PEDIATRICS Vol. 115 No. 1 January 2005, pp. 5-9 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1815)
Effect of a Probiotic Infant Formula on Infections in Child Care Centers: Comparison of Two Probiotic Agents
From the Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition Unit, Soroka Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Objective. To investigate the effect of 2 different species of probiotics in preventing infections in infants attending child care centers.
Methods. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted from December 1, 2000, to September 30, 2002, at 14 child care centers in the Beer-Sheva area of Israel in healthy term infants 4 to 10 months old. Infants were assigned randomly to formula supplemented with Bifidobacterium lactis (BB-12), Lactobacillus reuteri (American Type Culture Collection 55730), or no probiotics. Duration of feeding, including follow-up, for each participant was 12 weeks. All infants were fed only the assigned formula and were not breastfed due to parental decision before recruitment to the study. Probiotic or prebiotic food products or supplements were not allowed. Main outcome measures were number of days and number of episodes with fever (>38°C) and number of days and number of episodes with diarrhea or respiratory illness.
Results. Participants (n = 201) were similar regarding gestational age, birth weight, gender, and previous breastfeeding. The controls (n = 60), compared with those fed B lactis (n = 73) or L reuteri (n = 68), had significantly more febrile episodes (mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.41 [0.28–0.54] vs 0.27 [0.17–0.37] vs 0.11 [0.04–0.18], respectively). The controls also had more diarrhea episodes (0.31 [0.22–0.40] vs 0.13 [0.05–0.21] vs 0.02 [0.01–0.05], respectively) and episodes of longer duration (0.59 [0.34–0.84] vs 0.37 [0.08–0.66] vs 0.15 [0.12–0.18] days, respectively). The L reuteri group, compared with BB-12 or controls, had a significant decrease of number of days with fever, clinic visits, child care absences, and antibiotic prescriptions. Rate and duration of respiratory illnesses did not differ significantly between groups.
Conclusions. Child care infants fed a formula supplemented with L reuteri or B lactis had fewer and shorter episodes of diarrhea, with no effect on respiratory illnesses. These effects were more prominent with L reuteri, which was also the only supplement to improve additional morbidity parameters.
Key Words: probiotics • infant formula • child care • infections
Abbreviations: BB-12, Bifidobacterium lactis • CFU, colony-forming units
Probiotics are viable nonpathogenic bacteria that colonize the intestine and modify the intestinal microflora and their metabolic activities with beneficial effects for the host. Probiotic bacteria beneficially affect the host intestinal microbial balance and may improve immunity.1,2
Breastfed infants develop a probiotic-rich gut microflora with less pathogenic bacteria, compared with formula-fed individuals.3 This effect has been considered one of the mechanisms that decreases the rate of infectious diarrhea in breastfed infants.4 It has been demonstrated recently that human milk is a source of lactic acid bacteria for the infant gut.5
Infant and follow-up formulas supplemented with probiotics are currently marketed in several countries, aiming to mimic some of the beneficial effects of human milk.6
Infants and children attending child care centers demonstrate a higher risk of respiratory and gastrointestinal infections.7,8 Several clinical studies have documented the efficacy of probiotic agents in the prevention and treatment of diarrhea,9,10 mainly of viral etiology.11 However, only a few studies have been published on the ability of these agents to prevent infectious illnesses in infants and children attending child care. Two of these studies used only 1 strain of a probiotic bacteria,12,13 and 1 study used a lysis extract obtained from 8 types of bacteria.14
The aim of the present study was to compare (using a prospective, well-controlled design) the effect of 2 different species of probiotic bacteria in preventing infectious illnesses in infants attending child care centers.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Subjects
Healthy term infants, 4 to 10 months old, from 14 child care centers in the Beer-Sheva area of Israel were recruited for this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial through meetings with parents. The study lasted 21 months from December 2000 through September 2002, covering 2 winter seasons and 2 summer seasons. Included child care centers were in similar socioeconomic areas. In each center a minimum of 6 infants (2 in each group, recruited during the same season) was required. We excluded infants with prematurity, birth weight <2500 g, congenital anomalies, chronic disease, failure to thrive, allergy or atopic disease, and recent (within the preceding 4 weeks) exposure to probiotics, prebiotics, or antibiotics. All infants were weaned from breastfeeding, due to parental decision, at least 2 weeks before recruitment to the study.
Intervention
All participants were fed a humanized cow’s milk formula (Materna Premium, stage II; Materna Laboratories, Maabarot, Israel). Each infant was assigned randomly to be fed by 1 of the following: the above-mentioned formula supplemented with Bifidobacterium lactis (BB-12; CHR Hansen, Hoersholm, Denmark) or Lactobacillus reuteri (American Type Culture Collection 55730, also called SD 2112; BioGaia AB, Stockholm, Sweden) or the same formula with no supplement of probiotics. Randomization was performed by the random-digit method on the basis of computer-generated numbers.
The concentration of microorganisms in each supplemented formula was 1 x 107 colony-forming units (CFU) per g of formula powder. Duration of feeding, including follow-up, for each participant was 12 weeks. Infants were fed the enrollment formula in the child care center and at home. Probiotic or prebiotic food products or supplements were not allowed throughout the study. The amount and viability of the probiotic bacteria were monitored every 3 months.
Follow-up Parameters
Each participant underwent a physical examination, including determination of growth parameters (weight, length, and head circumference) at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The parents filled out a daily questionnaire and were instructed to report daily on every symptom. Respiratory symptoms included runny nose, cough, and shortness of breath. Gastrointestinal symptoms included every episode with watery diarrhea. In addition, parents had to report daily every episode of fever (>38.0°C), absence from child care center, visit to the clinic, prescription of any medication including antibiotics, and adverse reactions. The temperature was measured daily rectally. With any episode of fever or illness signs, the child’s temperature was taken every 4 hours.
With each illness, each infant was examined daily by a pediatrician on the research team. The respiratory illness group included all patients with upper, lower, or mixed respiratory signs. The gastrointestinal illness group included all patients with 
3 watery stools per day. From each patient with diarrhea a stool sample was analyzed for routine bacterial cultures (including Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and Yersinia species, excluding toxigenic Escherichia coli), rotavirus, and ova and parasites, including Cryptosporidium. In addition, each family had a weekly telephone call from the research team to improve compliance and monitoring.
The parents’ daily questionnaire included also the following feeding, behavior, and stooling characteristics. Feeding parameters included number of meals per day, response to food (on a 1–5 scale), daily formula volume, and daily number of regurgitation and vomiting episodes. Behavior characteristics included daily number of severe crying attacks, crying nature (on a 1–4 scale), number of night awakenings, and a daily restlessness score (on a 1–5 scale). Stooling parameters included daily number of bowel movements, stooling effort (on a 1–4 scale), stool consistency (on a 1–4 scale), presence of blood in stools, and a daily gas score (on a 1–4 scale).
Outcome Measures
The primary outcome measures included number of episodes of and number of days with fever (>38°C) and number of days with respiratory symptoms or diarrhea and number of episodes with respiratory illness or diarrhea. Additional primary measures included number of visits to the clinic, number of antibiotic prescriptions, and number of child care center absences. Secondary measures were feeding characteristics, growth parameters, changes in behavior and stooling characteristics, and side effects.
Ethics
The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee of the Soroka University Medical Center and the Ben-Gurion University. A written informed consent was obtained for each infant from both parents.
Estimate of Sample Size
Before the study was conducted, we estimated that for a 2-sided test (at the .05 significance level with a power of 85%) a sample size of 60 patients in each group would be sufficient to detect a difference of 20% between groups in terms of the number of days with acute illness, based on a previous pilot study.15
Statistical Analysis
The data from all patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the analysis of the baseline parameters, categorical data were compared by using the 
2 test, and numerical data were compared by using analysis of variance. For the comparison of the outcome measures we used analysis of variance, and the Tukey test, after appropriate logarithmic transformation to correct for skewness. Means and 95% confidence intervals were back-transformed from log to linear scales for presentation. The analysis was performed with SPSS (standard version 10) software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).
Differences were considered to be significant at the level of P < .05. All reported P values are 2-sided. All the statistical data analysis was performed by Ilana Gelernter, from the Statistics Laboratory at Tel-Aviv University (Tel-Aviv, Israel).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
A flowchart showing the enrollment and status of patients is presented in Fig 1. Assessed for eligibility were 209 infants, 8 of whom were excluded due to exclusion criteria. Subsequently, the intention-to-treat population consisted of 201 subjects who were assigned randomly to treatment: 60 to the control formula, 73 to the B lactis formula, and 68 to the L reuteri formula. All 7 failures were the result of poor compliance and violation of the protocol; none of them were formula-related or due to adverse effects.
|
There were no significant differences between groups at randomization in terms of age at entry, birth weight, gestational age, gender, breastfeeding before the study, mean number of siblings, parental smoking, crowding (>3 persons in a room), and existence of a pet at the household (Table 1).
|
The mean daily formula volume did not differ significantly between the control, BB-12, and L reuteri groups (means [SD]: 636.4 [76.0] vs 645 [59.8] vs 716.9 [123.0] mL, respectively; P = .288). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between groups in terms of other feeding characteristics (daily number of meals, regurgitation and vomiting episodes, and infant compliance).
The results of the primary outcome measures are presented in Table 2. Infants fed a probiotics-free formula, compared with a formula supplemented with B lactis or L reuteri, had significantly more febrile episodes, and also more episodes of diarrhea, with longer duration. The L reuteri group, compared with BB-12 or controls, had significantly fewer days with fever, less visits to the clinic, less absences from the child care unit, and fewer prescriptions of antibiotics. Rate and duration of respiratory illnesses did not differ significantly between groups. There were neither hospitalizations nor outbreaks of diarrhea during the course of the study. The indications for antibiotic therapy were otitis media, pneumonia, and upper respiratory infection, and they did not differ among the groups. No antibiotic-associated episodes of diarrhea were noticed.
|
Adverse effects were not noticed in any of the participants. Throughout the study, growth parameters (ie, weight, length, and head circumference) were satisfactory, with no significant differences between groups. All the other secondary outcome measures pertaining to behavior and stooling parameters did not reveal any significant differences between groups. There were no cases of bloody stools.
A comparison of stool pathogens in the 3 groups (controls and infants fed formula supplemented with BB-12 or L reuteri) did not demonstrate any significant differences regarding rotavirus (38% vs 41% vs 34%, respectively; P = .43), positive bacterial cultures (11% vs 7% vs 9%, respectively; P = .65), and negative bacterial cultures (51% vs 52% vs 57%, respectively; P = .58). Positive bacterial cultures included Shigella, Salmonella, and Campylobacter species in all 3 groups. Stool examination for ova and parasites were negative, excluding 2 cases of Giardia lamblia (1 in the control group and 1 in the group fed L reuteri-supplemented formula).
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The present controlled study is the first to compare 2 different species of probiotic microorganisms and their efficacy in the prevention of common infectious illnesses in child care infants. Because lactobacilli and bifidobacteria are the most commonly used and reported probiotics, we selected 1 representative of each group to be included in the present study.
In most of the parameters studied, the differences were consistently in favor of L reuteri. Lactobacilli may influence the incidence of infections by stimulating nonspecific immunity or enhancing humoral and cellular immune mechanisms.16 This immunostimulatory effect of bacteria has been shown to prevent recurrent infections in children attending child care centers.14 L reuteri, 1 of the few indigenous Lactobacillus species in the human gastrointestinal tract, has been used safely for many years as a probiotic dietary supplement.17 Its positive effects on intestinal disorders such as diarrhea and constipation have been demonstrated in several studies.18,19 This agent has been shown to modulate immune responses in a series of animal models.18 In the human gastrointestinal tract, this probiotic agent successfully induced colonization and was able to grow in situ on gastric, duodenal, and ileal biopsies. At the human ileum epithelium, this microorganism was able to induce immunomodulatory activity, including recruitment of CD4+ T-helper cells.20
Some of the statistically significant differences in morbidity parameters between groups were minor in clinical terms. For instance, differences in duration of fever and diarrhea were <1 day. We believe that this tendency might have been more prominent in an optimal therapy setting. Future large-scale and long-term studies should establish preferred modes of therapy (ie, duration, dosage, etc) for better clinical effects.
In the present study, no fecal analysis of intestinal colonization was conducted. Based on the average daily intake of formula, the mean daily ingested dose of probiotic microorganisms was 1.2 x 109 CFU/day, and according to a recent study, oral administration of lactobacilli at levels ranging from 108 to 1010 CFU/day has lead to transient colonization of the infant gastrointestinal tract.21
Additional limitations of the present study are the lack of testing stool for other enteric viruses besides rotavirus and the relatively short course of therapy, which may have missed associated adverse events.
Most of the stool pathogens in our series were probably viral. Fecal analysis for rotavirus was positive in 34% to 41%, and the other 51% to 57% of stool samples were negative for routine bacterial cultures. We assume that other enteric viruses, for which stool was not tested, were involved.
This finding is in accordance with many previous studies demonstrating that probiotic agents are able to prevent or treat intestinal infections, mainly of viral etiology.22,23
The mechanisms by which probiotic agents might exert their protective or therapeutic effect against viral pathogens in particular are mostly unknown. In 1 study, an increased humoral response, including an increase in IgA-specific antibody-secreting cells against rotavirus, was described in children with acute rotaviral diarrhea who received Lactobacillus GG.24 More mechanistic studies assessing in vitro and in vivo effects of these agents against different viral pathogens are needed.
To be widely used, a probiotic must also be safe. Lactobacilli and bifidobacteria are generally regarded as nonpathogenic, because they occur naturally in the intestine. In many clinical trials these 2 agents seem to be safe for the general adult and pediatric populations.25,26 In addition, the safety of these 2 particular bacteria in infancy has been documented recently in another study by our group.15
Data comparing probiotic species in a systematic and broad-based way have been scant and mostly derived from animal and laboratory studies. There are almost no controlled clinical studies assessing various species of probiotic microorganisms for a specific indication. The present study compares, in a controlled manner, the clinical efficacy of 2 different probiotic agents for 1 particular clinical application and is unique in this respect. Different types of probiotic bacteria exert different effects based on specific capabilities and enzymatic activities, even within 1 species.27 Therefore, in vitro selection criteria for probiotic bacteria of human origin looking at correlation with in vivo findings are required.28 When the great variety of species and strain characteristics are considered, it becomes clear that a proven probiotic effect of 1 strain or species cannot be transferred to another. Therefore, more controlled clinical studies comparing different types of bacteria for a specific indication are warranted.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This study was supported by Materna Laboratories, Maabarot, Israel.
We are thankful to Ilana Gelernter (Statistics Laboratory, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel) for the careful statistical analysis. In addition, we thank Drora Leader and Chaim Zegerman (Materna Laboratories, Maabarot, Israel) for kind cooperation and support. We also thank the research team and the infants and their parents for making this study possible.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Accepted Oct 18, 2004.
Address correspondence to Zvi Weizman, MD, Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition Unit, Soroka Medical Center, PO Box 151, Beer-Sheva 84101, Israel. E-mail: wzvi{at}bgumail.bgu.ac.il
Some of the study data were presented at the American Pediatric Societies Meeting, May 4–7, 2003, Seattle, WA (Pediatr Res. 2003;53:174A), and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Meeting, June 3–6, 2003, Prague, Czech Republic (J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2003;36:530).
No conflict of interest declared.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
1. Isolauri E, Sutas Y, Kankaanpaa P, Arvilommi H, Salminen S. Probiotics: effects on immunity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73(2 suppl) :444S –450S
2. Lin DC. Probiotics as functional foods.
Nutr Clin Pract. 2003;18
:497
–506
3. Mackie RI, Sghir A, Gaskins HR. Developmental microbial ecology of the neonatal gastrointestinal tract.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69
:1035S
–1045S
4. Lopez-Alarcon M, Villalpando S, Fajardo A. Breast-feeding lowers the frequency and duration of acute respiratory infection and diarrhea in infants under six months of age.
J Nutr. 1997;127
:436
–443
5. Martin R, Langa S, Reviriego C, et al. Human milk is a source of lactic acid bacteria for the infant gut. J Pediatr. 2003;143 :754 –758[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6. Ghisolfi J, Roberfroid M, Rigo J, Moro G, Polanco I. Infant formula supplemented with probiotics or prebiotics: never, now, or someday? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002;35 :467 –468[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Nafstad P, Hagen JA, Oie L, Magnus P, Jaakkola JJ. Day care centers and respiratory health.
Pediatrics. 1999;103
:753
–758
8. Loubiala PJ, Jaakkola N, Ruotsalainen R, Jaakkola JK. Day care centers and diarrhea: a public health perspective. J Pediatr. 1997;131 :476 –479[Web of Science][Medline]
9. Szajewska H, Mrukowicz JZ. Probiotics in the treatment and prevention of acute infectious diarrhea in infants and children: a systematic review of published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2001;33(suppl 2) :S17 –S25
10. Van Niel CW, Feudtner C, Garrison MM, Christakis DA. Lactobacillus therapy for acute infectious diarrhea in children: a meta-analysis.
Pediatrics. 2002;109
:678
–684
11. Guandalini S, Pensabene L, Zikri MA, et al. Lactobacillus GG administered in oral rehydration solution to children with acute diarrhea: a multicenter European trial. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2000;30 :54 –60[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
12. Hatakka K, Savilahti E, Ponka A, et al. Effect of long term consumption of probiotic milk on infections in children attending day care centres: double blind, randomised trial.
BMJ. 2001;322
:1327
–1329
13. Pedone CA, Arnaud CC, Postaire ER, Bouley CF, Reinert P. Multicentric study of the effect of milk fermented by Lactobacillus casei on the incidence of diarrhea. Int J Clin Pract. 2000;54 :568 –571[Web of Science][Medline]
14. Collet JP, Ducruet T, Kraker NS, et al. Stimulation of nonspecific immunity to reduce the risk of recurrent infections in children attending day care centers. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993;12 :648 –652[Web of Science][Medline]
15. Alsheikh A, Weizman Z. Safety of infant formula supplemented with two strains of probiotics in early infancy [abstract]. Pediatr Res. 2003;53 :174A
16. Erickson KH, Hubbard NE. Probiotic immunomodulation in health and disease. J Nutr. 2000;130 :403S –409S
17. Reuter G. The Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium microflora of the human intestine: composition and succession. Curr Issues Intest Microbiol. 2001;2 :43 –53[Medline]
18. Casas IA, Dobrogosz WJ. Validation of the probiotic concept: Lactobacillus reuteri confers broad-spectrum protection against disease in humans and animals. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2000;12 :247 –285
19. Ouwehand AC, Lagstrom H, Suomalainen T, Salminen S. Effect of probiotics on constipation, fecal azoreductase activity and fecal mucin content in the elderly. Ann Nutr Metab. 2002;46 :159 –162[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
20. Connolly E, Valeur N, Engel P, Carbajal N, Ladefoged K. In situ colonization and immunomodulation by the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri (ATCC 55730) in the human gastrointestinal tract [abstract]. Clin Nutr. 2003;22 :S57[Medline]
21. Petschow B, Figueroa R, Harris C, et al. Comparison of intestinal colonization and tolerance following oral administration of different levels of Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG (LGG) in healthy term infants [abstract]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2003;36 :566
22. Matarese LE, Seidner DL, Steiger E. The role of probiotics in gastrointestinal disease.
Nutr Clin Pract. 2003;18
:507
–516
23. Isolauri E, Ribeiro HC, Gibson G, et al. Functional foods and probiotics: Working Group Report of the First World Congress of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002;35 :S106 –S109
24. Kailam M, Isolauri E, Soppi E, et al. Enhancement of the circulating antibody secreting cell response in human diarrhea by a human lactobacillus strain. Pediatr Res. 1992;32 :141 –144[Web of Science][Medline]
25. Ishibashi N, Yamazaki S. Probiotics and safety. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73(2 suppl) :465S –470S
26. Saavedra J. Clinical applications of probiotic agents.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73
:1147S
–1151S
27. Ouwehand AC, Kirjavainen PV, Gronlund MM, Isolauri E, Salminen SJ. Adhesion of probiotic microorganisms to intestinal mucus. Int Dairy J. 1999;9 :623 –630[CrossRef]
28. Dunne C, O’Mahony L, Murphy L, et al. In vitro selection criteria for probiotic bacteria of human origin: correlation with in vivo findings.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73
:386S
–392S
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2005 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. C. Johnston, L. Shamseer, B. R. da Costa, R. T. Tsuyuki, and S. Vohra Measurement Issues in Trials of Pediatric Acute Diarrheal Diseases: A Systematic Review Pediatrics, July 1, 2010; 126(1): e222 - e231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Schaefer, T. A. Auchtung, K. E. Hermans, D. Whitehead, B. Borhan, and R. A. Britton The antimicrobial compound reuterin (3-hydroxypropionaldehyde) induces oxidative stress via interaction with thiol groups Microbiology, June 1, 2010; 156(6): 1589 - 1599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Kang, D. Toms, Y. Yin, Q. Cheung, J. Gong, K. De Lange, and J. Li Epidermal Growth Factor-Expressing Lactococcus lactis Enhances Intestinal Development of Early-Weaned Pigs J. Nutr., April 1, 2010; 140(4): 806 - 811. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Wolvers, J.-M. Antoine, E. Myllyluoma, J. Schrezenmeir, H. Szajewska, and G. T. Rijkers Guidance for Substantiating the Evidence for Beneficial Effects of Probiotics: Prevention and Management of Infections by Probiotics J. Nutr., March 1, 2010; 140(3): 698S - 712S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Stang, K. Hoss, and M. Story Health Statements Made in Infant Formula Advertisements in Pregnancy and Early Parenting Magazines: A Content Analysis ICAN: Infant, Child, & Adolescent Nutrition, February 1, 2010; 2(1): 16 - 25. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. Leyer, S. Li, M. E. Mubasher, C. Reifer, and A. C. Ouwehand Probiotic Effects on Cold and Influenza-Like Symptom Incidence and Duration in Children Pediatrics, August 1, 2009; 124(2): e172 - e179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Minocha Probiotics for Preventive Health Nutr Clin Pract, April 1, 2009; 24(2): 227 - 241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Q. C. Cheung, Z. Yuan, P. W Dyce, D. Wu, K. DeLange, and J. Li Generation of epidermal growth factor-expressing Lactococcus lactis and its enhancement on intestinal development and growth of early-weaned mice Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, March 1, 2009; 89(3): 871 - 879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Bukutu, C. Le, and S. Vohra Complementary, Holistic, and Integrative Medicine: The Common Cold Pediatr. Rev., December 1, 2008; 29(12): e66 - e71. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Rosander, E. Connolly, and S. Roos Removal of Antibiotic Resistance Gene-Carrying Plasmids from Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC 55730 and Characterization of the Resulting Daughter Strain, L. reuteri DSM 17938 Appl. Envir. Microbiol., October 1, 2008; 74(19): 6032 - 6040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kukkonen, E. Savilahti, T. Haahtela, K. Juntunen-Backman, R. Korpela, T. Poussa, T. Tuure, and M. Kuitunen Long-Term Safety and Impact on Infection Rates of Postnatal Probiotic and Prebiotic (Synbiotic) Treatment: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Pediatrics, July 1, 2008; 122(1): 8 - 12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Morita, H. Toh, S. Fukuda, H. Horikawa, K. Oshima, T. Suzuki, M. Murakami, S. Hisamatsu, Y. Kato, T. Takizawa, et al. Comparative Genome Analysis of Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus fermentum Reveal a Genomic Island for Reuterin and Cobalamin Production DNA Res, June 1, 2008; 15(3): 151 - 161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. Chouraqui, D. Grathwohl, J. M. Labaune, J. M. Hascoet, I. de Montgolfier, M. Leclaire, M. Giarre, and P. Steenhout Assessment of the safety, tolerance, and protective effect against diarrhea of infant formulas containing mixtures of probiotics or probiotics and prebiotics in a randomized controlled trial Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2008; 87(5): 1365 - 1373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Whitehead, J. Versalovic, S. Roos, and R. A. Britton Genomic and Genetic Characterization of the Bile Stress Response of Probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC 55730 Appl. Envir. Microbiol., March 15, 2008; 74(6): 1812 - 1819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Wall, K. Bath, R. A. Britton, H. Jonsson, J. Versalovic, and S. Roos The Early Response to Acid Shock in Lactobacillus reuteri Involves the ClpL Chaperone and a Putative Cell Wall-Altering Esterase Appl. Envir. Microbiol., June 15, 2007; 73(12): 3924 - 3935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Saavedra Use of Probiotics in Pediatrics: Rationale, Mechanisms of Action, and Practical Aspects Nutr Clin Pract, June 1, 2007; 22(3): 351 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. de Vrese and P. R. Marteau Probiotics and Prebiotics: Effects on Diarrhea J. Nutr., March 1, 2007; 137(3): 803S - 811S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Savino, E. Pelle, E. Palumeri, R. Oggero, and R. Miniero Lactobacillus reuteri (American Type Culture Collection Strain 55730) Versus Simethicone in the Treatment of Infantile Colic: A Prospective Randomized Study Pediatrics, January 1, 2007; 119(1): e124 - e130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R J Schanler Probiotics and necrotising enterocolitis in premature infants. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., November 1, 2006; 91(6): F395 - F397. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Z. Weizman and A. Alsheikh Safety and tolerance of a probiotic formula in early infancy comparing two probiotic agents: a pilot study. J. Am. Coll. Nutr., October 1, 2006; 25(5): 415 - 419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J Boyle, R. M Robins-Browne, and M. L. Tang Probiotic use in clinical practice: what are the risks? Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, June 1, 2006; 83(6): 1256 - 1264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T Kamiya, L Wang, P Forsythe, G Goettsche, Y Mao, Y Wang, G Tougas, and J Bienenstock Inhibitory effects of Lactobacillus reuteri on visceral pain induced by colorectal distension in Sprague-Dawley rats Gut, February 1, 2006; 55(2): 191 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Journal Watch Arch. Dis. Child., May 1, 2005; 90(5): 544 - 545. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Kemp Probiotic formula associated with reduced infection rate AAP News, April 1, 2005; 26(4): 2 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Probiotics for Infants: Two Studies, Two Successes Journal Watch (General), February 11, 2005; 2005(211): 3 - 3. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Probiotics in Infants: Two Studies, Two Successes Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, February 1, 2005; 2005(201): 2 - 2. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. W. Van Niel Probiotics: Not Just for Treatment Anymore Pediatrics, January 1, 2005; 115(1): 174 - 177. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
