International Journal of Nutrition

International Journal of Nutrition

Current Issue Volume No: 8 Issue No: 1

Review-article Article Open Access
  • Available online freely Peer Reviewed
  • The Effects Of Dairy Consumption On Vaccine Immune Response And Immunoglobulins: A Systematic Literature Review

    1 EpidStrategies, a division of ToxStrategies, LLC, 23501 Cinco Ranch Blvd, Suite B226, Katy, TX 77494. 

    2 Independent contractor to ToxStrategies, LLC, Durham, NC, USA. 

    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 Salmonella Adelaide, mean antibody titers to influenza B, influenza-specific IgA and IgG levels, and seroconversion or seroprotection rates for influenza A and B. 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 groups. Clinical relevance of the immunoglobulin changes was not investigated in these studies. Dairy products and their components could enhance the efficacy of vaccines. This review highlights the evidence gaps and provides a potential roadmap for additional research.

    Author Contributions
    Received Jan 24, 2024     Accepted Jan 30, 2024     Published Feb 06, 2024

    Copyright© 2024 Suh Mina, et al.
    License
    Creative Commons 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:

    Suh Mina, Mitchell Meghan, Hooda Naushin, C. Bylsma Lauren, S. Cohen Sarah et al. (2024) The Effects Of Dairy Consumption On Vaccine Immune Response And Immunoglobulins: A Systematic Literature Review International Journal of Nutrition. - 8(1):1-25
    DOI 10.14302/issn.2379-7835.ijn-24-4938

    Introduction

    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 123. In various dietary guidelines, dairy products are considered as an important source of protein and other nutrients including vitamin D and calcium 45. The ability of dairy products and/or their components to enhance immune response may be an important aspect of dairy’s influences on health 678.

    The potential immune-modulating effects of dairy products and their components have been considered in in vivo and in vitro models, including the role of probiotics 91011. The findings in these models suggest a beneficial role of probiotics on immunity through various proposed mechanisms, including a direct impact on pathogens by competing for colonization of the gut’s epithelium and the stimulation of the innate immune response in the gut (e.g., modulating the release of cytokines to promote defense) 10. Likewise, the whey protein lactoferrin may provide beneficial impacts with improved immunity, resistance to infection, and stimulation of the anti-inflammatory immune response 12. With regard to epidemiologic research on dairy products/components, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have concluded that there may be a neutral to positive benefit of whole dairy products, probiotics and proteins on biomarkers of inflammation 8131415.

    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

    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 (Figure 1). Using de-duplication in DistillerSR, 9382 records were screened at the title and abstract level. At the full-text level, 405 (389 references identified from title and abstract screening and 16 references identified from evaluations of relevant review articles) publications were reviewed, with 189 total references determined to be eligible. Among the 189 studies, 61 publications described the impact of dairy exposure/components on the vaccine-specific immune response and immunoglobins without vaccinations; the remaining publications examined outcomes that will be reported in future publications.

    PRISMA Flow Diagram Characteristics of Included Studies (N=61)

    (Table 1) presents the characteristics of the 61 studies: 27 (44.3%) were determined to have positive study quality, 33 (54.1%) were determined to have neutral quality, while one study (1.6%) 21 was determined to have negative quality. Except for one cross-sectional survey 22 and one cohort study 23, the remaining 59 studies were clinical trials. Four studies provided vaccine-specific immunological response data only 24252627, 50 studies reported the effects of dairy on immunoglobulin levels without vaccinations only, and 6 presented results on both outcome types 282930313233. The period of study enrollment and follow-up was not reported in 32 studies; of those providing enrollment and follow-up data (n=29), the years ranged from 1983 to 2017. Fifty-nine studies reported geographical location, with 80% (n=47) conducted in European nations.

    Effect of Dairy Intervention on the Immune Response to Vaccination (N=10)

    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 24252627282930313233 (Table 1). Among 5 trials specifying the study enrollment and follow-up period, the years ranged from 2005 to 2011 2425293031 (Table 1). The vaccines studied included diphtheria 273033, tetanus 273033, pertussis 2730, polio 263032, influenza 24252931, hepatitis B 33, Haemophilus influenzae type B 3033, flagellin from Salmonella adelaide28, and Streptococcus pneumoniae or pneumococcus3032, with studies often administering combination or multiple vaccines (Table 2). Four trials were conducted in hospitalized elderly patients 24252729, while 3 were in adults (healthy: N=2; allergy: N=1) 263132 and 3 were in infants and children (healthy: N=2; stunted growth: N=1) 283033 (Table 2).

    In 3 trials, differences between treatment arms were not observed in any of the reported analyses 303233 (Table 2). The remaining 7 trials reported differences between the treatment arms or between pre- and post-intervention periods for at least one outcome. These 7 studies are described in the upcoming sections by the dairy product/component intervention 24252627282931 (Table 2).

    Overall, the evidence base indicated that whole dairy products enhanced vaccine-specific immune response to tetanus and Salmonella Adelaide, while probiotics added to whole dairy products amplified vaccine-specific immune response to influenza and polio.

    Whole dairy products

    Two trials evaluated changes in vaccine-specific antibody titers following milk powder consumption 2728; study years were not reported in either trial (Table 1 and Table 2).

    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 27 (Table 2). Post-vaccine tetanus antibodies were higher in the milk powder intervention compared with the soy protein group at week 8 (p=0.034). The mean change in the tetanus antibody level was also higher in the milk powder group (p=0.029).

    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 Salmonella adelaide at month 7 28 (Table 2). Total antibody titers at 6-weeks post-vaccination were higher in the skim milk powder group compared with the untreated group (p=0.002).

    Whole dairy products with added probiotics

    Five trials evaluated whether probiotics added to dairy products altered the immune response to vaccination, including 4 studies administering an influenza vaccine 24252931 and one administering the polio vaccine 26 (Table 2).

    During the 2010-2011 season, enterally-fed elderly patients in Japan were given a milk-based formula with added prebiotics and probiotics (L. delbrueckiisubsp. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus)(n=12)or a standard milk-based formula (n=12)for 14 weeks, with H1N1/H3N2/B influenza vaccination at week 4 29 (Table 2). The antibody titer to the influenza B antigen was lower in the intervention group compared to the control group at weeks 6 and 8 (p<0.05).

    During the 2006/2007 influenza vaccine campaign in Spain, study participants aged 65-85 years received trivalent influenza vaccines 25 (Table 2). Probiotic consumption was started 3-4 months after vaccination. Nineteen elderly patients were randomized to high-dose skim milk powder with L. plantarum CECT 7315/7316, 14 were randomized to low-dose skim milk powder with L. plantarum CECT 7315/7316, and 15 were randomized to skim milk powder without the probiotic; the milk powders were administered for 3 months. For each treatment arm, the investigators compared immunoglobulin levels in the post- vs. pre-intervention. An increase in influenza-specific IgG was observed only for the high-dose intervention arm, comparing the post- vs. pre-intervention levels (p=0.023). Influenza-specific IgA was increased in both the high- and low-dose intervention arms, comparing post- vs. pre-intervention levels (p=0.008 and p=0.039, respectively).

    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 L. paracaseissp. paracasei (L. casei 431) and 54 receiving a placebo acidified dairy drink for 6 weeks 31 (Table 2). The trial participants were also administered the A/H1N1/A/H3N2/B influenza vaccine 2 weeks after starting the dairy intervention. Change between post-intervention and baseline plasma levels of influenza vaccine-specific total IgG, IgG1 and IgG3 were higher in the intervention group compared with the placebo (p=0.01, p<0.01, and p<0.001, respectively). The plasma IgG1 and IgG3 seroconversion rates were higher in the intervention group, compared to the placebo (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively).

    A trial was conducted in France during the 2005-2006 (pilot study) and 2006-2007 (confirmatory study) influenza seasons 24 (Table 2). Differences between groups were observed in the confirmatory study only. In the confirmatory study, 113 participants were given a traditionally fermented dairy drink containing L. casei DN-114 001 (along with the traditional ferments of S. thermophilus and L.bulgaricus) for 13 weeks, and 109 were given non-fermented dairy drink. The influenza vaccine (A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B) was administered 4 weeks after starting the consumption of the study products. The geometric mean antibody titers for the B strain were higher at 3 weeks (p=0.029), 6 weeks (p=0.027), and 9 weeks (p=0.025) after vaccination in the intervention arm, compared with the placebo. The seroconversion rate at 5 months after vaccination was also higher in the intervention arm, compared with the placebo for the B and A/H3N2 strains only (p=0.016 and p=0.031, respectively). The seroprotection rate at 3 weeks after vaccination in a subgroup of participants who were non-seroprotected at baseline was increased in the intervention group, compared to the placebo, for the A/H1N1 strain only (p=0.045).

    In Germany, 22 healthy adults were given 100 g acidified milk product containing L. rhamnosusGG(LGG)(intervention 1) daily, 21 were given the same milk product with L. acidophilus paracaseisubspeciesparacasei(CRL431)(intervention 2) daily, and 20 received placebo acidified milk product 26 (Table 2). The treatment period spanned over 5 weeks for both intervention arms; the study year was not reported. Oral polio vaccination occurred at day 8. The poliovirus-1 IgA titer was increased in intervention arm 1 (p=0.036) and the poliovirus-2 IgM titer was increased in intervention arm 2 (p=0.040), compared to the placebo. Increased neutralizing antibodies of poliovirus-1 and -2 were also found with intervention arm 1, compared with the placebo (p=0.048 and p =0.014, respectively). Increased neutralizing antibodies were observed for poliovirus-3 (p=0.011), with intervention arm 2 compared to the placebo.

    Effects of Dairy Intervention on Immunoglobulins (N=55)

    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.

    Characteristics of Included Studies, Organized by Study Quality, Dairy Exposure, and Publication Year (N=61)
    Author (Year) Study Design Geographical Location Study Period Dairy Product or Component Study Outcome Study Quality
    Suzuki (2020) 37 Clinical trial Japan NR Whole dairy: probiotic yogurt IgE Positive
    Schaefer (2018) 27 Clinical trial United States NR Whole dairy: milk powder Vaccine-specific response: Antibody titers to vaccines Positive
    Pu (2017) 38 Clinical trial China Both enrollment and follow-up: 2013 Whole dairy: probiotic yogurt IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM Positive
    Vaisberg (2019) 39 Clinical trial Brazil NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Positive
    Corsello (2017) 40 Clinical trial Italy Both enrollment and follow-up: 2014-2015 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Positive
    Lee (2017) 41 Clinical trial Korea Enrollment: Mar and Dec 2016 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgG Positive
    Nocerino (2017) 42 Clinical trial Italy Both enrollment and follow-up: 2012 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Positive
    Shida (2017) 43 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: 2012-2013 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Positive
    Nagafuchi (2015) 29 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) 25 Clinical trial Spain Both enrollment and follow-up: 2006-2007 Probiotic added to whole dairy Vaccine-specific response: IgA, IgG Positive
    Lahtinen (2012) 44 Clinical trial Finland NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Positive
    Rizzardini (2012) 31 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) 45 Clinical trial Netherlands Both enrollment and follow-up: 2008 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgE, IgG Positive
    Wassenberg (2011) 46 Clinical trial Switzerland Enrollment: 2006-2007 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgE, IgG Positive
    Koyama (2010) 47 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) 30 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) 24 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) 48 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: 2006 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgE Positive
    Martínez-Cañavate (2009) 49 Clinical trial Spain NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM Positive
    Giovannini (2007) 50 Clinical trial Italy Enrollment: 2003-2004Follow-up: 2003-2005 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM Positive
    Olivares (2006) 51 Clinical trial Spain NR Probiotic added to whole diary IgA, IgE, IgG Positive
    Spanhaak (1998) 52 Clinical trial Netherlands NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA, IgD, IgE, IgG, IgM Positive
    Bumrungpert (2018) 53 Clinical trial Thailand NR Whey IgG Positive
    Biesiekierski (2013) 54 Clinical trial, cross-over Australia Enrollment: Jan 2010-Jan 2011 Whey IgA, IgG Positive
    Katayama (2011) 55 Clinical trial Japan NR Whey IgA, IgG Positive
    King (2007) 33 Clinical trial United States NR Whey Vaccine-specific response: Antibody titers Positive
    Micke (2001) 56 Clinical trial Germany Both enrollment and follow-up: Aug 1998-Mar 1999 Whey IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM Positive
    Wheeler (1997) 57 Clinical trial, cross-over United States NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgE Positive
    Shinohara (2020) 58 Clinical trial Japan NR Whole dairy: Milk IgA Neutral
    Papacosta (2015) 59 Clinical trial, cross-over Cyprus NR Whole dairy: Milk IgA Neutral
    Mangold (2012) 60 Clinical trial Austria NR Whole dairy: Fermented milk IgA, IgD, IgE, IgG, IgM Neutral
    Yang (2012) 23 Cohort Taiwan NR Whole dairy: probiotic yogurt IgA, IgE Neutral
    Morita (2006) 61 Clinical trial Japan NR Whole dairy: Fermented milk IgE Neutral
    Siekmann (2003) 62 Clinical trial Kenya Both enrollment and follow-up: Aug 1998-Aug 1999 Whole dairy: Milk H. pylori IgA, IgG, IgM, tetanus IgG Neutral
    Pujol (2000) 63 Clinical trial, cross-over NR NR Whole dairy: Fermented milk IgA, IgG, IgM Neutral
    Wheeler (1997) 32 Clinical trial, cross-over United States NR Whole dairy: Yogurt Vaccine-specific response: Seroconversion rateIgA, IgE, IgG, IgM Neutral
    Link-Amster (1994) 64 Clinical trial Switzerland NR Whole dairy: Fermented milk IgG Neutral
    Falth-Magnusson (1987) 65 Clinical trial Sweden Enrollment: 1983-1984 Whole dairy: Milk IgE Neutral
    Matthews (1974) 28 Clinical trial New Guinea NR Whole dairy: milk powder Vaccine-specific response: IgG, Antibody titersIgM Neutral
    Zhang (2021) 66 Clinical trial China NR Probiotic added to whole diary IgA, IgG, IgM Neutral
    Eden (2019) 67 Clinical trial Turkey NR Probiotic added to whole diary IgA Neutral
    Yamamoto (2019) 68 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: Oct and Dec 2014 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Neutral
    Zhang (2018) 69 Clinical trial China NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA, IgG, IgM Neutral
    Yamamoto (2017) 70 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: 2013 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Neutral
    Kabeerdoss (2011) 71 Clinical trial India NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Neutral
    Surono (2011) 72 Clinical trial Indonesia NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Neutral
    Hasegawa (2009) 73 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: 2008 Probiotic added to whole diary IgE Neutral
    Ivory (2008) 74 Clinical trial United Kingdom Both enrollment and follow-up: 2005-2006 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgE, IgG Neutral
    Tiollier (2007) 75 Clinical trial France NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Neutral
    Xiao (2006) 76 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: 2004 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgE Neutral
    De Vrese (2005) 26 Clinical trial Germany NR Probiotic added to whole dairy Vaccine-specific response: IgA, IgG, antibody titers, seroprotection rate Neutral
    Ishida (2005) 77 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: 2002 and 2003 Probiotic added to whole dairy IgE Neutral
    Ishida (2005) 78 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: 2002-2003 Probiotic added to whole diary IgE Neutral
    Marteau (1997) 79 Clinical trial France NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA, IgG, IgM Neutral
    Kaila (1992) 80 Clinical trial Finland NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA, IgG, IgM Neutral
    Oda (2021) 81 Clinical trial Japan Both enrollment and follow-up: 2017 Whey IgA Neutral
    Lothian (2006) 82 Clinical trial Canada Enrollment: Jan 2000-Jan 2002 Whey IgE Neutral
    Rohr (2012) 83 Clinical trial China NR Casein IgA, IgG, IgM Neutral
    Milewska-Wróbel (2020) 22 Cross-sectional Poland NR Dietary patterns: Maternal intake of yogurt, milk or cheese IgE Neutral
    Keller (2014) 84 Clinical trial Germany Both enrollment and follow-up: Mar and Oct 2011 Milk phospholipids IgE Neutral
    Coman (2017) 21 Clinical trial Italy NR Probiotic added to whole dairy IgA Negative
    Consumption of Dairy Products/Components and Vaccine-Specific Immune Response After Vaccination (N=10)
    Author (Year) Study Population Dairy Intervention Details Vaccine Type and Timing of Administration Vaccine-Specific IgG Vaccine-Specific IgA or IgM Antibody Titers Seroprotection Rates or Seroconversion Rates
    N Age and Health Status
    Whole Dairy Products
    Schaefer (2018) 27 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) 32 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 L. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus at 2.5 to 3.0 x 108 per g and 3.5 to 4.1 x 108 per g)8 oz milk twice daily for 1 month1 month of one product, 2 weeks without dietary restrictions, 2-week washout period, 1 month of the other product 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) 28 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 Salmonella adelaideadministered at 7 months 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) 29 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 probioticsL.delbrueckiisubsp. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus 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) 25 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 109 cfu/day of L. plantarum CECT7315/7316 in 20 g powdered skim milk for 3 monthsLow dose: 5 x 108 cfu/day of L. plantarum CECT7315/7316 in 20 g powdered skim milk for 3 months 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: SS increasepost- vs pre-intervention (p = 0.008)Low dose: SS increase pre- vs. post-intervention (p = 0.039) Placebo: NSS difference pre- vs. post-interventionInfluenza-specific IgM: NSS pre- vs. post-intervention for all treatment groups NR NR
    Rizzardini (2012) 31 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 L.paracaseissp.paracasei (L. casei 431) once daily for 6 weeks. Minimum 1x109 cfu/dose Influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B at week 2 Changes from baseline, plasma: SS greater change in the intervention group vs. placebo for total IgG (p=0.01), IgG1 (p<0.001) and IgG3 (p<0.001) Changes from baseline, salivary: Difference NSS between treatment groups for total IgG Rate of substantial increase (>2-fold increase), salivary: SS higher rate for IgA (p=0.035) Changes from baseline, plasma: NRChanges from baseline,salivary: Difference NSS between treatment groups for total IgA or IgMRate of substantial increase (>2-fold increase), salivary: Difference NSS between treatment groups for total IgG or IgM NR Rate of substantial increase (>2-fold increase), plasma: Difference NSS between treatment groups for total IgG SS higher rate in the intervention group vs. control for IgG1 (p<0.001) and IgG3 (p<0.001)
    Perez (2010) 30 Intervention (Milk fermented with S. thermophilus, L. acidophilus CRL431, L. caseiCRL730): 70Control (Milk fermented with S. thermophilus): 70 Children, healthy 95 g milk bottle once daily for at least 4 months95 x 108 cfu of S. thermophilus, 95 x 106 cfu of L. acidophilus and 95 x 106cfu of L. casei Diphtheria/ tetanus/ pertussis andHaemophilusinfluenzae typeB (DTP-HiB) vaccine or 23-valent anti-pneumococcal vaccine, depending on age 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) 24 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 L. casei DN-114 001and traditional yogurt ferments per day for 7 weeks (pilot study) or 13 weeks (confirmatory study) 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) 26 Intervention arm 1 (L. rhamnosusGG): 22Intervention arm 2 (L. acidophilus CRL431): 21Control (placebo): 21 Adults, healthy Whole dairy acidified milk product with L.rhamnosusGGor L. acidophilus CRL431100 g/day (1010cfu/serving) for 5 weeks for both intervention arms 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) 33 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), Haemophilus influenzaetype B (HiB), and hepatitis B, according to the standard schedule NR NR Mean antibody levels at 9 months:Diphtheria, tetanus, Haemophilus influenzaetype B, and hepatitis B: treatment vs. control NSSMean antibody levels at 12 months:Hepatitis B: treatment vs. control NSS NR

    Discussion

    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 Lactobacillus probiotic supplementation in dairy drinks/milk powder 242531. Significant increases in seroprotection/seroconversion were reported in 2 trials that collected this information 2431. Sporadic changes in polio-specific antibodies were also observed with Lactobacillus supplementation, although no differences in the number of patients with seroprotection were found 26. Vaccination is an important preventative measure to protect against infections and reduce the severity/duration of illness 34. Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic is on-going and overlaps with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus seasons. In this era of tripledemic , our study suggests that dairy products and their components could be an effective vehicle to enhance the efficacy of vaccines.

    Our findings on the potential immune benefits from probiotics in dairy are consistent with clinical trials evaluating vaccine efficacy and probiotics given without dairy 35. Probiotics may be the bioactive component of dairy products that confer an immunological benefit. Research is ongoing on the physiological effects of probiotics; the mechanism may include the stimulation of the innate immune response in the gut and/or the interaction of probiotic bacteria with immune and intestinal epithelial cells 36. Dairy products may be an ideal vehicle to deliver probiotics, as they are a well-accepted food item and provide additional valuable nutrients such as vitamin D and calcium.

    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 45.

    Conclusion

    Conclusions

    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.

    Affiliations:
    Affiliations: