ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2016
A pilot study to assess bacterial and toxin reduction in patients with Clostridium difficile infection given fidaxomicin or vancomycin.
Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Microbiome-preserving antibiotics for the treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of different therapies forThe Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Review
- Fidaxomicin for the Treatment ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Immune response againstTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Comparison of three current Clostridioides difficile infection guidelines: IDSA/SHEA, ESCMID, and ACG guidelines.Infection · 2019Review
- Management of adult Clostridium difficile digestive contaminations: a literature review.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the effect of fidaxomicin and vancomycin on Clostridium difficile toxins and correlation with clinical and microbiologic outcomes.
methodsHospitalized patients with C. difficile infection were randomly assigned a 10-day course of fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Stool samples collected at baseline (day 0), mid-therapy (days 3-5), end of therapy (days 10-13) and follow-up (days 19-38) were assessed for quantity of toxins A and B as well as spore and vegetative cells counts. Correlation of toxins concentrations with microbiologic and clinical findings were evaluated.
resultsAmong 34 patients 12 had detectable toxin concentrations at baseline seven were randomized to fidaxomicin and five to vancomycin. Overall both fidaxomicin and vancomycin resulted in drop of both toxins concentrations by midpoint of therapy. The drop in toxin A concentrations was maintained up to the follow-up period with fidaxomicin but not with vancomycin even in patients who developed recurrence. Patients who developed recurrence in the fidaxomicin group had lower concentrations of toxin B versus the recurrence patient of vancomycin group. Presence of vegetative cells and spores was significantly linked with high toxin A (P = 0.003 and <0.001 respectively) and toxin B (P = 0.007 and <0.001 respectively) concentrations across time points. Toxin B concentrations but not A significantly correlated with stool consistency (P < 0.001) and frequency (P = 0.05).
conclusionsFidaxomicin was associated with sustained reduction of both toxins up to 30 days post therapy versus vancomycin. Multiple clinical or microbiologic observations were correlated with toxin A or B concentrations.
Indexed as
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.