CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 390Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchGut microbiota and healthGastrointestinal motility and disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Is Superior to Fidaxomicin for Treatment of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection

Open access
Hvas, Christian Lodberg, Dahl Jørgensen, Simon Mark, Jørgensen, Søren Peter, Storgaard, Merete, Lemming, Lars, Hansen, Mette Mejlby, Erikstrup, Christian, Dahlerup, Jens Frederik·2019·Gastroenterology
DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.019
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is recommended for treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI). We performed a single-center randomized trial to compare the effects of FMT with those of fidaxomicin and vancomycin. METHODS: We studied consecutive adults with rCDI seen at a gastroenterology clinic in Denmark from April 5, 2016 through June 10, 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to a group that received FMT, applied by colonoscopy or nasojejunal tube, after 4-10 days of vancomycin (125 mg 4 times daily; FMTv; n = 24), 10 days of fidaxomicin (200 mg twice daily; n = 24), or 10 days of vancomycin (125 mg 4 times daily; n = 16). Patients who had rCDI after this course of treatment and patients who could not be randomly assigned to groups were offered rescue FMTv. The primary outcome was combined clinical resolution and a negative result from a polymerase chain reaction test for Clostridium difficile (CD) toxin 8 weeks after the allocated treatment. Secondary end points included clinical resolution at week 8. RESULTS: All 64 patients received their assigned treatment. The combination of clinical resolution and negative results from the test for CD were observed in 17 patients given FMTv (71%), 8 patients given fidaxomicin (33%), and 3 patients given vancomycin (19%; P = .009 for FMTv vs fidaxomicin; P = .001 for FMTv vs vancomycin; P = .31 for fidaxomicin vs vancomycin). Clinical resolution was observed in 22 patients given FMTv (92%), 10 patients given fidaxomicin (42%), and 3 patients given vancomycin (19%; P = .0002; P < .0001; P = .13). Results did not differ significantly between patients who received FMTv as their initial therapy and patients who received rescue FMTv. There was 1 serious adverse event that might have been related to FMTv. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients with rCDI, we found the FMTv combination superior to fidaxomicin or vancomycin based on end points of clinical and microbiological resolution or clinical resolution alone. ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02743234; EudraCT, j.no 2015-003004-24.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.019

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2011, Detailed guidance on the collection, verification and presentation of adverse event/reaction reports arising from clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (‘CT-3’). CELEX number 52011XC0611(01), Official Journal of the European Union

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 388

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hvas, C. L., Dahl Jørgensen, S. M., Jørgensen, S. P., Storgaard, M., Lemming, L., Hansen, M. M., Erikstrup, C., & Dahlerup, J. F.
Affiliations
Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Hvas, Christian Lodberg
ORCID
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
156
Issue
5
Pages
1324-1332.e3
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.019
OpenAlex
W2907954911
Cited by
390
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 33
FWCI
36.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Aalborg Universitet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
Keywords
fecal microbiota transplantation, recurrent Clostridium difficile infection, fidaxomicin, vancomycin, clinical resolution, treatment comparison, adverse events, Clostridium difficile infection
MeSH terms
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation, Fidaxomicin, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Clostridium Infections, Denmark, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Remission Induction, Time Factors, Vancomycin, Clostridioides difficile, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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