ABSTRACT
AIM: Was to evaluate clinical efficacy, adverse events and changes in the gut microbiome after fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) form of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective single-center study in R.M. Gorbacheva institute included 27 patients with GI GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. 19 patients received FMT, 8 patients received placebo. Clinical scales for GI autoimmune diseases were used to evaluate response. Microbiome alterations were assessed with multiplex PCR. RESULTS: After FMT higher overall bacterial mass (Ñ=0.00088), higher bacterial numbers ofBifidobacteriumspp. (Ñ=0.021),Escherichia coli(Ñ=0.049) andBacteroides fragilisgr. (Ñ=0.000043) compared to placebo group. Also higher bacterial mass was observed in patients with clinical response (Ñ=0.0057). The bacterial mass after procedure in non-responders was compared to the placebo group (Ñ=0.31). Partial response of GVHD was achieved faster in the FMT group compared to placebo (median 4 days vs 48 days,p=0.014). Complete response was observed in 8 (42%), 14 (74%) and 16 (84%) at 30, 60 and 90 days respectively, while in the placebo group only 0%, 1 (13%) and 4 (50%) achieved complete response at the same time points. The incidence and severity of adverse events was comparable between FMT and the placebo group. CONCLUSION: FMT in patients with refractory GI GVHD was associated with favorable clinical outcomes and recovery in certain marker bacterial populations. Multiplex PCR can be used to assess an engraftment of a donor microbiota. FMT in GI GVHD was not associated with life-threatening adverse events, but further studies are required to validate clinical efficacy.
Subject(s)
Gastrointestinal Microbiome , Graft vs Host Disease , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation , Adult , Child , Fecal Microbiota Transplantation , Feces , Graft vs Host Disease/therapy , Humans , Prospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIM: To study the impact of modified nutritional support (NS) versus standard NS on therapy tolerability and posttransplantation in patients with oncohematological diseases. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients, who had been diagnosed as acute myeloblastic (n = 19) or acute lymphoblastic (n = 16) leukemias, lymphomas (n = 10), and other oncohematological diseases (n = 8) and had received large-dose polychemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), were prospectively examined. The control group (n = 27) used standard NS (NS was prescribed when gastrointestinal (GI) events occurred; on day 1 after HSCT, the study group (n = 26) had modified NS added by glutamine dipeptide (0.57 g/kg/day). Energy demands were 35 kcal/kg/day; protein requirements were 1.5-1.7 g/kg/day. Artificial nutrition preparations were daily given through infusion pumps for 24 hours. In both groups, the criteria for NS discontinuation were natural assimilation of 60% of the required energy within 3 consecutive days or day 14 after HSCT when Gl function was preserved. RESULTS: The patients receiving modified NS showed reductions in the incidence and severity of mucositis (p = 0.05), a less significant decrease in the laboratory and anthropometric indicators of nutritional status (p = 0.01), and a better hospital outcome on day 100 after HSCT (p = 0.01). There were no differences in the rate and severity of acute graft-versus-host reaction (p = 0.7%) and in one-year overall survival (p = 0.7%). CONCLUSION: As compared with standard NS, modified NS enables a patient to sustain negative consequences of the conditioning regimen, HSCT in the early posttransplantation period.