730. A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Ridinilazole Compared with Vancomycin for the Treatment of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Infection
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Vancomycin (VAN) therapy for C. difficile infection (CDI) is effective with &gt; 80% clinical response (CR) but is associated with 20–30% recurrence rate (rCDI). Secondary bile acids (2° BAs) inhibit C. difficile germination and help prevent rCDI. VAN depletes the gut microbiome decreasing the conversion of primary bile acids to 2° BAs. Ridinilazole (RDZ) is a highly selective anti-CDI, DNA-binding antibiotic in development for the treatment of CDI and prevention of rCDI. Methods A global, double-blinded, randomized Phase 3 trial assessed a 10-day treatment with RDZ 200 mg BID vs VAN 125 mg QID for CDI. The primary endpoint was sustained clinical response (SCR) defined as CR and no rCDI through 30 days post-end of treatment (EOT). Other endpoints included rCDI, microbiome diversity and composition, and microbiome-derived 2° BAs concentration. rCDI was defined as a new episode of diarrhea with confirmed positive free toxin test (FTT), requiring additional CDI therapy. All participants were monitored for treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE). Results Of the 759 patients (pts) enrolled, 745 were included in the mITT population (RDZ n=370, VAN n=375). RDZ achieved a numerically higher SCR rate than VAN (73.0% vs 70.7%) p=0.4672. RDZ resulted in a significant reduction in rCDI rate (8.1% vs 17.3%, p=0.0002) (Fig 1). In a pre-specified subpopulation, this was most notable in pts not receiving other antibiotics (rCDI 6.7% in RDZ vs 16.5% in VAN, p=0.0005). Microbiome alpha diversity was higher for RDZ vs VAN at EOT and EOT+30d (p&lt; 0.0001 and p≤ 0.0007 respectively, Fig 2) as were relative abundance (p&lt; 0.0001 and p=0.0203 respectively), and concentrations of 2° BAs (Fig 3). Higher microbiome diversity and concentrations of 2° BAs at EOT were associated with both lower rCDI and higher SCR rates. RDZ was well tolerated (pts with ≥ 1 TEAE: RDZ 36.4% vs VAN 35.5%, treatment discontinuation due to TEAE: RDZ 0.8% vs. VAN 2.9%). Conclusion RDZ was effective for sustained clinical response and safe for the treatment of patients with CDI. This was most notable in pts not receiving antibiotics. Compared to VAN, RDZ patients had faster recovery of fecal 2° BA, consistent with the preservation of microbiome diversity, resulting in a significantly lower rate of rCDI. Disclosures Pablo C. Okhuysen, MD, AstraZeneca: Stocks/Bonds|Beam Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds|Biontech: Stocks/Bonds|Deinove: Grant/Research Support|Ferring: Advisor/Consultant|Glaxo Smith Kleine: Stocks/Bonds|Johnson and Johnson: Stocks/Bonds|Melinta: Grant/Research Support|Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Grant/Research Support|Moderna: Stocks/Bonds|Napo Pharmaceuticals: Advisor/Consultant|Napo Pharmaceuticals: Grant/Research Support|Novavax: Stocks/Bonds|Pfizer: Stocks/Bonds|Summit: Advisor/Consultant|Summit: Grant/Research Support Kevin W. Garey, PharmD, MS, Acurx: Grant/Research Support|cidara: Advisor/Consultant|cidara: Grant/Research Support|Paratek: Grant/Research Support|Seres Health: Grant/Research Support|Summit: Grant/Research Support Thomas J. Louie, MD, adiso therapeutics: Advisor/Consultant|adiso therapeutics: Grant/Research Support|crestone: Advisor/Consultant|crestone: Grant/Research Support|Finch: Advisor/Consultant|Finch: Grant/Research Support|Seres Therapeutics: Advisor/Consultant|Seres Therapeutics: Grant/Research Support|Seres Therapeutics: Honoraria|summit plc: Grant/Research Support|vedanta biosciences: Advisor/Consultant|vedanta biosciences: Grant/Research Support Jianling LI, MS, Abbott: Stocks/Bonds|Abbvie: Stocks/Bonds|ALX Oncology: Stocks/Bonds|BioNTech: Stocks/Bonds|Bluebird Bio: Stocks/Bonds|Cytokinetics: Stocks/Bonds|I-Mab: Stocks/Bonds|Johnson & Johnson: Stocks/Bonds|Moderna: Stocks/Bonds|TG Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds Esther Duperchy, PhD, Summit Plc: Employee Jose G. Montoya, MD, Summit: Honoraria|Summit: Stocks/Bonds Lori Styles, MD, Abbvie: Stocks/Bonds|Summit Therapeutics: employee|Summit Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds Fong Clow, Sc. D, Summit Therapeutics: Employee Danelle James, MD, Summit Therapeutics: Employee.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».