Specific probiotics in reducing the risk of acute infections in infancy - A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

186Citations
Citations of this article
205Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to determine whether probiotics might be effective in reducing the risk of infections in infancy. Infants requiring formula before the age of 2 months were recruited from community well-baby clinics. Infant formula supplemented with the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium lactis Bb-12 or placebo was administered daily until the age of 12 months. Incidence of early infections (before the age of 7 months) and incidence of recurrent (three or more) infections during the first year of life were recorded as the main outcome measures of the study. During the first 7 months of life, seven out of thirty-two (22%) infants receiving probiotics and twenty out of forty (50%) infants receiving placebo experienced acute otitis media (risk ratio (RR) 0.44 (95% CI 0.21, 0.90); P = 0.014) and antibiotics were prescribed for ten out of thirty-two (31%) infants receiving probiotics and twenty-four out of forty (60%) infants receiving placebo (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.29, 0.92); P = 0.015). During the first year of life, nine out of thirty-two (28%) infants receiving probiotics and twenty-two out of forty (55%) infants receiving placebo encountered recurrent respiratory infections (RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.27, 0.95); P = 0.022). These data suggest that probiotics may offer a safe means of reducing the risk of early acute otitis media and antibiotic use and the risk of recurrent respiratory infections during the first year of life. Further clinical trials are warranted.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rautava, S., Salminen, S., & Isolauri, E. (2009). Specific probiotics in reducing the risk of acute infections in infancy - A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. British Journal of Nutrition, 101(11), 1722–1726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114508116282

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free