This article is a commentary on:
Efficacy of probiotics/synbiotics supplementation in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Jakub Ruszkowski
Alicja Dębska-Ślizień- Department of Nephrology, Transplantology, and Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland
by Liu, C., Yang, L., Wei, W., and Fu, P. (2024). Front. Nutr. 11:1434613. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1434613
1 Introduction
The article “Efficacy of probiotics/synbiotics supplementation in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials” written by Chang Liu et al. (1) aimed to investigate the effects of probiotics or synbiotics supplementation on kidney function, lipid metabolism, inflammation, uremic toxin levels and electrolyte levels in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
While the authors have conducted a review and meta-analysis on several important outcomes and provided mind-provoking subgroup analyses, there are several critical issues that, in our opinion, compromise the validity and clinical applicability of their findings.
2 Considerations regarding aggregation of interventions
The study's approach of combining probiotics and synbiotics into a single analysis group raises important methodological questions. Probiotics, which consist of live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host, and synbiotics, which are a combination of probiotics and prebiotics, have fundamentally different compositions and mechanisms of action. Generalizing the effects across such a diverse group is scientifically questionable and may obscure important differences in efficacy and safety.
The recent recommendations outlined in the 2023 consensus statement by McFarland et al. emphasized the need to avoid pooling different probiotic strains unless they share a common mechanism of action (2). Since the study pooled several distinct probiotics and synbiotics, the used approach directly contradicts experts' consensus recommendation to avoid such generalizations, as it can obscure specific strain effects and lead to misleading conclusions. Unfortunately, the study did not provide any justification for the pooling of different strains and types of interventions.
3 Inclusion errors and missed studies
Two of the studies included in the meta-analysis, specifically the study by Tayebi-Khosroshahi et al. (3) and Saxena et al. (4), did not involve an intervention with either probiotics or synbiotics, but rather with a prebiotic (lactulose syrup) and enzobiotic (synbiotics with proteolytic enzymes), respectively. This unjustified inclusion affects the validity of 6 out of 15 presented meta-analyses due to intervention misclassification.
The authors did not acknowledge or differentiate their work from previous systematic reviews on this topic, such as the Cochrane review (5) and one published in the Frontiers in Nutrition (6). As a consequence, they missed some studies clearly eligible for inclusion, such as three Iranian studies conducted by Abbasi et al. [testing L. plantarum A7 (7)], Dehghani et al. [testing synbiotic with 7 bacterial strains and fructooligosaccharides (8)], and Kooshki et al. [testing synbiotic with 1 bacterial strain and fructooligosaccharides (9)]. Thus, the meta-analyses did not incorporate all available sources of evidence.
4 Inconsistent application of the Cochrane Handbook guidelines
Despite claiming adherence to the “Cochrane manual” (1), the authors' choice to switch between random-effects and fixed-effect models based solely on the I2 statistic contradicts Cochrane Handbook recommendations (10). Model selection should be driven by the clinical and methodological diversity among the studies (that is definitely high due to the heterogeneity of interventions), not just the statistical measure of heterogeneity. Relying on I2 alone can lead to inappropriate model selection, affecting meta-analysis validity (10).
The main positive results of the study, reduction of blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level were calculated and reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) instead of weighted mean difference (WMD). According to the Cochrane Handbook, SMD should be chosen “when the studies all assess the same outcome, but measure it in a variety of ways (for example, all studies measure depression but they use different psychometric scales)” (11). This choice assumes that standard deviation differences among studies result from measurement scale differences, not real population variability differences. Given that the study conducted by Chang Liu et al. (1) included populations across a wide range of CKD severity (both non-dialysis and dialysis patients), this assumption is likely violated. Moreover, the measurement methods for BUN and CRP are similar worldwide, therefore we do not see the necessity to use less intuitive SMD.
5 Lack of consideration of the minimal clinically important difference
The authors emphasize that certain SMDs are statistically significant, but they fail to reference the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). A statistically significant SMD does not necessarily imply that the observed changes are clinically meaningful. Without discussing the MCID, the clinical relevance of the findings remains unclear, potentially leading to overestimation of the intervention's benefits.
6 Protocol preregistration and adherence
Even though the authors registered the study protocol in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024526836), this occurred more than 3 months after study commencement. The protocol, written in the past tense, was submitted on March 20, 2024, while the database searches were done on December 1, 2023, and the journal submission on May 18, 2024. This timeline negates the bias-reduction purpose of protocol registration. Moreover, the authors missed to provide results for one of the primary outcomes mentioned in the protocol (hemoglobin level), whereas they provided very interesting, but not prespecified in the protocol, subgroup analyses.
7 Discussion
The systematic review process is critical for making informed clinical decisions. While the authors have made a commendable effort to synthesize the available data on probiotics and synbiotics in CKD, the methodological issues outlined above significantly undermine the reliability and applicability of their findings. We recommend that future analyses distinguish between different types of probiotics and synbiotics, adhere strictly to methodological guidelines, consider the clinical relevance of observed changes, and ensure that all included studies meet the eligibility criteria. Moreover, the necessity of conducting new systematic reviews should be critically evaluated, particularly when previous comprehensive reviews exist.
The study exhibits several methodological shortcomings that align with common issues in probiotic systematic reviews. These include the lack of protocol registration before study commencement, non-adhering to the published protocol, inappropriate pooling of different types of interventions, absence of a transparent list of excluded studies, and limited clinical applicability due to insufficient strain-specific analysis. These weaknesses significantly undermine the study's reliability and applicability, echoing the broader concerns highlighted in our evaluation of the systematic review landscape for probiotics (12).
Author contributions
JR: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. AD-Ś: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Medical University of Gdansk, Poland (Grant No. 02-0004/07/122).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Liu C, Yang L, Wei W, Fu P. Efficacy of probiotics/synbiotics supplementation in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Nutr. (2024) 11:1434613. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1434613
2. McFarland L V, Hecht G, Sanders ME, Goff DA, Goldstein EJC, Hill C, et al. Recommendations to improve quality of probiotic systematic reviews with meta-analyses. JAMA Netw Open. (2023) 6:E2346872. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46872
3. Tayebi-Khosroshahi H, Habibzadeh A, Niknafs B, Ghotaslou R, Yeganeh Sefidan F, Ghojazadeh M, et al. The effect of lactulose supplementation on fecal microflora of patients with chronic kidney disease; a randomized clinical trial. J Ren Inj Prev. (2016) 5:162–7. doi: 10.15171/jrip.2016.34
4. Saxena A, Srinivasa S, Veerappan I, Jacob C, Mahaldar A, Gupta A, et al. Enzobiotics—a novel therapy for the elimination of uremic toxins in patients with CKD (EETOX Study): a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial. Nutrients. (2022) 14:3804. doi: 10.3390/nu14183804
5. Cooper TE, Khalid R, Chan S, Craig JC, Hawley CM, Howell M, et al. Synbiotics, prebiotics and probiotics for people with chronic kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2023) 2023:CD013631. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013631.pub2
6. Yu Z, Zhao J, Qin Y, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Sun S. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics improve uremic, inflammatory, and gastrointestinal symptoms in end-stage renal disease with dialysis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Nutr. (2022) 9:850425. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.850425
7. Abbasi B, Ghiasvand R, Mirlohi M. Kidney function improvement by soy milk containing Lactobacillus plantarum A7 in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Iran J Kidney Dis. (2017) 11:36–43.
8. Dehghani H, Heidari F, Mozaffari-Khosravi H, Nouri-Majelan N, Dehghani A. Synbiotic supplementations for Azotemia in patients with chronic kidney disease: a randomized controlled trial. Iran J Kidney Dis. (2016) 10:351–7.
9. Kooshki A, Tofighiyan T, Miri M. A synbiotic supplement for inflammation and oxidative stress and lipid abnormalities in hemodialysis patients. Hemodial Int. (2019) 23:254–60. doi: 10.1111/hdi.12748
10. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In:Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, , editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edn. Chichester, UK: JohnWiley & Sons (2019). p. 241–284.
11. Higgins JPT, Li T, Deeks JJ. Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In:Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, , editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edn. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons (2019). p. 143–176.
Keywords: chronic kidney disease, probiotics, gut microbiota, meta-analysis, statistical issues, minimal clinically important difference, scientific method
Citation: Ruszkowski J and Dębska-Ślizień A (2024) Commentary: Efficacy of probiotics/synbiotics supplementation in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front. Nutr. 11:1510662. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1510662
Received: 13 October 2024; Accepted: 09 December 2024;
Published: 20 December 2024.
Edited by:
Laura Mitrea, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaReviewed by:
Alejandro G. González-Garay, Instituto Nacional de Pediatría, MexicoCopyright © 2024 Ruszkowski and Dębska-Ślizień. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jakub Ruszkowski, amFrdWIucnVzemtvd3NraSYjeDAwMDQwO2d1bWVkLmVkdS5wbA==