Fecal microbiota transplantation for treatment of recurrent C. difficile infection: An updated randomized controlled trial meta-analysis.

Wenjia Hui, Ting Li, Weidong Liu, Chunyan Zhou, Feng Gao
Author Information
  1. Wenjia Hui: Department of Gastroenterology, People's Hospital of Xin jiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China. ORCID
  2. Ting Li: Department of Gastroenterology, People's Hospital of Xin jiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.
  3. Weidong Liu: Department of Gastroenterology, People's Hospital of Xin jiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China. ORCID
  4. Chunyan Zhou: State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
  5. Feng Gao: Department of Gastroenterology, People's Hospital of Xin jiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although systematic evaluation has confirmed the efficacy of fresh fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for treatment of recurrent and/or refractory and/or relapse C. difficile infection (RCDI), it lacks the support of well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the latest guidelines do not optimize the management of FMT. In this paper, we focus on an in-depth study of fresh FMT and fecal infusion times to guide clinical practice.
METHODS: We reviewed studies in PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane library and Cochrane Central written in English. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the databases to September 20th, 2018. The retrieval objects were published RCTs of RCDI treated by fresh FMT. The intervention group was fresh FMT group, while the control group included antibiotic therapy or placebo or frozen FMT or capsule. The primary and secondary outcomes were the clinical remission of diarrhea without relapse after 8-17 weeks and the occurrence of severe adverse events, respectively. Subgroup analysis analyzed the effect of single and multiple fecal infusions. Two authors independently completed the information extraction and assessed risk of bias and overall quality of the evidence.
RESULTS: 8 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, involving 537 patients (273 in the fresh FMT group and 264 in the control group). The recurrence rate of clinical diarrhea in the fresh FMT group was 11.0% (30/273), which was significantly lower than the control group (24.6%, 65/264; P < 0.05); the pooled relative risk (RR) was 0.38 (95%CI:0.16-0.87; I2 = 67%; P = 0.02) in the fresh FMT group, and the clinical heterogeneity was significant and random effects model was used; However, there was no significant difference neither for the effect of antibiotic treatment/frozen feces transplanted by enema (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.64-1.80; I2 = 0%; P = 0.79) or capsule/frozen feces transplanted by colonoscopy (RR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.05-3.94; I2 = 43%; P = 0.45) compared with fresh FMT. The subgroup analysis showed that FMT by multiple infusions could effectively and significantly (RR = 0.24; 95%CI:0.10-0.58; I2 = 0%; P = 0.001) improve the clinical diarrhea remission rate. Most mild to moderate adverse events caused by FMT were self-limited and could be quickly alleviated; no severe adverse events happened because of FMT.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the use of fresh feces for bacterial transplantation was the best efficiency for RCDI compared to antibiotic therapy or placebo. The fecal transmission method by enema was not ideal, but capsules or frozen feces transported by colonoscopy could be an alternative treatment compared to fresh FMT. For patients with severe RCDI, multiple fecal transplants can effectively improve their diarrhea remission rate. The focus of future research should be on how to standardize the production of capsules or frozen feces to better guide the clinical management of RCDI patients by FMT.

References

  1. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt A):139-45 [PMID: 26343745]
  2. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr;108(4):500-8 [PMID: 23511459]
  3. Cell Metab. 2016 Jul 12;24(1):63-74 [PMID: 27411009]
  4. Ann Pharm Fr. 2015 Jan;73(1):13-21 [PMID: 25577013]
  5. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009 Jul;7(7):526-36 [PMID: 19528959]
  6. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 May;31(5):431-55 [PMID: 20307191]
  7. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Jul 25;61(8): [PMID: 28584140]
  8. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep;48(8):693-702 [PMID: 24440934]
  9. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Apr;45(7):899-908 [PMID: 28220514]
  10. Lancet. 2017 Mar 25;389(10075):1218-1228 [PMID: 28214091]
  11. Gastroenterology. 2015 Jul;149(1):110-118.e4 [PMID: 25836986]
  12. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 30;359(18):1932-40 [PMID: 18971494]
  13. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Feb;43(4):445-57 [PMID: 26662643]
  14. JAMA. 2017 Nov 28;318(20):1985-1993 [PMID: 29183074]
  15. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;58(11):1515-22 [PMID: 24762631]
  16. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Mar;129(3):507-509 [PMID: 28178052]
  17. mBio. 2016 Dec 20;7(6): [PMID: 27999162]
  18. PLoS One. 2017 Feb 3;12(2):e0171308 [PMID: 28158276]
  19. BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 21;7(8):e016698 [PMID: 28827258]
  20. PLoS One. 2016 Aug 16;11(8):e0161174 [PMID: 27529553]
  21. mBio. 2014 Jun 17;5(3):e00893-14 [PMID: 24939885]
  22. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012 Jul;40(1):1-8 [PMID: 22398198]
  23. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2016 Jul 01;16(17):1-69 [PMID: 27516814]
  24. BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6 [PMID: 18436948]
  25. Internist (Berl). 2014 Apr;55(4):455-9 [PMID: 24647687]
  26. JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396 [PMID: 29362800]
  27. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Sep 15;63(6):730-734 [PMID: 27365387]
  28. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Nov 1;165(9):609-616 [PMID: 27547925]
  29. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb;51(2):145-150 [PMID: 26974758]
  30. Digestion. 2013;88(4):243-51 [PMID: 24335204]
  31. Clin Lab Med. 2014 Dec;34(4):787-98 [PMID: 25439277]
  32. JAMA. 2016 Jan 12;315(2):142-9 [PMID: 26757463]
  33. PLoS One. 2016 Jul 08;11(7):e0158897 [PMID: 27391011]
  34. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Dec;31(12):1927-1932 [PMID: 27043242]
  35. Med J Aust. 2017 Aug 21;207(4):166-172 [PMID: 28814204]
  36. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016 Dec;86(4):470-471 [PMID: 27712927]
  37. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Sep;46(5):479-493 [PMID: 28707337]
  38. BMC Vet Res. 2017 May 31;13(1):150 [PMID: 28569200]
  39. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Dec 9-23;173(22):2039-46 [PMID: 23999949]
  40. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 31;368(5):407-15 [PMID: 23323867]
  41. J Infect. 2017 Jun;74 Suppl 1:S120-S127 [PMID: 28646951]
  42. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2014 Feb 15;306(4):G310-9 [PMID: 24284963]
  43. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2017 Apr 25;69(4):226-231 [PMID: 28449424]
  44. Protein Cell. 2018 May;9(5):462-473 [PMID: 29691757]
  45. Med Princ Pract. 2017;26(2):182-184 [PMID: 27978522]
  46. Postepy Hig Med Dosw (Online). 2017 Mar 27;71(0):220-226 [PMID: 28345530]
  47. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2017 Mar;46(1):171-185 [PMID: 28164849]
  48. Isr Med Assoc J. 2016 Oct;18(10):594-599 [PMID: 28471618]
  49. PLoS One. 2017 Dec 20;12(12):e0189768 [PMID: 29261736]
  50. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016 Dec;27(8):872-874 [PMID: 27496525]
  51. World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Mar 21;22(11):3078-104 [PMID: 27003987]
  52. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928 [PMID: 22008217]
  53. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 May;41(9):835-43 [PMID: 25728808]
  54. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jul;48(2):152-159 [PMID: 29851107]
  55. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Aug;88(4):322-329 [PMID: 28602517]
  56. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 1;64(3):265-271 [PMID: 28011612]
  57. Clin Infect Dis. 1993 Jun;16 Suppl 4:S214-8 [PMID: 8324122]

MeSH Term

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Clostridioides difficile
Clostridium Infections
Diarrhea
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Feces
Humans
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Recurrence
Treatment Outcome

Chemicals

Anti-Bacterial Agents

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0FMT=fresh0groupclinicalfecalRCDIPfecesdiarrheaRRI2transplantationtreatmentrandomizedcontrolledcontrolantibioticfrozenremissionsevereadverseeventsmultiplepatientsrate0%comparedmicrobiotarecurrentand/orrelapseCdifficiletrialsRCTsmanagementfocusguideCochraneretrievaltherapyplaceboanalysiseffectinfusionsrisksignificantly2495%CI:0significanttransplantedenema95%CI:colonoscopyeffectivelyimprovecapsulesOBJECTIVES:Althoughsystematicevaluationconfirmedefficacyrefractoryinfectionlackssupportwell-designedlatestguidelinesoptimizepaperin-depthstudyinfusiontimespracticeMETHODS:reviewedstudiesPubMedMedlineEmbaselibraryCentralwrittenEnglishperiodestablishmentdatabasesSeptember20th2018objectspublishedtreatedinterventionincludedcapsuleprimarysecondaryoutcomeswithout8-17weeksoccurrencerespectivelySubgroupanalyzedsingleTwoauthorsindependentlycompletedinformationextractionassessedbiasoverallqualityevidenceRESULTS:8metinclusioncriteriainvolving537273264recurrence1130/273lower6%65/264<05pooledrelative3816-08767%02heterogeneityrandomeffectsmodelusedHoweverdifferenceneithertreatment/frozen10764-18079capsule/frozen4205-39443%45subgroupshowed10-058001mildmoderatecausedself-limitedquicklyalleviatedhappenedCONCLUSIONS:OverallusebacterialbestefficiencytransmissionmethodidealtransportedalternativetransplantscanfutureresearchstandardizeproductionbetterFecalinfection:updatedtrialmeta-analysis

Similar Articles

Cited By