OBJECTIVES: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has emerged as a useful approach for treating Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have recently evaluated its effectiveness, but systematic reviews have focused on evidence from case series. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of FMT for treating CDAD. STUDY DESIGN: We included RCTs that primarily recruited adults with CDAD and compared the effectiveness of FMT with that of placebo, antibiotic therapy, or autologous stool transplantation, or compared different preparations or modes of delivery of FMT. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to calculate a relative risk (RR) of CDAD persisting after therapy, and the number needed to treat (NNT). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to 6 February 2017. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified ten RCTs that evaluated the treatment of a total of 657 patients with CDAD. Five RCTs compared FMT with placebo (including autologous FMT) or vancomycin treatment (total of 284 patients); FMT was statistically significantly more effective (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74; NNT, 3; 95% CI, 2-7). Heterogeneity across studies was significant (I<sup>2</sup> = 61%); this heterogeneity was attributable to the mode of delivery of FMT, and to the therapy being more successful in European than in North American trials. The other five RCTs evaluated different approaches to FMT therapy. Frozen FMT preparations were as efficacious as fresh material in one RCT, but the numbers of patients in the remaining RCTs were too small to allow definitive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence from RCT trials indicates that FMT is more effective in patients with CDAD than vancomycin or placebo. Further investigations are needed to determine the best route of administration and FMT preparation.
OBJECTIVES: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has emerged as a useful approach for treating Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have recently evaluated its effectiveness, but systematic reviews have focused on evidence from case series. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of FMT for treating CDAD. STUDY DESIGN: We included RCTs that primarily recruited adults with CDAD and compared the effectiveness of FMT with that of placebo, antibiotic therapy, or autologous stool transplantation, or compared different preparations or modes of delivery of FMT. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to calculate a relative risk (RR) of CDAD persisting after therapy, and the number needed to treat (NNT). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to 6 February 2017. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified ten RCTs that evaluated the treatment of a total of 657 patients with CDAD. Five RCTs compared FMT with placebo (including autologous FMT) or vancomycin treatment (total of 284 patients); FMT was statistically significantly more effective (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74; NNT, 3; 95% CI, 2-7). Heterogeneity across studies was significant (I<sup>2</sup> = 61%); this heterogeneity was attributable to the mode of delivery of FMT, and to the therapy being more successful in European than in North American trials. The other five RCTs evaluated different approaches to FMT therapy. Frozen FMT preparations were as efficacious as fresh material in one RCT, but the numbers of patients in the remaining RCTs were too small to allow definitive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence from RCT trials indicates that FMT is more effective in patients with CDAD than vancomycin or placebo. Further investigations are needed to determine the best route of administration and FMT preparation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clostridium difficile; Diarrhoea; Faecal microbiota transplantation; Meta-analysis; Randomised controlled trial as topic; Research design; Systematic review; Treatment outcome
Authors: Jessica R Allegretti; Monika Fischer; Sashidhar V Sagi; Matthew E Bohm; Hala M Fadda; Sejal R Ranmal; Shrish Budree; Abdul W Basit; Dean L Glettig; Eva L de la Serna; Amanda Gentile; Ylaine Gerardin; Sonia Timberlake; Rotem Sadovsky; Mark Smith; Zain Kassam Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Theodore Rokkas; Javier P Gisbert; Antonio Gasbarrini; Georgina L Hold; Herbert Tilg; Peter Malfertheiner; Francis Megraud; Colm O'Morain Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Chiazotam Ekekezie; Bryce K Perler; Anna Wexler; Catherine Duff; Christian John Lillis; Colleen R Kelly Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Colleen R Kelly; Eugene F Yen; Ari M Grinspan; Stacy A Kahn; Ashish Atreja; James D Lewis; Thomas A Moore; David T Rubin; Alison M Kim; Sonya Serra; Yanina Nersesova; Lydia Fredell; Dea Hunsicker; Daniel McDonald; Rob Knight; Jessica R Allegretti; Joel Pekow; Imad Absah; Ronald Hsu; Jennifer Vincent; Sahil Khanna; Lyn Tangen; Carl V Crawford; Mark C Mattar; Lea Ann Chen; Monika Fischer; Razvan I Arsenescu; Paul Feuerstadt; Jonathan Goldstein; David Kerman; Adam C Ehrlich; Gary D Wu; Loren Laine Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 22.682