Search

The pathogenesis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has largely been attributed to the action of two major toxins – A and B. An enhanced systemic humoral immune response against these toxins has been shown to be protective against recurrent CDI. Over the years, fully human monoclonal antibodies against both of these toxins have been developed in an attempt to counter the increasing incidence of recurrent CDI. Clinical trials conducted to evaluate the efficacy of anti-toxin A monoclonal antibody, actoxumab, and anti-toxin B monoclonal antibody, bezlotoxumab, demonstrated that bezlotoxumab substantially lowered the rate of recurrent infection, while actoxumab did not. A significant therapeutic benefit was appreciated in patients with at least one high-risk factor for recurrence, including, age ⩾65 years, immunocompromised state, prior CDI and severe CDI. In light of toxins A and B being immunogenic, vaccine trials are underway with the aim to prevent primary infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a consequence of flagrant use of antibiotics, an aging population with increasing comorbidities, and increased hospitalizations. The treatment of choice for CDI is antibiotics (vancomycin or fidaxomicin), with a possibility of recurrent CDI despite lack of additional risk factors for CDI. For the last 10 years, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has emerged as a promising therapy for recurrent CDI, with success rates of over 85% compared with less than 50% with antibiotics for multiple recurrent CDI. Along with the success of FMT, several adverse and serious adverse events with FMT have been reported. These range from self-limiting abdominal pain to death due to severe sepsis. This review focuses on the safety of FMT, emphasizing the reports of transmission of pathobionts like extended-spectrum beta lactamase Escherichia coli and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 is a potential pathogen that could be transmitted via FMT during the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenges faced by clinicians for donor screening, clinical trials, and other aspects of FMT during the pandemic are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pathogenesis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has largely been attributed to the action of two major toxins – A and B. An enhanced systemic humoral immune response against these toxins has been shown to be protective against recurrent CDI. Over the years, fully human monoclonal antibodies against both of these toxins have been developed in an attempt to counter the increasing incidence of recurrent CDI. Clinical trials conducted to evaluate the efficacy of anti-toxin A monoclonal antibody, actoxumab, and anti-toxin B monoclonal antibody, bezlotoxumab, demonstrated that bezlotoxumab substantially lowered the rate of recurrent infection, while actoxumab did not. A significant therapeutic benefit was appreciated in patients with at least one high-risk factor for recurrence, including, age ⩾65 years, immunocompromised state, prior CDI and severe CDI. In light of toxins A and B being immunogenic, vaccine trials are underway with the aim to prevent primary infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a consequence of flagrant use of antibiotics, an aging population with increasing comorbidities, and increased hospitalizations. The treatment of choice for CDI is antibiotics (vancomycin or fidaxomicin), with a possibility of recurrent CDI despite lack of additional risk factors for CDI. For the last 10 years, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has emerged as a promising therapy for recurrent CDI, with success rates of over 85% compared with less than 50% with antibiotics for multiple recurrent CDI. Along with the success of FMT, several adverse and serious adverse events with FMT have been reported. These range from self-limiting abdominal pain to death due to severe sepsis. This review focuses on the safety of FMT, emphasizing the reports of transmission of pathobionts like extended-spectrum beta lactamase Escherichia coli and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 is a potential pathogen that could be transmitted via FMT during the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenges faced by clinicians for donor screening, clinical trials, and other aspects of FMT during the pandemic are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Microbiota restoration is highly effective to treat recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in observational studies (cure rates >90%) but efficacy in controlled clinical trials appears to be lower. Objectives: To perform an updated meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of microbiota restoration for recurrent CDI in open-label registered prospective clinical trials compared to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Data Sources and Methods: A systematic search of various databases was performed up to July 2022 to identify studies of interest. Clinical trials of microbiota restoration for recurrent CDI with clinical resolution with one dose were included. We calculated weighted pooled rates (WPRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In all, 19 clinical trials with 1176 recurrent CDI patients were included. Of the patients treated with microbiota restoration, 897 experienced a clinical cure with a single microbiota restoration therapy (WPR, 78%; 95% CI, 71–85%). There was significant heterogeneity among studies with an I 2 of 88%. Analysis of trials with a control arm (non-microbiota restoration) revealed CDI resolution in 373 of 523 patients (WPR, 72%; 95% CI, 60–82%) with microbiota restoration. Among the nine open-label clinical trials, CDI resolution was seen in 524 of 653 patients after initial microbiota restoration (WPR, 84%; 95% CI, 74–92%). Comparison of resolution rates between RCTs and open-label trials revealed a lower cure rate in RCTs compared to open-label trials (WPR, 73 versus 84%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Microbiota restoration in a randomized controlled setting leads to lower resolution rates compared to open label and observational settings, likely due to stricter definitions and inclusion criteria. Resolution rates in open-label studies were similar to observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Microbiota restoration is highly effective to treat recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in observational studies (cure rates >90%) but efficacy in controlled clinical trials appears to be lower. Objectives: To perform an updated meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of microbiota restoration for recurrent CDI in open-label registered prospective clinical trials compared to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Data Sources and Methods: A systematic search of various databases was performed up to July 2022 to identify studies of interest. Clinical trials of microbiota restoration for recurrent CDI with clinical resolution with one dose were included. We calculated weighted pooled rates (WPRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In all, 19 clinical trials with 1176 recurrent CDI patients were included. Of the patients treated with microbiota restoration, 897 experienced a clinical cure with a single microbiota restoration therapy (WPR, 78%; 95% CI, 71–85%). There was significant heterogeneity among studies with an 퐼² of 88%. Analysis of trials with a control arm (non-microbiota restoration) revealed CDI resolution in 373 of 523 patients (WPR, 72%; 95% CI, 60–82%) with microbiota restoration. Among the nine open-label clinical trials, CDI resolution was seen in 524 of 653 patients after initial microbiota restoration (WPR, 84%; 95% CI, 74–92%). Comparison of resolution rates between RCTs and open-label trials revealed a lower cure rate in RCTs compared to open-label trials (WPR, 73 versus 84%, 푝 < 0.0001). Conclusions: Microbiota restoration in a randomized controlled setting leads to lower resolution rates compared to open label and observational settings, likely due to stricter definitions and inclusion criteria. Resolution rates in open-label studies were similar to observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]