Results from the first English stool bank using faecal microbiota transplant as a medicinal product for the treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: infection (CDI) compared to antibiotic therapy. FMT is classified as a medicinal product in the United Kingdom, similar to the USA and Canada, limiting supply via stool banks without appropriate licencing. In the largest UK cohort to date, we describe the clinical outcomes for 124 patients receiving FMT for recurrent or refractory CDI and present a framework to produce FMT as a licenced medicinal product. METHODS: Anonymous unrelated healthy donors, screened via health assessment and microbiological testing donated stool. In aerobic conditions FMT aliquots were prepared for immediate use or frozen storage, following a production framework developed to comply with Good Manufacturing Practice. Outcome measures were clinical response to FMT defined as resolution of diarrhoea within seven days and clinical cure defined as response without diarrhoea recurrence at 90 days. FINDINGS: Clinical response was 83·9% (95% CI 76·0%-90·0%) after one treatment. Clinical cure was 78·2% (95% CI 67·4%-89·0%) across the cohort. Refractory cases appeared to have a lower initial clinical response rate compared to recurrent cases, however at day 90 there were no differences observed between these groups. INTERPRETATION: The methodology developed here enabled successful licencing of FMT by The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as a medicinal product. This has widened the availability of FMT in the National Health Service via a stool bank and can be applied in other centres across the world to improve access to safe and quality assured treatments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".