Probiotics for treating eczema (2018)

Background Eczema is a common chronic skin condition. Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema; their use is increasing, as numerous clinical trials are under way. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008, which suggested that probiotics may not be an effective treatment for eczema but identified areas in which evidence was lacking. Objectives To assess the effects of probiotics for treating patients of all ages with eczema. Search methods We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also handsearched a number of conference proceedings. We updated the searches of the main databases in January 2018 and of trials registries in March 2018, but we have not yet incorporated these results into the review. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of probiotics (live orally ingested micro‐organisms) compared with no treatment, placebo, or other active intervention with no probiotics for the treatment of eczema diagnosed by a doctor. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We recorded adverse events from the included studies and from a separate adverse events search conducted for the first review. We formally assessed reporting bias by preparing funnel plots, and we performed trial sequential analysis for the first primary outcome ‐ eczema symptoms at the end of active treatment. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome (in italic font). Main results We included 39 randomised controlled trials involving 2599 randomised participants. We included participants of either gender, aged from the first year of life through to 55 years (only six studies assessed adults), who had mild to severe eczema. Trials were undertaken in primary and secondary healthcare settings, mainly in Europe or Asia. Duration of treatment ranged from four weeks to six months, and duration of follow‐up after end of treatment ranged from zero to 36 months. We selected no standard dose: researchers used a variety of doses and concentrations of probiotics. The probiotics used were bacteria of the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria species, which were taken alone or combined with other probiotics, and were given with or without prebiotics. Comparators were no treatment, placebo, and other treatments with no probiotics. For all results described in this abstract, the comparator was no probiotics. Active treatment ranged from six weeks to three months for all of the following results, apart from the investigator‐rated eczema severity outcome, for which the upper limit of active treatment was 16 weeks. With regard to score, the higher the score, the more severe were the symptoms. All key results reported in this abstract were measured at the end of active treatment, except for adverse events, which were measured during the active treatment period. Probiotics probably make little or no difference in participant‐ or parent‐rated symptoms of eczema (13 trials; 754 participants): symptom severity on a scale from 0 to 20 was 0.44 points lower after probiotic treatment (95% confidence interval (CI) ‐1.22 to 0.33; moderate‐quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis shows that target sample sizes of 258 and 456, which are necessary to demonstrate a minimum mean difference of ‐2 and ‐1.5, respectively, with 90% power, have been exceeded, suggesting that further trials with similar probiotic strains for this outcome at the end of active treatment may be futile. We found no evidence suggesting that probiotics make a difference in QoL for patients with eczema (six studies; 552 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% CI ‐0.36 to 0.42; low‐quality evidence) when measured by the participant or the parent using validated disease‐specific QoL instruments. Probiotics may slightly reduce investigator‐rated eczema severity scores (24 trials; 1596 participants). On a scale of 0 to 103 for total Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), a score combining investigator‐rated eczema severity score and participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss was 3.91 points lower after probiotic treatment than after no probiotic treatment (95% CI ‐5.86 to ‐1.96; low‐quality evidence). The minimum clinically important difference for SCORAD has been estimated to be 8.7 points. We noted significant to extreme levels of unexplainable heterogeneity between the results of individual studies. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias; six studies had high attrition bias, and nine were at low risk of bias overall. We found no evidence to show that probiotics make a difference in the risk of adverse events during active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.63; seven trials; 402 participants; low‐quality evidence). Studies in our review that reported adverse effects described gastrointestinal symptoms. Authors' conclusions Evidence suggests that, compared with no probiotic, currently available probiotic strains probably make little or no difference in improving patient‐rated eczema symptoms. Probiotics may make little or no difference in QoL for people with eczema nor in investigator‐rated eczema severity score (combined with participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss); for the latter, the observed effect was small and of uncertain clinical significance. Therefore, use of probiotics for the treatment of eczema is currently not evidence‐based. This update found no evidence of increased adverse effects with probiotic use during studies, but a separate adverse events search from the first review revealed that probiotic treatment carries a small risk of adverse events. Results show significant, unexplainable heterogeneity between individual trial results. Only a small number of studies measured some outcomes. Future studies should better measure QoL scores and adverse events, and should report on new probiotics. Researchers should also consider studying subgroups of patients (e.g. patients with atopy or food allergies, adults) and standardising doses/concentrations of probiotics given.