studies with a low risk of bias, the pooled relative risk was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23-0.97). Significant statistical heterogeneity was present in effect size estimates, which appeared to be due to one trial which could partly be considered as an outlier. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics, provided to reduce the risk for common acute infections, may be associated with reduced antibiotic use in infants and children. Additional well-designed studies are needed to substantiate these findings in children and explore similar findings in other population groups.

Probiotics and microbiota composition.

Accumulated evidence, corroborated by a new systematic review by Kristensen et al. (Genome Med 8:52, 2016), suggests that probiotics do not significantly impact the fecal microbiota composition of healthy subjects. Nevertheless, physiological benefits have been associated with probiotic consumption by healthy people. Some studies have suggested that probiotics may impact the function of colonizing microbes, although this needs to be further studied. An alternative hypothesis is that probiotics may promote homeostasis of the gut microbiota, rather than change its composition. This hypothesis warrants investigation as a possible mechanism for how probiotics may benefit healthy people.Please see related article: http://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0300-5 .

Probiotic use in at-risk populations.

OBJECTIVE: To inform health care providers about quality standards for manufacture of probiotic products being recommended for at-risk patient populations. SUMMARY: Probiotics are used in a variety of clinical settings, sometimes in at-risk populations for therapeutic endpoints. Although probiotics might not be approved as drugs, they are sometimes used for the prevention or treatment of disease. In the United States, and many regions of the world, probiotic products are marketed as dietary supplements (not drugs) and are therefore subject to different manufacturing and quality control standards than approved drugs are. Health care providers need to be assured that probiotic products used in at-risk populations are safe for this use. Pharmacists should require certificates of analysis, which document quality standards, from manufacturers of products stocked in hospital formularies or other pharmacies dispensing to at-risk people. Although responsible manufacturers use stringent quality standards on their processes and finished products, using a third party to verify compliance with manufacturing and accuracy of product labeling adds assurance to end users that the product is of high quality. CONCLUSION: It is in patients' best interest to use probiotics in the prevention and treatment of conditions when the evidence is convincing. To protect high-risk patients, probiotic products should meet stringent microbiological standards. Product testing results should be available for review before recommending probiotic products to at-risk individuals. For products used in at-risk populations, manufacturers should provide this information or participate in a third-party verification program that certifies compliance.

Probiotics in 2015: Their Scope and Use.

The field of probiotics continues to evolve and progress. This paper reviews several situations within the probiotic field that are of current interest, including review of the scope of the proper use of the term "probiotic," use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for probiotics, regulatory challenges to doing human research on probiotics in the United States, medical recommendations for probiotic use, and safety assurance for probiotics used for vulnerable populations. The greatest need in the probiotic field remains well-conducted and well-reported human trials, to better define the functionality of probiotics for different indications and populations.

Recommendations for Probiotic Use--2015 Update: Proceedings and Consensus Opinion.

This paper describes the consensus opinion of the participants in the 4th Triennial Yale/Harvard Workshop on Probiotic Recommendations. The recommendations update those of the first 3 meetings that were published in 2006, 2008, and 2011. Recommendations for the use of probiotics in necrotizing enterocolitis, childhood diarrhea, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridium difficile diarrhea are reviewed. In addition, we have added recommendations for liver disease for the first time. As in previous publications, the recommendations are given as A, B, or C ratings.

A review of the systematic review process and its applicability for use in evaluating evidence for health claims on probiotic foods in the European Union.

This paper addresses the use of systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the strength of evidence for health benefits of probiotic foods, especially relating to health claim substantiation in the European Union. A systematic review is a protocol-driven, transparent and replicable approach, widely accepted in a number of scientific fields, and used by many policy-setting organizations to evaluate the strength of evidence to answer a focused research question. Many systematic reviews have been published on the broad category of probiotics for many different outcomes. Some of these reviews have been criticized for including poor quality studies, pooling heterogeneous study results, and not considering publication bias. Well-designed and -conducted systematic reviews should address such issues. Systematic reviews of probiotics have an additional challenge - rarely addressed in published reviews - in that there must be a scientifically sound basis for combining evidence on different strains, species or genera. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is increasingly adopting the systematic review methodology. It remains to be seen how health claims supported by systematic reviews are evaluated within the EFSA approval process. The EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies deems randomized trials to be the best approach to generating evidence about the effects of foods on health outcomes. They also acknowledge that systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) are the best approach to assess the totality of the evidence. It is reasonable to use these well-established methods to assess objectively the strength of evidence for a probiotic health claim. Use of the methods to combine results on more than a single strain or defined blend of strains will require a rationale that the different probiotics are substantively similar, either in identity or in their mode of action.

Effectiveness of probiotics on the duration of illness in healthy children and adults who develop common acute respiratory infectious conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Recent systematic reviews have reported a positive, although modest, effect of probiotics in terms of preventing common cold symptoms. In this systematic review, the effect of probiotics, specifically Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains, on the duration of acute respiratory infections in otherwise healthy children and adults was evaluated. To identify relevant trials, eight databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Science Citation Index (SCI) and OAISTER, were searched from inception to 20 July 2012. Details regarding unpublished studies/databases were also obtained from probiotic manufacturers. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using criteria adapted from those published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. In this review, twenty randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included, of which twelve were considered to have a low risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed significantly fewer numbers of days of illness per person (standardised mean difference (SMD) - 0·31 (95% CI - 0·41, - 0·11), I²= 3%), shorter illness episodes by almost a day (weighted mean difference - 0·77 (95% CI - 1·50, - 0·04), I²= 80%) (without an increase in the number of illness episodes), and fewer numbers of days absent from day care/school/work (SMD - 0·17 (95% CI - 0·31, - 0·03), I²= 67%) in participants who received a probiotic intervention than in those who had taken a placebo. Reasons for heterogeneity between the studies were explored in subgroup analysis, but could not be explained, suggesting that the effect sizes found may differ between the population groups. This systematic review provides evidence from a number of good-quality RCT that probiotics reduce the duration of illness in otherwise healthy children and adults.

An update on the use and investigation of probiotics in health and disease.

Probiotics are derived from traditional fermented foods, from beneficial commensals or from the environment. They act through diverse mechanisms affecting the composition or function of the commensal microbiota and by altering host epithelial and immunological responses. Certain probiotic interventions have shown promise in selected clinical conditions where aberrant microbiota have been reported, such as atopic dermatitis, necrotising enterocolitis, pouchitis and possibly irritable bowel syndrome. However, no studies have been conducted that can causally link clinical improvements to probiotic-induced microbiota changes. Whether a disease-prone microbiota pattern can be remodelled to a more robust, resilient and disease-free state by probiotic administration remains a key unanswered question. Progress in this area will be facilitated by: optimising strain, dose and product formulations, including protective commensal species; matching these formulations with selectively responsive subpopulations; and identifying ways to manipulate diet to modify bacterial profiles and metabolism.

Frequently asked questions about the ISAPP postbiotic definition.

The term postbiotic was defined by the International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) as "a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host." Although the ISAPP definition is widely cited, some concerns were aired after publication, and alternative definitions of postbiotic, as well as different terms for inactivated microbes, have been previously suggested. This paper addresses questions about the ISAPP definition that have been raised in different forums, including scientific meetings, social media commentary and personal communications. We focus on the rationale, scope, wording, composition and commercial implementation, as well as what is expected of postbiotics regarding safety, efficacy, quantification and mechanisms of action. We hope that exploring these questions will further clarify the definition and its scope and support a common understanding of the concept of postbiotics.

Fermented foods: a perspective on their role in delivering biotics.

Fermented foods are often erroneously equated with probiotics. Although they might act as delivery vehicles for probiotics, or other 'biotic' substances, including prebiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics, stringent criteria must be met for a fermented food to be considered a 'biotic'. Those criteria include documented health benefit, sufficient product characterization (for probiotics to the strain level) and testing. Similar to other functional ingredients, the health benefits must go beyond that of the product's nutritional components and food matrix. Therefore, the 'fermented food' and 'probiotic' terms may not be used interchangeably. This concept would apply to the other biotics as well. In this context, the capacity of fermented foods to deliver one, several, or all biotics defined so far will depend on the microbiological and chemical level of characterization, the reproducibility of the technological process used to produce the fermented foods, the evidence for health benefits conferred by the biotics, as well as the type and amount of testing carried out to show the probiotic, prebiotic, synbiotic, and postbiotic capacity of that fermented food.

Emerging issues in probiotic safety: 2023 perspectives.

Probiotics are used for both generally healthy consumers and in clinical settings. However, theoretical and proven adverse events from probiotic consumption exist. New probiotic strains and products, as well as expanding use of probiotics into vulnerable populations, warrants concise, and actionable recommendations on how to work toward their safe and effective use. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics convened a meeting to discuss and produce evidence-based recommendations on potential acute and long-term risks, risks to vulnerable populations, the importance for probiotic product quality to match the needs of vulnerable populations, and the need for adverse event reporting related to probiotic use. The importance of whole genome sequencing, which enables determination of virulence, toxin, and antibiotic resistance genes, as well as clear assignment of species and strain identity, is emphasized. We present recommendations to guide the scientific and medical community on judging probiotic safety.

What is the context? Probiotics, available to healthy consumers as both dietary supplements and foods, are also used by some patient populations. The goal of this paper is to determine if any new factors have emerged that would impact current views about probiotic safety for both these populations.What is new? The authors conclude that established practices are sensibly addressing factors important to the safety of traditional probiotics used by the general population. They also make recommendations regarding emerging safety considerations. Probiotics targeted for patient populations should undergo stringent testing to meet quality standards appropriate for that population, preferably verified by an independent third party. The safety of probiotics derived from species without a history of safe use must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Research is needed to address some gaps, for example which best animal models to use for safety assessment of live microbes, the possibility of antibiotic resistance gene transfer via transformation, and potential impact of probiotic-induced changes in microbiomes, interactions with drugs, and probiotic colonization.What is the impact? Probiotics of sufficient quality for patient populations are being developed and should be used accordingly. Long-term safety assessments for probiotics should be consistent with, and not more stringent than, current regulatory requirements for biologic drugs, including fecal microbial transplants. Rigor in collecting and reporting data on adverse events is needed. The authors confirm the need for understanding the entire genetic makeup of a probiotic as a cornerstone for assessing its safety.

The Concept of Postbiotics.

The scientific community has proposed terms such as non-viable probiotics, paraprobiotics, ghostbiotics, heat-inactivated probiotics or, most commonly, postbiotics, to refer to inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confer health benefits. This article addresses the various characteristics of different definitions of 'postbiotics' that have emerged over past years. In 2021, the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) defined a postbiotic as "a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host". This definition of postbiotic requires that the whole or components of inactivated microbes be present, with or without metabolic end products. The definition proposed by ISAPP is comprehensive enough to allow the development of postbiotics from different microorganisms, to be applied in different body sites, encouraging innovation in a promising area for any regulatory category and for companion or production animals, and plant or human health. From a technological perspective, probiotic products may contain inanimate microorganisms, which have the potential to impart a health benefit. However, their contribution to health in most cases has not been established, even if at least one probiotic has been shown to confer the same health benefit by live or inanimate cells.

Postbiotics: The concept and their use in healthy populations.

The term postbiotic was recently defined by an panel of scientists convened by the International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics as "a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host." This definition focused on the progenitor microbial cell or cell fragments, not just metabolites, proteins or carbohydrates they might produce. Although such microbe-produced constituents may be functional ingredients of the preparation, they are not required to be present in a postbiotic according to this definition. In this context, terms previously used such as paraprobiotics, ghostbiotics, heat-inactivated probiotics, non-viable probiotics, cell fragments or cell lysates, among others, align with the term postbiotics as conceived by this definition. The applications of postbiotics to infant nutrition and pediatric and adult gastroenterology, mainly, are under development. Some applications for skin health are also underway. As postbiotics are composed of inanimate microorganisms, they cannot colonize the host. However, they can in theory modify the composition or functions of the host microbiota, although evidence for this is scarce. Clinical results are promising, but, overall, there is limited evidence for postbiotics in healthy populations. For example, postbiotics have been studied in fermented infant formulas. The regulation of the term postbiotic is still in its infancy, as no government or international agency around the world has yet incorporated this term in their regulation.

Impact of probiotics on colonizing microbiota of the gut.

Although precise mechanisms responsible for all demonstrations of probiotic health benefits are not known, many lines of evidence suggest that probiotics function through direct or indirect impact on colonizing microbiota of the gut. Probiotics can directly influence colonizing microbes through multiple mechanisms, including the production of inhibitory compounds (bacteriocins, short chain fatty acids, and others), by producing substrates that might promote the growth of colonizing microbes (secreted exopolysaccharides, vitamins, fatty acids, sugars from undigested carbohydrates and others), and by promoting immune responses against specific microbes. Indirectly, probiotics can influence colonizing microbes by inhibiting attachment through stimulated mucin production, reinforcing gut barrier effects, and downregulation of gut inflammation, thereby promoting microbes that are associated with a healthier gut physiology. Although the value of targeted changes in populations of gut bacteria is a matter of debate, increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus in the gut correlate with numerous health endpoints. Microbiota changes due to probiotic intake include increased numbers of related phylotypes, decreasing pathogens and their toxins, altering bacterial community structure to enhance evenness, stabilizing bacterial communities when perturbed (eg, with antibiotics), or promoting a more rapid recovery from a perturbation. Further research will provide insight into the degree of permanence of probiotic-induced changes, although research to date suggests that continued probiotic consumption is needed for sustained impact.