• Valentin Brodszky, László Gulácsi, Endre Ludwig, Gyula Prinz, János Banai, Péter Reményi, Bálint Strbák, Adrienne Kertész, Irén Kopcsóné Németh, Edit Zsoldiné Urbán, Petra Baji, and Márta Péntek.
• Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem Egészség-gazdaságtani és Egészségügyi Technológiaelemzési Kutatóközpont, Budapest, Fővám tér 8. 1093. valentin.brodszky@uni-corvinus.hu
• Orv Hetil. 2013 Jun 9;154(23):890-9.

IntroductionClostridium difficile is the leading cause of antibiotic associated infectious nosocomial diarrhoea. Limited number of new pharmaceutical products have been developed and registered in the past decades for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. The available scientific evidence is limited and hardly comparable.AimTo analyse the clinical efficacy and safety of metronidazole, vancomycin and fidaxomicin in the therapy of Clostridium difficile infection.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of the literature data.ResultsMeta-analysis of literature data showed no significant difference between these antibiotics in clinical cure endpoint (odss ratios: fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin 1.19; vancomycin vs. metronidazol 1.69 and fidaxomicin vs. metronidazol 2.00). However, fidaxomicin therapy was significantly more effective than vancomicin and metronidazol in endpoints of recurrence and global cure (odds ratios: fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin 0.47; vancomycin vs. metronidazol 0.91 és fidaxomicin vs. metronidazol 0.43). There was no significant difference between fidaxomicin, vancomycin and metronidazole in safety endpoints.ConclusionsEach antibiotic similarly improved clinical cure. Fidaxomicin was the most effective therapeutic alternative in lowering the rate of recurrent Clostridium difficile infections.

24 keywords...

hide…