You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Biomedicines
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

23 June 2024

Comparative Efficacy of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Treating Refractory or Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection among Patients with and without Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
2
Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
3
Chang Gung Microbiota Therapy Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
4
Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
Biomedicines2024, 12(7), 1396;https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12071396
This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Trends in Gastrointestinal Tract Disease Therapies
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) worsens inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prognosis. While fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective for refractory or recurrent CDI (rrCDI), comparative success rates between IBD and non-IBD patients are scarce. This study addresses this gap. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from April 2019 to October 2023. Patients receiving FMT for rrCDI were categorized into IBD and non-IBD groups. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared at one month and one year, with successful FMT defined as the resolution of diarrhea without CDI recurrence. The study included 88 patients: 30 with IBD and 58 without IBD. The IBD group was younger, with fewer comorbidities. Success rates at one month were similar between groups (IBD: 80.0% vs. non-IBD: 78.9%, p = 0.908), as were negative toxin tests (IBD: 83.3% vs. non-IBD: 63.8%, p = 0.174). One-year success rates (IBD: 70.0% vs. non-IBD: 67.6%, p = 0.857) and eradication rates (IBD: 94.4% vs. non-IBD: 73.9%, p = 0.112) were also similar. Poor bowel preparation predicted FMT failure at one month (OR = 0.23, p = 0.019). No safety issues were reported. FMT is a safe, effective treatment for rrCDI, demonstrating similar success rates in patients with and without IBD.

1. Introduction

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a prevalent healthcare-associated infection with a recurrence rate of 15–20% and a mortality rate of 5% [1,2,3]. Its incidence is rising in both adults and children, posing a significant challenge in healthcare settings globally [4,5,6]. Risk factors for CDI include advanced age, hospitalization, certain underlying illnesses like cancer and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), recent antibiotic usage such as cephalosporins and quinolones [7,8], and the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) [5,9]. IBD is an independent risk factor for CDI, even in the absence of traditional risk factors [10]. In individuals without IBD, the prevalence of CDI is around 0.45% [11]. However, for those with IBD, the risk is significantly higher, with reported incidence rates two to eight times greater than for those without IBD [4,12,13,14,15], particularly among those with ulcerative colitis (UC) [11,16]. The increasing use of advanced therapies, such as biological therapies and small molecules like infliximab and adalimumab, in IBD treatment has led to a rapid increase in CDI prevalence among this population [10,17]. CDI is responsible for about 19% of acute IBD flare-ups [18,19]. Additionally, it leads to poorer clinical outcomes, including a higher risk of IBD therapeutic escalation, readmission, emergency department visits, colectomy, severe disease course, and even mortality [17,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Moreover, treatment failure and recurrence rates are much higher in patients with IBD compared to the general population [10,15].
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective and safe treatment for refractory or recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rrCDI) [9,26,27,28,29,30], endorsed by international guidelines [10,15,31,32,33,34,35,36]. In contrast to standard antibiotics, which can exacerbate gut dysbiosis and contribute to CDI, FMT works by reinstating the normal microbial community structure and function in the gut [37]. Therefore, it leads to higher successful rates and lower recurrent rates in treating CDI [9,32]. A network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials have also demonstrated that FMT is the most efficacious among various therapeutic interventions, particularly when compared to commonly used antibiotics such as vancomycin or fidaxomicin [38,39]. Previous studies indicate success rates of 73% for vancomycin and 62.9% for fidaxomicin, with both treatments being associated with a high recurrence rate [40].
FMT is not only effective for the treatment of recurrent CDI in patients without IBD, but also for those with IBD [41,42]. The Rome consensus recommends FMT as a treatment option for both mild and severe recurrent or refractory CDI in patients with IBD [15]. However, previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding the success rate of FMT in treating CDI between patients with and without IBD. Some studies suggest that FMT is less effective in patients with IBD compared to those without IBD [37], while others indicate similar success rates between the two groups [3,41,42]. Due to the lack of short- and long-term data on FMT efficacy (most studies focus on recurrence rates within 1 to 3 months post-transplant), this study aimed to compare the short- and long-term success rates of FMT between both groups and identify predictors of FMT failure to provide valuable insights into personalized treatment strategies for CDI.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Compliance with Ethical Standards

This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Chang Gung Medical Foundation (approval No. 202400814B0) under the project titled “Microbiota Transplantation for the Treatment of Refractory or reccurent Clostridioides difficile Infection and Prognostic Study”. Due to its retrospective design, the IRB waived the requirement for individual patient consent for the review of medical records.

2.2. Patients

In this retrospective cohort analysis, the patients enrolled underwent FMT via colonoscopy for rrCDI at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chiayi, and Kaohsiung between April 2019 and October 2023. Participants were divided into two groups based on their underlying conditions: the IBD group and the non-IBD group. The analysis thoroughly investigated risk factors, clinical presentations, and outcomes associated with each group. Donor specimens were obtained from the fecal bank at Chang Gung Microbiota Therapy Center.

2.3. Definitions

Successful FMT is defined as the resolution of diarrhea and no recurrence of CDI within one month and one year [3,26,37,43,44]. Recurrence of CDI is characterized by recurrent diarrhea along with laboratory confirmation of positive CD toxin A/B tests [3,10,26,37,44,45,46]. CDI itself is defined by diarrhea (≥3 loose or watery stools per day for at least 2 consecutive days or ≥8 loose stools in 48 h) and a positive stool test for CD toxin [3,26,36,37,44,46]. The Mayo score, a widely employed disease activity index in placebo-controlled trials for UC, consists of four components: rectal bleeding, stool frequency, physician assessment, and endoscopy appearance [9,47]. Each component is assigned a rating from 0 to 3, resulting in a total score ranging from 0 to 12. Mildly active disease is indicated by a score of 3 to 5 points, moderately active disease by a score of 6 to 10 points, and severely active disease by a score of 11 to 12 points. Two shortened versions, namely the partial Mayo score (excluding the endoscopy subscore) and the non-invasive six-point score (comprising only rectal bleeding and stool frequency) [9,48] have been developed and validated.

2.4. Data Collection

Comprehensive data, including demographic information (age, gender, BMI), IBD type, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Mayo score, underlying diseases, antibiotics used for CDI treatment (e.g., Metronidazole, Vancomycin, Fidaxomicin), degree of bowel cleansing, location of FMT transplant, IBD medication (Steroid, Biologics), and associated clinical symptoms (fever, diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloody stools) were meticulously collected from the medical records of qualifying participants. Key laboratory values such as total white blood cell count, hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, and albumin levels were recorded, along with instances of mortality or the date of the last follow-up.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were utilized to present continuous variables as mean and standard deviation, and categorical variables as counts or percentages. The Student’s t-test was employed for the analysis of continuous variables, while categorical variables were analyzed using either the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test, depending on the data distribution. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. To investigate potential predictors for the success rate of FMT, a logistic regression model was applied. First, univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted with all predictors. Then, factors with a p-value less than 0.05 were selected for multivariate logistic regression analysis. If only one factor had a p-value less than 0.05, all factors with p-values less than 0.2 were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.0 (Armonk, NY, USA, IBM Corp).

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics and Clinical Outcome

Our study enrolled 88 patients who underwent FMT via colonoscopy for rrCDI between April 2019 and October 2023. This cohort comprised 30 patients in the IBD group and 58 in the non-IBD group. The primary indications for FMT were refractory CDI in 54 patients, recurrent CDI in 31 patients, and both conditions in 3 patients. Within the IBD subgroup, 20 patients had UC and 10 had CD.
In baseline comparisons, the IBD group was significantly younger (mean ± SD, 45.23 ± 16.45 years vs. 61.90 ± 24.40 years, p = 0.001) and had fewer comorbidities, including hypertension (10.0% vs. 55.2%, p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (6.7% vs. 31.0%, p = 0.014), and cancer (3.3% vs. 31.0%, p = 0.012), compared to the non-IBD group. The majority of FMT procedures (89.8%) were performed in the inpatient setting, and 10.2% were carried out in the outpatient setting. Additionally, the IBD group had lower prior Fidaxomicin use (6.9% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.021) and fewer users of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (0.0% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.025). Detailed baseline characteristics for both IBD and non-IBD groups are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of inflammatory bowel disease patients and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients.

3.2. The Clinical Outcomes of rrCDI after FMT

At one-month follow-up, disease severity improved in the IBD group, with the mean partial Mayo score decreasing by 2.9 points, the endoscopic Mayo subscore decreasing by 0.7 points, and CDAI decreasing by 79.98 points. The IBD group exhibited similar negative CD toxin A/B test rates (83.3% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.174) and FMT success rates (80.0% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.908) compared to the non-IBD group at this time. One year after FMT, the disease activity of the IBD group further improved, with the mean partial Mayo score decreasing by 4.09 points, the endoscopic Mayo subscore decreasing by 0.82 points, and CDAI decreasing by 135.81 points. The eradication rate (94.4% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.112) and success rates of FMT (70.0% vs. 67.6%, p = 0.857) were comparable between both groups. No safety issues or adverse effects were reported. Success rates of FMT were defined as the absence of CDI recurrence within the follow-up period. Further laboratory findings and clinical outcomes are detailed in Table 2.
Table 2. Clinical outcomes of Clostridioides difficile infection in inflammatory bowel disease patients and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients one month and one year after FMT.

3.3. Predictors for Successful FMT

One month after FMT, poor bowel preparation was the only negative independent predictor for successful FMT in the multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR = 0.230, 95% CI = 0.067–0.785). During the one-year follow-up, liver cirrhosis and the use of Fidaxomicin were negative independent predictors for successful FMT in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Liver cirrhosis was associated with a decreased success rate (OR = 0.056, 95% CI = 0.005–0.586), and the use of Fidaxomicin for treating CDI also showed reduced success rates (OR = 0.151, 95% CI = 0.033–0.680). More detailed insights can be found in Table 3 and Table 4.
Table 3. Predictor for successful FMT at one month: univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.
Table 4. Predictor for successful FMT at one year: univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

4. Discussion

CDI significantly worsens the prognosis of IBD. However, the treatment of CDI with antibiotics often results in low success rates and high recurrence rates. Our study highlights several critical findings regarding the use of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for treating rrCDI in patients with and without IBD. Despite previous conflicting reports, our data suggest that FMT is equally effective in both patient groups.
In our cohort, the non-IBD group consisted of older patients with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, cancer, and hypertension, which aligns with existing literature indicating a higher risk of CDI in older individuals with comorbidities [3,49]. Previous studies have shown that fidaxomicin has similar efficacy and safety to vancomycin [50]. The higher use of fidaxomicin in the non-IBD group suggests that patients without IBD are more likely to be treated with this second-line antibiotic, whereas IBD patients might prefer FMT due to its potential to improve inflammation concurrently with treating CDI. Although statin use has been associated with severe or complicated CDI in IBD patients [51], the higher rate of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor use in the non-IBD group in our study can be explained by the older age and higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia and other comorbidities in these patients.
Our results showed no significant difference in the CDI clearance rate and overall success rate of FMT between patients with and without IBD, corroborating findings from the other study [3]. These findings suggest that FMT’s efficacy in treating rrCDI does not significantly differ based on the presence of IBD, despite initial concerns about IBD potentially complicating FMT outcomes. In comparison, another retrospective study found that the effectiveness of FMT in treating recurrent CDI was lower in patients with IBD (CDI clearance rates of 74.4% and 92.1%, respectively; p = 0.001) [37]. This discrepancy may be due to differences in study design, patient demographics, and definitions of success.
We observed that poor bowel preparation was a significant predictor of FMT failure at one month ([OR] 0.230, 95% [CI] 0.067–0.785), emphasizing the importance of adequate bowel cleansing before FMT. This finding underscores the need for rigorous pre-FMT preparation protocols to enhance treatment success. Additionally, liver cirrhosis and prior fidaxomicin use emerged as negative predictors for FMT success at one year ([OR] 0.056, 95% [CI] 0.005–0.586 and [OR] 0.151, 95% [CI] 0.033–0.680, respectively). These factors suggest that patients with severe underlying conditions or those who have undergone extensive antibiotic treatment may require additional monitoring and tailored therapeutic approaches.
Our study’s strengths include comprehensive follow-up, providing robust data on the long-term efficacy of FMT in both IBD and non-IBD patients. However, the retrospective design and single-center setting, along with a relatively small sample size, may limit generalizability. Future prospective, multicenter studies are warranted to validate these findings and explore additional factors influencing FMT outcomes.

5. Conclusions

FMT via colonoscopy is an effective treatment for rrCDI, demonstrating similar success rates in patients with and without IBD. However, specific patient populations, particularly those with poor bowel preparation, liver cirrhosis, or prior fidaxomicin use, may experience lower success rates. These findings highlight the importance of tailored patient management to optimize FMT outcomes. Further research should focus on refining pre-FMT protocols and identifying additional predictors of success to enhance the efficacy and safety of FMT in diverse patient populations.

Author Contributions

Planning and conducting the study: P.-H.L., J.-H.C.; Collecting data: J.-H.C., P.-J.Y.; Statistical analysis: Y.-B.P.; Literature review: P.-H.L., J.-H.C., C.-C.C., Y.-C.C., C.-J.K.; Data interpretation: J.-H.C., P.-H.L., C.-T.C., H.-T.C.; Drafting the manuscript: J.-H.C.; Critical revision of the manuscript: P.-H.L., C.-H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan, under grant number CPRPG3L0052. The funding project, titled “Translational Medical Study on Inflammatory and Metabolic Diseases with Microbiota and Fecal Microbiota Transplantation: Fecal Microbiota Transplant in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease” (202000650A3A0).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Medical Foundation (protocol code No. 202400814B0, 2024/05/31).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request due to privacy and ethical reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chiu, C.H.; Tsai, M.C.; Cheng, H.T.; Le, P.H.; Kuo, C.J.; Chiu, C.T. Fecal microbiota transplantation and donor screening for Clostridioides difficile infection during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Formos Med. Assoc. 2021, 120, 791–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Guh, A.Y.; Mu, Y.; Winston, L.G.; Johnston, H.; Olson, D.; Farley, M.M.; Wilson, L.E.; Holzbauer, S.M.; Phipps, E.C.; Dumyati, G.K.; et al. Trends in U.S. Burden of Clostridioides difficile Infection and Outcomes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1320–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hirten, R.P.; Grinspan, A.; Fu, S.C.; Luo, Y.; Suarez-Farinas, M.; Rowland, J.; Contijoch, E.J.; Mogno, I.; Yang, N.; Luong, T.; et al. Microbial Engraftment and Efficacy of Fecal Microbiota Transplant for Clostridium difficile in Patients With and Without Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2019, 25, 969–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Azimirad, M.; Yadegar, A.; Gholami, F.; Shahrokh, S.; Asadzadeh Aghdaei, H.; Ianiro, G.; Suzuki, H.; Cammarota, G.; Zali, M.R. Treatment of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection Using Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Iranian Patients with Underlying Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J. Inflamm. Res. 2020, 13, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. van Lingen, E.E.; Baunwall, S.; Lieberknecht, S.S.C.; Benech, N.N.; Ianiro, G.G.; Sokol, H.H.; Gasbarrini, A.A.; Cammarota, G.G.; Eriksen, M.M.K.; van der Meulen-de Jong, A.A.E.; et al. Short- and long-term follow-up after fecal microbiota transplantation as treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2023, 16, 17562848231156285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Marra, A.R.; Perencevich, E.N.; Nelson, R.E.; Samore, M.; Khader, K.; Chiang, H.Y.; Chorazy, M.L.; Herwaldt, L.A.; Diekema, D.J.; Kuxhausen, M.F.; et al. Incidence and Outcomes Associated with Clostridium difficile Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e1917597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bauer, M.P.; Notermans, D.W.; van Benthem, B.H.; Brazier, J.S.; Wilcox, M.H.; Rupnik, M.; Monnet, D.L.; van Dissel, J.T.; Kuijper, E.J.; Group, E.S. Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: A hospital-based survey. Lancet 2011, 377, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Davies, K.; Lawrence, J.; Berry, C.; Davis, G.; Yu, H.; Cai, B.; Gonzalez, E.; Prantner, I.; Kurcz, A.; Macovei, I.; et al. Risk Factors for Primary Clostridium difficile Infection; Results from the Observational Study of Risk Factors for Clostridium difficile Infection in Hospitalized Patients with Infective Diarrhea (ORCHID). Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Hvas, C.L.; Dahl Jorgensen, S.M.; Jorgensen, S.P.; Storgaard, M.; Lemming, L.; Hansen, M.M.; Erikstrup, C.; Dahlerup, J.F. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Is Superior to Fidaxomicin for Treatment of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. Gastroenterology 2019, 156, 1324–1332.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kucharzik, T.; Ellul, P.; Greuter, T.; Rahier, J.F.; Verstockt, B.; Abreu, C.; Albuquerque, A.; Allocca, M.; Esteve, M.; Farraye, F.A.; et al. ECCO Guidelines on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Infections in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J. Crohns Colitis 2021, 15, 879–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sinh, P.; Barrett, T.A.; Yun, L. Clostridium difficile Infection and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2011, 2011, 136064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Fischer, M.; Kao, D.; Kelly, C.; Kuchipudi, A.; Jafri, S.M.; Blumenkehl, M.; Rex, D.; Mellow, M.; Kaur, N.; Sokol, H.; et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation is Safe and Efficacious for Recurrent or Refractory Clostridium difficile Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2016, 22, 2402–2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Goodhand, J.R.; Alazawi, W.; Rampton, D.S. Systematic review: Clostridium difficile and inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2011, 33, 428–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ianiro, G.; Bibbo, S.; Porcari, S.; Settanni, C.R.; Giambo, F.; Curta, A.R.; Quaranta, G.; Scaldaferri, F.; Masucci, L.; Sanguinetti, M.; et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent C. difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: Experience of a large-volume European FMT center. Gut Microbes 2021, 13, 1994834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lopetuso, L.R.; Deleu, S.; Godny, L.; Petito, V.; Puca, P.; Facciotti, F.; Sokol, H.; Ianiro, G.; Masucci, L.; Abreu, M.; et al. The first international Rome consensus conference on gut microbiota and faecal microbiota transplantation in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2023, 72, 1642–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hourigan, S.K.; Oliva-Hemker, M.; Hutfless, S. The prevalence of Clostridium difficile infection in pediatric and adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis. Sci. 2014, 59, 2222–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Singh, H.; Nugent, Z.; Yu, B.N.; Lix, L.M.; Targownik, L.E.; Bernstein, C.N. Higher Incidence of Clostridium difficile Infection among Individuals with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterology 2017, 153, 430–438.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vehreschild, M.; Taori, S.; Goldenberg, S.D.; Thalhammer, F.; Bouza, E.; van Oene, J.; Wetherill, G.; Georgopali, A. Fidaxomicin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in at-risk patients with inflammatory bowel disease, fulminant CDI, renal impairment or hepatic impairment: A retrospective study of routine clinical use (ANEMONE). Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect Dis. 2018, 37, 2097–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sehgal, K.; Yadav, D.; Khanna, S. The interplay of Clostridioides difficile infection and inflammatory bowel disease. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2021, 14, 17562848211020285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Garcia, P.G.; Chebli, L.A.; da Rocha Ribeiro, T.C.; Gaburri, P.D.; de Lima Pace, F.H.; Barbosa, K.; Costa, L.A.; de Almeida Cruz, W.; de Assis, I.C.; Moraes, B.R.M.; et al. Impact of superimposed Clostridium difficile infection in Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis flares in the outpatient setting. Int. J. Colorectal. Dis. 2018, 33, 1285–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Martinelli, M.; Strisciuglio, C.; Veres, G.; Paerregaard, A.; Pavic, A.M.; Aloi, M.; Martín-de-Carpi, J.; Levine, A.; Turner, D.; Del Pezzo, M.; et al. Clostridium difficile and pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: A prospective, comparative, multicenter, ESPGHAN study. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2014, 20, 2219–2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Balram, B.; Battat, R.; Al-Khoury, A.; D’Aoust, J.; Afif, W.; Bitton, A.; Lakatos, P.L.; Bessissow, T. Risk Factors Associated with Clostridium difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Crohns Colitis 2019, 13, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chen, X.L.; Deng, J.; Chen, X.; Wan, S.S.; Wang, Y.; Cao, Q. High incidence and morbidity of Clostridium difficile infection among hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A prospective observational cohort study. J. Dig Dis. 2019, 20, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Anderson, A.; Click, B.; Ramos-Rivers, C.; Cheng, D.; Babichenko, D.; Koutroubakis, I.E.; Hashash, J.G.; Schwartz, M.; Swoger, J.; Barrie, A.M., 3rd; et al. Lasting Impact of Clostridium difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2017, 23, 2180–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pant, C.; Anderson, M.P.; Deshpande, A.; Altaf, M.A.; Grunow, J.E.; Atreja, A.; Sferra, T.J. Health care burden of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized children with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2013, 19, 1080–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cammarota, G.; Ianiro, G.; Tilg, H.; Rajilic-Stojanovic, M.; Kump, P.; Satokari, R.; Sokol, H.; Arkkila, P.; Pintus, C.; Hart, A.; et al. European consensus conference on faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice. Gut 2017, 66, 569–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Costello, S.P.; Tucker, E.C.; La Brooy, J.; Schoeman, M.N.; Andrews, J.M. Establishing a Fecal Microbiota Transplant Service for the Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection. Clin. Infect Dis. 2016, 62, 908–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ianiro, G.; Maida, M.; Burisch, J.; Simonelli, C.; Hold, G.; Ventimiglia, M.; Gasbarrini, A.; Cammarota, G. Efficacy of different faecal microbiota transplantation protocols for Clostridium difficile infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2018, 6, 1232–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ianiro, G.; Masucci, L.; Quaranta, G.; Simonelli, C.; Lopetuso, L.R.; Sanguinetti, M.; Gasbarrini, A.; Cammarota, G. Randomised clinical trial: Faecal microbiota transplantation by colonoscopy plus vancomycin for the treatment of severe refractory Clostridium difficile infection-single versus multiple infusions. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 48, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Nowak, A.; Hedenstierna, M.; Ursing, J.; Lidman, C.; Nowak, P. Efficacy of Routine Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Treatment of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Int. J. Microbiol. 2019, 2019, 7395127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cammarota, G.; Ianiro, G.; Kelly, C.R.; Mullish, B.H.; Allegretti, J.R.; Kassam, Z.; Putignani, L.; Fischer, M.; Keller, J.J.; Costello, S.P.; et al. International consensus conference on stool banking for faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice. Gut 2019, 68, 2111–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Peery, A.F.; Kelly, C.R.; Kao, D.; Vaughn, B.P.; Lebwohl, B.; Singh, S.; Imdad, A.; Altayar, O.; AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Fecal Microbiota-Based Therapies for Select Gastrointestinal Diseases. Gastroenterology 2024, 166, 409–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kelly, C.R.; Fischer, M.; Allegretti, J.R.; LaPlante, K.; Stewart, D.B.; Limketkai, B.N.; Stollman, N.H. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Clostridioides difficile Infections. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 116, 1124–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mullish, B.H.; Quraishi, M.N.; Segal, J.P.; McCune, V.L.; Baxter, M.; Marsden, G.L.; Moore, D.; Colville, A.; Bhala, N.; Iqbal, T.H.; et al. The use of faecal microbiota transplant as treatment for recurrent or refractory Clostridium difficile infection and other potential indications: Joint British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Healthcare Infection Society (HIS) guidelines. J. Hosp. Infect. 2018, 100 (Suppl. S1), S1–S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. van Prehn, J.; Reigadas, E.; Vogelzang, E.H.; Bouza, E.; Hristea, A.; Guery, B.; Krutova, M.; Norén, T.; Allerberger, F.; Coia, J.E.; et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: 2021 update on the treatment guidance document for Clostridioides difficile infection in adults. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27 (Suppl. S2), S1–S21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McDonald, L.C.; Gerding, D.N.; Johnson, S.; Bakken, J.S.; Carroll, K.C.; Coffin, S.E.; Dubberke, E.R.; Garey, K.W.; Gould, C.V.; Kelly, C.; et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 66, 987–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khoruts, A.; Rank, K.M.; Newman, K.M.; Viskocil, K.; Vaughn, B.P.; Hamilton, M.J.; Sadowsky, M.J. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Affects the Outcome of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 14, 1433–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Rokkas, T.; Gisbert, J.P.; Gasbarrini, A.; Hold, G.L.; Tilg, H.; Malfertheiner, P.; Megraud, F.; O’Morain, C. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials exploring the role of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2019, 7, 1051–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Minkoff, N.Z.; Aslam, S.; Medina, M.; Tanner-Smith, E.E.; Zackular, J.P.; Acra, S.; Nicholson, M.R.; Imdad, A. Fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile (Clostridium difficile). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2023, 4, Cd013871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rao, K.; Zhao, Q.; Bell, J.; Krishnan, J.; Henig, O.; Daniel, J.; Sawaya, K.; Albin, O.; Mills, J.P.; Petty, L.A.; et al. An Open-Label, Randomized Trial Comparing Fidaxomicin with Oral Vancomycin for the Treatment of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Concomitant Antibiotics for Concurrent Infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2024, 78, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Tariq, R.; Disbrow, M.B.; Dibaise, J.K.; Orenstein, R.; Saha, S.; Solanky, D.; Loftus, E.V.; Pardi, D.S.; Khanna, S. Efficacy of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent C. difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2020, 26, 1415–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nanki, K.; Mizuno, S.; Matsuoka, K.; Ono, K.; Sugimoto, S.; Kiyohara, H.; Arai, M.; Nakashima, M.; Takeshita, K.; Saigusa, K.; et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in a patient with ulcerative colitis. Intest. Res. 2018, 16, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Juul, F.E.; Garborg, K.; Bretthauer, M.; Skudal, H.; Oines, M.N.; Wiig, H.; Rose, O.; Seip, B.; Lamont, J.T.; Midtvedt, T.; et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Primary Clostridium difficile Infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 2535–2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Nicholson, M.R.; Alexander, E.; Ballal, S.; Davidovics, Z.; Docktor, M.; Dole, M.; Gisser, J.M.; Goyal, A.; Hourigan, S.K.; Jensen, M.K.; et al. Efficacy and Outcomes of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection in Children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J. Crohns Colitis 2022, 16, 768–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Urbonas, T.; Ianiro, G.; Gedgaudas, R.; Sabanas, P.; Urba, M.; Kiudelis, V.; Kiudelis, G.; Petkevicius, V.; Vitkauskiene, A.; Cammarota, G.; et al. Fecal Microbiome Transplantation for Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: Treatment Efficacy, Short and Long-term Follow-up Results from Consecutive Case Series. J. Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2021, 30, 470–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Surawicz, C.M.; Brandt, L.J.; Binion, D.G.; Ananthakrishnan, A.N.; Curry, S.R.; Gilligan, P.H.; McFarland, L.V.; Mellow, M.; Zuckerbraun, B.S. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 108, 478–498;quiz 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Rutgeerts, P.; Sandborn, W.J.; Feagan, B.G.; Reinisch, W.; Olson, A.; Johanns, J.; Travers, S.; Rachmilewitz, D.; Hanauer, S.B.; Lichtenstein, G.R.; et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353, 2462–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lewis, J.D.; Chuai, S.; Nessel, L.; Lichtenstein, G.R.; Aberra, F.N.; Ellenberg, J.H. Use of the noninvasive components of the Mayo score to assess clinical response in ulcerative colitis. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2008, 14, 1660–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Qu, H.Q.; Jiang, Z.D. Clostridium difficile infection in diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2014, 105, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cornely, O.A.; Crook, D.W.; Esposito, R.; Poirier, A.; Somero, M.S.; Weiss, K.; Sears, P.; Gorbach, S. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: A double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012, 12, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Voth, E.; Solanky, D.; Loftus, E.V., Jr.; Pardi, D.S.; Khanna, S. Novel risk factors and outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease patients with Clostridioides difficile infection. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2021, 14, 1756284821997792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Brain Tumor MRI Classification Using a Novel Deep Residual and Regional CNN
Previous
Sonographic Cortical Development and Anomalies in the Fetus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next