Comparison of Oral Vancomycin Capsule and Solution for Treatment of Initial Episode of Severe Clostridium difficile Infection
|
Design
|
Retrospective, noninterventional cohort study
N= 76
|
Objective
|
To determine treatment outcome differences for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) based on oral vancomycin formulation, commercially available capsule versus compounded oral solution
|
Study Groups
|
Vancomycin solution (n= 25)
Vancomycin capsule (n= 50)
|
Inclusion Criteria
|
Patients diagnosed with severe CDI who received oral vancomycin for at least 72 hours; evidence of diarrhea on the day of a stool sample positive for C difficile toxin based on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing; diarrhea when following thresholds were met or exceeded within 24 hours: 3 unformed stools, 200 mL watery rectal bag output, or 1 L colostomy output; severe CDI characterized based on white blood cell (WBC) count of at least 15 x 103 cells/mL and serum creatinine (SCr) of at least 1.5 times premorbid level; patients with unknown baseline kidney function, and inpatient documentation of acute kidney injury
|
Exclusion Criteria
|
Mild-moderate CDI, severe complicated CDI, recurrent CDI, and baseline conditions affecting stool output, including irritable bowel disease, graft versus host disease, neutropenia, and cirrhosis
|
Methods
|
Eligible patients were divided into two cohorts, one receiving compounded vancomycin oral solution and the other receiving commercially available vancomycin capsules. Relevant data were retrospectively collected through the electronic and paper medical record by a single coinvestigator. Progression notes were evaluated for symptoms of CDI and evidence of complications, such as toxic megacolon. Clinical cure was defined as resolution of diarrhea for 48 hours (passage of ≤ 2 formed stools, < 1 L colostomy output, or < 200 mL rectal bag in 24 hours) without the development of a complication.
|
Duration
|
Between July 2006 and July 2011
|
Outcome Measures
|
Primary: time to clinical cure of CDI
Secondary: clinical cure rate at day 10 after CDI onset, mortality rate within 30 days of treatment, CDI-associated complication rates within 10 days, and recurrence rate within 30 days
|
Baseline Characteristics
|
|
Vancomycin solution (n= 25)
|
Vancomycin capsule (n= 51)
|
|
Age, years
|
64 (58 to 77) |
68 (59 to 73) |
|
Values on day 1 of CDI
Number of loose stools
WBC count, 103 cells/μL
Lactate, mmol/L
CCI score
SOFA score
|
4 (4 to 8)
19.1 (16.6 to 24.8)
1.5 (0.9 to 2.1)
2 (1 to 3)
3 (2 to 5)
|
4 (3 to 6)
17.2 (15.4 to 25.0)
0.6 (0 to 1.2)
3 (2 to 5)
2 (1 to 3)
|
|
Combination with metronidazole
|
16 (64%) |
26 (51%) |
|
Vancomycin
Duration
Dose
|
10 (8.5 to 10)
1,000 (721 to 1,737)
|
10 (9 to 10)
888 (500 to 1,000)
|
|
Concomitant antibiotic use
|
21 (84%) |
38 (75%) |
|
Concomitant probiotic use
|
0 |
1 (2%) |
|
No significant differences were noted in baseline characteristics between the two groups, except for lactate levels (p< 0.001).
Ordinal and continuous data were reported as median (IQR).
CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; IQR, Interquartile range
|
Results
|
Endpoint
|
Vancomycin solution (n= 25)
|
Vancomycin capsule (n= 51)
|
p-value
|
30-Day mortality
|
5 (20%)
|
6 (12%) |
0.338 |
Recurrence within 30 days
|
1 (4%) |
2 (4%) |
1.0 |
Complications
Toxic megacolon
Colectomy
Colonic perforation
Ileus
|
1 (4%)
2 (8%)
1 (4%)
0
|
2 (4%)
2 (4%)
0
3 (6%)
|
1.0
0.594
0.329
0.547
|
Adverse Events
|
N/A |
Study Author Conclusions
|
Presented data suggest that, for patients with an initial episode of severe CDI, the use of a compounded oral solution of vancomycin had no observed difference in rates of clinical cure, time to clinical cure, or development of complications from CDI compared with commercially available capsules. For reasons of economy, hospitals may decide to prepare oral vancomycin solution rather than purchase manufactured vancomycin capsules.
|
InpharmD Researcher Critique
|
The study did not recruit the predefined number of patients and thus was underpowered to determine a potentially significant difference in the primary endpoint between the two formulations. Additionally, the study was limited by its retrospective design and inaccurate documentation of healthcare records.
|