Tu1887 - Real World Experience of Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent C. Difficile Infection: A Single-Arm Multicenter Pilot Study in office Infusion Centers

Ritter, Timothy E.; Hengel, Richard L.; Fitzsimmons, Curtis J.; Garey, Kevin W.; Anglen, Lucinda J. Van; Schroeder, Claudia P.; Marcella, Stephen; Hawkshead, John Jay

doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(18)33513-3

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1). Relevant articles were not included based on the inclusion of a recently published more representative cohort from the same sample 22–29 . Two studies were randomized trials (MODIFY I and II) 6 and the remaining were observational 11–16,30–34 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relevant articles were not included based on the inclusion of a recently published more representative cohort from the same sample. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Two studies were randomized trials (MODIFY I and II) 6 and the remaining were observational. [11][12][13][14][15][16][30][31][32][33][34] Overall, 1472 patients received BEZ (691 excluding RCTs).…”

Section: Included Studies and Baseline Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-effectiveness of Bezlotoxumab in Preventing Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection

Mohamed

Ward

Beran

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a global health challenge. Bezlotoxumab (BEZ) is a monoclonal antibody against C. difficile toxin B. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), MODIFY I and II, confirmed BEZ efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). However, there are safety concerns about its use in patients with a history of congestive heart failure. Observational studies have since been conducted, and it is important to explore the consistency of BEZ efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and its safety utilizing these real-world data. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and explore its efficacy and safety in preventing rCDI compared with control. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception through April 2023 for relevant RCTs or observational studies assessing BEZ in preventing rCDI. Single-arm studies describing experience with BEZ in preventing rCDI were also included for proportion meta-analysis. A proportion meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to pool the rCDI rate with its corresponding 95% CI. In a meta-analysis of efficacy, we generated the relative risk (RR) to compare BEZ versus control in preventing rCDI. Results: Thirteen studies including 2 RCTs and 11 observational studies totaling 2337 patients, of which 1472 received BEZ, were included in the analysis. Of the constituent studies, 5 (1734 patients) compared BEZ versus standard-of-care (SOC). Pooled rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ was 15.8% (95% CI: 14%-17.8%), and was 28.9% (95% CI: 24%-34.4%) in the SOC. BEZ significantly reduced rCDI risk compared with SOC [RR=0.57 (95% CI: 0.45-0.72, I 2=16%)]. There was no difference in the overall mortality or heart failure risk. Of the 9 included cost-effectiveness analyses, 8 demonstrated BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone. Discussion: Our meta-analysis comprising real-world data revealed lower rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and supported its efficacy and safety when added to SOC therapy. The results were consistent across various subgroups. Available cost-effectiveness analyses mostly support BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%