Reduced Acquisition and Overgrowth of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci and Candida Species in Patients Treated With Fidaxomicin Versus Vancomycin for Clostridium difficile Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fidaxomicin causes less disruption of anaerobic microbiota during treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) than vancomycin and has activity against many vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). In conjunction with a multicenter randomized trial of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for CDI treatment, we tested the hypothesis that fidaxomicin promotes VRE and Candida species colonization less than vancomycin. Stool was cultured for VRE and Candida species before and after therapy. For patients with negative pretreatment cultures, the incidence of VRE and Candida species acquisition was compared. For those with preexisting VRE, the change in concentration during treatment was compared. The susceptibility of VRE isolates to fidaxomicin was assessed. Of 301 patients, 247 (82%) had negative VRE cultures and 252 (84%) had negative Candida species cultures before treatment. In comparison with vancomycin-treated patients, fidaxomicin-treated patients had reduced acquisition of VRE (7% vs 31%, respectively; P < .001) and Candida species (19% vs 29%, respectively; P = .03). For patients with preexisting VRE, the mean concentration decreased significantly in the fidaxomicin group (5.9 vs 3.8 log(10) VRE/g stool; P = .01) but not the vancomycin group (5.3 vs 4.2 log(10) VRE/g stool; P = .20). Most VRE isolates recovered after fidaxomicin treatment had elevated fidaxomicin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs; MIC(90), 256 µg/mL), and subpopulations of VRE with elevated fidaxomicin MICs were common before therapy. Fidaxomicin was less likely than vancomycin to promote acquisition of VRE and Candida species during CDI treatment. However, selection of preexisting subpopulations of VRE with elevated fidaxomicin MICs was common during fidaxomicin therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".