Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38175471›Full record

ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2024

European Practice for CDI Treatment.

Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Robert Brennan, Joffrey van Prehn, Mairead Skally, Melissa Brady, Karen Burns, Christopher Rooney, Mark H Wilcox

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antimicrobial Susceptibility ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Fidelma FitzpatrickDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. fidelmafitzpatrick@rcsi.ie.
Robert BrennanDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Joffrey van PrehnDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Mairead SkallyDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Melissa BradyHealth Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), Dublin, Ireland.
Karen BurnsDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Christopher RooneyMicrobiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK.
Mark H WilcoxUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK. mark.wilcox@nhs.net.
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IEUniversity of Leeds · GBBeaumont Hospital · IEHealth Protection Surveillance Centre · IELeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Historically, two antibiotics (metronidazole and vancomycin) and a recent third (fidaxomicin) have been used for CDI treatment; convincing data are now available showing that metronidazole is the least efficacious agent. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) management guidance for CDI were updated in 2021. This guidance document outlines the treatment options for a variety of CDI clinical scenarios and for non-antimicrobial management (e.g., faecal microbiota transplantation, FMT). One of the main changes is that metronidazole is no longer recommended as first-line CDI treatment. Rather, fidaxomicin is preferred on the basis of reduced recurrence rates with vancomycin as an acceptable alternative. Recommended options for recurrent CDI now include bezlotoxumab as well as FMT.A 2017 survey of 20 European countries highlighted variation internationally in CDI management strategies. A variety of restrictions were in place in 65% countries prior to use of new anti-CDI treatments, including committee/infection specialist approval or economic review/restrictions. This survey was repeated in November 2022 to assess the current landscape of CDI management practices in Europe. Of 64 respondents from 17 countries, national CDI guidelines existed in 14 countries, and 11 have already/plan to incorporate the ESCMID 2021 CDI guidance, though implementation has not been surveyed in 6. Vancomycin is the most commonly used first-line agent for the treatment of CDI (n = 42, 66%), followed by fidaxomicin (n = 30, 47%). Six (9%) respondents use metronidazole as first-line agent for CDI treatment, whereas 22 (34%) only in selected low-risk patient groups. Fidaxomicin is more likely to be used in high-risk patient groups. Availability of anti-CDI therapy influenced prescribing in six respondents (9%). Approval pre-prescription was required before vancomycin (n = 3, 5%), fidaxomicin (n = 10, 6%), bezlotoxumab (n = 11, 17%) and FMT (n = 10, 6%). Implementation of CDI guidelines is rarely audited.Novel anti-CDI agents are being evaluated; it is not yet clear what will be the roles of these agents. The treatment of recurrent CDI is particularly troublesome, and several different live biotherapeutics are being developed, in addition to FMT.

Indexed as

Clostridium InfectionsMetronidazoleAnti-Bacterial AgentsFidaxomicinHumansVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsFidaxomicinMetronidazoleVancomycinAnti-CDI agentsC. difficile prophylaxisC. difficile treatmentCDI guidelinesNovel C. difficile agents

Identifiers

PMID38175471
OpenAlexW4390581456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.