Cargando…

Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but inconsistent effect rates and uncertain evidence levels have warranted caution. To clarify, we aimed to establish the evidence of FMT for recurrent CDI, updated across differe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baunwall, Simon Mark Dahl, Lee, Mads Ming, Eriksen, Marcel Kjærsgaard, Mullish, Benjamin H., Marchesi, Julian R., Dahlerup, Jens Frederik, Hvas, Christian Lodberg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7788438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33437951
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100642
_version_ 1783633033843179520
author Baunwall, Simon Mark Dahl
Lee, Mads Ming
Eriksen, Marcel Kjærsgaard
Mullish, Benjamin H.
Marchesi, Julian R.
Dahlerup, Jens Frederik
Hvas, Christian Lodberg
author_facet Baunwall, Simon Mark Dahl
Lee, Mads Ming
Eriksen, Marcel Kjærsgaard
Mullish, Benjamin H.
Marchesi, Julian R.
Dahlerup, Jens Frederik
Hvas, Christian Lodberg
author_sort Baunwall, Simon Mark Dahl
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but inconsistent effect rates and uncertain evidence levels have warranted caution. To clarify, we aimed to establish the evidence of FMT for recurrent CDI, updated across different delivery methods, treatment regimens, and in comparison with standard antibiotics. METHODS: In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Key, and Svemed+ for FMT literature published in English until November 11, 2019. We included observational and clinical trials with or without antibiotic comparators and excluded studies with below 8 weeks follow-up and fewer than 15 patients. The primary outcome was clinical outcome by week 8. We comprehensively extracted patient and procedural data. In a random-effects meta-analysis, we estimated the clinical effect for repeat or single FMT, different delivery methods, and versus antibiotics. We rated the evidence according to the Cochrane and GRADE methods. The PROSPERO preregistration number is CRD42020158112. FINDINGS: Of 1816 studies assessed, 45 studies were included. The overall clinical effect week 8 following repeat FMT (24 studies, 1855 patients) was 91% (95% CI: 89–94%, I(2)=53%) and 84% (80–88%, I(2)=86%) following single FMT (43 studies, 2937 patients). Delivery by lower gastrointestinal endoscopy was superior to all other delivery methods, and repeat FMT significantly increased the treatment effect week 8 (P<0·001). Compared with vancomycin, the number needed to treat (NNT) for repeat FMT was 1·5 (1·3–1·9, P<0·001) and 2.9 (1·5–37·1, P=0·03) for single FMT. Repeat FMT had high quality of evidence. INTERPRETATION: High-quality evidence supports FMT is effective for recurrent CDI, but its effect varies with the delivery method and the number of administrations. The superior NNT for FMT compared with antibiotics suggests that patients may benefit from advancing FMT to all instances of recurrent CDI. FUNDING: Innovation Fund Denmark (j.no. 8056-00006B).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7788438
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77884382021-01-11 Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis Baunwall, Simon Mark Dahl Lee, Mads Ming Eriksen, Marcel Kjærsgaard Mullish, Benjamin H. Marchesi, Julian R. Dahlerup, Jens Frederik Hvas, Christian Lodberg EClinicalMedicine Research Paper BACKGROUND: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but inconsistent effect rates and uncertain evidence levels have warranted caution. To clarify, we aimed to establish the evidence of FMT for recurrent CDI, updated across different delivery methods, treatment regimens, and in comparison with standard antibiotics. METHODS: In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Key, and Svemed+ for FMT literature published in English until November 11, 2019. We included observational and clinical trials with or without antibiotic comparators and excluded studies with below 8 weeks follow-up and fewer than 15 patients. The primary outcome was clinical outcome by week 8. We comprehensively extracted patient and procedural data. In a random-effects meta-analysis, we estimated the clinical effect for repeat or single FMT, different delivery methods, and versus antibiotics. We rated the evidence according to the Cochrane and GRADE methods. The PROSPERO preregistration number is CRD42020158112. FINDINGS: Of 1816 studies assessed, 45 studies were included. The overall clinical effect week 8 following repeat FMT (24 studies, 1855 patients) was 91% (95% CI: 89–94%, I(2)=53%) and 84% (80–88%, I(2)=86%) following single FMT (43 studies, 2937 patients). Delivery by lower gastrointestinal endoscopy was superior to all other delivery methods, and repeat FMT significantly increased the treatment effect week 8 (P<0·001). Compared with vancomycin, the number needed to treat (NNT) for repeat FMT was 1·5 (1·3–1·9, P<0·001) and 2.9 (1·5–37·1, P=0·03) for single FMT. Repeat FMT had high quality of evidence. INTERPRETATION: High-quality evidence supports FMT is effective for recurrent CDI, but its effect varies with the delivery method and the number of administrations. The superior NNT for FMT compared with antibiotics suggests that patients may benefit from advancing FMT to all instances of recurrent CDI. FUNDING: Innovation Fund Denmark (j.no. 8056-00006B). Elsevier 2020-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7788438/ /pubmed/33437951 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100642 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Paper
Baunwall, Simon Mark Dahl
Lee, Mads Ming
Eriksen, Marcel Kjærsgaard
Mullish, Benjamin H.
Marchesi, Julian R.
Dahlerup, Jens Frederik
Hvas, Christian Lodberg
Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent clostridioides difficile infection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7788438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33437951
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100642
work_keys_str_mv AT baunwallsimonmarkdahl faecalmicrobiotatransplantationforrecurrentclostridioidesdifficileinfectionanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT leemadsming faecalmicrobiotatransplantationforrecurrentclostridioidesdifficileinfectionanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT eriksenmarcelkjærsgaard faecalmicrobiotatransplantationforrecurrentclostridioidesdifficileinfectionanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mullishbenjaminh faecalmicrobiotatransplantationforrecurrentclostridioidesdifficileinfectionanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT marchesijulianr faecalmicrobiotatransplantationforrecurrentclostridioidesdifficileinfectionanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dahlerupjensfrederik faecalmicrobiotatransplantationforrecurrentclostridioidesdifficileinfectionanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hvaschristianlodberg faecalmicrobiotatransplantationforrecurrentclostridioidesdifficileinfectionanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis