Efficacy of Fidaxomicin Versus Vancomycin as Therapy for Clostridium difficile Infection in Individuals Taking Concomitant Antibiotics for Other Concurrent Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines recommend stopping all implicated antibiotics at the onset of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), but many individuals have persistent or new infections necessitating the use of concomitant antibiotics (CAs). We used data from 2 phase 3 trials to study effects of CAs on response to fidaxomicin or vancomycin. METHODS: Subjects with CDI were treated for 10 days with fidaxomicin 200 mg every 12 hours or vancomycin 125 mg every 6 hours, assessed for resolution of symptoms, and followed up for an additional 4 weeks for evidence of recurrence. Rates of cure, recurrence, and global cure (cure without recurrence) were determined for subgroups of subjects defined by CA use and treatment group. RESULTS: CAs were prescribed for 27.5% of subjects during study participation. The use of CAs concurrent with CDI treatment was associated with a lower cure rate (84.4% vs 92.6%; P < .001) and an extended time to resolution of diarrhea (97 vs 54 hours; P < .001). CA use during the follow-up was associated with more recurrences (24.8% vs 17.7%; not significant), and CA administration at any time was associated with a lower global cure rate (65.8% vs 74.7%; P = .005). When subjects received CAs concurrent with CDI treatment, the cure rate was 90.0% for fidaxomicin and 79.4% for vancomycin (P = .04). In subjects receiving CAs during treatment and/or follow-up, treatment with fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin was associated with 12.3% fewer recurrences (16.9% vs 29.2%; P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CAs compromised initial response to CDI therapy and durability of response. Fidaxomicin was significantly more effective than vancomycin in achieving clinical cure in the presence of CA therapy and in preventing recurrence regardless of CA use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".