International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: Probiotics.

Position statement: The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) provides an objective and critical review of the mechanisms and use of probiotic supplementation to optimize the health, performance, and recovery of athletes. Based on the current available literature, the conclusions of the ISSN are as follows: 1)Probiotics are live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host (FAO/WHO).2)Probiotic administration has been linked to a multitude of health benefits, with gut and immune health being the most researched applications.3)Despite the existence of shared, core mechanisms for probiotic function, health benefits of probiotics are strain- and dose-dependent.4)Athletes have varying gut microbiota compositions that appear to reflect the activity level of the host in comparison to sedentary people, with the differences linked primarily to the volume of exercise and amount of protein consumption. Whether differences in gut microbiota composition affect probiotic efficacy is unknown.5)The main function of the gut is to digest food and absorb nutrients. In athletic populations, certain probiotics strains can increase absorption of key nutrients such as amino acids from protein, and affect the pharmacology and physiological properties of multiple food components.6)Immune depression in athletes worsens with excessive training load, psychological stress, disturbed sleep, and environmental extremes, all of which can contribute to an increased risk of respiratory tract infections. In certain situations, including exposure to crowds, foreign travel and poor hygiene at home, and training or competition venues, athletes' exposure to pathogens may be elevated leading to increased rates of infections. Approximately 70% of the immune system is located in the gut and probiotic supplementation has been shown to promote a healthy immune response. In an athletic population, specific probiotic strains can reduce the number of episodes, severity and duration of upper respiratory tract infections.7)Intense, prolonged exercise, especially in the heat, has been shown to increase gut permeability which potentially can result in systemic toxemia. Specific probiotic strains can improve the integrity of the gut-barrier function in athletes.8)Administration of selected anti-inflammatory probiotic strains have been linked to improved recovery from muscle-damaging exercise.9)The minimal effective dose and method of administration (potency per serving, single vs. split dose, delivery form) of a specific probiotic strain depends on validation studies for this particular strain. Products that contain probiotics must include the genus, species, and strain of each live microorganism on its label as well as the total estimated quantity of each probiotic strain at the end of the product's shelf life, as measured by colony forming units (CFU) or live cells.10)Preclinical and early human research has shown potential probiotic benefits relevant to an athletic population that include improved body composition and lean body mass, normalizing age-related declines in testosterone levels, reductions in cortisol levels indicating improved responses to a physical or mental stressor, reduction of exercise-induced lactate, and increased neurotransmitter synthesis, cognition and mood. However, these potential benefits require validation in more rigorous human studies and in an athletic population

Disparities in Influenza Vaccination Coverage Rates by Target Group in Five European Countries: Trends Over Seven Consecutive Seasons

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to measure influenza vaccination coverage rates in the general population, including children, and in high-risk groups of five European countries during the season 2007/2008. An additional aim was to analyze coverage trends over seven consecutive seasons and to gain an understanding of the primary drivers and barriers to immunization. METHODS: Community-based telephone and mail surveys have been conducted in the UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain, yearly, since 2001/2002. Approximately 2,000 individuals per country and season were interviewed who were considered to be representative of the adult population aged 14 years and older. Data on the vaccination status of children were obtained by proxy interviews. The questionnaire used was essentially the same for all seven seasons. Five target groups were identified for the study: (1) persons aged >/= 65 years; (2) elderly suffering from a chronic illness; (3) patients suffering from a chronic illness; (4) persons working in the health care sector; (5) children. RESULTS: In the season 2007/2008, vaccination coverage rates in the general population remained stable in Germany. Compared to the coverage rates of the previous season, increases of 3.7%, 2.0%, and 1.8% were observed for the UK, Spain, and France, respectively, while a decrease of -1.5% was observed for Italy. Across all five countries, vaccination rates in the predefined target groups decreased to some extent (elderly) or increased slightly (chronically ill and health care workers). Vaccination rates among children varied strongly between countries and ranged from 6.1% in UK to 19.3% in Germany. The most powerful motivation for getting vaccinated in all countries was advice from a family doctor (58.6%) and the perception of influenza as a serious illness (51.9%). The major reasons why individuals did not become vaccinated were (1) the feeling of not being likely to catch influenza (39.5%) and (2) never having considered the option of being vaccinated (35.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The change in general influenza vaccination coverage in the 2007/2008 season compared to the previous season was small, but decreases were seen in some target groups. The underlying motivations for and against vaccination did not substantially change. An effort to activate those driving forces that would encourage vaccination as well as dealing with barriers that tend to prevent it may help enhance coverage rates in Europe in the future

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care