Loading…

Bifidobacterium lactis in Treatment of Children with Acute Diarrhea. A Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial

Probiotics are becoming increasingly popular treatment for children diarrhea. Although there are several probiotic strains potentially useful, researches were often limited to certain strains. To test Bifidobacterium lactis on morbidity of acute diarrhea in children less than 2 years. A randomized d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences 2015-09, Vol.3 (3), p.403-407
Main Authors: El-Soud, Neveen Helmy Abou, Said, Reem Nabil, Mosallam, Dalia Sayed, Barakat, Nahla Abdel Moniem, Sabry, Mohamed Ahmed
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Probiotics are becoming increasingly popular treatment for children diarrhea. Although there are several probiotic strains potentially useful, researches were often limited to certain strains. To test Bifidobacterium lactis on morbidity of acute diarrhea in children less than 2 years. A randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial was conducted in 50 children (1 - 23 months) admitted with acute diarrhea to the Pediatric Hospital, Cairo University and were randomly assigned to receive in addition to usual treatment of diarrhea according to WHO guidelines; one of two treatments either milk formula non-supplemented (n = 25) or supplemented (n = 25) with Bifidobacterium lactis 14.5 × 10(6) CFU/100 ml daily for one week. Primary outcomes were frequency and duration of diarrhea and hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were duration of fever and vomiting episodes. Safety and tolerance were also recorded. On admission, patients' characteristics of both groups (50 cases) were similar. For children who received the probiotics for one week; mean duration of diarrhoea was shorter than in controls (3.12 ± 0.92 vs. 4.10 ± 0.94 days) (P = 0.02), number of motions per day was less than in controls (3.96 ± 0.62 vs. 4.46 ± 0.85) (P = 0.04) and discharge from hospital
ISSN:1857-9655
1857-9655
DOI:10.3889/oamjms.2015.088