Microbiota-targeted interventions and clinical implications for maternal-offspring health: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Global Health Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.7189/jogh.14.04177
Bekalu Kassie Alemu,Ling Wu,Getnet Gedefaw Azeze,So Ling Lau,Yao Wang,Chi Chiu Wang
{"title":"Microbiota-targeted interventions and clinical implications for maternal-offspring health: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Bekalu Kassie Alemu,Ling Wu,Getnet Gedefaw Azeze,So Ling Lau,Yao Wang,Chi Chiu Wang","doi":"10.7189/jogh.14.04177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\r\nMicrobes in the human body are the determinants of life-long health and disease. Microbiome acquisition starts in utero and matures during early childhood through breastfeeding. However, maternal gut dysbiosis affects the maternal-offspring microbiome interplay. Lines of evidence on dysbiosis-targeted interventions and their effect on maternal-offspring health and gut microbiome are inconsistent and inconclusive. Therefore, this study summarised studies to identify the most common microbiota-targeted intervention during pregnancy and lactation and to comprehensively evaluate its effects on maternal and offspring health.\r\n\r\nMethods\r\nThis umbrella review was conducted by systematically searching databases such as PubMed and the Web of Science from inception to 2 September 2023. The quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 checklist. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used for grading the strength and certainty of the studies. The overlap of primary studies was quantified by the corrected covered area score.\r\n\r\nResults\r\nA total of 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses with 219 randomised controlled trials, 39 113 mothers, and 20 915 infants were included in this study. About 88% of studies had moderate and above certainty of evidence. Probiotics were the most common and effective interventions at reducing gestational diabetes risk (fasting blood glucose with the mean difference (MD) = -2.92, -0.05; I2 = 45, 98.97), fasting serum insulin (MD = -2.3, -2.06; I2 = 45, 77), glycated haemoglobin (Hb A1c) = -0.16; I2 = 0.00)), Homeostatic Model Assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (MD = -20.55, -0.16; I2 = 0.00, 72.00), and lipid metabolism (MD = -5.47, 0.98; I2 = 0.00, 90.65). It was also effective in preventing and treating mastitis (risk ratio (RR) = 0.49; I2 = 2.00), relieving anxiety symptoms (MD = -0.99, 0.01; I2 = 0.00, 70.00), depression in lactation (MD = -0.46, -0.22; I2 = 0.00, 74.00) and reducing recto-vaginal bacterial colonisation (odds ratio (OR) = 0.62; I2 = 4.80), and with no adverse events. It also effectively remodelled the infant gut microbiome (MD = 0.89; I2 = 95.01) and prevented infant allergies. However, studies on pregnancy outcomes and preeclampsia incidences are limited.\r\n\r\nConclusions\r\nOur findings from high-quality studies identify that probiotics are the most common microbiome interventions during pregnancy and lactation. Probiotics have a strong impact on maternal and offspring health through maintaining gut microbiome homeostasis. However, further studies are needed on the effect of microbiota-targeted interventions on maternal cardiometabolic health, pregnancy, and neonatal outcomes.\r\n\r\nRegistration\r\nThis umbrella review was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023437098.","PeriodicalId":48734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Health","volume":"32 1","pages":"04177"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.14.04177","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Microbes in the human body are the determinants of life-long health and disease. Microbiome acquisition starts in utero and matures during early childhood through breastfeeding. However, maternal gut dysbiosis affects the maternal-offspring microbiome interplay. Lines of evidence on dysbiosis-targeted interventions and their effect on maternal-offspring health and gut microbiome are inconsistent and inconclusive. Therefore, this study summarised studies to identify the most common microbiota-targeted intervention during pregnancy and lactation and to comprehensively evaluate its effects on maternal and offspring health. Methods This umbrella review was conducted by systematically searching databases such as PubMed and the Web of Science from inception to 2 September 2023. The quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 checklist. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used for grading the strength and certainty of the studies. The overlap of primary studies was quantified by the corrected covered area score. Results A total of 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses with 219 randomised controlled trials, 39 113 mothers, and 20 915 infants were included in this study. About 88% of studies had moderate and above certainty of evidence. Probiotics were the most common and effective interventions at reducing gestational diabetes risk (fasting blood glucose with the mean difference (MD) = -2.92, -0.05; I2 = 45, 98.97), fasting serum insulin (MD = -2.3, -2.06; I2 = 45, 77), glycated haemoglobin (Hb A1c) = -0.16; I2 = 0.00)), Homeostatic Model Assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (MD = -20.55, -0.16; I2 = 0.00, 72.00), and lipid metabolism (MD = -5.47, 0.98; I2 = 0.00, 90.65). It was also effective in preventing and treating mastitis (risk ratio (RR) = 0.49; I2 = 2.00), relieving anxiety symptoms (MD = -0.99, 0.01; I2 = 0.00, 70.00), depression in lactation (MD = -0.46, -0.22; I2 = 0.00, 74.00) and reducing recto-vaginal bacterial colonisation (odds ratio (OR) = 0.62; I2 = 4.80), and with no adverse events. It also effectively remodelled the infant gut microbiome (MD = 0.89; I2 = 95.01) and prevented infant allergies. However, studies on pregnancy outcomes and preeclampsia incidences are limited. Conclusions Our findings from high-quality studies identify that probiotics are the most common microbiome interventions during pregnancy and lactation. Probiotics have a strong impact on maternal and offspring health through maintaining gut microbiome homeostasis. However, further studies are needed on the effect of microbiota-targeted interventions on maternal cardiometabolic health, pregnancy, and neonatal outcomes. Registration This umbrella review was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023437098.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以微生物群为目标的干预措施及对母婴健康的临床影响:随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景人体中的微生物决定着人一生的健康和疾病。微生物组的获得始于子宫内,并通过母乳喂养在幼儿期逐渐成熟。然而,母体肠道菌群失调会影响母子微生物组的相互作用。针对菌群失调的干预措施及其对母子健康和肠道微生物组的影响的证据并不一致,也没有定论。因此,本研究总结了相关研究,以确定孕期和哺乳期最常见的以微生物群为目标的干预措施,并全面评估其对母体和后代健康的影响。方法本综述通过系统检索从开始到 2023 年 9 月 2 日的 PubMed 和 Web of Science 等数据库进行。采用 "多重系统综述评估-2"(Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2)核对表对综述质量进行评估。在对研究的强度和确定性进行分级时,使用了 "建议评估、制定和评价分级"。本研究共纳入了 17 篇系统综述和荟萃分析,219 项随机对照试验,39 113 名母亲和 20 915 名婴儿。约 88% 的研究具有中度及以上的证据确定性。益生菌是降低妊娠糖尿病风险(空腹血糖,平均差 (MD) = -2.92, -0.05; I2 = 45, 98.97)、空腹血清胰岛素(MD = -2.3, -2.06;I2=45,77)、糖化血红蛋白(Hb A1c)=-0.16;I2=0.00))、胰岛素抵抗自律模型评估(HOMA-IR)(MD=-20.55,-0.16;I2=0.00,72.00)和脂质代谢(MD=-5.47,0.98;I2=0.00,90.65)。它还能有效预防和治疗乳腺炎(风险比 (RR) = 0.49;I2 = 2.00)、缓解焦虑症状(MD = -0.99,0.01;I2 = 0.00,70.00)、哺乳期抑郁症(MD = -0.46,-0.22;I2 = 0.00,74.00)以及减少直肠阴道细菌定植(几率比 (OR) = 0.62;I2 = 4.80),且无不良反应。它还能有效重塑婴儿肠道微生物群(MD = 0.89;I2 = 95.01),预防婴儿过敏。结论我们从高质量的研究中发现,益生菌是孕期和哺乳期最常见的微生物组干预措施。通过维持肠道微生物组的平衡,益生菌对母体和后代的健康有很大影响。然而,还需要进一步研究以微生物群为目标的干预措施对孕产妇心脏代谢健康、妊娠和新生儿结局的影响。注册本综述已在 PROSPERO 注册,编号为 CRD42023437098。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Global Health
Journal of Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
240
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Global Health is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Edinburgh University Global Health Society, a not-for-profit organization registered in the UK. We publish editorials, news, viewpoints, original research and review articles in two issues per year.
期刊最新文献
Academic vs. industry-sponsored trials: A global survey on differences, similarities, and future improvements. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a prediction model for community-based screening of active tuberculosis. Does work modify the relationship between violence and mental health among young people? Evidence from the Violence Against Children Surveys in Uganda, Nigeria and Colombia. Impact of COVID-19 on the utilisation of maternal health services in Bangladesh: A division-level analysis. Impact of scaling up health intervention coverage on reducing maternal mortality in 26 low- and middle-income countries: A modelling study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1