Relapse Versus Reinfection: Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection Following Treatment With Fidaxomicin or Vancomycin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study sought to compare the strain types of Clostridium difficile causing initial and recurrent episodes of C. difficile infection (CDI) in adult patients with a first episode of CDI or 1 prior episode of CDI within the previous 90 days. Strains originated from patients who had been entered into two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin. Isolates of C. difficile from the initial and recurrent episodes within 28 (± 2) days of cure of CDI were compared using restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) typing. Paired isolates were available from 90 of 194 (46%) patients with recurrent CDI. Patients with isolates available were significantly younger (P = .008) and more likely to be from Canadian sites (P = .0001), compared with patients without isolates. In 75 of 90 subjects (83.3%), the identical REA type strain was identified at recurrence and the initial episode (putative relapse). Early recurrences (0-14 days after treatment completion) were relapses in 86.7% and a new strain (reinfection) in 13.3%. Later recurrences (15-31 days after treatment) were relapses in 76.7% and reinfections in 23.3%. Mean time (± standard deviation) to recurrence was 12.2 (± 6.4) days for relapses and 14.7 (± 6.8) days for reinfections (P = .177). The most common BI/NAP1/027 group and the previous US epidemic REA group J/NAP2/001 had a significantly higher combined rate of recurrence with the same strain (relapse), compared with the other REA groups (39 of 42 [93%] vs 36 of 48 [75%], respectively; P = .023). We found a higher than historic rate of recurrent CDI caused by the same isolate as the original episode, a finding that may be related to the relatively short observation period in this study and the high frequency of isolation of epidemic strains, such as groups BI and J, for which relapse rates may be higher than for other REA groups. Caution in generalizing these observations is required, because the patients studied were younger and more likely to be from Canadian sites than were patients with recurrence who did not provide isolates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".