Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial To Compare the Safety and Efficacy of LFF571 and Vancomycin for Clostridium difficile Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clostridium difficile infection causes serious diarrheal disease. Although several drugs are available for treatment, including vancomycin, recurrences remain a problem. LFF571 is a semisynthetic thiopeptide with potency against C. difficile in vitro. In this phase 2 exploratory study, we compared the safety and efficacy (based on a noninferiority analysis) of LFF571 to those of vancomycin used in adults with primary episodes or first recurrences of moderate C. difficile infection. Patients were randomized to receive 200 mg of LFF571 or 125 mg of vancomycin four times daily for 10 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of clinical cures at the end of therapy in the per-protocol population. Secondary endpoints included clinical cures at the end of therapy in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, the time to diarrhea resolution, and the recurrence rate. Seventy-two patients were randomized, with 46 assigned to receive LFF571. Based on the protocol-specified definition, the rate of clinical cure for LFF571 (90.6%) was noninferior to that of vancomycin (78.3%). The 30-day sustained cure rates for LFF571 and vancomycin were 56.7% and 65.0%, respectively, in the per-protocol population and 58.7% and 60.0%, respectively, in the modified intent-to-treat population. Using toxin-confirmed cases only, the recurrence rates were lower for LFF571 (19% versus 25% for vancomycin in the per-protocol population). LFF571 was generally safe and well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was higher for LFF571 (76.1% versus 69.2% for vancomycin), although more AEs in the vancomycin group were suspected to be related to the study drug (38.5% versus 32.6% for LFF571). One patient receiving LFF571 discontinued the study due to an AE. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01232595.).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".