4.7 Article

Fidaxomicin Versus Vancomycin for Clostridium difficile Infection: Meta-analysis of Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 S93-S103

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis499

关键词

-

资金

  1. Optimer
  2. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  3. German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) [01KN1106]
  4. Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  5. Optimer Pharmaceuticals
  6. Actelion
  7. Astellas
  8. Basilea
  9. Bayer
  10. Biocryst
  11. Celgene
  12. F2G
  13. Genzyme
  14. Gilead
  15. Merck/Schering
  16. Miltenyi
  17. Pfizer
  18. Quintiles
  19. ViroPharma
  20. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2009-13-009] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two recently completed phase 3 trials (003 and 004) showed fidaxomicin to be noninferior to vancomycin for curing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and superior for reducing CDI recurrences. In both studies, adults with active CDI were randomized to receive blinded fidaxomicin 200 mg twice daily or vancomycin 125 mg 4 times a day for 10 days. Post hoc exploratory intent-to-treat (ITT) time-to-event analyses were undertaken on the combined study 003 and 004 data, using fixed-effects meta-analysis and Cox regression models. ITT analysis of the combined 003/004 data for 1164 patients showed that fidaxomicin reduced persistent diarrhea, recurrence, or death by 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 26%-51%; P < .0001) compared with vancomycin through day 40. A 37% (95% CI, 2%-60%; P = .037) reduction in persistent diarrhea or death was evident through day 12 (heterogeneity P = .50 vs 13-40 days), driven by 7 (1.2%) fidaxomicin versus 17 (2.9%) vancomycin deaths at <12 days. Low albumin level, low eosinophil count, and CDI treatment preenrollment were risk factors for persistent diarrhea or death at 12 days, and CDI in the previous 3 months was a risk factor for recurrence (all P < .01). Fidaxomicin has the potential to substantially improve outcomes from CDI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据