RESUMEN
Background Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major cause of diarrhea in hospitalized adult patients. This study aims to evaluate the clinical characteristics, clinical cure, recurrence and mortality in patients with CDI treated with either fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Methods A retrospective case-control study was conducted on patients with CDI treated with either fidaxomicin or vancomycin at a hospital from January 2019 to March 2022. Results We assessed 140 patients with CDI episodes, 70 patients treated with fidaxomicin and 70 with vancomycin. Seventy (50%) were male. Median age was 70 years old (IQR: 56-81). Fidaxomicin group had more recurrent CDI episodes within six months (59% vs 11%, p ≤ 0.001), more severity (43% vs 16%, p ≤ 0.001) and less treatment response (84% vs 100%, p ≤ 0.002) compared with vancomycin group. Recurrence and mortality rates in the follow-up period did not differ in both groups. Conclusions Our study found fidaxomicin treatment had worse outcomes due to restricted usage, potentially impacting its effectiveness in CDI. This finding is especially significant for patients with severe or recurrent CDI, as prescribing of the drug was limited until May 2022 in Spain with the lifting of this restriction, further research is necessary to better understand the potential benefits of fidaxomicin in treating CDI.
RESUMEN
In this article we describe two cases that presented with persistent fever and a hyperinflammatory state in association with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection with various negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction results. These cases subsequently developed myocarditis with cardiogenic shock that required vasoactive drugs and had a good response to corticosteroid treatment. All cases met criteria for a definitive case of multisystemic inflammatory syndrome in adults, a recently described entity associated with coronavirus disease 2019, which has a good response to immunomodulators and a good prognosis in most cases.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Hyperpigmentation is a common dermatologic problem that may have substantial impact on the patient, since it affects the appearance and quality of life, and may influence treatment adherence. There are few studies of drug-induced hyperpigmentation. METHODS: We studied drug-induced hyperpigmentation in patients attending an outpatient dermatology clinic in the Western Area of Valladolid (Spain) from August 1, 2017 to April 20, 2018. RESULTS: The incidence of drug-induced hyperpigmentation was 1.31% in patients attending a first dermatology consultation in the study period. Of the 16 patients, 8 were taking more than 1 drug. The most frequent drugs identified were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (25%), antihypertensive agents (18.75%), antimalarials (12.5%), antibiotics, antineoplastic agents, psychoactive agents, simvastatin, allopurinol, amiodarone and mucolytic (6.25% each). Hyperpigmentation was found in the mucosa in 25% of patients and in photograph-exposed areas in 37.5%. DISCUSSION: Diagnosing drug-induced hyperpigmentation is a dermatologic challenge. A differential diagnosis with hyperpigmentation caused by endocrine and metabolic disorders, the most closely-related disorders to drug-induced hyperpigmentation, and with hyperpigmentation of idiopathic origin, should be conducted. Drug-induced hyperpigmentation is a relatively frequent reason for consultation, especially in polypharmacy patients. The sample may have been biased as many patients receiving treatments frequently associated with drug-induced hyperpigmentation, such as antineoplastic drugs, are diagnosed and treated by other specialties, such as oncologists. CONCLUSION: Family physicians and specialists should consider drugs as a cause of hyperpigmentation to facilitate the correct diagnosis and treatment.
