Cargando…

Assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 for active ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation is an effective treatment for many gastrointestinal diseases, such as Clostridium difficile infection and inflammatory bowel disease, especially ulcerative colitis. Changes in colonic microflora may play an important role in the pathogenesis of ulcerative...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dang, Xiaofei, Xu, Mingjie, Liu, Duanrui, Zhou, Dajie, Yang, Weihua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32182248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228846
_version_ 1783507506429952000
author Dang, Xiaofei
Xu, Mingjie
Liu, Duanrui
Zhou, Dajie
Yang, Weihua
author_facet Dang, Xiaofei
Xu, Mingjie
Liu, Duanrui
Zhou, Dajie
Yang, Weihua
author_sort Dang, Xiaofei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation is an effective treatment for many gastrointestinal diseases, such as Clostridium difficile infection and inflammatory bowel disease, especially ulcerative colitis. Changes in colonic microflora may play an important role in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis, and improvements in the intestinal microflora may relieve the disease. Fecal bacterial transplants and oral probiotics are becoming important ways to relieve active ulcerative colitis. PURPOSE: This systematic review with meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of basic treatment combined with fecal microbiota transplantation or mixed probiotics therapy in relieving mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries (updated September 2019) were searched to identify randomized, placebo-controlled, or head-to-head trials assessing fecal microbiota transplantation or probiotic VSL#3 as induction therapy in active ulcerative colitis. We analyze data using the R program to obtain evidence of direct comparison and to generate intermediate variables for indirect treatment comparisons. RESULTS: Seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were used as the sources of the induction data. All treatments were superior to placebo. In terms of clinical remission and clinical response to active ulcerative colitis, direct comparisons showed fecal microbiota transplantation (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 1.93–6.25) (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.18–5.21) and mixed probiotics VSL#3 (OR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.49–3.88) (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.53–6.25) to have better effects than the placebo. Indirect comparison showed fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 did not reach statistical significance either in clinical remission (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70–2.06) or clinical response (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.62–1.45). In terms of safety, fecal microbiota transplantation (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.51–2.61) and VSL #3 (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.33–2.49) showed no statistically significant increase in adverse events compared with the control group. In terms of serious adverse events, there was no statistical difference between the fecal microbiota transplantation group and the control group (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.46–3.57). The probiotics VSL#3 seems more safer than fecal microbiota transplantation, because serious adverse events were not reported in the VSL#3 articles. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal microbiota transplantation or mixed probiotics VSL#3 achieved good results in clinical remission and clinical response in active ulcerative colitis, and there was no increased risk of adverse reactions. There was no statistical difference between the therapeutic effect of fecal microbiota transplantation and that of mixed probiotics VSL#3. However, the use of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotics still has many unresolved problems in clinical applications, and more randomized controlled trials are required to confirm its efficacy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7077802
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70778022020-03-23 Assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 for active ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Dang, Xiaofei Xu, Mingjie Liu, Duanrui Zhou, Dajie Yang, Weihua PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation is an effective treatment for many gastrointestinal diseases, such as Clostridium difficile infection and inflammatory bowel disease, especially ulcerative colitis. Changes in colonic microflora may play an important role in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis, and improvements in the intestinal microflora may relieve the disease. Fecal bacterial transplants and oral probiotics are becoming important ways to relieve active ulcerative colitis. PURPOSE: This systematic review with meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of basic treatment combined with fecal microbiota transplantation or mixed probiotics therapy in relieving mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries (updated September 2019) were searched to identify randomized, placebo-controlled, or head-to-head trials assessing fecal microbiota transplantation or probiotic VSL#3 as induction therapy in active ulcerative colitis. We analyze data using the R program to obtain evidence of direct comparison and to generate intermediate variables for indirect treatment comparisons. RESULTS: Seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were used as the sources of the induction data. All treatments were superior to placebo. In terms of clinical remission and clinical response to active ulcerative colitis, direct comparisons showed fecal microbiota transplantation (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 1.93–6.25) (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.18–5.21) and mixed probiotics VSL#3 (OR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.49–3.88) (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.53–6.25) to have better effects than the placebo. Indirect comparison showed fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 did not reach statistical significance either in clinical remission (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70–2.06) or clinical response (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.62–1.45). In terms of safety, fecal microbiota transplantation (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.51–2.61) and VSL #3 (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.33–2.49) showed no statistically significant increase in adverse events compared with the control group. In terms of serious adverse events, there was no statistical difference between the fecal microbiota transplantation group and the control group (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.46–3.57). The probiotics VSL#3 seems more safer than fecal microbiota transplantation, because serious adverse events were not reported in the VSL#3 articles. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal microbiota transplantation or mixed probiotics VSL#3 achieved good results in clinical remission and clinical response in active ulcerative colitis, and there was no increased risk of adverse reactions. There was no statistical difference between the therapeutic effect of fecal microbiota transplantation and that of mixed probiotics VSL#3. However, the use of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotics still has many unresolved problems in clinical applications, and more randomized controlled trials are required to confirm its efficacy. Public Library of Science 2020-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7077802/ /pubmed/32182248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228846 Text en © 2020 Dang et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Dang, Xiaofei
Xu, Mingjie
Liu, Duanrui
Zhou, Dajie
Yang, Weihua
Assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 for active ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 for active ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 for active ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 for active ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 for active ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 for active ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort assessing the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic vsl#3 for active ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32182248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228846
work_keys_str_mv AT dangxiaofei assessingtheefficacyandsafetyoffecalmicrobiotatransplantationandprobioticvsl3foractiveulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xumingjie assessingtheefficacyandsafetyoffecalmicrobiotatransplantationandprobioticvsl3foractiveulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuduanrui assessingtheefficacyandsafetyoffecalmicrobiotatransplantationandprobioticvsl3foractiveulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhoudajie assessingtheefficacyandsafetyoffecalmicrobiotatransplantationandprobioticvsl3foractiveulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yangweihua assessingtheefficacyandsafetyoffecalmicrobiotatransplantationandprobioticvsl3foractiveulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis