scholarly journals Systematic review with meta-analysis: encapsulated faecal microbiota transplantation – evidence for clinical efficacy

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482110410
Author(s):  
Frederik Cold ◽  
Simon Mark Dahl Baunwall ◽  
Jens Frederik Dahlerup ◽  
Andreas Munk Petersen ◽  
Christian Lodberg Hvas ◽  
...  

Background: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) and is being applied experimentally in other diseases. Encapsulated administration may be equivalent in efficacy to delivery through other routes. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken of studies using encapsulated FMT up to 26 October 2020. Data on indication, clinical outcomes, safety, treatment protocol and capsule preparation were collected and reported. Pooled rates of clinical efficacy in rCDI were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. The impact of single variables on clinical efficacy was evaluated using univariate meta-regression. Results: A total of 35 studies reporting the treatment of 960 patients with encapsulated FMT for eight different indications met the inclusion criteria. Most studies ( n = 18, 51%) and patients ( n = 755, 79%) were from studies on rCDI. Cure rates after single and multiple courses of treatments with encapsulated FMT in rCDI were 85% (95% CI: 82%-88%) and 93% (95% CI: 88%-96%) respectively. The treatment outcome was not significantly affected by dose, number of delivered capsules, anaerobic/aerobic processing, single/multi-donor treatment, lyophilisation, or any other single factor in the production or delivery of encapsulated FMT. Promising but non-comparable results from the treatment of ulcerative colitis and multidrug-resistant organisms were reported. Conclusions: Encapsulated FMT is an effective and safe treatment of rCDI, with cure rates comparable to FMT delivered through other routes. The treatment is effective despite variations in donor screening, preparation and treatment protocol. For other indications, the role of FMT capsules is still not sufficiently examined, although some studies show promising results. Plain Language Summary Transfer of faecal material through capsules in the treatment of various diseases. Evidence for clinical efficacy The bacteria and other microorganisms of the gut is different in patient with various diseases in comparison with healthy subjects. Therefore, ways to change the microorganisms of the gut in a beneficial direction has been the subject of various research projects within recent years. Faecal microbiota transplantation often referred as FMT is a method of transferring microorganisms from healthy donors to patients with various diseases and is seen as one way to change the microbial community of the gut in a beneficial direction. Faecal microbiota transplantation can be performed in different ways such as through endoscopy, enemas or capsules. The transfer through capsules is preferred by the patients and has advantages since it can be administered long-term and can be delivered to the patients in their home. In this paper, we evaluated all accessible research reporting treatment with encapsulated faecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of various diseases. We report the following major findings: -Treatment with capsules is safe when guidelines for screening donors and testing faecal material is followed. -The treatment is highly effective in the treatment of recurrent C. difficile infection, a disease with high mortality often caused by repeated antibiotic treatments. The treatment was effective in 596 of 723 patients following one course of capsule treatment. -Faecal microbiota transplantation delivered through capsules is as effective as treatment delivered through other routes in the treatment of C. difficile infection. -The treatment is effective in the treatment of C. difficile infection across studies and countries, despite great differences in the ways the capsules were prepared and delivered. -Increasing the amount of faecal material used in the production did not affect the efficacy of the treatment. -There are promising results in the treatment of other diseases such as liver disease, inflammatory bowel disease and the treatment of multi-drug resistant bacteria.

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e100055
Author(s):  
Elda Righi ◽  
Luigia Scudeller ◽  
Margherita Chiamenti ◽  
Kamilia Abdelraouf ◽  
Thomas Lodise ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThere is poor evidence to determine the superiority of combination regimens versus monotherapy against infections due to carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative bacteria. In vivo models can simulate the pathophysiology of infections in humans and assess antibiotic efficacy. We aim to investigate in vivo effects of antibiotic combination on mortality and disease burden for infections due to CR Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae and provide an unbiased overview of existing knowledge. The results of the study can help prioritising future research on the most promising therapies against CR bacteria.Methods and analysisThis protocol was formulated using the Systematic Review Protocol for Animal Intervention Studies (SYRCLE) Checklist. Publications will be collected from PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science. Quality checklists adapted by Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies and SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool will be used. If the meta-analysis seems feasible, the ES and the 95% CI will be analysed. The heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by I2 test. Subgroup meta-analysis will be performed when possible to assess the impact of the studies on efficacy of the treatments. Funnel plotting will be used to evaluate the risk of publication bias.DisseminationThis systematic review and meta-analysis is part of a wider research collaboration project, the COmbination tHErapy to treat sepsis due to carbapenem-Resistant bacteria in adult and paediatric population: EvideNCE and common practice (COHERENCE) study that includes also the analyses of in vitro and human studies. Data will be presented at international conferences and the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019128104(available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019128104).


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nanyang Liu ◽  
Tingting Zhang ◽  
Jiahui Sun ◽  
Jianhua Fu ◽  
Hao Li

INTRODUCTION: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) therapeutic strategy has been associated with positive outcomes in multiple diseases. We conducted an umbrella review of the meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence and assess its credibility. METHODS: We evaluated a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of FMT for any condition. We used the random-effects model to obtain estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals, heterogeneity estimates, and small-study effects. We used AMSTAR 2 to assess methodological quality and GRADE tools to grade the evidence. RESULTS: Seven meta-analyses with a total of 33 outcomes were included in the current umbrella review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMT. Overall, there is a moderate certainty of evidence supporting the associations of the use of FMT with better clinical remission in patients with Clostridium difficile infection (RR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.37-2.22) and inflammatory bowel disease (RR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.12-2.56). A very low certainty evidence supports the use of FMT to treat antibiotic-resistant bacteria (RR = 5.67; 95% CI: 2.20-14.63) and functional constipation (RR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.14-1.60) but does not support irritable bowel syndrome (RR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.65-1.77). DISCUSSION: The umbrella review of the current meta-analysis demonstrates that FMT intervention is associated with positive outcomes for several diseases. However, the credibility of the evidence is not high. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials should be carried out to improve the strength and credibility of the evidence base.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29-30 ◽  
pp. 100642
Author(s):  
Simon Mark Dahl Baunwall ◽  
Mads Ming Lee ◽  
Marcel Kjærsgaard Eriksen ◽  
Benjamin H. Mullish ◽  
Julian R. Marchesi ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document