Skip to content

Stool Transplantation for Treatment of Insulin Resistance in Morbidly Obese Patients

Fecal Microbiota Transplant From Healthy Lean Donors to Morbidly Obese Individuals: Effect on Insulin Resistance and Other Obesity-related Parameters. A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02970877
Enrollment
29
Registered
2016-11-22
Start date
2017-03-01
Completion date
2022-11-30
Last updated
2025-04-24

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

Conditions

Insulin Resistance, Obesity, Morbid

Keywords

Fecal microbiota transplant, Intestinal microbiome, Mucosa associated microbiome, Appetite, Metabolome, Depression, Anxiety

Brief summary

More and more people in Canada and around the world are severely (morbidly) obese, and this is associated with a high risk for poor blood sugar control (insulin resistance, IR) and diabetes. Weight loss is often very hard to achieve for morbidly obese patients. Bariatric surgery is a very effective treatment, but it has some risks and is not available to all patients. Therefore, alternative treatments are needed. The gut bacteria (intestinal microbiome) might play a role for the development of obesity and IR. Several studies in animals have shown that transferring stool from lean mice or humans into obese animals could lead to weight loss and improve IR. One human study has confirmed this. The investigators are therefore examining, whether transfer of stool from healthy lean people into morbidly obese patients with IR will improve blood sugar control, weight, and other obesity related parameters. This will be done in a randomized controlled trial. Effects on mental health and the bacterial in the mouth related to gum disease will also be assessed. If successful, fecal transfer could be a new alternative treatment approach for morbidly obese patients or those with IR who do not have access to or do not want to undergo bariatric surgery.

Detailed description

The coupled disorders of morbid obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are a major and growing public health problem in Canada. The Public Health Agency of Canada 2011 report, Obesity in Canada, showed that 5.1% and 2.7% of Canadians had obesity class II (body mass index (BMI) 35.0-39.9) and III (BMI \>40 kg/m2), respectively. Morbid obesity is associated with not only T2D (up to 42% of morbidly obese patients), but also cardiovascular complications, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and sleep apnea, and the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, particularly depression and anxiety, is high in this population. As morbid obesity is very difficult to treat, drastic measures are required, and bariatric surgery is often the only viable treatment option. Bariatric surgery is nowadays a frequently performed procedure (about 400 surgeries/year at the University Health Network (UHN)), and there are different techniques, including gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomy, and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Of these procedures, the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery has become the gold standard, and it is highly effective in inducing long-term weight loss and improving or even resolving all of the obesity associated comorbidities. However, bariatric surgery is invasive, costly, has a risk of complications, and requires life-long commitment to a restricted diet. Therefore, a significant proportion of patients with morbid obesity is not willing to undergo the procedure, and a small proportion is excluded from the procedure due to other physical or mental health problems.In addition, depending on the health care system, bariatric surgery might not be available to a large proportion of patients. Regarding the growing rates of obesity and morbid obesity world-wide, less expensive and less invasive alternatives to bariatric surgery are urgently needed. Even though obesity largely results from an imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure, it has been shown that several factors, including the genetic background can render individuals susceptible to obesity. Most recently, the role of the intestinal microbiome has been under investigation. It has been shown that obese people have an intestinal microbiome and metagenome that is significantly different from lean controls, and this is even true in identical twins discordant for obesity. In addition, patients with T2D have a different intestinal microbiome than controls. Work done in rodents showed that fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from lean to obese animals (and vice versa) can affect fat mass and parameters of the metabolic syndrome. It is thus possible that FMT may benefit human obesity with related metabolic abnormalities. FMT is becoming standard therapy for patients with refractory Clostridium difficile colitis and may become a treatment option in other gastrointestinal disorders. Only one human study (n=9) investigated FMT from lean subjects to obese patients (\ BMI 35 kg/m2) with metabolic syndrome and showed improvement in insulin sensitivity. Taken altogether, these very exciting results led us to hypothesize that that FMT from healthy lean donors could effectively induce metabolic improvement (i.e. insulin resistance (IR)) and weight loss) by distinct microbe-specific mediated mechanisms. The investigators will examine this in a single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled parallel-group trial (RCT). Furthermore, emerging evidence shows that the intestinal microbiome, through the gut-brain axis, can influence mood disorders. First animal studies suggest that FMT can transfer depression and anxiety and therefore, FMT from healthy individuals may provide some benefits. Therefore, the investigators will also assess, whether FMT influences depression and anxiety, which are highly prevalent in obese patients. Finally, our Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Team Grant, which supports this RCT, is also studying the potential relationship between obesity, T2D and the oral microbiome (OM). Considering that microbes present in the saliva are swallowed in significant numbers-about 10\^12 oral bacteria per day-and that this may influence the composition of the intestinal microbiome, the investigators are also exploring the potential relationship between oral and intestinal microbiome and their associations with obesity and T2D. Having a FMT protocol gives us the unique opportunity to further assess this potential relationship and determine if FMT may change OM by improving obesity and metabolic parameters. This has not been previously studied in animals or humans. The aims of this RCT are to assess whether FMT from healthy lean individuals into morbidly obese patients with IR who decline bariatric surgery, leads to 1) improvement in metabolic parameters: IR, BMI, and other obesity related parameters; 2) improvement in mood disorders: depression and anxiety scores; 3) changes in the intestinal microbiome and metabolome. 4) In addition, by assessing the OM through the FMT protocol and by combining these results with the results of our other protocols in a similar patient population going through bariatric surgery, the investigators will explore the relationship between oral/intestinal microbiome and obesity/metabolic parameters. 5) Furthermore, as planned in our CIHR Team Grant, the investigators will use the FMT from the lean donors and transfer into obese mice to assess the effect of FMT on mechanisms related to glucose metabolism. These additional experiments are not part of this protocol but are mentioned briefly, as stool samples and data from the patients and donors participating in the FMT trial will be used for the other studies in our CIHR Team Grant. Significance. The number of obese patients is growing world-wide. The investigators are examining here a'medical bypass' solutions to treat the 40-50% of obese patients that meet the criteria set by the National Institutes for Health (NIH) for bariatric surgery (12, 36) but decline (13), or the much larger population of obese patients (BMI 30-40 kg/m2) who may not be considered for surgical treatment.

Interventions

BIOLOGICALFecal filtrate from 150 g stool from healthy lean donors

150 g stool from healthy lean donors will be diluted in 0.9% normal saline to a total volume of 450 mL. Preparation from frozen stool.

BIOLOGICALFecal filtrate from 150 g of the recipient's own stool

150 g stool from the recipient will be diluted in 0.9% normal saline to a total volume of 450 mL. Preparation from frozen stool.

Sponsors

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV
MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Toronto
CollaboratorOTHER
Johane Allard
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Men and women * age 18 years or older * morbidly obese (BMI \>40 kg/m² or BMI \>35-40 kg/m² with other severe weight loss responsive comorbidities) * referred to the Bariatric Clinic at the Toronto Western Hospital for weight loss surgery, but declining or deferring the surgery * insulin resistance (HOMA-IR value \>2.73)

Exclusion criteria

* In the 3 months prior to study entry, regular intake of: * non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; * iron supplements; * prebiotics or probiotics from other than food sources; * antibiotics; or * any experimental drug * Type 1 or type 2 diabetes * chronic gastrointestinal diseases * previous gastrointestinal surgery modifying the anatomy * smoking * pregnancy or breastfeeding

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Insulin Resistance Compared to Baseline1 month, 3 monthLooking at the change in Homeostasis model of assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). HOMA-IR \> 2.73 is considered as insulin resistance. The higher HOMA-IR, the worse the insulin resistance. For this measure, we looked at the change in HOMA-IR. Those with more reduction in HOMA-IR experience more improvement in their insulin resistance.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
WeightBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moBody weight (kg)
Body Mass IndexBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moWeight (kg)/ height (m\^2)
Appetite ScoreBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moAppetite score according to visual analog scale. Scores range from 0 to 10. In hunger, zero means not hungry at all. In prospective consumption, 0 means don't think they can eat anything at all and lower score is better. In sweet craving, zero means they very much would like to eat something sweet, thus, higher score is better.
Quality of Life QuestionnaireBaseline, 3 moRAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36). It is a 36-item questionnaire that asks questions about physical functioning, bodily pain, emotional well-being, social functioning, energy/fatigue, and general health perceptions, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to personal or emotional problems. The lowest score is 0 and the highest score is 100. Higher score shows better overall quality of life.
Depression ScoreBaseline, 3 moMontgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is used in assessing severity od depressive episode. The score for each question is combined for the total score which ranges from 0 to 60. Zero means no depressive episode and 60 means severe depression.
Anxiety ScoreBaseline, 3 moHamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (Ham-A) is a questionnaire that assesses anxiety. The scale is 0 to 30. 0 means no anxiety present and 30 means severe anxiety.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Hemoglobin A1cBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moBlood measurement which measures proportion of glycated hemoglobin to total hemoglobin. This measurement assesses the blood glucose control in the last 3 months. Generally, hemoglobin A1c \< 0.060 is normal, 0.060 ≤ hemoglobin A1c \<0.065 is prediabetic and ≥ 0.065 is diabetic.
Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moMeasured by metagenomic sequencing. This measurement assesses the change in bacterial relative abundance level (in percentage) in the stool following the treatment. Higher values of beneficial bacteria and lower values of harmful bacteria is better. Thus, it is expected that post-FMT, beneficial bacteria will increase and harmful bacteria decrease.
Blood Lipid ProfileBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moBlood measurement assessing the levels of lipid parameters such as cholesterol and LDL. Higher values for LDL and cholesterol may mean the person has dyslipidemia
Change in Food IntakeBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moTotal daily energy intake from 3-day food record
Physical ActivityBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moActivity log, self-completed
Stool MetabolomicsBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moMetabolites and molecules in the stool sample measured using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
Serum MetabolomicsBaseline, 1 mo, 3 moNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Countries

Canada

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Allogenic Treatment Group
Fecal filtrate from 150 g stool from healthy lean donors Fecal filtrate from 150 g stool from healthy lean donors: 150 g stool from healthy lean donors will be diluted in 0.9% normal saline to a total volume of 450 mL. Preparation from frozen stool.
15
Autologous Control Group
Fecal filtrate from 150 g of the recipient's own stool Fecal filtrate from 150 g of the recipient's own stool: 150 g stool from the recipient will be diluted in 0.9% normal saline to a total volume of 450 mL. Preparation from frozen stool.
13
Total28

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicAllogenic Treatment GroupAutologous Control GroupTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
15 Participants13 Participants28 Participants
Age, Continuous45.0 years48.0 years46.5 years
HOMA-IR3.88 Index4.92 Index4.34 Index
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Canada
15 participants13 participants28 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
12 Participants10 Participants22 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
3 Participants3 Participants6 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 150 / 13
other
Total, other adverse events
11 / 1510 / 13
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 150 / 13

Outcome results

Primary

Change in Insulin Resistance Compared to Baseline

Looking at the change in Homeostasis model of assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). HOMA-IR \> 2.73 is considered as insulin resistance. The higher HOMA-IR, the worse the insulin resistance. For this measure, we looked at the change in HOMA-IR. Those with more reduction in HOMA-IR experience more improvement in their insulin resistance.

Time frame: 1 month, 3 month

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Insulin Resistance Compared to BaselineBaseline to 1 mo-0.25 Index
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Insulin Resistance Compared to BaselineBaseline to 3 mo-0.04 Index
Autologous Control GroupChange in Insulin Resistance Compared to BaselineBaseline to 1 mo1.16 Index
Autologous Control GroupChange in Insulin Resistance Compared to BaselineBaseline to 3 mo0.93 Index
Secondary

Anxiety Score

Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (Ham-A) is a questionnaire that assesses anxiety. The scale is 0 to 30. 0 means no anxiety present and 30 means severe anxiety.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupAnxiety ScoreBaseline4 score on a scale
Allogenic Treatment GroupAnxiety Score3 mo1 score on a scale
Autologous Control GroupAnxiety ScoreBaseline7 score on a scale
Autologous Control GroupAnxiety Score3 mo10 score on a scale
Secondary

Appetite Score

Appetite score according to visual analog scale. Scores range from 0 to 10. In hunger, zero means not hungry at all. In prospective consumption, 0 means don't think they can eat anything at all and lower score is better. In sweet craving, zero means they very much would like to eat something sweet, thus, higher score is better.

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupAppetite ScoreProspective consumption (1 mo)4.9 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Allogenic Treatment GroupAppetite ScoreHunger (3 mo)3.6 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Allogenic Treatment GroupAppetite ScoreSweet craving (Baseline)2.8 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Allogenic Treatment GroupAppetite ScoreProspective consumption (Baseline)7.3 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Allogenic Treatment GroupAppetite ScoreSweet craving (3 mo)6.8 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Allogenic Treatment GroupAppetite ScoreHunger (Baseline)5.5 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Autologous Control GroupAppetite ScoreSweet craving (3 mo)3.3 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Autologous Control GroupAppetite ScoreProspective consumption (Baseline)6.1 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Autologous Control GroupAppetite ScoreProspective consumption (1 mo)3.9 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Autologous Control GroupAppetite ScoreHunger (Baseline)5.5 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Autologous Control GroupAppetite ScoreSweet craving (Baseline)1.4 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Autologous Control GroupAppetite ScoreHunger (3 mo)2.9 score on a scale of 1 to 10
Secondary

Body Mass Index

Weight (kg)/ height (m\^2)

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupBody Mass Index1 mo43.2 kg/m^2
Allogenic Treatment GroupBody Mass IndexBaseline43.0 kg/m^2
Allogenic Treatment GroupBody Mass Index3 mo42.64 kg/m^2
Autologous Control GroupBody Mass Index1 mo44.8 kg/m^2
Autologous Control GroupBody Mass IndexBaseline45.1 kg/m^2
Autologous Control GroupBody Mass Index3 mo44.91 kg/m^2
Secondary

Depression Score

Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is used in assessing severity od depressive episode. The score for each question is combined for the total score which ranges from 0 to 60. Zero means no depressive episode and 60 means severe depression.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupDepression ScoreBaseline5 score on a scale
Allogenic Treatment GroupDepression Score3 mo0 score on a scale
Autologous Control GroupDepression ScoreBaseline9 score on a scale
Autologous Control GroupDepression Score3 mo12 score on a scale
Secondary

Quality of Life Questionnaire

RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36). It is a 36-item questionnaire that asks questions about physical functioning, bodily pain, emotional well-being, social functioning, energy/fatigue, and general health perceptions, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to personal or emotional problems. The lowest score is 0 and the highest score is 100. Higher score shows better overall quality of life.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupQuality of Life QuestionnaireEnergy/Fatigue (Baseline)43 score on a scale
Allogenic Treatment GroupQuality of Life QuestionnaireEnergy/Fatigue (3 mo)55 score on a scale
Allogenic Treatment GroupQuality of Life QuestionnaireEmotional wellbeing (Baseline)78 score on a scale
Allogenic Treatment GroupQuality of Life QuestionnaireEmotional wellbeing (3 mo)80 score on a scale
Autologous Control GroupQuality of Life QuestionnaireEmotional wellbeing (3 mo)72 score on a scale
Autologous Control GroupQuality of Life QuestionnaireEnergy/Fatigue (Baseline)50 score on a scale
Autologous Control GroupQuality of Life QuestionnaireEmotional wellbeing (Baseline)76 score on a scale
Autologous Control GroupQuality of Life QuestionnaireEnergy/Fatigue (3 mo)45 score on a scale
Secondary

Weight

Body weight (kg)

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupWeightBaseline126.8 Kg
Allogenic Treatment GroupWeight1 mo123.8 Kg
Allogenic Treatment GroupWeight3 mo125.8 Kg
Autologous Control GroupWeightBaseline122.8 Kg
Autologous Control GroupWeight1 mo122.0 Kg
Autologous Control GroupWeight3 mo126.4 Kg
Other Pre-specified

Blood Lipid Profile

Blood measurement assessing the levels of lipid parameters such as cholesterol and LDL. Higher values for LDL and cholesterol may mean the person has dyslipidemia

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupBlood Lipid ProfileLDL (3mo)2.54 mmol/L
Allogenic Treatment GroupBlood Lipid ProfileCholesterol (Baseline)4.80 mmol/L
Allogenic Treatment GroupBlood Lipid ProfileCholesterol (1mo)4.16 mmol/L
Allogenic Treatment GroupBlood Lipid ProfileLDL (Baseline)2.87 mmol/L
Allogenic Treatment GroupBlood Lipid ProfileLDL (1mo)2.62 mmol/L
Autologous Control GroupBlood Lipid ProfileLDL (1mo)3.14 mmol/L
Autologous Control GroupBlood Lipid ProfileLDL (Baseline)3.32 mmol/L
Autologous Control GroupBlood Lipid ProfileCholesterol (Baseline)5.64 mmol/L
Autologous Control GroupBlood Lipid ProfileLDL (3mo)2.97 mmol/L
Autologous Control GroupBlood Lipid ProfileCholesterol (1mo)5.47 mmol/L
Other Pre-specified

Change in Food Intake

Daily fat intake (% of energy) from 3-day food record

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline41.6 percentage of total energy intake
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo40.8 percentage of total energy intake
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo39.2 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline46.7 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo38.8 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo41.7 percentage of total energy intake
Other Pre-specified

Change in Food Intake

Daily protein intake (amount g/d, energy and % of energy) from 3-day food record

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline16.9 percentage of total energy intake
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo18.6 percentage of total energy intake
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo17.7 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline16.1 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo18.5 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo18.8 percentage of total energy intake
Other Pre-specified

Change in Food Intake

Daily fiber intake (g) from 3-day food record

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline21 g
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo19 g
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo18 g
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline18 g
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo14 g
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo18 g
Other Pre-specified

Change in Food Intake

Daily carbohydrates intake (amount g/d, energy and % of energy) from 3-day food record

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline39.4 percentage of total energy intake
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo39.5 percentage of total energy intake
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo45.3 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline35.6 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo34.9 percentage of total energy intake
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo40.7 percentage of total energy intake
Other Pre-specified

Change in Food Intake

Total daily energy intake from 3-day food record

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline2002 kcal
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo1674 kcal
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo2012 kcal
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food IntakeBaseline1753 kcal
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake1 mo1787 kcal
Autologous Control GroupChange in Food Intake3 mo1998 kcal
Other Pre-specified

Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition

Measured by metagenomic sequencing. This measurement assesses the change in bacterial relative abundance level (in percentage) in the stool following the treatment. Higher values of beneficial bacteria and lower values of harmful bacteria is better. Thus, it is expected that post-FMT, beneficial bacteria will increase and harmful bacteria decrease.

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionBacteroides xylanisolvens (Baseline to 1mo)0.00615 change in percentageStandard Error 0.0612
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionFlavonifractor plautii (Baseline to 1mo)-0.0426 change in percentageStandard Error 0.138
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionRoseburia intestinalis (Baseline to 3mo)-0.078 change in percentageStandard Error 0.72
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionHoldemanella biformis (Baseline to 1mo)-0.000279 change in percentageStandard Error 0.000865
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionRoseburia hominis (Baseline to 3mo)-0.0036 change in percentageStandard Error 0.0562
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionCollinsella massiliensis (Baseline to 1mo)1.15 change in percentageStandard Error 3.49
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionEubacterium eligens (Baseline to 3mo)-0.60 change in percentageStandard Error 0.248
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionClostridium spiroforme (Baseline to 1mo)0.199 change in percentageStandard Error 0.116
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionAlistipes putredinis (Baseline to 3mo)0.0237 change in percentageStandard Error 0.352
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionEscherichia coli (Baseline to 1mo)-0.00262 change in percentageStandard Error 0.0189
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionRuthenibacterium lactatiformans (Baseline to 3mo)-0.15 change in percentageStandard Error 0.309
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionLactococcus lactis (Baseline to 1mo)0.345 change in percentageStandard Error 0.962
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionBlautia hydrogenotrophica (Baseline to 3mo)0.00531 change in percentageStandard Error 0.104
Allogenic Treatment GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionBlautia obeum (Baseline to 1mo)-0.0282 change in percentageStandard Error 0.0546
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionBlautia hydrogenotrophica (Baseline to 3mo)0.0521 change in percentageStandard Error 0.169
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionHoldemanella biformis (Baseline to 1mo)-0.000201 change in percentageStandard Error 0.00239
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionBlautia obeum (Baseline to 1mo)-0.00560 change in percentageStandard Error 0.545
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionClostridium spiroforme (Baseline to 1mo)-0.584 change in percentageStandard Error 0.545
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionFlavonifractor plautii (Baseline to 1mo)-0.474 change in percentageStandard Error 0.101
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionCollinsella massiliensis (Baseline to 1mo)0.284 change in percentageStandard Error 0.903
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionLactococcus lactis (Baseline to 1mo)0.224 change in percentageStandard Error 0.0491
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionBacteroides xylanisolvens (Baseline to 1mo)-0.00135 change in percentageStandard Error 0.0228
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionRoseburia intestinalis (Baseline to 3mo)0.0374 change in percentageStandard Error 0.183
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionRoseburia hominis (Baseline to 3mo)-0.011 change in percentageStandard Error 0.0601
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionEubacterium eligens (Baseline to 3mo)0.0393 change in percentageStandard Error 0.438
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionAlistipes putredinis (Baseline to 3mo)0.0235 change in percentageStandard Error 0.212
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionRuthenibacterium lactatiformans (Baseline to 3mo)0.235 change in percentageStandard Error 0.614
Autologous Control GroupChange in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, CompositionEscherichia coli (Baseline to 1mo)-0.00578 change in percentageStandard Error 0.0147
Other Pre-specified

Hemoglobin A1c

Blood measurement which measures proportion of glycated hemoglobin to total hemoglobin. This measurement assesses the blood glucose control in the last 3 months. Generally, hemoglobin A1c \< 0.060 is normal, 0.060 ≤ hemoglobin A1c \<0.065 is prediabetic and ≥ 0.065 is diabetic.

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupHemoglobin A1cBaseline0.05 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb
Allogenic Treatment GroupHemoglobin A1c1 mo0.06 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb
Allogenic Treatment GroupHemoglobin A1c3 mo0.06 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb
Autologous Control GroupHemoglobin A1cBaseline0.05 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb
Autologous Control GroupHemoglobin A1c1 mo0.06 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb
Autologous Control GroupHemoglobin A1c3 mo0.06 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb
Other Pre-specified

Physical Activity

Activity log, self-completed

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Allogenic Treatment GroupPhysical ActivityBaseline5.0 min/day
Allogenic Treatment GroupPhysical Activity1 mo4.9 min/day
Allogenic Treatment GroupPhysical Activity3 mo4.0 min/day
Autologous Control GroupPhysical ActivityBaseline5.0 min/day
Autologous Control GroupPhysical Activity1 mo4.9 min/day
Autologous Control GroupPhysical Activity3 mo3 min/day
Other Pre-specified

Serum Metabolomics

Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)Dispersion
Allogenic Treatment GroupSerum MetabolomicsKynurenine (Baseline)2.56 umol/LStandard Deviation 0.688
Allogenic Treatment GroupSerum MetabolomicsKynurenine (1 mo)2.67 umol/LStandard Deviation 0.519
Allogenic Treatment GroupSerum MetabolomicsDecenoylcarnitine (Baseline)0.227 umol/LStandard Deviation 0.0696
Allogenic Treatment GroupSerum MetabolomicsDecenoylcarnitine (3 mo)0.226 umol/LStandard Deviation 0.0648
Allogenic Treatment GroupSerum MetabolomicsIsoleucine (Baseline)63.3 umol/LStandard Deviation 13.9
Allogenic Treatment GroupSerum MetabolomicsIsoleucine (3 mo)58.8 umol/LStandard Deviation 9.3
Allogenic Treatment GroupSerum MetabolomicsLeucine (Baseline112 umol/LStandard Deviation 23.6
Allogenic Treatment GroupSerum MetabolomicsLeucine (3 mo)111 umol/LStandard Deviation 16
Autologous Control GroupSerum MetabolomicsLeucine (3 mo)135 umol/LStandard Deviation 33
Autologous Control GroupSerum MetabolomicsKynurenine (Baseline)2.51 umol/LStandard Deviation 0.468
Autologous Control GroupSerum MetabolomicsIsoleucine (Baseline)61.6 umol/LStandard Deviation 8.6
Autologous Control GroupSerum MetabolomicsKynurenine (1 mo)3.20 umol/LStandard Deviation 1.02
Autologous Control GroupSerum MetabolomicsLeucine (Baseline122 umol/LStandard Deviation 19.5
Autologous Control GroupSerum MetabolomicsDecenoylcarnitine (Baseline)0.264 umol/LStandard Deviation 0.0623
Autologous Control GroupSerum MetabolomicsIsoleucine (3 mo)69.8 umol/LStandard Deviation 18.2
Autologous Control GroupSerum MetabolomicsDecenoylcarnitine (3 mo)0.305 umol/LStandard Deviation 0.114
Other Pre-specified

Stool Metabolomics

Metabolites and molecules in the stool sample measured using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Allogenic Treatment GroupStool MetabolomicsButenylcarnitine (Baseline)0.000128 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.0000482
Allogenic Treatment GroupStool MetabolomicsButenylcarnitine (3 mo)0.000174 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.0000963
Allogenic Treatment GroupStool MetabolomicsIndole Acetic Acid (Baseline)0.00838 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.0106
Allogenic Treatment GroupStool MetabolomicsIndole Acetic Acid (3 mo)0.0131 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.0142
Allogenic Treatment GroupStool MetabolomicsPhenylacetic acid (Baseline)0.672 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.368
Allogenic Treatment GroupStool MetabolomicsPhenylacetic acid (3 mo)0.434 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.233
Autologous Control GroupStool MetabolomicsPhenylacetic acid (Baseline)0.491 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.386
Autologous Control GroupStool MetabolomicsButenylcarnitine (Baseline)0.000168 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.000069
Autologous Control GroupStool MetabolomicsIndole Acetic Acid (3 mo)0.00986 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.0134
Autologous Control GroupStool MetabolomicsButenylcarnitine (3 mo)0.000109 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.0000359
Autologous Control GroupStool MetabolomicsPhenylacetic acid (3 mo)0.673 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.592
Autologous Control GroupStool MetabolomicsIndole Acetic Acid (Baseline)0.0186 umol/gStandard Deviation 0.0283

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