Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32633801›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2020

Effect of Probiotic Use on Antibiotic Administration Among Care Home Residents: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Christopher C Butler, Mandy Lau, David Gillespie, Eleri Owen-Jones, Mark Lown, Mandy Wootton, Philip C Calder, Antony J Bayer, Michael Moore, Paul Little and 11 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Probiotics for preventing acute upper respiratory tract infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Combination of the ProbioticsFrontiers in immunology · 2021
    Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Is There Evidence to Support Probiotic Use for Healthy People?Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Nutrients · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Commented on by
    2020
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Christopher C ButlerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Primary Care Bldg, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Mandy LauCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
David GillespieCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Eleri Owen-JonesCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Mark LownPrimary Care and Population Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Mandy WoottonSpecialist Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Unit, Public Health Wales Microbiology, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Philip C CalderNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Antony J BayerDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Michael MoorePrimary Care and Population Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Paul LittlePrimary Care and Population Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Jane DaviesCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Alison EdwardsCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Victoria ShepherdCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Kerenza HoodCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Primary Care Bldg, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Mina DavoudianfarNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Primary Care Bldg, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Heather RutterNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Primary Care Bldg, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Helen StantonCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Rachel LoweCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Richard FullerPrimary Care and Population Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Nick A FrancisPrimary Care and Population Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health 13/95/10
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Probiotics are frequently used by residents in care homes (residential homes or nursing homes that provide residents with 24-hour support for personal care or nursing care), although the evidence on whether probiotics prevent infections and reduce antibiotic use in these settings is limited. Objective: To determine whether a daily oral probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 compared with placebo reduces antibiotic administration in care home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of 310 care home residents, aged 65 years and older, recruited from 23 care homes in the United Kingdom between December 2016 and May 2018, with last follow-up on October 31, 2018. Interventions: Study participants were randomized to receive a daily capsule containing a probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 (total cell count per capsule, 1.3 × 1010 to 1.6 × 1010) (n = 155), or daily matched placebo (n = 155), for up to 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cumulative antibiotic administration days for all-cause infections measured from randomization for up to 1 year. Results: Among 310 randomized care home residents (mean age, 85.3 years; 66.8% women), 195 (62.9%) remained alive and completed the trial. Participant diary data (daily data including study product use, antibiotic administration, and signs of infection) were available for 98.7% randomized to the probiotic group and 97.4% randomized to placebo. Care home residents randomized to the probiotic group had a mean of 12.9 cumulative systemic antibiotic administration days (95% CI, 0 to 18.05), and residents randomized to placebo had a mean of 12.0 days (95% CI, 0 to 16.95) (absolute difference, 0.9 days [95% CI, -3.25 to 5.05]; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.63]; P = .50). A total of 120 care home residents experienced 283 adverse events (150 adverse events in the probiotic group and 133 in the placebo group). Hospitalizations accounted for 94 of the events in probiotic group and 78 events in the placebo group, and deaths accounted for 33 of the events in the probiotic group and 32 of the events in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among care home residents in the United Kingdom, a daily dose of a probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 did not significantly reduce antibiotic administration for all-cause infections. These findings do not support the use of probiotics in this setting. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier:16392920.

Indexed as

Bifidobacterium animalisLacticaseibacillus rhamnosusAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsAssisted Living FacilitiesBacterial InfectionsDouble-Blind MethodDrug UtilizationFecesFemaleHumansMaleNursing HomesProbioticsUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID32633801
PMCPMC7341173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.