↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of ridinilazole compared with vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, July 2017
Altmetric Badge
113

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
62 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of ridinilazole compared with vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study
Published in
Lancet Infectious Diseases, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30235-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard J Vickers, Glenn S Tillotson, Richard Nathan, Sabine Hazan, John Pullman, Christopher Lucasti, Kenneth Deck, Bruce Yacyshyn, Benedict Maliakkal, Yves Pesant, Bina Tejura, David Roblin, Dale N Gerding, Mark H Wilcox, Amit Bhan, Wayne Campbell, Teena Chopra, Kenneth Deck, Yoav Golan, Ian Gordon, Ravi Kamepalli, Sahil Khanna, Christine Lee, Christopher Lucasti, Benedict Maliakkal, Irene Minang, Kathleen Mullane, Richard Nathan, Matthew Oughton, Yves Pesant, John Phillips, John Pullman, Paul Riska, Christian Schrock, Jonathan Siegel, Alon Steinberg, David Talan, Stephen Tamang, Michael Tan, Karl Weiss, Chia Wang, Bruce Yacyshyn, Jo-Anne Young, Jonathan Zenilman

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection is the most common health-care-associated infection in the USA. We assessed the safety and efficacy of ridinilazole versus vancomycin for treatment of C difficile infection. We did a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study. Participants with signs and symptoms of C difficile infection and a positive diagnostic test result were recruited from 33 centres in the USA and Canada and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ridinilazole (200 mg every 12 h) or oral vancomycin (125 mg every 6 h) for 10 days. The primary endpoint was achievement of a sustained clinical response, defined as clinical cure at the end of treatment and no recurrence within 30 days, which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% margin) of ridinilazole versus vancomycin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population comprising all individuals with C difficile infection confirmed by the presence of free toxin in stool who were randomly assigned to receive one or more doses of the study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092935. Between June 26, 2014, and August 31, 2015, 100 patients were recruited; 50 were randomly assigned to receive ridinilazole and 50 to vancomycin. 16 patients did not complete the study, and 11 discontinued treatment early. The primary efficacy analysis included 69 patients (n=36 in the ridinilazole group; n=33 in the vancomycin group). 24 of 36 (66·7%) patients in the ridinilazole group versus 14 of 33 (42·4%) of those in the vancomycin group had a sustained clinical response (treatment difference 21·1%, 90% CI 3·1-39·1, p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of ridinilazole and also showing statistical superiority at the 10% level. Ridinilazole was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of vancomycin: 82% (41 of 50) of participants reported adverse events in the ridinilazole group and 80% (40 of 50) in the vancomycin group. There were no adverse events related to ridinilazole that led to discontinuation. Ridinilazole is a targeted-spectrum antimicrobial that shows potential in treatment of initial C difficile infection and in providing sustained benefit through reduction in disease recurrence. Further clinical development is warranted. Wellcome Trust and Summit Therapeutics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 25%
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 47%
Unspecified 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Other 12 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 113. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#110,435
of 12,066,743 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#168
of 3,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,881
of 266,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#11
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,066,743 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.