Surotomycin versus vancomycin for<i>Clostridium difficile</i>infection: Phase 2, randomized, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority, multicentre trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a major public health concern. Treatment with commonly prescribed antibiotics is associated with high rates of recurrence after initial cure. Here, we present the efficacy and safety of surotomycin, an orally administered, minimally absorbed, selective bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide, compared with vancomycin, in patients with CDI. METHODS: In this Phase 2, randomized, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority, multicentre trial, participants received surotomycin 125 mg twice daily, surotomycin 250 mg twice daily or vancomycin 125 mg four times daily for 10 days. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical response at end of treatment. The registration number of the study on clinicaltrials.gov is NCT01085591. RESULTS: Clinical cure rates were similar among treatment groups (92.4% for surotomycin 125 mg twice daily, 86.6% for surotomycin 250 mg twice daily and 89.4% for vancomycin). Recurrence rates were 27.9% for surotomycin 125 mg twice daily, 17.2% for surotomycin 250 mg twice daily and 35.6% for vancomycin. The lower recurrence rate with surotomycin 250 mg twice daily versus vancomycin was statistically significant (P = 0.035). Recurrence rates were statistically similar between the surotomycin dose groups (P = 0.193). Rates of sustained clinical response at end of study were 66.7% for surotomycin 125 mg twice daily, 70.1% for surotomycin 250 mg twice daily and 56.1% for vancomycin. Incidence of adverse events was similar among treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence rates of CDI were lower with surotomycin with higher sustained clinical response rates compared with vancomycin, both of which may offer potential clinical benefits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".