Probiotics – PrebioticsNovel Strategies That May Prevent Neonatal Disease
by
Richard J. Schanler, M.D.
Schneider Children’s Hospital at North Shore, Manhasset, NY
and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
schanler@nshs.edu
1. Probiotics – Prebiotics
Novel Strategies That May
Prevent Neonatal Disease
Richard J. Schanler, M.D.
Schneider Children’s Hospital at North Shore, Manhasset, NY
and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
schanler@nshs.edu
February 2010
2. Intestinal EcosystemIntestinal Ecosystem
Host cellsHost cells
NutrientsNutrients
MicrofloraMicroflora
Interactions with nutrients and cellsInteractions with nutrients and cells
Adult colon and distal small intestineAdult colon and distal small intestine
10101313
microorganisms, 500 speciesmicroorganisms, 500 species
Normal bacterial flora affect immune functionNormal bacterial flora affect immune function
Stimulate mucosal IgA productionStimulate mucosal IgA production
Influence gene expressionInfluence gene expression
Activate toll-like receptors to protect against gut injuryActivate toll-like receptors to protect against gut injury
10 trillion10 trillion
3. Newborn Intestinal Flora
Colonization in 12 to 24 hours
Enterobacteria, E. coli
Enterococci
Anaerobes
Formula-fed infants
Same as above
Bifidobacteria
Breastfeeding infants
Bifidobacteria and
Lactobacilli compete with
above
Premature infants delayed
colonization of commensal
microflora
Antibiotics
Delayed feeding
Sterile environment
4. Some of the Intestinal MicrofloraSome of the Intestinal Microflora
Identified in Infants are BeneficialIdentified in Infants are Beneficial
BifidobacteriumBifidobacterium
LactobacillusLactobacillus
StaphylococcusStaphylococcus
StreptococcusStreptococcus
BacteroidesBacteroides
ClostridiumClostridium
EscherichiaEscherichia
EnterococcusEnterococcus
VellonellaVellonella
PropionibacteriumPropionibacterium
BacillusBacillus
EubacteriumEubacterium
B. adolescentisB. adolescentis
B. bifidumB. bifidum
B. breveB. breve
B. catenulatumB. catenulatum
B. globosumB. globosum
B. infantisB. infantis
B. longumB. longum
B. suisB. suis
L. caseiL. casei
L. salivariusL. salivarius
L. gasseriL. gasseri
L. planarumL. planarum
L. fermentumL. fermentum
5. Functions of Commensal MicroorganismsFunctions of Commensal Microorganisms
Probiotic speciesProbiotic species
Infection protectionInfection protection
Competition with pathogensCompetition with pathogens
Substrates, receptorsSubstrates, receptors
BacteriocinsBacteriocins
MetabolismMetabolism
Fermentation, SCFA, vitaminsFermentation, SCFA, vitamins
Conversion of procarcinogensConversion of procarcinogens
Immune responseImmune response
IgA synthesisIgA synthesis
Interaction with intestinal immune systemInteraction with intestinal immune system
Growth facilitated by oligosaccharidesGrowth facilitated by oligosaccharides
Human milkHuman milk
““Prebiotics”Prebiotics”
7. Carbohydrate FermentationCarbohydrate Fermentation
Major function of intestinal bacteriaMajor function of intestinal bacteria
Bifidobacteria and lactobacilliBifidobacteria and lactobacilli
ferment carbohydrate to produce lactic acidferment carbohydrate to produce lactic acid
Acidic milieu potentiates nonpathogenicAcidic milieu potentiates nonpathogenic
bacteriabacteria
ColiformsColiforms
ferment carbohydrate to COferment carbohydrate to CO22 and waterand water
neutral pHneutral pH
8. Stool pH:
Indicator of Normal Gut Fermentation
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
3rd Day 1st
Month
2nd
Month
3rd
Month
4th
Month
Breastfed
Formula-Fed
Indrio et al. Pediatr Res 2007; 62:98
9. Approaches to Create IntestinalApproaches to Create Intestinal
Microflora Like Breastfed InfantMicroflora Like Breastfed Infant
Two possible approaches:Two possible approaches:
1.1. ProbioticsProbiotics
Feed live microorganismsFeed live microorganisms
2.2. PrebioticsPrebiotics
Provide food for the beneficial bacteriaProvide food for the beneficial bacteria
FAO/WHO Working Group: Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food. 2002:
URL:http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/probiotics2/en/index.html.
11. ProbioticsProbiotics
1900s Elie Metchnikoff, Pasteur Institute1900s Elie Metchnikoff, Pasteur Institute
““Long life span of Bulgarian peasantsLong life span of Bulgarian peasants
due to ingestion of fermented milksdue to ingestion of fermented milks
containing large numbers ofcontaining large numbers of
nonpathogenic bacteria”nonpathogenic bacteria”
12. ProbioticsProbiotics
Antonym to the term ‘antibiotics’Antonym to the term ‘antibiotics’
Live, nonpathogenic bacterial micro-organismsLive, nonpathogenic bacterial micro-organisms
Colonize host intestineColonize host intestine
Bolster natural host defensesBolster natural host defenses
TypesTypes
LactobacillusLactobacillus
BifidobacteriumBifidobacterium
SaccharomycesSaccharomyces
Streptococcus thermophilusStreptococcus thermophilus
13. Characteristics of an Ideal ProbioticCharacteristics of an Ideal Probiotic
Stable to acids & bile saltsStable to acids & bile salts
Adhesive to intestinal epithelial cellsAdhesive to intestinal epithelial cells
NoninvasiveNoninvasive
NonpathogenicNonpathogenic
Immuno-stimulatoryImmuno-stimulatory
Not pro-inflammatoryNot pro-inflammatory
Antagonistic to pathogensAntagonistic to pathogens
Sensitive to usual antibioticsSensitive to usual antibiotics
Doesn’t develop resistanceDoesn’t develop resistance
Originate from human microfloraOriginate from human microflora
14. Probiotics Enhance Host DefenseProbiotics Enhance Host Defense
Prevent colonization by pathogenic organismsPrevent colonization by pathogenic organisms
Competition for nutrientsCompetition for nutrients
Competition for attachment sitesCompetition for attachment sites
Produce antibacterial compounds unfavorable toProduce antibacterial compounds unfavorable to
pathogenspathogens
Volatile fatty acidsVolatile fatty acids
Modified bile acidsModified bile acids
Recruit immune cellsRecruit immune cells
Activate immune and inflammatory responsesActivate immune and inflammatory responses
15. Probiotics Enhance Gut Barrier FunctionProbiotics Enhance Gut Barrier Function
Intestine is largest immune organ in the bodyIntestine is largest immune organ in the body
Large surface barrierLarge surface barrier
Gut permeabilityGut permeability
TranslocationTranslocation
Passage of intestinal bacteria through intestinal mucosaPassage of intestinal bacteria through intestinal mucosa
To extra-intestinal sitesTo extra-intestinal sites
Intestinal mucosal barrierIntestinal mucosal barrier
Physical, cellular barrierPhysical, cellular barrier
Major role in development of NECMajor role in development of NEC
Lactic acid bacteria [Probiotic]Lactic acid bacteria [Probiotic]
Do not translocateDo not translocate
Prevent translocation of other bacteriaPrevent translocation of other bacteria
Produce antimicrobial bacteriocinsProduce antimicrobial bacteriocins
16. Probiotics Improve Enteral NutritionProbiotics Improve Enteral Nutrition
Improve mucosal integrityImprove mucosal integrity
Increase mucous secretionIncrease mucous secretion
Enhance GI motilityEnhance GI motility
Aid in intestinal maturationAid in intestinal maturation
Improve feeding toleranceImprove feeding tolerance
Metabolize noxious substancesMetabolize noxious substances
Produce protective nutrientsProduce protective nutrients
Arginine, glutamine, short chain fatty acidsArginine, glutamine, short chain fatty acids
Synthesize vitamin KSynthesize vitamin K
18. Probiotics and Antibiotic-Associated DiarrheaProbiotics and Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea
Children 6 mo – 10 yChildren 6 mo – 10 y
US midwestUS midwest
Oral antibiotics x 10 dOral antibiotics x 10 d
RandomizationRandomization
Supplement x1/daySupplement x1/day
Lactobacillus GG, 1-2 x10Lactobacillus GG, 1-2 x1099
PlaceboPlacebo
Diarrhea incidenceDiarrhea incidence
Lactobacillus: 7 cases (8%)Lactobacillus: 7 cases (8%)
Placebo: 25 cases (26%)Placebo: 25 cases (26%)
Diarrhea durationDiarrhea duration
Lactobacillus: 4.7 daysLactobacillus: 4.7 days
Placebo: 5.9 daysPlacebo: 5.9 days
Vanderhoof, J Pediatr 1999; 135:564
Stool Consistency Log
19. Probiotics Reduce Diarrhea in Children:Probiotics Reduce Diarrhea in Children:
Five Meta-AnalysesFive Meta-Analyses
No. trialsNo. trials No. subjectsNo. subjects OutcomeOutcome
#1:#1: 2323 1,9001,900 risk diarrhearisk diarrhea
>3 days>3 days
#2#2 99 765765 duration: 0.7 dduration: 0.7 d
#3#3 1313 1,1131,113 duration: 0.8 dduration: 0.8 d
#4#4 55 619619 duration: 1.1 dduration: 1.1 d
#5#5 88 988988 duration: 1.1 dduration: 1.1 d
1
H. Szajewska & J. Mrukowicz JPGN 2001;33:S17-S25
2
C. Van Niel et al. Pediatrics 2002;109:S678-684
3
J. Huang et al. Dig Dis Sci 2002;1:2626-2634
4
H. Szajewska et al. APT 2007;25:257-264
5
H. Szajewska et al. APT 2007;25:871-881
20. Necrotizing EnterocolitisNecrotizing Enterocolitis
GI catastropheGI catastrophe
PrematurityPrematurity
Bacterial floraBacterial flora
Reduction in commensal bacteriaReduction in commensal bacteria
More pathogenic than nonpathogenicMore pathogenic than nonpathogenic
Immature intestineImmature intestine
Impaired mucosal barrier functionImpaired mucosal barrier function
Increased GI permeabilityIncreased GI permeability
21. Rationale for Probiotics in NECRationale for Probiotics in NEC
Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria have low rates ofLactobacilli and Bifidobacteria have low rates of
spontaneous colonization in breastfed infants <1500 gspontaneous colonization in breastfed infants <1500 g
Probiotics reduce pathogenic bacterial colonizationProbiotics reduce pathogenic bacterial colonization
Multiple courses of antibioticsMultiple courses of antibiotics
Abnormal NICU floraAbnormal NICU flora
Microbial etiologies in NECMicrobial etiologies in NEC
Reinforce intestinal barrierReinforce intestinal barrier
Prevent bacterial translocationPrevent bacterial translocation
Alleviate intestinal inflammationAlleviate intestinal inflammation
Balance of anti- and pro-inflammatory cytokinesBalance of anti- and pro-inflammatory cytokines
22. Probiotics and NEC - Animal StudiesProbiotics and NEC - Animal Studies
Bifidobacteria vs controlBifidobacteria vs control
Rat modelRat model
Gut colonization by 24 hoursGut colonization by 24 hours
Asphyxia/hypothermia model for NECAsphyxia/hypothermia model for NEC
Reduction in NEC with probioticsReduction in NEC with probiotics
Bifidobacteria 30%Bifidobacteria 30%
Control 70%Control 70%
23. Probiotics and Premies – JapanProbiotics and Premies – Japan
Randomized, controlled trial, JapanRandomized, controlled trial, Japan
VLBW infants, N=91VLBW infants, N=91
Bifidobacterium breveBifidobacterium breve supplement vs controlsupplement vs control
Supplement groupSupplement group
Higher fecal colonization of bifidobacteria at 2 wkHigher fecal colonization of bifidobacteria at 2 wk
73 % vs 12%73 % vs 12%
Tolerated more milk feedingTolerated more milk feeding
Fewer gastric residualsFewer gastric residuals
Improved overall feeding toleranceImproved overall feeding tolerance
Improved weight gainImproved weight gain
Kitajima, Arch Dis Child 1997;76:F101
24. Probiotic year, n=1237 infantsProbiotic year, n=1237 infants
Infloran:Infloran:
2.5 x 102.5 x 1088
Lactobacillus acidophilusLactobacillus acidophilus
2.5 x 102.5 x 1088
Bifidobacteria infantisBifidobacteria infantis
Historical controls, n=1282 infantsHistorical controls, n=1282 infants
Prior year data on morbidityPrior year data on morbidity
Probiotics and Premies - BogotaProbiotics and Premies - Bogota
Hoyos, Int J Inf Dis 1999; 3:197Hoyos, Int J Inf Dis 1999; 3:197
25. ResultsResults
NEC incidenceNEC incidence
Probiotic year: 37/1237Probiotic year: 37/1237 →→ 3%3%
Historical control year: 85/1282Historical control year: 85/1282 →→ 6.6%6.6%
NEC mortality – significant differenceNEC mortality – significant difference
Probiotic yearProbiotic year →→ 14 cases14 cases
Historical control yearHistorical control year →→ 35 cases35 cases
Probiotics and Premies - BogotaProbiotics and Premies - Bogota
Hoyos, Int J Inf Dis 1999; 3:197Hoyos, Int J Inf Dis 1999; 3:197
26. Probiotics and Premies - ItalyProbiotics and Premies - Italy
Double blind, 12 centers in ItalyDouble blind, 12 centers in Italy
Infants < 33 wk or < 1500 grams; n=585Infants < 33 wk or < 1500 grams; n=585
Mean BW 1335 g, GA 31 wks; 64% rec’d human milkMean BW 1335 g, GA 31 wks; 64% rec’d human milk
Lactobacillus GGLactobacillus GG supplementsupplement (Dicoflor, Dicofarm, IT)(Dicoflor, Dicofarm, IT) vs controlvs control
Once daily (6 x 10Once daily (6 x 1099
) from onset feeding to discharge) from onset feeding to discharge
Supplementation for ~50 daysSupplementation for ~50 days
Supplement ControlSupplement Control
UTIUTI 3.4%3.4% 5.8%5.8% nsns
NECNEC 1.4 %1.4 % 2.7%2.7% nsns
SepsisSepsis 4.4 %4.4 % 3.8 %3.8 % nsns
Dani, Biol Neonate 2002; 82:103
27. Probiotics and Premies - IsraelProbiotics and Premies - Israel
Randomized, double-blind studyRandomized, double-blind study
Daily supplement, first feed to 36 wk corrected ageDaily supplement, first feed to 36 wk corrected age
ABC Dophilus (Solgar, Israel)ABC Dophilus (Solgar, Israel)
Bifidobacteria infantisBifidobacteria infantis 0.35 x 100.35 x 1099
cfu/daycfu/day
Bifidobacteria bifidusBifidobacteria bifidus 0.35 x 100.35 x 1099
cfu/daycfu/day
Strep thermophilusStrep thermophilus 0.35 x 100.35 x 1099
cfu/daycfu/day
Power analysisPower analysis
n=145 for reduction in NEC from 15% to 5%n=145 for reduction in NEC from 15% to 5%
Bin-Nun et al, J Pediatr 2005;147:192-6
28. Probiotics ControlProbiotics Control
Probiotics and Premies - IsraelProbiotics and Premies - Israel
Birth weight (g)Birth weight (g) 11521152 11111111
Gestation (wk)Gestation (wk) 29.829.8 29.329.3
SGA (%)SGA (%) 2525 1515
Sepsis (%)Sepsis (%) 4343 3333 nsns
Antibiotics (d)Antibiotics (d) 12.512.5 14.914.9
Full feeding (d)Full feeding (d) 14.614.6 17.517.5
TPN discontinued (d)TPN discontinued (d) 16.616.6 18.618.6
Human milk exclusive (%)Human milk exclusive (%) 5858 6464
Partial human milk (%)Partial human milk (%) 1717 1212
Formula (%)Formula (%) 2525 2323
NPO (d)NPO (d) 5.25.2 4.84.8
All differences are not significant Bin-Nun et al, J Pediatr 2005;147:192-6
29. Probiotics, Premies, NEC - IsraelProbiotics, Premies, NEC - Israel
Probiotics ControlProbiotics Control P valueP value
††
Bell stage of NEC 1-3 All differences are significantBell stage of NEC 1-3 All differences are significant
Bin-Nun et al, J Pediatr 2005;147:192-6Bin-Nun et al, J Pediatr 2005;147:192-6
NEC cases (n, %)NEC cases (n, %) 3 (4%)3 (4%) 12 (16%)12 (16%) 0.030.03
Stage at diagnosisStage at diagnosis††
1.31.3 2.32.3 0.0050.005
NEC or death (n, %)NEC or death (n, %) 6 (8%)6 (8%) 17 (23%)17 (23%) 0.0250.025
30. Probiotics, Premies, & NEC - TaiwanProbiotics, Premies, & NEC - Taiwan
Randomized, controlled, blinded trial, infants <1500 gramsRandomized, controlled, blinded trial, infants <1500 grams
Mean 1100 g, ~28 wksMean 1100 g, ~28 wks
Probiotic: InfloranProbiotic: InfloranTMTM
with breastmilk twice daily, n=180with breastmilk twice daily, n=180
Lactobacillus acidophilusLactobacillus acidophilus
Bifidobacteria infantisBifidobacteria infantis
Control group: breastmilk only, n=187Control group: breastmilk only, n=187
Breastmilk: either mother’s own or donor human milkBreastmilk: either mother’s own or donor human milk
Lin et al, Pediatrics 2005;115:1-4
31. Probiotics, Premies, & NEC - TaiwanProbiotics, Premies, & NEC - Taiwan
Probiotics ControlProbiotics Control PP valuevalue
Death, n (%)Death, n (%) 7 (3.9)7 (3.9) 10 (10.7)10 (10.7) .009.009
NEC or Death cases, n (%)NEC or Death cases, n (%) 9 (5)9 (5) 24 (12.8)24 (12.8) .009.009
NEC, stage 2 or 3, n (%)NEC, stage 2 or 3, n (%) 2 (1.1)2 (1.1) 10 (5.3)10 (5.3) .04.04
Sepsis, n (%)Sepsis, n (%) 22 (12.2)22 (12.2) 36 (19.3)36 (19.3) .03.03
NEC or sepsis, n (%)NEC or sepsis, n (%) 24 (13.3)24 (13.3) 46 (24.6)46 (24.6) .03.03
NEC, sepsis, or death, n (%)NEC, sepsis, or death, n (%) 31 (17.2)31 (17.2) 60 (32.1)60 (32.1) .009.009
Lin et al, Pediatrics 2005;115:1-4
32. Probiotics, Premies, & NEC – Taiwan IIProbiotics, Premies, & NEC – Taiwan II
Randomized, controlled, masked trial, infants 500-1500 gRandomized, controlled, masked trial, infants 500-1500 g
MulticenterMulticenter
Mean birth weight 1100 g, n=217 per groupMean birth weight 1100 g, n=217 per group
Breastmilk or mixed dietBreastmilk or mixed diet
Intervention: InfloranIntervention: InfloranTMTM
with milk twice daily x 6 wkwith milk twice daily x 6 wk
Lactobacillus acidophilusLactobacillus acidophilus 101099
Bifidobacteria infantisBifidobacteria infantis 101099
Control groupControl group
Lin H-C et al, Pediatrics 2008;122:693-700
33. Probiotics, Premies, & NEC – Taiwan IIProbiotics, Premies, & NEC – Taiwan II
Probiotics ControlProbiotics Control PP valuevalue
Birth weight (g)Birth weight (g) 10291029 ± 246± 246 10771077 ±± 214214 .03.03
Death or NEC cases, n (%)Death or NEC cases, n (%) 4 (1.8)4 (1.8) 20 (9.2)20 (9.2) .002.002
NEC, stageNEC, stage >> 2, n (%)2, n (%) 4 (1.8)4 (1.8) 14 (6.5)14 (6.5) .02.02
Sepsis, n (%)Sepsis, n (%) 40 (19.8)40 (19.8) 24 (11.5)24 (11.5) .04.04
Gram Positive, n (%)Gram Positive, n (%) 25 (11.5)25 (11.5) 19 (8.8)19 (8.8) NSNS
Gram Negative, n (%)Gram Negative, n (%) 15 (6.9)15 (6.9) 5 (2.3)5 (2.3) .037.037
Lin H-C et al, Pediatrics 2008;122:693-700
Adjusted Odd’s Ratio for NEC or Death: 5.6 (1.8 – 17.9)
Adjusted for birth weight, surfactant, pH, gestational age, site
Adjusted Odd’s Ratio for Sepsis: 0.63 (0.35 - 1.10)
Adjusted for birth weight, umbilical catheters, ventilation, NICU stay, site
34. Probiotics and Time to Full FeedingsProbiotics and Time to Full Feedings
WMD = weighted mean difference, probiotic - control
Probiotic therapy shortens time to full feeding, P = 0.02
Deshpande G, Rao S, Patole S. Lancet 2007; 369:1614-1620
ProbioticsProbiotics ControlControl WMD (95% CI)WMD (95% CI)
Kitajima 2007Kitajima 2007 4545 1717 ±± 8.48.4 4646 20.5 ± 11.920.5 ± 11.9 -3.9 (-7.7, 0.7)-3.9 (-7.7, 0.7)
Bin Nun 2005Bin Nun 2005 7272 14.614.6 ± 8.7± 8.7 7373 17.5 ± 13.617.5 ± 13.6 -2.9 (-6.6, 0.8)-2.9 (-6.6, 0.8)
ManManzoni 2006zoni 2006 3939 1515 ±± 88 4141 1717 ±± 99 -2 (-5.7, 1.7)-2 (-5.7, 1.7)
TOTALTOTAL 156156 160160 -2.7 (-5, -0.5)-2.7 (-5, -0.5)
38. Proposed Strategies for Preventing NECProposed Strategies for Preventing NEC
Human milk feedingHuman milk feeding 1515
Enteral antibioticsEnteral antibiotics 1111
Fluid restriction [judicious]Fluid restriction [judicious] 1212
Enteral IgG and IgAEnteral IgG and IgA 1515
Antenatal steroidsAntenatal steroids 5454
Delayed or slow feedingDelayed or slow feeding not efficaciousnot efficacious
Enteral IgG onlyEnteral IgG only not efficaciousnot efficacious
ProbioticsProbiotics
Lactobacillus GGLactobacillus GG 7777
Infloran (2 organisms)Infloran (2 organisms) 2424
Infloran (2 organisms)Infloran (2 organisms) 2121
Infloran (2 organisms)Infloran (2 organisms) 2020
ACDophilus (3 organisms)ACDophilus (3 organisms) 88
StrategyStrategy Number Needed To TreatNumber Needed To Treat
Adapted from Bell, Pediatrics 2005;115:173
24
39. Probiotics: Unanswered IssuesProbiotics: Unanswered Issues
TypeType
Which organism or combination of organisms?Which organism or combination of organisms?
DosageDosage
Duration of therapyDuration of therapy
Frequency of dosingFrequency of dosing
SafetySafety
Short-termShort-term
Long-termLong-term
Mechanism of actionMechanism of action
Combination with human milkCombination with human milk
Combinations with prebioticsCombinations with prebiotics
41. LactobacillusLactobacillus SepsisSepsis
Compromised infant hostsCompromised infant hosts
Multiple courses of antibioticsMultiple courses of antibiotics
A. Developed secondary diarrhea, treated withA. Developed secondary diarrhea, treated with Lactobacillus GGLactobacillus GG
Within 3 weeks of continued treatmentWithin 3 weeks of continued treatment
patients developed feverpatients developed fever
systemic symptoms of sepsissystemic symptoms of sepsis
gram positive anaerobic non-spore forming rodsgram positive anaerobic non-spore forming rods
isolated from bloodisolated from blood
sensitive to penicillin [gentamicin for synergy]sensitive to penicillin [gentamicin for synergy]
B. Other cases NOT associated with probiotic therapyB. Other cases NOT associated with probiotic therapy
Land et al, Pediatrics 2005;115:178
Thompson, J Perinatol 201;21:258
43. What to do before multicenter trial
Dose response in animals
Evaluate inflammatory pathways in animals
Evaluate comparative efficacies in animals
Evaluate live, heat killed and bacterial products for safety
and efficacy
45. PrebioticsPrebiotics
Nondigestible, food ingredientsNondigestible, food ingredients
Not absorbedNot absorbed
Stimulate growth of beneficial fecal microflora, to improve healthStimulate growth of beneficial fecal microflora, to improve health
Act as substrates for probioticsAct as substrates for probiotics
ExamplesExamples
Oligosaccharides (from human milk)Oligosaccharides (from human milk)
Act to increase bifidobacteria (bifidogenic effect)Act to increase bifidobacteria (bifidogenic effect)
Inhibit intestinal binding of pathogenic bacteriaInhibit intestinal binding of pathogenic bacteria
Receptor analogues for glycoconjugates on intestinal surfacesReceptor analogues for glycoconjugates on intestinal surfaces
Mediate cell to cell interactionMediate cell to cell interaction
Bind humoral mediatorsBind humoral mediators
Modulate signal transferModulate signal transfer
Bind viruses and bacteriaBind viruses and bacteria
Kunz 1999, Newburg 2000, Coppa 1997, Brand-Muller 1998
46. Oligosaccharides: 3rd
Most Common Component
in Mature Human Milk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Lactose
Fat
Oligosaccharides
Protein
Upper Range of Concentration
Lower Range of Concentration
g/L
Adapted from Kunz et al, Clin Perinatol 1999;26:307
48. Human Milk OligosaccharidesHuman Milk Oligosaccharides
Receptor analogues for glycoconjugates on epithelial andReceptor analogues for glycoconjugates on epithelial and
endothelial cell surfacesendothelial cell surfaces
Mediate cell to cell interactionMediate cell to cell interaction
Bind humoral mediatorsBind humoral mediators
Modulate signal transferModulate signal transfer
Bind viruses and bacteriaBind viruses and bacteria
HMO found in infant stoolsHMO found in infant stools
Fermentation productsFermentation products
Kunz 1999, Newburg 2000, Coppa 1997, Brand-Muller 1998
49. Currently Available PrebioticsCurrently Available Prebiotics
Oligosaccharides (Not of Human Milk origin)Oligosaccharides (Not of Human Milk origin)
LactuloseLactulose
Galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS)Galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS)
Fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS)Fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS)
InulinInulin
Isomalto-oligosaccharidesIsomalto-oligosaccharides
Soybean oligosaccharidesSoybean oligosaccharides
LactosucroseLactosucrose
Gluco-oligosaccharidesGluco-oligosaccharides
Xylo-oligosaccharidesXylo-oligosaccharides
50. Oligosaccharides GOS and FOS differ from HMO. HMO contain lactose at their reducing end. They can be elongated
with n = 0-15 lactosamine units and can be modified with 1 or more fucose residues in various linkages and/or carry N-
acetylneuraminic acid in various linkages.
Galactooligosaccharides (GOS) and Fructooligosaccharides (FOS) are polymers of galactose and fructose, respectively.
Fructose is not naturally found in human milk. N-acetylneuraminic acid and fucose, which are abundant constituents of
HMO and maybe be important for some HMO functions, are not part of GOS or FOS.
OligosaccharidesOligosaccharides
51. Stool Microflora After 6 wks Feeding Formula
with/without Oligosaccharides
BIF EC CLOS ENT
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Formula without Oligosaccharides
Knoll, 2003; microflora by FISH analyses; Oligo supplement was FOS and GOS
BIF=Bifidobacteria, EC=E. coli, CLOS=Clostridium, ENT=Enterobacteria
**All differences significant, p < 0.05
Formula with Oligosaccharides
* *
*
*
52. Effect of Prebiotics on Stool pH
Breastfed Prebiotic Control Formula
5.9
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
pH
Scholtens, J Nutr 2008; 138:1141 analyses at 26 wks of study
Differences in pH: Prebiotic vs Control, p < 0.05
53. Prebiotics Increase Fecal IgA
Breastfed Prebiotic Control Formula
µg/g feces
0
1000
Scholtens, J Nutr 2008; 138:1141 significant differences at 26 wks of study
*Prebiotic vs Control, p < 0.05
*
54. Prebiotics Affect Infant GI TractPrebiotics Affect Infant GI Tract
271 infants studied271 infants studied
4 treatments4 treatments
BreastfedBreastfed
Standard formulaStandard formula
Formula with GOS (2.4 g/L)Formula with GOS (2.4 g/L)
Breastfed and added GOS (2.4 g/L)Breastfed and added GOS (2.4 g/L)
Stool characteristicsStool characteristics
Softer, more frequent stoolsSofter, more frequent stools
ToleranceTolerance
Crying, spit-up, vomiting not affectedCrying, spit-up, vomiting not affected
Ben XM et al. Chin Med J (English). 2004;117(6):927-931
55. GOS/FOS (9:1) Decreased Episodes of
Infection and Fever in Infants
Prebiotic Formula (GOS:FOS, 9:1),
n=66
Control Formula, n=68
*
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Overal
Infections
URTI Infections
treated with
antibiotics
Fever
episodes
* *
*p < 0.01
Number
of
Episode
s per
Infant
High risk atopic disease. Hydrolysate formula with GOS&FOS 8 g/L, Intervention Birth to 6 months;
follow-up to 2 years Arslanoglu S, et al. J Nutr 2008;138:1091-1095
56. GOS/FOS (9:1) Decreased Incidence of
Allergic Manifestations
*
*
*
CumulativeIncidence(%)
High risk atopic disease. Hydrolysate formula with GOS&FOS 8 g/L, Intervention Birth to 6 months;
Follow-up to 2 years Arslanoglu S, et al. J Nutr 2008;138:1091-1095
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Atopic Dermatitis Recurrent Wheezing Allergic Urticaria
Prebiotic Formula (GOS:FOS, 9:1),
n=66
Control Formula, n=68
*p < 0.05
57. 2/7 studies2/7 studies →→ reported ‘allergy outcome’ for 432 infantsreported ‘allergy outcome’ for 432 infants
Infants at high risk of allergy fed hydrolyzed formula;Infants at high risk of allergy fed hydrolyzed formula;
significant reduction in eczema up to 6 months of age (2006)significant reduction in eczema up to 6 months of age (2006)
(RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21, 0.84)(RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21, 0.84)
Formula fed non-selected infants; no significant difference inFormula fed non-selected infants; no significant difference in
eczema up to 4 months of ageeczema up to 4 months of age
(RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.62, 4.26)(RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.62, 4.26)
Meta-analysis of the 2 studies: NS in eczemaMeta-analysis of the 2 studies: NS in eczema
Analysis of 5 studies: no adverse effects on infant growthAnalysis of 5 studies: no adverse effects on infant growth
Prebiotics For Prevention of Allergic Disease and
Food Hypersensitivity in Infants
Osborn DA, Sinn JK. Prebiotics in infants for prevention of allergic disease and
food hypersensitivity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4.
58. Prebiotics in InfantsPrebiotics in Infants
Softer stoolsSofter stools
Increase friendly bacteriaIncrease friendly bacteria
BifidobacteriaBifidobacteria
Simulate the gut flora similar to breastfed infantsSimulate the gut flora similar to breastfed infants
Reduced infection rate?Reduced infection rate?
Reduced allergy?Reduced allergy?
More data neededMore data needed
May have important effects in newbornsMay have important effects in newborns
No data on efficacy in premature infantsNo data on efficacy in premature infants
59. SummarySummary
Commensal micro-organisms are important forCommensal micro-organisms are important for
neonatal healthneonatal health
Breastfed infant modelBreastfed infant model
SurrogatesSurrogates
ProbioticsProbiotics
risk vs benefitsrisk vs benefits
PrebioticsPrebiotics
safetysafety
evidence?evidence?
Notas do Editor
Intestinal homeostasis is maintained through a delicate balance between the commensal intestinal microflora and bacterial pathogens
Toll-like receptors (TLR’s) located on the intestinal epithelia interact with both the commensal and pathogenic bacteria. With an intact TLR signaling pathway in the presence of commensal bacteria, homeostasis of the intestinal surface is maintained and robust repair in response to injury is also maintained.
Interaction between TLR’s and pathogenic bacteria initiates a signaling pathway that results in intestinal injury
Mouse knockout models with TLR2 and TLR4 knocked out, have increased susceptibility to intestinal injury. In addition, TLR agonists (ligands) such as lipoteichoic acid and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) actually prevent intestinal injury.
Major Point: the presence of commensal organisms, not just the absence of possible pathogens, is important in maintaining intestinal integrity.
This raises serious questions regarding the judicious use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in the NICU. This practice has a significant impact on altering the intestinal microflora of the preterm infant, and may increase their susceptibility to bacterial invasion through the GI tract and NEC.