Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,585

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fidaxomicin versus Vancomycin for Clostridium difficile Infection

Open access
Louie, Thomas J., Miller, Mark A., Mullane, Kathleen M., Weiss, Karl, Lentnek, Arnold, Golan, Yoav, Gorbach, Sherwood, Sears, Pamela, Shue, Youe-Kong·2011·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection is a serious diarrheal illness associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Patients generally have a response to oral vancomycin or metronidazole; however, the rate of recurrence is high. This phase 3 clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of fidaxomicin with those of vancomycin in treating C. difficile infection. METHODS: Adults with acute symptoms of C. difficile infection and a positive result on a stool toxin test were eligible for study entry. We randomly assigned patients to receive fidaxomicin (200 mg twice daily) or vancomycin (125 mg four times daily) orally for 10 days. The primary end point was clinical cure (resolution of symptoms and no need for further therapy for C. difficile infection as of the second day after the end of the course of therapy). The secondary end points were recurrence of C. difficile infection (diarrhea and a positive result on a stool toxin test within 4 weeks after treatment) and global cure (i.e., cure with no recurrence). RESULTS: A total of 629 patients were enrolled, of whom 548 (87.1%) could be evaluated for the per-protocol analysis. The rates of clinical cure with fidaxomicin were noninferior to those with vancomycin in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis (88.2% with fidaxomicin and 85.8% with vancomycin) and the per-protocol analysis (92.1% and 89.8%, respectively). Significantly fewer patients in the fidaxomicin group than in the vancomycin group had a recurrence of the infection, in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis (15.4% vs. 25.3%, P=0.005) and the per-protocol analysis (13.3% vs. 24.0%, P=0.004). The lower rate of recurrence was seen in patients with non–North American Pulsed Field type 1 strains. The adverse-event profile was similar for the two therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of clinical cure after treatment with fidaxomicin were noninferior to those after treatment with vancomycin. Fidaxomicin was associated with a significantly lower rate of recurrence of C. difficile infection associated with non–North American Pulsed Field type 1 strains. (Funded by Optimer Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00314951.)

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa0910812

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 1,585

Metadata

Authors
Louie, T. J., Miller, M. A., Mullane, K. M., Weiss, K., Lentnek, A., Golan, Y., Gorbach, S., Sears, P., & Shue, Y.-K.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2011-02-03
Volume
364
Issue
5
Pages
422-431
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2113556993
Cited by
1,585
References
0
FWCI
96.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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 Clostridium difficile Infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0910812
The paper
Louie, T. J., Miller, M. A., Mullane, K. M., Weiss, K., Lentnek, A., Golan, Y., Gorbach, S., Sears, P., & Shue, Y.-K. (2011). Fidaxomicin versus Vancomycin for Clostridium difficile Infection. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0910812

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.