Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus tablets
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 16 · Randomised trials: 11 · 1998–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
A. Romijn, J. Rucklidge, R. Kuijer, et al.
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2017
Ji Yeun Kim, Jung Hyun Kwon, S. Ahn, et al.
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 2010
Taciana Duque Braga, G. D. da Silva, P. I. D. de Lira, et al.
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2011
I. Chitapanarux, T. Chitapanarux, P. Traisathit, et al.
Radiation Oncology (London, England), 2010
Zhen-hua Wang, Q. Gao, J. Fang
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 2013
Nuria Castro-Bravo, J. Wells, A. Margolles, et al.
Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018
Adriana Nowak, A. Paliwoda, J. Błasiak
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2018
Maslennikov R, Gosteeva E, Ananeva V, et al.
2026
Background: Many probiotic strains have been studied in relation to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The aim of this study was to identify probiotic strains demonstrating efficacy in the management of IBS based on meta-analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs). Methods: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420251047092). Searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus on 8 April 2025. Additional completed studies with available results were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. An additional search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), including records indexed in EMBASE, was conducted in December 2025 and did not identify any additional studies. RPCTs were included if they evaluated single-strain probiotics without additional active components compared with a placebo in patients with IBS. Studies whose results could not be meta-analyzed were excluded. Results: A total of 2643 records were identified; 32 articles evaluating 10 probiotic strains were included in the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses demonstrated the efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum (formerly Bifidobacterium infantis) 35624, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856, and Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 (MTCC 5260) in improving key IBS symptoms. Meta-analyses also demonstrated that Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 improved quality of life for those with IBS. Conflicting results were observed for Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745. Meta-analyses did not demonstrate the efficacy of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917, Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17, or Lactobacillus casei Shirota. Conclusions: Several probiotic strains demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of IBS in meta-analyses of RPCTs.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Acuña Ponce de León EG, Zapata Cedrón BM, Cárdenas Flores CM
2026
K. Kailasapathy, J. Chin
Immunology and Cell Biology, 2000
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.