4.5 Review

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation as a Novel Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 95, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003765

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundation of Research Center for Surgical Clinical Nutrition in Yunnan Province
  2. NSFC [81160114]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Variation in clinical evidence has prevented the adoption of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of FMT in UC. A systematic literature search was performed in 5 electronic databases from inception through September 2015. Inclusion criteria were reports of FMT in patients with UC. Studies were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes or included patients with infections. Clinical remission (CR) was defined as the primary outcome. Eleven studies (2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 open-label case-control study, and 8 cohort studies) with a total of 133 UC patients were included in the analysis. In 11 studies (including 8 noncontrol cohort studies and the treatment arms of 3 clinical control trials), the pooled proportion of patients who achieved CR was 30.4% (95% CI 22.6-39.4%), with a low risk of heterogeneity (Cochran Q test, P = 0.139; I-2 = 33%). A subgroup analysis suggested that no difference in CR was detected between upper gastrointestinal delivery versus lower gastrointestinal delivery. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that there was no difference in CR between single infusion versus multiple infusions (>1) of FMT. All studies reported mild adverse events. FMT is potentially useful in UC disease management but better-designed RCTs are still required to confirm our findings before wide adoption of FMT is suggested. Additionally, basic guidelines are needed imminently to identify the right patient population and to standardize the process of FMT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据