Efficacy of Secondary Prophylaxis With Vancomycin for Preventing Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) who are re-exposed to antibiotics have a high likelihood of recurrence. We aimed to determine whether oral vancomycin as secondary prophylaxis reduces the risk of recurrence in patients recently diagnosed with CDI who undergo subsequent antibiotic exposure (CDI-AE). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with CDI (initial episode or recurrence) between 2003 and 2011 in two tertiary care centers in Quebec, Canada and who received antibiotics not targeted against CDI within 90 days after their CDI diagnosis. Risk factors for subsequent recurrence after this exposure to antibiotics were assessed through Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 551 episodes of CDI-AE (379 initial episodes, 172 recurrences). Recurrence occurred after exposure to antibiotics in 181 episodes (32.9%). Recurrence was more likely in older patients (for each additional year of age: adjusted hazard ratio (AHR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.03; P=0.02) and among cases where the CDI-AE episode was itself a first (AHR, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.52-5.13; P<0.0001) or a second recurrence (AHR, 4.88; 95% CI, 3.38-7.06; P<0.0001). Oral vancomycin prophylaxis decreased the risk of further recurrence in patients whose CDI-AE itself was a recurrence (AHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.69; P<0.0001) but not in those whose CDI-AE was an initial episode (AHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57-1.45; P=0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Oral vancomycin appears as an effective strategy for decreasing the risk of further CDI recurrence in patients with a history of recurrent CDI who are re-exposed to antibiotics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".