MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403325242 · doi:10.1016/j.cmicom.2024.105041

Oral vancomycin prophylaxis for the prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection during re-exposure to systemic antibiotics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4403325242 on OpenAlexaff
Connor Prosty, Émilie Bortolussi‐Courval, Laurie-Rose Dubé, Todd C. Lee, Emily G. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueCMI Communications · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridioidesVancomycinMedicineAntibioticsMeta-analysisSystemic antibioticsAntibiotic prophylaxisIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMicrobiologyBiologyBacteriaStaphylococcus aureus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Background</h3> Patients who have had <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection (CDI) are at high risk of recurrence following antibiotic re-exposure. Secondary oral vancomycin prophylaxis during antibiotic re-exposure may mitigate this risk. <h3>Objectives</h3> We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of vancomycin prophylaxis versus placebo/no prophylaxis for the prevention of recurrent CDI (rCDI) during antibiotic re-exposure. <h3>Methods</h3> Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL. Study Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) or comparative observational studies. Participants: Adults with recent (as defined in the studies) CDI who were re-exposed to systemic antibiotics. Interventions: Vancomycin prophylaxis (of variable doses) versus placebo/no prophylaxis. Assessment of Risk of Bias: Cochrane's ROBINS-I and RoB2 tools for comparative observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Methods of Data Synthesis: Recurrent CDI, all-cause mortality, and safety outcomes were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR). <h3>Results</h3> Eight observational studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All were at high risk of bias. The total population comprised 2156 patients, including 656 who received vancomycin prophylaxis and 1500 who did not; antibiotic re-exposure occurred within a median of 1 to 12 months after a qualifying episode of CDI. Vancomycin prophylaxis (125–1000 mg daily) was associated with a significantly reduced odds of rCDI compared to no prophylaxis (OR=0.41, 95 % Confidence Interval [95 %CI]=0.20–0.87). All-cause mortality was comparable between the two groups (OR=0.93, 95 %CI=0.62–1.40). None of the included studies reported on adverse events. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The existing evidence base, consisting entirely of low quality observational studies, suggests that vancomycin prophylaxis could be effective in reducing the risk of rCDI with antibiotic re-exposure. These findings support a definitive RCT to firmly establish the efficacy and safety of vancomycin prophylaxis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMI CommunicationsSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207