Risk Factors of Clostridium Difficile Infection in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: C. difficile infection (CDI) is a common nosocomial infection. Immune suppression is thought to be a major risk factor for CDI. Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients represent a major subgroup of immunologically vulnerable patients. It is unclear if these patients have novel risk factors for CDI development. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the predictors of CDI in HSCT recipients. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science was performed from January 2000 up to June 2018. All studies that assessed risk factors associated with CDI development in HSCT recipients were eligible for inclusion. Data on clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with CDI development were collected. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models and pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI) for risk factors reported in ≥ 2 studies were calculated. Results: Overall, 17 studies, including 6328 HSCT patients were included. Of those 874 patients developed CDI. The rate of CDI development in these patients was 13.81% with a follow up ranging from 1- 36 months. A total of 34 different risk factors were studied, of which 20 were identified in ≥ 2 studies. Our analysis showed that cephalosporin use (Odds ratio [OR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-3.87), cord blood transplant (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01-1.83), graft versus host disease (GVHD) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.07-2.48) & prior hospitalization within 90 days of HSCT (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.21-2.83) were associated with statistically significant increased risk of CDI in HSCT patients (Figure 1). On the other hand, many characteristics of HSCT patients including age, diabetes, lung disease, fluoroquinolones, proton pump inhibitors, rituximab, mucositis, myeloablative therapy, melphalan use before BMT, total body irradiation, growth factor use during admission, neutropenia, autologous vs allogenic transplant and use of matched related donor were not associated with increased risk of CDI. Conclusion: HSCT recipients are at an increased risk of CDI compared to general population. In addition to the common risk factors like cephalosporin use and prior hospitalization, these patients have novel characteristics including presence of GVHD and cord blood transplant that puts them at a higher risk of CDI. HSCT patients with these risk factors may warrant a closer surveillance for early detection and treatment of CDI. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".