Alyssa Rinaldi1, Erica E Reed1, Kurt B Stevenson2, Kelci Coe2, Jessica M Smith1. 1. Department of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The 2017 IDSA/SHEA Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) recommend treating recurrent episodes with fidaxomicin or oral vancomycin, but there is little evidence to support one strategy over another, particularly beyond the first recurrence. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent CDI treated with vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated inpatients with recurrent CDI treated with vancomycin or fidaxomicin between 1 January 2013 and 1 May 2019. The primary outcome was CDI recurrence. Secondary outcomes included re-infection, treatment failure, infection-related length of stay (IRLOS) and in-hospital all-cause mortality (IHACM). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was utilized, as appropriate. A multivariable logistic regression (MLR) model was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval assessing recurrence while adjusting for confounding variables. A survival analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: 135 patients met the inclusion criteria (35 fidaxomicin vs. 100 vancomycin). There was no difference in CDI recurrence [7 (20%) fidaxomicin vs. 11 (11%) vancomycin, p = 0.18]; this persisted in the MLR model (OR: 0.85 [95% CI 0.27-2.7]) and survival analysis (p = 0.1954). Additionally, there was no difference in re-infection rate (p = 0.73), treatment failure (p = 0.13), IRLOS (p = 0.19) or IHACM (p = 0.65). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This represents the first analysis of CDI recurrence that included patients with >2 prior episodes of CDI. The study found no difference in additional recurrences when patients were treated with oral vancomycin vs fidaxomicin for recurrent CDI. However, the current study is limited by the small sample size available for inclusion. Prospective randomized studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm this study's conclusions.
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The 2017 IDSA/SHEA Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) recommend treating recurrent episodes with fidaxomicin or oral vancomycin, but there is little evidence to support one strategy over another, particularly beyond the first recurrence. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent CDI treated with vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated inpatients with recurrent CDI treated with vancomycin or fidaxomicin between 1 January 2013 and 1 May 2019. The primary outcome was CDI recurrence. Secondary outcomes included re-infection, treatment failure, infection-related length of stay (IRLOS) and in-hospital all-cause mortality (IHACM). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was utilized, as appropriate. A multivariable logistic regression (MLR) model was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval assessing recurrence while adjusting for confounding variables. A survival analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: 135 patients met the inclusion criteria (35 fidaxomicin vs. 100 vancomycin). There was no difference in CDI recurrence [7 (20%) fidaxomicin vs. 11 (11%) vancomycin, p = 0.18]; this persisted in the MLR model (OR: 0.85 [95% CI 0.27-2.7]) and survival analysis (p = 0.1954). Additionally, there was no difference in re-infection rate (p = 0.73), treatment failure (p = 0.13), IRLOS (p = 0.19) or IHACM (p = 0.65). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This represents the first analysis of CDI recurrence that included patients with >2 prior episodes of CDI. The study found no difference in additional recurrences when patients were treated with oral vancomycin vs fidaxomicin for recurrent CDI. However, the current study is limited by the small sample size available for inclusion. Prospective randomized studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm this study's conclusions.
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
Authors: Erik R Dubberke; Justin T Puckett; Engels N Obi; Sachin Kamal-Bahl; Kaushal Desai; Bruce Stuart; Jalpa A Doshi Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 4.423