Vancomycin, Metronidazole, or Tolevamer for Clostridium difficile Infection: Results From Two Multinational, Randomized, Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a common complication of antibiotic therapy that is treated with antibiotics, contributing to ongoing disruption of the colonic microbiota and CDI recurrence. Two multinational trials were conducted to compare the efficacy of tolevamer, a nonantibiotic, toxin-binding polymer, with vancomycin and metronidazole. METHODS: Patients with CDI were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to oral tolevamer 9 g (loading dose) followed by 3 g every 8 hours for 14 days, vancomycin 125 mg every 6 hours for 10 days, or metronidazole 375 mg every 6 hours for 10 days. The primary endpoint was clinical success, defined as resolution of diarrhea and absence of severe abdominal discomfort for more than 2 consecutive days including day 10. RESULTS: In a pooled analysis, 563 patients received tolevamer, 289 received metronidazole, and 266 received vancomycin. Clinical success of tolevamer was inferior to both metronidazole and vancomycin (P < .001), and metronidazole was inferior to vancomycin (P = .02; 44.2% [n = 534], 72.7% [n = 278], and 81.1% [n = 259], respectively). Clinical success in patients with severe CDI who received metronidazole was 66.3% compared with vancomycin, which was 78.5%. (P = .059). A post-hoc multivariate analysis that excluded tolevamer found 3 factors that were strongly associated with clinical success: vancomycin treatment, treatment-naive status, and mild or moderate CDI severity. Adverse events were similar among the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tolevamer was inferior to antibiotic treatment of CDI, and metronidazole was inferior to vancomycin. Trial Registration. clinicaltrials.gov NCT00106509 and NCT00196794.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".