Efficacy of a 4-Antigen <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> Vaccine in Spinal Surgery: The <i>STaphylococcus aureus</i> suRgical Inpatient Vaccine Efficacy (STRIVE) Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus is a global pathogen that is frequently responsible for healthcare-associated infections, including surgical site infections (SSIs). Current infection prevention and control approaches may be limited, with S. aureus antibiotic resistance remaining problematic. Thus, a vaccine to prevent or reduce S. aureus infection is critically needed. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of an investigational 4-antigen S. aureus vaccine (SA4Ag) in adults undergoing elective open posterior spinal fusion procedures with multilevel instrumentation. METHODS: In this multicenter, site-level, randomized, double-blind trial, patients aged 18-85 years received a single dose of SA4Ag or placebo 10-60 days before surgery. SA4Ag efficacy in preventing postoperative S. aureus bloodstream infection and/or deep incisional or organ/space SSIs was the primary end point. Safety evaluations included local reactions, systemic events, and adverse events (AEs). Immunogenicity and colonization were assessed. RESULTS: Study enrollment was halted when a prespecified interim efficacy analysis met predefined futility criteria. SA4Ag showed no efficacy (0.0%) in preventing postoperative S. aureus infection (14 cases in each group through postoperative day 90), despite inducing robust functional immune responses to each antigen compared with placebo. Colonization rates across groups were similar through postoperative day 180. Local reactions and systemic events were mostly mild or moderate in severity, with AEs reported at similar frequencies across groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing elective spinal fusion surgical procedures, SA4Ag was safe and well tolerated but, despite eliciting substantial antibody responses that blocked key S. aureus virulence mechanisms, was not efficacious in preventing S. aureus infection. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02388165.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".