» Articles » PMID: 26675010

Optimal Screening and Donor Management in a Public Stool Bank

Overview
Journal Microbiome
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialties Genetics
Microbiology
Date 2015 Dec 18
PMID 26675010
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Fecal microbiota transplantation is an effective treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and is being investigated as a treatment for other microbiota-associated diseases. To facilitate these activities, an international public stool bank has been created, which screens donors and processes stools in a standardized manner. The goal of this research is to use mathematical modeling and analysis to optimize screening and donor management at the stool bank.

Results: Compared to the current policy of screening active donors every 60 days before releasing their quarantined stools for sale, costs can be reduced by 10.3 % by increasing the screening frequency to every 36 days. In addition, the stool production rate varies widely across donors, and using donor-specific screening, where higher producers are screened more frequently, also reduces costs, as does introducing an interim (i.e., between consecutive regular tests) stool test for just rotavirus and C. difficile. We also derive a donor release (i.e., into the system) policy that allows the supply to approximately match an exponentially increasing deterministic demand.

Conclusions: More frequent screening, interim screening for rotavirus and C. difficile, and donor-specific screening, where higher stool producers are screened more frequently, are all cost-reducing measures. If screening costs decrease in the future (e.g., as a result of bringing screening in house), a bottleneck for implementing some of these recommendations may be the reluctance of donors to undergo serum screening more frequently than monthly.

Citing Articles

Economic and Chronologic Optimization of Fecal Donors Screening Process.

Levy B, Fliss Isakov N, Ziv-Baran T, Leshno M, Maharshak N, Werner L MDM Policy Pract. 2024; 9(1):23814683241254809.

PMID: 38873648 PMC: 11171430. DOI: 10.1177/23814683241254809.


Current perspectives on fecal microbiota transplantation in inflammatory bowel disease.

Singh A, Midha V, Chauhan N, Sood A Indian J Gastroenterol. 2024; 43(1):129-144.

PMID: 38334893 DOI: 10.1007/s12664-023-01516-8.


Challenges and costs of donor screening for fecal microbiota transplantations.

Benard M, de Bruijn C, Fenneman A, Wortelboer K, Zeevenhoven J, Rethans B PLoS One. 2022; 17(10):e0276323.

PMID: 36264933 PMC: 9584411. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276323.


Antitumor effects of fecal microbiota transplantation: Implications for microbiome modulation in cancer treatment.

Xu H, Cao C, Ren Y, Weng S, Liu L, Guo C Front Immunol. 2022; 13:949490.

PMID: 36177041 PMC: 9513044. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.949490.


Stool Banking for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation: Methods and Operations at a Large Stool Bank.

Chen J, Zaman A, Ramakrishna B, Olesen S Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021; 11:622949.

PMID: 33937092 PMC: 8082449. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.622949.


References
1.
Dubberke E, Olsen M . Burden of Clostridium difficile on the healthcare system. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55 Suppl 2:S88-92. PMC: 3388018. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis335. View

2.
van Nood E, Vrieze A, Nieuwdorp M, Fuentes S, Zoetendal E, de Vos W . Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(5):407-15. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205037. View

3.
Kassam Z, Lee C, Yuan Y, Hunt R . Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013; 108(4):500-8. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.59. View

4.
Smith M, Kelly C, Alm E . Policy: How to regulate faecal transplants. Nature. 2014; 506(7488):290-1. DOI: 10.1038/506290a. View

5.
Lessa F, Mu Y, Bamberg W, Beldavs Z, Dumyati G, Dunn J . Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(9):825-34. PMC: 10966662. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1408913. View