Treatment of Clostridium Difficile Infection in Community Teaching Hospital: A Retrospective Study

Ali Elbeddini
{"title":"Treatment of Clostridium Difficile Infection in Community Teaching Hospital: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Ali Elbeddini","doi":"10.11648/J.IJIDT.20180303.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is responsible for 15 – 25% cases of health-care associated diarrhea. The CDI treatment algorithm used at our hospital is adapted from the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2010 C. difficile guideline. The primary objective of this study was to assess the treatment adherence to our algorithm; this was defined as therapy consisting of the appropriate antibiotic, dose, route, interval and duration indicated based on the disease severity and episode within 24 hours of diagnosis. In addition, our study also described the population and their risk factors for CDI at our hospital. This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort chart review of CDI cases that were diagnosed at admission or during hospitalization from June 1st 2017 to June 30th 2018. Sixty cases were included, of which adherence to our algorithm was 50%. Overall, severe CDI had the highest treatment non-adherence (83%) and the biggest contributing factor was prescribing the wrong antibiotic (72%). In severe CDI, which warrants vancomycin monotherapy, wrong antibiotic consisted of metronidazole monotherapy (55%) or dual therapy with metronidazole and vancomycin (45%). Patients were mostly older, females being treated for an initial episode of mild to moderate CDI. Common risk factors identified were age over 65 years (80%), use of antibiotics (83%) and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) (68%) within the previous three months. The use of a PPI in this study, a modifiable risk factor without a clear indication was 35%. The conclusion was that there is an area for antimicrobial stewardship intervention in CDI treatment at our hospital is prescribing the right antibiotic based on the CDI indication. In severe CDI, an emphasis should be on prescribing vancomycin monotherapy as the drug of choice. PPI use should be reassessed for tapering when appropriate.","PeriodicalId":73792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of infectious disease and therapy","volume":"3 1","pages":"52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of infectious disease and therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.IJIDT.20180303.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is responsible for 15 – 25% cases of health-care associated diarrhea. The CDI treatment algorithm used at our hospital is adapted from the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2010 C. difficile guideline. The primary objective of this study was to assess the treatment adherence to our algorithm; this was defined as therapy consisting of the appropriate antibiotic, dose, route, interval and duration indicated based on the disease severity and episode within 24 hours of diagnosis. In addition, our study also described the population and their risk factors for CDI at our hospital. This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort chart review of CDI cases that were diagnosed at admission or during hospitalization from June 1st 2017 to June 30th 2018. Sixty cases were included, of which adherence to our algorithm was 50%. Overall, severe CDI had the highest treatment non-adherence (83%) and the biggest contributing factor was prescribing the wrong antibiotic (72%). In severe CDI, which warrants vancomycin monotherapy, wrong antibiotic consisted of metronidazole monotherapy (55%) or dual therapy with metronidazole and vancomycin (45%). Patients were mostly older, females being treated for an initial episode of mild to moderate CDI. Common risk factors identified were age over 65 years (80%), use of antibiotics (83%) and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) (68%) within the previous three months. The use of a PPI in this study, a modifiable risk factor without a clear indication was 35%. The conclusion was that there is an area for antimicrobial stewardship intervention in CDI treatment at our hospital is prescribing the right antibiotic based on the CDI indication. In severe CDI, an emphasis should be on prescribing vancomycin monotherapy as the drug of choice. PPI use should be reassessed for tapering when appropriate.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区教学医院难辨梭菌感染治疗的回顾性研究
难辨梭菌感染(CDI)导致15 - 25%的卫生保健相关腹泻病例。我院采用的CDI治疗算法改编自美国传染病学会2010年艰难梭菌指南。本研究的主要目的是评估我们算法的治疗依从性;这被定义为治疗包括适当的抗生素、剂量、途径、间隔和持续时间,根据疾病严重程度和诊断后24小时内的发作情况。此外,我们的研究还描述了我们医院的人群及其CDI的危险因素。这是一项针对2017年6月1日至2018年6月30日入院或住院期间诊断的CDI病例的单中心、回顾性队列图综述。纳入60例,其中遵守我们算法的比例为50%。总体而言,严重CDI的治疗不依从性最高(83%),最大的影响因素是处方错误的抗生素(72%)。在需要万古霉素单药治疗的严重CDI中,错误的抗生素包括甲硝唑单药治疗(55%)或甲硝唑和万古霉素双药治疗(45%)。患者大多是年龄较大的女性,因轻中度CDI的初始发作而接受治疗。确定的常见危险因素是年龄超过65岁(80%),在过去三个月内使用抗生素(83%)和质子泵抑制剂(PPI)(68%)。在这项研究中,没有明确适应症的可改变危险因素的PPI使用率为35%。结论是,在CDI治疗中,抗菌药物管理干预存在一个领域,即根据CDI的适应症处方正确的抗生素。对于严重的CDI,重点应放在万古霉素单药治疗上。在适当的时候,应该重新评估PPI的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mycobacterial Nucleic Acids Modulate Host Innate Immune Responses. Streptococcus Pharyngitis with Anaerobes Infection Misdiagnosed as Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Infection: A Case Report The Intervening Effect of Preventive Use of Antibacterials During the Perioperative Period in Orthopedic Department Outcome Comparison Between Tocilizumab Alone Vs Tocilizumab Followed by Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) Group in Critical COVID-19 Disease To What Extent do Social Determinants of Health Modulate Presentation, ITU Admission and Outcomes among Patients with SARS-COV-2 Infection? An Exploration of Household Overcrowding, Air Pollution, Housing Quality, Ethnicity, Comorbidities and Frailty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1