Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-effectiveness of Bezlotoxumab in Preventing Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection : Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a global health challenge. Bezlotoxumab (BEZ) is a monoclonal antibody against C. difficile toxin B. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), MODIFY I and II, confirmed BEZ efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). However, there are safety concerns about its use in patients with a history of congestive heart failure. Observational studies have since been conducted, and it is important to explore the consistency of BEZ efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and its safety utilizing these real-world data. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and explore its efficacy and safety in preventing rCDI compared with control. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception through April 2023 for relevant RCTs or observational studies assessing BEZ in preventing rCDI. Single-arm studies describing experience with BEZ in preventing rCDI were also included for proportion meta-analysis. A proportion meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to pool the rCDI rate with its corresponding 95% CI. In a meta-analysis of efficacy, we generated the relative risk (RR) to compare BEZ versus control in preventing rCDI. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 2 RCTs and 11 observational studies totaling 2337 patients, of which 1472 received BEZ, were included in the analysis. Of the constituent studies, 5 (1734 patients) compared BEZ versus standard-of-care (SOC). Pooled rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ was 15.8% (95% CI: 14%-17.8%), and was 28.9% (95% CI: 24%-34.4%) in the SOC. BEZ significantly reduced rCDI risk compared with SOC [RR=0.57 (95% CI: 0.45-0.72, I2 =16%)]. There was no difference in the overall mortality or heart failure risk. Of the 9 included cost-effectiveness analyses, 8 demonstrated BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone. DISCUSSION: Our meta-analysis comprising real-world data revealed lower rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and supported its efficacy and safety when added to SOC therapy. The results were consistent across various subgroups. Available cost-effectiveness analyses mostly support BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone.

Racial Differences in Clostridium difficile Infection Rates Are Attributable to Disparities in Health Care Access.

This study confirms previously reported racial differences in Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) rates in the United States and explores the nature of those differences. We conducted a retrospective study using the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the largest all-payer database of hospital discharges in the United States. We identified hospital stays most likely to include antibiotic treatment for infections, based on hospital discharge diagnoses, and we examined how CDI rates varied, in an attempt to distinguish between genotypic and environmental racial differences. Logistic regressions for the survey design were used to test hypotheses. Among patients likely to have received antibiotics, white patients had higher CDI rates than black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American patients (P < 0.0001). CDI rates increased with higher income levels and were higher for hospitalizations paid by private insurance versus those paid by Medicaid or classified as self-pay or free care (P < 0.0001). Among patients admitted from skilled nursing facilities, where racial bias in health care access is less, racial differences in CDI rates disappeared (P = 1.0). Infected patients did not show racial differences in rates of complicated CDI or death (P = 1.0). Although white patients had greater CDI rates than nonwhite patients, racial differences in CDI rates disappeared in a population for which health care access was presumed to be less racially biased. This provides evidence that apparent racial differences in CDI risks may represent health care access disparities, rather than genotypic differences. CDI represents a deviation from the paradigm that increased health care access is associated with less morbidity.