4.7 Article

Prospective Observational Study Comparing Three Different Treatment Regimes in Patients with Clostridium difficile Infection

Journal

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 1974-1978

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.05647-11

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a hospital-based, prospective cohort study, the effects of the three standard treatment regimens for mild Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), oral (p.o.) metronidazole at 500 mg three times/day, intravenous (i.v.) metronidazole at 500 mg three times/day, and oral (p.o.) vancomycin at 250 mg four times/day, were compared with respect to the risk of occurrence of complications, sequelae, and all-cause death within 30 days after the date of starting treatment. Differences in the incidence of these outcomes were tested by X-2 or Fisher's exact tests. A Poisson regression model was performed to control for possible confounding effects of sex, age, and severity of comorbidity categorized according to the Charlson comorbidity index. The highest mortality was observed in the metronidazole i.v. group, with a mortality rate 38.1% (16/42) compared to mortality rates of 7.4% (9/121) in the metronidazole p.o. group and 9.5% (4/42) in the vancomycin p.o. group (P < 0.001). After adjustment for possible effects of sex, age (>65 years), and severity of comorbidity, the relative risk of a 30-day fatal outcome for patients receiving metronidazole i.v. was 4.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.92 to 10; P < 0.0001) compared to patients treated with metronidazole p.o. and 4.0 (95% CI = 1.31 to 5.0; P < 0.015) compared to patients treated with vancomycin p.o. There were no significant differences in the risk of complications between the three treatment groups. This study generates the hypothesis that treatment with i.v. metronidazole is inferior to the oral alternatives metronidazole and vancomycin.

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