World journal of clinical cases · 2024
Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation for treatment of ulcerative colitis: A post-consensus systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Jin-Tao, Zhang Nan, Dong Xue-Tao, Wang Xiao-Ran, Ma Hong-Wen, Liu Yan-Di, Li Mu-Ran
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have assessed the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as a therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the treatment processes and outcomes of these studies vary.
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMT for treating UC by conducting a systematic meta-analysis.
METHODS: The inclusion criteria involved reports of adult patients with UC treated with FMT, while studies that did not report clinical outcomes or that included patients with infection were excluded. Clinical remission (CR) and endoscopic remission (ER) were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.
RESULTS: We included nine studies retrieved from five electronic databases. The FMT group had better CR than the control group [relative risk (RR) = 1.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19-1.94; P < 0.0008]. ER was statistically significantly different between the two groups (RR = 2.80; 95%CI: 1.93-4.05; P < 0.00001). Adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: FMT demonstrates favorable performance and safety; however, well-designed randomized clinical trials are still needed before the widespread use of FMT can be recommended. Furthermore, standardizing the FMT process is urgently needed for improved safety and efficacy.
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMT for treating UC by conducting a systematic meta-analysis.
METHODS: The inclusion criteria involved reports of adult patients with UC treated with FMT, while studies that did not report clinical outcomes or that included patients with infection were excluded. Clinical remission (CR) and endoscopic remission (ER) were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.
RESULTS: We included nine studies retrieved from five electronic databases. The FMT group had better CR than the control group [relative risk (RR) = 1.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19-1.94; P < 0.0008]. ER was statistically significantly different between the two groups (RR = 2.80; 95%CI: 1.93-4.05; P < 0.00001). Adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: FMT demonstrates favorable performance and safety; however, well-designed randomized clinical trials are still needed before the widespread use of FMT can be recommended. Furthermore, standardizing the FMT process is urgently needed for improved safety and efficacy.