MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of SER-109, an investigational microbiome therapeutic for recurrent <i>clostridioides difficile</i> infection: Data from ECOSPOR III, a phase 3 randomized trial.

2022· article· en· W4286293745 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alla Paskovaty, Charles S. Berenson, Thomas Louie, Elaine Wang, David A. Lombardi, Lisa Von Moltke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
FundersSeres Therapeutics
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineClinical endpointClostridium difficilePopulationRandomized controlled trialSurgeryAntibioticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12113 Background: Patients with malignancies are at increased risk for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) due to their immunosuppressed state and frequent exposure to antibiotics and chemotherapy. These factors disrupt the gut microbiome creating an environment conducive to C. difficile colonization. Patients with cancer have higher rates of rCDI and worse outcomes than those without malignancy. SER-109, an investigational microbiome therapeutic, was superior to placebo in reducing rCDI at 8 weeks compared with placebo (12% vs 40%, respectively) in ECOSPOR III, a Phase 3 randomized, double-blind trial of subjects with a history of rCDI [NEJM 2022; 386:220-9]. Here, we report secondary endpoints of rCDI rates at 4, 12 and 24 weeks. Methods: Adults with rCDI (≥3 episodes in 12 months) were screened at 56 US/Canadian sites. After standard-of-care antibiotics (vancomycin or fidaxomicin per investigator discretion), subjects were randomized 1:1 to SER-109 (4 capsules x 3 days) or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was rCDI (recurrent toxin + diarrhea requiring treatment) at 8 weeks; secondary endpoints included rCDI at 4, 12 and 24 weeks. Safety was evaluated through week 24. Results: 281 subjects were screened and 182 (intention-to-treat population; ITT) were randomized (59.9% female; mean age 65.5 years). The most common comorbidities were respiratory disease (36.3%) and cardiovascular disease (32.4%). A total of 28.6% and 18.1% had a history of immunocompromise and malignancy, respectively. Significantly fewer SER-109 vs. placebo treated subjects had rCDI posttreatment compared with placebo recipients at Weeks 4, 8, 12 and 24 (Table). The absolute risk reduction between placebo and SER-109 arms ranged from 22.1% to 28.3% across the 4 timepoints. The safety profile of SER-109 through week 24 was comparable to placebo. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate gastrointestinal occurrences. More placebo-treated vs SER-109-treated subjects experienced serious AEs through week 8, while comparable proportions of subjects in both arms reported serious AEs from 8 through 24 weeks. Conclusions: In this population of subjects with comorbidities, including malignancy and immunosuppression, SER-109 significantly reduced rCDI rates through week 24 with an observed safety profile comparable to placebo. Clinical trial information: NCT03183128. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→