A21 EFFECTS OF LYOPHILIZED FECAL FILTRATE COMPARED TO LYOPHILIZED DONOR STOOL IN THE TREATMENT OF RECURRENT CLOSTRIDIOIDES DIFFICILE INFECTION: A MULTI-CENTER RANDOMIZED TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is the most effective therapy in the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI), and can be offered in fresh, frozen or lyophilized formulation with similar efficacy. Microbial engraftment is thought to be one of the mechanisms mediating its efficacy. However, the importance of microbes has been questioned by two small preliminary clinical studies that showed sterile fecal filtrate could prevent C. difficile recurrence. Aims To establish whether lyophilized sterile fecal filtrate (LSFF) is noninferior to lyophilized FMT (LFMT) in efficacy Methods In this double-blind, non-inferiority study conducted in 4 academic centers in Alberta and British Columbia, we randomized rCDI patients with ≥ 3 CDI episodes to either LSFF or LFMT at a 1:1 ratio between 2019 and 2023.The non inferiority margin was 10%. Each treatment dose consisted of 15 oral capsules. Participants who failed the assigned treatments were offered open-label LFMT. An interim analysis was planned after reaching 50% of recruitment target (124/248 participants). Primary outcome was the proportion of participants without CDI recurrence 8 weeks following assigned treatment. Secondary outcomes included 1) the proportion of participants without CDI recurrence 24 weeks following assigned treatment, 2) serious adverse events (mortality, hospitalization and infections related to treatments), and 3) minor adverse events (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and fever). Exploratory outcomes included changes in quality of life, stool microbial composition analyses, as well as patient preferences. Results 137 participants were randomized (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [18.6] years; 89 women [65.4%]; mean CDI episodes 3.8) to LFMT group (66 participants) and LSFF (71 participants) group. In per-protocol analysis, prevention of rCDI 8 weeks after assigned treatment was achieved in 63.8% of participants in LSFF group and 86.9% in LFMT group (difference, -23.1%), resulting in trial termination. Serious adverse events were infrequent: 4 hospitalizations deemed not related and 1 hospitalization possibly related, and 1 death from COVID deemed not related to assigned treatment. Minor adverse events were self-limited and infrequent: nausea (6), vomiting (2), abdominal discomfort (15) and fever (2). Conclusions Among adults with rCDI, LSFF was inferior to LFMT by oral capsules in preventing recurrent infection over 8 weeks. The result emphasizes the importance of microbes in mediating FMT efficacy. Preserving microbial viability in future development of microbial therapeutics is paramount. Funding Agencies CIHR
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".