4.6 Article

Fidaxomicin for treatment of Clostridium difficile infection in clinical practice: a prospective cohort study in a French University Hospital

期刊

INFECTION
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 425-431

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-017-0981-8

关键词

Fidaxomicin; Clostridium difficile; Prospective; Clinical practice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed the non-inferiority of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) treatment and its superiority regarding recurrence rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate fidaxomicin's efficacy in clinical practice. Methods This single-center prospective cohort study included hospitalized patients treated with fidaxomicin for CDI. Demographic, clinical and biological data were collected. Primary outcome was efficacy of fidaxomicin (clinical cure, recurrence and global cure) at 10 weeks. Secondary outcome was efficacy among different subgroups. Results Ninety-nine patients were included: 42 severe CDI, 16 complicated CDI and 41 recurrent CDI. Rates of clinical cure, recurrence and global cure were 87, 15 and 59%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed a higher recurrence rate for patients with recurrent CDI compared with first episode (8 vs. 26%; p = 0.04). Binary toxin was associated with severe/complicated CDI (80 vs. 50%; p < 0.01) and recurrence (32 vs. 7%; p < 0.01). Fidaxomicin was used as a first line for 83% of the patients with recurrence and for only 52% of first episodes even though 86% had recurrence's risk factors. Conclusion Compared with RCTs, fidaxomicin in real world is used for patients with more severe and recurrent CDI, but clinical cure and recurrence rates were similar. Comparative studies are needed in these specific subgroups. Our data also illustrate clinicians' difficulty to define a patient at risk for recurrence among the first episodes. Finally, we showed that binary toxin could be important in the screening for severity and recurrence risks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据