Cargando…

Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid

BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has become an important treatment method in recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections and is under investigation as a treatment for several other diseases. FMT’s mechanism of action is assumed to be through alterations of the colon microbiota. F...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skjevling, Linn Kallbekken, Hanssen, Hege Marie, Valle, Per Christian, Goll, Rasmus, Juul, Frederik Emil, Arlov, Øystein, Johnsen, Peter Holger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594821/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37872499
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02979-x
_version_ 1785124732460335104
author Skjevling, Linn Kallbekken
Hanssen, Hege Marie
Valle, Per Christian
Goll, Rasmus
Juul, Frederik Emil
Arlov, Øystein
Johnsen, Peter Holger
author_facet Skjevling, Linn Kallbekken
Hanssen, Hege Marie
Valle, Per Christian
Goll, Rasmus
Juul, Frederik Emil
Arlov, Øystein
Johnsen, Peter Holger
author_sort Skjevling, Linn Kallbekken
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has become an important treatment method in recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections and is under investigation as a treatment for several other diseases. FMT’s mechanism of action is assumed to be through alterations of the colon microbiota. FMT can be delivered by several methods, but few studies have directly compared how FMT is distributed in the colon by different methods. Specifically, the proximal distribution of FMT delivered by enema is unknown. METHODS: In eight participants, we administered contrast fluid (CF) with viscosity similar to an FMT in a crossover study design. First, CF was administered by colonoscopy, followed by an abdominal X-ray to visualize the CF distribution. Next, after four to eight weeks, participants were given CF, but as an enema, followed by a positioning procedure. X-rays were obtained before (enema ÷) and after (enema +) the positioning procedure. CONCLUSION: Proportion of participants with CF in cecum were 100% after colonoscopy, 50% after enema + and 38% after enema ÷. In the transverse colon, proportions were 100% (colonoscopy), 88% (enema +) and 63% (enema ÷). There were no adverse events. INTERPRETATION: This study shows proof of concept for the distribution of FMT to proximal colon when delivered by enema. A positioning procedure after the enema slightly improves the proximal distribution. However, colonoscopy is the only method that ensures delivery to the cecum. Studies are needed to see if FMT colon distribution correlates with treatment effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05121285) (16/11/2021). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-023-02979-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10594821
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105948212023-10-25 Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid Skjevling, Linn Kallbekken Hanssen, Hege Marie Valle, Per Christian Goll, Rasmus Juul, Frederik Emil Arlov, Øystein Johnsen, Peter Holger BMC Gastroenterol Research BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has become an important treatment method in recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections and is under investigation as a treatment for several other diseases. FMT’s mechanism of action is assumed to be through alterations of the colon microbiota. FMT can be delivered by several methods, but few studies have directly compared how FMT is distributed in the colon by different methods. Specifically, the proximal distribution of FMT delivered by enema is unknown. METHODS: In eight participants, we administered contrast fluid (CF) with viscosity similar to an FMT in a crossover study design. First, CF was administered by colonoscopy, followed by an abdominal X-ray to visualize the CF distribution. Next, after four to eight weeks, participants were given CF, but as an enema, followed by a positioning procedure. X-rays were obtained before (enema ÷) and after (enema +) the positioning procedure. CONCLUSION: Proportion of participants with CF in cecum were 100% after colonoscopy, 50% after enema + and 38% after enema ÷. In the transverse colon, proportions were 100% (colonoscopy), 88% (enema +) and 63% (enema ÷). There were no adverse events. INTERPRETATION: This study shows proof of concept for the distribution of FMT to proximal colon when delivered by enema. A positioning procedure after the enema slightly improves the proximal distribution. However, colonoscopy is the only method that ensures delivery to the cecum. Studies are needed to see if FMT colon distribution correlates with treatment effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05121285) (16/11/2021). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-023-02979-x. BioMed Central 2023-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10594821/ /pubmed/37872499 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02979-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Skjevling, Linn Kallbekken
Hanssen, Hege Marie
Valle, Per Christian
Goll, Rasmus
Juul, Frederik Emil
Arlov, Øystein
Johnsen, Peter Holger
Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid
title Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid
title_full Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid
title_fullStr Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid
title_full_unstemmed Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid
title_short Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid
title_sort colonic distribution of fmt by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy – proof of concept study using contrast fluid
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594821/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37872499
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02979-x
work_keys_str_mv AT skjevlinglinnkallbekken colonicdistributionoffmtbydifferentenemaprocedurescomparedtocolonoscopyproofofconceptstudyusingcontrastfluid
AT hanssenhegemarie colonicdistributionoffmtbydifferentenemaprocedurescomparedtocolonoscopyproofofconceptstudyusingcontrastfluid
AT valleperchristian colonicdistributionoffmtbydifferentenemaprocedurescomparedtocolonoscopyproofofconceptstudyusingcontrastfluid
AT gollrasmus colonicdistributionoffmtbydifferentenemaprocedurescomparedtocolonoscopyproofofconceptstudyusingcontrastfluid
AT juulfrederikemil colonicdistributionoffmtbydifferentenemaprocedurescomparedtocolonoscopyproofofconceptstudyusingcontrastfluid
AT arlovøystein colonicdistributionoffmtbydifferentenemaprocedurescomparedtocolonoscopyproofofconceptstudyusingcontrastfluid
AT johnsenpeterholger colonicdistributionoffmtbydifferentenemaprocedurescomparedtocolonoscopyproofofconceptstudyusingcontrastfluid