ArticleInfectious disease reports2025
Article in Infectious disease reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectives
methodsComprehensive real-world data were analyzed for this retrospective observational study, provided by the TriNetX database, an international research network with electronic health records from multiple USA healthcare providers. This includes in- and outpatients treated with fidaxomicin (FDX) or vancomycin (VAN) for CDI between 01/2013 and 12/2023. The following cohorts were compared: (i) patients treated with fidaxomicin within 10 days following CDI diagnosis (FDX group) vs. (ii) patients treated with vancomycin within 10 days following CDI diagnosis (VAN group). Outcomes analysis between the two cohorts was performed after propensity score matching and included event risk and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses for the following concomitant diseases/events occurring during an observational period of 12 months following CDI diagnosis: death, sepsis, candidiasis, infections caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci, inflammatory bowel disease, cardiovascular disease, psychological disease, central line-associated blood stream infection, surgical site infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia.
resultsFollowing propensity score matching, 2170 patients were included in the FDX group and VAN groups, respectively. The event risk analysis demonstrated improved outcomes of patients treated with FDX compared to VAN in 6 out of the 10 events that were analyzed. The highest risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were found for sepsis (RR: 3.409; OR: 3.635), candidiasis (RR: 2.347; OR: 2.431), and death (RR: 1.710; OR: 1.811). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed an overall survival rate until the end of the 12-month observational period of 87.06% in the FDX group and 78.49% in the VAN group (log-rank
conclusionsOur comparative event risk analysis demonstrated improved outcomes for patients treated with FDX compared to VAN in most of the observed events and underlines the results of previously conducted RCTs, highlighting the beneficial role of FDX compared to VAN. Further big data analyses from other industrialized countries are needed for comparison with our observations.
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.