Skip to content

Freeze-dried vs Fresh Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Patients With Slow Transit Constipation

Freeze-dried vs Fresh Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Patients With Slow Transit Constipation: a Randomized Controlled Study

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02676388
Enrollment
50
Registered
2016-02-08
Start date
2015-06-30
Completion date
2016-06-30
Last updated
2016-03-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Slow Transit Constipation

Keywords

Slow Transit Constipation, Freeze-dried, Capsulized FMT, Fresh FMT

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of freeze-dried, capsulized FMT and fresh FMT in adults with slow transit constipation.

Detailed description

Constipation is a chronic disease estimated to affect about 10% - 15% of the worldwide general population. Constipation frequency appears to augment with increasing age, particularly after 65 years old. Recent evidence in the literature and collected in the investigators' laboratory confirm that constipation can be a consequence of intestinal dysbiosis, with an increase of potentially pathogenic microorganisms and a decrease of potentially beneficial microorganisms. These alterations may affect the motility and metabolic environment of colon, especially the production of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs). A new and under-explored method to manipulate the gastrointestinal microbiota involves fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). There has been growing interest in the use of fecal microbiota for the treatment of patients with chronic gastrointestinal infections (e.g. CDI) and other extraintestinal conditions (e.g. IBD). Similarly, the investigators suppose that reshaping the gut microbiome with FMT would be effective for patients with slow transit constipation.

Interventions

PROCEDUREFreeze-dried, Capsulized FMT
PROCEDUREFresh FMT

Sponsors

Jinling Hospital, China
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Chronic constipation according to Rome III criteria, defined as two or fewer spontaneous, complete bowel movements (SCBMs) per week for a minimum of 6 months; Age ≥ 18 years; BMI: 18.5-25 kg/m2; Slow colonic transit confirmed by colonic transit test (colonic transit time (CTT) \> 48 hours); Normal anorectal manometry, with no evidence of dyssynergia and confirmed ability to expel rectal balloon; No radiographic evidence of functional (i.e. pelvic floor dyssynergia) or anatomical (i.e. significant rectocele and intussusception) impediment to the expulsion of the radio-opaque contrast; Disease duration \> 1 year; Traditional treatment with dietary modification, laxatives (including osmotic and stimulant laxatives), and biofeedback tried over the past 6 months without success;

Exclusion criteria

Bowel constipation due to innate factor (i.e. megacolon) or secondary interventions (i.e. drugs, endocrine, metabolic, neurologic or psychologic disorders); History or evidence of gastrointestinal diseases (i.e. obstruction, cancer, inflammatory bowel diseases) ; Previous abdominal surgery, except cholecystectomy, appendicectomy, tubal ligation and cesarean section; Previous proctological or perianal surgery; A constipation condition meeting the Rome III criteria for IBS or functional abdominal pain syndrome; Pregnant or breast-feeding women; Infection with enteric pathogen; Usage of probiotics, prebiotics and/or synbiotics within the last month; Usage of antibiotics and/or PPIs within the last 3 months; Smoking or alcohol addiction within the last 3 months; Uncontrolled hepatic, renal, cardiovascular, respiratory or psychiatric disease; Disease or therapy with drugs (i.e. antidepressants, opioid narcotic analgesics, anticholinergics, calcium antagonists, nitrates, antimuscarinics) that, in the opinion of the investigator, could affect intestinal transit and microbiota.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of patients having on average three or more SCBMs/week3 monthsProportion of patients having on average three or more spontaneous, complete bowel movements (SCBMs) per week was evaluated at week 4 and 12.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Characteristics of bowel movements3 monthsPatients kept daily diaries about stool consistency and degree of straining severity during defecation.
Constipation-related symptoms assessments3 monthsConstipation-related symptoms were evaluated using the validated Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) questionnaire at week 4 and 12.
Quality-of-Life assessments3 monthsQuality-of-Life was evaluated using the validated Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) self-report questionnaire at week 4 and 12.
Mean number of bowel movements per week3 monthsPatients kept daily diaries about times of bowel movements each day.
Usage of laxatives or enemas as rescue medication3 monthsIf patients did not have a bowel movement for 3 or more consecutive days, they were permitted to take up to 20 g of Macrogol 4000 powder (Forlax). If ineffective, enema was used. Patients kept daily diaries about the rescue medication when used.
Adverse events3 monthsAdverse events include fever, diarrhea, abdominal pain, increased bloating, borborygmi, flatulence, nausea, vomiting, nasopharyngitis, and any other disorders.
Colonic transit time measurements3 monthsColonic transit time (CTT) was measured at week 4 and 12 with the Metcalf method.

Countries

China

Contacts

Primary ContactJianfeng Gong, MD
jinlingh_gongjf@126.com+86-25-80860036
Backup ContactNing Li, MD
jinlingh_lining@126.com+86-25-80860089

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026