4.4 Review

Novel Indications for Fecal Microbial Transplantation: Update and Review of the Literature

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 1131-1145

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-017-4535-9

关键词

Bacteriotherapy; Enteric microbiome; Gastrointestinal dysbiosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) is an established successful treatment modality for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). The safety profile and potential therapeutic advantages of FMT for diseases associated with dysbiosis and immune dysfunction have led to many publications, mainly case series, and while many studies and reviews have been published on the use of FMT for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), its potential use for other disease conditions has not been thoroughly reviewed. The aim of this review was to investigate the evidence surrounding the use of FMT in conditions other than IBD and CDI. A PubMed search was performed using the terms Fecal microbiota transplantation OR FMT OR Bacteriotherapy. A total of 26 articles describing the use of FMT in a variety of both intra-and extraintestinal disease conditions including gastrointestinal, hematologic, neurologic, metabolic, infectious, and autoimmune disorders have been included in this review and have demonstrated some positive results. The studies included were case reports, case series, controlled trials, and cohort studies. The findings of these studies demonstrate that FMT, particularly in conditions associated with gastrointestinal dysbiosis, shows promise to provide another effective tool in the therapeutic armament of the practicing physician. FMT was found to be possibly effective in various diseases, mostly associated with enteric dysbiosis or with immune dysfunction. Randomized clinical studies on large populations should be performed to explore the effectiveness of this therapy, and basic research studies should be designed to gain understanding of the mechanisms through which impact these disorders.

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

4.4
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