Which Antimicrobial Agent is Likely to be the Best for Treating Clostridium difficile Infections? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Kannan Sridharan; Gowri Sivaramakrishnan

doi:10.1055/a-0645-1169

Drug Research, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Drug Res (Stuttg) 2019; 69(04): 194-200
DOI: 10.1055/a-0645-1169

Original Article

Which Antimicrobial Agent is Likely to be the Best for Treating Clostridium difficile Infections? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Kannan Sridharan

¹Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain

,

Gowri Sivaramakrishnan

²Assistant Professor in Prosthodontics, School of Oral Health, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Background Vancomycin, metronidazole, fidaxomicin, teicoplanin, fusidic acid and bacitracin have been recommended for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing all the antimicrobial agents used in CDI.

Methods Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing antimicrobial agents used for CDI. Risk of bias was assessed. Random effects model was used to derive the mixed treatment comparison estimates. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals was used as effect estimate.

Results Seventeen studies were included in this meta-analysis. Teicoplanin was observed to perform better than vancomycin, metronidazole, fusidic acid and bacitracin to achieve the symptomatic cure. Teicoplanin was also associated with higher rates of bacteriological cure than vancomycin and metronidazole. Fidaxomicin is associated with significantly higher rates of symptomatic cure than vancomycin, bacitracin and metronidazole and is similar to teicoplanin.

Conclusion To conclude, teicoplanin and fidaxomicin have been observed to perform better than other antimicrobials for the treatment of CDI. We recommend conducting high quality randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating teicoplanin and fidaxomicin with other standard interventions for the management of CDI.

Key words

Teicoplanin - Vancomycin - Metronidazole - Bacitracin

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Carter GP, Rood JI, Lyras D. The role of toxin A and toxin B in the virulence of Clostridium difficile. Trends Microbiol. 2012; 20: 21-29
2 Kyne L, Hamel MB, Polavaram R. et al. Health care costs mortality associated with nosocomial diarrhea due to Clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 346-353
3 Loo VG, Poirier L, Miller MA. et al. A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity mortality. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 2442-2449
4 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558
5 Cornely OA, Crook DW, Esposito R. et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: A double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12: 281-289
6 De Lalla F, Nicolin R, Rinaldi E. et al. Prospective study of oral teicoplanin versus oral vancomycin for therapy of pseudomembranous colitis and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2192-2196
7 Dudley MN, McLaughlin JC, Carrington G. et al. Oral bacitracin vs vancomycin therapy for Clostridium difficile-induced diarrhea. A randomized double-blind trial. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146: 1101-1104
8 Johnson S, Louie TJ, Gerding DN. et al. Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: Results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59: 345-354
9 Lagrottereria D, Holmes S, Smieja M. et al. Prospective, randomized inpatient study of oral metronidazole versus oral metronidazole and rifampin for treatment of primary episode of Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43: 547-552
10 Lee CH, Patino H, Stevens C. et al. Surotomycin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection: Phase 2, randomized, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority, multicentre trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: 2964-2971
11 Louie TJ, Miller MA, Mullane KM. et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Eng J Med 2011; 364: 422-431
12 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
13 Mullane K, Lee C, Bressler A. et al. Multicenter, randomized clinical trial to compare the safety and efficacy of LFF571 and vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59: 1435-1440
14 Musher DM, Logan N, Hamill RJ. et al. Nitazoxanide for the treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43: 421-427
15 Musher DM, Logan N, Bressler AM. et al. Nitazoxanide versus vancomycin in Clostridium difficile infection: A randomized, double-blind study. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48: 41-46
16 Teasley DG, Gerding DN, Olson MM. et al. Prospective randomized trial of metronidazole versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea and colitis. Lancet 1983; 2: 1043-1046
17 Wenisch C, Parschalk B, Hasenhundl M. et al. Comparison of vancomycin, teicoplanin, metronidazole, and fusidic acid for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 22: 813-818
18 Wullt M, Odenholt I. A double-blind randomized controlled trial of fusidic acid and metronidazole for treatment of an initial episode of Clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 211-216
19 Young GP, Ward PB, Bayley N. et al. Antibiotic-associated colitis due to Clostridium difficile: Double-blind comparison of vancomycin with bacitracin. Gastroenterol 1985; 89: 1038-1045
20 Zar FA, Bakkanagari SR, Moorthi KM. et al. A comparison of vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, stratified by disease severity. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45: 302-307
21 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
22 Surawicz CM, Brandt LJ, Binion DG. et al. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 478-498
23 Jarrad AM, Karoli T, Blaskovich MAT. et al. Clostridium difficile drug Pipeline: Challenges in discovery and development of new agents. J Med Chem. 2015; 58: 5164-5185
24 Huang H, Weintraub A, Fang H. et al. Antimicrobial resistance in Clostridium difficile. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009; 34: 516-522
25 Peláez T, Alcalá L, Alonso R. et al. Reassessment of Clostridium difficile susceptibility to metronidazole and vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002; 46: 1647-1650
26 Al-Nassir WN, Sethi AK, Li Y. et al. Both oral metronidazole and oral vancomycin promote persistent overgrowth of vancomycin-resistant enterococci during treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008; 52: 2403-2406
27 Blossom DB, McDonald LC. The challenges posed by re-emerging Clostridium difficile Infection. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45: 222-227
28 Pépin J, Valiquette L, Gagnon S. et al. Outcomes of Clostridium difficile-associated disease treated with metronidazole or vancomycin before and after the emergence of NAP1/027. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 102: 2781-2788
29 Svetitsky S, Leibovici L, Paul M. Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009; 53: 4069-4079
30 Nelson RL, Suda KJ, Evans CT. Antibiotic treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017; Issue 3. Art. No. CD004610 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004610.pub5