4 ms·
Pediatric MD PhD. These are exciting results. Sepsis among neonates is a major concern, even in the developed world. Babies new to the world have very weak imm
by hanklazard 9y ago
Pediatric MD PhD. These are exciting results.
Sepsis among neonates is a major concern, even in the developed world. Babies new to the world have very weak immune systems, particularly with regard to antibody response which is initially almost entirely composed of waning amounts of transplacental IgA. This paper points out the the developing world has even higher rates of infant mortality from bacterial sepsis. So this is a big problem and impactful solutions have been tough to come by.
This is a large double-blind placebo controlled trial. They gave eligible babies 7 consecutive daily doses of either placebo or the study agent. Table 1 shows that both study groups are very similar, so we should not be too concerned with confounding variables. Table 2 shows the striking data re: sepsis death rates, with this "synbiotic" (probiotic bacteria + bacterial food) reducing death from sepsis by almost half(!). Table 3 looks at all causes of death and importantly, significant differences in other causes of death were not observed between the two groups--it wouldn't be all that helpful if this synbiotic group seemed to get some other serious problem as a side effect. It is a pretty straight-forward study and no major flaws in their methods or conclusions jump out at me.
While exciting overall, the authors point out some important points at the end. I think the most interesting is that they used this particular species of lactobacillus after studying babies in India about 20 years ago and finding differences in the rates of colonization with this and other probiotic species. In other words, they didn't just throw any sort of "good bacteria" at these babies--they had strong evidence to show that it actually colonized them and therefore could , in theory, have an effect on rates of sepsis. If they had used lactobacillus GG (one of the other species that they found had low rates of colonization), it would stand to reason that they wouldn't have gotten such an impressive effect or maybe none at all. Then the media would say, "probiotics don't save babies from sepsis." Basically I'm just applauding their careful selection of this bacterial species.
One final important note is that this result should not be generalized to other populations without future studies showing similar effects. The gut microbiome is influenced by geography and other environmental factors and interacts heavily with out immune systems, large parts of which vary by genetic background. To put it another way, just because this bacterial species works well in rural India does not mean it will work well in Peru or anywhere else.
- geomark 9y agoOutstanding comment. Thank you.
- spondywarrior 9y agoThrowaway here. Since the research shows a relation between gut/microbiome imbalance and some auto-immune diseases, do you think probiotics are parts of the future medical response to such diseases ? (yes, I have one). I know this paper (http://sci-hub.io/10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181662455 http://sci-hub.io/10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181662455) but don't know how research built on it since.