Bryant B Summers1, Mary Yates2, Kerry O Cleveland3, Michael S Gelfand3, Justin Usery4. 1. Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 2. Methodist Le Bonheur Germantown Hospital, Germantown, TN, USA. 3. Methodist Le Bonheur University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 4. UAMS Medical Center, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Abstract
Purpose: The most recent published guidelines on Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) were released in 2017 and outline its treatment based on severity of the disease and recurrence; however, a clear first-line agent has not been recommended specifically for severe CDAD. Methods: This retrospective chart review was approved by the institutional review board and consisted of three community hospitals and one academic medical center. To be included, patients need to meet criteria for severe CDAD and receive at least 72 hours of therapy. Patients received either oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin, in addition to other therapies for CDAD, and differences in outcomes such as cost obtained from a common charge center, rates of recurrence, time to recurrence as measured at time of positive to negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, and mortality were assessed. Results: Of the 147 patients, 74 patients received fidaxomicin and 73 patients received oral vancomycin. The average hospitalization cost for patients receiving fidaxomicin was $129,338.69 and for patients receiving vancomycin was $153,563.81 (P = .26). Recurrence rates were lower with fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin (6.8% vs 17.6%; P = .047), and time to recurrence was longer with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, but not statistically significant (96.8 ± 45.9 days vs 63.2 ± 66.9 days; P = .321). Mortality, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and overall length of stay were similar between the two therapies. Conclusions: In the treatment of severe CDAD, recurrence rates were lower and time to recurrence was higher with fidaxomicin compared with oral vancomycin. A clear financial benefit has yet to translate from these known findings.
Purpose: The most recent published guidelines on Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) were released in 2017 and outline its treatment based on severity of the disease and recurrence; however, a clear first-line agent has not been recommended specifically for severe CDAD. Methods: This retrospective chart review was approved by the institutional review board and consisted of three community hospitals and one academic medical center. To be included, patients need to meet criteria for severe CDAD and receive at least 72 hours of therapy. Patients received either oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin, in addition to other therapies for CDAD, and differences in outcomes such as cost obtained from a common charge center, rates of recurrence, time to recurrence as measured at time of positive to negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, and mortality were assessed. Results: Of the 147 patients, 74 patients received fidaxomicin and 73 patients received oral vancomycin. The average hospitalization cost for patients receiving fidaxomicin was $129,338.69 and for patients receiving vancomycin was $153,563.81 (P = .26). Recurrence rates were lower with fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin (6.8% vs 17.6%; P = .047), and time to recurrence was longer with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, but not statistically significant (96.8 ± 45.9 days vs 63.2 ± 66.9 days; P = .321). Mortality, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and overall length of stay were similar between the two therapies. Conclusions: In the treatment of severe CDAD, recurrence rates were lower and time to recurrence was higher with fidaxomicin compared with oral vancomycin. A clear financial benefit has yet to translate from these known findings.
Authors: Thomas J Louie; Mark A Miller; Kathleen M Mullane; Karl Weiss; Arnold Lentnek; Yoav Golan; Sherwood Gorbach; Pamela Sears; Youe-Kong Shue Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lukas Buendgens; Jan Bruensing; Michael Matthes; Hanna Dückers; Tom Luedde; Christian Trautwein; Frank Tacke; Alexander Koch Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: L Clifford McDonald; Dale N Gerding; Stuart Johnson; Johan S Bakken; Karen C Carroll; Susan E Coffin; Erik R Dubberke; Kevin W Garey; Carolyn V Gould; Ciaran Kelly; Vivian Loo; Julia Shaklee Sammons; Thomas J Sandora; Mark H Wilcox Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: J Freeman; M P Bauer; S D Baines; J Corver; W N Fawley; B Goorhuis; E J Kuijper; M H Wilcox Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Oliver A Cornely; Derrick W Crook; Roberto Esposito; André Poirier; Michael S Somero; Karl Weiss; Pamela Sears; Sherwood Gorbach Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Oliver A Cornely; Mark A Miller; Bruno Fantin; Kathleen Mullane; Yin Kean; Sherwood Gorbach Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xiaoyan Song; John G Bartlett; Kathleen Speck; April Naegeli; Karen Carroll; Trish M Perl Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Lauren F McDaniel; Melissa N White; Engels N Obi; Rose M Kohinke; Ellen Rachel S Lockhart; Damian J Chipriano; Yiyun Chen; Nathan A Everson Journal: Infect Dis Ther Date: 2022-07-19