MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S157 24-Month Sustained Clinical Response and Safety of RBX2660 in Participants With Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: Subgroup Analysis

2022· article· en· W4316081203 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Orenstein, Christine Lee, Gail Hecht, Glenn Tillotson, Adam Harvey, Samson Ng, Masakazu Ando, Kerry L. LaPlante, Erik R. Dubberke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClostridioidesDiarrheaInternal medicinePopulationPost-hoc analysisSubgroup analysisAntibioticsClostridium difficilePediatricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Clostridioides difficile is an opportunistic pathogen that causes an estimated 500,000 infections per year in the United States. Microbiota-based treatments have shown promise in reducing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI), but long-term efficacy and safety data have been reported infrequently. Here, we present a subgroup analysis on the long-term efficacy and safety of RBX2660, a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic, in participants with rCDI in PUNCH CD Open-Label (NCT02589847), a prospective, multicenter, open-label phase 2 trial. Methods: PUNCH CD Open-Label participants enrolled between October 1, 2015, and March 6, 2017, were ≥18 years old with either ≥2 episodes of rCDI treated by standard-of-care antibiotic therapy after a primary CDI episode, or ≥2 episodes of severe CDI requiring hospitalization. All participants had a positive stool test for C. difficile or toxins within 60 days prior to enrollment and were on antibiotics to treat CDI at the time of enrollment. Participants received up to 2 doses of RBX2660 rectally administered 7 ± 2 days apart. Treatment success was defined as the absence of CDI diarrhea without the need for CDI retreatment for 8 weeks after completing study treatment. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we report the 6-, 12-, and 24-month outcomes of 8-week responders by age, sex, race, and number of prior CDI episodes. Results: Among the 142 participants treated with RBX2660 (evaluable population), 92% were white, 62% were female, 59% were ≥65 years of age, and 49% had >3 prior episodes of CDI. Sustained treatment response through 6-, 12-, and 24-months after treatment, respectively, was achieved by 98.0%, 97.9%, and 93.5% of participants < 65 years of age and by 96.8%, 93.1%, and 88.0% of participants ≥65 years of age (Figure). Similar sustained response rates were demonstrated in participants categorized by sex, race, and number of prior CDI episodes. As shown in Table, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by a similar percentage of participants across demographic subgroups between 6-12 months (range: 31% to 43%) and 12-24 months (range: 23% to 37%) after treatment with RBX2660, with most being gastrointestinal and mild to moderate in severity. Conclusion: Across demographic subgroups, the majority of RBX2660 responders showed a sustained clinical response, remaining free of CDI recurrence up to 24 months after treatment. Long-term safety data reinforce that RBX2660 is well-tolerated.Figure 1.: Sustained Clinical Response Across Demographic Subgroups Through 24 Months After RBX2660 Treatment Table 1. - Summary of Adverse Events Across Demographic Subgroups Through 24 Months After RBX2660 Treatment Adverse Events/Participants (%) Age Sex Race Number of Prior CDI Episodes < 65 Years ≥ 65 Years Female Male White Non-White ≤3 >3 Onset Interval N = 62 N = 87 N = 95 N = 54 N = 136 N = 13 N = 74 N =75 6-12 months 46/23 (37) 95/36 (41) 81/37 (39) 60/22 (41) 130/55 (40) 11/4 (31) 48/27 (36) 93/32 (43) 12-24 months 59/15 (24) 88/30 (34) 77/27 (28) 70/18 (33) 127/41 (30) 20/4 (31) 60/17 (23) 87/28 (37) Severity Mild 119/19 (30.6) 236/12 (13.8) 288/21 (22.1) 147/10 (18.5) 395/30 (22.1) 40/1 (7.7) 217/17 (23.0) 218/14 (18.7) Moderate 87/22 (35.5) 155/27 (31.0) 134/41 (43.2) 108/8 (14.8) 215/43 (31.6) 27/6 (46.2) 113/21 (28.4) 129/28 (37.3) Severe 36/9 (14.5) 92/34 (39.1) 50/19 (20.0) 78/24 (44.4) 110/40 (29.4) 18/3 (23.1) 59/19 (25.7) 69/24 (32.0)

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→