Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T06:09:12.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessment of Clostridium difficile Burden in Patients Over Time With First Episode Infection Following Fidaxomicin or Vancomycin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2015

Seth T. Housman
Affiliation:
Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut
Abrar K. Thabit
Affiliation:
Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut
Joseph L. Kuti
Affiliation:
Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut
Richard Quintiliani
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut
David P. Nicolau*
Affiliation:
Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut Division of Infectious Diseases, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut
*
Address correspondence to David P. Nicolau, PharmD, Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour St, Hartford, CT 06102 ([email protected]).

Abstract

In patients with first episode Clostridium difficile infection treated with vancomycin or fidaxomicin, more patients receiving fidaxomicin achieved at least 2 log10 colony-forming units/g reduction in spores at the follow-up visit (P=.02). Similar to published literature, a higher proportion of patients receiving fidaxomicin demonstrated sustained clinical response.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(2):215–218

Type
Concise Communications
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Cohen, SH, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, et al. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:431455.Google Scholar
2. Vardakas, KZ, Polyzos, KA, Patouni, K, Rafailidis, PI, Samonis, G, Falagas, ME. Treatment failure and recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection following treatment with vancomycin or metronidazole: a systematic review of the evidence. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2012;40:18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Babakhani, F, Bouillaut, L, Gomez, A, Sears, P, Nguyen, L, Sonenshein, AL. Fidaxomicin inhibits spore production in Clostridium difficile . Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:S162S169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Louie, TJ, Cannon, K, Byrne, B, et al. Fidaxomicin preserves the intestinal microbiome during and after treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and reduces both toxin reexpression and recurrence of CDI. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:S132S142.Google Scholar
5. Housman, ST, Banevicius, MA, Lamb, LM, Nicolau, DP. Isolation and quantitation of Clostridium difficile in aqueous and fecal matter using two types of selective media [published online June 27, 2015]. J Microbiol Immunol Infect pii: S1684-1182(15)00766-5.Google Scholar
6. Cornely, OA, Crook, DW, Esposito, R, et al. OPT-80-004 Clinical Study Group. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2012;12:281289.Google Scholar
7. Louie, TJ, Miller, MA, Mullane, KM, et al. OPT-80-003 Clinical Study Group. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 2011;364:422431.Google Scholar
8. Biswas, JS, Patel, A, Otter, JA, et al. Reductions in Clostridium difficile environmental contamination by hospitalized patients treated with fidaxomicin. J Hosp Infect 2015;90:267270.Google Scholar