4.7 Article

Randomised clinical trial: faecal microbiota transplantation by colonoscopy vs. vancomycin for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 41, 期 9, 页码 835-843

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13144

关键词

-

资金

  1. Catholic University of Rome, Line D-1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundFaecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from healthy donors is considered an effective treatment against recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. AimTo study the effect of FMT via colonoscopy in patients with recurrent C. difficile infection compared to the standard vancomycin regimen. MethodsIn an open-label, randomised clinical trial, we assigned subjects with recurrent C. difficile infection to receive: FMT, short regimen of vancomycin (125mg four times a day for 3days), followed by one or more infusions of faeces via colonoscopy; or vancomycin, vancomycin 125mg four times daily for 10days, followed by 125-500mg/day every 2-3days for at least 3weeks. The latter treatment did not include performing colonoscopy. The primary end point was the resolution of diarrhoea related to C. difficile infection 10weeks after the end of treatments. ResultsThe study was stopped after a 1-year interim analysis. Eighteen of the 20 patients (90%) treated by FMT exhibited resolution of C. difficile-associated diarrhoea. In FMT, five of the seven patients with pseudomembranous colitis reported a resolution of diarrhoea. Resolution of C. difficile infection occurred in 5 of the 19 (26%) patients in vancomycin (P<0.0001). No significant adverse events were observed in either of the study groups. ConclusionsFaecal microbiota transplantation using colonoscopy to infuse faeces was significantly more effective than vancomycin regimen for the treatment of recurrent C. difficile infection. The delivery of donor faeces via colonoscopy has the potential to optimise the treatment strategy in patients with pseudomembranous colitis.

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

4.7
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