Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 7, 2026

A Protocol to Characterize the Morphological Changes of Clostridium difficile in Response to Antibiotic Treatment
Published on: May 25, 2017
Comparative efficacy of treatments for Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Tumas Beinortas1, Nicholas E Burr2, Mark H Wilcox3
1Department of Gastroenterology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Background:
Several new treatments for Clostridium difficile infections have been investigated. We aimed to compare and rank treatments for non-multiply recurrent infections with C difficile in adults.
Methods:
We did a random effects network meta-analysis within a frequentist setting to obtain direct and indirect comparisons of trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for published and unpublished trials from the creation of these databases until June 30, 2017. We included randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-multiply recurrent infections with confirmed C difficile in adults (at least 18 years) that reported both primary cure and recurrence rates, and we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to appraise trial methods. For our analysis, we extracted the total numbers of patients with primary cure and recurrence from published and unpublished reports. The primary outcome was sustained symptomatic cure, defined as the number of patients with resolution of diarrhoea minus the number with recurrence or death.
Findings:
Of 23 004 studies screened, 24 trials, which comprised 5361 patients and 13 different treatments, were included in the analysis. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate to low. For sustained symptomatic cure, fidaxomicin (odds ratio 0·67, 95% CI 0·55-0·82) and teicoplanin (0·37, 0·14-0·94) were significantly better than vancomycin. Teicoplanin (0·27, 0·10-0·70), ridinilazole (0·41, 0·19-0·88), fidaxomicin (0·49, 0·35-0·68), surotomycin (0·66, 0·45-0·97), and vancomycin (0·73, 0·56-0·95) were better than metronidazole. Bacitracin was inferior to teicoplanin (0·22, 0·06-0·77) and fidaxomicin (0·40, 0·17-0·94), and tolevamer was inferior to all drugs except for LFF571 (0·50, 0·18-1·39) and bacitracin (0·67, 0·28-1·58). Global heterogeneity of the entire network was low (Cochran's Q=15·70; p=0·47).
Interpretation:
Among the treatments for non-multiply recurrent infections by C difficile, the highest quality evidence indicates that fidaxomicin provides a sustained symptomatic cure most frequently. Fidaxomicin is a better treatment option than vancomycin for all patients except those with severe infections with C difficile and could be considered as a first-line therapy. Metronidazole should not be recommended for treatment of C difficile.
Funding:
None.
More Related Videos
09:12A Protein Microarray Assay for Serological Determination of Antigen-specific Antibody Responses Following Clostridium difficile Infection
Published on: June 15, 2018
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Review and Preview
Protein Networks
These interactions can be represented through maps depicting protein-protein interaction networks, represented as nodes and edges. Nodes are circles that are representative of a protein,...
Self-Efficacy
Random and Systematic Errors