Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org comes to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Release

Researchers apply leap of faith to preliminary study of fecal transplant for immunotherapy-induced colitis

Fecal transplant effective against immunotherapy-induced colitis

Our Review Summary

colon“It’s safe, quick, and the effect is durable – from one treatment.” We challenge the news release’s ability to make this claim after a look at just two patients.

While immunotherapy has taken the cancer treatment world by storm, the use of “immune checkpoint inhibitors” can produce debilitating side effects. In about 40% of patients, one of those side effects is severe inflammation of the colon, a problem that brings treatment to a halt until the colon clears up. In this preliminary, “proof-of-concept” study, a team of MD Anderson Cancer Center researchers found that fecal transplants returned the colons of two afflicted cancer patients to a healthy state.  While such results suggest that clinical trials will be a welcome next step, they don’t give oncologists or public information officers carte blanche to tout the effectiveness of the strategy.  Nature Medicine thought the small study deserved a spot in its “Brief Communication” section, but communication professionals at the cancer center should have taken a pass on this one and waited until more robust evidence becomes available.

 

Why This Matters

If this intervention ends up being fully evaluated and proven successful, treating colitis related complications could possibly be done without using corticosteroid therapy (which has its own complications at high doses and over long periods of time.

But until then, keep in mind that the sometimes severe side effects of immunotherapy have patients casting about on the internet for solutions.  You can learn how to perform your own DIY fecal transplant thanks to YouTube—minus the careful screening procedures, of course—so recommending a procedure such as this must be the result of careful clinical exploration.

Criteria

Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Although the use of fecal transplants to soothe severe colitis in cancer patients (caused, in this case, by immunotherapy) has yet to be tested clinically, the treatment itself is increasingly popular for other gastrointestinal issues and typically costs in the $1000 to $2000 range.  Alas, we learn nothing about that cost in this release.

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The release clearly states the outcomes of fecal transplants in the two patients that constitute the study.

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Risks of these transplants are not mentioned.  Fecal material produced without careful screening could introduce microbes, including those linked to MS and Parkinson’s.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

Formally evaluating this intervention is important and making claims of “safety” and “durability” is not technically accurate for a proof-of-concept study. Larger phase I trials are needed to evaluate safety.

To its credit, the news release notes that “the very small cohort” limits the quality of the evidence.  But on the other hand, a study involving just two patients raises the question of why anyone would publicize this study via a news release in the first place.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The release doesn’t disease-monger. Inflammation of the colon is the second most common side effect of employing immune checkpoint inhibitors, according to the release.  That makes finding a way to minimize this side effect important.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The release does identify funding sources, but it does not illuminate possible conflicts of interest.  Admittedly, this would be hard to do given the large number of coauthors.  But a section on “competing interests” in the Nature Medicine article that jump-started this release does indicate that some of the coauthors have a commercial interest in the success of microbiome treatment applications.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The text explains that traditional treatment of severe gastrointestinal symptoms involves steroids and drugs that may suppress the efficacy of immunotherapy and suppress an individual’s immune system, while generating their own unpleasant side effects.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Determining this will be confusing to someone reading this release.  Fecal transplant procedures are in use to treat a variety of gastrointestinal issues, so this would suggest that the procedure is available.  But its employment to subdue inflammation caused by immunotherapy treatment is just being explored and has not even been subjected to clinical testing yet.  So whether the procedure would be available to cancer patients receiving immunotherapy is an open question.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The text maintains that this study represents “the first time” that fecal transplants have been used to treat individuals with immunotherapy-induced colitis.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Not Satisfactory

Although the text identifies the sample of only two patients as a design limitation, the first author of the study projects confidence that the procedure is “safe, quick, and the effect is durable” and recommends that others consider the procedure “as a first-line therapy for ICI-associated colitis.” Without appropriate clinical trials on a larger population, such confidence may not be warranted.

Total Score: 4 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.