Bezlotoxumab during the first episode of Clostridioides difficile infection in patients at high risk of recurrence.

PURPOSE: To describe a cohort with a high risk of recurrence who received bezlotoxumab during the first episode of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and to compare this cohort with patients with similar characteristics who did not receive the monoclonal antibody. METHODS: A prospective and multicentre study of patients with a high risk of recurrence (expected recurrence rate>35%) who were treated with bezlotoxumab during their first episode of CDI was conducted. A propensity score-matched model 1:2 was used to compare both cohorts that were weighed according to basal characteristics (hospital-acquisition, creatinine value, and fidaxomicin as a CDI treatment). RESULTS: Sixty patients (mean age:72 years) were prospectively treated with bezlotoxumab plus anti-Clostridioides antibiotic therapy. Vancomycin (48 patients) and fidaxomicin (12 patients) were prescribed for CDI treatment, and bezlotoxumab was administered at a mean of 4.2 (SD:2.1) days from the beginning of therapy. Recurrence occurred in nine out of 54 (16.7%) evaluable patients at 8 weeks. Forty bezlotoxumab-treated patients were matched with 69 non-bezlotoxumab-treated patients. Recurrence rates at 12 weeks were 15.0% (6/40) in bezlotoxumab-treated patients vs. 23.2% (16/69) in non-bezlotoxumab-treated patients (OR:0.58 [0.20-1.65]). No adverse effects were observed related to bezlotoxumab infusion. Only one of 9 patients with previous heart failure developed heart failure. CONCLUSION: We observed that patients treated with bezlotoxumab in a real-world setting during a first episode of CDI having high risk of recurrence, presented low rate of recurrence. However, a significant difference in recurrence could not be proved in comparison to the controls. We did not detect any other safety concerns.

Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in second-stage surgery in joint prosthesis infection treated with two-stage exchange. A multicenter case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: After two-stage exchange due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), the new prosthesis carries a high risk of reinfection (RePJI). There isn`t solid evidence regarding the antibiotic prophylaxis in 2nd-stage surgery. The objective of this study is to describe what antibiotic prophylaxis is used in this surgery and evaluate its impact on the risk of developing RePJI. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter case-control study in Spanish hospitals. The study included cases of PJI treated with two-stage exchange and subsequently developed a new infection. For each case, two controls were included, matched by prosthesis location, center, and year of surgery. The prophylaxis regimens were grouped based on their antibacterial spectrum, and we calculated the association between the type of regimen and the development of RePJI using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for possible confounding factors. RESULTS: We included 90 cases from 12 centers, which were compared with 172 controls. The most frequent causative microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis with 34 cases (37.8%). Staphylococci were responsible for 50 cases (55.6%), 32 of them (64%) methicillin-resistant. Gram-negative bacilli were involved in 30 cases (33.3%), the most common Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In total, 83 different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens were used in 2nd-stage surgery, the most frequent a single preoperative dose of cefazolin (48 occasions; 18.3%); however, it was most common a combination of a glycopeptide and a beta-lactam with activity against Pseudomonas spp (99 cases, 25.2%). In the adjusted analysis, regimens that included antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci AND Pseudomonas spp were associated with a significantly lower risk of RePJI (adjusted OR = 0.24; 95% IC: 0.09-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of standardization in 2nd-satge surgery prophylaxis explains the wide diversity of regimens used in this procedure. The results suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis in this surgery should include an antibiotic with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci and Pseudomonas.

Is advanced age still a risk factor for recurrence of C. difficile infection in the era of new treatments?

BACKGROUND: Advanced age has been widely identified as a risk factor for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but most related studies were performed before the introduction of novel therapies. The aim of this study was to compare CDI characteristics and outcomes in patients over and under 80 years old with CDI and their outcomes in the era of new treatments. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with CDI from January 2021 to December 2022 in an academic hospital. We compared recurrence and mortality at 12 weeks after the end of treatment. An extension of the Fine and Grey model adjusted for competing events was used to assess the effect of age on recurrence. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-six patients were considered to have CDI (320 in patients <80 years and 156 in ≥80 years). CDI in older patients was more frequently healthcare-associated and was more severe. Although the Charlson index was almost identical between populations, comorbidities clearly differed. New treatments (bezlotoxumab, fidaxomicin and faecal microbiota transplantation) were more frequently used in older patients without statistical significance (41.3% vs. 33.4%, P = .053). There were 69 (14.5%) recurrences, with no differences by age group after adjusting for competing events. Mortality was greater in the oldest (35.3%) than in the youngest (13.1%); P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in CDI recurrence rates were found between age groups. However, there was a high mortality rate in patients ≥80 years old, which emphasises the urgent need to improve the prevention and treatment of CDI in this group.

Impact of an Intervention Program on Clostridioides difficile Infections: Comparison of 2 Hospital Cohorts.

Background: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) occurs in various contexts and care settings and is managed by multiple specialists who are not experts in its management. While there are many initiatives to improve the diagnosis and avoid overdiagnosis, there is less focus on the overall management of the infection. Methods: We studied a cohort of patients with a positive test result for toxigenic C difficile in 2 hospitals. Hospital A has a program that provides advice from an infectious disease specialist (IDS) and promotes continuity of care by providing a phone number to contact the IDS. Hospital B does not have any specific CDI program. The evaluation assessed the proportion of patients not treated (carriers or self-limited disease), adherence to Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines, access to novel therapies, recurrence and mortality rates, and readmission and emergency department visits due to CDI. We assessed the program's effectiveness through a logistic regression model adjusted for covariates chosen by clinical criteria. Results: Hospital A avoided more unnecessary treatments (19.3% vs 11.5%), provided access to novel therapies more frequently (35.3% vs 13%), and adhered more closely to current guidelines (95.8% vs 71.3%). Although the mortality and recurrence rates did not differ, the absence of an intervention program was associated with greater odds of admission due to recurrence (odds ratio, 4.19; P = .037) and more visits to the emergency department due to CDI (odds ratio, 8.74; P = .001). Conclusions: Implementation of a CDI intervention program based on recommendations from IDSs and improved access to specialized care during the follow-up is associated with enhanced quality of CDI management and potential reductions in hospital resource utilization.