Fecal transplantation for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, relapsing disease of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract that is thought to be associated with a complex interplay between the immune system, the GI tract lining, the environment, and the gut microbiome, leading to an abnormal inflammatory response in genetically susceptible individuals. An altered composition of the gut's native microbiota, known as dysbiosis, may have a major role in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn disease (CD), two subtypes of IBD. There is growing interest in the correction of this underlying dysbiosis using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and safety profile of FMT for treatment of IBD in adults and children versus autologous FMT, placebo, standard medication, or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registries, and the reference sections of published trials through 22 December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that studied adults and children with UC or CD. Eligible intervention arms used FMT, defined as the delivery of healthy donor stool containing gut microbiota to a recipient's GI tract, to treat UC or CD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Our primary outcomes were: 1. induction of clinical remission, 2. maintenance of clinical remission, and 3. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4. any adverse events, 5. endoscopic remission, 6. quality of life, 7. clinical response, 8. endoscopic response, 9. withdrawals, 10. inflammatory markers, and 11. microbiome outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies with 550 participants. Three studies were conducted in Australia; two in Canada; and one in each of the following: China, the Czech Republic, France, India, the Netherlands, and the USA. One study was conducted in both Israel and Italy. FMT was administered in the form of capsules or suspensions and delivered by mouth, nasoduodenal tube, enema, or colonoscopy. One study delivered FMT by both oral capsules and colonoscopy. Six studies were at overall low risk of bias, while the others had either unclear or high risk of bias. Ten studies with 468 participants, of which nine studies focused on adults and one focused on children, reported induction of clinical remission in people with UC at longest follow-up (range 6 to 12 weeks) and showed that FMT may increase rates of induction of clinical remission in UC compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.84; low-certainty evidence). Five studies showed that FMT may increase rates of induction of endoscopic remission in UC at longest follow-up (range 8 to 12 weeks); however, the CIs around the summary estimate were wide and included a possible null effect (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.29; low-certainty evidence). Nine studies with 417 participants showed that FMT may result in little to no difference in rates of any adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.55; very low-certainty evidence) and improvement in quality of life (mean difference (MD) 15.34, 95% CI -3.84 to 34.52; very low-certainty evidence) when FMT was used to induce remission in UC. Two studies, of which one also contributed data for induction of remission in active UC, assessed maintenance of remission in people with controlled UC at longest follow-up (range 48 to 56 weeks). The evidence was very uncertain about the use of FMT for maintenance of clinical remission (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.26 to 34.42; very low-certainty evidence) and endoscopic remission (RR 3.28, 95% CI 0.73 to 14.74; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was also very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events, risk of any adverse events, and improvement in quality of life when FMT was used to maintain remission in UC. None of the included studies assessed use of FMT for induction of remission in people with CD. One study with 21 participants reported data on FMT for maintenance of remission in people with CD. The evidence was very uncertain about the use of FMT for maintenance of clinical remission in CD at 24 weeks (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.14; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was also very uncertain about the risk of serious or any adverse events when FMT was used to maintain remission in CD. None of the studies reported data on use of FMT for maintenance of endoscopic remission or improvement in quality of life in people with CD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: FMT may increase the proportion of people with active UC who achieve clinical and endoscopic remission. The evidence was very uncertain about whether use of FMT in people with active UC impacted the risk of serious adverse events or improvement in quality of life. The evidence was also very uncertain about the use of FMT for maintenance of remission in people with UC, as well as induction and maintenance of remission in people with CD, and no conclusive statements could be made in this regard. Further studies are needed to address the beneficial effects and safety profile of FMT in adults and children with active UC and CD, as well as its potential to promote longer-term maintenance of remission in UC and CD.

Interventions for preventing diarrhoea-associated haemolytic uraemic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) is a common cause of acquired kidney failure in children and rarely in adults. The most important risk factor for development of HUS is a gastrointestinal infection by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC). This review addressed the interventions aimed at secondary prevention of HUS in patients with diarrhoea who were infected with a bacteria that increase the risk of HUS. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to evaluate evidence regarding secondary preventative strategies for HUS associated with STEC infections. In doing so, we sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions as well as their potential to impact the morbidity and death associated with this condition. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were considered based on the methods, participants, and research goals. Only randomised controlled trials were considered eligible for inclusion. The participants of the studies were paediatric and adult patients with diarrhoeal illnesses due to STEC. The primary outcome of interest was incidence of HUS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four studies (536 participants) for inclusion that investigated four different interventions including antibiotics (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), anti-Shiga toxin antibody-containing bovine colostrum, Shiga toxin binding agent (Synsorb Pk: a silicon dioxide-based agent), and a monoclonal antibody against Shiga toxin (urtoxazumab). The overall risk of bias was unclear for selection, performance and detection bias and low for attrition, reporting and other sources of bias. It was uncertain if trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole reduced the incidence of HUS compared to no treatment (47 participants: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.11-2.81, very low certainty evidence). Adverse events relative to this review, need for acute dialysis, neurological complication and death were not reported. There were no incidences of HUS in either the bovine colostrum group or the placebo group. It was uncertain if bovine colostrum caused more adverse events (27 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.03; very low certainty evidence). The need for acute dialysis, neurological complications or death were not reported. It is uncertain whether Synsorb Pk reduces the incidence of HUS compared to placebo (353 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.22; very low certainty evidence). Adverse events relevant to this review, need for acute dialysis, neurological complications or death were not reported. One study compared two doses of urtoxazumab (3.0 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) to placebo. It is uncertain if either 3.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab (71 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14) or 1.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab (74 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13) reduced the incidence of HUS compared to placebo (very low certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence showed there may be little or no difference in the number of treatment-emergent adverse events with either 3.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab (71 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18) or 1.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab (74 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13) compared to placebo. There were 25 serious adverse events reported in 18 patients: 10 in the placebo group, and 9 and 6 serious adverse events in the 1.0 mg/kg and 3.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab groups, respectively. It is unclear how many patients experienced these adverse events in each group, and how many patients experienced more than one event. It is uncertain if either dose of urtoxazumab increased the risk of neurological complications or death (very low certainty evidence). Need for acute dialysis was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies assessed antibiotics, bovine milk, and Shiga toxin inhibitor (Synsorb Pk) and monoclonal antibodies (Urtoxazumab) against Shiga toxin for secondary prevention of HUS in patients with diarrhoea due to STEC. However, no firm conclusions about the efficacy of these interventions can be drawn given the small number of included studies and the small sample sizes of those included studies. Additional studies, including larger multicentre studies, are needed to assess the efficacy of interventions to prevent development of HUS in patients with diarrhoea due to STEC infection.