The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND Infection with Clostridium difficile is the primary infective cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. We aimed to compare efficacy and safety of fidaxomicin and vancomycin to treat patients with C difficile infection in Europe, Canada, and the USA. METHODS In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled patients from 45 sites in Europe and 41 sites in the USA and Canada between April 19, 2007, and Dec 11, 2009. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older with acute, toxin-positive C difficile infection. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive oral fidaxomicin (200 mg every 12 h) or oral vancomycin (125 mg every 6 h) for 10 days. The primary endpoint was clinical cure, defined as resolution of diarrhoea and no further need for treatment. An interactive voice-response system and computer-generated randomisation schedule gave a randomisation number and medication kit number for each patient. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority was prespecified with a margin of 10%. Modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations were analysed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00468728. FINDINGS Of 535 patients enrolled, 270 were assigned fidaxomicin and 265 vancomycin. After 26 patients were excluded, 509 were included in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. 198 (91·7%) of 216 patients in the per-protocol population given fidaxomicin achieved clinical cure, compared with 213 (90·6%) of 235 given vancomycin, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (one-sided 97·5% CI -4·3%). Non-inferiority was also shown for clinical cure in the mITT population, with 221 (87·7%) of 252 patients given fidaxomicin and 223 (86·8%) of 257 given vancomycin cured (one-sided 97·5% CI -4·9%). In most subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint in the mITT population, outcomes in the two treatment groups did not differ significantly; although patients receiving concomitant antibiotics for other infections had a higher cure rate with fidaxomicin (46 [90·2%] of 51) than with vancomycin (33 [73·3%] of 45; p=0·031). Occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events did not differ between groups. 20 (7·6%) of 264 patients given at least one dose of fidaxomicin and 17 (6·5%) of 260 given vancomycin died. INTERPRETATION Fidaxomicin could be an alternative treatment for infection with C difficile, with similar efficacy and safety to vancomycin. FUNDING Optimer Pharmaceuticals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Antimicrobial‐Associated Risk Factors for Clostridium difficile Infection
Owens, Jr., Donskey, C. J., Gaynes, R. P., Loo, V. G., & Muto, C. A. (2008) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/521859 · Cited by 603
Cited by
McDonald, L. C., Gerding, D. N., Johnson, S., Bakken, J. S., Carroll, K. C., Coffin, S. E., Dubberke, E. R., Garey, K. W., Gould, C. V., Kelly, C., et al. (2018) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cix1085 · Cited by 2,690
Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections
Surawicz, C. M., Brandt, L. J., Binion, D. G., Ananthakrishnan, A. N., Curry, S. R., Gilligan, P. H., McFarland, L. V., Mellow, M., & Zuckerbraun, B. S. (2013) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.4 · Cited by 1,645
Clostridium difficile Infection
Leffler, D. A., & Lamont, J. T. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1403772 · Cited by 1,450
Clostridium difficile infection
Smits, W. K., Lyras, D., Lacy, D. B., Wilcox, M. H., & Kuijper, E. J. (2016) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.20 · Cited by 853
van Prehn, J., Reigadas, E., Vogelzang, E. H., Bouza, E., Hristea, A., Guery, B., Krutova, M., Norén, T., Allerberger, F., Coia, J. E., et al. (2021) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.09.038 · Cited by 640
Metadata
- Authors
- Cornely, O. A., Crook, D. W., Esposito, R., Poirier, A., Somero, M. S., Weiss, K., Sears, P., & Gorbach, S.
- Venue
- The Lancet Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 281-289
- ISSN
- 1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165050668
- Cited by
- 761
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 49.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70374-7
- The paper
- Cornely, O. A., Crook, D. W., Esposito, R., Poirier, A., Somero, M. S., Weiss, K., Sears, P., & Gorbach, S. (2012). Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70374-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.