4.6 Review

Proton pump inhibitor in upper gastrointestinal fecal microbiota transplant: A systematic review and analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 932-940

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14958

关键词

Clostridioides difficile; Clostridium difficile; fecal microbiota transplant; microbiome; proton pump inhibitor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is used in recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections. However, protocols are facility dependent, and one variable is whether pre-procedural proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are given. In theory, PPIs reduce acidity and protect the transplanted microbiome for the most potent dose. We conducted a systematic review to study the effect of PPIs on FMT delivered by upper gastrointestinal (GI) routes. Methods We searched Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science through December 16, 2018 using variations of keywords fecal microbiota transplant and Clostridium difficile infection. Two authors independently reviewed 4210 results and found 11 qualifying studies with data on upper GI FMT, use of PPIs, and the rate of treatment failure at follow-up. Results Of 233 included patients, treatment failure occurred in 20.6% of those with use of PPIs versus 22.6% in the group without (relative risk 0.91; confidence interval 0.56-1.50). Limitations include the lack of studies directly comparing outcomes based on use of PPIs and inability to control for possible confounders such as chronic PPI use, amount of stool transplanted, and pre-FMT antibiotics. Conclusions We did not find evidence supporting a clinically significant benefit from routine use of PPIs in FMT protocol. It is possible that the theoretical benefit from improved survival of transplanted microbiota is offset by negative effects on the microbiome. We suggest that routine use of PPIs in upper GI FMT be reconsidered. Further investigation is needed to optimize protocols for safety and efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据