Effect of antibiotic therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Outcomes Following Acute Severe Colitis at Initial Presentation: A Multi-centre, Prospective, Paediatric Cohort Study

AIM

To assess contemporary outcomes in children with acute severe ulcerative colitis [ASUC] at initial presentation.

METHODS

Between April 2014 and January 2019, children aged <17 years, with new onset ASUC (Paediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index [PUCAI ≥65) were prospectively followed in a Canadian inception cohort study. 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing captured microbial composition of baseline faecal samples. Primary endpoint was corticosteroid-free clinical remission with intact colon at 1 year [PUCAI <10, no steroids ≥4 weeks].

RESULTS

Of 379 children with new onset UC/IBD-unclassified, 105 [28%] presented with ASUC (42% male; median [interquartile range; [IQR]) age 14 [11-16] years; extensive colitis in all). Compared with mild UC, gut microbiome of ASUC patients had lower α-diversity, decreased beneficial anaerobes, and increased aerobes; 54 [51%] children were steroid-refractory and given infliximab [87% intensified regimen]. Corticosteroid-free remission at 1 year was achieved by 62 [61%] ASUC cohort (by 34 [63%] steroid-refractory patients, all on biologics; by 28 [55%] steroid responders,13 [25%] on 5- aminosalicylic acid [5-ASA], 5 [10%] on thiopurines, 10 [20%] on biologics). By 1 year, 78 [74%] escalated to infliximab including 24 [47%] steroid-responders failed by 5-ASA and/or thiopurines. In multivariable analysis, clinical predictors for commencing infliximab included hypoalbuminaemia, greater PUCAI, higher age, and male sex. Over 18 months, repeat corticosteroid course[s] and repeat hospitalisation were less likely among steroid-refractory versus -responsive but -dependent patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.71 [95% CI 0.57-0.89] and 0.54 [95% CI 0.45-0.66], respectively).

CONCLUSION

The majority of children presenting with ASUC escalate therapy to biologics. Predictors of need for advanced therapy may guide selection of optimal maintenance therapy.

Is the microbiome the cause of irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease? Lessons to consider from odontology

BACKGROUND

A substantial amount of research is pointing to the disrupted microbiome and dysfunctional host-microbiome interaction as potential causes of Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The true cause of the diseases is still not fully elucidated, and the various treatments used are not truly effective in the long run, especially for IBD, since a true cure is not known to exist. Treatment failure and surgery are common for IBD, many times leading to a perceived lower quality of life, not to mention the enormous cost for society for treatment up until that point and after. Although it is clear that the microbiome has a major role in the disease, it seems the majority of the research and treatments are still focused on treating and understanding the inflammation and not the primary cause of the inflammation in the first place. This was also the case for many decades in the search for the cause of periodontitis (PD) and gingivitis (GV), a destructive and non-destructive inflammatory disorder, respectively, the first resulting in loss of tissue supporting the teeth. There was much uncertainty and confusion until it was fully established that the microbiome was the cause. PD treatments primarily nowadays reflect the cause, i.e. the removal of microbes. There is no doubt, however, that the inflammatory pathways are important in both diseases and the purpose of this text is not to dispute this in respect to gastrointestinal disorders too. However, a different view on inflammation and associated disorders is explored to explain the nature of extraintestinal manifestations.

PURPOSE

The aim of this report is not to systematically fully review the literature to try to strengthen causality, as there are many reviews that explore the microbial aspects of IBS and IBD. Instead, the objective is to above all reflect on what has been learned in the field of odontology/stomatology and discuss relevant gastrointestinal research in order to propose tentative hypotheses and questions regarding IBS and IBD aetiology. Perhaps it could help soften the confusion regarding the microbial aetiology and dysbiosis concept, while guiding future research and treatments, primarily regarding microbial transplants, antibiotics, and diet.

ESPEN guideline on Clinical Nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease

The present guideline is an update and extension of the ESPEN scientific guideline on Clinical Nutrition in Inflammatory Bowel Disease published first in 2017. The guideline has been rearranged according to the ESPEN practical guideline on Clinical Nutrition in Inflammatory Bowel Disease published in 2020. All recommendations have been checked and, if needed, revised based on new literature, before they underwent the ESPEN consensus procedure. Moreover, a new chapter on microbiota modulation as a new option in IBD treatment has been added. The number of recommendations has been increased to 71 recommendations in the guideline update. The guideline is aimed at professionals working in clinical practice, either in hospitals or in outpatient medicine, and treating patients with IBD. General aspects of care in patients with IBD, and specific aspects during active disease and in remission are addressed. All recommendations are equipped with evidence grades, consensus rates, short commentaries and links to cited literature.

Microbial Modulation in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Gut dysbiosis is one of prominent features in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) which are of an unknown etiology. Although the cause-and-effect relationship between IBD and gut dysbiosis remains to be elucidated, one area of research has focused on the management of IBD by modulating and correcting gut dysbiosis. The use of antibiotics, probiotics either with or without prebiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation from healthy donors are representative methods for modulating the intestinal microbiota ecosystem. The gut microbiota is not a simple assembly of bacteria, fungi, and viruses, but a complex organ-like community system composed of numerous kinds of microorganisms. Thus, studies on specific changes in the gut microbiota depending on which treatment option is applied are very limited. Here, we review previous studies on microbial modulation as a therapeutic option for IBD and its significance in the pathogenesis of IBD.

Gut microbiota in inflammatory bowel disease: a target for therapy not to be missed

In the last years, the gut microbiota achieved great importance, since several studies demonstrated its correlation with the immune system and with the maintenance of intestinal homeostasis, as well as with the regulation of the integrity of the epithelium and the intestinal motility. An imbalance in microbial species promotes a dysbiosis, which has been associated with chronic diseases such as metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, and some behavior disorders. The association with gut microbiota and dysbiosis has been demonstrated mostly in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Several studies investigated the application of antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment strategies for IBD. In this review, we discuss the recent findings on the potential role of the gut microbiota manipulation, with particular attention to bacterial microbiota, which could be implicated for a successful IBD therapeutic approach.

Long-Term Efficacy of Low-Intensity Single Donor Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Ulcerative Colitis and Outcome-Specific Gut Bacteria

Aims: To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of single-donor, low-intensity fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in treating ulcerative colitis (UC), and to identify the outcome-specific gut bacteria. Design: Thirty-one patients with active UC (Mayo scores ≥ 3) were recruited, and all received FMT twice, at the start of the study and 2∼3 months later, respectively, with a single donor and a long-term follow-up. The fecal microbiome profile was accessed via 16S rRNA sequencing before and after FMT. Results: After the first FMT, 22.58% (7/31) of patients achieved clinical remission and endoscopy remission, with the clinical response rate of 67.74% (21/31), which increased to 55% (11/20) and 80% (16/20), respectively, after the second FMT. No serious adverse events occurred in all patients. During 4 years of follow-up, the mean remission period of patients was 26.5 ± 19.98 m; the relapse rate in the 12 remission patients was 33.33% within 1 year, and 58.3% within 4 years. At baseline, UC patients showed an enrichment in some proinflammatory microorganisms compared to the donor, such as Bacteroides fragilis, Clostridium difficile, and Ruminococcus gnavus, and showed reduced amounts of short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) producing bacteria especially Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. FMT induced taxonomic compositional changes in the recipient gut microbiota, resulting in a donor-like state. Given this specific donor, UC recipients with different outcomes showed distinct gut microbial features before and after FMT. In prior to FMT, relapse was characterized by higher abundances of Bacteroides fragilis and Lachnospiraceae incertae sedis, together with lower abundances of Bacteroides massiliensis, Roseburia, and Ruminococcus; Prevotella copri was more abundant in the non-responders (NR); and the patients with sustained remission (SR) had a higher abundance of Bifidobacterium breve. After FMT, the NR patients had a lower level of Bifidobacterium compared to those with relapse (Rel) and SR, while a higher level of Bacteroides spp. was observed in the Rel group. Conclusion: Low-intensity single donor FMT could induce long remission in active UC. The gut microbiota composition in UC patients at baseline may be predictive of therapeutic response to FMT.