MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S133 An Open-Label Study (ECOSPOR IV) to Evaluate the Safety, Efficacy and Durability of SER-109, an Investigational Oral Microbiome Therapeutic, in Adults With Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection (rCDI)

2022· article· en· W4316084375 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sahil Khanna, Paul Feuerstadt, Edward S. Huang, Caterina Oneto, Darrell S. Pardi, Elaine E Wang, Ananya De, Kelly Brady, Aslı Memişoğlu, David A. Lombardi, Brooke Hasson, Barbara McGovern, Lisa Von Moltke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAdverse effectClostridium difficileCohortAntibioticsGastroenterologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Antibiotics are often insufficient to treat patients with rCDI due to persistence of spores and microbiome disruption. Recurrence occurs in 20-36% of patients with 1st recurrence and ≥40% in those with ≥2 recurrences. We reported that SER-109, an investigational, oral microbiome therapeutic comprised of purified Firmicutes spores, was superior to placebo in reducing risk of rCDI at 8 weeks (12% vs 40%, respectively) in patients with ≥2 CDI recurrences (Feuerstadt, P. N Engl J Med 2022). Here, we report the results of ECOSPOR IV, an open-label trial of SER-109. Methods: Subjects with rCDI were enrolled at 72 US/Canadian sites in 2 cohorts: a) rollover subjects with rCDI in ECOSPOR III, diagnosed by toxin EIA) and b) subjects with ≥1 CDI recurrence (diagnosed by PCR or toxin EIA), inclusive of the current episode). After standard-of-care antibiotics, subjects received SER-109 (4 capsules daily x 3 days). Efficacy, including the proportion of subjects with rCDI (toxin+ diarrhea requiring treatment), and safety were evaluated through Week 8; durability of response was assessed through Week 24. Results: Of 351 subjects screened, 263 were enrolled (Cohort 1: N=29; Cohort 2: N=234; 68% female; mean age 64 years). Comorbidities included cardiac disorders (31%), neoplasms (21%), Type 2 diabetes (11%), COPD (10%), chronic kidney disease (9%), and hepatobiliary disorders (9%). Overall, 137 subjects (52.1%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through Week 8. The majority were mild to moderate in intensity and gastrointestinal (Table). There were 6 deaths (2.3%) and 20 subjects (7.6%) with serious TEAEs, none of which were deemed treatment-related. Overall, rCDI occurred in 23 subjects (8.7%) at Week 8 (4/29 in Cohort 1 [13.8%] and 19/234 in Cohort 2 [8.1%]) and rCDI rates remained low through 24 weeks (13.7% [36/263]). CDI recurrence rates at Week 8 in subjects with first recurrence were similarly low (6.5% [5/77]) as those with ≥2 recurrences (9.7% [18/186]; Figure). Conclusion: SER-109, a potential first-in-class investigational microbiome therapeutic, was observed to be safe and well-tolerated in this population of older patients with multiple comorbidities. The rate of rCDI was low and durable, regardless of the number of prior episodes, supporting the potential benefit of microbiome repair following antibiotics for rCDI. Earlier intervention with SER-109 in first recurrence may reduce morbidity associated with rCDI. Table 1. - Summary of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events Within 8 Weeks After Treatment, Safety Population Cohort 1 Cohort 2(N=234) n (%) Total(N=263)n (%) Randomized Treatment Arm in ECOSPOR III Total(N=29)n (%) SER-109(N=4)n (%) Placebo(N=25)n (%) Any TEAE 4 (100.0) 15 (60.0) 19 (65.5) 118 (50.4) 137 (52.1) Most Frequently Reported TEAEs by Preferred Term (≥5% in any cohort) Diarrhoea 1 (25.0) 9 (36.0) 10 (34.5) 49 (20.9) 59 (22.4) Flatulence 0 4 (16.0) 4 (13.8) 16 (6.8) 20 (7.6) Nausea 0 3 (12.0) 3 (10.3) 17 (7.3) 20 (7.6) Abdominal pain 1 (25.0) 2 (8.0) 3 (10.3) 15 (6.4) 18 (6.8) Fatigue 0 3 (12.0) 3 (10.3) 9 (3.8) 12 (4.6) Urinary tract infection 0 0 0 12 (5.1) 12 (4.6) Abdominal distension 1 (25.0) 3 (12.0) 4 (13.8) 7 (3.0) 11 (4.2) Related/Possibly Related TEAE 1 (25.0) 4 (16.0) 5 (17.2) 27 (11.5) 32 (12.2) Severe TEAEs 0 1 (4.0) 1 (3.4) 18 (7.7) 19 (7.2) Serious TEAEs 0 0 0 20 (8.5) 20 (7.6) Serious TEAEs Related/Possibly Related to Study Drug 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment-emergent AESIs 0 0 0 10 (4.3) 10 (3.8) TEAEs Leading to Death1 0 0 0 6 (2.6) 6 (2.3) Abbreviations: AESI = adverse event of special interest; TEAE = treatment-emergent adverse event Notes: Data presented are by subject. All TEAEs were collected and summarized from time of enrollment up to Week 8; Note: N is number of subjects in the Safety Population who are in the study at the beginning of the specified time interval. 1 TEAEs leading to death by preferred term included: congestive cardiomyopathy (1 subject), coronavirus infection and intestinal peforation (1 subect), death due to natural causes (1 subject), clostridium difficile infection (1 subject), necrotising fasciitis (1 subject), and pancreatic carcinoma (1 subject). Note: the start date of the fatal SAE of pancreatic carcinoma began prior to Week 8 with fatal outcome occurred after Week 12. No deaths were deemed by the investigator to be related to study drug. Figure 1.: CDI Recurrence Rate at Week 8 in the Overall Population by Number of CDI Recurrences at Study Entry Note: Subjects who are lost to follow-up, terminated the study prematurely, or died without a recorded recurrence before the end of the time interval are assumed to have had a recurrence. Numbers presented within each bar represent the number of subjects with CDI recurrence over the total number of subjects within each grouping.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207