ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2009
New antimicrobial agents for patients with Clostridium difficile infections.
Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cadazolid: A new hope in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection.The Australasian medical journal · 2015Review
- Association of tcdA+/tcdB+ Clostridium difficile Genotype with Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant Strains Conferring Metronidazole Resistant Phenotype.Iranian biomedical journal · 2015Article
- Structural and biochemical analyses of alanine racemase from the multidrug-resistant Clostridium difficile strain 630.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography · 2014Article
- Article
- Current Status of Nonantibiotic and Adjunct Therapies for Clostridium difficile Infection.Current infectious disease reports · 2011Article
- Review
- Enduracidin analogues with altered halogenation patterns produced by genetically engineered strains of Streptomyces fungicidicus.Journal of natural products · 2010Article
- Clostridium difficile Infections: What Every Clinician Should Know.The Permanente journal · 2010Article
- Evolving concepts in Clostridium difficile colitis.Current gastroenterology reports · 2009Article
- Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus B-30892 can inhibit cytotoxic effects and adhesion of pathogenic Clostridium difficile to Caco-2 cells.Gut pathogens · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current drug treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) focuses on metronidazole and vancomycin. Early studies showed equivalence, but more recent reports indicate that oral vancomycin is preferred for serious CDI. Recent work has demonstrated a need for new drugs due to challenges with the NAP-1 strain, which appears to cause more refractory disease that is more likely to relapse. These two distinctive facets of treatment are the most challenging. This review discusses new agents in development: antibiotics, probiotics, immune response products, and agents to bind C. difficile toxins. None are likely to be more effective than oral vancomycin for acute infection. However, several may be as effective, without causing relapse or promoting unnecessary antibiotic use for multiple conditions. The greatest promise is with agents used to interrupt relapses. In this category the leading new agents appear to be antibiotics (rifaximin, nitazoxanide, difimicin, ramoplanin), toxin-binding agents (tolevamer), probiotics (Saccharomyces -boulardii and Lactobacillus ramosus), and immune agents (toxoid vaccine and hyperimmune globulin). The drugs that appear most promising based on recent trials are rifaximin, tolevamer, and difimicin, which appear promising for reducing relapses.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.