4.1 Review

Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: benefits and barriers

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 47-53

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000023

Keywords

Clostridium difficile infection; Clostridium difficile recurrence; fecal microbiota transplantation; microbiota; microflora

Funding

  1. NIH [T32 DK 07727, DK 0789392]
  2. [NIAID-DMID-N01-AI-25459]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of reviewThe incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) have increased worldwide in the past two decades. A principal function of the gut microbiota is to protect the intestine against colonization by exogenous pathogens. Increasingly, the gut microbiota have been shown to influence susceptibility to other genetic and environmentally acquired conditions. Transplantation of healthy donor fecal material in patients with CDI may re-establish the normal composition of the gut microbiota and has been shown to be effective in recurrent CDI. We intend to review the most recent data on fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and critically discuss potential advantages and handicaps of this new therapeutic approach.Recent findingsEvidence from case series and only one randomized clinical trial suggests that FMT is able to restore the wide diversity of microflora, improve C. difficile-related symptoms and prevent CDI recurrence.SummaryFMT is a promising treatment option for serious and recurrent CDI, and current evidence (although weak) demonstrates consistent and excellent efficacy in clinical outcomes. However, many questions should be answered before it may be recommended as routine standard treatment. Mechanisms of action need to be better understood. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to determine long-lasting effects (including the association with autoimmune diseases).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available