4.7 Review

Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: A review of risk factors, treatments, and outcomes

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 58, Issue 6, Pages 403-410

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2009.03.010

Keywords

Clostridum difficile; Vancomycin; Metronidazole; Diarrhea

Funding

  1. ViroPharma Incorporated

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Episodes of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) are difficult to treat for several reasons. Foremost, data are tacking to support any particular treatment strategy. In addition, treatment of recurrent episodes is not always successful, and repeated, prolonged treatment is often necessary. Identification of subgroups at risk for recurrent CDI may aid in diagnosing and treating these patients. Two likely mechanistic factors increasing the risk of recurrent CDI are an inadequate immune response to C. difficile toxins and persistent disruption of the normal colonic flora. Important epidemiologic risk factors include advanced age, continuation of other antibiotics, and prolonged hospital stays. Current guidelines recommend that the first recurrent episode be treated with the same agent (i.e., metronidazole or vancomycin) used for the index episode. However, if the first recurrence is characterized as severe, vancomycin should be used. A reasonable strategy for managing a subsequent episode involves tapering followed by pulsed doses of vancomycin. Other potentially effective strategies for recurrent CDI include vancomycin with adjunctive treatments, such as Socchoromyces boulardii, rifaximin chaser therapy after vancomycin, nitazoxanide, fecal transplantation, and intravenous immunoglobutin. New treatment agents that are active against C. difficile, but spare critical components of the normal flora, may decrease the incidence of recurrent CDI. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available