MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391468374 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciad792

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Safety and Efficacy Study of Ridinilazole Versus Vancomycin for Treatment of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Infection: Clinical Outcomes With Microbiome and Metabolome Correlates of Response

2024· article· en· W4391468374 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo C. Okhuysen, Mayur Ramesh, Thomas Louie, Nino Kiknadze, Julián Torre‐Cisneros, Cláudia Murta de Oliveira, Christophe Van Steenkiste, Alena Stychneuskaya, Kevin W. Garey, Julia Garcia‐Diaz, Jianling Li, Esther Duperchy, Betty Chang, Juthamas Sukbuntherng, José G. Montoya, Lori Styles, Fong Clow, Danelle F. James, Erik R. Dubberke, Mark H. Wilcox

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
FundersBiomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityAdministration for Strategic Preparedness and Response
KeywordsVancomycinDysbiosisInternal medicineMicrobiomeMedicineClinical endpointAntibioticsResistomeClostridium difficileGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialMicrobiologyBiologyAntibiotic resistanceStaphylococcus aureusBioinformaticsDiseaseBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exposure to antibiotics predisposes to dysbiosis and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) that can be severe, recurrent (rCDI), and life-threatening. Nonselective drugs that treat CDI and perpetuate dysbiosis are associated with rCDI, in part due to loss of microbiome-derived secondary bile acid (SBA) production. Ridinilazole is a highly selective drug designed to treat CDI and prevent rCDI. METHODS: In this phase 3 superiority trial, adults with CDI, confirmed with a stool toxin test, were randomized to receive 10 days of ridinilazole (200 mg twice daily) or vancomycin (125 mg 4 times daily). The primary endpoint was sustained clinical response (SCR), defined as clinical response and no rCDI through 30 days after end of treatment. Secondary endpoints included rCDI and change in relative abundance of SBAs. RESULTS: Ridinilazole and vancomycin achieved an SCR rate of 73% versus 70.7%, respectively, a treatment difference of 2.2% (95% CI: -4.2%, 8.6%). Ridinilazole resulted in a 53% reduction in recurrence compared with vancomycin (8.1% vs 17.3%; 95% CI: -14.1%, -4.5%; P = .0002). Subgroup analyses revealed consistent ridinilazole benefit for reduction in rCDI across subgroups. Ridinilazole preserved microbiota diversity, increased SBAs, and did not increase the resistome. Conversely, vancomycin worsened CDI-associated dysbiosis, decreased SBAs, increased Proteobacteria abundance (∼3.5-fold), and increased the resistome. CONCLUSIONS: Although ridinilazole did not meet superiority in SCR, ridinilazole greatly reduced rCDI and preserved microbiome diversity and SBAs compared with vancomycin. These findings suggest that treatment of CDI with ridinilazole results in an earlier recovery of gut microbiome health. Clinical Trials Registration.Ri-CoDIFy 1 and 2: NCT03595553 and NCT03595566.

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)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations33
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207