IntroductionClinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and continuously expanding product base, with most available products lacking evidence-based trials that support their use. Even when evidence exists, not all probiotic products are equally effective for all disease prevention or treatment indications. At this point in time, drug regulatory agencies offer limited assistance with regard to guidance and oversight in most countries, including the U.S.MethodsWe reviewed the current medical literature and sources on the internet to survey the types of available probiotic products and to determine which probiotics had evidence-based efficacy data. Standard medical databases from inception to June 2018 were searched and discussions with experts in the field were conducted. We graded the strength of the evidence for probiotics having multiple, randomized controlled trials and developed a guide for the practical selection of current probiotic products for specific uses.ResultsWe found the efficacy of probiotic products is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Important factors involved in choosing the appropriate probiotic include matching the strain(s) with the targeted disease or condition, type of formulation, dose used and the source (manufacturing quality control and shelf-life). While we found many probiotic products lacked confirmatory trials, we found sufficient evidence for 22 different types of probiotics from 249 trials to be included. For example, several types of probiotics had strong evidence for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea [Saccharomyces boulardii I-745, a three-strain mixture (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei Lbc80r, L. rhamnosus CLR2) and L. casei DN114001]. Strong evidence was also found for four types of probiotics for the prevention of a variety of other diseases/conditions (enteral-feed associated diarrhea, travellers’ diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolits and side-effects associated with H. pylori treatments. The evidence was most robust for the treatment of pediatric acute diarrhea based on 59 trials (7 types of probiotics have strong efficacy), while an eight-strain multi-strain mixture showed strong efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease and two types of probiotics had strong efficacy for irritable bowel disease. Of the 22 types of probiotics reviewed, 15 (68%) had strong-moderate evidence for efficacy for at least one type of disease.ConclusionThe choice of an appropriate probiotic is multi-factored, based on the mode and type of disease indication and the specific efficacy of probiotic strain(s), as well as product quality and formulation.Trial registrationThis review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018103979.

Background Observational studies have consistently described poor clinical outcomes and increased ICU mortality in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who require mechanical ventilation (MV). Our study describes the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to ICU in the largest health care system in the state of Florida, United States. Methods Retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to ICU due to severe COVID-19 in AdventHealth health system in Orlando, Florida from March 11th until May 18th, 2020. Patients were characterized based on demographics, baseline comorbidities, severity of illness, medical management including experimental therapies, laboratory markers and ventilator parameters. Major clinical outcomes analyzed at the end of the study period were: hospital and ICU length of stay, MV-related mortality and overall hospital mortality of ICU patients. Results Out of total of 1283 patients with COVID-19, 131 (10.2%) met criteria for ICU admission (median age: 61 years [interquartile range (IQR), 49.5–71.5]; 35.1% female). Common comorbidities were hypertension (84; 64.1%), and diabetes (54; 41.2%). Of the 131 ICU patients, 109 (83.2%) required MV and 9 (6.9%) received ECMO. Lower positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) were observed in survivors [9.2 (7.7–10.4)] vs non-survivors [10 (9.1–12.9] p = 0.004]. Compared to non-survivors, survivors had a longer MV length of stay (LOS) [14 (IQR 8–22) vs 8.5 (IQR 5–10.8) p< 0.001], Hospital LOS [21 (IQR 13–31) vs 10 (7–1) p< 0.001] and ICU LOS [14 (IQR 7–24) vs 9.5 (IQR 6–11), p < 0.001]. The overall hospital mortality and MV-related mortality were 19.8% and 23.8% respectively. After exclusion of hospitalized patients, the hospital and MV-related mortality rates were 21.6% and 26.5% respectively. Conclusions Our study demonstrates an important improvement in mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 who required ICU admission and MV in comparison to previous observational reports and emphasizes the importance of standard of care measures in the management of COVID-19.

Background The pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes immune-mediated hyperinflammation, which could potentially lead to respiratory failure and death. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is among cytokines that contribute to the inflammatory processes. Lenzilumab, a GM-CSF neutralising monoclonal antibody, was investigated in the LIVE-AIR trial to assess its efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 beyond available treatments. Methods In LIVE-AIR, a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were recruited from 29 sites in the USA and Brazil and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three intravenous doses of lenzilumab (600 mg per dose) or placebo delivered 8 h apart. All patients received standard supportive care, including the use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified at randomisation by age and disease severity. The primary endpoint was survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), comprising all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study drug under the documented supervision of the principal investigator or sub-investigator. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04351152 , and is completed. Findings Patients were enrolled from May 5, 2020, until Jan 27, 2021. 528 patients were screened, of whom 520 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. 479 of these patients (n=236, lenzilumab; n=243, placebo) were included in the mITT analysis for the primary outcome. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. 311 (65%) participants were males, mean age was 61 (SD 14) years at baseline, and median C-reactive protein concentration was 79 (IQR 41–137) mg/L. Steroids were administered to 449 (94%) patients and remdesivir to 347 (72%) patients; 331 (69%) patients received both treatments. Survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 was achieved in 198 (84%; 95% CI 79–89) participants in the lenzilumab group and in 190 (78%; 72–83) patients in the placebo group, and the likelihood of survival was greater with lenzilumab than placebo (hazard ratio 1·54; 95% CI 1·02–2·32; p=0·040). 68 (27%) of 255 patients in the lenzilumab group and 84 (33%) of 257 patients in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event that was at least grade 3 in severity based on CTCAE criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were related to respiratory disorders (26%) and cardiac disorders (6%) and none led to death. Interpretation Lenzilumab significantly improved survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalised patients with CO...

Background Observational studies have consistently described poor clinical outcomes and increased ICU mortality in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who require mechanical ventilation (MV). Our study describes the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to ICU in the largest health care system in the state of Florida, United States. Methods Retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to ICU due to severe COVID-19 in AdventHealth health system in Orlando, Florida from March 11th until May 18th, 2020. Patients were characterized based on demographics, baseline comorbidities, severity of illness, medical management including experimental therapies, laboratory markers and ventilator parameters. Major clinical outcomes analyzed at the end of the study period were: hospital and ICU length of stay, MV-related mortality and overall hospital mortality of ICU patients. Results Out of total of 1283 patients with COVID-19, 131 (10.2%) met criteria for ICU admission (median age: 61 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 49.5-71.5]; 35.1% female). Common comorbidities were hypertension (84; 64.1%), and diabetes (54; 41.2%). Of the 131 ICU patients, 109 (83.2%) required MV and 9 (6.9%) received ECMO. Lower positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) were observed in survivors [9.2 (7.7-10.4)] vs non-survivors [10 (9.1-12.9] p= 0.004]. Compared to non-survivors, survivors had a longer MV length of stay (LOS) [14 (IQR 8-22) vs 8.5 (IQR 5-10.8) p< 0.001], Hospital LOS [21 (IQR 13-31) vs 10 (7-1) p< 0.001] and ICU LOS [14 (IQR 7-24) vs 9.5 (IQR 6-11), p < 0.001]. The overall hospital mortality and MV-related mortality were 19.8% and 23.8% respectively. After exclusion of hospitalized patients, the hospital and MV-related mortality rates were 21.6% and 26.5% respectively. Conclusions Our study demonstrates an important improvement in mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 who required ICU admission and MV in comparison to previous observational reports and emphasize the importance of standard of care measures in the management of COVID-19.

No abstract