Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO) are two common, often overlapping gastrointestinal conditions that can significantly impact a patient’s quality of life. While conventional therapies such as antibiotics, dietary interventions, and probiotics offer partial relief, mounting research into the gut microbiome is opening the door to new therapeutic options (1–4). Among these, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is gaining attention as a promising approach for restoring microbial balance and alleviating symptoms (5,6).

Gut Dysbiosis in IBS and SIBO

IBS is a functional gastrointestinal disorder marked by abdominal discomfort, bloating, and changes in bowel habits. Subtypes include IBS-D (diarrhea predominant), IBS-C (constipation predominant), and IBS-M (mixed) (2–4). Although the underlying cause of IBS remains unclear, studies suggest a strong link to gut microbiota dysbiosis, reduced diversity, and increased pro-inflammatory species (1–3,7).

SIBO, on the other hand, is characterized by an overgrowth of bacteria in the small intestine, often overlapping with IBS. In fact, breath testing studies suggest that up to 78% of patients with IBS may also have SIBO (8–10).

Common triggers for both conditions, such as antibiotic overuse, poor diet, chronic stress, and gut motility issues, are all known disruptors of a healthy microbiome. This has led researchers to explore FMT as a method of resetting the gut ecosystem and reducing symptoms.

FMT: A Microbiome-Based Approach to IBS and SIBO

FMT involves transferring stool from a healthy donor to a recipient to restore microbial diversity and function. In the context of IBS and SIBO, this approach may address the root microbial imbalances contributing to persistent symptoms.

Clinical Findings on FMT in IBS/SIBO

• Symptom Reduction: FMT has been associated with significant improvements in global IBS symptoms—especially abdominal pain, bloating, and bowel irregularity (11–15). Clinical trials report response rates ranging from 50% to 80% (11–15), with some patients maintaining symptom improvement for up to 1–3 years (16–18).
• SIBO-Specific Improvements: FMT has shown promise in improving gastrointestinal symptoms, microbial diversity and normalizing breath tests in patients with SIBO, suggesting its utility as an adjunctive or second-line treatment following antibiotics (19–21).
• Quality of Life, Fatigue and Mood: Beyond GI symptoms, studies also report improvements in fatigue and quality of life (13,17,22–26).  In addition, studies have reduced anxiety/depression symptoms in patients with IBS after FMT 27,28, reflecting the broader systemic effects of microbiome restoration.
• Long-Term Safety: FMT has shown a good safety profile, with mild and transient side effects (e.g., bloating or cramping) (13,14,17,29). Follow-up studies report continued safety up to 3 years post-treatment, though more large-scale trials are needed (16–18).

Optimizing FMT Outcomes

The mechanisms of action of FMT remain unclear, and more studies are needed to determine optimal treatment protocols and understand which patients are most likely to benefit. As with IBD, outcomes in IBS and SIBO vary based on the FMT protocol used. In general, the research seems to suggest that the main factors influencing the success of FMT in IBS and SIBO include: 

• Dose and Delivery: Higher doses (≥60g of donor stool) (17,18,29,30), lower GI delivery methods (via colonoscopy or enema), and multi-day dosing appear to yield better outcomes than single-dose (11,18,23,29).
• Antibiotic Pretreatment: There is an ongoing debate around using antibiotics before FMT in IBS, where the application of antibiotics is not consistent. Some protocols demonstrate improved engraftment with pretreatment (13,31), particularly in SIBO cases; however, the results vary in IBS (32).
• FMT Capsules: Capsule-based FMT is emerging as a feasible alternative. Although still experimental in IBS, some studies report encouraging outcomes using high-dose capsule regimens (28,33,34).
• Patient Characteristics: Studies report that the severity of IBS has an impact on outcomes, and most recent research suggests that moderate-to-severe IBS (IBS-SSS score >175) have better FMT outcomes (29). There is also debate about sex effects on FMT outcomes, but this appears to be most relevant at low FMT doses, where females appear to respond better, but this sex effect is not present at higher FMT doses (23,30).

Conclusion

FMT offers a promising path forward in the treatment of IBS and SIBO, particularly for patients whose symptoms persist despite standard interventions. With its ability to restore microbial diversity and influence not only gastrointestinal symptoms but also mood and fatigue, FMT represents a paradigm shift in gut-focused care; however, more research is needed to establish optimal practices.

It is essential to emphasize that FMT for IBS and SIBO is still considered experimental for these indications, but early results are promising. Further research and well-designed clinical trials are necessary, but it is possible that FMT may soon become a central tool in the functional treatment of chronic digestive conditions. 

At Novel Biome, we're passionate about the importance of the gut microbiome and the transformative potential of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) treatment to restore health. As an FMT contract manufacturer, we leverage our years of experience in FMT to manufacture high-quality FMT products utilizing our highly-screened donors and stringent manufacturing standards. If you are interested in learning more about our FMT products and manufacturing capabilities, please contact us HERE or to register as a clinical partner to order FMT products, click HERE.
 

References: 1. El‐Salhy, M. 2023, 2. Napolitano, M. et al. 2023, 3. Saleem, M. M. et al. 2025, 4. Wang, Y. et al. 2023, 5. Körner, E. & Lorentz, A. 2023, 6. Wang, M. et al. 2023, 7. Yuan, Y. et al. 2023, 8. Ghoshal, U. C. 2014, 9. Ghoshal, U. C., Shukla, R. & Ghoshal, U. 2017, 10. Pimentel, M. 2003, 11. El‐Salhy, M., Gilja, O. H. & Hatlebakk, J. G. 2024, 12. Hamazaki, M. et al 2022, 13. Hamblin, H. et al. 2022, 14. Johnsen, P. H. et al. 2018, 15. Mizuno, S. et al. 2017, 16. El-Salhy, M. et al. 2020, 17. El-Salhy, M. et al. 2022, 18. El-Salhy, M., Gilja, O. H. & Hatlebakk, J. G. 2024, 19. Gu, L. et al. 2017, 20. Wang, L. et al. 2024, 21. Xu, F. et al. 2021, 22. Cruz-Aguliar, R. M. et al. 2019, 23. El-Salhy, M., Gilja, O. H. & Hatlebakk, J. G. 2024, 24. Huang, H. L. et al. 2019, 25. Mazzawi, T. et al. 2018, 26. Mazzawi, T. et al. 2022, 27. Collyer, R., Clancy, A. & Borody, T. 2020, 28. Guo, Q. et al. 2021, 29. El-Salhy, M. & Hatlebakk, J. 2024, 30. El-Salhy, M. et al. 2021, 31. Cui, J. et al. 2021, 32. Singh, P. et al. 2022, 33. Browne, P. D. et al. 2021, 34. Halkjær, S. I. et al. 2018.