Durable reduction of Clostridioides difficile infection recurrence and microbiome restoration after treatment with RBX2660: results from an open-label phase 2 clinical trial

Background Effective treatment options for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) are limited, with high recurrence rates associated with the current standard of care. Herein we report results from an open-label Phase 2 trial to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and durability of RBX2660—a standardized microbiota-based investigational live biotherapeutic—and a closely-matched historical control cohort. Methods This prospective, multicenter, open-label Phase 2 study enrolled patients who had experienced either ≥ 2 recurrences of CDI, treated by standard-of-care antibiotic therapy, after a primary CDI episode, or ≥ 2 episodes of severe CDI requiring hospitalization. Participants received up to 2 doses of RBX2660 rectally administered with doses 7 days apart. Treatment success was defined as the absence of CDI diarrhea without the need for retreatment for 8 weeks after completing study treatment. A historical control group with matched inclusion and exclusion criteria was identified from a retrospective chart review of participants treated with standard-of-care antibiotics for recurrent CDI who matched key criteria for the study. The primary objective was to compare treatment success of RBX2660 to the historical control group. A key secondary outcome was the safety profile of RBX2660, including adverse events and CDI occurrence through 24 months after treatment. In addition, fecal samples from RBX2660-treated participants were sequenced to evaluate microbiome composition and functional changes from before to after treatment. Results In this Phase 2 open-label clinical trial, RBX2660 demonstrated a 78.9% (112/142) treatment success rate compared to a 30.7% (23/75) for the historical control group (p < 0.0001; Chi-square test). Post-hoc analysis indicated that 91% (88/97) of evaluable RBX2660 responders remained CDI occurrence-free to 24 months after treatment demonstrating durability. RBX2660 was well-tolerated with mostly mild to moderate adverse events. The composition and diversity of RBX2660 responders’ fecal microbiome significantly changed from before to after treatment to become more similar to RBX2660, and these changes were durable to 24 months after treatment. Conclusions In this Phase 2 trial, RBX2660 was safe and effective for reducing rCDI recurrence as compared to a historical control group. Microbiome changes are consistent with restorative changes implicated in resisting C. difficile recurrence. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02589847 (10/28/2015)Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCPathology and Laboratory Medicine, Department ofReviewedFacultyResearche

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used