Safety comparison of single-donor and pooled fecal microbiota transfer product preparation in ulcerative colitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY BMC Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1186/s12876-024-03487-2
Bastien Laperrousaz, Benoît Levast, Mathieu Fontaine, Stéphane Nancey, Pierre Dechelotte, Joël Doré, Philippe Lehert
{"title":"Safety comparison of single-donor and pooled fecal microbiota transfer product preparation in ulcerative colitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Bastien Laperrousaz, Benoît Levast, Mathieu Fontaine, Stéphane Nancey, Pierre Dechelotte, Joël Doré, Philippe Lehert","doi":"10.1186/s12876-024-03487-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple studies have evaluated fecal microbiota transfer (FMT) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) using single-donor (SDN) and multidonor (MDN) products. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the safety of SDN and MDN products.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches were performed in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Orbit Intelligence to identify studies that compared FMT products manufactured using SDN or MDN strategies against control treatment in patients with UC. Fifteen controlled studies were selected for meta-analysis (11 randomized controlled trials and 4 controlled cohort trials). Safety of each treatment type was assessed using the counts of adverse events and serious adverse events using fixed- and random-effects models. Significance of the indirect difference between FMT preparations was assessed using a network approach. Benefit-risk ratios were calculated by multiplicative utility model, incorporating geometric mean of risk ratios (RRs) of efficacy and safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Safety data was collected for a total of 587 patients (193 exposed to SDN products, 114 exposed to MDN products and 280 exposed to control treatment). The 12 studies showed similar overall safety event counts for MDN and SDN versus placebo (RRs: 0.90 and 1.09, respectively [P = 0.206 and P = 0.420, respectively]). Results indicated similar risk of safety events for MDN compared to SDN (RR: 0.83, P = 0.159). Positive benefit-risk ratios were demonstrated for MDN and SDN versus placebo (RRs: 1.70 and 1.16, respectively [P = 0.003 and P = 0.173, respectively]). MDN had a greater benefit-risk ratio compared to SDN (RR: 1.46, P = 0.072).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Similar safety profiles were observed for MDN and SDN strategies. Alongside previously described superior efficacy, treatment with MDN has greater benefit-risk ratio than SDN in patients with UC. Further development of MDN FMT treatment for UC should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":9129,"journal":{"name":"BMC Gastroenterology","volume":"24 1","pages":"402"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552227/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03487-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Multiple studies have evaluated fecal microbiota transfer (FMT) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) using single-donor (SDN) and multidonor (MDN) products. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the safety of SDN and MDN products.

Methods: Systematic searches were performed in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Orbit Intelligence to identify studies that compared FMT products manufactured using SDN or MDN strategies against control treatment in patients with UC. Fifteen controlled studies were selected for meta-analysis (11 randomized controlled trials and 4 controlled cohort trials). Safety of each treatment type was assessed using the counts of adverse events and serious adverse events using fixed- and random-effects models. Significance of the indirect difference between FMT preparations was assessed using a network approach. Benefit-risk ratios were calculated by multiplicative utility model, incorporating geometric mean of risk ratios (RRs) of efficacy and safety.

Results: Safety data was collected for a total of 587 patients (193 exposed to SDN products, 114 exposed to MDN products and 280 exposed to control treatment). The 12 studies showed similar overall safety event counts for MDN and SDN versus placebo (RRs: 0.90 and 1.09, respectively [P = 0.206 and P = 0.420, respectively]). Results indicated similar risk of safety events for MDN compared to SDN (RR: 0.83, P = 0.159). Positive benefit-risk ratios were demonstrated for MDN and SDN versus placebo (RRs: 1.70 and 1.16, respectively [P = 0.003 and P = 0.173, respectively]). MDN had a greater benefit-risk ratio compared to SDN (RR: 1.46, P = 0.072).

Conclusion: Similar safety profiles were observed for MDN and SDN strategies. Alongside previously described superior efficacy, treatment with MDN has greater benefit-risk ratio than SDN in patients with UC. Further development of MDN FMT treatment for UC should be considered.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
溃疡性结肠炎中单供体和集合粪便微生物群转移产品制剂的安全性比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:多项研究评估了使用单供体(SDN)和多供体(MDN)产品对溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者进行粪便微生物群转移(FMT)的效果。为了比较 SDN 和 MDN 产品的安全性,我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析:在 Web of Science、Scopus、PubMed 和 Orbit Intelligence 中进行了系统检索,以确定将采用 SDN 或 MDN 策略生产的 FMT 产品与 UC 患者的对照治疗进行比较的研究。荟萃分析选择了 15 项对照研究(11 项随机对照试验和 4 项对照队列试验)。采用固定效应和随机效应模型,通过不良事件和严重不良事件的计数来评估每种治疗类型的安全性。采用网络方法评估了FMT制剂之间间接差异的显著性。采用乘法效用模型计算效益风险比,并纳入疗效和安全性风险比(RRs)的几何平均数:共收集了 587 名患者的安全数据(193 名接受 SDN 产品治疗,114 名接受 MDN 产品治疗,280 名接受对照治疗)。12 项研究显示,MDN 和 SDN 与安慰剂相比,总体安全事件计数相似(RRs:分别为 0.90 和 1.09 [P = 0.206 和 P = 0.420])。结果表明,与 SDN 相比,MDN 的安全事件风险相似(RR:0.83,P = 0.159)。与安慰剂相比,MDN 和 SDN 的获益风险比呈正值(RR 分别为 1.70 和 1.16 [P = 0.003 和 P = 0.173])。与 SDN 相比,MDN 的获益风险比更高(RR:1.46,P = 0.072):结论:MDN 和 SDN 策略具有相似的安全性。结论:在 UC 患者中,MDN 和 SDN 的安全性相似,除了之前描述的卓越疗效外,MDN 治疗的收益风险比也高于 SDN。应考虑进一步开发 MDN FMT 治疗 UC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Gastroenterology
BMC Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
465
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Gastroenterology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening: reanalysis of the NordICC data. The long-term impact of post-cholecystectomy major bile duct injury on liver stiffness. Advantages comparison of peritoneal drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis. Impact of perioperative immunonutrition on postoperative outcomes in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Efficacy and safety of tanshinone IIA in combination with mesalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: a Systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1