Abstract
Public health interest in vaccinations and immune protection has increased with the COVID-19 pandemic. Dairy products are an important source of protein and other nutrients, and there are unresolved research questions regarding the potential health impact of dairy products on the enhancement of immune response. A systematic literature review was conducted to synthesize the published literature reporting the effects of dairy interventions on: 1) the vaccine-specific immune response and 2) immunoglobulins in the absence of vaccination. To assess study validity and quality, we used the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist. Sixty-one studies (59 clinical trials, 1 cohort, 1 cross-sectional survey) were included, spanning 1983-2017. Ten trials evaluated the effect of dairy intervention on vaccine-specific IgG, IgA, IgM, vaccine-specific antibody titers, seroprotection rates, or seroconversion rates. Of these, 7 reported significant increases with dairy interventions for post-vaccine tetanus antibodies, mean change in tetanus antibody level, total antibody titers to flagellin from
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2024
Suh Mina, et al.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Interests:
Citation:
Introduction
The potential benefits of dietary patterns and specific foods are of great interest to researchers, including nutritional intervention for overall health improvement, disease prevention, and symptom management The potential immune-modulating effects of dairy products and their components have been considered in While there is a notable body of work regarding the impact of dairy products/components on immune functions, overall conclusions are not clear. As such, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify and synthesize existing literature on the effects of dairy products and their components on immune-related outcomes, excluding biomarkers of inflammation (PROSPERO: CRD42022333780). During our assessment of the available outcome data, vaccine response was identified as an outcome with available evidence. Given the increased focus on vaccinations with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this systematic literature review examined the available evidence on the potential for whole dairy products/components to enhance the antibody response after vaccination. To complement this assessment, we also systematically evaluated the evidence for the effects of dairy products and their components on immunoglobulins in the absence of vaccination.
Results
The PRISMA flow diagram describes the inclusion and exclusion of studies at each step of the review; 6145 and 6828 records were identified in PubMed and Embase, respectively ( ( Ten clinical trials evaluated dairy interventions in conjunction with vaccination and their effect on vaccine-specific IgG, IgA, IgM, and antibody titers, seroprotection rates, and/or seroconversion rates In 3 trials, differences between treatment arms were not observed in any of the reported analyses Overall, the evidence base indicated that whole dairy products enhanced vaccine-specific immune response to tetanus and Two trials evaluated changes in vaccine-specific antibody titers following milk powder consumption Elderly patients in retirement centers and long-term care facilities in the United States were given 6 g milk powder (n=10) or isoflavone soy protein (n=11) twice daily for 8 weeks and administered the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP) vaccine at week 4 Prepubertal children in New Guinea with growth deficiencies were given skim milk powder (n=30) or no intervention (n=24) for 8 months and administered flagellin (i.e., protein) from Five trials evaluated whether probiotics added to dairy products altered the immune response to vaccination, including 4 studies administering an influenza vaccine During the 2010-2011 season, enterally-fed elderly patients in Japan were given a milk-based formula with added prebiotics and probiotics ( During the 2006/2007 influenza vaccine campaign in Spain, study participants aged 65-85 years received trivalent influenza vaccines During the 2008-2009 influenza season, healthy adults in Italy were randomized to 4 intervention arms. Two treatment groups were relevant for this review with 56 receiving an acidified dairy drink containing A trial was conducted in France during the 2005-2006 (pilot study) and 2006-2007 (confirmatory study) influenza seasons In Germany, 22 healthy adults were given 100 g acidified milk product containing Fifty-six studies evaluated dairy’s effects on immunoglobulins without vaccinations. The results were heterogenous, with some studies reporting significant enhancement of immunoglobulins (IgA, IgE, or IgG), while others observed no differences between treatment groups. Supplemental Table 3 presents the immunoglobulin information reported in these 56 studies. Supplemental Materials provide detailed summaries of the evidence. SS: Statistically significant (p<0.05) NSS: Not statistically significant (p≥0.05)
Suzuki (2020)
Clinical trial
Japan
NR
Whole dairy: probiotic yogurt
IgE
Positive
Schaefer (2018)
Clinical trial
United States
NR
Whole dairy: milk powder
Vaccine-specific response: Antibody titers to vaccines
Positive
Pu (2017)
Clinical trial
China
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2013
Whole dairy: probiotic yogurt
IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM
Positive
Vaisberg (2019)
Clinical trial
Brazil
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Positive
Corsello (2017)
Clinical trial
Italy
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2014-2015
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Positive
Lee (2017)
Clinical trial
Korea
Enrollment: Mar and Dec 2016
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgG
Positive
Nocerino (2017)
Clinical trial
Italy
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2012
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Positive
Shida (2017)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2012-2013
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Positive
Nagafuchi (2015)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2010-2011
Probiotic added to whole dairy
Vaccine-specific response: Antibody titers, seroprotection ratesIgA, IgG, IgM
Positive
Bosch (2012)
Clinical trial
Spain
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2006-2007
Probiotic added to whole dairy
Vaccine-specific response: IgA, IgG
Positive
Lahtinen (2012)
Clinical trial
Finland
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Positive
Rizzardini (2012)
Clinical trial
Italy
Enrollment: 2009 Follow-up: 2009
Probiotic added to whole dairy
Vaccine-specific response: IgA, IgGIgA, IgG, IgMSeroconversion rates: IgG
Positive
Snel (2011)
Clinical trial
Netherlands
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2008
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgE, IgG
Positive
Wassenberg (2011)
Clinical trial
Switzerland
Enrollment: 2006-2007
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgE, IgG
Positive
Koyama (2010)
Clinical trial
Canada
Both enrollment and follow-up: Grass study (spring 2007); ragweed pollen study (summer-fall 2007)
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgE, IgG, IgM
Positive
Perez (2010)
Clinical trial
Argentina
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2006-2007
Probiotic added to whole dairy
Vaccine-specific response: Antibody titersIgA, IgD, IgG, IgM
Positive
Boge (2009)
Clinical trial
France
Both enrollment and follow-up: Pilot study in 2005-2006; Confirmation study in 2006-2007
Probiotic added to whole dairy
Vaccine-specific response: Antibody titers, seroconversion rate, seroprotection rate
Positive
Kawase (2009)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2006
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgE
Positive
Martínez-Cañavate (2009)
Clinical trial
Spain
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM
Positive
Giovannini (2007)
Clinical trial
Italy
Enrollment: 2003-2004Follow-up: 2003-2005
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM
Positive
Olivares (2006)
Clinical trial
Spain
NR
Probiotic added to whole diary
IgA, IgE, IgG
Positive
Spanhaak (1998)
Clinical trial
Netherlands
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA, IgD, IgE, IgG, IgM
Positive
Bumrungpert (2018)
Clinical trial
Thailand
NR
Whey
IgG
Positive
Biesiekierski (2013)
Clinical trial, cross-over
Australia
Enrollment: Jan 2010-Jan 2011
Whey
IgA, IgG
Positive
Katayama (2011)
Clinical trial
Japan
NR
Whey
IgA, IgG
Positive
King (2007)
Clinical trial
United States
NR
Whey
Vaccine-specific response: Antibody titers
Positive
Micke (2001)
Clinical trial
Germany
Both enrollment and follow-up: Aug 1998-Mar 1999
Whey
IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM
Positive
Wheeler (1997)
Clinical trial, cross-over
United States
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgE
Positive
Shinohara (2020)
Clinical trial
Japan
NR
Whole dairy: Milk
IgA
Neutral
Papacosta (2015)
Clinical trial, cross-over
Cyprus
NR
Whole dairy: Milk
IgA
Neutral
Mangold (2012)
Clinical trial
Austria
NR
Whole dairy: Fermented milk
IgA, IgD, IgE, IgG, IgM
Neutral
Yang (2012)
Cohort
Taiwan
NR
Whole dairy: probiotic yogurt
IgA, IgE
Neutral
Morita (2006)
Clinical trial
Japan
NR
Whole dairy: Fermented milk
IgE
Neutral
Siekmann (2003)
Clinical trial
Kenya
Both enrollment and follow-up: Aug 1998-Aug 1999
Whole dairy: Milk
Neutral
Pujol (2000)
Clinical trial, cross-over
NR
NR
Whole dairy: Fermented milk
IgA, IgG, IgM
Neutral
Wheeler (1997)
Clinical trial, cross-over
United States
NR
Whole dairy: Yogurt
Vaccine-specific response: Seroconversion rateIgA, IgE, IgG, IgM
Neutral
Link-Amster (1994)
Clinical trial
Switzerland
NR
Whole dairy: Fermented milk
IgG
Neutral
Falth-Magnusson (1987)
Clinical trial
Sweden
Enrollment: 1983-1984
Whole dairy: Milk
IgE
Neutral
Matthews (1974)
Clinical trial
New Guinea
NR
Whole dairy: milk powder
Vaccine-specific response: IgG, Antibody titersIgM
Neutral
Zhang (2021)
Clinical trial
China
NR
Probiotic added to whole diary
IgA, IgG, IgM
Neutral
Eden (2019)
Clinical trial
Turkey
NR
Probiotic added to whole diary
IgA
Neutral
Yamamoto (2019)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: Oct and Dec 2014
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Neutral
Zhang (2018)
Clinical trial
China
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA, IgG, IgM
Neutral
Yamamoto (2017)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2013
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Neutral
Kabeerdoss (2011)
Clinical trial
India
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Neutral
Surono (2011)
Clinical trial
Indonesia
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Neutral
Hasegawa (2009)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2008
Probiotic added to whole diary
IgE
Neutral
Ivory (2008)
Clinical trial
United Kingdom
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2005-2006
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgE, IgG
Neutral
Tiollier (2007)
Clinical trial
France
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Neutral
Xiao (2006)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2004
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgE
Neutral
De Vrese (2005)
Clinical trial
Germany
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
Vaccine-specific response: IgA, IgG, antibody titers, seroprotection rate
Neutral
Ishida (2005)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2002 and 2003
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgE
Neutral
Ishida (2005)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2002-2003
Probiotic added to whole diary
IgE
Neutral
Marteau (1997)
Clinical trial
France
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA, IgG, IgM
Neutral
Kaila (1992)
Clinical trial
Finland
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA, IgG, IgM
Neutral
Oda (2021)
Clinical trial
Japan
Both enrollment and follow-up: 2017
Whey
IgA
Neutral
Lothian (2006)
Clinical trial
Canada
Enrollment: Jan 2000-Jan 2002
Whey
IgE
Neutral
Rohr (2012)
Clinical trial
China
NR
Casein
IgA, IgG, IgM
Neutral
Milewska-Wróbel (2020)
Cross-sectional
Poland
NR
Dietary patterns: Maternal intake of yogurt, milk or cheese
IgE
Neutral
Keller (2014)
Clinical trial
Germany
Both enrollment and follow-up: Mar and Oct 2011
Milk phospholipids
IgE
Neutral
Coman (2017)
Clinical trial
Italy
NR
Probiotic added to whole dairy
IgA
Negative
Whole Dairy Products
Schaefer (2018)
Intervention (milk powder): 10Control (low isoflavone soy protein): 11
Elderly, hospitalized patients in retired centers and long-term care facilities
6 g milk powder twice a day for 8 weeks
Diphtheria, tetanus, and polio (DTaP) vaccine at week 4
NR
NR
Mean change in tetanus antibody level week 8-week 0: SS higher in intervention group (p=0.029) Mean post-vaccine tetanus antibody level at week 8:SS higher in intervention group (p=0.034) Diphtheria and pertussis antibody levels: NSS between groups
NR
Wheeler (1997)
20(cross-over trial of traditional yogurt and 2% milk)
Adults, atopic disease
8 oz traditional yogurt per day for 1 month (yogurt contained live, active
Quadrivalent pneumococcal vaccine and the standard oral polio vaccine at study start (day 0)
NR
NR
NR
Mean number of patients with a response (ratio values of >3) to pneumococcal titers across 12 serotypes: NSS with the cross-over analysisMean number of patients with a response to polio vaccine (fold rise >2): NSS for polio 1, 2, or 3 with the cross-over analysis
Matthews (1974)
Intervention (skim milk powder): 30Control (no intervention): 24
Children, growth-retarded
Skim milk powder (25 g protein) 5 days per week for 8 months
Flagellin from
Total IgG antibody: Difference NSS between treatment groups at 2- or 6-weeks post-immunization
NR
Total antibody titers to flagellin: SS higher in the intervention group at 6 weeks post- immunization (p=0.002)NSS difference between groups at 2 weeks post-immunization (p=0.05)
NR
Probiotics
Nagafuchi (2015)
Intervention (milk-based formula with prebiotics and probiotics): 12Control (standard milk-based formula): 12
Elderly, Hospitalized
Formula administered enterally via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for 14 weeks, no details on doseIntervention formula contains prebiotics bifidogenic growth stimulator (BGS) and galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) and probiotics
Influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B at week 4
NR
NR
Antibody titersA/H1N1: NSS differences between treatment groups at weeks 0, 4 (time of vaccination), 6, 8 or 12 A/H3N2: NSS differences between treatment groups at weeks 0, 4, 6, 8 or 12B: SS lower in the intervention group vs. control at week 6 and 8 (p < 0.05); NSS difference at week 0,4, or 12
Differences NSS in seroprotection rates between treatment groups for A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B at weeks 0, 4, 6, 8 or 12
Bosch (2012)
Intervention arm 1 (high-dose skim milk powder with probiotic): 19Intervention arm 2 (low-dose skim milk powder with probiotic): 14Control arm (placebo: skim milk powder): 15
Elderly, Hospitalized
High-dose: 5 x 10
Influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B 3-4 months prior to the intervention
Influenza-specific IgG:High-dose: SS increase post- vs. pre-intervention (p = 0.023)Low-dose and placebo: NSS difference pre- vs. post-intervention
Influenza-specific IgA:High-dose
NR
NR
Rizzardini (2012)
4 intervention arms were evaluated with 2 treatment groups relevant to this reviewIntervention (probiotic drink): 56Control (placebo acidified dairy drink): 54
Adults, healthy
One acidified dairy drink with
Influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B at week 2
Changes from baseline,
Changes from baseline,
NR
Rate of substantial increase (>2-fold increase),
Perez (2010)
Intervention (Milk fermented with
Children, healthy
95 g milk bottle once daily for at least 4 months95 x 10
Diphtheria/ tetanus/ pertussis and
NR
NR
Tetanus antibodies: Differences NSS between treatment and control for pre- and post-vaccinationPneumococcal antibodies: Differences NSS between treatment and control for pre- and post-vaccination
NR
Boge (2009)
Intervention arm (dairy drink with probiotic): 44 pilot and 113 confirmatoryControl arm (non-fermented dairy drink): 42 pilot and 109 confirmatory
Elderly, hospitalized patients and nursing home residents
2 bottles of 100 g dairy drink with
Influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B at week 4
NR
NR
Confirmatory study:Geometric mean titers: Intervention group: SS increase for B at 3 weeks (p= 0.029), 6 weeks (p=0.027), and 9 weeks (p=0.025) after vaccinationDifferences NSS for A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 at 3, 6 and 9 weeks after vaccinationControl group: Differences NSS for all 3 strains at 3, 6, and 9 weeks after vaccinationPilot study: NSS for all 3 strains at 3 weeks after vaccination in all treatment groups
Confirmatory study:Seroconversion rate at 5 months after vaccination: SS increases in the intervention group vs. control for B (p=0.016) and A/H3N2 (p=0.031); NSS between treatment groups for A/H1N1Seroprotection rate at 3 weeks after vaccination: SS increase in the intervention group vs. control for A/H1N1 strain (p=0.045); NSS between treatment grups for B and A/H3N1Pilot study: NSS for seroprotection or seroconversion rates at 3 weeks after vaccination in all treatment groups
De Vrese (2005)
Intervention arm 1 (
Adults, healthy
Whole dairy acidified milk product with
Polio virus 1, 2 and 3 administered at day 8
Poliovirus serotype-specific IgG titer:Difference NSS between placebo and intervention groups for polio virus 1, 2 or 3
Poliovirus serotype-specific IgA titer:Polio 1=SS increase in intervention 1 vs. placebo (p=0.036); Difference NSS between intervention 2 and placeboPolio 2 and Polio 3=Difference NSS between placebo and intervention groups Poliovirus serotype-specific IgM titer:Polio 2=SS increase in intervention 2 vs. placebo (p=0.040); Difference NSS between intervention 1and placeboPolio 1 and Polio 3= Difference NSS between placebo and intervention groups
∆ Neutralizing antibodies titer:Polio 1=SS increase in intervention 1 vs. placebo (p=0.048); NSS difference between placebo and intervention 2Polio 2=SS increase in intervention 1 vs. placebo (p=0.014); NSS difference between placebo and intervention 2Polio 3=SS increase in intervention 2 vs. placebo (p=0.011); NSS difference between placebo and intervention 1∆ PoBI Titer:NSS difference between placebo and intervention groups for polio 1, 2, or 3
Differences NSS in seroprotection rates between placebo and intervention groups
Dairy Proteins
King (2007)
Intervention arm (Similac with Fe formula, 850 mg/L bovine lactoferrin): 26Control arm (Similac with Fe formula, 102 mg/L bovine lactoferrin): 26
Infants <4 weeks of age, healthy
Similac iron formula with bovine lactoferrin
Diphtheria and tetanus (DT),
NR
NR
Mean antibody levels at 9 months:Diphtheria, tetanus,
NR
Discussion
This review provides a systematic assessment of the epidemiologic literature regarding dairy products/components potential impacts on the immune response to vaccination. The potential impacts of dairy products/components on immunoglobulins are also described in this review. Among various populations, dairy interventions were observed to modify the adaptive immune response after vaccination with significantly increased levels of IgA and IgG, vaccine-specific antibody titers, seroconversion rates, and seroprotection rates. The evidence describing the benefits of dairy seems to be most consistent for probiotics added to whole dairy products. Three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials reported enhanced productions of influenza vaccine-specific antibodies with Our findings on the potential immune benefits from probiotics in dairy are consistent with clinical trials evaluating vaccine efficacy and probiotics given without dairy In this review, the critical appraisal of the included studies indicates that the evidence base is strong, with the inclusion of 60 positive or neutral quality studies. Another strength of this review is that we followed all standard PRISMA recommendations for systematic reviews throughout the entirety of study conduct. Additionally, as the scope of the review was broad, this review is comprehensive and has captured the totality of the published literature on dairy and non-inflammatory immune response with or without vaccinations. While this review suggests a beneficial role for dairy in the immune response to vaccination, the interpretation of these findings is impacted by substantial heterogeneity in study features, including the exposure under study, exposure dose/duration, the probiotic strain under investigation, the vaccine type, the age and comorbidities of the study population, and the different biological matrices used to measure immunoglobulins (including serum, saliva, and fecal matter). Variability was also observed in the timing of the dairy intervention and vaccine administration, with vaccines being given at the beginning of the study period or during the dairy intervention. Probiotics evaluated in the included studies comprised various species and strains, both naturally occurring and experimental. It is possible that probiotics immune-modulating effect is strain-specific and, thus, the positive or negative findings may be related to strain-specific variation. Due to the heterogeneity in exposures and outcomes, quantitative synthesis was not advisable. Finally, the interpretation of immunoglobulin results remains challenging as clinical relevance was not evaluated in the included studies. Specifically, the evidence connecting enhanced antibody productions by dairy interventions to protections against disease incidence and/or severity of illness was not available in the included studies. In tandem to the current review, we identified another evidence base related to the influence of dairy products/components on infectious disease incidence and the duration/severity of disease. This topic will be evaluated in a separate publication, and the conclusions of that companion paper will inform the current review. Notably, this review highlights the evidence gaps and provides a potential roadmap for additional research on dairy and immune response. Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trials or prospective cohort studies may be beneficial. These studies should include a range of specified exposure durations/doses, focused probiotic strains/dairy proteins, and clinically relevant outcomes (i.e., disease incidence). Study design with longitudinal measures of immunoglobulins and vaccine-specific immune response are also needed to fill the evidence gaps. Studies should incorporate a period of follow-up to obtain disease incidence and measures of immune response. Additional studies may also consider probiotic supplementation in dairy among the pediatric populations, where vaccination is routine and dairy products are recommended in the dietary guidelines
Conclusion
The consumption of dairy products/components prior to and after vaccination could represent an effective intervention to improve the antibody response to vaccination. This intervention could potentially provide a public health benefit by enhancing vaccine efficacy and thereby increasing protections of individuals susceptible to severe illness from vaccine-preventable diseases.