RBX2660 is Safe, Superior to Antibiotic-Treated Controls for Preventing Recurrent Clostridium difficile, and May Rehabilitate Patient Microbiomes: Open Label Trial Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective treatment options for recurrent C. difficile infection (rCDI) are limited, with high recurrence rates associated with the current standard of care. RBX2660, a standardized microbiota-based drug, was efficacious for preventing rCDI in a double-blinded Phase 2 clinical trial. Herein we report results from a subsequent open-label trial to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and microbiome altering-activity of RBX2660 for preventing rCDI. This prospective, multicenter, open-label Phase 2 study enrolled subjects who had experienced either ≥2 recurrences of CDI following standard-of-care antibiotic therapy or ≥2 episodes of severe CDI requiring hospitalization. Participants received up to 2 doses of RBX2660 delivered via enema with doses 7 days apart. Efficacy was defined as absence of CDI at 8 weeks from the last dose and was compared with the 8-week CDI-free rate of subjects who received antibiotic treatment alone in a matched historical control arm. 16s rRNA analysis was conducted on stool samples that were voluntarily submitted from RBX2660-treated subjects at baseline, 7, 30, and 60 days after treatment, and operational taxonomic units were compared longitudinally. 132 RBX2660 and 110 historical control subjects were included from 31 and 4 centers, respectively, in the USA and Canada. RBX2660’s efficacy in preventing rCDI (78.8%) was higher than CDI-free rates in the Historical Control group (51.8%, P < 0.001). A total of 476 adverse events (AEs) were reported by 97 RBX2660 subjects (73.5%) compared with 691 AEs among 69 historical controls (62.7%). Following treatment, the diversity of the RBX2660 treated subjects’ microbiomes significantly increased and the relative proportion of Bacteroidia and Clostridia, while decreasing the relative proportion of Gammaproteobacteria. The resulting RBX2660-treated subject microbiota more closely resembled healthy donors than at study entry. This open-label Phase 2 study demonstrates RBX2660’s efficacy in preventing rCDI compared with an antibiotic-treated historical control group. The RBX2660 safety profile is consistent with results from previous clinical trials and microbiota analysis suggests that RBX2660 may rehabilitate patient microbiota. This analysis was funded by Rebiotix Inc., Roseville, MN. R. Orenstein, Rebiotix, Inc: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee; E. R. Dubberke, Rebiotix, Inc.: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee; S. Khanna, Rebiotix, Inc.: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee; G. Hecht, Rebiotix, Inc.: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee; H. Dupont, Rebiotix, Inc.: Investigator, Research support; C. Lee, Rebiotix, Inc.: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee; K. Blount, Rebiotix, Inc.: Employee, Salary; S. Carter, Rebiotix, Inc.: Research Contractor, Consulting fee
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".