Derivation and validation of a simple clinical bedside score (ATLAS) for Clostridium difficile infection which predicts response to therapy

Mark A Miller, Thomas Louie, Kathleen Mullane, Karl Weiss, Arnold Lentnek, Yoav Golan, Yin Kean, Pam Sears, Mark A Miller, Thomas Louie, Kathleen Mullane, Karl Weiss, Arnold Lentnek, Yoav Golan, Yin Kean, Pam Sears

Abstract

Background: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) continues to be a frequent and potentially severe infection. There is currently no validated clinical tool for use at the time of CDI diagnosis to categorize patients in order to predict response to therapy.

Methods: Six clinical and laboratory variables, measured at the time of CDI diagnosis, were combined in order to assess their correlation with treatment response in a large CDI clinical trial database (derivation cohort). The final categorization scheme was chosen in order to maximize the number of categories (discrimination) while maintaining a high correlation with clinical cure assessed two days after the end of therapy. Validation of the derived scoring scheme was done on a second large CDI clinical trial database (validation cohort). A third comparison was done on the two pooled databases (pooled cohort).

Results: In the derivation cohort, the best discrimination and correlation with cure was seen with a five-component ATLAS score (age, treatment with systemic antibiotics, leukocyte count, albumin and serum creatinine as a measure of renal function), which divided CDI patients into 11 groups (scores of 0 to 10 inclusive) and was highly correlated with treatment outcome (R(2) = 0.95; P<0.001). This scheme showed excellent prediction of cure in the validation cohort (overall Kappa = 95.2%; P<0.0001), as well as in the pooled cohort, regardless of treatment (fidaxomicin or vancomycin).

Conclusions: A combination of five simple and commonly available clinical and laboratory variables measured at the time of CDI diagnosis, combined into a scoring system (ATLAS), are able to accurately predict treatment response to CDI therapy. The ATLAS scoring system may be useful in stratifying CDI patients so that appropriate therapies can be chosen to maximize cure rates, as well as for categorization of patients in CDI therapeutic studies in order allow comparisons of patient groups.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristics of the ATLAS score for predicting treatment cure (area under the curve = 0.71).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of CDI patients in the two clinical trials (003 and 004), by ATLAS score. The number of mITT patients in each of the groups who have available values for all analyzed variables: study 003 (n=515), study 004 (n=452), combined studies (n=967).

References

    1. Jarvis WR, Schlosser J, Jarvis AA, Chinn RY. National point prevalence of clostridium difficile in US health care facility inpatients, 2008. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37:263–270. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2009.01.001.
    1. Loo VG, Poirier L, Miller MA. A predominantly clonal multi-insitutional outbreak of clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. New Engl J Med. 2005;353:2442–2449. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa051639.
    1. Goorhuis A, Bakker D, Corver J. Emergence of clostridium difficile infection due to a new hypervirulent strain, polymerase chain reaction ribotype 078. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47:1162–1170. doi: 10.1086/592257.
    1. Louie TG, Miller MA, Mullane KM. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for clostridium difficile infection. New Engl J Med. 2011;364:422–431. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0910812.
    1. Sougioultzis S, Kyne L, Drudy D, Keates S, Maroo S, Pothoulakis C, Giannasca PJ, Lee CK, Warny M, Monath TP, Kelly CP. Clostridium difficile toxoid vaccine in recurrent C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Clostridium difficile toxoid vaccine in recurrent C. Difficile-associated diarrhea. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:764–770. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.11.004.
    1. Lowy I, Molrine DC, Leav BA. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies against clostridium difficile toxins. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:197–205. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907635.
    1. Rubin MS, Bodenstein LE, Kent KC. Severe clostridium difficile colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:350–354. doi: 10.1007/BF02054220.
    1. Belmares J, Gerding DN, Parada JP, Miskevics S, Weaver F, Johnson S. Outcome of metronidazole therapy for clostridium difficile disease and correlation with a scoring system. J Infect. 2007;55:495–501. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2007.09.015.
    1. McEllistrem MC, Carman RJ, Gerding DN, Genheimer CW, Zheng L. A hospital outbreak of clostridium difficile disease associated with isolates carrying binary toxin genes. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:265–272. doi: 10.1086/427113.
    1. Zar FA, Bakkanagari SR, Moorthi KM, Davis MB. A comparison of vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, stratified by disease severity. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:302–307. doi: 10.1086/519265.
    1. Henrich TJ, Krakower D, Bitton A, Yokoe DS. Clinical risk factors for severe clostridium difficile-associated disease. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15:415–422. doi: 10.3201/eid1503.080312.
    1. Louie T, Gerson M, Grimard D. Results of a phase III trial comparing tolevamer, vancomycin and metronidazole in patients with clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD). program and abstracts of the 47th annual interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. Chicago, Illinois: Abstract K-425a; 2007. September 17–20.
    1. Gujja D, Friedenberg FK. Predictors of serious complications due to clostridium difficile infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29:635–642. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03914.x.
    1. UPHS guidelines for antimicrobial therapy. 2011. . Last accessed November 7.
    1. Fujitani S, George WL, Murthy AR. Comparison of clinical severity score indices for clostridium difficile infection. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2011;32:220–228. doi: 10.1086/658336.
    1. Toro DH, Amaral-Mojica KM, Rocha-Rodriguez R, Gutierrez-Nunez J. An innovative severity score index for C. Difficile infection: a prospective study. Infect Dis in Clin Practice. 2011;19:336–339. doi: 10.1097/IPC.0b013e31821895a8.
    1. Brouwers MC, Rawski E, Spithoff K, Oliver TK. Inventory of cancer guidelines: a tool to advance the guideline enterprise and improve the uptake of evidence. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2011;11:151–161. doi: 10.1586/erp.11.11.
    1. Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR. The surviving sepsis campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:222–231. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1738-3.
    1. Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S. Clinical practice guidelines for clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the infectious diseases society of America (IDSA) Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2010;31:431–455. doi: 10.1086/651706.
    1. Bauer MP, Kuijper EJ, van Dissel JT. European society of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases (ESCMID): treatment guidance document for clostridium difficile infection (CDI) Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15:1067–1079. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03099.x.
    1. Crook DW, Walker AS, Kean Y. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection: meta-analysis of pivotal randomized controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(Supp 2):S93–S103.
    1. Corter JE, Gluck MA. Explaining basic categories: feature predictability and information. Psychol Bull. 1992;111:291–303.
    1. Miller M, Gravel D, Mulvey M. Health care-associated clostridium difficile infection in Canada: patient age and infecting strain type are highly predictive of severe outcome and mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:194–201. doi: 10.1086/649213.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren