Prospective, Open-label Trial to Evaluate Efficacy of Lyophilized Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Treatment of Recurrent C. difficile Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has shown to be effective for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI). However, significant laboratory costs for donor screening and a lack of suitable donors and laboratory facility have restricted the availability of the treatment. In order to expand access to FMT, we have investigated the efficacy of lyophilized FMT, comparing it to the published historical efficacy of frozen FMT in preventing further episodes of CDI in patients with a history of rCDI. This study was designed to be open-labeled to expedite and minimize costs associated with conducting a two-armed randomized controlled trial, given that the efficacy of frozen FMT is known to be 85%. Additionally, using lyophilized FMT offers two major advantages: 1) its prolonged shelf life reduces cost because fewer donors need to be screened; and 2) it can be transported without freezing. Methods This is an open-labeled, prospective study involving 50 patients with a history of 2 or more rCDI who have failed at least 1 course of tapered vancomycin therapy. Eligible patients received 2 lyophilized FMT via retention enema within 8 days of each treatment and were followed for 13 weeks post last FMT to determine efficacy and safety of FMT. Results The efficacy of lyophilized FMTs in preventing further episodes of CDI in patients with rCDI was 80%. The adverse events associated with lyophilized FMT were similar to frozen FMT. Conclusion Lyophilized FMT in treating rCDI showed similar efficacy and safety to frozen FMT. Lyophilized FMT appears to be promising in preventing further episode of CDI and increasing accessibility for patients with rCDI. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".