Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Capsules with Targeted Colonic Versus Gastric Delivery in Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Comparative Cohort Analysis of High and Lose Dose
- 95 Downloads
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective therapy for recurrent Clostridium. difficile infection (rCDI). FMT capsules have emerged, and it is unknown if delivery location and dose impact efficacy.
We compared two cohorts of patients receiving two capsule formulations: gastric release (FMTgr) and targeted colonic release (FMTcr) at two different sites. Cohort A received FMTgr at (1) high dose: 60 capsules and low dose: 30 capsules. Patients in Cohort B received FMTcr at (1) high dose: 30 capsules (2) low dose: 10 capsules. Clinical cure rates and adverse events were monitored through week 8. Paired t-tests were used to compare diversity pre- and post-FMT.
51 rCDI patients were enrolled. Cohort A contained n = 20 and Cohort B contained n = 31. Overall cure at week 8 for FMTgr was 75% (15/20) compared to 80.6% for FMTcr, (25/31), p = 0.63. Both formulations were safe with no serious adverse events. FMTcr was superior at increasing gut microbial diversity.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare targeted delivery of FMT capsules. While both capsules were safe and efficacious, microbial engraftment patterns were superior in FMTcr.
KeywordsFecal microbiota transplantation Microbiome Clostridium difficile infection Fecal capsule
JRA and ZK initiated study concept and design acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript. YG, ST, and RS analyzed and interpreted microbiome-sequencing results. MF, MB, SS, SB, ES, DLG, ELS, AG participated in data acquisition, interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript. HMF, AWB, SRR, MS provided critical revision of manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
ZK YG, ST, MS and RS, DG, ELS are employees of Finch Therapeutics. JRA and MF consult for Finch Therapeutics. HMF receives royalties from Phloral. No other conflicts of interest to report for any authors relevant to the work presented in this manuscript.
- 5.Kassam Z, Lee CH, Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:8–500.Google Scholar
- 9.Hirsch BE, Saraiya N, Poeth K, Schwartz RM, Epstein ME, Honig G. Effectiveness of fecal-derived microbiota transfer using orally administered capsules for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-015-0930-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Van Assche G, D’Haens G, Noman M, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of 4 mg/kg versus 2 mg/kg intravenous cyclosporine in severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2003;125:31–1025.Google Scholar
- 15.Dubois N, Ling K, Osman M, et al. Prospective assessment of donor eligibility for fecal microbiota transplantation at a Public Stool Bank: results from the evaluation of 1387 candidate donors. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016;2:962.Google Scholar
- 19.Crobach MJ, Planche T, Eckert C, et al. European society of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect Off Publ Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;22:S63–81.Google Scholar