MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Clostridium difficile Infection in Immunocompromised Patients - Safe or Risky?

2018· article· en· W2920910440 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamzah Abu‐Sbeih, Faisal S. Ali, Rachel Hicklen, Yinghong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClostridium difficileImmunosuppressionTransplantationContext (archaeology)Internal medicineAdverse effectCochrane LibraryEnterocolitisSurgeryIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In the past decade fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has emerged as an effective treatment for severe, refractory and recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Given that immunosuppression (IS) is common in these patients and that the safety of FMT is not well studied in the context of IS, we conducted a systematic review to document the safety and efficacy of FMT for the treatment of CDI in patients with IS. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed by a medical librarian. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were queried from January 2010 to May 2018 utilizing both controlled vocabulary and natural language terms for FMT and CDI. IS was due to solid organ transplantation (SOT), stem cell transplantation, malignancy and its treatment, HIV, and immunosuppressive therapy. Patients receiving immunosuppressive agents with documented normal neutrophil count were excluded. The New Castle Ottawa Scale was used to grade the quality of included studies. Results: Out of the 749 studies initially screened, 21 studies of 268 patients met inclusion criteria. Characteristics of included studies are summarized in Table 1. SOT was the most common cause of IS (34%). The number of FMT procedures ranged from 1 to 6. Of the studies that documented the route of FMT delivery (145 patients), FMT was delivered by the lower GI tract route in 107 (74%). Overall clinical response was reported in 88% (237/268) (Table 2). Among patients with clinical response, recurrence rate was 7%. Three (1%) patients experienced FMT procedure-related adverse events; 2 aspiration and 1 superficial mucosal tear (Table 3). Of the patients with preexisting IBD (81), post-FMT IBD flare up occurred in 11 (14%). Twenty-two patients (8%) suffered transient GI complaints related to FMT. Two patients developed transient fever after FMT that was not attributed to other causes. Bacteremia related to FMT was not reported in any study. One patient had gastroenteritis after 3 days of FMT. New hospitalization related to FMT was required in 6 patients with good outcomes; 2 because of GI symptoms and 4 IBD flare up. All-cause mortality rate was 6%; 2 of which were a consequence of aspiration during colonoscopy for FMT. Conclusion: FMT is efficacious in the treatment of CDI in immunocompromised patients with a favorable post-FMT adverse effect profile. Adequate pre-operative preparation can mitigate the risk of intraprocedural adverse events.199_A Figure 1 No Caption available.199_B Figure 2 No Caption available.199_C Figure 3 No Caption available.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→