Antibiotics in childhood have been linked with diseases including asthma, juvenile arthritis, type 1 diabetes, Crohn's disease and mental illness. The underlying mechanisms are thought related to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. We conducted a systematic review of the association between antibiotics and disruption of the pediatric gut microbiome. Searches used MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. Eligible studies: association between antibiotics and gut microbiome dysbiosis; children 0-18 years; molecular techniques of assessment; outcomes of microbiome richness, diversity or composition. Quality assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis where possible. A total of 4,668 publications identified: 12 in final analysis (5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional studies). Microbiome richness was measured in 3 studies, species diversity in 6, and species composition in 10. Quality of evidence was good or fair. 5 studies found a significant reduction in diversity and 3 a significant reduction in richness. Macrolide exposure was associated with reduced richness for twice as long as penicillin. Significant reductions were seen in Bifidobacteria (5 studies) and Lactobacillus (2 studies), and significant increases in Proteobacteria such as E. coli (4 studies). A meta-analysis of RCTs of the effect of macrolide (azithromycin) exposure on the gut microbiome found a significant reduction in alpha-diversity (Shannon index: mean difference −0.86 (95% CI −1.59, −0.13). Antibiotic exposure was associated with reduced microbiome diversity and richness, and with changes in bacterial abundance. The potential for dysbiosis in the microbiome should be taken into account when prescribing antibiotics for children.Systematic review registration number: CRD42018094188ARTICLE HISTORY

BackgroundBlood eosinophil count has been proposed as a predictor of response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. An optimal threshold of blood eosinophil count for prescribing ICS has not been agreed. Doubt has been cast on the role by observational studies. The role of inhaled corticosteroids in this relationship, independent of long-acting bronchodilators, has not been examined.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of post-hoc analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining three blood eosinophil thresholds and the independent role of ICS. Included studies were categorised by the form (relative or absolute count) and cut point of eosinophil threshold used. Thresholds assessed were relative eosinophil count of 2%, and absolute counts of 150 cells/μL and 300 cells/μL. Three meta-analyses of the effect of ICS use in post-hoc analyses of RCTs based on these counts were carried out. Initial analysis included all studies of ICS vs. any non-ICS regimen. Further analysis examined the effect of ICS, independent of the effect of long-acting bronchodilators.ResultsSixteen studies examined the association between blood eosinophil count and response of exacerbation risk to ICS, in COPD patients. Eleven studies (25,881 patients) were post-hoc analyses of RCTs. Five studies (109,704 patients) were retrospective observational studies. The independent effect of ICS on the reduction of exacerbation risk was 20% at ≥2% blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74–0.85), 35% at ≥150 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.65; 0.52–0.79), and 39% at ≥300 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.61; 0.44–0.78). No association was found in four out of five observational studies.ConclusionThis is the first systematic review to assess, in post-hoc analyses of RCTs, the independent effect of ICS in reducing the risk of COPD exacerbation across a range of blood eosinophil thresholds. Association between ICS prescription and reduced exacerbation risk at these thresholds was confirmed. The lack of association found in the observational studies questions the relevance of these observations to a “real world” COPD population. To clarify the clinical utility of this biomarker, the association should be tested in prospective effectiveness studies.