Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27536508›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2016

A multi-center study of fidaxomicin use for Clostridium difficile infection.

Dhara N Shah, Fay S Chan, Nandita Kachru, Krutina P Garcia, Holly E Balcer, April P Dyer, John E Emanuel, Michelle D Jordan, Katherine T Lusardi, Geri Naymick and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Dhara N ShahPharmacy Practice and Translational Research, University of Houston College of Pharmacy, 1441 Moursund Street, Houston, TX 77030 USA.
Fay S ChanPharmacy Practice and Translational Research, University of Houston College of Pharmacy, 1441 Moursund Street, Houston, TX 77030 USA.
Nandita KachruPharmaceutical Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Houston College of Pharmacy, Houston, TX USA.
Krutina P GarciaPharmacy Practice and Translational Research, University of Houston College of Pharmacy, 1441 Moursund Street, Houston, TX 77030 USA.
Holly E BalcerDepartment of Pharmacy, Roper St Francis Healthcare System, Charleston, SC USA.
April P DyerDepartment of Pharmacy, Southeastern Health, Lumberton, NC USA.
John E EmanuelDepartment of Pharmacy, OhioHealth MedCentral Hospitals, Mansfield, OH USA.
Michelle D JordanDepartment of Pharmacy, Vidant Medical Center, Greenville, NC USA.
Katherine T LusardiDepartment of Pharmacy, UAMS Medical Center, Little Rock, AR USA.
Geri NaymickDepartment of Pharmacy, St. Mary's Hospital, Madison, WI USA.
Radhika S PolisettyDepartment of Pharmacy, Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, Winfield, IL USA.
Lanny SiemanDepartment of Pharmacy, North Kansas City Hospital, North Kansas, MO USA.
Ashley M TylerDepartment of Pharmacy, Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital, Nashville, TN USA.
Michael L JohnsonPharmaceutical Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Houston College of Pharmacy, Houston, TX USA.
Kevin W GareyPharmacy Practice and Translational Research, University of Houston College of Pharmacy, 1441 Moursund Street, Houston, TX 77030 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFidaxomicin use in real-world clinical practice, especially for severe Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), is mainly based on single-center observational studies. The purpose of this pharmacoepidemiology study was to assess outcomes of patients given fidaxomicin based on episode number and use of concomitant antibiotics.

methodsFidaxomicin use over time across included hospitals in the United States was assessed using a large inpatient drug utilization database. A multicenter retrospective chart review was also conducted of hospitalized patients with CDI that received fidaxomicin between 2011 and 2013. Fidaxomicin utilization and clinical outcomes were stratified by use of fidaxomicin for first or second episode (early episodes) versus greater than or equal to episodes (later episodes).

resultsThe overall fidaxomicin use rate was 2.16 % which increased from 0.22 % in the last two quarters of 2011 to 3.16 % in the first two quarters of 2013. A total of 102 hospitalized patients that received fidaxomicin from 11 hospitals were identified in the multicenter study. Sixty-nine patients received fidaxomicin for early (68 % with severe CDI) and 33 received for later episodes. The majority of patients received other CDI therapy including 61 patients (88 %) for early episodes and 27 (82 %) for later episodes. Concomitant non-CDI antibiotics were received by 48 patients (47 %). Rates of clinical outcomes were similar regardless of CDI episode.

conclusionThis study demonstrated a slow but steady increase in fidaxomicin utilization over time; most of which was combined with other systemic antibiotics. Antimicrobial stewardship teams should provide guidance on appropriate use of fidaxomicin to optimize therapy and assess the need to continue other antibiotics during CDI treatment.

Indexed as

Anaerobe infectionsClinical practicePharmacoepidemiologyReal-world studyTreatment

Identifiers

PMID27536508
PMCPMC4970984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.