4.5 Review

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Treatment of Active Ulcerative Colitis

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 1702-1709

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000001228

关键词

ulcerative colitis; fecal transplant; fecal microbiota transplant; inflammatory bowel disease

资金

  1. Abbvie
  2. Allergan
  3. Ferring
  4. Janssen
  5. Lupin
  6. Takeda
  7. Shire
  8. Salix Pharmaceuticals
  9. Dr. Falk Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Changes in the colonic microbiota may play a role in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis (UC) and restoration of healthy gut microbiota may ameliorate disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as a treatment for active UC. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify high-quality studies of FMT as a treatment for patients with UC. The primary outcome was combined clinical remission and endoscopic remission or response. Secondary outcomes included clinical remission, endoscopic remission, and serious adverse events. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: Overall, 4 studies with 277 participants were eligible for inclusion. Among 4 randomized controlled trials, FMT was associated with higher combined clinical and endoscopic remission compared with placebo (risk ratio UC not in remission was 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71-0.89) with a number needed to treat of 5 (95% CI: 4-10). There was no statistically significant increase in serious adverse events with FMT compared with controls (risk ratio adverse event was 1.4; 95% CI: 0.55-3.58). Conclusions: Among randomized controlled trials, short-term use of FMT shows promise as a treatment to induce remission in active UC based on the efficacy and safety observed. However, there remain many unanswered questions that require further research before FMT can be considered for use in clinical practice.

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