Vancomycin for the Treatment of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>Infection: For Whom Is This Expensive Bullet Really Magic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epidemiology, clinical severity, and case-fatality ratio of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) changed dramatically with the emergence of a toxin hyperproducing strain (BI/NAP1/027) in North America and Europe in 2000. For the treatment of CDI, metronidazole and vancomycin remain the 2 most commonly used drugs. The 3 randomized controlled trials published thus far, as well as the upcoming tolevamer trial, use intermediate outcomes, rather than the outcomes that now preoccupy clinicians: the frequency of complications or recurrence. The major advantage of metronidazole is its low price. The major advantage of orally administered vancomycin is its more favorable pharmacokinetics. Facilitating vancomycin-resistant enterococci colonization and/or infection is a potential drawback of both drugs. Pending the development of a prospectively validated scoring system, members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America/Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America expert committee will define severe CDI as present in any patient with a leukocyte count > or =15,000 cells/mm(3) or a creatinine level increased by > or =50% from baseline. For patients with mild-to-moderate CDI (defined by a leukocyte count <15000 cells/mm(3) and a creatinine level <1.5 times the baseline value), there is no evidence that treatment with vancomycin is superior to treatment with metronidazole (even for intermediate outcomes), and metronidazole therapy should be preferred. For patients with severe CDI who are not infected with BI/NAP1/027, there is reasonable evidence that the better pharmacokinetics of vancomycin translate into a lower probability of complications. For those patients who are infected with BI/NAP1/027, the superiority of vancomycin therapy remains to be proven. In practice, because it is not yet possible to rapidly type the strains, all patients with severe CDI should be treated with vancomycin. Future trials should use complicated CDI and recurrences as their primary outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".