[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Sunit C. Singhi1, Suresh Kumar2

1. 1Deptartment of Pediatrics, MM Institute of Medical Science and Research, Mullana, 133207, India
2. 2Department Of Pediatrics, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Post graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India

First published: 29 Mar 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):407 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7630.1

Latest published: 29 Mar 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):407 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7630.1

Abstract Gut microflora contribute greatly to immune and nutritive functions and act as a physical barrier against pathogenic organisms across the gut mucosa. Critical illness disrupts the balance between host and gut microflora, facilitating colonization, overgrowth, and translocation of pathogens and microbial products across intestinal mucosal barrier and causing systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis. Commonly used probiotics, which have been developed from organisms that form gut microbiota, singly or in combination, can restore gut microflora and offer the benefits similar to those offered by normal gut flora, namely immune enhancement, improved barrier function of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), and prevention of bacterial translocation. Enteral supplementation of probiotic strains containing either Lactobacillus alone or in combination with Bifidobacterium reduced the incidence and severity of necrotizing enterocolitis and allcause mortality in preterm infants. Orally administered Lactobacillus casei subspecies rhamnosus, Lactobacillus reuteri, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus were effective in the prevention of late-onset sepsis and GIT colonization by Candida in preterm very low birth weight infants. In critically ill children, probiotics are effective in the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Oral administration of a mix of probiotics for 1 week to children on broad-spectrum antibiotics in a pediatric intensive care unit decreased GIT colonization by Candida, led to a 50% reduction in candiduria, and showed a trend toward decreased incidence of candidemia. However, routine use of probiotics cannot be supported on the basis of current scientific evidence. Safety of probiotics is also a concern; rarely, probiotics may cause bacteremia, fungemia, and sepsis in immunocompromised critically ill children. More studies are needed to answer questions on the effectiveness of a mix versus single-strain probiotics, optimum dosage regimens and duration of treatment, cost effectiveness, and risk-benefit potential for the prevention and treatment of various critical illnesses.

Open Peer Review

Approval Status

29 Mar 2016

Faculty Reviews are review articles written by the prestigious Members of Faculty Opinions. The articles are commissioned and peer reviewed before publication to ensure that the final, published version is comprehensive and accessible. The reviewers who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations.

1. 1.
2. 2.

Margaret Parker, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, USA

Any comments on the article can be found at the end of the article.

Keywords Antibiotic associated Diarrhea, Candida colonization, candidemia, Critical illness, Critically ill children, Nosocomial Infections, Probiotics, Ventilator Associated Pneumonia

Critically ill patients are predisposed to altered gut microflora, which can lead to infective and non-infective complications and adverse outcome1 3. Probiotic bacteria have the potential to restore the balance of gut microflora in critically ill children and confer a health benefit when given for various indications. Probiotics are defined by a joint working group of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization as “live microbes which when administered in adequate amount confer health benefit to the host”4. In addition, probiotics should be non-pathogenic, stable in acid and bile, able to adhere to and colonize human gut mucosa, and retain viability during storage and use. They should be scientifically demonstrated to have beneficial physiological effects and safety so that they can be used to improve microbial balance and to confer health benefit. In recent years, probiotics have been increasingly used in critical care settings for the prevention of certain diseases that are otherwise associated with high mortality. In this review, we examine the current status of probiotics in the care of critically ill children on the basis of available literature and identify directions for future research.

The human gut represents a complex ecosystem where a delicate balance exists between the host and the microflora. More than 400 different species of microbes live in the gut as commensal; the total estimated number is more than 10 times the number of eukaryotic cells in the human body3,5. Human gut microflora consists principally of obligate anaerobes (95%; Bifidobacterium, Clostridium, Eubacterium, Fusobacterium, Peptostreptococcus, and Bacteriodes) and facultative anaerobes (1–10%; Lactobacillus, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, and Bacillus). Bifidobacteria are predominant microbes that represent up to 80% of the cultivable fecal bacteria in infants and 25% in adults. Each human being has his or her own unique microbial composition, especially of lactic acid bacterial (LAB) strains3. Most of these microbes have health-promoting effects; however, a few are potentially pathogenic. Normally, the ‘good’ microbes outnumber potentially pathogenic bacteria and live in symbiosis with the host. The optimal balance, composition, and function of gut microflora depend on the supply of food (fermentable fibers and complex proteins) and fluctuate with antibiotic usage, diarrheal diseases, and critical illness3. The gut microflora benefits the host by performing various crucial functions (Table 1).

Critical illness and its treatment create a hostile environment in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and alter the microflora that tilts the balance to favor overgrowth of pathogens. The hostile environment is exacerbated by the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, invasive central lines, endotracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, antacids, H2 blockers, steroids, and immunosuppressive and cytotoxic therapy. Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), burns, malnutrition, changes in nutrient availability, gut motility, pH, redox state, osmolality, and the release of high amounts of stress hormones (including catecholamines) further compromise the critical balance2,3.

Studies in experimental models have shown that after onset of acute pancreatitis there was disappearance of beneficial LAB within 6 to 12 hours6 8. In patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), there is a reduction in beneficial bacteria (Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus) that leads to a decrease in short-chain fatty acid levels and elevation of intestinal pH, indicating a disturbed intestinal environment9. Hostile gut environment and disruption of the balance of gut microflora alter local defense mechanisms and lead to colonization and overgrowth of potentially pathogenic commensals such as Salmonella, E. coli, Yersinia, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. These pathogenic commensals cause cytokine release, cell apoptosis, activation of neutrophils, and disruption in epithelial tight junctions1,2. With loss of “colonization resistance”, the gut is unable to prevent the translocation of pathogens and toxins across the gut wall into the bloodstream, leading to SIRS, MODS, and mortality. Interestingly, the gut has been identified as the originator and promoter of health care-associated infections (HCAIs) and MODS in critically ill patients1,10. Restoring the beneficial gut microflora with an exogenous supply of new and effective microbes (probiotics) seems an attractive option to restore the “colonization resistance”.

The most frequently used probiotic strains are Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium11; other species of probiotics are enlisted inTable 2. These probiotics are used either singly or in combination. Multistrain probiotics are likely to be better than single-strain probiotics, as individual probiotics have different functions and have synergistic effects when administered together. A daily intake of 106–109 colony-forming units (CFUs) is reportedly the minimum effective dose for therapeutic purposes11,12.

The beneficial effects of probiotics are due to change in the composition of gut flora and modification of immune response13. Probiotic strains activate mucosal immunity and stimulate cytokine production, IgA secretion, phagocytosis, and production of substances (such as organic acids, hydrogen peroxide, and bacteriocins) that are inhibitory to pathogens. They also compete for nutrients with pathogenic bacteria and inhibit pathogen attachment and action of

microbial toxin. Probiotics also have a trophic effect on intestinal mucosa (by stimulating the proliferation of normal epithelium that maintains mucosal barrier defenses), modulate innate and adaptive immune defense mechanisms via the normalization of altered gut flora, and prevent bacterial translocation12–16. Table 3 and Table 4 provide a summary of various studies demonstrating different mechanisms of action of probiotics in experimental and clinical studies, respectively.

1. Table 3. Experimental studies showing mechanisms of beneficial effects of probiotics.

1. Table 4. Clinical studies showing mechanisms of beneficial effects of probiotics.

Studies have evaluated the role of probiotics in critically ill children for the prevention and treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and HCAIs, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), Candida colonization, and invasive candidiasis.

Probiotics and necrotizing enterocolitis

In 1999, a study showed that oral administration of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium infantis reduced NEC17. This was

followed by a negative study showing that 7 days of L. rhamnosus GG supplementation starting with the first feed was not effective in reducing the incidence of urinary tract infection, NEC, or sepsis in preterm infants18. However, subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different strains of Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria showed a significant reduction in the development of NEC19,20. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Alfaleh et al.21 in 2008 concluded that probiotic supplementation reduced the incidence of NEC stage II (or more) and mortality. A more recent meta-analysis by the same authors, involving 24 trials in

preterm neonates, found that supplementation with probiotic preparations containing Lactobacillus either alone or in combination with Bifidobacterium prevents severe NEC and reduces all-cause mortality22.

Probiotics in antibiotic-associated diarrhea

The osmotic and invasive AAD is often observed among critically ill children receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics. It is attributed to overgrowth of pathogens and a decrease in population of microbes that have beneficial metabolic functions23. Several investigators have shown that probiotics could prevent AAD. The results of metaanalyses on the effect of probiotics for the prevention of AAD are given in Table 5.

Probiotics for the prevention of health care-associated infections

There are limited studies in this field in critically ill children. Most of the studies are in critically ill adults. These studied have yielded mixed results. A randomized trial that included mechanically ventilated, multiple-trauma patients (n = 65) demonstrated that 15 days of multi-strain probiotic therapy led to a significant reduction in the rate of infection, SIRS, severe sepsis, duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and mortality24. In contrast, a systematic review (eight RCTs; n = 999) revealed no beneficial effect of probiotics or synbiotics on critically ill adults in terms of clinical outcomes, namely length of ICU stay, incidence of HCAIs, pneumonia, and hospital mortality25. A meta-analysis of 12 RCTs that included 1546 critically ill adult patients found that the use of probiotics was associated with a statistically significant reduction in nosocomial pneumonia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57–0.97, P = 0.03, I[2] = 46%), although

there was no statistically significant effect on ICU and in-hospital mortality and duration of ICU and hospital stay26. In the same year, another systemic review of 23 RCTs, by Petrof et al.27, involving critically ill adults, demonstrated that probiotics were associated with reduced infectious complications (risk ratio = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69–0.99; P = 0.03; test for heterogeneity P = 0.05; I = 44%), VAP rates (risk ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.59–0.97; P = 0.03; test for heterogeneity P = 0.16; I = 35%), and ICU mortality (risk ratio = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.59–1.09; P = 0.16; test for heterogeneity P = 0.89; I = 0%). There was no influence on in-hospital mortality or length of ICU and hospital stay. The results of a meta-analysis by Bo et al.28 that included eight RCTs (n = 1083) in adults found that probiotics resulted in decreased incidence of VAP (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.52–0.95, low-quality evidence).

In critically ill children, Honeycutt et al.29 observed a statistically non-significant trend toward an increased rate of infection with probiotic strain (11 versus 4, relative risk [RR] = 1.94, 95% CI 0.53–7.04; P = 0.31). They had randomly assigned 61 critically ill children to receive either a probiotic (one capsule of L. rhamnosus strain GG and inulin daily) or placebo (one capsule of inulin) until discharge from the hospital. However, these findings were not substantiated by subsequent studies in children. Wang et al.30, in an RCT comprising 100 critically ill full-term infants, found that administration of a probiotics mix (L. casei, L. acidophilus, Bacillus subtilis, and Enterococcus faecalis) three times daily for 8 days enhanced immune activity, decreased incidence of nosocomial pneumonia and MODS, and reduced length of hospital stay. Recently, Banupriya et al.31 published an open-label randomized trial that included 150 children, aged 12 years or younger, who were likely to need mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. The

intervention group received a probiotics mix of L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, Lactobacillus plantarum, L. casei, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Bifidobacterium longum, B. infantis, Bifidobacterium breve, and Streptococcus thermophilus for 7 days or until discharge, whichever was earlier; the controls did not receive either probiotics or any placebo. The authors found that probiotics resulted in a significant decrease in incidence of VAP, duration of pediatric ICU (PICU) and hospital stay, and mechanical ventilation. Also, the probiotic group had lower colonization rates with potentially pathogenic organisms (Klebsiella and Pseudomonas) (34.3% versus 51.4%; P = 0.058) and reductions of VAP caused by Klebsiella (4.2% versus 19.4%, P = 0.01) and Pseudomonas (4.2% versus 16.7%, P = 0.03). There were no complications due to the administration of probiotics.

Probiotic use, candida colonization, and invasive candidiasis

Several RCTs have addressed the role of probiotics in the prevention of Candida colonization and invasive candidiasis in neonates. Manzoni et al.32, in an RCT involving 80 very low birth weight (VLBW) neonates, demonstrated that orally administered L. casei subspecies rhamnosus significantly reduced the incidence and the intensity of enteric colonization by Candida species. Romeo

1. et al.33, in a study of 249 preterm neonates who were subdivided to receive L. reuteri (n = 83), L. rhamnosus (n = 83), and no supplementation (n = 83), found that both the probiotics were effective in reducing Candida colonization in the GIT, late-onset sepsis, and abnormal neurological outcomes. Another RCT, by Demirel
2. et al.34, found that in VLBW infants (gestational age of not more than 32 weeks and birth weight of not more than 1500g) prophylactic Saccharomyces boulardii supplementation was as effective as nystatin in reducing fungal colonization and invasive fungal infection and was more effective in reducing the incidence of clinical sepsis and number of sepsis attacks. An RCT by Roy et al.35 demonstrated that supplementation with a mix of multiple probiotics (a mix of L. acidophilus, B. longum, Bifidobacterium bifidum, and Bifidobacterium lactis) in preterm infants and neonates led to reduced enteral fungal colonization and invasive fungal sepsis, earlier establishment of full enteral feeds, and reduced duration of hospital stay. More recently, Oncel et al.36, in a RCT, demonstrated that prophylactic oral administration of L. reuteri in preterm infants (gestational age of not more than 32 weeks and birth weight of not more than 1500g) was as effective as nystatin in the prevention of fungal colonization and invasive candidiasis and reduced the incidence of sepsis, feeding intolerance, and duration of hospitalization.

Limited data are available on the role of probiotics in the prevention of Candida colonization and Candida infection in critically ill pediatric patients. In a placebo-controlled RCT, we found that administration of a mix of probiotics (L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus,B. longum,B. bifidum,S. boulardii, andS. thermophilus) for 1 week to children being treated in a PICU with broad-spectrum antibiotics decreased the prevalence of Candida colonization of the GIT by 34.5% and 37.2% on days 7 and 14, respectively, and led to an almost 50% reduction in the incidence of candiduria37. We also observed that the rate of Candida bloodstream infection was lower in the probiotic group as compared with the placebo group; the

difference, however, was not statistically significant, as the sample size was not sufficient to evaluate this outcome. To test the hypothesis that the enteral supplementation with probiotics in critically ill children can decrease the prevalence of invasive candidiasis, we conducted a retrospective “before and after” study that included critically ill children on broad-spectrum antibiotics for at least 48 hours. The study showed that the probiotics group (4 of 344, 1.2%) had a significantly lower incidence of candidemia than the control group (14 of 376, 3.7%, RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.10–0.94; P = 0.03)38. Candiduria was noted in 10.7% of patients in the probiotic group and 22% in the control group (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.34–0.7; P = 0.0001)38.

Complementing these clinical studies, laboratory studies have also shown that several probiotic strains prevent Candida colonization by inhibiting adhesion and biofilm formation, germination, and conversion of yeast to germ (filamentation)1439. Overall, the current evidence shows that supplementation of probiotics could be a potentially effective strategy in reducing Candida colonization as well as invasive candidiasis in critically ill children.

Although most commercially available probiotic strains are widely regarded as safe, there are some concerns with respect to safety, particularly in severely debilitated or immunosuppressed patients3. Though L. rhamnosus belongs to the normal human rectal, oral, and vaginal mucosal flora, there are a few case reports of liver abscess due to L. rhamnosus, lactobacillemia, and infective endocarditis40 46. Lactobacillus sepsis has been documented in a few reports and was directly linked with the ingestion of probiotic supplements, especially among immunocompromised patients and those with endocarditis40. Kunz et al.47 described two premature infants with short gut syndrome who were fed via gastrostomy or jejunostomy and developed Lactobacillus bacteremia while taking Lactobacillus GG supplements. Land et al.48 reported two children with definitive probiotic sepsis: a 4-month-old infant with AAD after cardiac surgery who developed Lactobacillus GG endocarditis 3 weeks after commencing Lactobacillus GG supplementation and a 6-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and AAD who developed Lactobacillus GG bacteremia on day 44 of treatment. The use of L. rhamnosus GG in critically ill children was found to have a statistically non-significant trend toward increase in nosocomial infection29. Nonetheless, the risk of infection due to Lactobacilli is extremely rare and is estimated to cause 0.05 to 0.4% of cases of infective endocarditis and bacteremia49. There are rare reports of fungemia and septicemia in immunocompromised patients and critically ill patients with the use of S. boulardii50 52. Recently, there have been case reports of B. longum bacteremia in preterm infants receiving probiotics53,54.

Several studies support the general safety of probiotics in a wide range of settings. Manzoni et al.55, in a retrospective 6-year cohort study involving VLBW infants, demonstrated that administration of Lactobacillus GG as a single dose of 3×109 CFU/day from the fourth day of life for 4 to 6 weeks was well tolerated without any adverse effects and that none had bacteremia or sepsis episode attributable to Lactobacillus GG. Srinivasan et al.56 conducted a prospective study on children admitted to a PICU (n = 28) to establish clinical

safety (invasive infection/colonization) of L. casei Shirota by bacteriologic surveillance in surface swabs and endotracheal aspirates (colonization) as well as blood, urine, and sterile body fluid cultures. They found no evidence of either colonization or bacteremia with L. casei Shirota, and the preparation was well tolerated with no apparent side effects. Simakachorn et al.57, in an RCT involving 94 mechanically ventilated children (1 to 3 years), demonstrated that test formula containing a synbiotic blend (L. paracasei NCC 2461, B. longum NCC 3001, fructooligosaccharides, inulin, and Acacia gum) was well tolerated.

It has been suggested that the presence of a single major risk factor (immunocompromised state and premature infants) or more than one minor risk factor (cardiac valvular disease, central venous catheter, impaired intestinal epithelial barrier, administration of probiotics by jejunostomy, and probiotics with properties of high mucosal adhesion or known pathogenicity) merits caution in using probiotics because of the risk of probiotics-sepsis58.

Other safety concerns of theoretical importance are genetic transfer of antibiotic resistance from probiotic strains to more pathogenic bacteria in intestinal microbiota (particularly Enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus)59,60, deleterious metabolic activities, and excessive immune stimulation in susceptible individuals3,14. Many strains of Lactobacilli are naturally resistant to vancomycin.

As is evident from many recent studies, probiotics have a promising role in prophylaxis and the treatment of various conditions in critically ill children. However, these results are derived mainly from studies conducted in single centers and are limited by many factors, including small sample sizes, different populations and disease conditions studied, and heterogeneity in the probiotic strains, dose, and duration used. For probiotics to exert their action, it is important that they achieve tight adhesion to intestinal mucosa, and

this may be difficult in critical illness. Most of the strains colonize the intestine only after 1 week of consumption, whereas early and effective mucosal adherence is needed to prevent MODS in critically ill children. Well-designed, large multi-center studies are needed for a better understanding of the role of probiotics in critically ill children as well as their pharmacokinetics, mechanisms of action, appropriate dose, administrative regimens, interactions, side effects, risk-benefit potential, and selection of specific probiotics (single-strain or multi-strain), dose, and duration for specific critical care conditions.

Probiotics have the ability to restore the imbalance of intestinal microbiota and function in critically ill children and have been used for various indications, including the prevention of AAD, HCAIs, VAP, Candida colonization, and invasive candidiasis. Safety may be of concern in critically ill, fragile children, as probiotic strains may (albeit rarely) cause bacteremia, fungemia, and sepsis. Welldesigned multi-center RCTs are needed to address these issues before the routine use of probiotics is recommended in critically ill children.

Author contributions

Sunit C. Singhi conceived the plan of the review, drafted the broad outline, critically reviewed the draft, and finalized the manuscript. Suresh Kumar carried out the literature search and drafted the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The author(s) declared that they have no competing interests.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

1. 1. Marshall JC, Christou NV, Meakins JL: The gastrointestinal tract. The “undrained abscess” of multiple organ failure. Ann Surg. 1993; 218(2): 111–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. 2. Alverdy JC, Laughlin RS, Wu L: Influence of the critically ill state on host-pathogen interactions within the intestine: gut-derived sepsis redefined. Crit Care Med. 2003; 31(2): 598–607. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. 3. Singhi SC, Baranwal A: Probiotic use in the critically ill. Indian J Pediatr. 2008; 75(6): 621–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. 4. Lilly DM, Stillwell RH: Probiotics: growth-promoting factors produced by microorganisms. Science. 1965; 147(3659): 747–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. 5. Guarner F, Malagelada JR: Gut flora in health and disease. Lancet. 2003; 361(9356): 512–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. 6. Andersson R, Wang X, Ihse I: The influence of abdominal sepsis on acute pancreatitis in rats: a study on mortality, permeability, arterial pressure, and intestinal blood flow. Pancreas. 1995; 11(4): 365–73. PubMed Abstract
7. 7. Leveau P, Wang X, Soltesz V, et al.: Alterations in intestinal motility and microflora in experimental acute pancreatitis. Int J Pancreatol. 1996; 20(2): 119–25. PubMed Abstract
8. 8. Wang X, Andersson R, Soltesz V, et al.: Gut origin sepsis, macrophage function,

1. and oxygen extraction associated with acute pancreatitis in the rat. World J Surg. 1996; 20(3): 299–307; discussion 307–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. 9. Shimizu K, Ogura H, Goto M, et al.: Altered gut flora and environment in patients with severe SIRS. J Trauma. 2006; 60(1): 126–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. 10. MacFie J, O’Boyle C, Mitchell CJ, et al.: Gut origin of sepsis: a prospective study investigating associations between bacterial translocation, gastric microflora, and septic morbidity. Gut. 1999; 45(2): 223–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. 11. Kligler B, Cohrssen A: Probiotics. Am Fam Physician. 2008; 78(9): 1073–8. PubMed Abstract
5. 12. Bengmark S: Bioecologic control of the gastrointestinal tract: the role of flora and supplemented probiotics and synbiotics. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2005; 34(3): 413–36, viii. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. 13. Chermesh I, Eliakim R: Probiotics and the gastrointestinal tract: where are we in 2005? World J Gastroenterol. 2006; 12(6): 853–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. 14. Kumar S, Singhi S: Role of probiotics in prevention of Candida infection in critically ill children. Mycoses. 2013; 56(3): 204–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. 15. Buts JP, Bernasconi P, Vaerman JP, et al.: Stimulation of secretory IgA and secretory component of immunoglobulins in small intestine of rats treated

1. with Saccharomyces boulardii. Dig Dis Sci. 1990; 35(2): 251–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. 16. Vandenplas Y, Huys G, Daube G: Probiotics: an update. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2015; 91(1): 6–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. 17. Hoyos AB: Reduced incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis associated with enteral administration of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium infantis to neonates in an intensive care unit. Int J Infect Dis. 1999; 3(4): 197–202. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. 18. Dani C, Biadaioli R, Bertini G, et al.: Probiotics feeding in prevention of urinary tract infection, bacterial sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. A prospective double-blind study. Biol Neonate. 2002; 82(2): 103–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. 19. Lin HC, Su BH, Chen AC, et al.: Oral probiotics reduce the incidence and severity of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2005; 115(1): 1–4. PubMed Abstract
6. 20. Bin-Nun A, Bromiker R, Wilschanski M, et al.: Oral probiotics prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight neonates. J Pediatr. 2005; 147(2): 192–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. 21. Alfaleh K, Bassler D: Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; (1): CD005496. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. 22. AlFaleh K, Anabrees J: Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 4: CD005496. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
9. 23. Beaugerie L, Petit JC: Microbial-gut interactions in health and disease. Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2004; 18(2): 337–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. 24. Kotzampassi K, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Voudouris A, et al.: Benefits of a synbiotic formula (Synbiotic 2000Forte) in critically Ill trauma patients: early results of a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2006; 30(10): 1848–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. 25. Watkinson PJ, Barber VS, Dark P, et al.: The use of pre- pro- and synbiotics in adult intensive care unit patients: systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2007; 26(2): 182–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. 26. Liu KX, Zhu YG, Zhang J, et al.: Probiotics’ effects on the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2012; 16(3): R109. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
13. 27. Petrof EO, Dhaliwal R, Manzanares W, et al.: Probiotics in the critically ill: a systematic review of the randomized trial evidence. Crit Care Med. 2012; 40(12): 3290–302. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
14. 28. Bo L, Li J, Tao T, et al.: Probiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 10: CD009066. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
15. 29. Honeycutt TC, El Khashab M, Wardrop RM 3rd, et al.: Probiotic administration and the incidence of nosocomial infection in pediatric intensive care: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2007; 8(5): 452–8; quiz 464. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. 30. Wang Y, Gao L, Zhang YH, et al.: Efficacy of probiotic therapy in full-term infants with critical illness. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2014; 23(4): 575–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
17. 31. Banupriya B, Biswal N, Srinivasaraghavan R, et al.: Probiotic prophylaxis to prevent ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) in children on mechanical ventilation: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2015; 41(4): 677–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
18. 32. Manzoni P, Mostert M, Leonessa ML, et al.: Oral supplementation with Lactobacillus casei subspecies rhamnosus prevents enteric colonization by Candida species in preterm neonates: a randomized study. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(12): 1735–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. 33. Romeo MG, Romeo DM, Trovato L, et al.: Role of probiotics in the prevention of the enteric colonization by Candida in preterm newborns: incidence of late-onset sepsis and neurological outcome. J Perinatol. 2011; 31(1): 63–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
20. 34. Demirel G, Celik IH, Erdeve O, et al.: Prophylactic Saccharomyces boulardii versus nystatin for the prevention of fungal colonization and invasive fungal infection in premature infants. Eur J Pediatr. 2013; 172(10): 1321–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
21. 35. Roy A, Chaudhuri J, Sarkar D, et al.: Role of Enteric Supplementation of Probiotics on Late-onset Sepsis by Candida species in Preterm Low Birth Weight Neonates: A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo-controlled Trial. N Am J Med Sci. 2014; 6(1): 50–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

1. 36. Oncel MY, Arayici S, Sari FN, et al.: Comparison of Lactobacillus reuteri and nystatin prophylaxis on Candida colonization and infection in very low birth weight infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 28(15): 1790–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
2. 37. Kumar S, Bansal A, Chakrabarti A, et al.: Evaluation of efficacy of probiotics in prevention of candida colonization in a PICU-a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2013; 41(2): 565–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
3. 38. Kumar S, Singhi S, Chakrabarti A, et al.: Probiotic use and prevalence of candidemia and candiduria in a PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2013; 14(9): e409–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. 39. Jiang Q, Stamatova I, Kari K, et al.: Inhibitory activity in vitro of probiotic lactobacilli against oral Candida under different fermentation conditions. Benef Microbes. 2015; 6(3): 361–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
5. 40. Cannon JP, Lee TA, Bolanos JT, et al.: Pathogenic relevance of Lactobacillus: a retrospective review of over 200 cases. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005; 24(1): 31–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. 41. Rautio M, Jousimies-Somer H, Kauma H, et al.: Liver abscess due to a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain indistinguishable from L. rhamnosus strain GG. Clin Infect Dis. 1999; 28(5): 1159–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. 42. Horwitch CA, Furseth HA, Larson AM, et al.: Lactobacillemia in three patients with AIDS. Clin Infect Dis. 1995; 21(6): 1460–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. 43. Mackay AD, Taylor MB, Kibbler CC, et al.: Lactobacillus endocarditis caused by a probiotic organism. Clin Microbiol Infect. 1999; 5(5): 290–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. 44. Salminen MK, Rautelin H, Tynkkynen S, et al.: Lactobacillus bacteremia, clinical significance, and patient outcome, with special focus on probiotic L. rhamnosus GG. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 38(1): 62–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. 45. Salvana EM, Frank M: Lactobacillus endocarditis: case report and review of cases reported since 1992. J Infect. 2006; 53(1): e5–e10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. 46. Vahabnezhad E, Mochon AB, Wozniak LJ, et al.: Lactobacillus bacteremia associated with probiotic use in a pediatric patient with ulcerative colitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013; 47(5): 437–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. 47. Kunz AN, Noel JM, Fairchok MP: Two cases of Lactobacillus bacteremia during probiotic treatment of short gut syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2004; 38(4): 457–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. 48. Land MH, Rouster-Stevens K, Woods CR, et al.: Lactobacillus sepsis associated with probiotic therapy. Pediatrics. 2005; 115(1): 178–81. PubMed Abstract
14. 49. Salminen MK, Tynkkynen S, Rautelin H, et al.: Lactobacillus bacteremia during a rapid increase in probiotic use of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in Finland. Clin Infect Dis. 2002; 35(10): 1155–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. 50. Hennequin C, Kauffmann-Lacroix C, Jobert A, et al.: Possible role of catheters in Saccharomyces boulardii fungemia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000; 19(1): 16–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. 51. Lestin F, Pertschy A, Rimek D: [Fungemia after oral treatment with Saccharomyces boulardii in a patient with multiple comorbidities]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2003; 128(48): 2531–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. 52. Muñoz P, Bouza E, Cuenca-Estrella M, et al.: Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia: an emerging infectious disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2005; 40(11): 1625–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. 53. Bertelli C, Pillonel T, Torregrossa A, et al.: Bifidobacterium longum bacteremia in preterm infants receiving probiotics. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 60(6): 924–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
19. 54. Zbinden A, Zbinden R, Berger C, et al.: Case series of Bifidobacterium longum bacteremia in three preterm infants on probiotic therapy. Neonatology. 2015; 107(1): 56–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
20. 55. Manzoni P, Lista G, Gallo E, et al.: Routine Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG administration in VLBW infants: a retrospective, 6-year cohort study. Early Hum Dev. 2011; 87(Suppl 1): S35–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
21. 56. Srinivasan R, Meyer R, Padmanabhan R, et al.: Clinical safety of Lactobacillus casei shirota as a probiotic in critically ill children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2006; 42(2): 171–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. 57. Simakachorn N, Bibiloni R, Yimyaem P, et al.: Tolerance, safety, and effect on the faecal microbiota of an enteral formula supplemented with pre- and probiotics in critically ill children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2011; 53(2): 174–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

1. 58. Boyle RJ, Robins-Browne RM, Tang ML: Probiotic use in clinical practice: what are the risks? Am J Clin Nutr. 2006; 83(6): 1256–64; quiz 1446–7. PubMed Abstract
2. 59. Egervärn M, Danielsen M, Roos S, et al.: Antibiotic susceptibility profiles of Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus fermentum. J Food Prot. 2007; 70(2): 412–8. PubMed Abstract
3. 60. Egervärn M, Roos S, Lindmark H: Identification and characterization of antibiotic resistance genes in Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus plantarum. J Appl Microbiol. 2009; 107(5): 1658–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. 61. Noverr MC, Huffnagle GB: The ‘microflora hypothesis’ of allergic diseases. Clin Exp Allergy. 2005; 35(12): 1511–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. 62. Weinstein PD, Cebra JJ: The preference for switching to IgA expression by Peyer’s patch germinal center B cells is likely due to the intrinsic influence of their microenvironment. J Immunol. 1991; 147(12): 4126–35. PubMed Abstract
6. 63. Corr SC, Li Y, Riedel CU, et al.: Bacteriocin production as a mechanism for the antiinfective activity of Lactobacillus salivarius UCC118. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104(18): 7617–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. 64. Roberfroid MB, Bornet F, Bouley C, et al.: Colonic microflora: nutrition and health. Summary and conclusions of an International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) [Europe] workshop held in Barcelona, Spain. Nutr Rev. 1995; 53(5): 127–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. 65. Conly JM, Stein K, Worobetz L, et al.: The contribution of vitamin K2 (menaquinones) produced by the intestinal microflora to human nutritional requirements for vitamin K. Am J Gastroenterol. 1994; 89(6): 915–23. PubMed Abstract
9. 66. Younes H, Coudray C, Bellanger J, et al.: Effects of two fermentable carbohydrates (inulin and resistant starch) and their combination on calcium and magnesium balance in rats. Br J Nutr. 2001; 86(4): 479–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. 67. Machairas N, Pistiki A, Droggiti DI, et al.: Pre-treatment with probiotics prolongs survival after experimental infection by multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in rodents: an effect on sepsis-induced immunosuppression. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015; 45(4): 376–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
11. 68. Mangell P, Lennernäs P, Wang M, et al.: Adhesive capability of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v is important for preventing bacterial translocation in endotoxemic rats. APMIS. 2006; 114(9): 611–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. 69. Ruan X, Shi H, Xia G, et al.: Encapsulated Bifidobacteria reduced bacterial translocation in rats following hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation. Nutrition. 2007; 23(10): 754–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. 70. Sánchez E, Nieto JC, Boullosa A, et al.: VSL#3 probiotic treatment decreases bacterial translocation in rats with carbon tetrachloride-induced cirrhosis. Liver Int. 2015; 35(3): 735–45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
14. 71. Shimizu K, Ogura H, Goto M, et al.: Synbiotics decrease the incidence of septic

1. complications in patients with severe SIRS: a preliminary report. Dig Dis Sci. 2009; 54(5): 1071–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. 72. Hayakawa M, Asahara T, Ishitani T, et al.: Synbiotic therapy reduces the pathological gram-negative rods caused by an increased acetic acid concentration in the gut. Dig Dis Sci. 2012; 57(10): 2642–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
3. 73. Jain PK, McNaught CE, Anderson AD, et al.: Influence of synbiotic containing Lactobacillus acidophilus La5, Bifidobacterium lactis Bb 12, Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus bulgaricus and oligofructose on gut barrier function and sepsis in critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Nutr. 2004; 23(4): 467–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. 74. Mohan R, Koebnick C, Schildt J, et al.: Effects of Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 supplementation on intestinal microbiota of preterm infants: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. J Clin Microbiol. 2006; 44(11): 4025–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. 75. Sanaie S, Ebrahimi-Mameghani M, Hamishehkar H, et al.: Effect of a multispecies probiotic on inflammatory markers in critically ill patients: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Res Med Sci. 2014; 19(9): 827–33. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
6. 76. McNaught CE, Woodcock NP, Anderson AD, et al.: A prospective randomised trial of probiotics in critically ill patients. Clin Nutr. 2005; 24(2): 211–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. 77. Ebrahimi-Mameghani M, Sanaie S, Mahmoodpoor A, et al.: Effect of a probiotic preparation (VSL#3) in critically ill patients: A randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial (Pilot Study). Pak J Med Sci. 2013; 29(2): 490–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
8. 78. D’Souza AL, Rajkumar C, Cooke J, et al.: Probiotics in prevention of antibiotic associated diarrhoea: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2002; 324(7350): 1361. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. 79. Szajewska H, Ruszczyński M, Radzikowski A: Probiotics in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Pediatr. 2006; 149(3): 367–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. 80. Johnston BC, Supina AL, Vohra S: Probiotics for pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. CMAJ. 2006; 175(4): 377–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. 81. Hempel S, Newberry SJ, Maher AR, et al.: Probiotics for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a systematic review and metaanalysis. JAMA. 2012; 307(18): 1959–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
12. 82. Szajewska H, Kołodziej M: Systematic review with meta-analysis: Saccharomyces boulardii in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 42(7): 793–801. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
13. 83. Szajewska H, Kołodziej M: Systematic review with meta-analysis: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in children and adults. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 42(10): 1149–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

Faculty Reviews are review articles written by the prestigious Members of Faculty Opinions. The articles are commissioned and peer reviewed before publication to ensure that the final, published version is comprehensive and accessible. The reviewers who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations.

1. 1.
2. 2.

Evangelos Giamarellos-Bourboulis Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.