Insulin Resistance, Obesity, Morbid
Conditions
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
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.
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
Study design
Eligibility
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
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Insulin Resistance Compared to Baseline | 1 month, 3 month | 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. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Weight | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | Body weight (kg) |
| Body Mass Index | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | Weight (kg)/ height (m\^2) |
| Appetite Score | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | 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. |
| Quality of Life Questionnaire | Baseline, 3 mo | 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. |
| Depression Score | Baseline, 3 mo | 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. |
| Anxiety Score | Baseline, 3 mo | 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. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Hemoglobin A1c | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | 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. |
| Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | 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. |
| Blood Lipid Profile | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | 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 |
| Change in Food Intake | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | Total daily energy intake from 3-day food record |
| Physical Activity | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | Activity log, self-completed |
| Stool Metabolomics | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | Metabolites and molecules in the stool sample measured using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. |
| Serum Metabolomics | Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo | Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy |
Countries
Canada
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Total | 28 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Allogenic Treatment Group | Autologous Control Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 15 Participants | 13 Participants | 28 Participants |
| Age, Continuous | 45.0 years | 48.0 years | 46.5 years |
| HOMA-IR | 3.88 Index | 4.92 Index | 4.34 Index |
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | — | — | 0 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment Canada | 15 participants | 13 participants | 28 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 12 Participants | 10 Participants | 22 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 3 Participants | 3 Participants | 6 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 15 | 0 / 13 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 11 / 15 | 10 / 13 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 15 | 0 / 13 |
Outcome results
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Insulin Resistance Compared to Baseline | Baseline to 1 mo | -0.25 Index |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Insulin Resistance Compared to Baseline | Baseline to 3 mo | -0.04 Index |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Insulin Resistance Compared to Baseline | Baseline to 1 mo | 1.16 Index |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Insulin Resistance Compared to Baseline | Baseline to 3 mo | 0.93 Index |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Anxiety Score | Baseline | 4 score on a scale |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Anxiety Score | 3 mo | 1 score on a scale |
| Autologous Control Group | Anxiety Score | Baseline | 7 score on a scale |
| Autologous Control Group | Anxiety Score | 3 mo | 10 score on a scale |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Appetite Score | Prospective consumption (1 mo) | 4.9 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Appetite Score | Hunger (3 mo) | 3.6 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Appetite Score | Sweet craving (Baseline) | 2.8 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Appetite Score | Prospective consumption (Baseline) | 7.3 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Appetite Score | Sweet craving (3 mo) | 6.8 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Appetite Score | Hunger (Baseline) | 5.5 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Autologous Control Group | Appetite Score | Sweet craving (3 mo) | 3.3 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Autologous Control Group | Appetite Score | Prospective consumption (Baseline) | 6.1 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Autologous Control Group | Appetite Score | Prospective consumption (1 mo) | 3.9 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Autologous Control Group | Appetite Score | Hunger (Baseline) | 5.5 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Autologous Control Group | Appetite Score | Sweet craving (Baseline) | 1.4 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
| Autologous Control Group | Appetite Score | Hunger (3 mo) | 2.9 score on a scale of 1 to 10 |
Body Mass Index
Weight (kg)/ height (m\^2)
Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Body Mass Index | 1 mo | 43.2 kg/m^2 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Body Mass Index | Baseline | 43.0 kg/m^2 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Body Mass Index | 3 mo | 42.64 kg/m^2 |
| Autologous Control Group | Body Mass Index | 1 mo | 44.8 kg/m^2 |
| Autologous Control Group | Body Mass Index | Baseline | 45.1 kg/m^2 |
| Autologous Control Group | Body Mass Index | 3 mo | 44.91 kg/m^2 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Depression Score | Baseline | 5 score on a scale |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Depression Score | 3 mo | 0 score on a scale |
| Autologous Control Group | Depression Score | Baseline | 9 score on a scale |
| Autologous Control Group | Depression Score | 3 mo | 12 score on a scale |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Quality of Life Questionnaire | Energy/Fatigue (Baseline) | 43 score on a scale |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Quality of Life Questionnaire | Energy/Fatigue (3 mo) | 55 score on a scale |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Quality of Life Questionnaire | Emotional wellbeing (Baseline) | 78 score on a scale |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Quality of Life Questionnaire | Emotional wellbeing (3 mo) | 80 score on a scale |
| Autologous Control Group | Quality of Life Questionnaire | Emotional wellbeing (3 mo) | 72 score on a scale |
| Autologous Control Group | Quality of Life Questionnaire | Energy/Fatigue (Baseline) | 50 score on a scale |
| Autologous Control Group | Quality of Life Questionnaire | Emotional wellbeing (Baseline) | 76 score on a scale |
| Autologous Control Group | Quality of Life Questionnaire | Energy/Fatigue (3 mo) | 45 score on a scale |
Weight
Body weight (kg)
Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Weight | Baseline | 126.8 Kg |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Weight | 1 mo | 123.8 Kg |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Weight | 3 mo | 125.8 Kg |
| Autologous Control Group | Weight | Baseline | 122.8 Kg |
| Autologous Control Group | Weight | 1 mo | 122.0 Kg |
| Autologous Control Group | Weight | 3 mo | 126.4 Kg |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Blood Lipid Profile | LDL (3mo) | 2.54 mmol/L |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Blood Lipid Profile | Cholesterol (Baseline) | 4.80 mmol/L |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Blood Lipid Profile | Cholesterol (1mo) | 4.16 mmol/L |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Blood Lipid Profile | LDL (Baseline) | 2.87 mmol/L |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Blood Lipid Profile | LDL (1mo) | 2.62 mmol/L |
| Autologous Control Group | Blood Lipid Profile | LDL (1mo) | 3.14 mmol/L |
| Autologous Control Group | Blood Lipid Profile | LDL (Baseline) | 3.32 mmol/L |
| Autologous Control Group | Blood Lipid Profile | Cholesterol (Baseline) | 5.64 mmol/L |
| Autologous Control Group | Blood Lipid Profile | LDL (3mo) | 2.97 mmol/L |
| Autologous Control Group | Blood Lipid Profile | Cholesterol (1mo) | 5.47 mmol/L |
Change in Food Intake
Daily fat intake (% of energy) from 3-day food record
Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 41.6 percentage of total energy intake |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 40.8 percentage of total energy intake |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 39.2 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 46.7 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 38.8 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 41.7 percentage of total energy intake |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 16.9 percentage of total energy intake |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 18.6 percentage of total energy intake |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 17.7 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 16.1 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 18.5 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 18.8 percentage of total energy intake |
Change in Food Intake
Daily fiber intake (g) from 3-day food record
Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 21 g |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 19 g |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 18 g |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 18 g |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 14 g |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 18 g |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 39.4 percentage of total energy intake |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 39.5 percentage of total energy intake |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 45.3 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 35.6 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 34.9 percentage of total energy intake |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 40.7 percentage of total energy intake |
Change in Food Intake
Total daily energy intake from 3-day food record
Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 2002 kcal |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 1674 kcal |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 2012 kcal |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | Baseline | 1753 kcal |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 1 mo | 1787 kcal |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Food Intake | 3 mo | 1998 kcal |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Bacteroides xylanisolvens (Baseline to 1mo) | 0.00615 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.0612 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Flavonifractor plautii (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.0426 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.138 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Roseburia intestinalis (Baseline to 3mo) | -0.078 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.72 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Holdemanella biformis (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.000279 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.000865 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Roseburia hominis (Baseline to 3mo) | -0.0036 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.0562 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Collinsella massiliensis (Baseline to 1mo) | 1.15 change in percentage | Standard Error 3.49 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Eubacterium eligens (Baseline to 3mo) | -0.60 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.248 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Clostridium spiroforme (Baseline to 1mo) | 0.199 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.116 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Alistipes putredinis (Baseline to 3mo) | 0.0237 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.352 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Escherichia coli (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.00262 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.0189 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Ruthenibacterium lactatiformans (Baseline to 3mo) | -0.15 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.309 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Lactococcus lactis (Baseline to 1mo) | 0.345 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.962 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Blautia hydrogenotrophica (Baseline to 3mo) | 0.00531 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.104 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Blautia obeum (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.0282 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.0546 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Blautia hydrogenotrophica (Baseline to 3mo) | 0.0521 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.169 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Holdemanella biformis (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.000201 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.00239 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Blautia obeum (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.00560 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.545 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Clostridium spiroforme (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.584 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.545 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Flavonifractor plautii (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.474 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.101 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Collinsella massiliensis (Baseline to 1mo) | 0.284 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.903 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Lactococcus lactis (Baseline to 1mo) | 0.224 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.0491 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Bacteroides xylanisolvens (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.00135 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.0228 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Roseburia intestinalis (Baseline to 3mo) | 0.0374 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.183 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Roseburia hominis (Baseline to 3mo) | -0.011 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.0601 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Eubacterium eligens (Baseline to 3mo) | 0.0393 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.438 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Alistipes putredinis (Baseline to 3mo) | 0.0235 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.212 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Ruthenibacterium lactatiformans (Baseline to 3mo) | 0.235 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.614 |
| Autologous Control Group | Change in Intestinal Microbiome in Stool, Composition | Escherichia coli (Baseline to 1mo) | -0.00578 change in percentage | Standard Error 0.0147 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Hemoglobin A1c | Baseline | 0.05 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Hemoglobin A1c | 1 mo | 0.06 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Hemoglobin A1c | 3 mo | 0.06 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb |
| Autologous Control Group | Hemoglobin A1c | Baseline | 0.05 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb |
| Autologous Control Group | Hemoglobin A1c | 1 mo | 0.06 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb |
| Autologous Control Group | Hemoglobin A1c | 3 mo | 0.06 ratio glycated Hb to total Hb |
Physical Activity
Activity log, self-completed
Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Physical Activity | Baseline | 5.0 min/day |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Physical Activity | 1 mo | 4.9 min/day |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Physical Activity | 3 mo | 4.0 min/day |
| Autologous Control Group | Physical Activity | Baseline | 5.0 min/day |
| Autologous Control Group | Physical Activity | 1 mo | 4.9 min/day |
| Autologous Control Group | Physical Activity | 3 mo | 3 min/day |
Serum Metabolomics
Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy
Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Serum Metabolomics | Kynurenine (Baseline) | 2.56 umol/L | Standard Deviation 0.688 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Serum Metabolomics | Kynurenine (1 mo) | 2.67 umol/L | Standard Deviation 0.519 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Serum Metabolomics | Decenoylcarnitine (Baseline) | 0.227 umol/L | Standard Deviation 0.0696 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Serum Metabolomics | Decenoylcarnitine (3 mo) | 0.226 umol/L | Standard Deviation 0.0648 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Serum Metabolomics | Isoleucine (Baseline) | 63.3 umol/L | Standard Deviation 13.9 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Serum Metabolomics | Isoleucine (3 mo) | 58.8 umol/L | Standard Deviation 9.3 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Serum Metabolomics | Leucine (Baseline | 112 umol/L | Standard Deviation 23.6 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Serum Metabolomics | Leucine (3 mo) | 111 umol/L | Standard Deviation 16 |
| Autologous Control Group | Serum Metabolomics | Leucine (3 mo) | 135 umol/L | Standard Deviation 33 |
| Autologous Control Group | Serum Metabolomics | Kynurenine (Baseline) | 2.51 umol/L | Standard Deviation 0.468 |
| Autologous Control Group | Serum Metabolomics | Isoleucine (Baseline) | 61.6 umol/L | Standard Deviation 8.6 |
| Autologous Control Group | Serum Metabolomics | Kynurenine (1 mo) | 3.20 umol/L | Standard Deviation 1.02 |
| Autologous Control Group | Serum Metabolomics | Leucine (Baseline | 122 umol/L | Standard Deviation 19.5 |
| Autologous Control Group | Serum Metabolomics | Decenoylcarnitine (Baseline) | 0.264 umol/L | Standard Deviation 0.0623 |
| Autologous Control Group | Serum Metabolomics | Isoleucine (3 mo) | 69.8 umol/L | Standard Deviation 18.2 |
| Autologous Control Group | Serum Metabolomics | Decenoylcarnitine (3 mo) | 0.305 umol/L | Standard Deviation 0.114 |
Stool Metabolomics
Metabolites and molecules in the stool sample measured using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 mo, 3 mo
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Stool Metabolomics | Butenylcarnitine (Baseline) | 0.000128 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.0000482 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Stool Metabolomics | Butenylcarnitine (3 mo) | 0.000174 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.0000963 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Stool Metabolomics | Indole Acetic Acid (Baseline) | 0.00838 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.0106 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Stool Metabolomics | Indole Acetic Acid (3 mo) | 0.0131 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.0142 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Stool Metabolomics | Phenylacetic acid (Baseline) | 0.672 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.368 |
| Allogenic Treatment Group | Stool Metabolomics | Phenylacetic acid (3 mo) | 0.434 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.233 |
| Autologous Control Group | Stool Metabolomics | Phenylacetic acid (Baseline) | 0.491 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.386 |
| Autologous Control Group | Stool Metabolomics | Butenylcarnitine (Baseline) | 0.000168 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.000069 |
| Autologous Control Group | Stool Metabolomics | Indole Acetic Acid (3 mo) | 0.00986 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.0134 |
| Autologous Control Group | Stool Metabolomics | Butenylcarnitine (3 mo) | 0.000109 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.0000359 |
| Autologous Control Group | Stool Metabolomics | Phenylacetic acid (3 mo) | 0.673 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.592 |
| Autologous Control Group | Stool Metabolomics | Indole Acetic Acid (Baseline) | 0.0186 umol/g | Standard Deviation 0.0283 |