MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889197090 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6693632

Safety of fecal microbiota, live-jslm (REBYOTA<sup>™</sup>) in individuals with recurrent <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection: data from five prospective clinical trials

2023· other· en· W6889197090 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboAdverse effectClinical trialIncidence (geometry)RegimenProspective cohort studyNausea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Microbiota-based treatments reduce the incidence of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections (rCDIs), but prospectively collected safety data needed to broaden patient access and protect public health have been limited.Objectives:We provide cumulative safety data from five prospective clinical trials evaluating fecal microbiota, live-jslm (RBL) – the first microbiota-based live biotherapeutic product approved by the US Food and Drug Administration – for preventing rCDI in adults.Design:Integrated safety analysis includes three phase II trials (PUNCH CD, PUNCH CD2, PUNCH Open-Label) and two phase III trials (PUNCH CD3, PUNCH CD3-OLS) of RBL.Methods:Trial participants were at least 18 years of age with documented rCDI who completed standard-of-care antibiotic therapy before treatment with RBL. Assigned study treatment regimen was one or two doses of RBL (or placebo) administered rectally, depending on the trial design. In four of the five trials, participants with CDI recurrence within 8 weeks after RBL or placebo administration were eligible for treatment with open-label RBL. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded for at least 6 months following last study treatment; in PUNCH CD2 and PUNCH Open-Label trials, TEAEs and serious TEAEs were collected through 12 and 24 months, respectively.Results:Among the five trials, 978 participants received at least one dose of RBL (assigned treatment or after recurrence) and 83 participants received placebo only. TEAEs were reported in 60.2% of Placebo Only participants and 66.4% of RBL Only participants. Only abdominal pain, nausea, and flatulence were significantly higher in the RBL Only group compared with the Placebo Only group. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity and were most frequently related to preexisting conditions. There were no reported infections for which the causative pathogen was traced to RBL. Potentially life-threatening TEAEs were infrequent (3.0% of participants).Conclusion:Across five clinical trials, RBL was well tolerated in adults with rCDI. In aggregate, these data consistently demonstrated the safety of RBL.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207