MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999940716 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.504

P375 Feasibility of the first paediatric randomised controlled pilot trial of faecal microbiota transplant for ulcerative colitis

2020· article· en· W2999940716 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nikhil Pai, Jelena Popov, Emily Hartung, Lee Hill, Kelly Grzywacz, L. Thabane, C Lee, Michael G. Surette, Paul Moayyedi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversité de MontréalMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectPlaceboInternal medicineEnemaClinical trialPilot trialPediatricsPhysical therapyDiseaseAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The first multicentre paediatric randomised-controlled trial (RCT) of faecal microbiota transplant (FMT) in ulcerative colitis (UC) was recently completed in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. The use of FMT in paediatric UC treatment has been limited to small, open-label case series. Unique clinical and patient factors necessitated a paediatric-specific pilot RCT. Our aim was to assess key feasibility measures of conducting an FMT trial in paediatric patients to inform design, and feasibility of larger, future multicentre studies. Methods Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive rectal enemas 2×/week for 6 weeks, followed by a 6-month follow-up period. Enemas contained normal saline (placebo), or RBX2660 (Rebiotix; Roseville, USA), a faecal microbiota preparation of stool from healthy adult donors (active). Patients were eligible for the open-label extension following completion or withdrawal from the placebo arm. Study feasibility was assessed through patient eligibility, recruitment, completion of sample collections, adverse events, and hospitalisations. Results Over 36 months across two tertiary IBD clinics, 48 paediatric patients were screened for participation. 75.0% (36) met eligibility criteria for enrolment and 69.4% (25) participated in the randomised trial. 53.8% (7) of patients randomised to the placebo arm entered the open-label arm. We stratified completion of sample collections by intervention (Weeks 0–6), and follow-up phases of the trial (Weeks 6–30). 75.3% of required bloodwork was obtained during both phases; patient-provided stool samples declined from 76.0% (intervention) to 45% (follow-up). 83.0% (10) reported adverse events in the active arm, and 38.4% (5) in placebo; these were all minor and self-limited (muscle pain, cough, fatigue, etc.). No patients experienced adverse events related to enemas. Five patients experienced serious adverse events: IBD flare (2 active, 1 placebo), and reactivation of C. difficile infection (2 active) (Table 1). Conclusion In this first paediatric RCT of FMT for UC, we established important feasibility data regarding the design of FMT trials in children. Patient acceptance of FMT was high, and well-tolerated with minor, self-limited adverse events, and few serious adverse events. Return-rates of stool samples were low during follow-up; strategies to improve uptake are needed, particularly given the value of microbiome data for analyses. Overall, our study demonstrates strong interest and tolerance among paediatric patients for FMT-based trials. Future studies will build upon our protocol to enhance clinical data on the effects of microbiota-based therapeutics in children.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207