C H Chilton1, G S Crowther2, S L Todhunter2, H Ashwin2, C M Longshaw3, A Karas3, M H Wilcox4. 1. Leeds Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK c.h.chilton@leeds.ac.uk. 2. Leeds Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 3. Astellas Pharma EMEA, 2000 Hillswood Drive, Chertsey, Surrey KT16 0RS, UK. 4. Leeds Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Department of Microbiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, The General Infirmary, Old Medical School, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fidaxomicin treatment reduces the risk of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) compared with vancomycin. Extending duration of fidaxomicin therapy may further reduce recurrence. We compared the efficacy of four extended fidaxomicin regimens in an in vitro model of CDI. METHODS: Four gut models were primed with human faeces, spiked with C. difficile spores (PCR ribotype 027) and clindamycin instilled (33.9 mg/L, four-times daily, 7 days) to induce simulated CDI. Four extended fidaxomicin treatment regimens were evaluated: model 1, 20 days, 200 mg/L twice daily; model 2, 5 days 200 mg/L twice daily, 5 days rest, 5 days 200 mg/L twice daily; model 3, 5 days 200 mg/L twice daily, 5 days rest, 10 days 200 mg/L once daily; and model 4, 5 days 200 mg/L twice daily, 20 days 200 mg/L once every other day. C. difficile populations, toxin, gut microbiota and antimicrobial levels were monitored daily. RESULTS: All fidaxomicin regimens successfully resolved simulated CDI without recurrence. Five days of fidaxomicin instillation was barely sufficient to resolve CDI (models 2-4). A second pulse or tapered dosing further reduced C. difficile and toxin detection. All regimens were sparing of microbiota, affecting only enterococci and bifidobacteria. Pulsed or tapered regimens allowed greater bifidobacteria recovery than the extended (20 day) regimen. Bioactive fidaxomicin persisted throughout the experiment in all models at concentrations inhibitory to C. difficile. CONCLUSIONS: Pulsed or tapered fidaxomicin regimens may enhance suppression of C. difficile whilst allowing microbiota recovery; clinical studies are required to ascertain the potential of this approach in further reducing recurrent CDI.
BACKGROUND:Fidaxomicin treatment reduces the risk of recurrent Clostridium difficileinfection (CDI) compared with vancomycin. Extending duration of fidaxomicin therapy may further reduce recurrence. We compared the efficacy of four extended fidaxomicin regimens in an in vitro model of CDI. METHODS: Four gut models were primed with human faeces, spiked with C. difficile spores (PCR ribotype 027) and clindamycin instilled (33.9 mg/L, four-times daily, 7 days) to induce simulated CDI. Four extended fidaxomicin treatment regimens were evaluated: model 1, 20 days, 200 mg/L twice daily; model 2, 5 days 200 mg/L twice daily, 5 days rest, 5 days 200 mg/L twice daily; model 3, 5 days 200 mg/L twice daily, 5 days rest, 10 days 200 mg/L once daily; and model 4, 5 days 200 mg/L twice daily, 20 days 200 mg/L once every other day. C. difficile populations, toxin, gut microbiota and antimicrobial levels were monitored daily. RESULTS: All fidaxomicin regimens successfully resolved simulated CDI without recurrence. Five days of fidaxomicin instillation was barely sufficient to resolve CDI (models 2-4). A second pulse or tapered dosing further reduced C. difficile and toxin detection. All regimens were sparing of microbiota, affecting only enterococci and bifidobacteria. Pulsed or tapered regimens allowed greater bifidobacteria recovery than the extended (20 day) regimen. Bioactive fidaxomicin persisted throughout the experiment in all models at concentrations inhibitory to C. difficile. CONCLUSIONS: Pulsed or tapered fidaxomicin regimens may enhance suppression of C. difficile whilst allowing microbiota recovery; clinical studies are required to ascertain the potential of this approach in further reducing recurrent CDI.
Authors: Ines B Moura; Ayman Grada; William Spittal; Emma Clark; Duncan Ewin; James Altringham; Emilio Fumero; Mark H Wilcox; Anthony M Buckley Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 6.064
Authors: Ines B Moura; Charmaine Normington; Duncan Ewin; Emma Clark; Mark H Wilcox; Anthony M Buckley; Caroline H Chilton Journal: BMC Microbiol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 3.605
Authors: C H Chilton; G S Crowther; K Śpiewak; M Brindell; G Singh; M H Wilcox; T M Monaghan Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Oliver A Cornely; Maureen Watt; Charles McCrea; Simon D Goldenberg; Enrico De Nigris Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Mark H Wilcox; Oliver A Cornely; Benoit Guery; Chris Longshaw; Areti Georgopali; Andreas Karas; Gbenga Kazeem; Jose Alejandro Palacios-Fabrega; Maria J G T Vehreschild Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Anthony M Buckley; Ines B Moura; Norie Arai; William Spittal; Emma Clark; Yoshihiro Nishida; Hannah C Harris; Karen Bentley; Georgina Davis; Dapeng Wang; Suparna Mitra; Takanobu Higashiyama; Mark H Wilcox Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.293