4.7 Article

Treatment of First Recurrence of Clostridium difficile Infection: Fidaxomicin Versus Vancomycin

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 S154-S161

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis462

关键词

-

资金

  1. Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  2. National Health Service National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Actelion
  4. Astellas
  5. Basilea
  6. Bayer
  7. Biocryst
  8. Celgene
  9. F2G
  10. Genzyme
  11. Gilead
  12. Merck/Schering
  13. Miltenyi
  14. Pfizer
  15. Quintiles
  16. ViroPharma
  17. Optimer Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) occurs in approximately 25% of successfully treated patients. Two phase 3 randomized, double-blind trials were conducted at 154 sites in the United States, Canada, and Europe to compare fidaxomicin vs vancomycin in treating CDI. Patients with CDI received fidaxomicin 200 mg twice daily or vancomycin 125 mg 4 times daily for 10 days. The primary end point was clinical cure of CDI at end of treatment, and a secondary end point was recurrence during the 28 days following clinical cure. In all, 1164 subjects were enrolled, of which a subgroup of 128 in the per-protocol population had another recent episode of CDI prior to the CDI diagnosis at study enrollment. In the analysis of this subgroup, initial response to therapy was similar for both drugs (>90% cure). However, recurrence within 28 days occurred in 35.5% of patients treated with vancomycin and 19.7% of patients treated with fidaxomicin (-15.8% difference; 95% confidence interval, -30.4% to -0.3%; P=.045). Early recurrence (within 14 days) was reported in 27% of patients treated with vancomycin and 8% of patients treated with fidaxomicin (P=.003). In patients with a first recurrence of CDI, fidaxomicin was similar to vancomycin in achieving a clinical response at end of therapy but superior in preventing a second recurrence within 28 days.

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