14 research outputs found
The intestinal microbiota disrupted & restored:On Clostridium difficile infection and fecal donation
Faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice
Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog
Human transmission of blastocystis by fecal microbiota transplantation without development of gastrointestinal symptoms in recipients
Background. Patients with multiple recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections (rCDI) are treated with fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), using feces provided by healthy donors. Blastocystis colonization of donors is considered an exclusion criterion, whereas its pathogenicity is still under debate. Methods. The introduction of molecular screening for Blastocystis sp. at our stool bank identified 2 donors with prior negative microscopies but positive polymerase chain reactions (PCRs). Potential transmission of Blastocystis sp. to patients was assessed on 16 fecal patient samples, pre- and post-FMT, by PCR and subtype (ST) analyses. In addition, clinical outcomes for the treatment of rCDI (n = 31), as well as the development of gastrointestinal symptoms, were assessed. Results. There was 1 donor who carried Blastocystis ST1, and the other contained ST3. All patients tested negative for Blastocystis prior to FMT. With a median diagnosis at 20.5 days after FMT, 8 of 16 (50%) patients developed intestinal colonization with Blastocystis, with identical ST sequences as their respective donors. Blastocystis-containing fecal suspensions were used to treat 31 rCDI patients, with an FMT success rate of 84%. This success rate was not statistically different from patients transferred with Blastocystis sp.–negative donor feces (93%, 76/82). Patients transferred with Blastocystis sp.–positive donor feces did not report any significant differences in bowel complaints in the first week, after 3 weeks, or
The intestinal microbiota disrupted & restored: On Clostridium difficile infection and fecal donation
Vandenbroucke-Grauls, C.M.J.E. [Promotor]Mulder, C.J.J. [Promotor]Dekkers, O.M. [Copromotor
Is the Lower Gastrointestinal Route Really Preferred Over the Upper Gastrointestinal Route for Fecal Microbiota Transfer?
Molecular basis of bacterial pathogenesis, virulence factors and antibiotic resistanc
Diagnostic yield of repeat sampling with immunoassay, real-time PCR, and toxigenic culture for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in an epidemic and a non-epidemic setting
Current international guidelines lack definite conclusions regarding repeat stool sampling for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. We assessed the value of repeat sampling and compared the diagnostic yield in an epidemic to a non-epidemic setting. Consecutive fecal samples obtained during two time frames were analyzed using direct stool immunoassay toxin testing (enzyme immunoassay [EIA]), direct stool real-time PCR toxin gene testing, and toxigenic culture. Samples collected within 7 days of the initial sample were considered repeat tests. In the epidemic setting 989 patients were analyzed, and in the non-epidemic setting 1,015. In the epidemic setting 204 patients had two or more specimens included for analysis and in the non-epidemic setting 287 patients. In the epidemic setting 136 samples yielded a positive results, either by EIA or toxigenic culture; of these, 108 were positive according to EIA and 123 according to toxigenic culture. In the first test round 98 (90.7 %, 95 % CI 85.3 to 96.2), 114 (92.7 %, 88.1 to 97.3), and 126 (92.6 %, 88.3 to 97.0) positives were detected. Subsequent test rounds yielded 10 (9.3 %, 3.8 to 14.7), 9 (7.3 %, 2.7 to 11.9), and 10 (7.4 %, 3.0 to 11.7) extra positives. In the non-epidemic setting EIA, toxigenic culture and PCR detected 33, 66, and 83 positives. The three tests combined 93 detected positives. In the first test round 30 (90.9 %, 81.1 to 100.7), 63 (95.5 %, 90.4 to 110.5), 76 (91.6 %, 85.6 to 97.5), and 87 (93.5 %, 88.6 to 98.5) positives were detected. Subsequent test rounds yielded 3 (9.1 %, −0.7 to 18.9), 3 (4.5 %, −0.5 to 9.6), 7 (8.4 %, 2.5 to 14.4), and 6 (6.5 %, 1.5 to 11.4) extra positives. In conclusion, repeat testing resulted in 4.5 % to 9.3 % extra positives. No significant difference between the settings studied could be demonstrated. Repeat sampling and multimodality testing may be chosen in an outbreak situation to detect all cases, effectively controlling nosocomial spread
External Validation of Three Prediction Tools for Patients at Risk of a Complicated Course of Clostridium difficile Infection: Disappointing in an Outbreak Setting
Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc
Host factors are more important in predicting recurrent Clostridium difficile infection than ribotype and use of antibiotics
An Outbreak of Clostridium difficile Ribotype 027 Associated with Length of Stay in the Intensive Care Unit and Use of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract: A Case Control Study
Clinical epidemiolog
How to: Establish and run a stool bank
_Background:_ Since 2013, several stool banks have been developed following publications reporting on
clinical success of ‘faecal microbiota transplantation’ (FMT) for recurrent Clostridium difficile infections
(CDI). However, protocols for donor screening, faecal suspension preparation, and transfer of the faecal
suspension differ between countries and institutions. Moreover, no European consensus exists regarding
the legislative aspects of the faecal suspension product. Internationally standardized recommendations
about the above mentioned aspects have not yet been established.
_Objective:_ In 2015, the Netherlands Donor Feces Bank (NDFB) was founded with the primary aim of
providing a standardized product for the treatment of patients with recurrent CDI in the Netherlands.
Standard operation procedures for donor recruitment, donor selection, donor screening, and production,
storage, and distribution of frozen faecal suspensions for FMT were formulated.
_Results and discussion:_ Our experience summarized in this review addresses current donor recruitment
and screening, preparation of the faecal suspension, transfer of the faecal microbiota suspension, and the
experiences and follow-up of the patients treated with donor faeces from the NDFB