Next Article in Journal
Carbohydrate Knowledge and Expectations of Nutritional Support among Five Ethnic Groups Living in New Zealand with Pre- and Type 2 Diabetes: A Qualitative Study
Previous Article in Journal
Dietary Fibre Intake in Australia. Paper II: Comparative Examination of Food Sources of Fibre among High and Low Fibre Consumers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Does a Supplemental Low-Protein Diet Decrease Mortality and Adverse Events After Commencing Dialysis? A Nationwide Cohort Study
Article Menu
Issue 9 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessReview
Nutrients 2018, 10(9), 1224; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10091224

Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

1
CNR-Institute of Clinical Physiology, Reggio Calabria 89124, Italy
2
Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, “Pugliese-Ciaccio” Hospital of Catanzaro, Catanzaro 88100, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 15 June 2018 / Revised: 28 August 2018 / Accepted: 29 August 2018 / Published: 4 September 2018
Full-Text   |   PDF [1835 KB, uploaded 6 September 2018]   |  

Abstract

Intestinal dysbiosis is highly pervasive among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and may play a key role in disease progression and complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate effects of biotic supplements on a large series of outcomes in renal patients. Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any biotic (pre-, pro- or synbiotics) to standard therapy or placebo. Primary endpoints were change in renal function and cardiovascular events; secondary endpoints were change in proteinuria/albuminuria, inflammation, uremic toxins, quality of life and nutritional status. Seventeen eligible studies (701 participants) were reviewed. Biotics treatment did not modify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (mean difference (MD) 0.34 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI −0.19, 0.86), serum creatinine (MD −0.13 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.32, 0.07), C-reactive protein (MD 0.75 mg/dL; 95% CI −1.54, 3.03) and urea (standardized MD (SMD) −0.02; 95% CI −0.25, 0.20) as compared to control. Outcome data on the other endpoints of interest were lacking, sparse or in an unsuitable format to be analyzed collectively. According to the currently available evidence, there is no conclusive rationale for recommending biotic supplements for improving outcomes in renal patients. Large-scale, well-designed and adequately powered studies focusing on hard rather than surrogate outcomes are still awaited. View Full-Text
Keywords: chronic kidney disease; end-stage kidney disease; gut microbiota; prebiotics; probiotics; synbiotics chronic kidney disease; end-stage kidney disease; gut microbiota; prebiotics; probiotics; synbiotics
Figures

Graphical abstract

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Pisano, A.; D’Arrigo, G.; Coppolino, G.; Bolignano, D. Biotic Supplements for Renal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1224.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Nutrients EISSN 2072-6643 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top