Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27366179›Full record

ArticleThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale2016

Fidaxomicin versus Vancomycin in the Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection: Canadian Outcomes.

Christine Lee, Thomas J Louie, Karl Weiss, Louis Valiquette, Marvin Gerson, Wendy Arnott, Sherwood L Gorbach

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Health-related quality of life in patients with recurrentTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Christine LeeSt Joseph's Healthcare, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Royal Jubilee Hospital, Island Health, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Thomas J LouieFoothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Karl WeissMaisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Louis ValiquetteUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Marvin GersonHumber River Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Wendy ArnottMerck, Canada Inc., Kirkland, QC, Canada.
Sherwood L GorbachTufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Foothills Medical Centre · CAHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont · CAHumber River Regional Hospital · CAIsland Health · CAMerck Canada Inc. (Canada) · CATufts University · USUniversité de Sherbrooke · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. This analysis examined the efficacy of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in 406 Canadian patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), based on data from 2 randomized, clinical trials. Methods. Patients received fidaxomicin or vancomycin 1. Patients were assessed for clinical response recurrence of infection and sustained clinical response for 28 days after treatment completion. Patients at increased risk of recurrence were subjected to subgroup analyses. Results. Clinical response rates for fidaxomicin (90.0%) were noninferior to those with vancomycin (92.2%; 95% confidence interval for difference: -7.7, 3.5). However, fidaxomicin-treated patients had lower recurrence (14.4% versus 28.0%, p = 0.001) and higher sustained clinical response (77.1% versus 66.3%, p = 0.016). Compared with vancomycin, fidaxomicin was associated with lower recurrence rates in all subgroups, reaching statistical significance in patients with age ≥ 65 years (16.0% versus 30.9%, p = 0.026), concomitant antibiotic use (16.2% versus 38.7%, p = 0.036), and non-BI strains (11.8% versus 28.3%, p = 0.004). Higher sustained clinical response rates were observed for fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin in all subgroups; this was statistically significant in the non-BI subgroup (82.8% versus 69.1%, p = 0.021). Conclusions. In Canadian patients, fidaxomicin was superior to vancomycin in sustaining clinical response and reducing CDI recurrence.

Identifiers

PMID27366179
PMCPMC4904592
OpenAlexW2399278318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.