ReviewVisceral medicine2024
Microbiota-Based Therapeutics as New Standard-of-Care Treatment for Recurrent
Review in Visceral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic microbial communities: emerging live biotherapeutics for targeted gut microbiome modulation.Gut microbes · 2026Review
- Immunotherapy restores therapeutic efficacy of fecal microbiome transplants to treatbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Global Probiotic Markets Meet Synthetic Biology: Translational Challenges andMicroorganisms · 2026Review
- Nanobiotic-Enhanced Probiotics for Targeted Gut Delivery: Mechanisms, Therapeutic Applications, and Translational Challenges.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Effects of Sexual Dimorphism and the Estrous Cycle onACS infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The interplay between host immunity andmBio · 2025Review
- Insights into the Interaction BetweenJournal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Summary: Over the past few decades, the incidence, morbidity, and mortality associated with CDIs have increased. They have emerged as the primary cause of nosocomial gastrointestinal infections in industrialized countries, posing a significant burden on healthcare systems. Despite antibiotics often being the cause of CDIs, they remain the standard treatment. However, a considerable number of patients treated with antibiotics will experience recurrent CDI (rCDI). Microbiota-based therapies targeting the core issue of CDI - antibiotic-induced dysbiosis - hold promise for rCDI treatment. While data for probiotics are insufficient, numerous studies have highlighted the effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as a safe and viable therapeutic option for rCDI. This approach is now endorsed by multiple guidelines. Nonetheless, regulatory prerequisites, such as comprehensive stool donor screening, restrict the widespread adoption of FMT beyond specialized centers. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved two commercial microbiota-based therapeutics to prevent CDI recurrence. These therapeutics are available by prescription in the USA. RBX2660 (REBYOTA™) comprises a diverse consortium of live microbes derived from human stool and is administered via enema. On the other hand, SER-109 (VOWST™) is an orally administered spore-based medication. In this review, we discuss the potential of microbiota-based treatments for rCDI against the background of medico-legal challenges associated with classical FMT. Key Messages: FMT has emerged as a highly effective cure for rCDI. Nonetheless, regulatory prerequisites and laborious preparation procedures impede its widespread use. The establishment of ready-to-use microbiota-based therapeutics in clinical practice is necessary. In the USA, the recent approval of the first two commercial medications, including a spore-based oral preparation, marks a significant step forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.