| Literature DB >> 34238227 |
Jessica W Crothers1,2, Nathaniel D Chu3,4, Le Thanh Tu Nguyen3,4, Magen Phillips5, Cheryl Collins5, Karen Fortner5, Roxana Del Rio-Guerra6, Brigitte Lavoie7, Peter Callas8, Mario Velez5, Aaron Cohn5, Ryan J Elliott9, Wing Fei Wong9, Elaine Vo10, Rebecca Wilcox11,12, Mark Smith10, Zain Kassam10, Ralph Budd5,12, Eric J Alm3,4, Gary M Mawe7, Peter L Moses12,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a promising new strategy in the treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, but long-term delivery systems are lacking. This randomized study was designed as a safety and feasibility study of long-term FMT in subjects with mild to moderate UC using frozen, encapsulated oral FMT (cFMT).Entities:
Keywords: FMT; Fecal microbiota transplantation; IBD; Inflammatory bowel disease; MAIT cells; Microbiome; Microbiota; UC; Ulcerative colitis
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34238227 PMCID: PMC8268596 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-01856-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 2.847
Fig. 1CONSORT diagram showing the flow of subjects through the study. Following randomization, but prior to administration of designated intervention, 1 subject in the treatment group and 2 subjects in the placebo group had no evidence of disease upon endoscopic evaluation and were excluded from the remainder of the study
Baseline subject demographics
| Variable | Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Active | Placebo | ||
| N | 6 | 6 | |
| Age | Mean (SD) | 41 (15) | 52 (15) |
| Sex | #(%) Male | 4 (67%) | 3 (50%) |
| Duration UC | Mean (SD) yrs | 8.9 (9.1) | 9.8 (10.6) |
| BMI* | Mean (SD) | 24 (3) | 29 (4) |
| Treatment with biologic | #(%) yes | 2 (33%) | 1 (17%) |
| Fecal calprotectin | Mean (SD) | 573 (659) | 408 (277) |
| Total Mayo score | Mean (SD) | 6.3 (2.0) | 6.7 (1.2) |
| Mayo symptom subscore | Mean (SD) | 4.8 (1.5) | 4.3 (1.0) |
| Mayo endoscopic subscore | Mean (SD) | 1.5 (0.8) | 2.3 (0.5) |
| Endoscopic UCEIS^ score | Mean (SD) | 7.0 (1.8) | 8.5 (1.8) |
| Histologic Severity Score** | Mean (SD) | 3.4 (1.2) | 4.3 (2.0) |
| IBDQ^^ total score | Mean (SD) | 142.8 (16.8) | 120.2 (25.1) |
| IBDQ bowel system subscore | Mean (SD) | 4.2 (0.7) | 4.3 (0.9) |
Baseline clinical characteristics of subjects randomized to both the active FMT and placebo study arms
*Body Mass Index
**Geboes Score
^Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity
^^Inflammatory Bowel Questionnaire
Adverse events by treatment assignment
| Adverse events | FMT (n = 6) | Placebo (n = 6) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AE possibly or probably related to FMT or sham FMT, n (%) | 2/6 (33) | 2/6 (33) | 1.0 |
Adverse events by treatment group that were possibly or probably related to FMT
Comparisons were made by Fisher’s exact test
Fig. 2Longitudenal markers of clinical disease and inflammation. Each line represents a single subject over time. Modified Mayo Score includes subject-reported rectal bleeding, stool frequency, and physician global assessment. IBDQ, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionairre; CRP, serum C-Reactive Protein (mg/L); Calprotectin (mcg/g) and Lactoferrin (positive/negative) were measured in stool
Changes in clinical, endoscopic, and histologic evidence of disease by subject
| Study code | Age | Sex | Extent of disease | Duration of disease (yrs) | Maintenance therapy | BMI | Change in total Mayo score | Change in endoscopic UCEIS score | Change in endoscopic Mayo score | Change in histologic score | Change in fecal calprotectin (mcg/g) | Change in total IBDQ score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMT | E | 46 | F | Pan-colitis | 5.5 | Mesalamine | 20.9 | − 7 | − 2 | 0 | − 3 | − 285 | 92 |
| W | 35 | M | Pan-colitis | 7.5 | Vedolizumab | 27.8 | − 3 | − 1 | 0 | − 1.3 | − 189 | 47 | |
| F | 20 | M | Pan-colitis | 3.8 | Mesalamine | 25 | − 1 | − 1 | 0 | − 2 | − 164 | 16 | |
| A | 65 | F | L-sided | 26.2 | Mesalamine | 20.9 | 3 | 0 | 1 | − 1.2 | ? = > 375 | 8 | |
| N | 44 | M | Pan-colitis | 0.2 | Sulfasalazine | 25.6 | 1 | − 3 | 0 | 0.9 | > 1000 = > > 1000 | 59 | |
| P | 38 | M | Pan-colitis | 10.2 | Mercaptopurine | 25.2 | − 3 | 2 | − 1 | 0 | − 42 | 32 | |
| Placebo | B | 68 | M | Pan-colitis | 4.4 | Mesalamine | 28.8 | − 2 | − 1 | 0 | 0.8 | − 132 | 21 |
| G | 58 | M | L-sided | 27.8 | Mesalamine | 26.9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | − 2 | 4 | 32 | |
| Y | 65 | M | L-sided | 0.4 | Mesalamine | 36.15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 74 | 4 | |
| V | 47 | F | Pan-colitis | 8.8 | Adalimumab | 29.2 | − 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 35 | |
| T | 31 | F | Pan-colitis | 0.8 | Mesalamine | 29.1 | 0 | − 1 | 0 | 0 | − 137 | 32 | |
| I | 40 | F | Pan-colitis | 16.3 | Mesalamine | 25 | Dropped out due to worsening disease activity | ||||||
IBDQ, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire; L-Sides, left-sided disease; BMI, Body Mass Index; yrs, years; wks, weeks
^Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity
*Geboes Score
Changes in clinical, endoscopic, and histologic evidence of disease by group
| Variable | Group | Screen or procedure | 12 week | [12 wk]–[Bl] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRP | Active | #(%) > 0 | 2 (33%) | 4 (67%) | 2 (33%) | 0.16 |
| Placebo | #(%) > 0 | 2 (40%) | 3 (60%) | 1 (20%) | 0.32 | |
| Active–Placebo | 1.00 | |||||
| Fecal calprotectin | Active | Mean (SD) | 573 (659) | 298 (428) | − 275 (246) | 0.07 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 413 (309) | 369 (309) | − 44 (90) | 0.34 | |
| Active–Placebo | − 231 (185) | 0.08 | ||||
| Fecal lactoferrin | Active | #(%) positive | 7 (100%) | 4 (67%) | 0 (0%) | – |
| Placebo | #(%) positive | 6 (75%) | 5 (100%) | 0 (0%) | – | |
| Active–Placebo | – | |||||
| Endoscopic UCEIS score | Active | Mean (SD) | 7.0 (1.8) | 6.2 (2.3) | − 0.8 (1.7) | 0.29 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 8.0 (1.4) | 7.6 (1.8) | − 0.4 (0.5) | 0.18 | |
| Active–Placebo | − 0.4 (1.3) | 0.60 | ||||
| Endoscopic Mayo score | Active | Mean (SD) | 1.5 (0.8) | 1.5 (0.5) | 0 (0.6) | 1.00 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 2.2 (0.4) | 2.2 (0.4) | 0 (0) | – | |
| Active–Placebo | 0 (0.5) | 1.00 | ||||
| Mayo symptom score | Active | Mean (SD) | 5.0 (1.5) | 3.5 (3.2) | − 1.5 (3.4) | 0.33 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 4.2 (1.1) | 4.0 (1.4) | − 0.2 (1.1) | 0.70 | |
| Active–Placebo | − 1.3 (2.6) | 0.44 | ||||
| Histology (Geboes Score) | Active | Mean (SD) | 3.4 (1.2) | 2.3 (2.2) | − 1.1 (1.4) | 0.11 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 4.0 (2.1) | 3.8 (2.0) | − 0.2 (1.0) | 0.63 | |
| Active–Placebo | − 0.9 (1.2) | 0.28 | ||||
| IBDQ bowel system | Active | Mean (SD) | 4.2 (0.7) | 5.2 (1.4) | 1.0 (1.6) | 0.19 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 4.1 (0.8) | 4.8 (1.2) | 0.6 (0.7) | 0.11 | |
| Active–Placebo | 0.3 (1.3) | 0.67 | ||||
| IBDQ emotional health | Active | Mean (SD) | 4.4 (0.9) | 5.3 (0.8) | 0.9 (1.6) | 0.23 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 4.9 (1.1) | 5.3 (1.0) | 0.4 (0.4) | 0.09 | |
| Active–Placebo | 0.5 (1.2) | 0.53 | ||||
| IBDQ systemic systems | Active | Mean (SD) | 4.4 (1.2) | 4.9 (1.0) | 0.5 (2.0) | 0.53 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 4.2 (1.1) | 4.6 (0.9) | 0.5 (0.9) | 0.31 | |
| Active–Placebo | 0.0 (1.6) | 0.96 | ||||
| IBDQ social function | Active | Mean (SD) | 5.0 (0.5) | 5.7 (1.6) | 0.6 (1.3) | 0.27 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 5.1 (1.2) | 5.9 (1.0) | 0.8 (0.5) | 0.02 | |
| Active–Placebo | − 0.2 (1.0) | 0.79 | ||||
| IBDQ total score | Active | Mean (SD) | 142.8 (16.8) | 169.0 (34.0) | 26.2 (48.4) | 0.24 |
| Placebo | Mean (SD) | 146.4 (26.1) | 163.4 (27.2) | 17.0 (14.4) | 0.06 | |
| Active–Placebo | 9.2 (37.3) | 0.69 | ||||
Calprotectin (mcg/g) and Lactoferrin (pos/neg) were measured in stool
CRP, serum C-reactive Protein (mg/L); Endoscopic UCEIS, Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic index of Severy; Mayo symptom score includes subject-reported rectal bleeding, stool frequency, and physician global assessment, IBDQ, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionairre
*For within-group comparisons, paired t tests were used for continuous variables and McNemar’s chi square test was used for categorical variables. Between-group comparisons were conducted using two-sample t tests for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables
Fig. 3Histologic, endoscopic and clinical parameters of a representative FMT responder (E), non-responder (N), and placebo subject (Y) before and after treatment. Hematoxylin–eosin staining of intestinal mucosa highlight acute and chronic changes and are accompanied by Geboes score (0, structural change only; 1, chronic inflammation; 2, lamina propria neutrophils; 3, neutrophils in epithelium; 4, crypt destruction; and 5, erosions or ulcers), 2x, insets at 20x, scale bar, 50 µm; UCEIS, Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity; fecal calprotectin (mcg/g), and IBDQ, inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (scale ranging from 32 (worst) to 224 (best))
Fig. 4Longitudinal T cell profiling of subjects by flow cytometry and intracellular cytokine staining. a Representative gating scheme showing MAIT cell identification and their cytokine production; b Frequency of total lymphocytes within peripheral blood mononuclear cell isolations and their CD4:CD8 T cell ratios. c, d Comparison of T regulatory and MAIT cell frequencies between UC patients and healthy controls (HC) with longitudinal frequencies and INFγ+, IL-17A+, and IL-10+ proportions displayed by treatment group and clinical response (black, placebo; red, non-responser; green, responser). Each line is an individual subject. Controls are displayed with placebo results (C). Between-group comparisons were conducted using two-sample t tests and p values < 0.05 considered significant
Fig. 5Relative abundance of fecal microbiota in subjects with ulcerative colitis (UC) before and after treatment at the phylum and genus levels. Different colors represent different bacterial species, each bar represents one patient sample. a, b. most abundant taxa by phylum and genus level, respectively. Arrow denotes day of FMT (*or placebo); c 23 most abundant taxa of donors and subject at species level, arranged by subject, treatment group, and day
Fig. 6Alpha diversity measured by Shannon index. a alpha diversity in placebo subjects grouped by week; b alpha diversity in FMT subjects grouped by week. Comparisons between groups made by Student’s t-test and p values of < 0.05 were considered significant
Fig. 7Beta diversity measured by Jenson-Shannon diversity. a Beta diversity comparing subjects to their own baseline overtime; b Beta diversity comparing subjects to donors. Aggregate data is presented by treatment and clinical response (black, placebo; red, non-responder; green, responder). Comparisons between groups made by Student’s t-test and p values of < 0.05 were considered significant; c Principle component analysis of donors and study subjects. Each dot represents one sample, and subjects are colored by the treatment group (yellow shades represent placebo, blue and red represent primary donor)