Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41758514›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2026

Initial Vancomycin Taper for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Emily G McDonald, Guillaume Butler-Laporte, James M Brophy, Sarah Elsayed, Charles Frenette, Iman Huseen, Vivian G Loo, Kristen Moran, Bryan Coburn, Susy S Hota and 14 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04138706 (Initial Vancomycin Taper for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infection), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04138706 phase3completednot on this map

Initial Vancomycin Taper for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infection

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health CentreRan2020 to 2024Enrolled263ConditionsClostridium Difficile InfectionArmsVancomycin, Placebos
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

24 authors.

Emily G McDonaldDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Guillaume Butler-LaporteDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
James M BrophyDepartment of Epidemiology, Bioethics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Sarah ElsayedClinical Practice Assessment Unit, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Charles FrenetteDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Iman HuseenClinical Practice Assessment Unit, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Vivian G LooDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Kristen MoranClinical Practice Assessment Unit, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Bryan CoburnDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Susy S HotaDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yves LongtinDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Ling Y KongDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Matthew P MullerDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Theodore S SteinerDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Louis ValiquetteDepartment of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Nick DanemanDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peter DaleyDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Memorial University, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Caroline NottDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Derek R MacFaddenThe Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Christopher E KandelDepartment of Medicine, Michael Garron Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yan ChenDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Temerity Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Santiago Perez-PatrigeonDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Todd C LeeClinical Practice Assessment Unit, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
TAPER-V Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, and recurrent CDI (rCDI) is common. Objective: To determine whether a 4-week vancomycin pulse and taper regimen would be superior to a standard 2-week vancomycin pulse regimen in terms of recurrence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel-design, double-blind clinical trial was performed at 12 Canadian hospitals. Adults with a first episode or first recurrence of CDI were eligible to participate. Patients needed to have clinical CDI with laboratory confirmation and to have improved by day 10 of treatment. Recruitment began November 19, 2020, and all follow-up was completed by October 4, 2024. Intervention: All patients received a 2-week pulse of vancomycin (standardized at 125 mg orally 4 times a day at the time of recruitment) and were then randomized to receive either vancomycin taper (125 mg orally twice a day for 7 days and then 125 mg once a day for 7 days) or an equivalent schedule of placebo capsules. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the posterior probability of superiority of the vancomycin pulse and taper regimen to prevent rCDI at day 56. A secondary outcome was recurrence at day 38. Binary outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian generalized linear model with minimally informative priors yielding log relative risk (RR) with 95% bayesian credible intervals (CrIs). Results: The trial was stopped early due to feasibility of recruitment. Among 265 participants (135 in the intervention group and 130 in the control group; median age, 63 [IQR 47-74] years; 138 [52.1%] women), recurrence at day 56 occurred in 20 of 135 patients (14.8%) in the vancomycin pulse and taper group compared with 23 of 130 (17.7%) in the vancomycin pulse group (adjusted RR, 0.84 [95% CrI, 0.48-1.45]; posterior probability of superiority, 73.8%). Recurrence at day 38 occurred in 9 of 135 patients (6.7%) in the vancomycin pulse and taper group compared with 20 of 130 (15.4%) in the vancomycin pulse group (adjusted RR, 0.43 [95% CrI, 0.19-0.89]; posterior probability of superiority, 99.0%). Adverse effects were rare in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a 4-week vancomycin pulse and taper regimen had a probability of 73.8% to be superior to a 2-week pulse regimen. This approach may represent a safe and accessible treatment option to delay or prevent early CDI recurrence. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04138706.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsClostridium InfectionsSecondary PreventionVancomycinAgedCanadaClostridioides difficileDouble-Blind MethodDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID41758514
PMCPMC12949445

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.