Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28461207›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2017

Efficacy and safety of ridinilazole compared with vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study.

Richard J Vickers, Glenn S Tillotson, Richard Nathan, Sabine Hazan, John Pullman, Christopher Lucasti, Kenneth Deck, Bruce Yacyshyn, Benedict Maliakkal, Yves Pesant and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02092935 (A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Clinical Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of SMT19969 Compared With Vancomycin for the Treatment of Clostridium Difficile-Associated Diarrhoea), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.7field-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.

NCT02092935 phase2completednot on this map

A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Clinical Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of SMT19969 Compared With Vancomycin for the Treatment of Clostridium Difficile-Associated Diarrhoea (CDAD)

TypeinterventionalSponsorSummit TherapeuticsRan2014 to 2015Enrolled100ConditionsClostridium Difficile InfectionArmsSMT19969, Vancomycin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Reduced Vancomycin Susceptibility in Clostridioides difficile Is Associated With Lower Rates of Initial Cure and Sustained Clinical Response.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  15. Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Le infezioni in medicina · 2024
    Review
  18. Encapsulation protocol for fecal microbiota transplantation.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Article
  19. European Practice for CDI Treatment.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Richard J VickersSummit Therapeutics, Abingdon, UK. Electronic address: richard.vickers@summitplc.com.
Glenn S TillotsonGST Micro, Durham, NC, USA.
Richard NathanIdaho Falls Infectious Diseases, Idaho Falls, ID, USA.
Sabine HazanVentura Clinical Trials, Ventura, CA, USA.
John PullmanMercury Street Medical, Butte, MT, USA.
Christopher LucastiSouth Jersey Infectious Disease, Somers Point, NJ, USA.
Kenneth DeckAlliance Research Centers, Laguna Hills, CA, USA.
Bruce YacyshynUniversity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Benedict MaliakkalUniversity of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Yves PesantSt-Jerome Medical Research, St-Jérôme, QC, Canada.
Bina TejuraSummit Therapeutics, Abingdon, UK.
David RoblinSummit Therapeutics, Abingdon, UK.
Dale N GerdingEdward Hines Jr Veterans Administration Hospital and Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, USA.
Mark H WilcoxMicrobiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
CoDIFy study group
Summit (United Kingdom) · GBState Street (United States) · USUniversity of Cincinnati · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · USLoyola University Chicago · USUniversity of Leeds · GBVentura College · US

Funding

Stem Cell/Organoid and Genome Editing CoreP30DK078392 · NIDDK · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI Alexander Miethke · 2007 to 2026
$24.4M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK078392Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClostridium difficile infection is the most common health-care-associated infection in the USA. We assessed the safety and efficacy of ridinilazole versus vancomycin for treatment of C difficile infection.

methodsWe did a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study. Participants with signs and symptoms of C difficile infection and a positive diagnostic test result were recruited from 33 centres in the USA and Canada and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ridinilazole (200 mg every 12 h) or oral vancomycin (125 mg every 6 h) for 10 days. The primary endpoint was achievement of a sustained clinical response, defined as clinical cure at the end of treatment and no recurrence within 30 days, which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% margin) of ridinilazole versus vancomycin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population comprising all individuals with C difficile infection confirmed by the presence of free toxin in stool who were randomly assigned to receive one or more doses of the study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092935.

findingsBetween June 26, 2014, and August 31, 2015, 100 patients were recruited; 50 were randomly assigned to receive ridinilazole and 50 to vancomycin. 16 patients did not complete the study, and 11 discontinued treatment early. The primary efficacy analysis included 69 patients (n=36 in the ridinilazole group; n=33 in the vancomycin group). 24 of 36 (66·7%) patients in the ridinilazole group versus 14 of 33 (42·4%) of those in the vancomycin group had a sustained clinical response (treatment difference 21·1%, 90% CI 3·1-39·1, p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of ridinilazole and also showing statistical superiority at the 10% level. Ridinilazole was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of vancomycin: 82% (41 of 50) of participants reported adverse events in the ridinilazole group and 80% (40 of 50) in the vancomycin group. There were no adverse events related to ridinilazole that led to discontinuation.

interpretationRidinilazole is a targeted-spectrum antimicrobial that shows potential in treatment of initial C difficile infection and in providing sustained benefit through reduction in disease recurrence. Further clinical development is warranted.

fundingWellcome Trust and Summit Therapeutics.

Indexed as

Treatment OutcomeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsCanadaClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsDouble-Blind MethodFecesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited StatesAnti-Bacterial AgentsVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID28461207
PMCPMC5483507
OpenAlexW2608048982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.