Z Gastroenterol 2018; 56(08): e212-e213
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1668687
Kurzvorträge
Dünndarm, Dickdarm, Proktologie
CED: Lebensqualität, OP-Ergebnisse und Kosten der Therapie – Donnerstag, 13. September 2018, 16:50 – 18:02, 22b
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Patients' perceptions on fecal microbiota transfer in inflammatory bowel disease.

A Schäfer
1   Universität Ulm, Innere Medizin I, Ulm, Deutschland
,
L Rauschek
1   Universität Ulm, Innere Medizin I, Ulm, Deutschland
,
K Steding
1   Universität Ulm, Innere Medizin I, Ulm, Deutschland
,
J Berthold
1   Universität Ulm, Innere Medizin I, Ulm, Deutschland
,
J Klaus
1   Universität Ulm, Innere Medizin I, Ulm, Deutschland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 August 2018 (online)

Also available at
 

Background:

FMT as an emerging therapeutic approach in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a hot topic for both, patients and doctors. Few controlled studies suggest a benefit for FMT at least in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). We wanted to explore our patients' view on this option to better understand their knowledge, willingness and preferences to undergo FMT.

Methods:

We obtained data from 302 consecutive IBD patients visiting a tertiary outpatient clinic in the south of Germany (Ulm, University Hospital, Germany) using an anonymous questionnaire.

Results:

302 patients filled in the questionnaire, 190 (63%) Crohn's disease and 112 (37%) UC patients. The HBI-Index in CD was 5,6 and CAI-Index was 5,4 in UC. 84 (44%) of CD and 49 (44%) of UC patients reported to be in remission and 61 (32%)/35 (18%)/5 (3%) to have mild/moderate/severe CD and 34 (30%)/20 (18%)/5 (4%) to have mild/moderate/severe UC activity, respectively. 154 (51%) had some knowledge of FMT in IBD, 136 (45%) not, with no difference between CD or UC. 141 (47%) reported FMT a treatment option, 84 (44%) of CD an 57 (51%) of UC patients but 132 (44%) (89 (47%) CD and 43 (38%) UC) were not sure if FMT is their treatment of choice but only 27 (9%) rejected an FMT upfront. Severity of symptoms (scale 1 – 5) before FMT reported by CD/UC patients was 3,74, with a chance to be in remission of > 64%. Most patients reported FMT to be a therapeutic option instead of surgery (138 (46%)), and only 43 (14%) and 42 (14%) reported FMT to be a therapeutic alternative to immunosuppressant's or biologicals, respectively. Therefore, only 86 (28%) optioned FMT as next therapeutic approach, 49 (26%) of CD and 37 (33%) of UC patients. Preferred method of FMT delivery was colonoscopy (94 (34%)) but only once to twice in a year or capsule (139 (44%)) with 74 (39%) and 27 (14%) willing to repeat this procedure weekly or monthly, respectively.

Conclusions:

IBD patients know about FMT and only few reject FMT as a treatment option from the beginning but more information and education is needed to option FMT not only as a last line therapy just before surgery with symptoms of active disease high and the most convenient method of FMT delivery to IBD patients has still to be determined.