Faecal pharmacokinetics of orally administered vancomycin in patients with suspected Clostridium difficile infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral vancomycin (125 mg qid) is recommended as treatment of severe Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Higher doses (250 or 500 mg qid) are sometimes recommended for patients with very severe CDI, without supporting clinical evidence. We wished to determine to what extent faecal levels of vancomycin vary according to diarrhoea severity and dosage, and whether it is rational to administer high-dose vancomycin to selected patients. METHODS: We recruited hospitalized adults suspected to have CDI for whom oral vancomycin (125, 250 or 500 mg qid) had been initiated. Faeces were collected up to 3 times/day and levels were measured with the AxSYM fluorescence polarization immunoassay. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (9 with confirmed CDI) were treated with oral vancomycin. Patients with ≥ 4 stools daily presented lower faecal vancomycin levels than those with a lower frequency. Higher doses of oral vancomycin (250 mg or 500 mg qid) led to consistently higher faecal levels (> 2000 mg/L), which were 3 orders of magnitude higher than the MIC90 of vancomycin against C. difficile. One patient receiving 125 mg qid had levels below 50 mg/L during the first day of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal levels of vancomycin are proportional to the dosage administered and, even in patients with increased stool frequency, much higher than the MIC90. Patients given the standard 125 mg qid dosage might have low faecal levels during the first day of treatment. A loading dose of 250 mg or 500 mg qid during the first 24-48 hours followed by the standard dosage should be evaluated in larger studies, since it might be less disruptive to the colonic flora and save unnecessary costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".