Kelly, Colleen

Abstract Background Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) treatment guidelines suggest varied approaches for patients with first (frCDI) or multiply recurrent CDI (mrCDI). Low microbial diversity, elevated primary bile acids (BA), and low secondary BA concentrations favor germination of C. difficile spores into toxin-producing bacteria and are believed to increase rCDI risk. Greater understanding of the gastrointestinal (GI) microbiome in rCDI may inform management of the disease. We describe a post hoc comparison of GI microbiome and bile acid profiles between patients with frCDI and mrCDI in a Phase 3 open-label trial, ECOSPOR IV, of fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (VOWST®; VOS, formerly SER-109), an orally-administered live microbiome therapeutic. Methods Patients received VOS following symptom resolution after standard-of-care antibiotics. Pretreatment baseline (within 3 days following antibiotic completion) and Week 1 post-dosing stool samples were collected for whole metagenomic sequencing and metabolomics. Diversity was calculated from MetaPhlAn2 species profiles. Concentrations of primary and secondary BAs were measured via targeted LC-MS/MS. Results rCDI rates through Week 8 were similarly low in both frCDI and mrCDI patients (6.5% versus 9.7%, respectively). Baseline microbial diversity was similarly low between frCDI and mrCDI subgroups (P > .05). Diversity and secondary BA concentrations increased in both subgroups, whereas primary BA concentrations declined following VOS dosing, leading to few differences between subgroups at Week 1. Conclusions These data suggest commonalities in microbiome disruption in patients with frCDI and mrCDI that contribute to recurrence and suggest that antibiotics followed by a live microbiome therapy may be an optimal treatment strategy for rCDI, regardless of number of prior CDI recurrences.

Abstract Background Since 2009, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialists have utilized “IBD LIVE,” a weekly live video conference with a global audience, to discuss the multidisciplinary management of their most challenging cases. While most cases presented were confirmed IBD, a substantial number were diseases that mimic IBD. We have categorized all IBD LIVE cases and identified “IBD-mimics” with consequent clinical management implications. Methods Cases have been recorded/archived since May 2018; we reviewed all 371 cases from May 2018–February 2023. IBD-mimics were analyzed/categorized according to their diagnostic and therapeutic workup. Results Confirmed IBD cases made up 82.5% (306/371; 193 Crohn’s disease, 107 ulcerative colitis, and 6 IBD-unclassified). Sixty-five (17.5%) cases were found to be mimics, most commonly medication-induced (n = 8) or vasculitis (n = 7). The evaluations that ultimately resulted in correct diagnosis included additional endoscopic biopsies (n = 13, 21%), surgical exploration/pathology (n = 10, 16.5%), biopsies from outside the GI tract (n = 10, 16.5%), genetic/laboratory testing (n = 8, 13%), extensive review of patient history (n = 8, 13%), imaging (n = 5, 8%), balloon enteroscopy (n = 5, 8%), and capsule endoscopy (n = 2, 3%). Twenty-five patients (25/65, 38%) were treated with biologics for presumed IBD, 5 of whom subsequently experienced adverse events requiring discontinuation of the biologic. Many patients were prescribed steroids, azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or methotrexate, and 3 were trialed on tofacitinib. Conclusions The diverse presentation of IBD and IBD-mimics necessitates periodic consideration of the differential diagnosis, and reassessment of treatment in presumed IBD patients without appropriate clinical response. The substantial differences and often conflicting treatment approaches to IBD versus IBD-mimics directly impact the quality and cost of patient care.

Abstract Background Treatment for first recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (frCDI) or multiply recurrent CDI (mrCDI) is complex and may include antibiotics, monoclonal antibodies, or fecal transplantation. Improved understanding of rCDI pathogenesis can help guide treatment. We report microbiome findings of patients (pts) with frCDI and mrCDI from a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials with fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (FMS; formerly SER-109), an FDA-approved, microbiota-based therapeutic comprised of Firmicutes spores. Methods Stool samples were collected from pts with mrCDI in ECOSPOR III (n=158) and with frCDI or mrCDI in ECOSPOR IV (n=218) at baseline (pre-dose) and Week 1 post treatment. Shannon diversity was calculated from species profiles from analysis of whole metagenomic sequencing data using MetaPhlAn2. Primary (1°BA) and secondary bile acid (2°BA) concentrations were measured via targeted liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry panel. Subgroup differences were analyzed with linear mixed models. Results At baseline, Shannon diversity was not significantly different between mrCDI and frCDI groups (P>0.05). At Week 1, Shannon diversity (Fig 1) was greater vs baseline (P< 0.001); gains were not significantly different between subgroups (P>0.05). For pts receiving FMS vs placebo in ECOSPOR III, greater reductions in 1°BA and increases in 2°BA from baseline–Week 1 were observed, similar to FMS-treated pts in ECOSPOR IV. At Week 1, 2°BA concentrations were greater vs baseline (P< 0.001); similar gains were seen between subgroups (P>0.05) (Fig 2). Consistent with these microbiome findings, in an integrated analysis, rCDI rates with FMS at Week 8 were low in both subgroups (frCDI, 6.5% [5/77] vs mrCDI, 10.3% [28/271]). Conclusion After antibiotics, pts with frCDI or mrCDI had low Shannon diversity and 2°BA concentrations that were no different between subgroups, highlighting a need for microbiome restoration. Both subgroups showed rapid, significant improvement in Shannon diversity and 2°BA concentrations and reductions in 1°BA after FMS, with comparable clinical outcomes. These data suggest that regardless of number of prior CDI episodes, FMS therapy following antibiotics may be an optimal treatment. Disclosures Colleen R. Kelly, MD, Openbiome: Advisor/Consultant|Sebela Pharmaceuticald: Advisor/Consultant Tim Straub, MS, Seres Therapeutics: Employee|Seres Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds Kevin Litcofsky, PhD, Seres Therapeutics: inventor on patents assigned to Seres Therapeutics|Seres Therapeutics: Employment|Seres Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds Jennifer R. Wortman, MS, Seres Therapeutics: Employee|Seres Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds Barbara McGovern, MD, Seres Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds Brooke Hasson, PhD, Sage Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds|Seres Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds Dina Hot, PhD, Aimmune Therapeutics: Employee Darrell Pardi, MD, Abbvie: Advisor/Consultant|AMT: Grant/Research Support|BI: Advisor/Consultant|Immunic: Advisor/Consultant|Rise: Advisor/Consultant|Seres Therapeutics: Advisor/Consultant|Seres Therapeutics: Grant/Research Support|Summit: Advisor/Consultant|Takeda: Grant/Research Support|Vedanta: Advisor/Consultant|Vedanta: Grant/Research Support Christopher Ford, PhD, Seres Therapeutics: Employee|Seres Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds Matthew Henn, PhD, Seres Therapeutics: Employee|Seres Therapeutics: Stocks/Bonds

ImportanceA safe and effective treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is urgently needed. Antibiotics kill toxin-producing bacteria but do not repair the disrupted microbiome, which promotes spore germination and infection recurrence.ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and rate of CDI recurrence after administration of investigational microbiome therapeutic SER-109 through 24 weeks.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 3, single-arm, open-label trial (ECOSPOR IV) was conducted at 72 US and Canadian outpatient sites from October 2017 to April 2022. Adults aged 18 years or older with recurrent CDI were enrolled in 2 cohorts: (1) rollover patients from the ECOSPOR III trial who had CDI recurrence diagnosed by toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and (2) patients with at least 1 CDI recurrence (diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or toxin EIA), inclusive of their acute infection at study entry.InterventionsSER-109 given orally as 4 capsules daily for 3 days following symptom resolution after antibiotic treatment for CDI.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were safety, measured as the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in all patients receiving any amount of SER-109, and cumulative rates of recurrent CDI (toxin-positive diarrhea requiring treatment) through week 24 in the intent-to-treat population.ResultsOf 351 patients screened, 263 were enrolled (180 [68.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 64.0 [15.7] years); 29 were in cohort 1 and 234 in cohort 2. Seventy-seven patients (29.3%) were enrolled with their first CDI recurrence. Overall, 141 patients (53.6%) had TEAEs, which were mostly mild to moderate and gastrointestinal. There were 8 deaths (3.0%) and 33 patients (12.5%) with serious TEAEs; none were considered treatment related by the investigators. Overall, 23 patients (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.6%-12.8%) had recurrent CDI at week 8 (4 of 29 [13.8%; 95% CI, 3.9%-31.7%] in cohort 1 and 19 of 234 [8.1%; 95% CI, 5.0%-12.4%] in cohort 2), and recurrent CDI rates remained low through 24 weeks (36 patients [13.7%; 95% CI, 9.8%-18.4%]). At week 8, recurrent CDI rates in patients with a first recurrence were similarly low (5 of 77 [6.5%; 95% CI, 2.1%-14.5%]) as in patients with 2 or more recurrences (18 of 186 [9.7%; 95% CI, 5.8%-14.9%]). Analyses by select baseline characteristics showed consistently low recurrent CDI rates in patients younger than 65 years vs 65 years or older (5 of 126 [4.0%; 95% CI, 1.3%-9.0%] vs 18 of 137 [13.1%; 95% CI, 8.0%-20.0%]) and patients enrolled based on positive PCR results (3 of 69 [4.3%; 95% CI, 0.9%-12.2%]) vs those with positive toxin EIA results (20 of 192 [10.4%; 95% CI, 6.5%-15.6%]).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this trial, oral SER-109 was well tolerated in a patient population with recurrent CDI and prevalent comorbidities. The rate of recurrent CDI was low regardless of the number of prior recurrences, demographics, or diagnostic approach, supporting the beneficial impact of SER-109 for patients with CDI.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03183141