Surotomycin versus vancomycin in adults with Clostridium difficile infection: primary clinical outcomes from the second pivotal, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The available treatment options for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) are limited by high recurrence rates. Surotomycin was a novel bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide in development to treat CDI that demonstrated non-inferiority to vancomycin in a Phase 2 trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess surotomycin safety and clinical response (non-inferiority versus vancomycin) at the end of treatment (EOT) of CDI. Additionally, to assess surotomycin response over time and sustained response at 30-40 days post-EOT (superiority versus vancomycin). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CDI were randomized (1:1) to receive twice-daily oral surotomycin 250 mg alternating with twice-daily placebo or four-times-daily oral vancomycin 125 mg for 10 days in this Phase 3, double-blind, multicentre, international trial. Clinical response over time and sustained clinical response were monitored until the end of the trial, through a follow-up period of 30-40 days. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01598311. RESULTS: A total of 285 and 292 patients with confirmed CDI were randomized to receive surotomycin and vancomycin, respectively. Surotomycin-associated clinical response at EOT was non-inferior to vancomycin (surotomycin/vancomycin: 83.4%/82.1%; difference 1.4%, 95% CI - 4.9, 7.6). Following treatment with surotomycin, both clinical response over time (stratified log-rank test, P = 0.277) and sustained clinical response (63.3%/59.0%; difference 4.3%, 95% CI - 3.6, 12.2) did not demonstrate superiority versus vancomycin at end of trial. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Surotomycin demonstrated non-inferiority to vancomycin for CDI clinical response at EOT. Surotomycin did not demonstrate superiority to vancomycin for clinical response over time or sustained clinical response rate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".