Neue Leitlinien und Daten zu Clostridium difficile – Was ändert sich?

Was ist neu?

Epidemiologie Clostridium-difficile-Infektionen (CDI) gehen auch in Deutschland mit unverändert hoher Krankheitslast und einem Anstieg der Zahl schwerer bzw. letaler Verläufe einher. Der Anteil ambulant erworbener CDI steigt weltweit weiter an und umfasst selten auch Patienten mit einer Reisediarrhö. Es gibt eine gute Evidenz dafür, dass nosokomiale Fälle durch Implementierung von Antibiotic-Stewardship- (ABS-) Programmen stark verringert werden können.

Diagnostik Nur Patienten mit unklarer, neu aufgetretener Diarrhö sollten getestet werden. Die mikrobiologische Untersuchung auf toxigene C.-difficile-Stämme sollte mehrstufig erfolgen, d. h. mittels Glutamatdehydrogenase- (GDH-) Test plus Toxinnachweis oder Nukleinsäureamplifikationstests (NAAT), oder NAAT plus Toxinnachweis. Von einem alleinigen Toxinnachweis mittels Enzymimmunoassay (EIA) oder einem alleinigen Einsatz von NAAT wird abgeraten.

Neue Therapieleitlinien Nach den 2017/18 aktualisierten US-amerikanischen Leitlinien gilt oral verabreichtes Vancomycin inzwischen als Mittel der ersten Wahl. Fidaxomicin ist ähnlich wirksam wie Vancomycin, sein Vorteil besteht jedoch in der geringeren Rate an Rezidiven.

Weitere Behandlungsoptionen und Impfung Es konnte gezeigt werden, dass die zusätzliche Gabe des monoklonalen Antikörpers Bezlotoxumab die Rezidivrate signifikant senkt. Neue Antibiotika, die die Darmmikrobiota besser schützen, werden derzeit in klinischen Studien getestet. Für die Therapie multipel rezidivierender CDI bestehen gesicherte Behandlungserfolge von ≥ 90 % durch den fäkalen Mikrobiomtransfer (FMT). Da der FMT in Deutschland zurzeit lediglich den Status eines individuellen Heilversuchs hat, ist eine evidenzbasierte generelle Empfehlung für die klinische Praxis nicht möglich. Wahrscheinlich wird sich die Applikation kryokonservierter FMT-Kapseln längerfristig durchsetzen. Es ist zu erwarten, dass Toxoid-Impfstoffe CDI wirksam verhindern können; allerdings wurde bislang noch keine Zulassungsstudie abgeschlossen.

Abstract

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) remains on a high level globally. In Germany, the burden of disease and especially the number of severe or even lethal cases continue to increase. The main risk factor for the development of CDI is the exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics, which disturb the intestinal microbiota and therefore enable the colonization with C. difficile. According to IDSA’s and SHEA’s updated US guidelines, vancomycin is the treatment of choice. Fidaxomicin is as effective as vancomycin, but its advantage is the lower rate of recurrence. For the treatment of multiple relapsing CDI, there are assured treatment successes of ≥ 90 % through a fecal microbiome transfer (FMT), whereby FMT in Germany currently only has the status of an individual therapeutic attempt. Thus, an evidence-based general recommendation for clinical practice is not possible. Currently, new antibiotics with narrow-spectrum activity and low intestinal resorption have been developed for the treatment of CDI, including surotomycin, cadazolid, and ridinilazol. Furthermore, recent clinical studies demonstrated that significantly fewer recurrences occurred in patients who additionally received the monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab. Novel toxoid vaccines are expected to become an efficacious tool in the prevention of CDI. However, pivotal clinical trials have so far not been completed.

Schlüsselwörter

Clostridium-difficile-Infektion - CDI - pseudomembranöse Kolitis - Vancomycin - Fidaxomicin - Leitlinien - fäkaler Mikrobiomtransfer - FMT - Impfung - Review

Key words

clostridium difficile infection - CDI - pseudomembranous colitis - vancomycin - fidaxomicin - guidelines - fecal microbiota transplantation - FMT - vaccination - review

• Literatur

• 1 Lübbert C, John E, von Müller L. Clostridium difficile infection: guideline-based diagnosis and treatment. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 2014; 111: 723-731
• 2 Nanwa N, Kendzerska T, Krahn M. et al. The economic impact of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 511-519
• 3 Lübbert C, Zimmermann L, Borchert J. et al. Epidemiology and Recurrence Rates of Clostridium difficile Infections in Germany: A Secondary Data Analysis. Infect Dis Ther 2016; 5: 545-554
• 4 Deshpande A, Pasupuleti V, Thota P. et al. Community-associated Clostridium difficile infection and antibiotics: A meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68: 1951-1961
• 5 Nasiri MJ, Goudarzi M, Hajikhani B. et al. Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaerobe 2018; 50: 32-37
• 6 Baur D, Gladstone BP, Burkert F. et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2017; 17: 990-1001
• 7 Freedberg DE, Salmasian H, Cohen B. et al. Receipt of antibiotics in hospitalized patients and risk for Clostridium difficile infection in subsequent patients who occupy the same bed. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176: 1801-1808
• 8 Stevens AM, Esposito DH, Stoney RJ. et al. Clostridium difficile infection in returning travellers. J Travel Med 2017; 24 (03) DOI: 10.1093/jtm/taw099.
• 9 McDonald LC, Gerding DN, Johnson S. et al. 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; DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1085.
• 10 Crobach MJ, Planche T, Eckert C. et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2016; 22 (Suppl. 04) 63-81
• 11 Crobach MJT, Baktash A, Duszenko N. et al. Diagnostic Guidance for C. difficile Infections. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018; 1050: 27-44
• 12 Louie TJ, Miller MA, Mullane KM. et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 422-431
• 13 Guery B, Menichetti F, Anttila V. et al. Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection in patients 60 years and older (EXTEND): A randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3b/4 trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2017; 18: 296-307 . doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30751-X
• 14 Gawronska A, Banasiuk M, Lachowicz D. et al. Metronidazole or Rifaximin for Treatment of Clostridium difficile in Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2017; 23: 2209-2214
• 15 Huang JS, Jiang ZD, Garey KW. et al. Use of rifamycin drugs and development of infection by rifamycin-resistant strains of Clostridium difficile. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57: 2690-2693
• 16 Kao D, Roach B, Silva M. et al. Effect of Oral Capsule- vs Colonoscopy-Delivered Fecal Microbiota Transplantation on Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017; 318: 1985-1993
• 17 Lübbert C, Salzberger B, Mössner J. Fäkaler Mikrobiomtransfer. Internist 2017; 58: 456-468
• 18 Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Tilg H. et al. European consensus conference on faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice. Gut 2017; 66: 569-580
• 19 Chilton CH, Crowther GS, Baines SD. et al. In vitro activity of cadazolid against clinically relevant Clostridium difficile isolates and in an in vitro gut model of C. difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69: 697-705
• 20 Locher HH, Caspers P, Bruyère T. et al. Investigations of the mode of action and resistance development of cadazolid, a new antibiotic for treatment of Clostridium difficile infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58: 901-908
• 21 Louie T, Nord CE, Talbot GH. et al. Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 2 Study Evaluating the Novel Antibiotic Cadazolid in Patients with Clostridium difficile Infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59: 6266-6273
• 22 Vickers RJ, Tillotson GS, Nathan R. et al. Efficacy and safety of ridinilazole compared with vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: A phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study. Lancet Infect Dis 2017; 17: 735-744
• 23 Daley P, Louie T, Lutz JE. et al. Surotomycin versus vancomycin in adults with Clostridium difficile infection: Primary clinical outcomes from the second pivotal, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72: 3462-3470
• 24 Di Bella S, Ascenzi P, Siarakas S. et al. Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B: Insights into Pathogenic Properties and Extraintestinal Effects. Toxins 2016; 8 (05) pii:E134. DOI: 10.3390/toxins8050134.
• 25 Wilcox MH, Gerding DN, Poxton IR. et al. Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 305-317
• 26 de Gunzburg J, Ghozlane A, Ducher A. et al. Protection of the Human Gut Microbiome From Antibiotics. J Infect Dis 2018; 217: 628-636
• 27 Henderson M, Bragg A, Fahim G. et al. A Review of the Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines as Prophylaxis for Clostridium difficile Infections. Vaccines (Basel) 2017; 5 pii:E25. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines5030025.
• 28 de Bruyn G, Saleh J, Workman D. et al. Defining the optimal formulation and schedule of a candidate toxoid vaccine against Clostridium difficile infection: A randomized Phase 2 clinical trial. Vaccine 2016; 34: 2170-2178
• 29 Bézay N, Ayad A, Dubischar K. et al. Safety, immunogenicity and dose response of VLA84, a new vaccine candidate against Clostridium difficile, in healthy volunteers. Vaccine 2016; 34: 2585-2592
• 30 Greenberg RN, Marbury TC, Foglia G. et al. Phase I dose finding studies of an adjuvanted Clostridium difficile toxoid vaccine. Vaccine 2012; 30: 2245-2249
• 31 von Braun A, Lübbert C. Therapie akuter und rekurrenter Clostridium-difficile-Infektionen – Was gibt es Neues?. Internist (Berl) 2018; 59: 505-513