4.5 Article

Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 versus placebo for treating diarrhea of greater than 4 days duration in infants and toddlers

Journal

PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 494-499

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0b013e318169034c

Keywords

diarrhea; infants; probiotic; Escherichia coli Nissle 1917; EcN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Administering probiotics can prevent or cure some forms of diarrhea. The efficacy of probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) in infants and toddlers with diarrhea > 4 days was tested by a double-blind trial. Methods: One hundred fifty-one children aged 1-47 months with nonspecific diarrhea were randomized to receive either EcN suspension (N = 75) or placebo (N = 76). Diarrhea had to meet the following definition: > 3 watery or loose nonbloody stools in 24 hours of a diarrheal episode persisting for > 4 consecutive days but <= 14 days. All children were well nourished or only moderately malnourished, mildly dehydrated, and received oral rehydration at study commencement. They were treated orally with 1-3 mL EcN suspension (1 mL contains 10(8) viable cells) or placebo daily for 21 days. Primary objective was to confirm a better response rate (reduction of daily stool frequency to <= 3 watery or loose stools over >= 4 days) with EcN. Results: The 7-day response was higher for the EcN group than placebo (EcN 78.7%, placebo 59.2%). Significant differences were observed on days 14 (EcN 93.3%, placebo 65.8%, P = 0.00 17) and 21 (EcN 98.7%, placebo 71.1%, P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis resulted in a significant difference of 3.3 days between the groups (P < 0.0001); median time to response for EcN was 2.4 and 5.7 for placebo. EcN was safe and well tolerated. Conclusions: In the conditions of this trial EcN was a suitable remedy for diarrhea > 4 days in young children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available