Objective

To conduct a systematic review of published real-world evidence describing the cost and healthcare resource use for Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) in the United States.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted searching for terms for CDI and healthcare costs. Titles of articles and abstracts were reviewed to identify those that met study criteria. Studies were evaluated to examine overall design and comparison groups in terms of healthcare resource use and cost for CDI.

Results

In total, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria. Moreover, 20 studies evaluated primary CDI or did not specify, and 8 studies^1-8 evaluated both primary CDI and recurrent (rCDI). Data from Medicare were used in 6 studies. Nearly all studies used a comparison group, either controls without CDI (N = 20) or comparison between primary CDI and rCDI (N = 7). Two studies examined costs of rCDI by the number of recurrences. Overall, the burden of CDI is significant, with higher aggregate costs for patients with rCDI. Compared with non-CDI controls, hospital length of stay increased in patients with both primary and rCDI compared to patients without CDI. Patients with primary CDI cost healthcare systems $24,000 more than patients without CDI. Additionally, 2 studies that evaluated the impact of recurrence among those patients with an index case of CDI demonstrated significantly higher direct all-cause medical costs among those with rCDI compared to those without.

Conclusion

CDI, and particularly rCDI, is a costly condition with hospitalizations being the main cost driver.

Background

Healthcare organizations, compendia, and drug knowledgebase vendors use varying methods to evaluate and synthesize evidence on drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This situation has a negative effect on electronic prescribing and medication information systems that warn clinicians of potentially harmful medication combinations.

Objective

The aim of this study was to provide recommendations for systematic evaluation of evidence for DDIs from the scientific literature, drug product labeling, and regulatory documents.

Methods

A conference series was conducted to develop a structured process to improve the quality of DDI alerting systems. Three expert workgroups were assembled to address the goals of the conference. The Evidence Workgroup consisted of 18 individuals with expertise in pharmacology, drug information, biomedical informatics, and clinical decision support. Workgroup members met via webinar 12 times from January 2013 to February 2014. Two in-person meetings were conducted in May and September 2013 to reach consensus on recommendations.

Results

We developed expert consensus answers to the following three key questions. (i) What is the best approach to evaluate DDI evidence? (ii) What evidence is required for a DDI to be applicable to an entire class of drugs? (iii) How should a structured evaluation process be vetted and validated?

Conclusion

Evidence-based decision support for DDIs requires consistent application of transparent and systematic methods to evaluate the evidence. Drug compendia and clinical decision support systems in which these recommendations are implemented should be able to provide higher-quality information about DDIs.