Use of these supplements should be considered carefully for patients whose gastrointestinal tract integrity might be compromised.
Keywords: fungemia, fungal infections, fungi, Saccharomyces boulardii, yeast, probiotic supplements, probiotics, live microorganisms, Finland
Abstract
Because of widespread use of probiotics, their safety must be guaranteed. We assessed use of Saccharomyces boulardii probiotic yeast from medical records for patients who had Saccharomyces fungemia or other clinical Saccharomyces culture findings. We evaluated all Saccharomyces sp. findings at 5 university hospitals in Finland during 2009–2018. We found 46 patients who had Saccharomyces fungemia; at least 20 (43%) were using S. boulardii probiotic. Compared with a control group that had bacteremia or candidemia, the odds ratio for use of an S. boulardii probiotic was 14 (95% CI 4–44). Of 1,153 nonblood culture findings, the history for 125 patients was checked; at least 24 (19%) were using the probiotic (odds ratio 10, 95% CI 3–32). This study adds to published fungemia cases linked to use of S. boulardii probiotic and sheds light on the scale of nonblood Saccharomyces culture findings that are also linked to use of this probiotic.
Probiotics are live microorganisms intended to provide health benefits when consumed (1). Typically, the endpoint in randomized controlled trials of probiotics has been the prevention of diarrhea or faster alleviation of diarrhea symptoms (2). Regarding their safety, serious adverse effects have been rare in probiotic studies (3). However, the adverse effects have not been fully reported (4). In 1 trial in which a multispecies probiotic preparation was given to patients who had severe acute pancreatitis, the mortality rate was higher in the probiotic arm (5). Nevertheless, the use of probiotics is common. According to the 2012 National Health Interview Survey in the United States, 1.6% of adults had used prebiotics or probiotics in the preceding 30 days (6).
Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii is a yeast that is used as a probiotic. In hospitals in the United States, the use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii has been common, especially among elderly patients (7). This strain is difficult to distinguish microbiologically from S. cerevisiae because they have >99% genomic relatedness (8). Thus, in everyday clinical laboratory work, the S. cerevisiae var. boulardii strain is identified as either Saccharomyces sp. or S. cerevisiae. A review from 2005 considered S. cerevisiae var. boulardii to be the etiologic agent of Saccharomyces fungemia if the patient received treatment with a probiotic containing S. cerevisiae var. boulardii or if a molecular typing method confirmed the identification of this yeast (9). The authors found 37 cases in the literature. We found an additional 14 reports, including 22 cases of Saccharomyces fungemia with the same diagnostic method published after this review (10–23). Thus, before our study, 59 cases of fungemia with a link to the use of the probiotic had been published. All of these cases have been either individual cases or small cases series (<7 cases) without any systematic approach to quantify the problem.
Furthermore, besides fungemia, there are few reports on other clinically relevant microbiological findings for this yeast (i.e., in abscesses, ascites fluid, or the pleural cavity). The meta-analysis we mention listed 20 cases of findings other than fungemia (9). These findings are useful because they might also lead to a change in antimicrobial treatment.
We conducted a retrospective registry study (case series) at 5 university hospitals in Finland to evaluate the use of the S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic in patients who had Saccharomyces fungemia or another clinical culture finding for this yeast. To evaluate the association between probiotic use and subsequent findings, we compared use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii for patients who had a Saccharomyces infection with use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii for patients who had an infection caused by another etiologic agent, such as bacteria or Candida sp.
Methods
Background
Finland has 5 university hospitals that are secondary referral centers of their catchment areas and tertiary referral centers for other hospital districts. Their combined catchment areas cover more than half population of Finland (3.29 million of 5.6 million persons). All university hospitals use the same register (SAI-registry; Neotide Ltd, https://www.neotide.fi), in which the local clinical microbial laboratory data are collected. These data cover all blood culture data and most of all other clinical microbial culture data of the catchment area of the university hospital.
Patient Data
At least 1 infectious diseases specialist in every university hospital collected the clinical data from the medical records for all blood culture-positive cases found in the register that were identified as Saccharomyces sp. or S. cerevisiae. The use of the S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic was defined as use at the time of the positive culture or in the preceding 7 days. Data were collected on use during the preceding 3 months. If the medical record was not available, the case-patient was classified as not using a probiotic. The Quick SOFA score and the definition of septic shock were based on the Sepsis‐3 definitions (24). The McCabe score was determined as reported by McCabe and Jackson (25). Data collected for case-patients who had nonblood cultures were age, sex, malignancy, digestive tract disease, use of probiotics, use of antifungal medication at the time of the culture, and possible change of medication resulting from finding of Saccharomyces sp. The most recent 25 cases of nonblood culture findings in each hospital district were evaluated (excluding case-patients who had positive fecal samples). Isolates were obtained from routine laboratory bacterial and fungal cultures. The anatomic site of the culture was collected from the local hospital microbial registry (SAI) for all culture-positive cases. Abdominal sites were those in which culture was taken from, for example, ascites fluid, a biliary drainage catheter, or abscess drainage fluid, but not from skin or wound secretions. Oral and respiratory tract samples were from sinus drainage, bronchial lavage cultures, and pleural drainage. Other sites included samples from perianal abscesses, mediastinum, and urine.
Control Group
To evaluate the practice of probiotic use in the hospital ward in which the patient who had a Saccharomyces finding was given treatment, a control group was obtained from the same SAI register. For every Saccharomyces fungemia case-patient, 2 blood culture-positive patients (1 chronologically closest before and 1 after) from the same ward as the case were selected. For every clinical culture sample (other than blood), there was 1 chronologically closest positive culture sample from the same ward as the case-patient who served as a control. Data collected for the controls were date, ward, microbe, age, sex, malignancy, digestive tract disease, and S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic use at the time of the positive culture or in the previous 3 months.
Statistical Analysis
We used SPSS version 22.0 software (IBM Corp., https://www.ibm.com) for statistical analyses. The study was centrally approved by the Ethics Committee of Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. The requirement for informed consent was waived.
Results
Blood Cultures
There were 46 patients with a positive blood culture for Saccharomyces in the 5 hospitals during between January 2009‒December 2018. The median age of case-patients was 68 (range 30–93) years and a male predominance (63%). The most common underlying condition was a digestive tract disease (59%). There was a medical record confirming the use of the S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic on the day of the blood culture or during the preceding 7 days for 20 case-patients (43%). Medical records were not available for 10 case-patients (22%), and these were classified as nonusers.
Of the 20 case-patients, 17 were using S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic on the day of the blood culture and 3 case-patients had already stopped using it (2 patients on the day before and 1 patient 5 days earlier). Five additional case-patients had used the probiotic in the preceding 3 months, of whom 1 patient had already stopped using it 26 days earlier. For 4 case-patients, the time when the use of the probiotic was terminated could not be determined. Most case-patients (16/20, 80%) received the S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic in the hospital, 3 case-patients in some other facility, and 1 case-patient was using it at home. All S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotics found in the medical records were from the same strain (Precosa; Biocodex Ltd., https://www.biocodex.com). We provide characteristics, underlying diseases, and severity of the disease for these patients (Tables 1,2).
Table 1. Characteristics of 46 case-patients who had Saccharomyces fungemias in 5 hospital districts, Finland, January 1, 2009‒December 31, 2018*.
| Patient no. | Hospital district and case no. | Age, y/sex | Year of fungemia | Medical record of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic use in previous 3 mo | Days alive after fungemia | Central venous catheter | GI tract disease | Antimicrobial drug before fungemia | Change in medication because of fungemia | Main reason for hospital stay |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A1 | 56/M | 2016 | Yes | >90 | No | Duodenal ulcer | Yes | Yes | Antimicrobial drugs and NSAIDs after tooth surgery led to duodenal ulcer and fungemia |
| 2 | A2 | 42/M | 2013 | No | >90 | No | Achalasia, PEG tube, duodenal ulcer | Yes | Yes | Vomiting, losing weight, duodenal ulcer |
| 3 | A3 | 42/M | 2010 | No | >90 | No | No | No | Yes | Intravenous drug user who had fungemia |
| 4 | A4 | 40/M | 2018 | No | >90 | No | No | No | Yes | Methadone substitution therapy for patient who had fever and was feeling ill |
| 5 | A5 | 77/F | 2011 | Yes | 2 | No | PEG tube | Yes | Yes | Spinocellular carcinoma patient who had problems with PEG tube |
| 6 | B1 | 67/M | 2009 | Yes | >90 | Yes | Pancreatitis | Yes | Yes | Necrotizing pancreatitis |
| 7 | B2 | 66/M | 2010 | Yes | 0 | No | PEG tube | Yes | No | PEG tube not in place |
| 8 | B3 | 52/M | 2012 | NA | >90 | No | No | No | No | HIV positive with illicit drug use in ED and high fever and diarrhea |
| 9 | B4 | 67/M | 2013 (4 different days) | Yes | 7 | Yes | Chronic pancreatitis with pseudocysts | Yes | Yes | Pseudocyst rupturation into lung |
| 10 | B5 | 88/M | 2013 | Yes | 19 | NA | Bowel obstruction and diverticulosis | NA | NA | Diarrhea after antimicrobial drug use that later turned into an occlusion |
| 11 | B6 | 60/M | 2014 | NA | >90 | NA | No | Yes | No | Alcohol abuse, streptococcal septicemia, and bronchopleural fistula |
| 12 | B7 | 70/F | 2015 | Yes | 14 | No | Local intestinal thickening of unknown reason | Yes | Yes | Unspecified neurologic disease that lead to cachexia |
| 13 | B8 | 63/M | 2015 | Yes | 26 | No | Stomach cancer | Yes | Yes | Lung abscess treated with lobectomia |
| 14 | B9 | 91/F | 2015 | Yes | 39 | NA | No | Yes | NA | Varicose ulcer |
| 15 | B10 | 75/F | 2016 | Yes | >90 | No | Pancreatic cancer | Yes | Yes | Recurrent cholangitis |
| 16 | B11 | 67/F | 2017 | NA (suspected) | >90 | NA | PEG tube | NA | NA | Multiple sclerosis, PEG tube, diarrhea |
| 17 | B12 | 55/M | 2018 | Yes | 0 | No | No | Yes | No | Alcohol abuse with delirium and Clostridium difficile diarrhea |
| 18 | B13 | 86/F | 2018 | Yes | 0 | No | Suspected Crohn disease and diverticulosis | Yes | No | Staphylococcus aureus infection after femoro-popliteal reconstruction |
| 19 | C1 | 88/F | 2016 | Yes | 0 | No | Colitis ulcerosa | Yes | No | Deep venous thrombosis and fasciotomia |
| 20 | C2 | 77/M | 2016 | No | 1 | No | No | Yes | No | Alzheimer patient with aspiration pneumonia |
| 21 | C3 | 85/M | 2016 | NA | 82 | No | Colon carcinoma and biliary duct obstruction | Yes | Yes | Liver abscess and septicemia due to Streptococcus sp., Lactobacillus, sp., use of Rhamnonosus, and Saccharomyces sp. |
| 22 | C4 | 39/M | 2015 | Yes | >90 | No | Crohn disease | Yes | Yes | Relapse of Crohn disease and spondylitis of cervical spine |
| 23 | C5 | 80/F | 2012 | Yes | >90 | No | Nasogastric tube | Yes | Yes | Fever, abdominal pain, and vomiting after hip surgery |
| 24 | C6 | 91/M | 2010 | Yes | 2 | No | No | Yes | No | Severe pneumonia |
| 25 | D1 | 60/M | 2017 | No | >90 | Yes (PICC) | Bowel obstruction | Yes | Yes | Bowel obstruction due to adhesion |
| 26 | D2 | 84/M | 2017 | Yes | 1 | No | No | Yes | No | Pneumonia, sepsis, and multiple organ failure |
| 27 | D3 | 76/F | 2017 | Yes | 0 | Yes | Cholecystitis and bowel ischemia | Yes | No | Bowel ischemia and sepsis |
| 28 | D4 | 68/M | 2017 | No | >90 | Yes | Esophageal carcinoma | Yes | No | Esophageal carcinoma surgery and diarrhea |
| 29 | D5 | 80/M | 2017 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Treated in a district hospital |
| 30 | D6 | 78/F | 2012 | Yes | >90 | Yes | Perforation of sigma | Yes | Yes | Sigma operation and wound infection |
| 31 | D7 | 39/M | 2014 | No | >90 | No | No | No | Yes | Alcohol abuse in ED with empyema and sepsis |
| 32 | D8 | 72/F | 2015 | Yes | NA | No | Pancreatic cancer | Yes | Yes | Pancreatic cancer |
| 33 | D9 | 45/M | 2010 | No | >90 | Yes | Necrotizing pancreatitis | Yes | Yes | Necrotizing pancreatitis with necrosis in multiple other organs |
| 34 | D10 | 67/F | 2014 | No | >90 | No | No | Yes | Yes | Heart and kidney failure |
| 35 | D11 | 83/F | 2015 | Yes | NA | Yes | Intestinal perforation | Yes | Yes | Intestinal perforation and abscesses |
| 36 | D12 | 58/F | 2018 | Yes | >90 | No | Diverticulitis | Yes | Yes | Diverticulitis and intestinal perforation |
| 37 | E1 | 68/M | 2011 | Yes | >90 | No | No | Yes | Yes | Alcohol abuse and urinary tract infection |
| 38 | E2 | 83/M | 2013 | NA | 14 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 39 | E3 | 72/F | 2015 | No | 0 | Yes | Prepyloric ulcus | Yes | No | Ulcus, peritonitis, and sepsis |
| 40 | E4 | 30/F | 2015 | NA | 10 | NA | NA | NA | NA | Treated in a district hospital |
| 41 | E5 | 52/M | 2015 | Yes | 21 | No | Biliary tract obstruction | Yes | No | Biliary tract obstruction |
| 42 | E6 | 72/F | 2016 | Yes | >90 | No | Radiation colitis and multiple fistulas | Yes | No | Carcinoma of cervix and fever |
| 43 | E7 | 39/M | 2016 | No | >90 | No | No | No | No | Intravenous drug user with dyspnea |
| 44 | E8 | 59/M | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Treated in a district hospital |
| 45 | E9 | 72/M | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Treated in a district hospital |
| 46 | E10 | 93/M | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Treated in a district hospital |
*ED, emergency department; GI, gastrointestinal; NA, medical records not available; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs; PEG, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; PICC, peripherally inserted central catheter.
Table 2. Characteristics of 46 case-patients who had Saccharomyces fungemia in 5 hospital districts, Finland, January 1, 2009‒December 31, 2018*.
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| No. patients | 46 |
| Median age, y (range) |
68 (30–93) |
| Sex | 29 (63) |
| M | 29 (63) |
| F |
17 (37) |
| Use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic in preceding 3 mo† | 25/46 (54) |
| Use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic in preceding 7 d† | 20/46 (43) |
| Use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic in preceding 7 d in control group‡ | 4/76 (5) |
| Central venous catheter | 8 (17) |
| Use of antimicrobial drugs in preceding 4 weeks | 33 (72) |
| Change in antimicrobial drugs because of fungemia |
23 (50) |
| Underlying diseases | |
| Digestive tract | 27 (59) |
| Neurologic | 11 (24) |
| Cardiovascular | 8 (17) |
| Solid tumor with metastasis | 6 (13) |
| Diabetes mellitus (any type) | 6 (13) |
| Pulmonary | 5 (11) |
| Liver | 4 (9) |
| Rheumatic | 4 (9) |
| Chronic kidney§ |
3 (7) |
| McCabe score† | |
| No or nonfatal underlying disease | 22 (48) |
| Ultimately fatal underlying diseases (<5 y) | 9 (20) |
| Rapidly fatal underlying diseases (<1 y) |
5 (11) |
| Severity of disease | |
| qSOFA score >2 at time of fungemia | 16 (35) |
| Septic shock at time of fungemia | 6 (13) |
| Death by day 7 after fungemia | 10 (22) |
*Values are no. (%) or no. positive/no. tested (%) unless otherwise indicated. †Medical records were not available for 10 case-patients. ‡Medical records were not available for 6 control case-patients. §History of creatinine level >120 μmol/L.
Antimicrobial drugs were commonly used by the patients (72%) during 4 weeks preceding the fungemia. Antifungal treatment was commenced or changed because of Saccharomyces fungemia for 23 patients (50%). For an additional 8 patients (17%), the culture result came after the patient had died. Case-fatality rates by day 7 were 22% (10 patients) and by day 28 were 37% (17 patients). Of patients who died by day 28, 6 patients had an ultimately fatal disease (McCabe score 2) and 5 patients had a rapidly fatal disease (McCabe score 3).
Nonblood Cultures
There were 1,153 nonblood Saccharomyces culture findings (fecal samples excluded). There was considerable variation between hospital districts in numbers of the microbial cultures and anatomic sites from which cultures were obtained (Table 3). We evaluated use of probiotics for 125 case-patients. Medical records were not available for 6 of them. Use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic was confirmed for 24 case-patients (19%). This finding was divided by the anatomic site as follows: 17 (21%) of 82 from the abdominal region, 4 (13%) of 30 from the oral or respiratory tract, and 3 (23%) of 13 from other sites. Antifungal medication was already in use at the time of culture for 38% (47/125, the medical record was not available for 1 case-patient) of the case-patients. This finding led to a modification of the antifungal medication in for 35% (44/125, medical records not available for 2 case-patients) of the case-patients.
Table 3. Saccharomyces clinical culture findings (excluding fungemias), Finland, January 1, 2009‒December 31, 2018*.
| Characteristic | All |
University hospital district |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Helsinki | Tampere | Turku | Oulu | Kuopio | ||
| Catchment area in 2017 | 3,310,000 | 1,650,000 | 530,000 | 480,000 | 400,000 | 250,000 | |
| Inpatient days in 2017 |
1,814,183 |
784,252 |
307,484 |
|
294,834 |
191,612 |
236,001 |
| Patients who had clinical findings | 1,344 | 649 | 30 | 215 | 285 | 165 | |
| Abdominal region | 205 | 67 | 21 | 8 | 76 | 33 | |
| Oral or respiratory tract | 676 | 387 | 6 | 71 | 137 | 75 | |
| Fecal | 191 | 53 | 1 | 130 | 4 | 3 | |
| Other or unspecified |
272 |
142 |
2 |
|
6 |
68 |
54 |
| Patients who had medical record of Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic per clinical finding† | 24/125 (19) | 3/25 (12) | 6/25 (24) | 4/25 (16) | 4/25 (16) | 7/25 (28) | |
| Abdominal region | 15 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | |
| Oral or respiratory tract | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other or unspecified |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
3 |
| Patients who had medical record of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic in control group | 3/123 (2) | 0/25 (0) | 1/25 (4) | 0/23 (0) | 0/25 (0) | 2/25 (8) | |
| No. patients who had change of antimicrobial drugs because of finding of Saccharomyces sp.‡ | 44/125 (35) | 11/25 (44) | 3/25 (12) | 8/25 (32) | 13/25 (52) | 9/25 (36) | |
*Values are no. or no. positive/no. tested (%). †Fecal samples excluded. The most recent 25 case-patients per hospital district checked. Medical records not available for 6 case-patients. Kuopio last 3 mo of probiotic use, others last 7 d. ‡Medical records not available for 2 case-patients.
Controls
The controls for the fungemia case-patients (n = 76) were mostly bacteremic (n = 65), but there were 5 case-patients infected with Candida sp. Medical records were not available for 6 control case-patients. Median age for this group was 70 years (vs. 68 years for case-patients), 70% were males (versus 63% for the case-patients), 47% had digestive tract disease (vs. 59% of the case-patients), and 17% had a malignancy (vs. 13% of the case-patients) (data were available for 64 case-patients). Use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic by the Saccharomyces fungemia group was 43% compared with 5% (4/76) for the control group (odds ratio [OR] 14, 95% CI 4–44).
Microbes detected for controls who had nonblood cultures (n = 123) were also mostly bacteria (n = 97), but Candida sp. or other yeasts (n = 51; with or without a concomitant bacterial finding) were more common than in blood cultures. Median age for this group was 65 years (vs. 64 years for case-patients), 44% were males (vs. 59% for case-patients), 70% had digestive tract disease (vs. 69% of case-patients), and 28% had a malignancy (vs. 38% of case-patients) (data on underlying diseases were available for 100 controls). Use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic was 19% (24/125) in the Saccharomyces culture-positive group compared with 2% (3/123) for the control group (OR 10, 95% CI 3–32).
Discussion
We report 20 cases of Saccharomyces fungemia in patients who used S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic. These cases have increased the number of cases reported in the literature by 34%.
We evaluated 125 of 1,153 patients who had a nonblood Saccharomyces culture finding and confirmed use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic by 19% of these case-patients. To our knowledge, the magnitude of findings other than fungemia has not been reported. Although some of these nonblood findings might represent colonization, positive Saccharomyces cultures led to a change in antimicrobial drugs for 44 (35%) patients who had evaluated cases.
We also evaluated use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic for patients who had a Saccharomyces culture finding and compared it with that of a control group who had different positive blood and nonblood cultures and were in the same ward around the same time. The Saccharomyces fungemia patients had an OR of 14 and nonblood culture-positive patients had an OR of 10 for use of this probiotic compared with respective controls. Moreover, case-patient 7 (Table 1) is an example of a patient in whom probiotic use unequivocally caused the fungemia. The patient had had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube inserted 2 days before the fungemia, had septic shock, and then died. The probiotic was administered at least once through the tube, and the tip of the tube was unintentionally displaced from its ventricular position, leading to an accidental peritoneal application of the probiotic.
Saccharomyces fungemias occurred most often in patients who had diseases of the gastrointestinal tract (59%). This finding is nearly identical to the amount reported in a meta-analysis (58%) (9). Furthermore, there are reports of Saccharomyces fungemias in patients not given pretreatment with a S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic that have been believed to have been derived from contaminated central venous catheters (26–28).
Bacteremias and fungemias have not been encountered in clinical trials with probiotics in general. There were probiotic studies conducted with susceptible patients who did not have blood culture findings and who had hepatic encephalopathy (29). However, serious concurrent conditions have usually been an exclusion criterion; thus, the safety profile remains unclear. Furthermore, there are other reported safety issues with probiotics, such as contamination of a probiotic supplement with a pathogenic microbe or possible transfer of an antimicrobial drug resistance gene from a probiotic microbe to pathogenic microbes (30–32).
Regarding the benefits of probiotics, is there evidence showing that adults should use S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic in conjunction with antimicrobial drugs to prevent Clostridioides difficile infections (CDIs) that cause diarrhea? A meta-analysis during 2017 combined S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic studies conducted in adult populations to prevent CDIs (33). There were 5 studies. All studies had a low number of CDIs (15 cases of CDI in control groups) and all had nonsigficant results (pooled risk ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.29–1.37).
Currently, several companies sell S. cerevisiae var. boulardii yeast, but total consumption of this yeast in Finland is not known. Thus, we are not able to relate our study results to its use. However, nationwide consumption of probiotics does not reflect the risk for fungemia or nonblood culture findings, or use of this probiotic by susceptible patients in hospitals. Cautious use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic in gastrointestinal surgery wards would probably be one of the most effective ways to decrease these culture findings.
Moreover, the benefits for the indication for which the probiotic is used need to be established. There are 2 recent US guidelines on administration of probiotics in general for primary prevention of CDI. The first guideline states that there are insufficient data to recommend the administration (34), and the second guideline states that in certain circumstances certain probiotics could be used, but the quality of evidence is low (35).
The first limitation of this study is that we were not able to obtain microbiological evidence that the fungal infections were caused by the S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic strain and not by another strain. Furthermore, the retrospective design using medical records can lead to a bias in reporting. Only confirmed use of probiotics was reported in this study, and case-patients whose medical records were not available were defined as not using a probiotic. Thus, the percentage of probiotic users was the minimum estimate in all groups. All medications given to patients in the wards were documented in medical records of patients, but patients might have used these medications before they were admitted to the hospital. Moreover, most patients who had fungemia were given bacterial antimicrobial drugs, which could have decreased the routine of taking blood cultures. Recall bias (e.g., the S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic would have been mentioned in the medical charts more often in case-patients than in control-patients because of Saccharomyces culture finding) was not a limitation in this study. For all but 1 case-patient, the probiotic was recorded in the charts before the culture result was complete.
S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotics are not recommended for patients who have indwelling catheters, are immunocompromised, or are critically ill. Our results indicate that use of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotics should also be considered carefully for patients whose gastrointestinal tract integrity might be compromised. Furthermore, more data are needed to elucidate the health benefits of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotics in general .
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by scholarships from the Finnish Medical Foundation (grant 2903 to J.R.) and Competitive State Research Financing of the Expert Responsibility Area of Tampere University Hospital (grant 92010 to R.H.).
Biography
Dr. Rannikko is an infectious diseases consultant at Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland, and clinical instructor at Tampere University. One of his primary research interests is the role of the infection in postbacteremic deaths.
Footnotes
Suggested citation for this article: Rannikko J, Holmberg V, Karppelin M, Arvola P, Huttunen R, Mattila E, et al. Fungemia and other fungal infections associated with use of Saccharomyces boulardii probiotic supplements. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Aug [date cited]. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2708.210018
References
- 1.Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11:506–14. 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.McFarland LV. From yaks to yogurt: the history, development, and current use of probiotics. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(Suppl 2):S85–90. 10.1093/cid/civ054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sanders ME, Akkermans LM, Haller D, Hammerman C, Heimbach J, Hörmannsperger G, et al. Safety assessment of probiotics for human use. Gut Microbes. 2010;1:164–85. 10.4161/gmic.1.3.12127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bafeta A, Koh M, Riveros C, Ravaud P. Harms reporting in randomized controlled trials of interventions aimed at modifying microbiota: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:240–7. 10.7326/M18-0343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Buskens E, Boermeester MA, van Goor H, Timmerman HM, et al. ; Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:651–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60207-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Clarke TC, Black LI, Stussman BJ, Barnes PM, Nahin RL. Trends in the use of complementary health approaches among adults: United States, 2002-2012. Natl Health Stat Report. 2015;•••:1–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Yi SH, Jernigan JA, McDonald LC. Prevalence of probiotic use among inpatients: A descriptive study of 145 U.S. hospitals. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44:548–53. 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Khatri I, Tomar R, Ganesan K, Prasad GS, Subramanian S. Complete genome sequence and comparative genomics of the probiotic yeast Saccharomyces boulardii. Sci Rep. 2017;7:371. 10.1038/s41598-017-00414-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Enache-Angoulvant A, Hennequin C. Invasive Saccharomyces infection: a comprehensive review. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:1559–68. 10.1086/497832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lolis N, Veldekis D, Moraitou H, Kanavaki S, Velegraki A, Triandafyllidis C, et al. Saccharomyces boulardii fungaemia in an intensive care unit patient treated with caspofungin. Crit Care. 2008;12:414. 10.1186/cc6843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Santino I, Alari A, Bono S, Teti E, Marangi M, Bernardini A, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia, a possible consequence of the treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis with a probioticum. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2014;27:143–6. 10.1177/039463201402700120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Fadhel M, Patel S, Liu E, Levitt M, Asif A. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia in a critically ill patient with acute cholangitis and long term probiotic use. Med Mycol Case Rep. 2018;23:23–5. 10.1016/j.mmcr.2018.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kara I, Yıldırım F, Özgen Ö, Erganiş S, Aydoğdu M, Dizbay M, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia after probiotic treatment in an intensive care unit patient. J Mycol Med. 2018;28:218–21. 10.1016/j.mycmed.2017.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Romanio MR, Coraine LA, Maielo VP, Abramczyc ML, Souza RL, Oliveira NF. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungaemia in a pediatric patient after treatment with probiotics. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2017;35:361–4. 10.1590/1984-0462/;2017;35;3;00014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Appel-da-Silva MC, Narvaez GA, Perez LRR, Drehmer L, Lewgoy J. Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii fungemia following probiotic treatment. Med Mycol Case Rep. 2017;18:15–7. 10.1016/j.mmcr.2017.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Atıcı S, Soysal A, Karadeniz Cerit K, Yılmaz Ş, Aksu B, Kıyan G, et al. Catheter-related Saccharomyces cerevisiae Fungemia Following Saccharomyces boulardii Probiotic Treatment: In a child in intensive care unit and review of the literature. Med Mycol Case Rep. 2017;15:33–5. 10.1016/j.mmcr.2017.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Roy U, Jessani LG, Rudramurthy SM, Gopalakrishnan R, Dutta S, Chakravarty C, et al. Seven cases of Saccharomyces fungaemia related to use of probiotics. Mycoses. 2017;60:375–80. 10.1111/myc.12604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ellouze O, Berthoud V, Mervant M, Parthiot JP, Girard C. Septic shock due to Saccharomyces boulardii. Med Mal Infect. 2016;46:104–5. 10.1016/j.medmal.2015.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Landaburu MF, Lopez Daneri GA, Relloso S, Zarlenga LJ, Vinante MA, Mujica MT. Fungaemia following Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii probiotic treatment in an elderly patient. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Popiel KY, Wong P, Lee MJ, Langelier M, Sheppard DC, Vinh DC. Invasive Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a liver transplant patient: case report and review of infection in transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis. 2015;17:435–41. 10.1111/tid.12384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Chioukh FZ, Ben Hmida H, Ben Ameur K, Toumi A, Monastiri K. [Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia in a premature neonate treated receiving probiotics] [in French]. Med Mal Infect. 2013;43:359–60. 10.1016/j.medmal.2013.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Thygesen JB, Glerup H, Tarp B. Saccharomyces boulardii fungemia caused by treatment with a probioticum. BMJ Case Rep. 2012;2012(mar26 1):bcr0620114412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 23.Ventoulis I, Sarmourli T, Amoiridou P, Mantzana P, Exindari M, Gioula G, et al. Bloodstream infection by Saccharomyces cerevisiae in two COVID-19 patients after receiving supplementation of Saccharomyces in the ICU. J Fungi (Basel). 2020;6:98. 10.3390/jof6030098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801–10. 10.1001/jama.2016.0287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.McCabe W, Jackson G. Gram-negative bacteremia; I. Etiology and ecology. Arch Intern Med. 1962;110:847–55. 10.1001/archinte.1962.03620240029006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hennequin C, Kauffmann-Lacroix C, Jobert A, Viard JP, Ricour C, Jacquemin JL, et al. Possible role of catheters in Saccharomyces boulardii fungemia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;19:16–20. 10.1007/s100960050003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Lherm T, Monet C, Nougière B, Soulier M, Larbi D, Le Gall C, et al. Seven cases of fungemia with Saccharomyces boulardii in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:797–801. 10.1007/s00134-002-1267-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Cassone M, Serra P, Mondello F, Girolamo A, Scafetti S, Pistella E, et al. Outbreak of Saccharomyces cerevisiae subtype boulardii fungemia in patients neighboring those treated with a probiotic preparation of the organism. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:5340–3. 10.1128/JCM.41.11.5340-5343.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Dalal R, McGee RG, Riordan SM, Webster AC. Probiotics for people with hepatic encephalopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:CD008716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Cohen PA. Probiotic safety: no guarantees. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1577–8. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Vallabhaneni S, Walker TA, Lockhart SR, Ng D, Chiller T, Melchreit R, et al. ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Notes from the field: Fatal gastrointestinal mucormycosis in a premature infant associated with a contaminated dietary supplement—Connecticut, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:155–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Egervärn M, Lindmark H, Olsson J, Roos S. Transferability of a tetracycline resistance gene from probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract of humans. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 2010;97:189–200. 10.1007/s10482-009-9401-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Shen NT, Maw A, Tmanova LL, Pino A, Ancy K, Crawford CV, et al. Timely use of probiotics in hospitalized adults prevents Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review with meta-regression analysis. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:1889–1900.e9. 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.McDonald LC, Gerding DN, Johnson S, Bakken JS, Carroll KC, Coffin SE, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:987–94. 10.1093/cid/ciy149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Su GL, Ko CW, Bercik P, Falck-Ytter Y, Sultan S, Weizman AV, et al. AGA clinical practice guidelines on the role of probiotics in the management of gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2020;159:697–705. 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]