7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Navigating changes in Clostridioides difficile prevention and treatment

      research-article
      , PharmD 1 , * , , PhD, MPH 2 , , PharmD 3
      Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
      Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Clostridioides difficile ( C. difficile, previously known as Clostridium difficile) infections are a major health care concern. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that C. difficile causes almost half a million illnesses in the United States yearly, and approximately 1 in 5 patients with a C. difficile infection (CDI) will experience 1 or more recurrent infections. The incidence of infection has risen dramatically in recent years, and infection severity has increased due to the emergence of hypervirulent strains. There have been noteworthy advances in the development of CDI prevention and treatment, including a growth in the understanding of the role a patient’s gut microbiome plays.

          The 2017 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines made a significant change in treatment recommendations for first time CDI episodes by recommending the use of oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin in place of metronidazole as a first-line treatment. The guidelines also included detailed recommendations on the use of fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) in those patients who experience 3 or more recurrent CDI episodes.

          A number of novel therapies for the treatment of CDI are in various stages of development. Treatments currently in phase 3 trials include the antibiotic ridinilazole, the microbiome products SER-109 and RBX2660, and a vaccine. All of these agents have shown promise in phase 1 and 2 trials. Additionally, several other antibiotic and microbiome candidates are currently in phase 1 or phase 2 trials.

          A qualitative review and evaluation of the literature on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for CDI in the U.S. setting was conducted, and the summary provided herein. Due to the higher cost of newer agents, cost-effectiveness evaluations will continue to be critical in clinical decision making for CDI.

          This paper reviews the updated CDI guidelines for prevention and treatment, the role of the microbiome in new and recurrent infections, pipeline medications, and comparative effectiveness research (CER) data on these treatments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA)

          A panel of experts was convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) to update the 2010 clinical practice guideline on Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults. The update, which has incorporated recommendations for children (following the adult recommendations for epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment), includes significant changes in the management of this infection and reflects the evolving controversy over best methods for diagnosis. Clostridium difficile remains the most important cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea and has become the most commonly identified cause of healthcare-associated infection in adults in the United States. Moreover, C. difficile has established itself as an important community pathogen. Although the prevalence of the epidemic and virulent ribotype 027 strain has declined markedly along with overall CDI rates in parts of Europe, it remains one of the most commonly identified strains in the United States where it causes a sizable minority of CDIs, especially healthcare-associated CDIs. This guideline updates recommendations regarding epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, infection prevention, and environmental management.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clostridium difficile colitis: pathogenesis and host defence.

            Clostridium difficile is a major cause of intestinal infection and diarrhoea in individuals following antibiotic treatment. Recent studies have begun to elucidate the mechanisms that induce spore formation and germination and have determined the roles of C. difficile toxins in disease pathogenesis. Exciting progress has also been made in defining the role of the microbiome, specific commensal bacterial species and host immunity in defence against infection with C. difficile. This Review will summarize the recent discoveries and developments in our understanding of C. difficile infection and pathogenesis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

              Infection with Clostridium difficile is the primary infective cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. We aimed to compare efficacy and safety of fidaxomicin and vancomycin to treat patients with C difficile infection in Europe, Canada, and the USA. In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled patients from 45 sites in Europe and 41 sites in the USA and Canada between April 19, 2007, and Dec 11, 2009. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older with acute, toxin-positive C difficile infection. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive oral fidaxomicin (200 mg every 12 h) or oral vancomycin (125 mg every 6 h) for 10 days. The primary endpoint was clinical cure, defined as resolution of diarrhoea and no further need for treatment. An interactive voice-response system and computer-generated randomisation schedule gave a randomisation number and medication kit number for each patient. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority was prespecified with a margin of 10%. Modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations were analysed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00468728. Of 535 patients enrolled, 270 were assigned fidaxomicin and 265 vancomycin. After 26 patients were excluded, 509 were included in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. 198 (91·7%) of 216 patients in the per-protocol population given fidaxomicin achieved clinical cure, compared with 213 (90·6%) of 235 given vancomycin, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (one-sided 97·5% CI -4·3%). Non-inferiority was also shown for clinical cure in the mITT population, with 221 (87·7%) of 252 patients given fidaxomicin and 223 (86·8%) of 257 given vancomycin cured (one-sided 97·5% CI -4·9%). In most subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint in the mITT population, outcomes in the two treatment groups did not differ significantly; although patients receiving concomitant antibiotics for other infections had a higher cure rate with fidaxomicin (46 [90·2%] of 51) than with vancomycin (33 [73·3%] of 45; p=0·031). Occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events did not differ between groups. 20 (7·6%) of 264 patients given at least one dose of fidaxomicin and 17 (6·5%) of 260 given vancomycin died. Fidaxomicin could be an alternative treatment for infection with C difficile, with similar efficacy and safety to vancomycin. Optimer Pharmaceuticals. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Manag Care Spec Pharm
                J Manag Care Spec Pharm
                jmcsp
                Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
                Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
                2376-0540
                2376-1032
                December 2020
                : 26
                : 12-a Suppl
                : 10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.12-a.s3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]BCPS, BCIDP, Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn, AL.
                [2 ]Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University and Center for Value-based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
                [3 ]BCPS, FASHP, Pharmfusion Consulting, Midlothian, VA.
                Author notes
                [* ]AUTHOR CORRESPONDENCE: Spencer H Durham, 334.844.7138, durhash@ 123456auburn.edu

                Durham and Le have nothing to disclose. Cassano reports consulting fees from Baxter Healthcare. Peer reviewers Drs. Ami Gopalan and Mark Rubin and Ms. Kathleen Jarvis have nothing to disclose. Planners Dr. Christine L. Cooper and Ms. Susan Yarbrough have nothing to disclose.

                Article
                10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.12-a.s3
                10408425
                33533699
                faba04ef-d3da-41ca-a48f-0c7675426c4a
                Copyright © 2020, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. All rights reserved.

                This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

                History
                Categories
                Supplement

                Comments

                Comment on this article