Standardized consensus definitions for resistant and refractory cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections and diseases in transplant recipients were developed by the CMV Resistance Working Group of the CMV ...Drug Development Forum and are intended to be used in clinical trials.
Abstract
Despite advances in preventive strategies, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a major complication in solid organ and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. CMV infection may fail to respond to commercially available antiviral therapies, with or without demonstrating genotypic mutation(s) known to be associated with resistance to these therapies. This lack of response has been termed “resistant/refractory CMV” and is a key focus of clinical trials of some investigational antiviral agents. To provide consistent criteria for future clinical trials and outcomes research, the CMV Resistance Working Group of the CMV Drug Development Forum (consisting of scientists, clinicians, regulatory officials, and industry representatives from the United States, Canada, and Europe) has undertaken establishing standardized consensus definitions of “resistant” and “refractory” CMV. These definitions have emerged from the Working Group’s review of the available virologic and clinical literature and will be subject to reassessment and modification based on results of future studies.
Summary Background Mucormycosis is an uncommon invasive fungal disease with high mortality and few treatment options. Isavuconazole is a triazole active in vitro and in animal models against moulds ...of the order Mucorales. We assessed the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole for treatment of mucormycosis and compared its efficacy with amphotericin B in a matched case-control analysis. Methods In a single-arm open-label trial (VITAL study), adult patients (≥18 years) with invasive fungal disease caused by rare fungi, including mucormycosis, were recruited from 34 centres worldwide. Patients were given isavuconazole 200 mg (as its intravenous or oral water-soluble prodrug, isavuconazonium sulfate) three times daily for six doses, followed by 200 mg/day until invasive fungal disease resolution, failure, or for 180 days or more. The primary endpoint was independent data review committee-determined overall response—ie, complete or partial response (treatment success) or stable or progressive disease (treatment failure)—according to prespecified criteria. Mucormycosis cases treated with isavuconazole as primary treatment were matched with controls from the FungiScope Registry, recruited from 17 centres worldwide, who received primary amphotericin B-based treatment, and were analysed for day-42 all-cause mortality. VITAL is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00634049 . FungiScope is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01731353. Findings Within the VITAL study, from April 22, 2008, to June 21, 2013, 37 patients with mucormycosis received isavuconazole for a median of 84 days (IQR 19–179, range 2–882). By day 42, four patients (11%) had a partial response, 16 (43%) had stable invasive fungal disease, one (3%) had invasive fungal disease progression, three (8%) had missing assessments, and 13 (35%) had died. 35 patients (95%) had adverse events (28 76% serious). Day-42 crude all-cause mortality in seven (33%) of 21 primary-treatment isavuconazole cases was similar to 13 (39%) of 33 amphotericin B-treated matched controls (weighted all-cause mortality: 33% vs 41%; p=0·595). Interpretation Isavuconazole showed activity against mucormycosis with efficacy similar to amphotericin B. Isavuconazole can be used for treatment of mucormycosis and is well tolerated. Funding Astellas Pharma Global Development, Basilea Pharmaceutica International.
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a common complication after allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation. Letermovir is an antiviral drug that inhibits the CMV-terminase complex.
In this ...phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned CMV-seropositive transplant recipients, 18 years of age or older, in a 2:1 ratio to receive letermovir or placebo, administered orally or intravenously, through week 14 after transplantation; randomization was stratified according to trial site and CMV disease risk. Letermovir was administered at a dose of 480 mg per day (or 240 mg per day in patients taking cyclosporine). Patients in whom clinically significant CMV infection (CMV disease or CMV viremia leading to preemptive treatment) developed discontinued the trial regimen and received anti-CMV treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of patients, among patients without detectable CMV DNA at randomization, who had clinically significant CMV infection through week 24 after transplantation. Patients who discontinued the trial or had missing end-point data at week 24 were imputed as having a primary end-point event. Patients were followed through week 48 after transplantation.
From June 2014 to March 2016, a total of 565 patients underwent randomization and received letermovir or placebo beginning a median of 9 days after transplantation. Among 495 patients with undetectable CMV DNA at randomization, fewer patients in the letermovir group than in the placebo group had clinically significant CMV infection or were imputed as having a primary end-point event by week 24 after transplantation (122 of 325 patients 37.5% vs. 103 of 170 60.6%, P<0.001). The frequency and severity of adverse events were similar in the two groups overall. Vomiting was reported in 18.5% of the patients who received letermovir and in 13.5% of those who received placebo; edema in 14.5% and 9.4%, respectively; and atrial fibrillation or flutter in 4.6% and 1.0%, respectively. The rates of myelotoxic and nephrotoxic events were similar in the letermovir group and the placebo group. All-cause mortality at week 48 after transplantation was 20.9% among letermovir recipients and 25.5% among placebo recipients.
Letermovir prophylaxis resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically significant CMV infection than placebo. Adverse events with letermovir were mainly of low grade. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02137772 ; EudraCT number, 2013-003831-31 .).
Abstract
Background
Remdesivir (RDV) is US FDA approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but not recommended in severe renal impairment (SRI, Creatinine clearance <30mL/min or requiring renal ...replacement therapy). Few studies have evaluated RDV in patients with SRI.
Methods
Hospitalized patients who received RDV between 1 May 2020 and 31 October 2020 were analyzed in a retrospective chart review. We compared incident adverse events (AEs) in patients with and without SRI, including hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, any reported AE, mortality, and length of stay.
Results
Of a total of 135 patients, 20 had SRI. Patients with SRI were significantly older (70 vs 54 years, P = .0001). The incidence of possible AEs was 30% among those with SRI vs 11% without (P = .06). Liver function test (LFT) elevations occurred in 10% vs 4% (P = .28), and serum creatinine (SCr) elevations in 27% vs 6% (P = .02) of patients with SRI vs without, respectively. LFT and SCr elevations were not attributed to RDV in either group.
Mortality and length of stay were consistent with historical controls.
Conclusions
RDV AEs occurred infrequently and overall were not significantly different between those with and without SRI. While more of patients with SRI experienced SCr elevations, 3 (75%) patients had acute kidney injury prior to RDV. The use of RDV in this small series of patients with SRI appeared to be relatively safe, and the potential benefit outweighed the theoretical risk of liver or renal toxicity. Additional studies are needed to confirm this finding.
Minimal data are available on the use of remdesivir in severe renal impairment. While we observed numerically higher rates of potential toxicities, the differences were nonsignificant. Observed increases in liver function tests and serum creatinine were explained by other etiologies.
Remdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).
We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 ...trial involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, and radiologic evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous remdesivir for either 5 days or 10 days. All patients received 200 mg of remdesivir on day 1 and 100 mg once daily on subsequent days. The primary end point was clinical status on day 14, assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.
In total, 397 patients underwent randomization and began treatment (200 patients for 5 days and 197 for 10 days). The median duration of treatment was 5 days (interquartile range, 5 to 5) in the 5-day group and 9 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10) in the 10-day group. At baseline, patients randomly assigned to the 10-day group had significantly worse clinical status than those assigned to the 5-day group (P = 0.02). By day 14, a clinical improvement of 2 points or more on the ordinal scale occurred in 64% of patients in the 5-day group and in 54% in the 10-day group. After adjustment for baseline clinical status, patients in the 10-day group had a distribution in clinical status at day 14 that was similar to that among patients in the 5-day group (P = 0.14). The most common adverse events were nausea (9% of patients), worsening respiratory failure (8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase level (7%), and constipation (7%).
In patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; GS-US-540-5773 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04292899.).
Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown.
To ...determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment.
Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020.
Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d.
The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group.
Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 interquartile range, 46-66 years; 227 39% women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care.
Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.
Background. Safety and immunogenicity of heat-treated zoster vaccine (ZV HT ) were assessed in immunocompromised adults. Methods. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo–controlled, multicenter study, ...4 doses ZV HT or placebo were administered approximately 30 days apart to adults with either solid tumor malignancy (STM); hematologic malignancy (HM); human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with CD4⁺ ≤200; autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HCT) or allogeneic-HCT recipients. Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) T-cell responses by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot (IFN-γ ELISPOT) and VZV antibody concentrations by glycoprotein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA) were measured at baseline and approximately 28 days after each dose. Results. No safety signals were found in any group. IFN-γ ELISPOT geometric mean fold rises (GMFR) after dose 4 in STM, HM, HIV, and autologous-HCT patients were 3.00 (P<.0001), 2.23 (P = .004), 1.76 (P = .026), and 9.01 (P = NA), respectively. Similarly, antibody GMFR were 2.35 (P<. 0001), 1.28 (P = . 003), 1.37 (P = .017), and 0.90 (P = NA), respectively. T-cell and antibody responses were poor after 4 doses of ZV HT m allogeneic-HCT patients. Conclusion. ZV HT was generally safe and immunogenic through 28 days post-dose 4 in adults with STM, HM, and HIV. Autologous-HCT but not allogeneic-HCT patients had a rise in T-cell response; antibody responses were not increased in either HCT population. Study identification. V212-002 Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00535236
Clostridium difficile infection is a serious diarrheal illness associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Patients generally have a response to oral vancomycin or metronidazole; however, ...the rate of recurrence is high. This phase 3 clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of fidaxomicin with those of vancomycin in treating C. difficile infection.
Adults with acute symptoms of C. difficile infection and a positive result on a stool toxin test were eligible for study entry. We randomly assigned patients to receive fidaxomicin (200 mg twice daily) or vancomycin (125 mg four times daily) orally for 10 days. The primary end point was clinical cure (resolution of symptoms and no need for further therapy for C. difficile infection as of the second day after the end of the course of therapy). The secondary end points were recurrence of C. difficile infection (diarrhea and a positive result on a stool toxin test within 4 weeks after treatment) and global cure (i.e., cure with no recurrence).
A total of 629 patients were enrolled, of whom 548 (87.1%) could be evaluated for the per-protocol analysis. The rates of clinical cure with fidaxomicin were noninferior to those with vancomycin in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis (88.2% with fidaxomicin and 85.8% with vancomycin) and the per-protocol analysis (92.1% and 89.8%, respectively). Significantly fewer patients in the fidaxomicin group than in the vancomycin group had a recurrence of the infection, in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis (15.4% vs. 25.3%, P=0.005) and the per-protocol analysis (13.3% vs. 24.0%, P=0.004). The lower rate of recurrence was seen in patients with non–North American Pulsed Field type 1 strains. The adverse-event profile was similar for the two therapies.
The rates of clinical cure after treatment with fidaxomicin were noninferior to those after treatment with vancomycin. Fidaxomicin was associated with a significantly lower rate of recurrence of C. difficile infection associated with non–North American Pulsed Field type 1 strains. (Funded by Optimer Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00314951.)
Background. Treatment guidelines recommend stopping all implicated antibiotics at the onset of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), but many individuals have persistent or new infections ...necessitating the use of concomitant antibiotics (CAs). We used data from 2 phase 3 trials to study effects of CAs on response to fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Methods. Subjects with CDI were treated for 10 days with fidaxomicin 200 mg every 12 hours or vancomycin 125 mg every 6 hours, assessed for resolution of symptoms, and followed up for an additional 4 weeks for evidence of recurrence. Rates of cure, recurrence, and global cure (cure without recurrence) were determined for subgroups of subjects defined by CA use and treatment group. Results. CAs were prescribed for 27.5% of subjects during study participation. The use of CAs concurrent with CDI treatment was associated with a lower cure rate (84.4% vs 92.6%; P <.001) and an extended time to resolution of diarrhea (97 vs 54 hours; P <.001). CA use during the follow-up was associated with more recurrences (24.8% vs 17.7%; not significant), and CA administration at any time was associated with a lower global cure rate (65.8% vs 74.7%; P =.005). When subjects received CAs concurrent with CDI treatment, the cure rate was 90.0% for fidaxomicin and 79.4% for vancomycin (P =.04). In subjects receiving CAs during treatment and/or follow-up, treatment with fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin was associated with 12.3% fewer recurrences (16.9% vs 29.2%; P =.048). Conclusions. Treatment with CAs compromised initial response to CDI therapy and durability of response. Fidaxomicin was significantly more effective than vancomycin in achieving clinical cure in the presence of CA therapy and in preventing recurrence regardless of CA use.
The use of available antiviral agents for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is limited by frequent toxic effects and the emergence of resistance. CMX001 has potent in vitro activity ...against CMV and other double-stranded DNA viruses. We evaluated the safety and anti-CMV activity of CMX001 in patients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation.
From December 2009 through June 2011, a total of 230 patients with data that could be evaluated were enrolled in the study. We randomly assigned these adult CMV-seropositive transplant recipients from 27 centers to oral administration of CMX001 or placebo. Patients were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to five sequential study cohorts according to a dose-escalating, double-blind design. Randomization was stratified according to the presence or absence of acute graft-versus-host disease and CMV DNA in plasma. Patients received the study drug after engraftment for 9 to 11 weeks, until week 13 after transplantation. Polymerase-chain-reaction analysis of CMV DNA in plasma was performed weekly. Patients in whom CMV DNA was detected at a level that required treatment discontinued the study drug and received preemptive treatment against CMV infection. The primary end point was a CMV event, defined as CMV disease or a plasma CMV DNA level greater than 200 copies per milliliter when the study drug was discontinued. The analysis was conducted in the intention-to-treat population.
The incidence of CMV events was significantly lower among patients who received CMX001 at a dose of 100 mg twice weekly than among patients who received placebo (10% vs. 37%; risk difference, -27 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -42 to -12; P=0.002). Diarrhea was the most common adverse event in patients receiving CMX001 at doses of 200 mg weekly or higher and was dose-limiting at 200 mg twice weekly. Myelosuppression and nephrotoxicity were not observed.
Treatment with oral CMX001 at a dose of 100 mg twice weekly significantly reduced the incidence of CMV events in recipients of hematopoietic-cell transplants. Diarrhea was dose-limiting in this population at a dose of 200 mg twice weekly. (Funded by Chimerix; CMX001-201 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00942305.).
PDF
