Initial vancomycin versus metronidazole for the treatment of first-episode non-severe <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of infectious nosocomial diarrhea. Although initial fidaxomicin or vancomycin treatment is recommended by most major guidelines to treat severe CDI, there exists varied recommendations for first-episode non-severe CDI. Given the discrepancy in current treatment guidelines, we sought to evaluate the use of initial vancomycin versus metronidazole for first-episode non-severe CDI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult inpatients with first-episode CDI at our institution from January 2013 to May 2018. The initial vancomycin versus initial metronidazole cohorts were examined using a multivariate logistic regression model. Results: The study cohort of 737 patients had a median age of 72.3 years, and 357 of these patients (48.4%) had hospital-acquired infection. Among 326 patients with non-severe CDI, recurrence, new incident infection, and 30-day mortality rates were 16.2%, 10.9%, and 5.3%, respectively, when treated with initial metronidazole, compared to 20.0%, 1.4%, and 10.0%, respectively, when treated with initial vancomycin. In an adjusted multivariable analysis, the use of initial vancomycin for the treatment of non-severe CDI was associated with a reduction in new incident infection (adjusted odds ratio [OR adj ], 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02–0.86; P = .035), compared to initial metronidazole. Conclusions: Initial vancomycin was associated with a reduced rate of new incident infection in the treatment of adult inpatients with first-episode non-severe CDI. These findings support the use of initial vancomycin for all inpatients with CDI, when fidaxomicin is unavailable.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".