An Open-Label, Randomized Trial Comparing Fidaxomicin With Oral Vancomycin for the Treatment of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Concomitant Antibiotics for Concurrent Infections.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) occurs frequently, and concomitant antibiotic (CA) during the initial episode for treatment of non-CDI is a major risk factor. We sought to address the comparative efficacy of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in the setting of CA during the initial CDI episode. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial at 2 hospitals in Ann Arbor, Michigan. We consecutively consented and enrolled hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with diarrhea, a positive test for C. difficile, and ≥1 qualifying CA. Complicated CDI, CDI treatment for >24 hours prior to enrollment, and planned long-term (>12 weeks) CA use were notable exclusions. Clinical cure was defined as resolution of diarrhea for 2 consecutive days maintained until 2 days after therapy, and rCDI as recurrent diarrhea with positive testing ≤30 days after initial treatment. Patients were randomized to fidaxomicin or vancomycin. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups of 144 patients. Rates of clinical cure (73% vs 62.9%, P = .195) and rCDI (3.3% vs 4.0%; P > .99) were similar for fidaxomicin and vancomycin in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts, respectively. Only 4 patients developed rCDI. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with CDI receiving CA, a numerically higher proportion were cured with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, but this result did not reach statistical significance. Overall recurrence was lower than anticipated in both arms compared with previous studies that did not extend duration of CDI treatment during CA. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02692651).

Lowering the Acquisition of Multi-drug Resistant Organism (MDROs) with Pulsed-xenon (LAMP) Study: a cluster randomized controlled, double-blinded, interventional crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Environmental disinfection is essential for reducing spread of healthcare associated infections (HAIs). Previous studies report conflicting results regarding the effects of ultraviolet light (UV) in reducing infections. This trial evaluated the impact of adding pulsed xenon UV (PX-UV) to standard terminal cleaning in reducing environmentally-implicated HAIs (eiHAIs). METHODS: The LAMP trial was conducted in 2 hospitals (15 inpatient wards) utilizing a cluster randomized controlled, double-blinded, interventional crossover trial comparing standard terminal cleaning followed by either pulsed xenon ultraviolet (PX-UV) disinfection (intervention arm) or sham disinfection (control arm). The primary outcome was incidence of eiHAIs from clinical microbiology tests on the 4th day of stay or later or within 3 days after discharge from the study unit. EiHAIs included clinical cultures positive for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumonia, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Acinetobacter baumannii, and stool PCR positive for Clostridiodes difficile. FINDINGS: Between May 18, 2017 to Jan 7, 2020, 25,732 patients were included, with an incidence of 601 eiHAI and 180,954 patient days. There was no difference in the rate of eiHAIs in the intervention and sham arms (3.49 vs 3.17 infections/1000 patient days respectively, RR 1.10 CI (0.94, 1.29, p= 0.23)). Study results were similar when stratified by eiHAI type, hospital, and unit type. CONCLUSION: The LAMP study failed to demonstrate an effect of the addition of UV light disinfection following terminal cleaning on reductions in rates of eiHAIs. Further investigations targeting hospital environmental surfaces and the role of no touch technology to reduce HAIs are needed.

2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Diagnostic Imaging of Suspected Acute Diverticulitis in Adults and Pregnant People.

This paper is part of a clinical practice guideline update on the risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. In this paper, the panel provides recommendations for diagnostic imaging of suspected acute diverticulitis. The panel's recommendations are based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Risk Assessment in Adults and Children.

This paper is part of a clinical practice guideline update on the risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. In this paper, the panel provides a recommendation for risk stratification according to severity of illness score. The panel's recommendation is based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adheres to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Utility of Blood Cultures in Adults, Children, and Pregnant People.

This article is part of a clinical practice guideline update on the risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. In this guideline, the panel provides recommendations for obtaining blood cultures in patients with known or suspected intra-abdominal infection. The panel's recommendations are based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Diagnostic Imaging of Suspected Acute Intra-abdominal Abscess in Adults, Children, and Pregnant People.

This article is part of a clinical practice guideline update on the risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. In this article, the panel provides recommendations for diagnostic imaging of suspected acute intra-abdominal abscess. The panel's recommendations are based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Utility of Intra-abdominal Fluid Cultures in Adults, Children, and Pregnant People.

This paper is part of a clinical practice guideline update on the risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. In this paper, the panel provides recommendations for obtaining cultures of intra-abdominal fluid in patients with known or suspected intra-abdominal infection. The panel's recommendations are based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Diagnostic Imaging of Suspected Acute Appendicitis in Adults, Children, and Pregnant People.

This paper is part of a clinical practice guideline update on the risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). In this paper, the panel provides recommendations for diagnostic imaging of suspected acute appendicitis. The panel's recommendations are based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Risk Assessment, Diagnostic Imaging, and Microbiological Evaluation in Adults, Children, and Pregnant People.

As the first part of an update to the clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the panel presents 21 updated recommendations. These recommendations span risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation. The panel's recommendations are based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

Exebacase in Addition to Standard-of-Care Antibiotics for Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections and Right-Sided Infective Endocarditis: A Phase 3, Superiority-Design, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial (DISRUPT).

BACKGROUND: Novel treatments are needed for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, particularly for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Exebacase is a first-in-class antistaphylococcal lysin that is rapidly bactericidal and synergizes with antibiotics. METHODS: In Direct Lysis of Staph Aureus Resistant Pathogen Trial of Exebacase (DISRUPT), a superiority-design phase 3 study, patients with S. aureus bacteremia/endocarditis were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of intravenous exebacase or placebo in addition to standard-of-care antibiotics. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical response at day 14 in the MRSA population. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients were randomized before the study was stopped for futility based on the recommendation of the unblinded Data Safety Monitoring Board. Clinical response rates at day 14 in the MRSA population (n = 97) were 50.0% (exebacase + antibiotics; 32/64) versus 60.6% (antibiotics alone; 20/33) (P = .392). Overall, rates of adverse events were similar across groups. No adverse events of hypersensitivity related to exebacase were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Exebacase + antibiotics failed to improve clinical response at day 14 in patients with MRSA bacteremia/endocarditis. This result was unexpected based on phase 2 data that established proof-of-concept for exebacase + antibiotics in patients with MRSA bacteremia/endocarditis. In the antibiotics-alone group, the clinical response rate was higher than that seen in phase 2. Heterogeneity within the study population and a relatively small sample size in either the phase 2 or phase 3 studies may have increased the probability of imbalances in the multiple components of day 14 clinical outcome. This study provides lessons for future superiority studies in S. aureus bacteremia/endocarditis. Clinical Trials Registration.NCT04160468.