The Face of Clostriodes Difficile Infections in the Outpatient Setting.

Spartan medical research journal Pub Date : 2020-06-08
Michael S Wang, Samad Faheem, Joanna Mangio, Kevin Pham, Daniel Lloyd, Brianna Hatch-Vallier, Ewanah Johnson
{"title":"The Face of <i>Clostriodes Difficile</i> Infections in the Outpatient Setting.","authors":"Michael S Wang, Samad Faheem, Joanna Mangio, Kevin Pham, Daniel Lloyd, Brianna Hatch-Vallier, Ewanah Johnson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It has long been well-established that Clostridiodes difficile infections (CDI) can cause severe morbidity and mortality. However, most of the literature to date has focused on hospital-diagnosed infections with less emphasis on clinic-based CDI cases. Guidelines from the 2010 IDSA/SHEA for CDI advocate for metronidazole as first-line therapy for mild to moderate CDI cases. However, the 2017 guidelines recommend oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin as first-line therapy due to their superior efficacy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare Clostriodes difficile infections in convenience samples of clinic vs. hospital patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2019, a retrospective, case-controlled study was performed by the first six authors between 2015-2017 (i.e., prior to the 2017 IDSA/SHEA CDI guidelines) to compare ambulatory and hospital CDI treatment prescriptions. Analytic data included frequency of White blood cells (WBC) and creatinine collection, frequency of severe CDI cases, compliance with the 2010 guidelines, CDI recurrence, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An eligible subgroup of N = 92 hospital patients at Spectrum Health Lakeland were more likely to have WBC (98.4% vs 32.6%, p<0.001) and creatinine (97.8 vs. 39.4, P < 0.001) drawn than 184 patients receiving clinic-based care. Hospital sampled patients were more likely to have severe CDI (46.7% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001). Mortality was less common in hospital patients (1.1% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.017) and the recurrence rates were similar. (21.2% inpatient vs. 28.3% outpatient, (p = 0.224).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on these results, assessment of CDI severity remains limited in the ambulatory population due to the lack of severity markers. It is unclear if this is due to lack of available laboratory resources or difference in clinical presentation. Of those sample patients who have available markers of severity, patients receiving clinic-based diagnoses were less likely assessed to have severe CDI. Keywords: Cloistriodes difficile infection, ambulatory, severity markers.</p>","PeriodicalId":74853,"journal":{"name":"Spartan medical research journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"12883"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7746043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spartan medical research journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Background: It has long been well-established that Clostridiodes difficile infections (CDI) can cause severe morbidity and mortality. However, most of the literature to date has focused on hospital-diagnosed infections with less emphasis on clinic-based CDI cases. Guidelines from the 2010 IDSA/SHEA for CDI advocate for metronidazole as first-line therapy for mild to moderate CDI cases. However, the 2017 guidelines recommend oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin as first-line therapy due to their superior efficacy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare Clostriodes difficile infections in convenience samples of clinic vs. hospital patients.

Methods: In 2019, a retrospective, case-controlled study was performed by the first six authors between 2015-2017 (i.e., prior to the 2017 IDSA/SHEA CDI guidelines) to compare ambulatory and hospital CDI treatment prescriptions. Analytic data included frequency of White blood cells (WBC) and creatinine collection, frequency of severe CDI cases, compliance with the 2010 guidelines, CDI recurrence, and mortality.

Results: An eligible subgroup of N = 92 hospital patients at Spectrum Health Lakeland were more likely to have WBC (98.4% vs 32.6%, p<0.001) and creatinine (97.8 vs. 39.4, P < 0.001) drawn than 184 patients receiving clinic-based care. Hospital sampled patients were more likely to have severe CDI (46.7% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001). Mortality was less common in hospital patients (1.1% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.017) and the recurrence rates were similar. (21.2% inpatient vs. 28.3% outpatient, (p = 0.224).

Conclusions: Based on these results, assessment of CDI severity remains limited in the ambulatory population due to the lack of severity markers. It is unclear if this is due to lack of available laboratory resources or difference in clinical presentation. Of those sample patients who have available markers of severity, patients receiving clinic-based diagnoses were less likely assessed to have severe CDI. Keywords: Cloistriodes difficile infection, ambulatory, severity markers.

在门诊环境中面临艰难梭菌感染。
背景:艰难梭菌感染(CDI)可导致严重的发病率和死亡率,这一点早已得到证实。然而,迄今为止的大多数文献都集中在医院诊断的感染上,而较少强调基于临床的CDI病例。2010年IDSA/SHEA CDI指南提倡甲硝唑作为轻度至中度CDI病例的一线治疗方法。然而,2017年的指南建议口服万古霉素或菲达司明作为一线治疗,因为它们具有优越的疗效。目的:本研究的目的是比较临床和医院患者方便样本中的艰难梭菌感染。方法:2019年,前六位作者在2015-2017年间(即2017年IDSA/SHEA CDI指南之前)进行了一项回顾性病例对照研究,以比较门诊和医院CDI治疗处方。分析数据包括白细胞(WBC)和肌酸酐采集频率、严重CDI病例的频率、对2010年指南的遵守情况、CDI复发和死亡率。结果:Spectrum Health Lakeland的一个合格的N=92名住院患者亚组更有可能患有WBC(98.4%vs 32.6%,P结论:根据这些结果,由于缺乏严重程度标志物,对流动人群CDI严重程度的评估仍然有限。目前尚不清楚这是由于缺乏可用的实验室资源还是临床表现的差异。在那些具有可用严重程度标志的样本患者中,接受临床诊断的患者可能性较小评估为患有严重CDI。关键词:艰难梭菌感染,门诊,严重程度标志物。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信