Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28257555›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Antibiotic treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in adults.

Richard L Nelson, Katie J Suda, Charlesnika T Evans

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 370 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Trends and Efficacy in Clostridioides difficile Infection Management at a Polish Clinical Hospital.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Management of severe and fulminantJournal of medical microbiology · 2025
    Review
  10. Molecular Epidemiology ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Management of Severe Colitis and Toxic Megacolon.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  16. Rational Design of Live Biotherapeutic Products for the Prevention ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. ImprovingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  19. Clostridioides difficile Biofilm.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  20. European Practice for CDI Treatment.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard L NelsonEpidemiology/Biometry Division, University of Illinois School of Public Health, 1603 West Taylor, Room 956, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 60612.
Katie J SudaUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Charlesnika T EvansDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Center for Healthcare Studies, Northwestern University, 633 N. St. Clair, Chicago, IL, USA, 60611.
University of Illinois Chicago · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClostridium difficile (C. difficile) is recognized as a frequent cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and colitis. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.

objectivesThe aim of this review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic therapy for C. difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD), or C. difficile infection (CDI), being synonymous terms. SEARCH

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 26 January 2017. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials assessing antibiotic treatment for CDI were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed abstracts and full text articles for inclusion and extracted data. The risk of bias was independently rated by two authors. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, except where significant heterogeneity was detected, at which time a random-effects model was used. The following outcomes were sought: sustained symptomatic cure (defined as initial symptomatic response and no recurrence of CDI), sustained bacteriologic cure, adverse reactions to the intervention, death and cost. MAIN

resultsTwenty-two studies (3215 participants) were included. The majority of studies enrolled patients with mild to moderate CDI who could tolerate oral antibiotics. Sixteen of the included studies excluded patients with severe CDI and few patients with severe CDI were included in the other six studies. Twelve different antibiotics were investigated: vancomycin, metronidazole, fusidic acid, nitazoxanide, teicoplanin, rifampin, rifaximin, bacitracin, cadazolid, LFF517, surotomycin and fidaxomicin. Most of the studies were active comparator studies comparing vancomycin with other antibiotics. One small study compared vancomycin to placebo. There were no other studies that compared antibiotic treatment to a placebo or a 'no treatment' control group. The risk of bias was rated as high for 17 of 22 included studies. Vancomycin was found to be more effective than metronidazole for achieving symptomatic cure. Seventy-two per cent (318/444) of metronidazole patients achieved symptomatic cure compared to 79% (339/428) of vancomycin patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence). Fidaxomicin was found to be more effective than vancomycin for achieving symptomatic cure. Seventy-one per cent (407/572) of fidaxomicin patients achieved symptomatic cure compared to 61% (361/592) of vancomycin patients (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; moderate quality evidence). Teicoplanin may be more effective than vancomycin for achieving a symptomatic cure. Eightly-seven per cent (48/55) of teicoplanin patients achieved symptomatic cure compared to 73% (40/55) of vancomycin patients (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.46; very low quality evidence). For other comparisons including the one placebo-controlled study the quality of evidence was low or very low due to imprecision and in many cases high risk of bias because of attrition and lack of blinding. One hundred and forty deaths were reported in the studies, all of which were attributed by study authors to the co-morbidities of the participants that lead to acquiring CDI. Although many other adverse events were reported during therapy, these were attributed to the participants' co-morbidities. The only adverse events directly attributed to study medication were rare nausea and transient elevation of liver enzymes. Recent cost data (July 2016) for a 10 day course of treatment shows that metronidazole 500 mg is the least expensive antibiotic with a cost of USD 13 (Health Warehouse). Vancomycin 125 mg costs USD 1779 (Walgreens for 56 tablets) compared to fidaxomicin 200 mg at USD 3453.83 or more (Optimer Pharmaceuticals) and teicoplanin at approximately USD 83.67 (GBP 71.40, British National Formulary). AUTHORS'

conclusionsNo firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of antibiotic treatment in severe CDI as most studies excluded patients with severe disease. The lack of any 'no treatment' control studies does not allow for any conclusions regarding the need for antibiotic treatment in patients with mild CDI beyond withdrawal of the initiating antibiotic. Nonetheless, moderate quality evidence suggests that vancomycin is superior to metronidazole and fidaxomicin is superior to vancomycin. The differences in effectiveness between these antibiotics were not too large and the advantage of metronidazole is its far lower cost compared to the other two antibiotics. The quality of evidence for teicoplanin is very low. Adequately powered studies are needed to determine if teicoplanin performs as well as the other antibiotics. A trial comparing the two cheapest antibiotics, metronidazole and teicoplanin, would be of interest.

Indexed as

Clostridioides difficileAdultAminoglycosidesAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacitracinDiarrheaEnterocolitis, PseudomembranousFidaxomicinHumansMetronidazoleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTeicoplaninTreatment OutcomeVancomycinAminoglycosidesAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacitracinFidaxomicinMetronidazoleTeicoplaninVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID28257555
PMCPMC6464548
OpenAlexW2166223093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.