Probiotics and the Prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis , - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

probiotics
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Probiotics and the Prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis , - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Probiotics and the Prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis , Death , and Sepsis S ave the dates Monday, March 11 at 12pmET Experiences of Centers Routinely Using Probiotics - University of Utah - Kaiser Permanente, Northern California


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Probiotics

and the

Prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis

,

Death, and Sepsis

slide-2
SLIDE 2

S ave the dates

 Monday, March 11 at 12pmET

Experiences of Centers Routinely Using Probiotics

  • University of Utah
  • Kaiser Permanente, Northern California
  • Kaiser Permanente, Southern California

 Monday, May 6 at 12pmET

Practical Considerations and Consent

  • Emory University
  • UC Davis
  • Patient-family perspective
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Disclaimer

This an educational webinar series. The NEC Society and invited speakers are not marketing any probiotic products, which are not currently FDA approved for the prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis or

  • ther neonatal diseases.
slide-4
SLIDE 4

 Jennifer Canvasser

with son, Micah

 Founder, Director of

NEC Society

 Vision: create a world

without NEC

 Jennifer@

NECsociety.org

slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Today’s speakers

Jennifer Canvasser, MS W Founder, Director NEC S

  • ciety

Mark Underwood, MD, MAS Professor of Pediatrics UC Davis, CA S cientific Advisor, NEC S

  • ciety

Ravi Patel, MD, MS c Associate Professor of Pediatrics Emory University, Atlanta, GA S cientific Advisor, NEC S

  • ciety
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Overview of today’s webinar

 History and mechanisms

 Mark Underwood, MD, MAS

 Review of clinical trials to date

 Ravi Patel, MD, MS

c

 Product choices and quality considerations

 Mark Underwood, MD, MAS

 Patient-family perspective

 Jennifer Canvasser, MS

W

slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9
slide-10
SLIDE 10

222 registrants from 15 countries

slide-11
SLIDE 11
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Probiotics

History and mechanisms of action

Mark Underwood MD UC Davis

Disclosures: Abbott (speakers bureau) Avexegen (advisory board) IBT (chair DSMB) Evolve (support for clinical trial) Probiotics are not approved by the FDA for the treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease

slide-13
SLIDE 13

History

 1899 Henri Tissier: Y shaped bacteria dominate the

feces of healthy breast fed infants

 1907 Elie Metchnikoff proposed consumption of

lactic acid producing bacteria to improve health

 1917 Alfred Nissle isolated a dominant strain of E

coli from a healthy soldier and fed it to soldiers with dysentery

 With the discovery of antibiotics, probiotics moved

to the fringes

slide-14
SLIDE 14

History

 1999 Angela Hoyos: first probiotic cohort

  • study. 25 bed NICU in Bogota. Treatment

year (1994-1995): all patients received Infloran (250M B. inf ant is and 250M L. acidophilus) once daily from admit to

  • discharge. N=1237 Comparison year

(1993-1994): no probiotic administration. N=1282

Hoyos AB, 1999 Int J Infect Dis

slide-15
SLIDE 15

History

 1999 Michael Caplan: first NEC animal study of

probiotics and NEC

Control Probiotic Caplan MS , Gastroenterology 1999

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Mechanisms

 Alter the composition of the gut microbiota  Decrease pro-inflammatory response  Decrease intestinal permeability and bacterial

translocation

 Effects of bacterial metabolites

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Gut Microbiota

922 samples from 58 preemies La Rosa, PNAS 2014 16,669 infants < 33 weeks Yee WH, Pediatrics 2012

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Proteobacteria Firmicutes Bacteroidetes Control NEC Control NEC Control NEC Pammi M, Microbiome, 2017

Meta-analysis of 8 studies of fecal samples prior to NEC

  • 106 infants with NEC
  • 278 control infants
  • 2944 samples
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Mechanisms for changing the microbiota

Bacteriocins Competition for human milk oligosaccharides Anaerobic vs aerobic conditions Competition for iron?

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Is it possible to change the fecal microbiota?

Underwood 2013 J Pediatrics

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • B. breve M16V

Underwood, 2017 JPGN

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Decrease pro-inflammatory response

TLR4 LPS NFKB TNF alpha, IL1beta, IL6, IL8, IL23

PMN recruitment Lymphocyte recruitment TOLLIP/SIGIRR B infantis B bifidum B breve B lactis L acidophilus L reuteri L rhamnosus

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Decrease intestinal permeability

Barrier failure Prematurity: Increased apoptosis, decreased mucin production, absent Paneth cell function B infantis B bifidum B breve B lactis L acidophilus L reuteri L rhamnosus

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Bacterial metabolites

 Lactate and short chain fatty acids  B vitamins  S

econdary bile acids

 Tri-methyl amine oxide

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Probiotics: Review of clinical trials to date

Ravi Mangal Patel, MD, MS c Associate Professor of Pediatrics Emory University and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta rmpatel@ emory.edu @ ravimpatelmd

#preventNEC Disclosure: Probiotics are not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of NEC or

  • ther diseases in preterm

infants. This webinar is intended to be educational in nature only.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Deaths caused by NEC

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of all deaths caused by NEC Postnatal age

Patel RM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015

Causes of death for 6075 deaths among 22,248 live births at 22-28 weeks’ gestation at 25 US academic centers within the NICHD Neonatal Research Network

#preventNEC

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Trends in NEC incidence

Horbar et al. JAMA Pediat r. 2017

~7% Under 5%

#preventNEC

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Prevention of NEC

Prevent NEC

Dysbiosis

Prematurity

Abnormal intestinal oxygenation Inconsistent feeding Non-human milk feeding

Drivers Aim

#preventNEC

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Prevention of NEC

Prevent NEC

Dysbiosis

Prematurity

Abnormal intestinal oxygenation Inconsistent feeding Non-human milk feeding

Drivers Aim

#preventNEC

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Probiotic trials to date:

#preventNEC

46 RCTs enrolling 12,185 preterm infants Risk ratio of on NEC: 0.5 (95% CI 0.4 - 0.6) Risk difference: -0.03 (95% CI -0.03 to -0.02)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

#preventNEC

Probiotic trials to date:

slide-32
SLIDE 32

#preventNEC PiPs Trial ProPrems Trial

Probiotic trials to date:

slide-33
SLIDE 33

#preventNEC

Jacobs S E et al. Pediat rics. 2013

ProPrems Trial

slide-34
SLIDE 34

ProPrems Trial

#preventNEC

Jacobs S E et al. Pediat rics. 2013

*Secondary outcome of trial; primary outcome late-onset sepsis

slide-35
SLIDE 35

PiPS Trial

#preventNEC

Costeloe et al. Lancet . 2016

  • Phase 3, multicenter trial of infants born between 23 to

30 weeks gestation in 24 UK hospitals.

  • Intervention started as soon as possible after

randomization, regardless of feeding.

slide-36
SLIDE 36

#preventNEC

Costeloe et al. Lancet . 2016

PiPS Trial

slide-37
SLIDE 37

#preventNEC

Costeloe et al. Lancet . 2016

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Cumulative meta-analysis

Patel and Underwood. S em Ped S

  • urg. 2018

#preventNEC

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Summary of meta-analysis

Patel and Underwood. S em Ped S

  • urg. 2018

#preventNEC

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Summary of meta-analysis

Patel and Underwood. S em Ped S

  • urg. 2018

#preventNEC

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Current use of probiotics in US

#preventNEC

Based on a 2015 survey, 70 (14%) US NICUs were supplementing probiotics to very low birth weight infants

Viswanathan et al. J Perinat ol. 2016

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Use of probiotics worldwide

#preventNEC US 14%

  • f NICUs

Viswanathan et. al. J Perinatol. 2016

Canada 21%

  • f infants

<29 weeks’ GA

Singh et. al.

  • Pediatrics. 2019

UK 12%

  • f NICUs

Duffield & Clarke. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018

Germany 68%

  • f NICUs

Denkel et al. PLoS One. 2016

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Differences by strain

#preventNEC

Alfaleh et al. Cochrane Dat abase. 2014

Effect on risk of NEC Stage II+ by strain:

  • Lactobacillus:

RR 0.45 (0.27-0.75)

  • Bifidobacterium:

RR 0.48 (0.16-1.47)

  • Sacchromyces boulardii:

RR 0.72 (0.34-1.55)

  • Combination (2 or more):

RR 0.37 (0.25-0.54) Test for subgroup differences: P=0.48

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Conclusions

#preventNEC

  • The cumulative evidence from meta-analyses of

randomized trials demonstrates probiotics effectively reduce the risks of NEC, sepsis and mortality in preterm infants.

  • Subgroup analyses do not show consistent

differences between treatment effects of combination vs. single strain preparations.

  • However, some individual trial data provide

conflicting results, potentially from differences in preparations used.

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Probiotics

Product choices and quality considerations

Mark Underwood MD UC Davis

Disclosures: Abbott (speakers bureau) Avexegen (advisory board) IBT (chair DSMB) Evolve (support for clinical trial) Probiotics are not approved by the FDA for the treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease

slide-46
SLIDE 46

How to choose a probiotic

 S

ingle organism vs combination?

 Include a prebiotic glycan?  Purity and viability?

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Single strain or combination?

 8 RCTs of a Bif idobact erium plus a Lact obacillus +/ - a

S t rept ococcus strain: RR 0.41 (0.25, 0.66)

 5 RCTs of a Lact obacillus species alone: RR 0.63

(0.39, 1.03)

 5 RCTs of a Bif idobact erium species alone: RR 0.53

(0.22, 1.26)

 Comparisons of a multi-strain and a single-strain

probiotic would be valuable

Thomas JP , Acta Paediatr 2017

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Prebiotics

 Galacto-oligosaccharide  Fructo-oligosaccharide  Inulin  Lactulose  Human milk oligosaccharides  S

tudies to date of prebiotics alone have not shown decrease in NEC or death

 Many of the probiotic trials have shown better

NEC reduction with the combination of probiotic + human milk

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Purity and viability

 S

everal studies have shown significant concerns about both purity and viability

Only 1 product of 14 tested contained the exact species stated on the

  • label. 7 of the probiotic combinations contained all of the

microorganisms that were specified on the label, but had additional microbial constituents as well. 5 of the products were missing 1 species claimed on the label. -Marcobal A, JPGN 2008

Only 1 of the 16 products tested exactly matched the bifidobacterial species claims on the label in every sample tested. S

  • me products were

not internally consistent as both pill-to-pill and lot-to-lot variation were observed. -Lewis ZT , Pediatr Research 2016

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Combination products: Infloran

 Currently B. infant is plus L. acidophilus

 RCTs

Lin 2005, 367 infants: Probiotic 1.1% Placebo 5.3%

Lin 2008, 434 infants: Probiotic 1.8% Placebo 6.5%

 Cohort studies

Hoyos 1999, 2510 infants: Probiotic 2.7% Control 6.6%

Hartel 2014, 5351 infants: Probiotic 3.1% Control 4.9%

Repa 2015, 463 infants: Probiotic 7.0% Control 10.3%

Guthmann 2016, 1224 infants: Probiotic 1.4% Control 2.1%

Denkel 2016, 10,890 infants: Probiotic 1.7% Control 3.4%

S amuels 2016, 1961 infants: Probiotic 5.1% Control 7.8%

Raj put 2017, 252 infants: Probiotic 0% Control 1.6%

Escribano 2018, 516 infants: Probiotic 13.3% Control 5.9%

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Combination products: Ultimate Flora Baby

 Currently B. breve, B. bif idum, B. longum, B.

inf ant is and L. rhamnosus

 Produced under good manufacturing practice

(GMP) in Canada

 Cohort studies

 Janvier 2014, 611 infants: Probiotic 5.4%Control 9.8%  S

ingh 2019, 2956 infants: NEC [aOR 0.52 (0.31, 0.87)], mortality [aOR 0.34 (0.20, 0.56)], and composite outcome

  • f NEC or mortality [aOR 0.34 (0.22, 0.52)]
slide-52
SLIDE 52

Combination products: ABC Dophilus

 Currently B. bif idum, B. inf ant is, and S

. t hermophilus

 RCTs

 Bin-Nun 2005, 144 infants: Probiotic 1.4% Placebo 13.9%  Jacobs 2013, 1099 infants: Probiotic 2.0% Placebo 4.4%

 This product was taken off the market

following a death from a fungal contaminant, but is now available again

slide-53
SLIDE 53

S ingle organism probiotics: L reut eri

Produces a variety of bacteriocins

Decreases gut inflammation

Improves gut motility

Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (1778 preterm infants): significant improvement in time to full feeds, length of NICU stay, and late-onset sepsis, trends towards decreased NEC and death

2 cohort studies (665 preterm infants): decreased NEC

Probiotics in the U.S . containing pure L. reut eri

 Biogaia Protectis (meets GMP requirements in Canada)  Gerber S

  • othe

Infant Bacterial Therapeutics has completed a phase 2 multi- center trial of a strain of L. reut eri under IND oversight by the FDA (they are looking for sites for the phase 3 trial) Athalye-Jape G, 2016, JPEN

slide-54
SLIDE 54

S ingle organism probiotics: L. rhamnosus GG

 Large amount of research in adult diseases  RCTs

 Dani 2002, 585 infants: Probiotic 1.4% Placebo 2.8%  Manzoni 2006, 80 infants: Probiotic 2.6% Placebo 7.3%  Awad 2010, 90 infants: Probiotic 0% Placebo 16.7%

 Cohort studies

 Luoto 2010, 2318 infants: 4.5% Control 3.2%  Dang 2015, 263 infants: Probiotic 1.6% Control 5.9%  Kane 2018, 640 infants: Probiotic 16.8% Control 10.2%

slide-55
SLIDE 55

S ingle organism probiotics: B. inf ant is

 Consumes all structures of human milk

  • ligosaccharides (best colonizer)

 Decreases NEC in animal studies  S

uppresses inflammation

 Decreases gut permeability  Probiotics in the U.S

. containing pure B. inf ant is

 Natren Life S

tart

 Evivo

 No clinical trials or RCTs of B. infant is alone in

preemies

 Found in many combination products

slide-56
SLIDE 56

S ingle organism probiotics: B. inf ant is

RCT trial in term breast fed infants S tart S top Frese S A, 2017 mS phere

slide-57
SLIDE 57

S ingle organism probiotics: B. breve

  • B. breve M16V

RCTs

 Wang 2007, 66 infants: Probiotic 0% Placebo 0%  Patole 2014, 159 infants: Probiotic 0% Placebo 1.2% 

Cohort studies

 Y

amashiro 2010, 564 infants: Probiotic 0% Control 2.7%

 Patole 2016, 1755 infants: Probiotic 1.3% Control 3.0% 

  • B. breve BBG-001

RCT

 Costeloe 2015, 1310 infants: Probiotic 9.5% Placebo 10%

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Conclusion

More studies of combination probiotics have shown benefit than single organism probiotics, head to head comparisons are needed

“ No intervention comes close to probiotics when it comes to significant reduction in death, NEC, LOS and feeding intolerance at a cost of less than a dollar a day irrespective of the setting and baseline incidence of NEC” -Athalye-Jape, 2019 Microb Biotechnol

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Probiotics

and the Perspectives of

Parents

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Variability in care

 Lack of information  Views, concerns, and questions

  • ften disregarded

 “Why didn’t probiotics even

come up in conversation? My friend’s baby at a different hospital received probiotics.”

 “If they aren’t telling me

about probiotics, what else aren’t they telling me?”

slide-61
SLIDE 61

Are probiotics safe?

 Lack of FDA approval  Lack of dosing/ usage

guidelines

 Variable product quality  “How do you know

probiotics won’t hurt my baby?”

slide-62
SLIDE 62

Access to interventions

 Inequitable  S

tifling

 Unacceptable  “If this can help

protect my baby’s health, why aren’t we using it?”

slide-63
SLIDE 63

“Parents need more information. More information prepares us for our journey ahead and enables us to better care for

  • ur baby.”
slide-64
SLIDE 64
slide-65
SLIDE 65
slide-66
SLIDE 66

Empower parents

 More

information

 Mentor

families

 “I wanted to be part of my baby’s

care team, but I didn’t know how.”

slide-67
SLIDE 67

Engagement strategies

 Build trust and rapport  Empathetic

communication

 Multimedia

communication

 Provide rationale  More information as

early as possible

“I wanted to be part of the decision- making process. I knew I would live with the consequences of these decisions for a lifetime.”

slide-68
SLIDE 68

NEC Society Resources

 NEC Prevention Through Collaboration

slide-69
SLIDE 69

NEC Society Resources

 Probiotics & Human Milk

slide-70
SLIDE 70
slide-71
SLIDE 71
slide-72
SLIDE 72

Questions & Discussion

 Please use the chat box

Follow up: Jennifer@ NECsociety.org