Enteric microbiome profiles during a randomized Phase 2 clinical trial of surotomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The effects of surotomycin (CB-183,315, MK-4261), a bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide, and vancomycin, the current standard-of-care for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), on intestinal pathogens and microbiota were evaluated parallel to a Phase 2 randomized, double-blind clinical trial. METHODS: The single-centre cohort included 26 patients receiving surotomycin [125 or 250 mg twice daily (n = 9 each)] or oral vancomycin [125 mg four times daily (n = 8)] for 10 days. Faecal samples were collected at days 0-42 to quantify both C. difficile by conventional culture and the major components of the microbiome by quantitative PCR. RESULTS: Surotomycin 250 mg twice daily or vancomycin 125 mg four times daily reduced faecal C. difficile counts from ∼105-107 log10 cfu/g at baseline to ≤ 102 cfu/g by days 4-10 of treatment. Day 10 counts of C. difficile in 3/9 patients receiving surotomycin 125 mg twice daily remained detectable, including one patient who failed to achieve clinical cure. Bacteroidetes and Prevotella mean counts increased 0.7 log10 or remained unchanged with surotomycin 125 and 250 mg twice daily, respectively, whereas vancomycin reduced counts by 2.5-3.2 log10 (P < 0.02). Vancomycin reduced Firmicutes counts by 2.5-2.8 log10; surotomycin moderately suppressed these microbes in a dose-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS: In this Phase 2 trial substudy, compared with vancomycin 125 mg four times daily, surotomycin 250 mg twice daily is as active in vivo against C. difficile, but was more sparing of microbiota. Surotomycin is no longer in development due to failed Phase 3 efficacy results.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".