ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00304889Updated Jun 3, 2015

Vancomycin vs. Nitazoxanide to Treat Recurrent C. Difficile Colitis

An observational study in Clostridium Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous Colitis and Antibiotic-Associated Colitis, sponsored by Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-06-03.

Sponsored by Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
52
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of treatment with nitazoxanide vs. vancomycin for diarrheal disease due to Clostridium difficile in patients who have failed previous treatment with metronidazole.

Read the detailed description

Clostridium difficile is the leading cause of nosocomial diarrheal disease associated with antibiotic therapy. This is a debilitating condition with substantial morbidity and a mortality that used to be said to be around 2-3%, but that has recently been shown by us (Clin Infect. Dis, July, 2005) and others (Pepin et al, Clin. Infect. Dis., July, 2005) to be substantially higher -- approximately 15-20%. There has been an enormous increase in this disease at the VA medical center during the past two years, just as has occurred at other hospitals throughout the United States and the developed world.

Although orally administered vancomycin was the first drug to be approved in treating C. difficile colitis, and remains the only one with the official approval by the Food and Drug Administration, the currently recommended therapy for this condition is metronidazole, given orally. This drug was recommended because: (1) the cost of vancomycin was exceedingly high; (2) there was concern that vancomycin-resistant bacteria might appear in hospitals if the drug was used to treat large number of patients; and (3) these recommendations were made at a time that the cure rate from metronidazole was thought to approach 100%.

We have recently shown that 23% of patients fail to respond to initial therapy with metronidazole, and another 27% relapse after treatment (Musher et al, Clin Infect Dis, July, 2005). Others have confirmed these observations (Pepin et al, Clin Infect Dis, July 2005). The options for treating failure or relapse are limited. Another course of metronidazole may cure about one-half of patients. Oral vancomycin may be used, but this drug also has a failure rate of 10-20% and the concerns about its use remain.

Based on this background, we became interested in studying nitazoxanide. This is an FDA approved drug, marketed in the United States and widely used throughout the world to treat parasitic diseases of the gastrointestinal tract; several million children have been treated with this drug during the past decade. The drug acts by interfering with anaerobic metabolic pathways, and it has been shown to have excellent in vitro activity against C. difficile. We hypothesized that this drug was both safe and effective as an alternative in patients who have diarrheal disease caused by C. difficile. The IRB approved a double-blind protocol to compare metronidazole with nitazoxanide, and we have completed that trial.

The results of this study were very favorable. A 10-day course of oral nitazoxanide produced a cure of symptoms at 7 days of about 90% and a cure without relapse at 31 days of about 79% compared to 84% and 56%, respectively, for metronidazole. Because of the small numbers of subjects, these differences were not statistically significant, but the results certainly appeared promising. A manuscript has just been submitted to Clin Infect Dis describing this study.

We now propose to compare nitazoxanide to vancomycin in the group of patients most in need of alternative therapy, namely those who have been treated with metronidazole and have failed or have had a recurrence of disease after an initial response.

02

Conditions studied

  • Clostridium Enterocolitis
  • Pseudomembranous Colitis
  • Antibiotic-Associated Colitis

Keywords

  • Clostridium difficile
03

In context

Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous

43 studies on the registry are indexed under Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous; 5 are open to participants now.

Browse Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous studies →

Lead sponsor

Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 27 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Patients treated for C. difficile.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients >18 years of age
  • clinical diagnosis of C. difficile associated disease, based on the new onset of diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, or otherwise unexplained fever or leukocytosis
  • diagnosis of C. difficile colitis proven by positive assay for C. difficile toxin in feces
  • disease has been treated, and the symptoms failed to respond to treatment with metronidazole, or symptoms recurred after the patient has completed a course of metronidazole therapy
  • able to take oral medication

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • patients with other recognized causes of diarrhea or colitis
  • women of child bearing age who are pregnant, breast feeding, or not using
  • patients of known causes of diarrhea, such as inflammatory bowel disease
  • patients in whom diarrhea can not be evaluated, such as those with colostomy
  • patients with renal insufficiency (BUN or creatinine >3.0 times baseline)
  • patients who are medically unstable, for example in an ICU and on medications to maintain blood pressure
  • patients who are regarded as unlikely to survive for 3 months
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Contraception

Ways of preventing pregnancy. “Highly effective” methods fail less than 1% of the time a year when used correctly — for example an IUD or an implant.

Criteria usually say which methods count and how long to keep using them after the last dose, sometimes for male participants too. Some studies accept a partner’s vasectomy if it was confirmed successful and that person is the participant’s only sexual partner.

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
52 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Days to symptom resolution

    Number of day to resolution to three formed or loose stools per day

    Time frame: observation

Secondary outcomes

  1. side effects

    number of side effects from medication

    Time frame: observational

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center
    Houston, Texas 77030, United States
08

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Jan 2006, a primary completion of Jan 2008 and a completion of Jan 2008. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Mar 16, 2006
First posted
Mar 20, 2006
Start
Jan 2006
Primary completionActual
Jan 2008
CompletionActual
Jan 2008
Last update
Jun 3, 2015
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 3, 2015, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00304889
Lead sponsor
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
Responsible party
Daniel M. Musher MD (Principle Investigator, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 20, 2006
Start date
Jan 2006
Primary completion
Jan 2008
Completion
Jan 2008
Last update
Jun 3, 2015

Study contacts

Daniel M Musher, M.D.
principal investigator · Houston VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2013. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion