Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Control Strategies for Xylella fastidiosa in the Balearic Islands
Next Article in Special Issue
The Weissella Genus: Clinically Treatable Bacteria with Antimicrobial/Probiotic Effects on Inflammation and Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Seasonal Patterns of Zoonotic Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Caused by L. major and Transmitted by Phlebotomus papatasi in the North Africa Region, a Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Probiotic Characteristics and Antimicrobial Potential of a Native Bacillus subtilis Strain Fa17.2 Rescued from Wild Bromelia sp. Flowers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/microorganisms10122392
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Efficacy of Probiotics as Antiviral Agents for the Treatment of Rotavirus Gastrointestinal Infections in Children: An Updated Overview of Literature

by
Andrej Steyer
1,
Dušanka Mičetić-Turk
2,3 and
Sabina Fijan
3,*
1
National Laboratory of Health, Environment and Food, Division of Public Health Microbiology, Grablovičeva 44, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Taborska ulica 8, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
3
Institute for Health and Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Žitna ulica 15, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2022, 10(12), 2392; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122392
Submission received: 27 October 2022 / Revised: 27 November 2022 / Accepted: 29 November 2022 / Published: 2 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Probiotics and Antimicrobial Effect)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Enteric viruses, including the rotavirus, norovirus, and adenoviruses, are the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis. The rotavirus disease is especially prevalent among children, and studies over the past decade have revealed complex interactions between rotaviruses and the gut microbiota. One way to treat and prevent dysbiosis is the use of probiotics as an antiviral agent. This review focuses on the latest scientific evidence on the antiviral properties of probiotics against rotavirus gastroenteric infections in children. A total of 19 studies exhibited a statistically significant antiviral effect of probiotics. The main probiotics that were effective were Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG, and various multi-strain probiotics. The underlying mechanism of the probiotics against rotavirus gastroenteric infections in children included immune enhancement and modulation of intestinal microbiota leading to shortening of diarrhoea. However, several clinical studies also found no significant difference in the probiotic group compared to the placebo group even though well-known strains were used, thus showing the importance of correct dosage, duration of treatment, quality of probiotics and the possible influence of other factors, such as the production process of probiotics and the influence of immunisation on the effect of probiotics. Therefore, more robust, well-designed clinical studies addressing all factors are warranted.

1. Introduction

Acute gastroenteritis is one of the most frequently reported infectious diseases in the world. The most common cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is various enteric viruses, including rotaviruses, noroviruses, astroviruses, adenoviruses, and other less presentable viruses [1]. Most are icosahedral nonenveloped viruses, known to present stability in the environment, resistant to many physio-chemical conditions. Their stability in the environment and on various fomites is also crucial for indirect transmission via contaminated surfaces, food, and water [2]. As the infectious dose, particularly for noroviruses, is very low [3], indirect infections are possible, and each year we can follow reports on food and/or waterborne infections, mostly with noroviruses.
Rotaviruses are members of the Reoviridae family and are characterized by their non-enveloped, segmented, double-stranded RNA genome (11 segments). Each of the 11 genes code for a single gene product. Six of the proteins are found in the virus particle (vp1, vp2, vp3, vp4, vp6 and vp7), whereas the remaining five proteins are non-structural (NDP1–NSP5). The Rotavirus is classified into serogroups A to E based on antigenic properties. Only groups A to C have been shown to infect humans, and the most human Rotavirus disease is caused by the group A Rotavirus. The group A Rotavirus is further classified into G (serotypes) and P types based on identification of antigens on the outer capsid proteins. Group A rotavirus genotypes are classified by a nucleotide-sequence-based, complete genome classification system [4,5].
Rotavirus gastroenteritis is still an important public health concern. In particular, low-income countries are fighting against the rotavirus disease, especially affecting small children [6]. Rotavirus gastroenteritis is the leading global pathogen of diarrhoea-associated mortality with the highest death rate among children under 5 years worldwide. Since 2006, efficient vaccines have been available to protect children from severe rotavirus gastroenteritis [7]. However, there are still high numbers of acute rotavirus gastroenteritis in those countries.
During the post-marketing phase of rotavirus vaccines, one of the most exceptional findings was the difference in vaccine effectiveness, being much lower in low- and middle-income countries [8,9]. One of the possible explanations was the effect of histo-blood groups, which may contribute to the virus binding on these antigens [10,11]. In parallel, a new research area of the virus–bacteria interactions opened, showing that enteric viruses may bind to bacteria surface antigens, which may influence the early phases of virus pathogenesis [12,13,14]. Consequently, it is clear now that the pathogenesis of enteric viruses is dependent not only on virus pathogenetic factors or host determinants, but also on the environment. The microbiota is therefore of high importance and can influence the effectiveness of the rotavirus or other enteric virus infections. In addition, studies on probiotics are also promising in the prevention phase, and to some extent, also in the curative phase of AGE [15,16,17].
The gastrointestinal tract is one of the most microbiologically active ecosystems with a high density of bacteria and other microbes formulating the intestinal microbiota. This microbiota has several beneficial roles for its human host, including antimicrobial activity, competitive exclusion, immunomodulation, strengthening of the epithelial barrier function, as well as influencing the immune system, central nervous system, and endocrine system [18,19,20,21]. Recent evidence-based research shows that the gut microbiota is an ally for the interaction with most human cells via the microbiota-gut-brain axis, microbiota-gut-skin axis, microbiota-gut-lung axis, microbiota-gut-liver axis, microbiota-gut-vagina axis, and many more axes. The microbiota thus aids in achieving homeostasis of skin health, respiratory health, organ health, mental health, and so forth of its host [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The intestinal microbiota coexists with microbes that reach the intestine through food intake and influences the immune cells associated with the lamina propria through the production of metabolites, crucial for the maturation of immune cells in the mucosal immune system [19,21,29]. Disruption of the homeostasis between the intestinal microbiome and the host immune system can adversely impact viral immunity [30].
Rotaviruses infect the small intestine, an important site of colonization by the microbiota, and studies over the past decade have begun to reveal a complex set of interactions between rotaviruses and the gut microbiota, as rotavirus infection can temporarily alter the composition of the gut microbiota [13]. One way to treat and prevent dysbiosis is the use of probiotics. Probiotics are, by definition, “live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health effect on the host” [31]. Scientific evidence shows enough evidence to justify the use of probiotics for the treatment of several disorders, including gastrointestinal dysbiosis, antibiotic-associated diarrhoea, irritable bowel syndrome, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as anxiety, depression, and wound healing [19,20,32,33,34,35]. In a review on the management of acute gastroenteritis in Jordanian children [36], it was emphasised that prevention of diarrhoea diseases should focus on the improvement of nutrition, hygiene, and sanitation. In the case of rotavirus gastroenteritis, the authors proposed the introduction of routine vaccination against the rotavirus, as well as the use of adjuvant therapies. One of these possible therapies is probiotics. Other reviews addressing gastrointestinal infections also conclude that probiotics are one of the possible adjuvant strategies for diarrhoea in children by resuming a healthy microbiota status following infection [37,38,39] A recently published review even suggested the potential of a combined lactic-acid bacteria vaccine as an alternative recombinant vaccine against the rotavirus [40]. Two reviews have already addressed the efficacy of using probiotics for rotavirus infection in children, one published in 2015 [41] and another published in 2020 [42]. The review from 2015 focussed on the duration of rotavirus diarrhoea in children, whilst the 2020 review found that probiotics could reduce the occurrence of acute rotavirus diarrhoea in children. Our review investigated the underlying antiviral mechanisms of probiotics against rotavirus infections in children, includes updated information, and focused on the effective mechanisms of probiotics.

2. Rotavirus Infection and the Gut

The Rotavirus infects the mature enterocytes in the middle and upper parts of the villi and in the enteroendocrine cells in the small intestine, which ultimately leads to diarrhea [43]. Rotavirus infection can temporarily alter the composition of the gut microbiota, thus leading to dysbiosis [13]. According to one study, dysbios is caused by a decrease in the amount of bifidobacteria, normal Escherichia coli, and an increase in the amount of lactose-negative Escherichia. In cases of pronounced dysbiosis in young children, the clinical course of rotavirus infection is aggravated and the period of rotavirus excretion is prolonged [44]. Other studies found that patients with diarrheal stools with rotavirus had more bacterial communites at the genus level containing specific diarrheal causative bacteria than those of healthy subjects, suggesting that co-infection with the virus and bacteria could have occurred in some diarrhea cases [43]. Gut dysbiosis due to viral infection could be associated with a reduction in the populations of common and beneficial bacterial species and the resulting loss of diversity, as well as the gain of harmful bacteria. It may also be due to variations in crosstalk via direct interaction between rotaviruses and bacteria in the gut [43,45].
A symptomatic infection with rotaviruses stimulates a strong humoral IgG immune response which lasts for a lifetime. While the IgG responses are easily recorded, it is generally thought that protection from rotavirus disease is mediated by local IgA antibodies [4,46].

3. Probiotics and the Antiviral Mechanisms

Probiotic administration stimulates the immune system by inducing a network of signals mediated by various metabolites. Some probiotic strains stimulate the immune response and are therefore beneficial for patients suffering from immune deficiency, whilst other strains inhibit the immune response and are therefore beneficial for patients with conditions with immune activation. Additionally, the effects of probiotic modulation on the immune cells can be observed in lymphocytes, hematopoietic stem cells, T cells, macrophages, natural killer cells, and dendritic cells. Additionally, molecules usually associated with pathogens, such as lipopolysaccharide of gram-negative bacteria or lipoteichoic acids of gram-positive bacteria, can be produced by probiotics and interact with different toll-like receptors, and incite NF-κB-mediated antiviral gene expression [19,34,35,47,48].
It is also known that respiratory viruses can cause changes in the gut microbiome, therefore probiotics are a possible medication to treat respiratory viral infections via gut-microbiota modulation and production of immunomodulatory agents. Interactions between probiotics, macrophages, and dendritic cells are seen in the lamina propria, resulting in natural killer (NK) cell activation, which triggers interferon gamma (IFN-γ) production to defend against viruses, and efficient immune cells go to infection sites via circulatory and lymphatic systems to protect against respiratory viruses [35,47,48].
Bacteriocins produced by probiotics have also proven effective against viral infections as they exhibit antimicrobial potential against viral pathogens by prevention of viral particle aggregation and blocking the sites of host cell receptors or inhibition of viral penetration into human cells [49,50,51,52].
All above-mentioned mechanisms collectively lead to the indirect consequence of a shorter infectious period and overall reduction in the risk of viral infection [53,54,55].
On the other hand, previous bacterial infections in children may increase the risk of rotavirus infections by disrupting the balance of the intestinal microbiota, leading to dysbiosis and increasing the ratio of pathogenic bacteria [56,57]. Co-infection with bacterial diarrhoea-related bacterial pathogens, such as Escherichia, Shigella, Klebsiella, and Campylobacter spp., can cause a more severe course of the rotavirus disease [43]. Although it is well-established that probiotics display antibacterial activities against common pathogenic bacteria, including competitive exclusion, bacteriocin production, enhancing intestinal barrier function, and stimulation of host antimicrobial defences [46], these bacterial infections can antagonise the antivirus effects of probiotics while they are fighting off bacterial pathogens. Therefore, more research into the complex mechanisms of actions of probiotics and pathogens is warranted.

4. Clinical Trials with Established Antiviral Effect of Probiotics against Rotaviruses

We used the search strategy: “probiotics” AND rotavirus in various databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus) and included clinical trials, which found a statistically significant antiviral effect of probiotics in the treatment of rotavirus gastroenteritis. Clinical trials without the full text available and in languages other than English were excluded. Clinical trials where rotaviruses were not determined or detected were also excluded. A total of 19 clinical studies with a statistically significant antiviral effect of probiotics against rotaviruses were found. These studies were conducted in Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The characteristics of the clinical trials are described in Table 1.
Our review included two additional clinical trials [58,59] compared to the 2020 review [42] and several more compared to the 2015 review [41] which selected clinical trials published until the year 2013. Strain-specific antiviral activity of probiotic strains, as well as the concentration of probiotic supplements and duration of supplementation, seem to be the most important factors that influence the efficiency of probiotics on rotavirus disease in children [55].
Rotaviruses can cause significant diarrhoeal disease in infants and young ones of various mammalian and avian species [15]. According to European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition/ESPGHAN/ESMAD, the standard recommended treatment for acute diarrhoea in children, whether due to the rotavirus, norovirus, bacterial or other infection, includes oral rehydration solutions (ORS) and continuance of feeding. Adjuvant therapy with micronutrients, probiotics, or anti-diarrhoea agents are also rendered useful. The recommended probiotics are Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (ATCC 53103), also known as LGG, and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii [77,78,79,80].
The underlying mechanism against rotavirus infections is immune enhancement, as certain strains of lactobacilli promote immunological responses. This includes increasing concentrations of anti-rotavirus-specific IgA [55,81], reducing intestinal microbiota imbalance, enhancing the colonization of probiotics [82,83], and reducing the incidence of diarrhoea [84]. One important activity of probiotics is also increasing the clearance of stool rotavirus by reducing faecal rotavirus shedding, and thus aiding the epidemiological importance in the transmission of rotaviruses [85,86].
The beneficial effects of probiotics in the 19 studies noted in Table 1 have confirmed an antiviral effect of certain probiotics, leading to shortening of diarrhoea in children due to rotavirus enteritis after supplementation. Some studies divided the intervention groups of children into more than one group to ascertain the effect of different combinations of probiotics or different concentrations on rotavirus diarrhoea. Five of these studies investigated the single-strain probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG [61,63,67,74,75]. Saccharomyces boulardii was investigated in six studies [58,60,64,65,66,72]. One aforementioned study [58] also investigated the effectiveness of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LRCC5310 on rotavirus infection. Two other aforementioned studies [66,72] also investigated multi-strain probiotics. All the remaining studies investigated various multi-strain probiotics [55,59,62,68,69,70,71,73].
Two abstracts of additional studies in the English language were found [87,88] that noted a beneficial effect of the probiotics in the abstract, but a full text with all relevant data was not available despite contacting the authors; therefore, they were also not included in Table 1. Two studies [83,89] in the Chinese language also found a beneficial effect of probiotics for the prevention of diarrhoea in children, some of which tested positive for the rotavirus in stool samples; however, they were not included in Table 1 as only the abstract was in English. According to the abstracts, both studies found that probiotic supplementation with lactobacilli and/or bifidobacteria (species not specified in abstract) significantly decreased the incidence and duration of diarrhoea. Another study in the French language [90] also found an antiviral effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii supplementation in children with acute diarrhoea (15 with rotavirus infection) and found a significant decrease in the duration of diarrhoea. The latter three mentioned studies were not included in Table 1 due to language barriers.
The effect of different multi-strain probiotics on rotavirus diarrhoea was significant after supplementation with Bifidobacterium longum BORI and Lactobacillus acidophilus AD031 [59], Bifidobacterium longum IBG, Bifidobacterium lactis BL, Lactobacillus acidophilus LA, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus LRH, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, and Pediococcus pentosaceus [55], Enterococcus faecalis T-110, Clostridium butyricum TO-A and Bacillus mesentericus TO-A [62], unspecified strains of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, and Saccharomyces boulardii [66,68], VSL#3, containing four lactobacilli strains, three bifidobacteria strains, and one strain of Streptococcus thermophilus [69], BIFILAC, containing strains of Enterococcus faecalis, Clostridium butyricum, Bacillus mesentericus and Bacillus coagulans [70], Lakcid L, containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus 573L/1, 573L/2, 573L/3 [71], Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus strains CERELA [72] and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus 19070-2 and L. reuteri DSM 12,246 [73]. However, several studies did not report the strains used, which decreased the quality and reproducibility of the studies.
The probiotic strain Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG, previously known as Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), is a gram-positive lactobacillus, known to promote immunological responses and influence the intestinal microbiota by producing both a biofilm that can mechanically protect the mucosa, and different soluble factors beneficial to the gut by enhancing intestinal crypt survival, diminishing apoptosis of the intestinal epithelium, and preserving cytoskeletal integrity [91]. The ESPGHAN recommends LGG as an adjuvant therapy for gastrointestinal infections in children [77,80]. It was used in a large multi-centre European trial [74] with patients from Poland, Egypt, Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Greece, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Portugal. Administering the oral rehydration solution containing LGG to children with acute diarrhoea was found safe and resulted in a shorter duration of diarrhoea, less chance of a protracted course, and faster discharge from the hospital. There is also a large cohort of other studies using the same strain LGG that also confirms this effect [61,63,67,75]. A study by Szajewska et al. [92] that investigated the prevention of nosocomial diarrhoea found that supplementation with Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG resulted in a reduced risk of nosocomial diarrhoea in children. A systematic review also confirms the reduction in the duration of rotavirus-induced diarrhoea, where a higher dose was efficient [93]. Another important factor to consider is the possible effect of rotavirus immunisation on the effectiveness of LGG, as noted in the meta-analysis [94], where the authors concluded that rotavirus immunisation affected the efficacy of LGG for the treatment of children with acute diarrhoea, which could be one of the underlying reasons for the mixed results. However, other reviews conclude that probiotics as adjuvants in vaccination should be considered in future studies, especially in the elderly and in children, where vaccine effectiveness and duration of immunisation really matter [38,95].
The probiotic yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii is the only yeast used in clinical practice and is recommended for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and acute gastroenteritis in children as an adjunct [79,96] The mechanisms of action include inhibition of growth and invasion of pathogens by interfering with pathogen attachment, production of small peptides that inhibit endotoxins, as well as stimulation of short-chain fatty acids, especially butyrate, that restore intestinal functions and immunoregulation. However, the effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii against common viruses responsible for diarrhoea, such as the rotavirus, adenovirus or norovirus, is still very limited, and further research is advocated [96]. Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii was efficient in the treatment of rotavirus gastroenteritis in children in six clinical studies noted in Table 1 [58,60,64,65,66,72].
In a small clinical study conducted in the Republic of Korea by Shin and co-authors [58], 50 hospitalized children with rotavirus enteritis were divided into three groups. The first group received a novel strain Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LRCC5310; however, neither the concentration of the probiotic nor the dosage was specified. Group II was the control group that did not receive any probiotics, and group III received a probiotic containing the Saccharomyces cerevisiae species according to the treatment policy of the hospital. Group III was retrospectively analysed through medical records. The novel strain LRCC5310 improved clinical symptoms and was comparable to, or more effective than the probiotic containing a Saccharomyces cerevisiae species. Several rotavirus genotypes were detected in stools, including: G9P8, G1P8, G1P18, G3P8, G2P4, G4P6, and G9P4. The rotavirus titre was significantly reduced in patients that received the novel strain LRCC5310 compared to those who did not take any probiotic formulations (Group II). Intake of LRCC5310 was found to be effective in the suppression of viral symptoms, as well as in prognosis and treatment, via virus titre reduction. The authors did not discuss the mechanisms involved, but the most likely mechanisms of the antiviral effect of the probiotic was due to modulation of the intestinal microbiota and the improvement of immune function, as several Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains have exhibited enhancement of immune activity during infectious and inflammatory conditions, as well as improving lower gastrointestinal symptoms and modulation of intestinal microbiota after dysbiosis due to infections [97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104]. Although some probiotic traits are strain-specific, other core traits are in fact species-specific [31].
The study by Lee and co-authors [55] investigated the antiviral influence of a multi-strain probiotic against viral gastroenteritis in paediatric patients. Nine of the twenty-nine patients had a rotavirus infection. A six-species supplement containing Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, and Pediococcus pentosaceus (strains not specified) proved effective in statistically significantly reducing the duration of diarrhoea in the probiotic group. Similarly, another multi-species probiotic, containing Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Saccharomyces boulardii (strains not specified) was also efficient [66,68]. Supplementation with bifidobacteria, including the probiotic Bifidobacterium bifidum Bb12, has been shown to protect against rotavirus infection, as children receiving this probiotic had a statistically significant lower concentration of the rotavirus-specific IgA antibody compared to the control group [105]. The well-known probiotic VSL#3 was also used in a study by Dubey et al. [69], conducted in India, and found a statistically significant lower duration and frequency of rotavirus diarrhoea in the probiotic group compared to the control group. Interestingly, the authors report that the statistically significant differences were still observed on day 4, but by day 8 the control group also spontaneously improved, and the results became comparable with the probiotic group. The antiviral effect of the multi-strain probiotic Bifilac was also found [70]. However, the author does not specify the composition of the supplement in the clinical trial.
Huang et al. [62] found that supplementation with a three-strain probiotic containing Enterococcus faecalis T-110, Clostridium butyricum TO-A, and Bacillus mesentericus TO-A resulted in a significant decrease in the duration of severe diarrhoea in the probiotic group compared to the placebo in children with infectious gastroenteritis. In the patients with rotavirus, a statistically significant decrease in gastroenteritis (Vesikari score) and diarrhoea frequency was also observed in the probiotic group. According to the authors of this study, the three strains acted symbiotically to facilitate the proliferation of the others. The dosage in this study was different compared to other clinical trials as the probiotic was given three times daily, whereas other clinical studies supplemented their patients once or twice a day.
Some of the clinical studies were not double-blind, but either single-blind [65,68] or open-labelled [61,62], which enhances the possibility of bias due to knowledge of the patient’s treatment group [106].
Besides probiotics, prebiotics [107], synbiotics [108], postbiotics [109], or even fermented foods [110] could have positive effects for rotavirus diarrhoea due to enhancement of the natural intestinal microbiota, as a combination of probiotics and prebiotics (synbiotics) could have a synergistic effect; in some cases, heat-killed probiotics or postbiotics could even be safer than viable microorganisms. Some human and animal studies have addressed these effects [84,111,112,113], opening the possibility for more well-designed clinical studies.

5. Studies with No Antiviral Effect of Probiotics against Rotavirus Infections

On the other hand, several other studies using the same strains or other strains did not find statistically significant differences after probiotic administration. Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG did not appear to enhance short-term recovery following acute diarrhoeal illness in children in five clinical studies [114,115,116,117]. In a large study by Freedman et al. [118], no significant differences were found in paediatric patients aged between 3 and 48 months with diarrhoea after a five-day supplementation with 4.0 × 109 cfu twice daily of either Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus R0011 and Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 or Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG, regardless of whether there were gastroenteritis-causing pathogens (e.g., adenovirus, norovirus, rotavirus, or bacteria). More results from the same clinical study (NCT01853124) were also published and showed no indication that probiotic administration lessened the burden of disease, regardless of the etiologic pathogen group (i.e., virus, bacteria, or parasite) or specific viral aetiologies (i.e., adenovirus, norovirus, or rotavirus) [119,120,121,122]. Perhaps the duration of supplementation with this probiotic was too short to exhibit a positive immunological effect as other clinical studies using the same strain achieved significant differences, such as Sindhu et al. [63] where the probiotic was consumed for 4 weeks, and an immunological effect was found in the probiotic group. Fewer children with rotavirus diarrhoea on LGG had repeated diarrhoeal episodes. Although no differences were found in the duration of diarrhoea, the immunological effect was evident. The dosage could also have been a factor, as Aggarwahl et al. and Basu et al. [61,67] both reported a statistically significant shorter duration of diarrhoea in children with watery diarrhoea after supplementation with LGG for five days at a dosage of 1010 CFU daily, whilst the dosage in the Freedman et al. study was 8.0 × 109 CFU daily. No significant differences were also found in the immunogenicity of the rotavirus vaccine given to infants in a poor urban community in India after supplementation with the probiotic Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG in a study by Lazarus et al. [123]; however, among probiotic recipients, the abundance of lactobacilli in stools showed a modest association with rotavirus shedding after the first dose of the vaccine, consistent with the concept that probiotic bacteria may promote vaccine virus replication and the immune response.
A study conducted in Vietnam [124] using Lactobacillus acidophilus (4.0 × 108 CFU twice daily) also did not yield any significant differences in the duration of rotavirus diarrhoea compared to the placebo. The strain used was not specified and perhaps it was not a probiotic strain; or the dosage used was one log-step lower than other studies, which could have caused the lack of significant differences, as an appropriate strain and adequate administered amount of a probiotic are necessary to achieve a health benefit [31].
No significant differences were found in the studies conducted in Poland by Urbanska et al. [125] and Wanke et al. [126], using Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17,938 for preventing nosocomial diarrhoea in children, including rotavirus infection. Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17,938 has otherwise shown to be effective in the prevention and treatment of infantile colic and regurgitation and gastrointestinal disorders [127,128,129].
Several other clinical studies also did not show a statistically significant anti-rotavirus effect after intervention with Bacillus coagulans [130], Lacticaseibacillus casei ST11 [131]. A study using Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Bb-12 and Streptococcus thermophilus TH4 also did not find any differences in the treatment of gastroenteritis compared to the placebo; however, a decrease in rotavirus shedding was observed [86].
One of the possible reasons for the lack of effect of probiotics in these clinical trials, even though the same strains were used that previously exhibited a health benefit, could have been the quality of the production procedures of the probiotic strains. Lyophilisation, and the form of probiotics including lyophilized or heat-dried powders in capsule or powder form, can also influence the shelf-life and general quality of the probiotic [132]. Depending on production, some probiotics need to be stored in the refrigerator and others do not. Finally, the stability of the product must remain during storage, as an adequate concentration of viable probiotics must be persevered for the whole shelf-life. The probiotics used in clinical studies come from various commercial markets, and since many are foodstuffs or dietary supplements—not medicinal products—the quality may not always be assured or controlled [132,133]. All these factors can indirectly influence the reality of the results of clinical studies.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions

The effect of probiotics on enteric virus infections has been studied for years, and there is still much research to be done in the line of the microbiota–host–pathogen interactions. Although probiotics have shown promising results in the prevention of viral AGE, we still need an effective weapon to prevent the high mortality rate in early childhood in low-income countries. At least for rotavirus infection, effective vaccines are available to make progress in lowering the disease burden.
In probiotics studies, we need to be cautious as results are inconsistent—sometimes the same probiotic strain was not effective, whilst in other clinical studies it was, showing the importance of correct dosages, the duration of treatment, and quality of the probiotic.
With careful consideration of strains, dosages, and durations of supplementation, probiotics appear to be a safe and effective adjuvant in the treatment of rotavirus diarrhoea via modulation of the immune system and the intestinal microbiota. However, more clinical studies with different probiotics, perhaps combined with prebiotics to achieve a synergistic effect to optimally influence the restoration of the intestinal microbiota after dysbiosis due to diarrhoea, are warranted.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the content, drafting and writing of this document. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bányai, K.; Estes, M.K.; Martella, V.; Parashar, U.D. Viral gastroenteritis. Lancet 2018, 392, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kotwal, G.; Cannon, J.L. Environmental persistence and transfer of enteric viruses. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2014, 4, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hamza, I.A.; Jurzik, L.; Überla, K.; Wilhelm, M. Methods to detect infectious human enteric viruses in environmental water samples. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2011, 214, 424–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lundgren, O.; Svensson, L. Pathogenesis of Rotavirus diarrhea. Microbes Infect. 2001, 3, 1145–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Matthijnssens, J.; Ciarlet, M.; McDonald, S.M.; Attoui, H.; Banyai, K.; Brister, J.R.; Buesa, J.; Esona, M.D.; Estes, M.K.; Gentsch, J.R.; et al. Uniformity of rotavirus strain nomenclature proposed by the Rotavirus Classification Working Group (RCWG). Arch. Virol. 2011, 156, 1397–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Burnett, E.; Parashar, U.D.; Tate, J.E. Rotavirus Infection, Illness, and Vaccine Performance in Malnourished Children: A Review of the Literature. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2021, 40, 930–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Burke, R.M.; Tate, J.E.; Kirkwood, C.D.; Steele, A.D.; Parashar, U.D. Current and new rotavirus vaccines. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 32, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Armah, G.E.; Sow, O.S.; Breiman, R.F.; Dallas, M.J.; Tapia, M.D.; Feikin, D.R.; Binka, F.N.; Steele, A.D.; Laserson, K.F.; Ansah, A.N.; et al. Efficacy of pentavalent rotavirus vaccine against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis in infants in developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2010, 376, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zaman, K.; Anh, D.D.; Victor, J.C.; Shin, S.; MBBS, Y.; Dallas, M.J.; Podder, G.; Thiem, V.D.; Mai, L.T.P.; Luby, S.P.; et al. Efficacy of pentavalent rotavirus vaccine against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis in infants in developing countries in Asia: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2010, 376, 615–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Desselberger, U. Differences of Rotavirus Vaccine Effectiveness by Country: Likely Causes and Contributing Factors. Pathogens 2017, 6, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Steele, A.; Victor, J.; Carey, M.; Tate, J.; Atherly, D.; Pecenka, C.; Diaz, Z.; Parashar, U.; Kirkwood, C. Experiences with rotavirus vaccines: Can we improve rotavirus vaccine impact in developing countries? Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2019, 15, 1215–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Kandasamy, S.; Vlasova, A.N.; Fischer, D.; Kumar, A.; Chattha, K.S.; Rauf, A.; Shao, L.; Langel, S.N.; Rajashekara, G.; Saif, L.J. Differential Effects of Escherichia coli Nissle and Lactobacillus rhamnosus Strain GG on Human Rotavirus Binding, Infection, and B Cell Immunity. J. Immunol. 2016, 196, 1780–1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Kim, A.H.; Hogarty, M.P.; Harris, V.C.; Baldridge, M.T. The Complex Interactions Between Rotavirus and the Gut Microbiota. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 10, 586751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Stevens, E.J.; Bates, K.A.; King, K.C. Host microbiota can facilitate pathogen infection. PLoS Pathog. 2021, 17, e1009514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gonzalez-Ochoa, G.; Flores-Mendoza, L.K.; Icedo-Garcia, R.; Gomez-Flores, R.; Tamez-Guerra, P. Modulation of rotavirus severe gastroenteritis by the combination of probiotics and prebiotics. Arch. Microbiol. 2017, 199, 953–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Villena, J.; Vizoso-Pinto, M.G.; Kitazawa, H. Intestinal Innate Antiviral Immunity and Immunobiotics: Beneficial Effects against Rotavirus Infection. Front. Immunol. 2016, 7, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Wang, Y.; Moon, A.; Huang, J.; Sun, Y.; Qiu, H.-J. Antiviral Effects and Underlying Mechanisms of Probiotics as Promising Antivirals. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cani, P.D. Human gut microbiome: Hopes, threats and promises. Gut 2018, 67, 1716–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Maldonado Galdeano, C.; Cazorla, S.I.; Lemme Dumit, J.M.; Vélez, E.; Perdigón, G. Beneficial Effects of Probiotic Consumption on the Immune System. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2019, 74, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Fijan, S.; Frauwallner, A.; Langerholc, T.; Krebs, B.; Younes, J.A.T.H.; Heschl, A.; Turk, D.M.; Rogelj, I. Efficacy of Using Probiotics with Antagonistic Activity against Pathogens of Wound Infections: An Integrative Review of Literature. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 7585486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hooper, L.V.; Littman, D.R.; MacPherson, A.J. Interactions Between the Microbiota and the Immune System. Science 2012, 336, 1268–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Clarke, G.; Stilling, R.M.; Kennedy, P.J.; Stanton, C.; Cryan, J.F.; Dinan, T.G. Minireview: Gut Microbiota: The Neglected Endocrine Organ. Mol. Endocrinol. 2014, 28, 1221–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Ettinger, S. Diet, Gut Microbiome, and Cognitive Decline. Curr. Nutr. Rep. 2022. Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Foster, J.; Zhou, L. Psychobiotics and the gut–brain axis: In the pursuit of happiness. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2015, 11, 715–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Lee, J.E.; Walton, D.; O’Connor, C.P.; Wammes, M.; Burton, J.P.; Osuch, E.A. Drugs, Guts, Brains, but Not Rock and Roll: The Need to Consider the Role of Gut Microbiota in Contemporary Mental Health and Wellness of Emerging Adults. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 6643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Salem, I.; Ramser, A.; Isham, N.; Ghannoum, M.A. The Gut Microbiome as a Major Regulator of the Gut-Skin Axis. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Shah, T.; Shah, Z.; Baloch, Z.; Cui, X. The role of microbiota in respiratory health and diseases, particularly in tuberculosis. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2021, 143, 112108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Taghinezhad-S, S.; Keyvani, H.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G.; Donders, G.G.G.; Fu, X.; Mohseni, A.H. Twenty years of research on HPV vaccines based on genetically modified lactic acid bacteria: An overview on the gut-vagina axis. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2020, 78, 1191–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Desselberger, U. Significance of the Gut Microbiome for Viral Diarrheal and Extra-Intestinal Diseases. Viruses 2021, 13, 1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Harper, A.; Vijayakumar, V.; Ouwehand, A.C.; ter Haar, J.; Obis, D.; Espadaler, J.; Binda, S.; Desiraju, S.; Day, R. Viral Infections, the Microbiome, and Probiotics. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 10, 596166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S.; et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Bagga, D.; Reichert, J.L.; Koschutnig, K.; Aigner, C.S.; Holzer, P.; Koskinen, K.; Moissl-Eichinger, C.; Schöpf, V. Probiotics drive gut microbiome triggering emotional brain signatures. Gut Microbes 2018, 9, 486–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chamberlain, R.; Lau, C. Probiotics are effective at preventing Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2016, 9, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Liu, Y.; Alookaran, J.J.; Rhoads, J.M. Probiotics in Autoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Wahab, S.; Almaghaslah, D.; Mahmood, S.E.; Ahmad, F.; Alsayegh, A.A.; Abu Haddash, Y.M.; Rahman, M.A.; Ahamd, I.; Ahmad, W.; Khalid, M.; et al. Pharmacological Efficacy of Probiotics in Respiratory Viral Infections: A Comprehensive Review. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rawashdeh, M.; Al-Zoubi, B.; Aliwat, M.B.; Burayzat, S.; Alhindawi, E.; Al-Matti, A.A.; Altamimi, E. National Consensus for the Management of Acute Gastroenteritis in Jordanian Children: Consensus Recommendations Endorsed by the Jordanian Paediatric Society. Int. J. Pediatr. 2022, 2022, 4456232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. George, S.; Aguilera, X.; Gallardo, P.; Farfán, M.; Lucero, Y.; Torres, J.P.; Vidal, R.; O’Ryan, M. Bacterial Gut Microbiota and Infections During Early Childhood. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 793050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ghosh, S.; Malik, Y.S.; Kobayashi, N. Therapeutics and Immunoprophylaxis Against Noroviruses and Rotaviruses: The Past, Present, and Future. Curr. Drug Metab. 2018, 19, 170–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Omatola, C.A.; Olaniran, A.O. Rotaviruses: From Pathogenesis to Disease Control—A Critical Review. Viruses 2022, 14, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Afchangi, A.; Latifi, T.; Jalilvand, S.; Marashi, S.M.; Shoja, Z. Combined use of lactic-acid-producing bacteria as probiotics and rotavirus vaccine candidates expressing virus-specific proteins. Arch. Virol. 2021, 166, 995–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ahmadi, E.; Alizadeh-Navaei, R.; Rezai, M.S. Efficacy of probiotic use in acute rotavirus diarrhea in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Casp. J. Intern. Med. 2015, 6, 187–195. [Google Scholar]
  42. Di, J.-B.; Gai, Z.-T. Protective efficacy of probiotics on the treatment of acute rotavirus diarrhea in children: An updated meta-analysis. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2020, 24, 9675–9683. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Mizutani, T.; Aboagye, S.Y.; Ishizaka, A.; Afum, T.; Mensah, G.I.; Asante-Poku, A.; Asandem, D.A.; Parbie, P.K.; Abana, C.Z.-Y.; Kushitor, D.; et al. Gut microbiota signature of pathogen-dependent dysbiosis in viral gastroenteritis. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gizatulina, S.S.; Birger, M.O.; Nikovskaia, M.I.; Mastiukova, I.N.; Potashova, L.A. Mikroflora kishechnika u deteĭ rannego vozrasta s rotavirusnoĭ infektsieĭ [Intestinal microflora in young children with rotavirus infection]. Zh Mikrobiol. Epidemiol. Immunobiol. 1992, 3, 29–30. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wilkins, L.J.; Monga, M.; Miller, A.W. Defining Dysbiosis for a Cluster of Chronic Diseases. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Britton, R.A.; Versalovic, J. Probiotics and Gastrointestinal Infections. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. 2008, 2008, 290769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Alvarez-Vieites, E.; López-Santamarina, A.; Miranda, J.M.; Mondragón, A.D.C.; Lamas, A.; Cardelle-Cobas, A.; Nebot, C.; Franco, C.M.; Cepeda, A. Influence of the Intestinal Microbiota on Diabetes Management. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2020, 21, 1603–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mahooti, M.; Miri, S.M.; Abdolalipour, E.; Ghaemi, A. The immunomodulatory effects of probiotics on respiratory viral infections: A hint for COVID-19 treatment? Microb. Pathog. 2020, 148, 104452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Belguesmia, Y.; Bendjeddou, K.; Kempf, I.; Boukherroub, R.; Drider, D. Heterologous Biosynthesis of Five New Class II Bacteriocins From Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-5369 With Antagonistic Activity Against Pathogenic Escherichia coli Strains. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tabata, T.; Petitt, M.; Puerta-Guardo, H.; Michlmayr, D.; Wang, C.; Fang-Hoover, J.; Harris, E.; Pereira, L. Zika Virus Targets Different Primary Human Placental Cells, Suggesting Two Routes for Vertical Transmission. Cell Host Microbe 2016, 20, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Umair, M.; Jabbar, S.; Zhaoxin, L.; Jianhao, Z.; Abid, M.; Khan, K.-U.R.; Korma, S.A.; Alghamdi, M.A.; El-Saadony, M.T.; El-Hack, M.E.A.; et al. Probiotic-Based Bacteriocin: Immunity Supplementation Against Viruses. An Updated Review. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 876058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wachsman, M.B.; Castilla, V.; De Ruiz Holgado, A.P.; De Torres, R.A.; Sesma, F.; Coto, C.E. Enterocin CRL35 inhibits late stages of HSV-1 and HSV-2 replication in vitro. Antivir. Res. 2003, 58, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Butel, M.-J. Probiotics, gut microbiota and health. Med. Mal. Infect. 2014, 44, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. de Vrese, M.; Offick, B. Chapter 14—Probiotics and Prebiotics: Effects on Diarrhea. In Bioactive Foods in Promoting Health; Watson, R.R., Preedy, V.R., Eds.; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 205–227. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lee, D.K.; Park, J.E.; Kim, M.J.; Seo, J.G.; Lee, J.H.; Ha, N.J. Probiotic bacteria, B. longum and L. acidophilus inhibit infection by rotavirus in vitro and decrease the duration of diarrhea in pediatric patients. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2015, 39, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ramamurthy, T.; Kumari, S.; Ghosh, A. Diarrheal disease and gut microbiome. Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl. Sci. 2022, 192, 149–177. [Google Scholar]
  57. Xiong, L.; Li, Y.; Li, J.; Yang, J.; Shang, L.; He, X.; Liu, L.; Luo, Y.; Xie, X. Intestinal microbiota profiles in infants with acute gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus and norovirus infection: A prospective cohort study. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 111, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shin, D.Y.; Yi, D.Y.; Jo, S.; Lee, Y.M.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, W.; Park, M.R.; Yoon, S.M.; Kim, Y.; Yang, S.; et al. Effect of a new Lactobacillus plantarum product, LRCC5310, on clinical symptoms and virus reduction in children with rotaviral enteritis. Medicine 2020, 99, e22192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Park, M.S.; Kwon, B.; Ku, S.; Ji, G.E. The Efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum BORI and Lactobacillus acidophilus AD031 Probiotic Treatment in Infants with Rotavirus Infection. Nutrients 2017, 9, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Das, S.; Gupta, P.K.; Das, R.R. Efficacy and Safety of Saccharomyces boulardii in Acute Rotavirus Diarrhea: Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial from a Developing Country. J. Trop. Pediatr. 2016, 62, 464–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Aggarwal, S.; Upadhyay, A.; Shah, D.; Teotia, N.; Agarwal, A.; Jaiswal, V. Lactobacillus GG for treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea: An open labelled, randomized controlled trial. Indian J. Med Res. 2014, 139, 379–385. [Google Scholar]
  62. Huang, Y.-F.; Liu, P.-Y.; Chen, Y.-Y.; Nong, B.-R.; Huang, I.-F.; Hsieh, K.-S.; Chen, K.-T. Three-Combination Probiotics Therapy in Children With Salmonella and Rotavirus Gastroenteritis. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2014, 48, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Sindhu, K.N.C.; Sowmyanarayanan, T.V.; Paul, A.; Babji, S.; Ajjampur, S.S.R.; Priyadarshini, S.; Sarkar, R.; Balasubramanian, K.A.; Wanke, C.A.; Ward, H.D.; et al. Immune Response and Intestinal Permeability in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis Treated With Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014, 58, 1107–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Corrêa, N.B.; Penna, F.J.; Lima, F.M.; Nicoli, J.R.; Filho, L.A. Treatment of Acute Diarrhea With Saccharomyces boulardii in Infants. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2011, 53, 497–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dalgic, N.; Sancar, M.; Bayraktar, B.; Pullu, M.; Hasim, O. Probiotic, zinc and lactose-free formula in children with rotavirus diarrhea: Are they effective? Pediatr. Int. 2011, 53, 677–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Grandy, G.; Medina, M.; Soria, R.; Terán, C.G.; Araya, M. Probiotics in the treatment of acute rotavirus diarrhoea. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial using two different probiotic preparations in Bolivian children. BMC Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Basu, S.; Paul, D.K.; Ganguly, S.; Chatterjee, M.; Chandra, P.K. Efficacy of High-dose Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in Controlling Acute Watery Diarrhea in Indian Children. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2009, 43, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Teran, C.G.; Teran-Escalera, C.N.; Villarroel, P. Nitazoxanide vs. probiotics for the treatment of acute rotavirus diarrhea in children: A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial in Bolivian children. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2009, 13, 518–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Dubey, A.P.; Rajeshwari, K.; Chakravarty, A.; Famularo, G. Use of VSL♯3 in the Treatment of Rotavirus Diarrhea in Children. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2008, 42, S126–S129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Narayanappa, D. Randomized double blinded controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bifilac in patients with acute viral diarrhea. Indian J. Pediatr. 2008, 75, 709–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Szymański, H.; Pejcz, J.; Jawień, M.; Chmielarczyk, A.; Strus, M.; Heczko, P.B. Treatment of acute infectious diarrhoea in infants and children with a mixture of three Lactobacillus rhamnosus strains—A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2006, 23, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gaón, D.; García, H.; Winter, L.; Rodríguez, N.; Quintás, R.; Gonzalez, S.N.; Oliver, G. Effect of Lactobacillus strains and Saccharomyces boulardii on persistent diarrhea in children. Medicina 2003, 63, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  73. Rosenfeldt, V.; Michaelsen, K.F.; Jakobsen, M.; Larsen, C.N.; Møller, P.L.; Pedersen, P.; Tvede, M.; Weyrehter, H.; Valerius, N.H.; Paerregaard, A. Effect of probiotic Lactobacillus strains in young children hospitalized with acute diarrhea. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2002, 21, 411–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Guandalini, S.; Pensabene, L.; Abu Zikri, M.; Dias, J.A.; Casali, L.G.; Hoekstra, H.; Kolacek, S.; Massar, K.; Micetic–Turk, D.; Papadopoulou, A.; et al. Lactobacillus GG Administered in Oral Rehydration Solution to Children with Acute Diarrhea: A Multicenter European Trial. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2000, 30, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Guarino, A.; Canani, R.B.; Spagnuolo, M.I.; Albano, F.; Di Benedetto, L. Oral Bacterial Therapy Reduces the Duration of Symptoms and of Viral Excretion in Children with Mild Diarrhea. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 1997, 25, 516–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zheng, J.; Wittouck, S.; Salvetti, E.; Franz, C.M.A.P.; Harris, H.M.B.; Mattarelli, P.; O’Toole, P.W.; Pot, B.; Vandamme, P.; Walter, J.; et al. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: Description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 2782–2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Faure, C. Role of Antidiarrhoeal Drugs as Adjunctive Therapies for Acute Diarrhoea in Children. Int. J. Pediatr. 2013, 2013, 612403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Guarino, A.; Ashkenazi, S.; Gendrel, D.; Vecchio, A.L.; Shamir, R.; Szajewska, H. European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition/European Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Management of Acute Gastroenteritis in Children in Europe. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2014, 59, 132–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hojsak, I.; Fabiano, V.; Pop, T.L.; Goulet, O.; Zuccotti, G.V.; Çokuğraş, F.; Pettoello-Mantovani, M.; Kolacek, S. Guidance on the use of probiotics in clinical practice in children with selected clinical conditions and in specific vulnerable groups. Acta Paediatr. 2018, 107, 927–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hojsak, I.; Szajewska, H.; Canani, R.B.; Guarino, A.; Indrio, F.; Kolacek, S.; Orel, R.; Shamir, R.; Vandenplas, Y.; van Goudoever, J.B.; et al. Probiotics for the Prevention of Nosocomial Diarrhea in Children. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2018, 66, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Holscher, H.D.; Czerkies, L.A.; Cekola, P.; Litov, R.; Benbow, M.; Santema, S.; Alexander, D.D.; Perez, V.; Sun, S.; Saavedra, J.M.; et al. Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 Enhances Intestinal Antibody Response in Formula-Fed Infants. J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 2012, 36, 106S–117S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Szymański, H.; Chmielarczyk, A.; Strus, M.; Pejcz, J.; Jawień, M.; Kochan, P.; Heczko, P.B. Colonisation of the gastrointestinal tract by probiotic L. rhamnosus strains in acute diarrhoea in children. Dig. Liver Dis. 2006, 38, S274–S276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Xie, Y.-M.; Gao, S.; Wang, L.-Y.; Wang, Z.-L. Therapeutic effect of probiotics and oral IgY as supplementary drugs in the treatment of pediatric rotavirus enteritis: A comparative study. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 2013, 15, 1000–1005. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Binns, C.; Lee, A.; Harding, H.; Gracey, M.; Barclay, D. The CUPDAY Study: Prebiotic-probiotic milk product in 1–3-year-old children attending childcare centres. Acta Paediatr. 2007, 96, 1646–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Fang, S.-B.; Lee, H.-C.; Hu, J.-J.; Hou, S.-Y.; Liu, H.-L.; Fang, H.-W. Dose-dependent effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on quantitative reduction of faecal rotavirus shedding in children. J. Trop. Pediatr. 2009, 55, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Mao, M.; Yu, T.; Xiong, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liu, H.; Gotteland, M.; Brunser, O. Effect of a lactose-free milk formula supplemented with bifidobacteria and streptococci on the recovery from acute diarrhoea. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 17, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
  87. Nopchinda, S.; Varavithya, W.; Phuapradit, P.; Sangchai, R.; Suthutvoravut, U.; Chantraruksa, V.; Haschke, F. Effect of bifidobacterium Bb12 with or without Streptococcus thermophilus supplemented formula on nutritional status. J. Med Assoc. Thail. 2002, 85 (Suppl. 4), S1225–S1231. [Google Scholar]
  88. Zarin, I.; Ali, M.A.; Paul, S.K.; Mazid, R.; Amin, S.E. Efficacy of Probiotics in Treatment of Acute Rotavirus and Non Rotavirus Watery Diarrhoea in Children Admitted in Mymensingh Medical College Hospital. Mymensingh. Med. J. 2022, 31, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  89. Liu, X.L.; Li, M.L.; Ma, W.X.; Xia, S.L.; Xu, B.L. Clinical trial on the prevention of diarrhea by oral BIFICO for infants aged 1–6 years. Zhonghua Shi Yan He Lin Chuang Bing Du Xue Za Zhi 2013, 27, 277–279. [Google Scholar]
  90. Le Luyer, B.; Makhoul, G.; Duhamel, J.-F. Étude multicentrique, contrôlée en double insu d’une formule adaptée enrichie en Saccharomyces boulardii dans le traitement des diarrhées aiguës du nourrisson. Arch. Pédiatrie 2010, 17, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Capurso, L. Thirty Years of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2019, 53, S1–S41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Szajewska, H.; Kotowska, M.; Mrukowicz, J.Z.; Armánska, M.; Mikolajczyk, W. Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in prevention of nosocomial diarrhea in infants. J. Pediatr. 2001, 138, 361–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Li, Y.-T.; Xu, H.; Ye, J.-Z.; Wu, W.-R.; Shi, D.; Fang, D.-Q.; Liu, Y.; Li, L.-J. Efficacy of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in treatment of acute pediatric diarrhea: A systematic review with meta-analysis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 4999–5016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Vecchio, A.L.; Nunziata, F.; Bruzzese, D.; Conelli, M.; Guarino, A. Rotavirus immunisation status affects the efficacy of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG for the treatment of children with acute diarrhoea: A meta-analysis. Benef. Microbes 2022, 13, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Peroni, D.; Morelli, L. Probiotics as Adjuvants in Vaccine Strategy: Is There More Room for Improvement? Vaccines 2021, 9, 811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Canani, R.B.; Cucchiara, S.; Cuomo, R.; Pace, F.; Papale, F. Saccharomyces boulardii: A summary of the evidence for gastroenterology clinical practice in adults and children. Eur. Rev. Med Pharmacol. Sci. 2011, 15, 809–822. [Google Scholar]
  97. Chong, H.-X.; Yusoff, N.A.A.; Hor, Y.Y.; Lew, L.C.; Jaafar, M.H.; Choi, S.-B.; Yusoff, M.S.; Wahid, N.; Bin Abdullah, M.F.I.L.; Zakaria, N.; et al. Lactobacillus plantarum DR7 improved upper respiratory tract infections via enhancing immune and inflammatory parameters: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 4783–4797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Cunningham-Rundles, S.; Ahrné, S.; Bengmark, S.; Johann-Liang, R.; Marshall, F.; Metakis, L.; Califano, C.; Dunn, A.M.; Grassey, C.; Hinds, G.; et al. Probiotics and immune response. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2000, 95 (Suppl. 1), S22–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Han, Y.; Kim, B.; Ban, J.; Lee, J.; Kim, B.J.; Choi, B.S.; Hwang, S.; Ahn, K.; Kim, J. A randomized trial of Lactobacillus plantarum CJLP133 for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2012, 23, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jung, K.; Kim, A.; Lee, J.-H.; Cho, D.; Seo, J.; Jung, E.S.; Kang, H.-J.; Roh, J.; Kim, W. Effect of Oral Intake of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum APsulloc 331261 (GTB1TM) on Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lee, A.; Lee, Y.J.; Yoo, H.J.; Kim, M.; Chang, Y.; Lee, D.S.; Lee, J.H. Consumption of Dairy Yogurt Containing Lactobacillus paracasei ssp. paracasei, Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis and Heat-Treated Lactobacillus plantarum Improves Immune Function Including Natural Killer Cell Activity. Nutrients 2017, 9, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Mañé, J.; Pedrosa, E.; Lorén, V.; Gassull, A.M.; Espadaler, J.; Cuñé, J.; Audivert, S.; Bonachera, A.M.; Cabré, E. A mixture of Lactobacillus plantarum CECT 7315 and CECT 7316 enhances systemic immunity in elderly subjects. A dose-response, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized pilot trial. Nutr. Hosp. 2011, 26, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  103. Yang, B.; Yue, Y.; Chen, Y.; Ding, M.; Li, B.; Wang, L.; Wang, Q.; Stanton, C.; Ross, R.P.; Zhao, J.; et al. Lactobacillus plantarum CCFM1143 Alleviates Chronic Diarrhea via Inflammation Regulation and Gut Microbiota Modulation: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 746585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Shin, C.M.; Choi, Y.J.; Lee, D.H.; Moon, J.S.; Kim, T.-Y.; Kim, Y.-K.; Lee, W.-H.; Yoon, H.; Park, Y.S.; Kim, N. Validity and safety of ID-JPL934 in lower gastrointestinal symptom improvement. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Phuapradit, P.; Varavithya, W.; Vathanophas, K.; Sangchai, R.; Podhipak, A.; Suthutvoravut, U.; Nopchinda, S.; Chantraruksa, V.; Haschke, F. Reduction of rotavirus infection in children receiving bifidobacteria-supplemented formula. J. Med Assoc. Thail. 1999, 82 (Suppl. 1), S43–S48. [Google Scholar]
  106. Kahan, B.C.; Cro, S.; Doré, C.J.; Bratton, D.J.; Rehal, S.; Maskell, A.N.; Rahman, N.; Jairath, V. Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: Strategies from two randomised trials. Trials 2014, 15, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Gibson, G.R.; Hutkins, R.; Sanders, M.E.; Prescott, S.L.; Reimer, R.A.; Salminen, S.J.; Scott, K.; Stanton, C.; Swanson, K.S.; Cani, P.D.; et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 14, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Swanson, K.S.; Gibson, G.R.; Hutkins, R.; Reimer, R.A.; Reid, G.; Verbeke, K.; Scott, K.P.; Holscher, H.D.; Azad, M.B.; Delzenne, N.M.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 17, 687–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Salminen, S.; Collado, M.C.; Endo, A.; Hill, C.; Lebeer, S.; Quigley, E.M.M.; Sanders, M.E.; Shamir, R.; Swann, J.R.; Szajewska, H.; et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 18, 649–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Marco, M.L.; Sanders, M.E.; Gänzle, M.; Arrieta, M.C.; Cotter, P.D.; De Vuyst, L.; Hill, C.; Holzapfel, W.; Lebeer, S.; Merenstein, D.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on fermented foods. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 18, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bruno, C.; Paparo, L.; Pisapia, L.; Romano, A.; Cortese, M.; Punzo, E.; Canani, R.B. Protective effects of the postbiotic deriving from cow’s milk fermentation with L. paracasei CBA L74 against Rotavirus infection in human enterocytes. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 6268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Morales-Ferré, C.; Azagra-Boronat, I.; Massot-Cladera, M.; Tims, S.; Knipping, K.; Garssen, J.; Knol, J.; Franch, A.; Castell, M.; Pérez-Cano, F.J.; et al. Preventive Effect of a Postbiotic and Prebiotic Mixture in a Rat Model of Early Life Rotavirus Induced-Diarrhea. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. A Pedone, C.; Arnaud, C.C.; Postaire, E.R.; Bouley, C.F.; Reinert, P. Multicentric study of the effect of milk fermented by Lactobacillus casei on the incidence of diarrhoea. Int. J. Clin. Pr. 2000, 54, 568–571. [Google Scholar]
  114. Mastretta, E.; Longo, P.; Laccisaglia, A.; Balbo, L.; Russo, R.; Mazzaccara, A.; Gianino, P. Effect of Lactobacillus GG and Breast-feeding in the Prevention of Rotavirus Nosocomial Infection. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2002, 35, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Misra, S.; Sabui, T.K.; Pal, N.K. A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in Infantile Diarrhea. J. Pediatr. 2009, 155, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ritchie, B.K.; Brewster, D.R.; Tran, C.D.; Davidson, G.P.; McNeil, Y.; Butler, R.N. Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in Aboriginal Children With Acute Diarrhoeal Disease: A Randomised Clinical Trial. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2010, 50, 619–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Salazar-Lindo, E.; Miranda-Langschwager, P.; Campos-Sanchez, M.; Chea-Woo, E.; Sack, R.B. Lactobacillus caseistrain GG in the treatment of infants with acute watery diarrhea: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial [ISRCTN67363048]. BMC Pediatr. 2004, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Freedman, S.B.; Williamson-Urquhart, S.; Farion, K.J.; Gouin, S.; Willan, A.R.; Poonai, N.; Hurley, K.; Sherman, P.M.; Finkelstein, Y.; Lee, B.E.; et al. Multicenter Trial of a Combination Probiotic for Children with Gastroenteritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 2015–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Freedman, S.B.; Williamson-Urquhart, S.; Schuh, S.; Sherman, P.M.; Farion, K.J.; Gouin, S.; Willan, A.R.; Goeree, R.; Johnson, D.W.; Black, K.; et al. Impact of emergency department probiotic treatment of pediatric gastroenteritis: Study protocol for the PROGUT (Probiotic Regimen for Outpatient Gastroenteritis Utility of Treatment) randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014, 15, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Freedman, S.B.; Xie, J.; Nettel-Aguirre, A.; Pang, X.L.; Chui, L.; Williamson-Urquhart, S.; Schnadower, D.; Schuh, S.; Sherman, P.M.; Lee, B.E.; et al. A randomized trial evaluating virus-specific effects of a combination probiotic in children with acute gastroenteritis. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Freedman, S.B.; Finkelstein, Y.; Pang, X.-L.; Chui, L.; Tarr, I.P.; VanBuren, J.M.; Olsen, C.; Lee, E.B.; Hall-Moore, A.C.; Sapien, R.; et al. Pathogen-Specific Effects of Probiotics in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis Seeking Emergency Care: A Randomized Trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 75, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Freedman, S.B.; Horne, R.; Johnson-Henry, K.; Xie, J.; Williamson-Urquhart, S.; Chui, L.; Pang, X.-L.; Lee, B.; Schuh, S.; Finkelstein, Y.; et al. Probiotic stool secretory immunoglobulin A modulation in children with gastroenteritis: A randomized clinical trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 113, 905–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Lazarus, R.P.; John, J.; Shanmugasundaram, E.; Rajan, A.K.; Thiagarajan, S.; Giri, S.; Babji, S.; Sarkar, R.; Kaliappan, P.S.; Venugopal, S.; et al. The effect of probiotics and zinc supplementation on the immune response to oral rotavirus vaccine: A randomized, factorial design, placebo-controlled study among Indian infants. Vaccine 2018, 36, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Chau, T.T.H.; Chau, N.N.M.; Le, N.T.H.; The, H.C.; Vinh, P.V.; To, N.T.N.; Ngoc, N.M.; Tuan, H.M.; Ngoc, T.L.C.; Kolader, M.-E.; et al. A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Lactobacillus acidophilus for the Treatment of Acute Watery Diarrhea in Vietnamese Children. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2018, 37, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Urbańska, M.; Gieruszczak–Białek, D.; Szymański, H.; Szajewska, H. Effectiveness of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for the Prevention of Nosocomial Diarrhea in Children. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2016, 35, 142–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Wanke, M.; Szajewska, H. Lack of an effect of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in preventing nosocomial diarrhea in children: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J. Pediatr. 2012, 161, 40–43.e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Dargenio, V.; Cristofori, F.; Dargenio, C.; Giordano, P.; Indrio, F.; Celano, G.; Francavilla, R. Use of Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in paediatric gastrointestinal disorders: An updated review. Benef. Microbes 2022, 13, 221–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zermiani, A.P.d.R.B.; Soares, A.L.P.P.d.P.; Moura, B.L.d.S.G.d.; Miguel, E.R.A.; Lopes, L.D.G.; Santana, N.D.C.S.; Santos, T.D.S.; Demarchi, I.G.; Teixeira, J.J. Evidence of Lactobacillus reuteri to reduce colic in breastfed babies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement. Ther. Med. 2021, 63, 102781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Foster, J.P.; Dahlen, H.G.; Fijan, S.; Badawi, N.; Schmied, V.; Thornton, C.; Smith, C.; Psaila, K. Probiotics for preventing and treating infant regurgitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Matern. Child Nutr. 2021, 18, e13290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Dutta, P.; Mitra, U.; Dutta, S.; Rajendran, K.; Saha, T.K.; Chatterjee, I.K. Randomised controlled clinical trial of Lactobacillus sporogenes (Bacillus coagulans), used as probiotic in clinical practice, on acute watery diarrhoea in children. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2011, 16, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Sarker, S.A.; Sultana, S.; Fuchs, G.J.; Alam, N.H.; Azim, T.; Brussow, H.; Hammarstrom, L. Lactobacillus paracasei Strain ST11 Has No Effect on Rotavirus but Ameliorates the Outcome of Nonrotavirus Diarrhea in Children From Bangladesh. Pediatrics 2005, 116, e221–e228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Zawistowska-Rojek, A.; Zaręba, T.; Tyski, S. Microbiological Testing of Probiotic Preparations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Lorbeg, P.M.; Golob, M.; Kramer, M.; Treven, P.; Matijašić, B.B. Evaluation of Dietary Supplements Containing Viable Bacteria by Cultivation/MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry and PCR Identification. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 700138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of 19 clinical studies with statistically significant antiviral effects of probiotics against rotaviruses.
Table 1. Characteristics of 19 clinical studies with statistically significant antiviral effects of probiotics against rotaviruses.
Reference (First Author, Year) 1Study
Design		PopulationInterventionMain Findings
ActiveControlDuration
Shin et al. (2020),
Rep. Korea [58]		RCT50 hospitalized children with rotavirus gastroenteritis, aged up to 6 years.
15 in novel probiotic group.
8 in control group (group II).
27 in group III (retrospectively analysed through medical records).		Group I:
  • Lactiplantibacillus3plantarum LRCC5310
Group III:
  • Probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae species 2 according to hospital treatment policy
Dosage: not specified.		Group II: standard treatment Up to 8 daysGroup I (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LRCC5310) showed a statistically significant improvement in the number of patients with persistent diarrhoea, number of defecation events per day, and total diarrhoea period compared to group II (control).
Group I showed slight improvement in the number of patients with loose stools, number of defecation events, and diarrhoea duration compared to group III (Saccharomyces cerevisiae-containing probiotic formulation).
Park, Kwon, Ku, and Ji (2017),
Korea [59]		Double-blind
RCT		57 hospitalized infants with rotavirus disease, aged between 9 and 16 months.
28 in probiotic group.
29 in control group.
  • Bifidobacterium longum BORI
  • Lactobacillus acidophilus AD031
Dosage: 2.2 × 109 cfu/g twice daily		Placebo3 daysA significantly shorter duration of patients’ diarrhoea was observed in the probiotic group compared to the placebo group.
Symptoms such as duration of fever, frequency of diarrhoea, and frequency of vomiting tended to be ameliorated by the probiotic treatment; however, differences were not statistically significant between the two groups.
Das, Gupta, and Das (2016),
India [60]		Double-blind
RCT		60 children, aged between 3 months to 5 years, with watery diarrhoea and stool rotavirus positive.
30 in probiotic group.
30 in control group.
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii
Dosage: 250 g sachets twice daily		Placebo5 daysA significantly shorter duration of diarrhoea and hospitalization was observed in the intervention group.
No significant difference was seen for fever and vomiting.
There was also no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children requiring parenteral rehydration and persistence of diarrhoea lasting beyond day 7.
Lee et al. (2015),
Rep. Korea [55]		Double-blind
RCT		29 children between 3 months and 7 years with viral gastroenteritis (9 rotavirus infection).
13 in probiotic group.
16 in control group.
  • Bifidobacterium longum IBG,
  • Bifidobacterium lactis BL,
  • Lactobacillus acidophilus LA,
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus LRH,
  • Lactiplantibacillus3plantarum2,
  • Pediococcus pentosaceus2
Dosage: 109 cfu/g twice daily.		Placebo 1 weekThe multi-strain probiotic significantly shortened the duration of diarrhoea and fever compared to the placebo.
The mean duration of vomiting was shorter in the probiotic group, but the difference in the study groups was not statistically significant.
Aggarwal et al. (2014), India [61]Open
Label
RCT		200 children with watery diarrhoea (41 positive for rotavirus in stool), aged between 6 months and 5 years.
100 in probiotic group.
100 control group.		Culturelle probiotic GG contains:
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus GG (LGG)
Dosage: 1010 cfu/g once daily		Standard treatment5 daysA statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhoea, faster improvement in stool consistency, and reduction in average number of stools per day was observed in the probiotic group compared to standard treatment.
Huang et al. (2014), Taiwan [62]Open
Label
RCT		159 hospitalized children with infectious gastroenteritis (42 rotavirus), aged between 3 months to 14 years.
82 in probiotic group.
77 in control group.		Bio-three contains 4:
  • Enterococcus faecalis T-110,
  • Clostridium butyricum TO-A,
  • Bacillus mesentericus TO-A
Dosage: 3.48 × 108 cfu/g 3 times daily		standard treatment7 daysA statistically significant decrease in the duration of severe diarrhoea was observed in the probiotic group compared to standard treatment.
In the patients with rotavirus, a statistically significant decrease in gastroenteritis (Vesikari score) and diarrhoea frequency was also observed in the probiotic group.
Sindhu et al. (2014),
India [63]		Double-blind
RCT		124 children with gastroenteritis, aged between 6 months to 5 years, infected either with rotavirus (82) or Cryptosporidium species (42).
65 in probiotic group.
59 in control group.
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus GG
Dosage: 1010 cfu/g once per daily		Placebo 4 weeksA statistically significant increase in the IgG levels post-intervention was observed in children with rotavirus diarrhoea receiving LGG after 4 weeks.
Fewer children with rotavirus diarrhoea on LGG had repeated diarrhoeal episodes.
No differences were found in duration of diarrhoea.
Corrêa, Penna, Lima, Nicoli, and Filho (2011),
Brazil [64]		Double-blind
RCT		186 hospitalized children (57.4% with rotavirus), aged between 6 to 48 months, with acute diarrhoea.
90 in probiotic group.
86 in control group.
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii
Dosage: 4 × 109 cfu/g twice daily		Placebo 5 daysA statistically significant reduction in the duration of diarrhoea was observed in probiotic group compared to placebo.
Dalgic, Sancar, Bayraktar, Pullu, and Hasim (2011), Turkey [65]Single
Blind
RCT		240 children with rotavirus diarrhoea, divided into eight groups.
60 in each group.		Group 1:
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii,
Group 2: zinc (Zn),
Group 3: lactose-free formula (LF),
Group 4: Zn and
  • Saccharomyces boulardii (SB),
Group 5: LF and
  • Saccharomyces boulardii (SB),
Group 6: Zn and LF,
Group 7: Zn and LF and
  • Saccharomyces boulardii (SB),
Group 8: control
Dosage: 250 mg once daily		Standard treatment5 daysA statistically significant reduction in diarrhoea duration and hospital stay was observed in groups 2 and 4 compared to standard treatment.
A significant difference in the duration of hospitalization between groups 1 and 4; groups 2 and 7; groups 3 and 4; groups 4 and 5, and groups 4 and 7 was also found.
Grandy, Medina, Soria, Terán, and Araya (2010),
Bolivia [66]		Double-blind
RCT		64 hospitalized children with rotavirus infection, aged 1 to 23 months, divided in 3 groups.
Group 1: single strain probiotic (20).
Group 2: multi-strain probiotic (23).
Group 3: control (21)		Group 1:
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii
Dosage: 4 × 1010 cfu/g twice daily
Group 2:
  • Lactobacillus acidophilus2,
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus2,
  • Bifidobacterium longum2
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii
Dosage: 1.25 × 108 cfu/g twice daily		Placebo 5 daysStatistically significant decrease in duration of diarrhoea shorter duration of fever was observed in children who received the single-species probiotic compared to the placebo.
Statistically significant fewer episodes of vomiting were observed with the multi-species probiotic compared to the placebo.
When probiotic groups were merged, the statistical significance of changes increased (total duration of diarrhoea, fever, and vomiting).
Basu, Paul, Ganguly, Chatterjee, and Chandra (2009), India [67]Double-blind
RCT		559 hospitalized children (319 with rotavirus), aged up to 2 years, divided into 3 groups.
185 in group A.
188 in group B.
186 in group C. 		Group A: control
Group B: LGG,
Dosage: 1010 cfu/g twice daily.
Group C: LGG,
Dosage: 1012 cfu/g twice daily		Standard treatment7 daysA statistically significant lower frequency and the duration of diarrhoea, requirement for intravenous therapy, and hospital was observed in both the intervention groups compared with the control.
There was no significant difference between the 2 intervention groups.
(Teran, Teran-Escalera, and Villarroel (2009), Bolivia [68]Single
Blind
RCT		75 hospitalized children, aged from 28 days to 24 months with rotavirus diarrhoea, divided into three groups.
Group 1: nitazoxanide (25).
Group 2: probiotic group (25).
Group 3: control (25).		Group 1: nitazoxanide
Group 2:
  • Lactobacillus acidophilus2,
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus2,
  • Bifidobacterium longum2 and
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii
Dosage: 1.25 × 108 cfu/g twice daily		Standard treatment5 daysA statistically significant reduction in the duration of diarrhoea and hospital stay was observed in the probiotic group compared to standard treatment.
Dubey, Rajeshwari, Chakravarty, and Famularo (2008), 2008, India [69]Double-blind
RCT		230 hospitalized children with rotavirus diarrhoea, aged between 6 months and 2 years.
113 in probiotic group.
111 in control group.		VSL#3 contains 4:
4 strains of lactobacilli species:
  • Lactobacillus acidophilus,
  • Lacticaseibacillus3paracasei,
  • Lactobacillus bulgaricus,
  • Lactiplantibacillus2plantarum,
3 strains of Bifidobacteria species:
  • Bifidobacterium breve,
  • Bifidobacterium infantis,
  • Bifidobacterium longum,
  • 1 strain of Streptococcus thermophilus
Dosage: 9 × 1010 cfu/g twice daily		Placebo4 daysA statistically significant lower mean stool frequency and improved stool consistency was observed after day 2 up to day 4.
After day 4, the control group also showed spontaneous improvement.
The overall recovery rates were significantly better in the probiotic group compared with the placebo. A statistically significant lower overall requirement for oral rehydration salts was found.
Narayanappa (2008), India [70]Double-blind
RCT		80 hospitalized children with rotavirus diarrhoea, aged between 3 months and 3 years.
40 in probiotic group.
40 in control group.		BIFILAC contains 4:
  • Enterococcus faecalis2,
  • Clostridium butyricum2,
  • Bacillus mesentericus2,
  • Bacillus coagulans2
Dosage: 1 sachet three times daily		Placebo Up to 14 daysA statistically significant reduction in the number of episodes (frequency) of diarrhoea, mean duration of diarrhoea, degree of dehydration, duration and volume of oral rehydration salt therapy, duration and volume of intravenous fluid therapy and duration of rotavirus shedding was observed in the probiotic group compared to the control group.
Szymański, Pejcz, et al. (2006), Poland [71]Double-blind
RCT		87 children with infectious diarrhoea (39 with rotavirus), aged between 2 months and 6 years.
49 in probiotic group.
44 in control group. 		Lakcid L contains:
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus 573L/1,
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus 573L/2
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus 573L/3
Dosage: 1.2 × 109 cfu/g twice daily		Placebo5 daysA statistically significant reduction in the duration of rotavirus diarrhoea, but not of diarrhoea of any aetiology, in children was observed in the probiotic group compared to the control group.
Intervention shortened the time of intravenous rehydration.
Gaón et al. (2003), Argentina [72]Double-blind
RCT		89 hospitalized children with infectious diarrhoea (27% with rotavirus), aged between 6 and 24 months.
29 in control group (group 1).
30 in group 2.
30 in lactobacilli group 3.		Group 1: placebo
Group 2:
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii,
Group 3:
  • Lacticaseibacillus3casei and
  • Lactobacillus acidophilus CERELA
Dosage: 1010–1012 cfu/g twice daily		Placebo 5 daysA statistically significant reduction in the duration of diarrhoea and number of stools in children was observed in all probiotic groups compared to the control group.
Rosenfeldt et al. (2002),
Denmark [73]		Double-blind
RCT		69 hospitalized children with infectious diarrhoea (66% with rotavirus), aged between 6 and 36 months.
30 in probiotic group.
39 in control group.
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus 19070-2,
  • Limosilactobacillusreuteri DSM 12246,
Dosage: 2.2 × 1010 cfu twice daily.		Placebo5 daysA statistically significant reduction in the duration of hospital stay was observed in the probiotic group compared to the placebo.
The beneficial effects (duration of diarrhoea, loose stool, length of hospital stay) were most prominent in children treated early in the diarrhoeal phase.
Guandalini et al., (2000),
European study [74]		Double-blind
RCT		287 children with liquid or semiliquid stools (101 with rotavirus), aged between 1 month and 3 years.
147 in probiotic group.
140 in placebo group.
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus GG,
Dosage: 1010 cfu in 250 mL of standard treatment solution. Solution added to patient according to need.		Standard treatment Up to 7 daysA statistically significant reduction in duration of diarrhoea and duration of hospital stay in rotavirus-positive and rotavirus-negative children was observed in the probiotic group compared to the control group.
In rotavirus-positive children, a significant reduction in number of average stools was also found in the probiotic group compared to the control group.
Guarino, Canani, Spagnuolo, Albano, and Di Benedetto (1997), Italy [75]Double-blind
RCT		100 children with diarrhoea (61 positive for rotavirus), aged between 3 and 36 months.
52 in probiotic group.
48 in control group.
  • Lacticaseibacillus3rhamnosus GG 5,
Dosage: 1010 cfu in 200 m twice daily		Standard treatment Up to 5 daysA statistically significant reduction in the duration of diarrhoea rotavirus-positive and rotavirus-negative ambulatory children with diarrhoea was observed in the probiotic group compared to the control group. Furthermore, the duration of rotavirus excretion was reduced.
1 Clinical studies in descending chronological order, arranged alphabetically. RCT: Randomised, controlled trial. 2 Strain not specified. 3 Nomenclature of species has been updated according to Zheng et al., 2020 [76], 4 information of strains not reported in published clinical trial but retrieved from public website. 5 The clinical trial incorrectly notes the probiotic as Lactobacillus casei GG.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Steyer, A.; Mičetić-Turk, D.; Fijan, S. The Efficacy of Probiotics as Antiviral Agents for the Treatment of Rotavirus Gastrointestinal Infections in Children: An Updated Overview of Literature. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2392. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122392

AMA Style

Steyer A, Mičetić-Turk D, Fijan S. The Efficacy of Probiotics as Antiviral Agents for the Treatment of Rotavirus Gastrointestinal Infections in Children: An Updated Overview of Literature. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(12):2392. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122392

Chicago/Turabian Style

Steyer, Andrej, Dušanka Mičetić-Turk, and Sabina Fijan. 2022. "The Efficacy of Probiotics as Antiviral Agents for the Treatment of Rotavirus Gastrointestinal Infections in Children: An Updated Overview of Literature" Microorganisms 10, no. 12: 2392. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122392

APA Style

Steyer, A., Mičetić-Turk, D., & Fijan, S. (2022). The Efficacy of Probiotics as Antiviral Agents for the Treatment of Rotavirus Gastrointestinal Infections in Children: An Updated Overview of Literature. Microorganisms, 10(12), 2392. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122392

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop