Search

Non

International audience; Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) or donor feces infusion is a therapy that aims to restore a perturbed gut microbiota composition and function. FMT is effective for treatment of patients with (multiple) recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections1–3 and recommended by current guidelines.4–6 In the near future, FMT may also become an accepted treatment option for other intestinal or extra-intestinal diseases.7FMT is performed using suspensions made of donor stool from carefully selected and screened healthy individuals.1,7 Donor screening is time consuming and costly. Before the establishment of stool banks, physicians and patients had to find their own donors. This resulted in uncontrolled application of FMT, and the logistical challenge made physicians reluctant to offer FMT to their patients. To overcome these problems, stool banks have been established.8,9 The mission of those stool banks is :to produce ready-to-use donor feces suspensions for treatment of patients,to improve the quality and safety of FMT by centralization and standardization,to increase the cost effectiveness of FMT, andto facilitate research.Stool banks are built in concordance with the model of blood banks and should follow quality standards applied to other transplantation products. Most stool banks are non-profit institutions, operating at a local (institution-based), national or international level. Recently, a UEG-funded working group was initiated to define quality standards for stool banking and FMT, which will result in further standardization of this new treatment approach. The current costs to deliver a ready-to-use stool suspension are €1050–1700 in Europe.9,10 There are also commercial initiatives,11 which may aim for much higher prices.Driven by the needs of patients, stool banks have emerged as new entities in a landscape without existing regulatory boundaries. This lack of guidance and National or European legislation may become a serious threat to providing the treatment for severely ill patients. This is also illustrated by the recent safety alert in the US about the transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms through FMT,12 which underlines the need for standardization, quality assurance, and a regulatory framework supporting the activities of stool banks. Legislation requires classification of stool as a product to treat patients. We strongly believe that stool should be considered a transplant product, or be regarded equivalent in status to blood products used for transplantation or transfusion purposes. The EU Tissue and Cells Directive (2004/23/EC) is best suited to guide FMT. Currently, this Directive does not cover FMT because the mechanism of action is not mediated by human cells. An adjustment to align this directive with the new reality of fecal transplantation is thus urgently needed. Only in the case of modification to the donated feces, other than those necessary for the conservation of the microbial community, does the product made of the donated feces become comparable to a drug and is best covered within the European directive for medicinal products intended for human use (2001/83/EC).Unfortunately, the misclassification of donor feces suspensions as a drug or pharmaceutical product, although difficult to imagine, is still one of the possible outcomes of the current discussion about classification. Currently, stool has already been classified as a drug in countries such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Recently, companies have formed the “Pharmabiotic Research Institute” in Europe and the “Microbiome Therapeutics Innovation Group (MTIG)” in the US. The mission of those groups is “to improve market access,” and to “enhance the regulatory, investment, and commercial environment for microbiome therapeutic drug product development.” Both groups have published statements about the classification of FMT as a drug.13,14 MTIG actively collaborates with the Food and Drug Administration for the evaluation of safety parameters related to microbiota-based therapeutic products. Concern has been raised by the MTIG that the existence and accessibility of material from stool banks limits enrollment into clinical trials for microbiome therapeutics. This illustrates how companies are active to influence the current discussion about classification and regulation of FMT. In fact, this discussion has already been troubled by commercial interest in the US some years ago.15In this regard, it is important to mention the overall major disadvantages of classification as a drug, which will result in time-consuming and costly registration processes, and a sharp and unjustified rise in costs. Most importantly, this will negatively impact availability and innovation, obstructing, for example, the future development of single-donor individualized solutions due to the requirements for standardization of active substances. We postulate that stool treatment defined as drug treatment is counterproductive. Stool is not a standardized product that is produced in a factory, but a highly diverse and donor-specific substance of human origin (SoHO) delivered by healthy, usually unpaid, volunteer donors. Therefore, stool suspensions require suitable guidance of quality and safety measures comparable to guidance of other SoHO (blood, tissues, cells and organs) within the EU.If government authorities seek affordable and quality-assured FMT, a supportive regulatory framework, in combination with appropriate funding or reimbursement, is required for stool banks. This will not only guarantee broad access and safety of FMT, but also enable the future innovation of this new treatment strategy targeting the gut microbiota. If eventually future research results in the replacement of FMT by standardized mixtures of bacteria (or another yet undiscovered stool extract that could theoretically underly the clinical effects of FMT), these should indeed be regulated as a drug or pharmaceutical product.

Background: The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate viral hepatitis by 2030. Although no virological cure exists for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, existing therapies to control viral replication and prophylaxis to minimise mother-to-child transmission make elimination of HBV feasible. We aimed to estimate the national, regional, and global prevalence of HBsAg in the general population and in the population aged 5 years in 2016, as well as coverage of prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment. Methods: In this modelling study, we used a Delphi process that included a literature review in PubMed and Embase, followed by interviews with experts, to quantify the historical epidemiology of HBV infection. We then used a dynamic HBV transmission and progression model to estimate the country-level and regional-level prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 and the effect of prophylaxis and treatment on disease burden. Findings: We developed models for 120 countries, 78 of which were populated with data approved by experts. Using these models, we estimated that the global prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 was 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·4–4·6), corresponding to 291 992 000 (251 513 000–341 114 000) infections. Of these infections, around 29 million (10%) were diagnosed, and only 4·8 million (5%) of 94 million individuals eligible for treatment actually received antiviral therapy. Around 1·8 (1·6–2·2) million infections were in children aged 5 years, with a prevalence of 1·4% (1·2–1·6). We estimated that 87% of infants had received the three-dose HBV vaccination in the first year of life, 46% had received timely birth-dose vaccination, and 13% had received hepatitis B immunoglobulin along with the full vaccination regimen. Less than 1% of mothers with a high viral load had received antiviral therapy to reduce mother-to-child transmission. Interpretation: Our estimate of HBV prevalence in 2016 differs from previous studies, potentially because we took into account the effect of infant prophylaxis and early childhood vaccination, as well as changing prevalence over time. Although some regions are well on their way to meeting prophylaxis and prevalence targets, all regions must substantially scale-up access to diagnosis and treatment to meet the global targets. Funding: John C Martin Foundation. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

Background The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 2030, which can become a reality with the recent launch of direct acting antiviral therapies. Reliable disease burden estimates are required for national strategies. This analysis estimates the global prevalence of viraemic HCV at the end of 2015, an update of—and expansion on—the 2014 analysis, which reported 80 million (95% CI 64–103) viraemic infections in 2013. Methods We developed country-level disease burden models following a systematic review of HCV prevalence (number of studies, n=6754) and genotype (n=11 342) studies published after 2013. A Delphi process was used to gain country expert consensus and validate inputs. Published estimates alone were used for countries where expert panel meetings could not be scheduled. Global prevalence was estimated using regional averages for countries without data. Findings Models were built for 100 countries, 59 of which were approved by country experts, with the remaining 41 estimated using published data alone. The remaining countries had insufficient data to create a model. The global prevalence of viraemic HCV is estimated to be 1·0% (95% uncertainty interval 0·8–1·1) in 2015, corresponding to 71·1 million (62·5–79·4) viraemic infections. Genotypes 1 and 3 were the most common cause of infections (44% and 25%, respectively). Interpretation The global estimate of viraemic infections is lower than previous estimates, largely due to more recent (lower) prevalence estimates in Africa. Additionally, increased mortality due to liver-related causes and an ageing population may have contributed to a reduction in infections. Funding John C Martin Foundation. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Background: Faecal microbiota transplantation or transfer (FMT) aims at replacing or reinforcing the gut microbiota of a patient with the microbiota from a healthy donor. Not many controlled or randomised studies have been published evaluating the use of FMT for other diseases than Clostridium difficile infection, making it difficult for clinicians to decide on a suitable indication. Aim: To provide an expert consensus on current clinical indications, applications and methodological aspects of FMT. Methods: Well-acknowledged experts from various countries in Europe have contributed to this article. After literature review, consensus has been achieved by repetitive circulation of the statements and the full manuscript among all authors with intermittent adaptation to comments (using a modified Delphi process). Levels of evidence and agreement were rated according to the GRADE system. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by at least 75% of the authors. Results: Key recommendations include the use of FMT in recurrent C. difficile infection characterised by at least two previous standard treatments without persistent cure, as well as its consideration in severe and severe-complicated C. difficile infection as an alternative to total colectomy in case of early failure of antimicrobial therapy. FMT in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and metabolic syndrome should only be performed in research settings. Conclusions: Faecal microbiota transplantation or transfer is a promising treatment for a variety of diseases in which the intestinal microbiota is disturbed. For indications other than C. difficile infection, more evidence is needed before more concrete recommendations can be made., Funding Agencies:Seres TherapeuticsAbbVieAstellasBiogenJanssenMSDMundipharmaTakeda Summit TherapeuticsFalkFoundationTakeda

Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the European Union (EU), treatment and cure of HCV with direct-acting antiviral therapies began in 2014. WHO targets are to achieve a 65% reduction in liver-related deaths, a 90% reduction of new viral hepatitis infections, and 90% of patients with viral hepatitis infections being diagnosed by 2030. This study assessed the prevalence of HCV in the EU and the level of intervention required to achieve WHO targets for HCV elimination. Methods We populated country Markov models for the 28 EU countries through a literature search of PubMed and Embase between Jan 1, 2000, and March 31, 2016, and a Delphi process to gain expert consensus and validate inputs. We aggregated country models to create a regional EU model. We used the EU model to forecast HCV disease progression (considering the effect of immigration) and developed a strategy to acehive WHO targets. We used weighted average sustained viral response rates and fibrosis restrictions to model the effect of current therapeutic guidelines. We used the EU model to forecast HCV disease progression (considering the effect of immigration) under current screening and therapeutic guidelines. Additionally, we back-calculated the total number of patients needing to be screened and treated to achieve WHO targets. Findings We estimated the number of viraemic HCV infections in 2015 to be 3 238 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 2 106 000–3 795 000) of a total population of 509 868 000 in the EU, equating to a prevalence of viraemic HCV of 0·64% (95% UI 0·41–0·74). We estimated that 1 180 000 (95% UI 1 003 000–1 357 000) people were diagnosed with viraemia (36·4%), 150 000 (12 000–180 000) were treated (4·6% of the total infected population or 12·7% of the diagnosed population), 133 000 (106 000–160 000) were cured (4·1%), and 57 900 (43 900–67 300) were newly infected (1·8%) in 2015. Additionally, 30 400 (26 600–42 500) HCV-positive immigrants entered the EU. To achieve WHO targets, unrestricted treatment needs to increase from 150 000 patients in 2015 to 187 000 patients in 2025 and diagnosis needs to increase from 88 800 new cases annually in 2015 to 180 000 in 2025. Interpretation Given its advanced health-care infrastructure, the EU is uniquely poised to eliminate HCV; however, expansion of screening programmes is essential to increase treatment to achieve the WHO targets. A united effort, grounded in sound epidemiological evidence, will also be necessary. Funding Gilead Sciences. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Morbidity and mortality attributable to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are increasing in many countries as the infected population ages. Models were developed for 15 countries to quantify and characterize the viremic population, as well as estimate the number of new infections and HCV related deaths from 2013 to 2030. Expert consensus was used to determine current treatment levels and outcomes in each country. In most countries, viremic prevalence has already peaked. In every country studied, prevalence begins to decline before 2030, when current treatment levels were held constant. In contrast, cases of advanced liver disease and liver related deaths will continue to increase through 2030 in most countries. The current treatment paradigm is inadequate if large reductions in HCV related morbidity and mortality are to be achieved.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of liver related morbidity and mortality. In many countries, there is a lack of comprehensive epidemiological data that are crucial in implementing disease control measures as new treatment options become available. Published literature, unpublished data and expert consensus were used to determine key parameters, including prevalence, viremia, genotype and the number of patients diagnosed and treated. In this study of 15 countries, viremic prevalence ranged from 0.13% in the Netherlands to 2.91% in Russia. The largest viremic populations were in India (8666000 cases) and Russia (4162000 cases). In most countries, males had a higher rate of infections, likely due to higher rates of injection drug use (IDU). Estimates characterizing the infected population are critical to focus screening and treatment efforts as new therapeutic options become available.

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemic was forecasted through 2030 for 15 countries, and the relative impact of two scenarios was considered: (i) increased treatment efficacy while holding the treated population constant and (ii) increased treatment efficacy and increased annual treated population. Increasing levels of diagnosis and treatment, in combination with improved treatment efficacy, were critical for achieving substantial reductions in disease burden. In most countries, the annual treated population had to increase several fold to achieve the largest reductions in HCV-related morbidity and mortality. This suggests that increased capacity for screening and treatment will be critical in many countries. Birth cohort screening is a helpful tool for maximizing resources. In most of the studied countries, the majority of patients were born between 1945 and 1985.

Various gastrointestinal infiltrations have been described in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Here, we report a 69-year-old man with CLL and anaemia in whom the macroscopic finding of colonoscopy was normal, but the histological specimens revealed lymphocytic leukemia in ileum and in colon. If a CLL patient has any symptoms suggesting a possible GI manifestation of the haematologic disease or anaemia not explained by bone marrow infiltration or hemolysis, the diagnostic evaluation should include endoscopies with adequate biopsies.