Efficacy of different faecal microbiota transplantation protocols for infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gianluca Ianiro, Marcello Maida, Johan Burisch, Claudia Simonelli, Georgina Hold, Marco Ventimiglia, Antonio Gasbarrini, Giovanni Cammarota
Author Information
  1. Gianluca Ianiro: Gastroenterology Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
  2. Marcello Maida: Section of Gastroenterology, S. Elia - Raimondi Hospital, Caltanissetta, Italy.
  3. Johan Burisch: Department of Gastroenterology, North Zealand University Hospital, Frederikssund, Denmark.
  4. Claudia Simonelli: Gastroenterology Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
  5. Georgina Hold: St George & Sutherland Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, Sidney, Australia.
  6. Marco Ventimiglia: Section of Internal Medicine, Villa Sofia - V. Cervello Hospital, Palermo, Italy.
  7. Antonio Gasbarrini: Gastroenterology Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
  8. Giovanni Cammarota: Gastroenterology Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Protocols for treating recurrent infection (rCDI) through faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) are still not standardised. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of different FMT protocols for rCDI according to routes, number of infusions and infused material.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched through 31 May 2017. Studies offering multiple infusions if a single infusion failed to cure rCDI were included. Data were combined through a random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies (1150 subjects) were analysed. Multiple infusions increased efficacy rates overall (76% versus 93%) and in each route of delivery (duodenal delivery: 73% with single infusion versus 81% with multiple infusions; capsule: 80% versus 92%; colonoscopy: 78% versus 98% and enema: 56% versus 92%). Duodenal delivery and colonoscopy were associated, respectively, with lower efficacy rates ( = 0.039) and higher efficacy rates ( = 0.006) overall. Faecal amount ≤ 50 g ( = 0.006) and enema ( = 0.019) were associated with lower efficacy rates after a single infusion. The use of fresh or frozen faeces did not influence outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Routes, number of infusions and faecal dosage may influence efficacy rates of FMT for rCDI. These findings could help to optimise FMT protocols in clinical practice.

Keywords

References

  1. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Dec;23(12):924-930 [PMID: 28529025]
  2. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr;108(4):478-98; quiz 499 [PMID: 23439232]
  3. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2016 May;9(3):273-81 [PMID: 27134658]
  4. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Oct;42(8):1011-8 [PMID: 26264455]
  5. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;28(7):826-30 [PMID: 26934528]
  6. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Aug;42(4):470-6 [PMID: 26096320]
  7. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88 [PMID: 3802833]
  8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 May;107(5):761-7 [PMID: 22290405]
  9. BMC Med. 2016 Sep 09;14(1):134 [PMID: 27609178]
  10. Gut. 2017 Apr;66(4):569-580 [PMID: 28087657]
  11. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 1;64(3):265-271 [PMID: 28011612]
  12. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 31;368(5):407-15 [PMID: 23323867]
  13. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 May;31(5):1059-1060 [PMID: 26410257]
  14. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Sep;28(8):434-8 [PMID: 25014180]
  15. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Oct;5(6):868-879 [PMID: 29026601]
  16. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Mar;20 Suppl 2:1-26 [PMID: 24118601]
  17. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Dec;9(12):1044-9 [PMID: 21871249]
  18. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Sep;46(5):479-493 [PMID: 28707337]
  19. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr;108(4):500-8 [PMID: 23511459]
  20. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Sep 5;113(35-36):583-9 [PMID: 27658471]
  21. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 May;41(9):835-43 [PMID: 25728808]
  22. JAMA. 2017 Nov 28;318(20):1985-1993 [PMID: 29183074]
  23. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jul 4;167(1):34-39 [PMID: 28531908]
  24. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64 [PMID: 19622511]
  25. BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Apr 17;15:191 [PMID: 25885020]
  26. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34 [PMID: 9310563]
  27. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 May;23(5):337.e1-337.e3 [PMID: 28057560]
  28. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jul;109(7):1065-71 [PMID: 24890442]
  29. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016 Nov/Dec;50(10):895 [PMID: 27428728]
  30. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 Aug;33(8):1425-8 [PMID: 24627239]
  31. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;62(12):1479-1486 [PMID: 27025836]
  32. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Aug 1;167(3):152-158 [PMID: 28672282]
  33. JAMA. 2016 Jan 12;315(2):142-9 [PMID: 26757463]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0efficacyfaecalinfusionsratesversusrCDIFMT = 0microbiotatransplantationprotocolssingleinfusionmeta-analysisdifferentnumbermultipleoveralldelivery92%associatedlower006influencesystematicreviewBACKGROUND:ProtocolstreatingrecurrentinfectionstillstandardisedaimevaluateaccordingroutesinfusedmaterialMETHODS:MEDLINEEmbaseSCOPUSWebScienceCochraneLibrarysearched31May2017StudiesofferingfailedcureincludedDatacombinedrandomeffectsRESULTS:Fifteenstudies1150subjectsanalysedMultipleincreased76%93%routeduodenaldelivery:73%81%capsule:80%colonoscopy:78%98%enema:56%Duodenalcolonoscopyrespectively039higherFaecalamount ≤ 50 genema019usefreshfrozenfaecesoutcomesCONCLUSIONS:RoutesdosagemayfindingshelpoptimiseclinicalpracticeEfficacyinfection:Clostridiumdifficiletransplant

Similar Articles

Cited By