Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Exercise with Predominance of Aerobic Metabolism in Trained Population: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.

Abstract

The scientific literature about probiotic intake and its effect on sports performance is growing. Therefore, the main aim of this systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression was to review all information about the effects of probiotic supplementation on performance tests with predominance of aerobic metabolism in trained populations (athletes and/or Division I players and/or trained population: ≥8 h/week and/or ≥5 workouts/week). A structured search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA®) statement and PICOS guidelines in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science (WOS), and Scopus international databases from inception to 1 November 2021. Studies involving probiotic supplementation in trained population and execution of performance test with aerobic metabolism predominance (test lasted more than 5 min) were considered for inclusion. Fifteen articles were included in the final systematic review (in total, 388 participants were included). After 3 studies were removed due to a lack of data for the meta-analysis and meta-regression, 12 studies with 232 participants were involved. With the objective of assessing the risk of bias of included studies, Cochrane Collaboration Guidelines and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale were performed. For all included studies the following data was extracted: authors, year of publication, study design, the size of the sample, probiotic administration (dose and time), and characteristics of participants. The random effects model and pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used according to Hedges’ g for the meta-analysis. In order to determine if dose and duration covariates could predict probiotic effects, a meta-regression was also conducted. Results showed a small positive and significant effect on the performance test with aerobic metabolic predominance (SMD = 0.29; CI = 0.08–0.50; p < 0.05). Moreover, the subgroup analysis displayed significant greater benefits when the dose was ≥30 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) (SMD, 0.47; CI, 0.05 to 0.89; p < 0.05), when supplementation duration was ≤4 weeks (SMD, 0.44; CI, 0.05 to 0.84; p < 0.05), when single strain probiotics were used (SMD, 0.33; CI, 0.06 to 0.60; p < 0.05), when participants were males (SMD, 0.30; CI, 0.04 to 0.56; p < 0.05), and when the test was performed to exhaustion (SMD, 0.45; CI, 0.05 to 0.48; p < 0.05). However, with references to the findings of the meta-regression, selected covariates did not predict probiotic effects in highly trained population. In summary, the current systematic review and meta-analysis supported the potential effects of probiotics supplementation to improve performance in a test in which aerobic metabolism is predominant in trained population. However, more research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms of action of this supplement.