Lecture critique – Les probiotiques dans la prévention de l’infection à Clostridium difficile chez l’adulte et l’enfant

Auteurs: Olivia Keita-Perse 1, Joseph Hajjar 2

Affiliations :

  • 1 - Praticien hospitalier – Centre hospitalier Princesse Grace – Monaco – Principauté de Monaco
  • 2 - Praticien honoraire des hôpitaux – Pau – France

Auteur principal : Joseph Hajjar - Praticien honoraire des hôpitaux – Pau – France - Email : jhajjar@laposte.net


Titre de l'article sujet de la Lecture critique Bradley C, Johnston1, Lyubov Lytvyn2, Calvin Ka-Fung Lo3, et al. Microbial Preparations (Probiotics) for the Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of 6,851 Participants Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:771–781. 1- Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada 2- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 3- McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Objective. To determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds of Clostridium difficileinfection (CDI) in adults and children. Design. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), adjusting for risk factors. Methods. We 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. Results. Probiotics 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. Conclusions. Moderate 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%.


En savoir plus

Se connecter