Background The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank provides standardized ready-to-use donor faecal suspensions for faecal microbiota transplantation treatment of patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection. Objective The purpose of this study was evaluation of safety, feasibility and outcome of faecal microbiota transplantation facilitated by a national stool bank. Methods The methods used included: observational cohort study of donors and recipients of faecal suspensions; assessment of donor screening and patient selection performed by an expert panel of medical microbiologists, gastroenterologists and infectious disease specialists; and patient outcome evaluated at different timepoints after faecal microbiota transplantation. Results Of 871 volunteers who registered as a potential faeces donor, 16 (2%) became active donors. Nine donors stopped or were excluded after a mean donation period of 5.7 months. In 2016–2019, 47 (27%) of 176 requests for faecal microbiota transplantations were deemed not indicated by the expert panel. In total, 129 patients with recurrent C. difficile infection were treated with 143 faecal suspensions in 40 different hospitals. The cure rate at two months after a single infusion was 89% (107/120). Of 84 patients, long-term follow-up (median 42 weeks) was available and sustained cure was achieved in 61 (73%). Early C. difficile infection relapses (within two months after faecal microbiota transplantation) and late recurrences (after more than two months) occurred more frequently in patients who received non- C. difficile antibiotics within three weeks after faecal microbiota transplantation and in moderately to severely immunocompromised patients. Of 21 patients with C. difficile infection after faecal microbiota transplantation, 14 were cured with anti- C. difficile antibiotics and seven with a second transplantation. No faecal microbiota transplantation-related serious adverse events were observed, but gastro-intestinal complaints (nausea, abdominal pain or diarrhoea) persisted in 32% of the treated patients at long-term follow-up. Conclusion Faecal suspensions provided by a centralized stool bank, supported by a multidisciplinary expert team, resulted in effective, appropriate and safe application of faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent C. difficile infection. Level of evidence Level II, prospective cohort study

No abstract

Background Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an efficacious treatment for patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections (rCDI). Stool banks facilitate FMT by providing screened faecal suspensions from highly selected healthy donors. Due to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential risk of SARS coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission via FMT, many stool banks were forced to temporarily halt and adjust donor activities. Goal The evaluation of a strategy to effectively continue stool banking activities during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Study To restart our stool banking activities after an initial halt, we implemented periodic SARS-CoV-2 screening in donor faeces and serum, and frequent donor assessment for COVID-19 related symptoms. FMT donor and recipient data obtained before (2016–2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-August 2021) were compared to assess stool banking efficacy. Results Two out of ten donors developed COVID-19. No differences during versus before the COVID-19 pandemic were observed in the number of approved faeces donations (14 vs 22/month, p = 0.06), FMT requests for rCDI (3.9 vs 4.3/month, p = 0.6); rCDI patients eligible for FMT (80.6% vs 73.3%, p = 0.2); rCDI cure rate (90.3% vs 89.2%, p = 0.9); CDI-free survival (p = 0.7); the number of non-rCDI patients treated with FMT (0.5/month vs 0.4/month), and the number of possibly FMT related adverse events (9.5% vs 7.8%, p = 0.7). Two FMTs for rCDI were delayed due to COVID-19. Conclusions There is a continued need for FMT treatment of rCDI during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appropriate donor screening and SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention measures can be implemented in existing protocols without increasing the burden for donors, and allow safe, effective and efficient FMT during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Stool banks should evaluate their SARS-CoV-2 donor screening protocols for long-term sustainability and efficacy, and share their experiences to help the utilisation, standardisation and improvement of stool banks worldwide.

Purpose Liver steatosis is a frequently reported condition in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Different factors, both metabolic and IBD-associated, are believed to contribute to the pathogenesis. The aim of our study was to calculate the prevalence of liver steatosis and fibrosis in IBD patients and to evaluate which factors influence changes in steatosis and fibrosis during follow-up. Methods From June 2017 to February 2018, demographic and biochemical data was collected at baseline and after 6-12 months. Measured by transient elastography (FibroScan), liver steatosis was defined as Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP) ≥248 and fibrosis as liver stiffness value (Emed) ≥7.3 kPa. IBD disease activity was defined as C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥10 mg/l and/or fecal calprotectin (FCP) ≥150 μg/g. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed; a p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant. Results Eighty-two out of 112 patients were seen for follow-up; 56% were male. The mean age was 43 ± 16.0 years, and mean BMI was 25.1 ± 4.7 kg/m 2 . The prevalence of liver steatosis was 40% and of fibrosis was 20%. At baseline, 26 patients (32%) had an active episode of IBD. Using a multivariate analysis, disease activity at baseline was associated with an increase in liver steatosis (B = 37,, p = 0.027) and liver fibrosis (B = 1.2, 95% CI 0.27-2.14, p = 0.016) during follow-up. Conclusions This study confirms the relatively high prevalence of liver steatosis and fibrosis in IBD patients. We demonstrate that active IBD at baseline is associated with both an increase in liver steatosis and fibrosis during follow-up.

No abstract