Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-effectiveness of Bezlotoxumab in Preventing Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection : Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of clinical gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001875
Mouhand F H Mohamed, Christopher Ward, Azizullah Beran, Mohamed A Abdallah, Joseph Asemota, Colleen R Kelly
{"title":"Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-effectiveness of Bezlotoxumab in Preventing Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection : Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Mouhand F H Mohamed, Christopher Ward, Azizullah Beran, Mohamed A Abdallah, Joseph Asemota, Colleen R Kelly","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a global health challenge. Bezlotoxumab (BEZ) is a monoclonal antibody against C. difficile toxin B. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), MODIFY I and II, confirmed BEZ efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). However, there are safety concerns about its use in patients with a history of congestive heart failure. Observational studies have since been conducted, and it is important to explore the consistency of BEZ efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and its safety utilizing these real-world data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and explore its efficacy and safety in preventing rCDI compared with control. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception through April 2023 for relevant RCTs or observational studies assessing BEZ in preventing rCDI. Single-arm studies describing experience with BEZ in preventing rCDI were also included for proportion meta-analysis. A proportion meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to pool the rCDI rate with its corresponding 95% CI. In a meta-analysis of efficacy, we generated the relative risk (RR) to compare BEZ versus control in preventing rCDI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies including 2 RCTs and 11 observational studies totaling 2337 patients, of which 1472 received BEZ, were included in the analysis. Of the constituent studies, 5 (1734 patients) compared BEZ versus standard-of-care (SOC). Pooled rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ was 15.8% (95% CI: 14%-17.8%), and was 28.9% (95% CI: 24%-34.4%) in the SOC. BEZ significantly reduced rCDI risk compared with SOC [RR=0.57 (95% CI: 0.45-0.72, I2 =16%)]. There was no difference in the overall mortality or heart failure risk. Of the 9 included cost-effectiveness analyses, 8 demonstrated BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our meta-analysis comprising real-world data revealed lower rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and supported its efficacy and safety when added to SOC therapy. The results were consistent across various subgroups. Available cost-effectiveness analyses mostly support BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001875","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a global health challenge. Bezlotoxumab (BEZ) is a monoclonal antibody against C. difficile toxin B. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), MODIFY I and II, confirmed BEZ efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). However, there are safety concerns about its use in patients with a history of congestive heart failure. Observational studies have since been conducted, and it is important to explore the consistency of BEZ efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and its safety utilizing these real-world data.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and explore its efficacy and safety in preventing rCDI compared with control. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception through April 2023 for relevant RCTs or observational studies assessing BEZ in preventing rCDI. Single-arm studies describing experience with BEZ in preventing rCDI were also included for proportion meta-analysis. A proportion meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to pool the rCDI rate with its corresponding 95% CI. In a meta-analysis of efficacy, we generated the relative risk (RR) to compare BEZ versus control in preventing rCDI.

Results: Thirteen studies including 2 RCTs and 11 observational studies totaling 2337 patients, of which 1472 received BEZ, were included in the analysis. Of the constituent studies, 5 (1734 patients) compared BEZ versus standard-of-care (SOC). Pooled rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ was 15.8% (95% CI: 14%-17.8%), and was 28.9% (95% CI: 24%-34.4%) in the SOC. BEZ significantly reduced rCDI risk compared with SOC [RR=0.57 (95% CI: 0.45-0.72, I2 =16%)]. There was no difference in the overall mortality or heart failure risk. Of the 9 included cost-effectiveness analyses, 8 demonstrated BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone.

Discussion: Our meta-analysis comprising real-world data revealed lower rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and supported its efficacy and safety when added to SOC therapy. The results were consistent across various subgroups. Available cost-effectiveness analyses mostly support BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone.

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
贝洛妥珠单抗预防复发性艰难梭菌感染的疗效、安全性和成本效益:系统回顾和 Meta 分析。
导言:艰难梭菌感染(CDI)仍是一项全球性健康挑战。两项随机对照试验(RCT)(MODIFY I 和 II)证实,Bezlotoxumab(BEZ)可有效预防艰难梭菌感染复发(rCDI)。然而,对有充血性心力衰竭病史的患者使用 BEZ 的安全性存在担忧。后来又开展了一些观察性研究,利用这些真实世界的数据探讨 BEZ 的疗效、成本效益及其安全性的一致性非常重要:我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析,以汇总接受 BEZ 治疗的患者的 rCDI 发生率,并探讨与对照组相比,BEZ 在预防 rCDI 方面的有效性和安全性。我们检索了 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library 和 Google Scholar 中从开始到 2023 年 4 月评估 BEZ 预防 rCDI 的相关 RCT 或观察性研究。比例荟萃分析还纳入了描述 BEZ 预防 rCDI 经验的单臂研究。采用随机效应模型进行比例荟萃分析,以汇总 rCDI 率及其相应的 95% CI。在疗效荟萃分析中,我们生成了相对风险(RR),以比较 BEZ 与对照组在预防 rCDI 方面的效果:包括 2 项 RCT 和 11 项观察性研究在内的 13 项研究共纳入了 2337 例患者,其中 1472 例接受了 BEZ 治疗。在这些研究中,有 5 项研究(1734 名患者)比较了 BEZ 与标准护理(SOC)。接受 BEZ 治疗的患者的 rCDI 总发生率为 15.8%(95% CI:14%-17.8%),而接受 SOC 治疗的患者的 rCDI 总发生率为 28.9%(95% CI:24%-34.4%)。与SOC相比,BEZ可明显降低rCDI风险[RR=0.57 (95% CI: 0.45-0.72, I2 =16%)]。总体死亡率或心力衰竭风险没有差异。在纳入的 9 项成本效益分析中,8 项显示 BEZ+SOC 与单用 SOC 相比具有成本效益:我们的荟萃分析包括真实世界的数据,结果显示接受 BEZ 治疗的患者 rCDI 较低,并支持其加入 SOC 治疗的有效性和安全性。不同亚组的结果一致。与单用 SOC 相比,现有的成本效益分析大多支持 BEZ+SOC 的成本效益。
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
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
期刊最新文献
Predictors of Colonoscopy Use Among Asian Indians in New York City, 2003 to 2016. Application of a Machine Learning Predictive Model for Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis. FIB-4 as a Time-varying Covariate and Its Association With Severe Liver Disease in Primary Care: A Time-dependent Cox Regression Analysis. Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Sessile Serrated Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Safety of Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy Placement Compared With Surgical and Radiologic Jejunostomy Placement: A Nationwide Inpatient Assessment.
×
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