Fabio Meneghin

Probiotics for prevention of atopic diseases in infants: systematic review and meta‐analysis

Growing evidence underlines the pivotal role of infant gut colonization in the development of the immune system. The possibility to modify gut colonization through probiotic supplementation in childhood might prevent atopic diseases. The aim of the present systematic review and meta‐analysis was to evaluate the effect of probiotic supplementation during pregnancy and early infancy in preventing atopic diseases. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of probiotics during pregnancy or early infancy for prevention of allergic diseases. Fixed‐effect models were used, and random‐effects models where significant heterogeneity was present. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Seventeen studies, reporting data from 4755 children (2381 in the probiotic group and 2374 in the control group), were included in the meta‐analysis. Infants treated with probiotics had a significantly lower RR for eczema compared to controls (RR 0.78 [95% CI: 0.69–0.89], P = 0.0003), especially those supplemented with a mixture of probiotics (RR 0.54 [95% CI: 0.43–0.68], P < 0.00001). No significant difference in terms of prevention of asthma (RR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.77–1.27], P = 0.95), wheezing (RR 1.02 [95% CI: 0.89–1.17], P = 0.76) or rhinoconjunctivitis (RR 0.91 [95% CI: 0.67–1.23], P = 0.53) was documented. The results of the present meta‐analysis show that probiotic supplementation prevents infantile eczema, thus suggesting a new potential indication for probiotic use in pregnancy and infancy.

Probiotics in Clinical Practice: An Overview:

The observation that intestinal bacterial microflora might be able to influence immune system surveillance through changed nutritional habits has raised awareness of the role of probiotics. These are live microorganisms that are able to reach the gastrointestinal tract and alter its microfloral composition, producing beneficial health effects when consumed in adequate amounts. Recent clinical trials have evaluated the clinical effectiveness of probiotics in the treatment and prevention of a wide range of acute and chronic gastrointestinal diseases, and also non-gastrointestinal diseases, such as atopy, respiratory infections, vaginitis and hypercholesterolaemia. Probiotic supplements are generally regarded as safe because the microorganisms they contain are identical to those found in human gastrointestinal and vaginal microflora. Guidelines on the use of probiotics in the clinical setting require periodical updates for the latest data to be included in clinical applications. The purpose of this clinical report is to review current evidence on the use of probiotics in a variety of gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal conditions.

Gluten-Free Diet in Children: An Approach to a Nutritionally Adequate and Balanced Diet

Gluten-free diet (GFD) is the cornerstone treatment for celiac disease (CD). GFD implies a strict and lifelong elimination from the diet of gluten, the storage protein found in wheat, barley, rye and hybrids of these grains, such as kamut and triticale. The absence of gluten in natural and processed foods, despite being the key aspect of GFD, may lead to nutritional consequences, such as deficits and imbalances. The nutritional adequacy of GFD is particularly important in children, this the age being of maximal energy and nutrient requirements for growth, development and activity. In recent years, attention has focused on the nutritional quality of gluten-free products (GFPs) available in the market. It is well recognized that GFPs are considered of lower quality and poorer nutritional value compared to the gluten-containing counterparts. The present review focuses on the nutritional adequacy of GFD at the pediatric age, with the aim being to increase awareness of the potential complications associated with this diet, to identify strategies in order to avoid them and to promote a healthier diet and lifestyle in children with CD.

Epidemiological and clinical features of rotavirus among children younger than 5 years of age hospitalized with acute gastroenteritis in Northern Italy.

BackgroundRotavirus is the major cause of acute gastroenteritis and severe dehydrating diarrhea in young children.MethodsTo estimate the proportion of hospital admissions for rotavirus acute gastroenteritis and identify the circulating G and P genotypes among children under five years of age, we conducted a prospective observational study from January to December 2008, recruiting children consecutively admitted to six hospitals in Milan and nearby towns in northern Italy. Typing was done on stool samples by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction amplification.ResultsOf the 521 stool samples from children with acute gastroenteritis, 34.9% (95%CI, 30.8 to 39.2%) were rotavirus-positive. Two thirds (67.6%) were under two years of age, and 13.2% were under six months. The predominant G type was G1 (40.7%), followed by G9 (22.5%), G2 (13.2%), G3 (5.5%), G4 (3.8%) and G10 (1.6%). Twenty-one (11.7%) mixed-G infections were identified: G1+G10 (8.8%); G1+G9 (1.6%); and G2+G10 (1.2%). Only P[8] (67.6%) and P[4] (12.6%) types were P genotyped. The predominant single G/P combination was G1P[8] (39.7%), followed by G9P[8] (25.3%), G2P[4] (14.3%), and G3P[8] (4.1%). All G-mixed types combined with P[8].ConclusionsThese findings show an high prevalence of rotavirus infections among children admitted to hospital for acute gastroenteritis caused by different rotavirus strains circulating in the area studied.

Changes of body mass index in celiac children on a gluten-free diet

BACKGROUND AND AIM Studies of adults and children with celiac disease (CD) performed mostly in tertiary care centers have reported an increased risk of overweight during gluten-free diet (GFD). We measured body mass index (BMI) of CD children followed by family pediatricians in order to estimate prevalence of underweight and overweight at diagnosis and to describe BMI changes during GFD. METHODS AND RESULTS We compared 150 CD children (age range 2-16 yrs) under GFD from a median (IQR) time of 4.4 (4.2) years with 288 healthy children matched for gender and age. We also evaluated retrospectively BMI changes between CD diagnosis and the current evaluation. The median (IQR) BMI of CD patients was significantly lower than that of controls [-0.38 (1.46) vs. 0.09 (1.18) SDS, p < 0.0001, Italian reference data]. Using the International Obesity Task Force classifications, CD children were less frequently overweight or obese (12% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.014) and more frequently underweight (16% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001) than controls. During GFD, there was a marked decrease of number of underweight subjects (13 vs. 27) and a minimal increase of number of overweight subjects (9 vs. 6) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The frequency of overweight and obesity at diagnosis of CD and during GFD in children followed by family pediatricians is substantially lower than that reported in tertiary care centers. On the other hand, the high frequency of underweight at diagnosis confirms the need of careful personalized nutritional management.

Probiotics and Atopic Dermatitis in Children

There is increasing interest in the potential beneficial role of probiotic supplementation in the prevention and treatment of atopic diseases in children. Probiotics are defined as ingested live microorganisms that, when administered in an adequate amount, confer a health benefit to the host. They are mainly represented by Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria. Several epidemiological data demonstrate that intestinal microflora of atopic children is different from the one of healthy children. Many literature data show that probiotics may modulate the intestinal microflora composition and may have immunomodulatory effect. Based on this hypothesis, probiotics are supposed to confer benefits to allergic diseases. Administration of probiotics when a natural population of indigenous intestinal bacteria is still developing could theoretically influence immune development by favoring the balance between Th1 and Th2 inflammatory responses. For this reason, some studies have evaluated the potential impact of probiotics supplementation in the prevention of atopic dermatitis, with contrasting results. Clinical improvement in immunoglobulin (Ig)E-sensitized (atopic) eczema following probiotic supplementation has been reported in some published studies and the therapeutic effects of probiotics on atopic dermatitis seemed to be encouraging. However, as far as the usefulness of probiotics as a prevention strategy is concerned, results are still inconclusive. In fact, the clinical benefits of probiotic therapy depend upon numerous factors, such as the type of bacteria, dosing regimen, delivery method and other underlying host factors, such as age and diet. More studies are still needed to definitively prove the role of probiotics in the treatment of allergic eczema.

Probiotics and Time to Achieve Full Enteral Feeding in Human Milk-Fed and Formula-Fed Preterm Infants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Probiotics have been linked to a reduction in the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and late-onset sepsis in preterm infants. Recently, probiotics have also proved to reduce time to achieve full enteral feeding (FEF). However, the relationship between FEF achievement and type of feeding in infants treated with probiotics has not been explored yet. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of probiotics in reducing time to achieve FEF in preterm infants, according to type of feeding (exclusive human milk (HM) vs. formula). Randomized-controlled trials involving preterm infants receiving probiotics, and reporting on time to reach FEF were included in the systematic review. Trials reporting on outcome according to type of feeding (exclusive HM vs. formula) were included in the meta-analysis. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were used as appropriate. Results were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review. In the five studies recruiting exclusively HM-fed preterm infants, those treated with probiotics reached FEF approximately 3 days before controls (MD −3.15 days (95% CI −5.25/−1.05), p = 0.003). None of the two studies reporting on exclusively formula-fed infants showed any difference between infants receiving probiotics and controls in terms of FEF achievement. The limited number of included studies did not allow testing for other subgroup differences between HM and formula-fed infants. However, if confirmed in further studies, the 3-days reduction in time to achieve FEF in exclusively HM-fed preterm infants might have significant implications for their clinical management.

Probiotics Prevent Late-Onset Sepsis in Human Milk-Fed, Very Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Growing evidence supports the role of probiotics in reducing the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis, time to achieve full enteral feeding, and late-onset sepsis (LOS) in preterm infants. As reported for several neonatal clinical outcomes, recent data have suggested that nutrition might affect probiotics’ efficacy. Nevertheless, the currently available literature does not explore the relationship between LOS prevention and type of feeding in preterm infants receiving probiotics. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of probiotics for LOS prevention in preterm infants according to type of feeding (exclusive human milk (HM) vs. exclusive formula or mixed feeding). Randomized-controlled trials involving preterm infants receiving probiotics and reporting on LOS were included in the systematic review. Only trials reporting on outcome according to feeding type were included in the meta-analysis. Fixed-effects models were used and random-effects models were used when significant heterogeneity was found. The results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, probiotic supplementation resulted in a significantly lower incidence of LOS (RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.71–0.88), p < 0.0001). According to feeding type, the beneficial effect of probiotics was confirmed only in exclusively HM-fed preterm infants (RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.86), p < 0.0001). Among HM-fed infants, only probiotic mixtures, and not single-strain products, were effective in reducing LOS incidence (RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.57–0.80) p < 0.00001). The results of the present meta-analysis show that probiotics reduce LOS incidence in exclusively HM-fed preterm infants. Further efforts are required to clarify the relationship between probiotics supplementation, HM, and feeding practices in preterm infants.

How Solid Is the Scientific Evidence on Probiotics

To the Editor: Probiotics, defined as live microorganisms that, when ingested in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the host through an interaction with the gut microbiota,1 have been one of the most studied fields in medicine in last decade. When the term “probiotic” is searched in the PubMed database, over 15,000 papers appear. However, despite the overall interest and the vast scientific production in the theme of probiotics, nowadays the knowledge on the effect of each strain is often lacking. Even the position of the American Academy of Paediatrics is cautious, claiming further confirmatory evidence before a strong recommendation for routine use can be stated.2 Very commonly, probiotics are commercialized without a medical prescription and patients can choose within a large number of products, both in pharmacies and in common shopping centers. Moreover, in this field, a flourishing literature is updated annually, but how many real randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are performed considering every single strain? To clarify this important aspect, we carried out a search in the PubMed database using the name of the probiotic’s strain alone and in association with the term “randomized clinical trial.” Then, we analyzed as to how many papers were actually a RCT. Our results are presented in Table 1. Data showed that with a large variability between strains, only 0.8% to 17.8% of the papers in the PubMed database were RCTs. Another interesting result was that the most studied strains, for example, Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. casei, L. plantarum, and Enterococcus faecium, were analyzed only in a few RCTs (6.2%, 3.7%, 1.8%, and 0.2%, respectively). These findings, with all the limitations of the research, show that despite the large amount of literature regarding probiotics recently, there are currently no sufficient data in favor of each single strain. Moreover, considering that many products are presented to the public as probiotics without necessary guarantees defined in the report of the FAO/WHO3 (appropriate identification, classification according to the International Code of Nomenclature, and deposition of strains in a reputable internationally recognized culture collection), there is an elevated possibility of inadequate administration. For all these reasons, in the near future, we believe that it is necessary to increase the number of well-conducted RCTs to strengthen the knowledge about the safety and the clinical efficacy of probiotics, and physicians could begin to prescribe more accurately the most efficient strain with the most solid scientific evidences.

Weaning Time in Preterm Infants: An Audit of Italian Primary Care Paediatricians

Introduction: According to the 2016 Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat) data in Italy, about 6.7% of all newborns are born prematurely. Due to the lack of data on current complementary feeding in preterm infants in Italy, the aim of the survey was to evaluate individual attitudes of primary care paediatricians, concerning the introduction of complementary foods in preterm infants. Methods: An internet-based survey was conducted among primary care paediatricians, working in Italy, regarding (1) timing of the introduction of complementary foods to preterm newborns; (2) type of complementary foods introduced; (3) vitamin D and iron supplementations. Results: A total of 347 primary care Italian paediatricians answered the questionnaire; 44% of responders based the timing of the introduction of solid food exclusively on an infant’s age, 18% on an infant’s neurodevelopmental status and 4% on the body weight; the remaining 34% based the timing on two or more of these aspects. The type of complementary foods did not comply with an evidence-based sequence; 98% of participants promoted vitamin D supplementation and 89% promoted iron supplementation with great diversity in timing and doses. Conclusions: Due to limited evidence, there is a great heterogeneity in the attitudes of primary care paediatricians concerning the introduction of complementary foods to preterm newborns. Further research is needed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding weaning preterm newborns.