Comparative effectiveness of different therapies for Clostridioides difficile infection in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 13.6 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Dániel Steve Bednárik , Kincső Csepke Földvári-Nagy , Viktor Simon , Anett Rancz , Noémi Gede , Dániel Sándor Veres , Panagiotis Paraskevopoulos , Tamás Schnabel , Bálint Erőss , Péter Hegyi , Katalin Lenti , László Földvári-Nagy
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of different therapies for Clostridioides difficile infection in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Dániel Steve Bednárik ,&nbsp;Kincső Csepke Földvári-Nagy ,&nbsp;Viktor Simon ,&nbsp;Anett Rancz ,&nbsp;Noémi Gede ,&nbsp;Dániel Sándor Veres ,&nbsp;Panagiotis Paraskevopoulos ,&nbsp;Tamás Schnabel ,&nbsp;Bálint Erőss ,&nbsp;Péter Hegyi ,&nbsp;Katalin Lenti ,&nbsp;László Földvári-Nagy","doi":"10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div><em>Clostridioides difficile</em> infection (CDI) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea, with substantial morbidity and mortality. CDI is a severe and growing problem with numerous treatment options. We evaluated the effectiveness of all therapies in recurrent and non-recurrent infections and their prevention.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared all CDI therapies and preventions. We included RCTs published until 19 August 2024 and focused on adult population. We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were patients: adults (&gt;16) treated against CDI; study type: randomized controlled trial; outcome: cure rate, recurrence or effectiveness of prevention. Any publication not meeting all criteria was considered to be ineligible and excluded. We applied random-effects meta-analysis using frequentist methods. We reported our main results as odds ratios (as a symmetric effect size measure, OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess the risk of bias. Our study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42022371210).</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>We assessed 73 RCTs with 28 interventions, involving 27,959 patients (49.2% female) in five networks. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was the most effective treatment in terms of the cure rate overall (P-score: 0.9952) and in recurrent cases (P-score: 0.9836). In recurrent cases, fidaxomicin (P-score: 0.6734) showed significantly greater effectiveness than vancomycin (P-score: 0.3677) and tolevamer (P-score: 0.0365). For non-recurrent CDI treatments ridinilazole, fidaxomicin, FMT and nitazoxanide were equally effective. Ridinilazole (P-score: 0.7671) and fidaxomicin (P-score: 0.7627) emerged as the most effective in preventing recurrence. Probiotics were not effective in preventing CDI, since network meta-analyses did not show significant differences between probiotics and placebo. In probiotics’ subgroups pairwise meta-analyses <em>Lactobacillaceae</em> proved to be significantly more effective in prevention than placebo. Oral and colonoscopic FMT administration methods were equally effective. The study-level aggregated risk of bias of the publications included ranged from low to high. We observed relevant heterogeneity among studies in therapeutic doses, treatment durations, and follow-up times.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>The superiority of FMT in the treatment of CDI highlights the potential for increased use of FMT in clinical settings. Further research on optimizing FMT protocols and exploring its long-term safety and efficacy in larger samples is needed. Our findings suggest that the preventive use of probiotics might be questioned.</div></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><div>None.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":53223,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Regional Health-Europe","volume":"49 ","pages":"Article 101151"},"PeriodicalIF":13.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Regional Health-Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266677622400320X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea, with substantial morbidity and mortality. CDI is a severe and growing problem with numerous treatment options. We evaluated the effectiveness of all therapies in recurrent and non-recurrent infections and their prevention.

Methods

This network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared all CDI therapies and preventions. We included RCTs published until 19 August 2024 and focused on adult population. We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were patients: adults (>16) treated against CDI; study type: randomized controlled trial; outcome: cure rate, recurrence or effectiveness of prevention. Any publication not meeting all criteria was considered to be ineligible and excluded. We applied random-effects meta-analysis using frequentist methods. We reported our main results as odds ratios (as a symmetric effect size measure, OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess the risk of bias. Our study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42022371210).

Findings

We assessed 73 RCTs with 28 interventions, involving 27,959 patients (49.2% female) in five networks. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was the most effective treatment in terms of the cure rate overall (P-score: 0.9952) and in recurrent cases (P-score: 0.9836). In recurrent cases, fidaxomicin (P-score: 0.6734) showed significantly greater effectiveness than vancomycin (P-score: 0.3677) and tolevamer (P-score: 0.0365). For non-recurrent CDI treatments ridinilazole, fidaxomicin, FMT and nitazoxanide were equally effective. Ridinilazole (P-score: 0.7671) and fidaxomicin (P-score: 0.7627) emerged as the most effective in preventing recurrence. Probiotics were not effective in preventing CDI, since network meta-analyses did not show significant differences between probiotics and placebo. In probiotics’ subgroups pairwise meta-analyses Lactobacillaceae proved to be significantly more effective in prevention than placebo. Oral and colonoscopic FMT administration methods were equally effective. The study-level aggregated risk of bias of the publications included ranged from low to high. We observed relevant heterogeneity among studies in therapeutic doses, treatment durations, and follow-up times.

Interpretation

The superiority of FMT in the treatment of CDI highlights the potential for increased use of FMT in clinical settings. Further research on optimizing FMT protocols and exploring its long-term safety and efficacy in larger samples is needed. Our findings suggest that the preventive use of probiotics might be questioned.

Funding

None.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.90
自引率
1.40%
发文量
260
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, a gold open access journal, is part of The Lancet's global effort to promote healthcare quality and accessibility worldwide. It focuses on advancing clinical practice and health policy in the European region to enhance health outcomes. The journal publishes high-quality original research advocating changes in clinical practice and health policy. It also includes reviews, commentaries, and opinion pieces on regional health topics, such as infection and disease prevention, healthy aging, and reducing health disparities.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信