Results From a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of a RBX2660—A Microbiota-Based Drug for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite advancements, recurrent Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) remain an urgent public health threat with insufficient response rates to currently approved antibiotic therapies. Microbiota-based treatments appear effective, but rigorous clinical trials are required to optimize dosing strategies and substantiate long-term safety. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2B trial enrolled adults with 2 or more CDI recurrences to receive: 2 doses of RBX2660, a standardized microbiota-based drug (group A); 2doses of placebo (group B); or 1 dose of RBX2660 followed by 1 dose of placebo (group C). Efficacy was defined as prevention of recurrent CDI for 8 weeks following treatment. Participants who had a recurrence within 8 weeks were eligible to receive up to 2 open-label RBX2660 doses. The primary endpoint was efficacy for group A compared to group B. Secondary endpoints included the efficacy of group C compared to group B, combined efficacy in the blinded and open-label phases, and safety for 24 months. Results: The efficacy for groups A, B, and C were 61%, 45%, and 67%, respectively. The primary endpoint was not met (P = .152). One RBX2660 dose (group C) was superior to placebo (group B; P = .048), and the overall efficacy (including open-label response) for RBX2660-treated participants was 88.8%. Adverse events did not differ significantly among treatment groups. Conclusions: One, but not 2, doses of RBX2660 was superior to placebo in this randomized, placebo-controlled trial. These data provide important insights for a larger phase 3 trial and continued clinical development of RBX2660. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02299570.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".