MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387169311 · doi:10.1017/ash.2023.214

Integrated efficacy analysis from phase 3 studies of investigational microbiome therapeutic, SER-109, in recurrent <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection

2023· article· en· W4387169311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Sims, Michael Silverman, Thomas Louie, Elaine Wang, Colleen S. Kraft, Mayur Ramesh, Tatiana Bogdanovich, Kelly Brady, David A. Lombardi, Aslı Memişoğlu, Ananya De, Brooke Hasson, Christine Lee, Paul Feuerstadt, Darrell S. Pardi, Colleen Kelly, Peter Daley, Godson Oguchi, Barbara McGovern, Lisa Von Moltke

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClostridium difficileClostridioidesInternal medicinePlaceboRegimenAntibioticsClostridium difficile toxin ADiarrheaClinical endpointMicrobiomeVancomycinFidaxomicinRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologySurgeryMicrobiologyBiologyPathologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Antibiotics alone are often insufficient to treat recurrent C. difficile infection (rCDI) because they have no activity against C. difficile spores that germinate within a disrupted microbiome. SER-109, an investigational, oral, microbiome therapeutic comprised of purified Firmicutes spores, was designed to reduce rCDI through microbiome repair. We report an integrated efficacy analysis through week 24 for SER-109 from phase 3 studies, ECOSPOR III and ECOSPOR IV. Methods: ECOSPOR III was a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial conducted at 56 US or Canadian sites that included 182 participants with ≥2 CDI recurrences, confirmed via toxin EIA testing. Participants were stratified by age (&lt;65 years or ≥65 years) and antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin) and were randomized 1:1 to placebo or SER-109 groups. ECOSPOR IV was an open-label, single-arm study conducted at 72 US or Canadian sites including 263 participants with rCDI enrolled in 2 cohorts: (1) rollover participants from ECOSPOR III who experienced on-study recurrence diagnosed by toxin EIA (n = 29) and (2) participants with ≥1 CDI recurrence (diagnosed by PCR or toxin EIA), inclusive of the current episode (n = 234). In both studies, the investigational product was administered orally as 4 capsules over 3 consecutive days following symptom resolution after standard-of-care antibiotics. The primary efficacy end point was rCDI (recurrent toxin-positive diarrhea requiring treatment) through week 8. Other end points included CDI recurrence rates and safety through 24 weeks. Results: These 349 participants received at least 1 dose of SER-109 in ECOSPOR III or ECOSPOR IV (mean age 64.2; 68.8% female). Overall, 77 participants (22.1%) enrolled with their first CDI recurrence. Four participants received blinded SER-109 in ECOSPOR III followed by a second dose of open-label SER-109 in ECOSPOR IV. Overall, the proportion of participants who received any dose of SER-109 with rCDI at week 8 was 9.5% (33 of 349; 95% CI, 6.6 %–13.0%), and the CDI recurrence rate remained low through 24 weeks (15.2%, 53 of 349; 95% CI, 11.6%–19.4%), corresponding to sustained clinical response rates of 90.5% (95% CI, 87.0%–93.4%) and 84.8% (95% CI, 80.6%–88.4%), respectively (Fig. 1). Most rollover participants (25 of 29, 86.2%) were from the placebo arm; 13.8% had rCDI by week 8. Conclusions: In this integrated analysis, the rates of rCDI were low and durable in participants who received the investigational microbiome therapeutic SER-109, with sustained clinical response rates of 90.5% and 84.8% at weeks 8 and 24, respectively. These data further support the potential benefit of microbiome repair with SER-109 following antibiotics for rCDI to prevent recurrence in high-risk patients. Financial support: This study was funded by Seres Therapeutics. Disclosure: None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare EpidemiologySame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207