4.5 Review

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Efficacy of Vancomycin Taper and Pulse Regimens in Clostridioides difficile Infection

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF ANTI-INFECTIVE THERAPY
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 577-583

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2022.1997588

关键词

Clostridioides difficile; pulse; recurrence; taper; vancomycin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that vancomycin taper-and-pulse regimen is superior to pulse alone or taper alone for resolving CDI. Taper-and-pulse combination had a higher resolution rate compared to taper or pulse alone. Further research is needed to compare vancomycin taper-and-pulse with other treatment options.
Background Vancomycin is the drug of choice for treating Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). We compare CDI resolution with vancomycin taper, pulse, and taper-and-pulse regimens. Methods We searched for Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus through October 9(th), 2020. Taper regimen was defined as dose reduction over time; pulse was a regimen less frequent than daily. Studies assessing CDI resolution rates were included. Meta-analyses for resolution rates were performed using weighted proportion ratios (WPR). Results Ten studies with 675 patients treated with vancomycin regimens were included. Resolution rates were 83% (212/266, 95% CI 69-94%, I-2 = 85%) for taper-and-pulse, 68% (264/383, 95% CI 57-78%, I-2 = 72%) for taper alone, and 54% (11/26 95% CI 0-100%, I-2 = 86%) for pulse alone regimens. Taper-and-pulse was superior to taper alone (WPR 83% vs 68%, p < 0.0001) and pulse alone (WPR 83% vs 54%, p < 0.0004), no significant difference between taper alone or pulse alone (WPR 68% vs 54%, p = 0.1). Conclusions Limitations of our analysis are a small number of included studies and heterogeneity. Vancomycin taper-and-pulse seems superior to pulse alone or taper alone for recurrent CDI. A randomized controlled trial comparing vancomycin taper-and-pulse to fidaxomicin and microbiome restoration is needed.

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

4.5
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