A Retrospective Assessment of Guideline Adherence and Treatment Outcomes From Infection Following the IDSA 2021 Clinical Guideline Update: Infection

Overview

Journal Open Forum Infect Dis

Specialty Infectious Diseases

Date 2024 Oct 2

PMID 39355263

Authors

Erik R Dubberke

Qinghua Li

Engels N Obi

Vladimir Turzhitsky

Fakhar Siddiqui

Brian H Nathanson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The 2021 update to the Infectious Diseases Society of America infection (CDI) guidelines recommended fidaxomicin as the preferred treatment over vancomycin for patients with initial and recurrent CDI. Few studies have examined how treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of hospitalized CDI patients changed after the postguideline update or contemporary real-world outcomes of fidaxomicin vs vancomycin.

Methods: This retrospective, observational study used the PINC AI Healthcare Database on adult patients who received CDI treatment between 1/2020 and 6/2021 (pre period) and between 10/2021 and 9/2022 (post period). We examined treatment patterns of fidaxomicin, vancomycin, and metronidazole, as well as clinical and health care resource use outcomes of patients treated exclusively with fidaxomicin vs vancomycin, using nearest-neighbor propensity matching and hierarchical regression methods. As a sensitivity analysis, we repeated the fidaxomicin vs vancomycin comparisons among patients with recurrent and nonrecurrent index infections.

Results: A total of 45 049 patients with CDI from 779 US hospitals met initial inclusion criteria. Comparing the pre vs post periods, the proportion of patients treated with fidaxomicin increased from 5.9% to 13.7% ( < .001), vancomycin use decreased from 87.9% to 82.9% ( < .001), and metronidazole use decreased from 21.6% to 17.2% ( < .001). When comparing fidaxomicin vs vancomycin in the post period, fidaxomicin was associated with lower CDI recurrence (6.1% vs 10.2%; < .001) and higher sustained clinical response (91.7% vs 87.8%; < .001). Ninety-day postdischarge costs were not significantly different between groups. A sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Conclusions: Since the 2021 guideline update, fidaxomicin use has increased significantly but could be further utilized given its association with better clinical outcomes and no increase in postdischarge costs.

References

Nathwani D, Cornely O, Van Engen A, Odufowora-Sita O, Retsa P, O Odeyemi I . Cost-effectiveness analysis of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in Clostridium difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69(11):2901-12. PMC: 4195473. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dku257. View

Cornely O, Crook D, Esposito R, Poirier A, Somero M, Weiss K . Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012; 12(4):281-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70374-7. View

Dubberke E, Olsen M . Burden of Clostridium difficile on the healthcare system. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55 Suppl 2:S88-92. PMC: 3388018. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis335. View

Louie T, Cannon K, Byrne B, Emery J, Ward L, Eyben M . Fidaxomicin preserves the intestinal microbiome during and after treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and reduces both toxin reexpression and recurrence of CDI. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55 Suppl 2:S132-42. PMC: 3388020. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis338. View

Al Momani L, Abughanimeh O, Boonpheng B, Gabriel J, Young M . Fidaxomicin vs Vancomycin for the Treatment of a First Episode of Clostridium Difficile Infection: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Cureus. 2018; 10(6):e2778. PMC: 6089486. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.2778. View

Zhang D, Prabhu V, Marcella S . Attributable Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs for Patients With Primary and Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66(9):1326-1332. PMC: 5905590. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1021. View

Watt M, Dinh A, Monnier A, Tilleul P . Cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of fidaxomicin and vancomycin to treat Clostridium difficile infection in France. J Med Econ. 2017; 20(7):678-686. DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1302946. View

Cozar-Llisto A, Ramos-Martinez A, Cobo J . Clostridium difficile Infection in Special High-Risk Populations. Infect Dis Ther. 2016; 5(3):253-69. PMC: 5019980. DOI: 10.1007/s40121-016-0124-z. View

Yu H, Alfred T, Nguyen J, Zhou J, Olsen M . Incidence, Attributable Mortality, and Healthcare and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Clostridioides difficile Infection in US Medicare Advantage Enrollees. Clin Infect Dis. 2022; 76(3):e1476-e1483. PMC: 9907506. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac467. View

10.

McDaniel L, White M, Obi E, Kohinke R, Lockhart E, Chipriano D . Clinical and Economic Outcomes After Implementation of a Fidaxomicin Treatment Optimization and Access Pathway at a US Hospital System. Infect Dis Ther. 2022; 12(1):95-107. PMC: 9868207. DOI: 10.1007/s40121-022-00665-1. View

11.

Okumura H, Fukushima A, Taieb V, Shoji S, English M . Fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection: A network meta-analysis. J Infect Chemother. 2019; 26(1):43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2019.07.005. View

12.

Kociolek L, Gerding D . Breakthroughs in the treatment and prevention of Clostridium difficile infection. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 13(3):150-60. DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2015.220. View

13.

Alsoubani M, Chow J, Rodday A, Kent D, Snydman D . Comparative Effectiveness of Fidaxomicin vs Vancomycin in Populations With Immunocompromising Conditions for the Treatment of Infection: A Single-Center Study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2024; 11(1):ofad622. PMC: 10781433. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofad622. View

14.

Williams R . A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics. 2000; 56(2):645-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00645.x. View

15.

Tashiro S, Mihara T, Sasaki M, Shimamura C, Shimamura R, Suzuki S . Oral fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Infect Chemother. 2022; 28(11):1536-1545. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2022.08.008. View

16.

Louie T, Miller M, Mullane K, Weiss K, Lentnek A, Golan Y . Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(5):422-31. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0910812. View

17.

Feuerstadt P, Theriault N, Tillotson G . The burden of CDI in the United States: a multifactorial challenge. BMC Infect Dis. 2023; 23(1):132. PMC: 9990004. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08096-0. View

18.

Patel D, Senecal J, Spellberg B, Morris A, Saxinger L, Footer B . Fidaxomicin to prevent recurrent : what will it cost in the USA and Canada?. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2023; 5(1):dlac138. PMC: 9825808. DOI: 10.1093/jacamr/dlac138. View

19.

McDonald L, Gerding D, Johnson S, Bakken J, Carroll K, Coffin S . 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). Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66(7):e1-e48. PMC: 6018983. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1085. View

20.

Jiang Y, Sarpong E, Sears P, Obi E . Budget Impact Analysis of Fidaxomicin Versus Vancomycin for the Treatment of Clostridioides difficile Infection in the United States. Infect Dis Ther. 2021; 11(1):111-126. PMC: 8847493. DOI: 10.1007/s40121-021-00480-0. View