4.6 Article

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

Journal

INFECTION
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages 425-431

Publisher

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

Keywords

Fidaxomicin; Clostridium difficile; Prospective; Clinical practice

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available