Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36780159›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

Safety and Tolerability of SER-109 as an Investigational Microbiome Therapeutic in Adults With Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Phase 3, Open-Label, Single-Arm Trial.

Matthew D Sims, Sahil Khanna, Paul Feuerstadt, Thomas J Louie, Colleen R Kelly, Edward S Huang, Elizabeth L Hohmann, Elaine E L Wang, Caterina Oneto, Stuart H Cohen and 15 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03183141 (ECOSPOR IV), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03183141 phase3completednot on this map

ECOSPOR IV: An Open-Label Extension of Study SERES-012 and Open-Label Program for Evaluating SER-109 in Subjects With Recurrent Clostridioides Difficile Infection (RCDI)

TypeinterventionalSponsorSeres Therapeutics, Inc.Ran2017 to 2022Enrolled263ConditionsClostridioides Difficile InfectionArmsSER-109
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Evaluation of fecal microbiota, live (RBL) for the prevention of recurrentJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2026
    Article
  6. Fecal Microbiota-Based Therapies Compared to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Preventing Recurrent C difficile Infection.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Microbiome Therapeutics for Clostridioides difficile Infection.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. The evolving landscape of live biotherapeutics in the treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 15 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew D SimsSection of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Sahil KhannaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Paul FeuerstadtDivision of Digestive Disease, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Thomas J LouieCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Colleen R KellyDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Edward S HuangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Sutter Health, Mountain View, California.
Elizabeth L HohmannMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Elaine E L WangSeres Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Caterina OnetoVanguard Gastroenterology, New York, New York.
Stuart H CohenUniversity of California Davis Health, Sacramento.
Charles S BerensonUniversity at Buffalo, VA Western New York Healthcare System, Buffalo.
Louis KormanGastroenterology and Hepatology, Chevy Chase Clinical Research, Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Christine LeeIsland Medical Program, University of British Columbia and University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Bret LashnerCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Colleen S KraftDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Mayur RameshDivision of Infectious Diseases, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, Michigan.
Michael SilvermanWestern University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Darrell S PardiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Ananya DeSeres Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Asli MemisogluSeres Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
David A LombardiSeres Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Brooke R HassonSeres Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Barbara H McGovernSeres Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Lisa von MoltkeSeres Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ECOSPOR IV Investigators
Seres Therapeutics (United States) · USMayo Clinic · USBrown University · USCleveland Clinic · USEmory University · USHenry Ford Health System · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USOakland University · USSutter Health · USUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of California, Davis · USVA Western New York Healthcare System · USWestern University · CAYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: A 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. Objectives: To evaluate the safety and rate of CDI recurrence after administration of investigational microbiome therapeutic SER-109 through 24 weeks. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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. Interventions: SER-109 given orally as 4 capsules daily for 3 days following symptom resolution after antibiotic treatment for CDI. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 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. Results: Of 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 Relevance: In 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03183141.

Indexed as

Clostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsMicrobiotaAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsCanadaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID36780159
PMCPMC9926325
OpenAlexW4320486230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.