Is there a role for modified probiotics as beneficial microbes: a systematic review of the literature
Abstract
Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis for the use of modified (heat-killed or sonicated) probiotics for the efficacy and safety to prevent and treat various diseases. Recent clinical research has focused on living strains of probiotics, but use in high-risk patients and potential adverse reactions including bacteremia has focused interest on alternatives to the use of live probiotics. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Alt Health Watch, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, from inception to February 14, 2017 for randomised controlled trials involving modified probiotic strains. The primary outcome was efficacy to prevent or treat disease and the secondary outcome was incidence of adverse events. A total of 40 trials were included (n=3,913): 14 trials (15 arms with modified probiotics and 20 control arms) for the prevention of diseases and 26 trials (29 arms with modified probiotics and 32 control arms) for treatment of various diseases. Modified microbes were compared to either placebo (44%), or the same living probiotic strain (39%) or to only standard therapies (17%). Modified microbes were not significantly more or less effective than the living probiotic in 86% of the preventive trials and 69% of the treatment trials. Modified probiotic strains were significantly more effective in 15% of the treatment trials. Incidence rates of adverse events were similar for modified and living probiotics and other control groups, but many trials did not collect adequate safety data. Although several types of modified probiotics showed significant efficacy over living strains of probiotics, firm conclusions could not be reached due to the limited number of trials using the same type of modified microbe (strain, daily dose and duration) for a specific disease indication. Further research may illuminate other strains of modified probiotics that may have potential as clinical biotherapeutics.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Canada, probiotics have two modes of sale on the market, Natural and Non-Prescription Health Products Directorate (NNHPD) and Food Directorate.
“In Canada, probiotics have two modes of sale on the market, Natural and Non-Prescription Health Products Directorate (NNHPD) and Food Directorate [3, 228].”
From International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: Probiotics (2019) · cites this paper as [228]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Zorzela, L., Ardestani, S. K., McFarland, L. V., & Vohra, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- University of Washington Medical Center (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Beneficial Microbes
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2017-10-13
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 739-754
- ISSN
- 1876-2883 (ISSN-L)
- 1876-2891
- OpenAlex
- W2753844555
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 0.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Beneficial Microbes (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
- Keywords
- heat-killed probiotics, probiotic efficacy, probiotic safety, adverse events, disease prevention, disease treatment, bacteremia, biologic therapy
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Placebos, Incidence, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Probiotics, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review