A Phase 2 Study of Pimodivir (JNJ-63623872) in Combination With Oseltamivir in Elderly and Nonelderly Adults Hospitalized With Influenza A Infection: OPAL Study.

BACKGROUND: Both the elderly and individuals with comorbidities are at increased risk of developing influenza-related complications. Novel influenza antivirals are required, given limitations of current drugs (eg, resistance emergence and poor efficacy). Pimodivir is a first-in-class antiviral for influenza A under development for these patients. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with influenza A infection were randomized 2:1 to receive pimodivir 600 mg plus oseltamivir 75 mg or placebo plus oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily for 7 days in this phase 2b study. The primary objective was to compare pimodivir pharmacokinetics in elderly (aged 65-85 years) versus nonelderly adults (aged 18-64 years). Secondary end points included time to patient-reported symptom resolution. RESULTS: Pimodivir pharmacokinetic parameters in nonelderly and elderly patients were similar. Time to influenza symptom resolution was numerically shorter with pimodivir (72.45 hours) than placebo (94.15 hours). There was a lower incidence of influenza-related complications in the pimodivir group (7.9%) versus placebo group (15.6%). Treatment was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: No apparent relationship was observed between pimodivir pharmacokinetics and age. Our data demonstrate the need for a larger study of pimodivir in addition to oseltamivir to test whether it results in a clinically significant decrease in time-to-influenza-symptom alleviation and/or the frequency of influenza complications. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02532283.

Phase 2b Study of Pimodivir (JNJ-63623872) as Monotherapy or in Combination With Oseltamivir for Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Seasonal Influenza A: TOPAZ Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pimodivir, a first-in-class inhibitor of influenza virus polymerase basic protein 2, is being developed for hospitalized and high-risk patients with influenza A. METHODS: In this double-blinded phase 2b study, adults with acute uncomplicated influenza A were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive one of the following treatments twice daily for 5 days: placebo, pimodivir 300 mg or 600 mg, or pimodivir 600 mg plus oseltamivir 75 mg. Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pimodivir alone or in combination were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 292 patients randomized, 223 were treated and had confirmed influenza A virus infection. The trial was stopped early because the primary end point was met; the area under the curve of the viral load, determined by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction analysis, in nasal secretions from baseline to day 8 significantly decreased in the active treatment groups, compared with the placebo group (300 mg group, -3.6 day*log10 copies/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}, -7.1 to -0.1]; 600 mg group, -4.5 [95%CI -8.0 to -1.0]; and combination group, -8.6 [95% CI, -12.0 to -5.1]). Pimodivir plus oseltamivir yielded a significantly lower viral load titer over time than placebo and a trend for a shorter time to symptom resolution than placebo. Pimodivir plasma concentrations increased in a dose-proportional manner. The most commonly reported adverse event was mild or moderate diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Pimodivir (with or without oseltamivir) resulted in significant virologic improvements over placebo, demonstrated trends in clinical improvement, and was well tolerated. Pimodivir 600 mg twice daily is in further development. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02342249, 2014-004068-39, and CR107745.

Safety and Immunogenicity of Novel Adenovirus Type 26- and Modified Vaccinia Ankara-Vectored Ebola Vaccines: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Developing effective vaccines against Ebola virus is a global priority. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an adenovirus type 26 vector vaccine encoding Ebola glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and a modified vaccinia Ankara vector vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, Marburg virus, and Tai Forest virus nucleoprotein (MVA-BN-Filo). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind, phase 1 trial performed in Oxford, United Kingdom, enrolling healthy 18- to 50-year-olds from December 2014; 8-month follow-up was completed October 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized into 4 groups, within which they were simultaneously randomized 5:1 to receive study vaccines or placebo. Those receiving active vaccines were primed with Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 10(10) viral particles) or MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 10(8) median tissue culture infective dose) and boosted with the alternative vaccine 28 or 56 days later. A fifth, open-label group received Ad26.ZEBOV boosted by MVA-BN-Filo 14 days later. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. All adverse events were recorded until 21 days after each immunization; serious adverse events were recorded throughout the trial. Secondary outcomes were humoral and cellular immune responses to immunization, as assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and enzyme-linked immunospot performed at baseline and from 7 days after each immunization until 8 months after priming immunizations. RESULTS: Among 87 study participants (median age, 38.5 years; 66.7% female), 72 were randomized into 4 groups of 18, and 15 were included in the open-label group. Four participants did not receive a booster dose; 67 of 75 study vaccine recipients were followed up at 8 months. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. No participant became febrile after MVA-BN-Filo, compared with 3 of 60 participants (5%; 95% CI, 1%-14%) receiving Ad26.ZEBOV in the randomized groups. In the open-label group, 4 of 15 Ad26.ZEBOV recipients (27%; 95% CI, 8%-55%) experienced fever. In the randomized groups, 28 of 29 Ad26.ZEBOV recipients (97%; 95% CI, 82%- 99.9%) and 7 of 30 MVA-BN-Filo recipients (23%; 95% CI, 10%-42%) had detectable Ebola glycoprotein-specific IgG 28 days after primary immunization. All vaccine recipients had specific IgG detectable 21 days postboost and at 8-month follow-up. Within randomized groups, at 7 days postboost, at least 86% of vaccine recipients showed Ebola-specific T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 1 study of healthy volunteers, immunization with Ad26.ZEBOV or MVA-BN-Filo did not result in any vaccine-related serious adverse events. An immune response was observed after primary immunization with Ad26.ZEBOV; boosting by MVA-BN-Filo resulted in sustained elevation of specific immunity. These vaccines are being further assessed in phase 2 and 3 studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02313077.

Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of influenza A viral variants in study participants treated with pimodivir in the phase 2b TOPAZ study.

BACKGROUND: Pimodivir is a first-in-class polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) subunit inhibitor of the influenza A polymerase complex. The randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled phase 2b TOPAZ study demonstrated antiviral activity and safety of twice daily pimodivir alone (300 mg, 600 mg) or in combination with oseltamivir (pimodivir 600 mg, oseltamivir 75 mg) in adult study participants with acute uncomplicated influenza A. The detailed genotypic and phenotypic characterization of viral variants observed in this study are reported. METHODS: Population sequencing of PB2 and neuraminidase genes, and phenotypic susceptibility testing, were performed using baseline and last virus-positive post-baseline nasal swab samples. RESULTS: Sequencing of baseline samples in 206 of 223 (92.4%) randomized study participants with confirmed influenza A infection identified no polymorphisms at any predefined PB2 positions of interest for pimodivir and no phenotypic reduced susceptibility to pimodivir was observed. Post-baseline sequencing data for 105/223 (47.1%) participants identified emergence of PB2 mutations at amino acid positions of interest in 10 (9.5%) participants (pimodivir 300 mg: n = 3; 600 mg: n = 6; combination: n = 1; placebo: n = 0) and included positions S324, F325, S337, K376, T378, and N510. These emerging mutations were typically associated with decreased pimodivir susceptibility, but not viral breakthrough. No reduced phenotypic susceptibility was observed in the one (1.8%) participant with emerging PB2 mutations from the pimodivir plus oseltamivir group. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with acute uncomplicated influenza A treated with pimodivir in the TOPAZ study infrequently developed reduced susceptibility to pimodivir and combining pimodivir with oseltamivir further decreased the risk of reduced susceptibility development.

The Hospital Recovery Scale: A clinically useful endpoint in patients hospitalized with influenza.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no single best primary endpoint exists for measuring the efficacy of treatments in seriously ill patients with respiratory infections, such as influenza, who require hospitalization. The Hospital Recovery Scale is an ordinal endpoint used to evaluate treatment outcomes in clinical studies of hospitalized patients infected with influenza. METHODS: To determine whether Hospital Recovery Scale outcomes correspond to those for other clinical endpoints in patients hospitalized due to influenza, data from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind ZORO clinical trial (NCT01231620) were analyzed. Randomized influenza-infected patients were divided into subgroups of interest based on prespecified baseline and infection-related characteristics, as well as randomized treatment arms (intravenous zanamivir 300 mg or 600 mg, or oral oseltamivir 75 mg). Clinical endpoints relevant to this population were included to analyze differences in outcomes between the subgroups, and correspondence of these endpoints and hospital recovery endpoint was evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 488 patients were analyzed. There were strong correlations (ρs > 0.8) between the Hospital Recovery Scale assessed on the day after completion of a 5-day antiviral therapy (Day 6) and both time to hospital discharge and time to intensive care unit discharge, and moderate to strong correlations (0.6 < ρs < 0.8) between the Hospital Recovery Scale on Day 6 and several other relevant clinical endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The Hospital Recovery Scale is applicable as a primary endpoint in trials to evaluate new therapies for severely ill patients hospitalized due to influenza, and may have utility in other severe respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19.

Safety and immunogenicity in man of a cell culture derived trivalent live attenuated seasonal influenza vaccine: a Phase I dose escalating study in healthy volunteers.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) offers the promise of inducing a variety of immune responses thereby conferring protection to circulating field strains. LAIVs are based on cold adapted and temperature sensitive phenotypes of master donor viruses (MDVs) containing the surface glycoprotein genes of seasonal influenza strains. Two types of MDV lineages have been described, the Ann Arbor lineages and the A/Leningrad/17 and B/USSR/60 lineages. Here the safety and immunogenicity of a Madin Darby Canine Kidney - cell culture based, intranasal LAIV derived from A/Leningrad/17 and B/USSR, was evaluated in healthy influenza non-naive volunteers 18-50 years of age. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design, single escalating doses of 1×10(5), 1×10(6), or 1×10(7) tissue culture infectious dose 50% (TCID50) of vaccine containing each of the three influenza virus re-assortants recommended by the World Health Organization for the 2008-2009 season were administered intranasally. A statistically significant geometric mean increase in hemagglutination inhibition titer was reached for influenza strain A/H3N2 after immunization with all doses of LAIV. For the A/H1N1 and B strains, the GMI in HI titer did not increase for any of the doses. Virus neutralization antibody titers showed a similar response pattern. A dose-response effect could not be demonstrated for any of the strains, neither for the HI antibody nor for the VN antibody responses. No influenza like symptoms, no nasal congestions, no rhinorrhea, or other influenza related upper respiratory tract symptoms were observed. In addition, no difference in the incidence or nature of adverse events was found between vaccine and placebo treated subjects. Overall, the results indicated that the LAIV for nasal administration is immunogenic (i.e. able to provoke an immune response) and safe both from the perspective of the attenuated virus and the MDCK cell line from which it was derived, and it warrants further development.

Meta-analyses of the efficacy of asenapine for acute schizophrenia: comparisons with placebo and other antipsychotics.

CONTEXT: Asenapine is an approved treatment for schizophrenia in the United States. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of asenapine in acute schizophrenia compared with placebo and other antipsychotics. DATA SOURCES: Four asenapine trials from the asenapine development program were pooled for the meta-analysis. To compare asenapine versus placebo treatment effect with other antipsychotics, we added integrated asenapine data to a previously published meta-analysis. For comparative efficacy of asenapine versus other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), data from a second published meta-analysis were combined with the 4 asenapine trials. DATA ANALYSES: To evaluate efficacy, mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score was examined in asenapine and other antipsychotics. To assess clinical relevance, PANSS response rates and associated odds ratios (ORs) for treatment response were assessed. To assess the relative efficacy of SGAs, a network meta-analysis with PANSS total score change was conducted by using data from the 2 published meta-analyses together with asenapine data. RESULTS: Asenapine was superior to placebo with regard to mean change in PANSS total score (last observation carried forward [LOCF]: -3.6, P = .002; mixed model for repeated measures [MMRM]: -4.1, P = .001), an effect comparable to active controls from the same trials (LOCF: -4.0, P = .002; MMRM: -4.8, P = .001). PANSS responder rates were significantly better with asenapine versus placebo (OR, 1.9; P < .001) and comparable to active controls (OR, 1.7; P = .002). Effect sizes for asenapine were somewhat lower than those reported in the literature for other SGAs. Network meta-analysis also demonstrated that the efficacy of asenapine was comparable to that of other SGAs; estimated differences between asenapine and other SGAs ranged from 3.9 points (95% CI, 0.3 to 7.4) greater than ziprasidone to 2.9 points (95% CI, -0.1 to 5.9) less than olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: These meta-analyses indicate that the efficacy of asenapine for acute schizophrenia is superior to placebo and comparable to several other SGAs.

A novel guinea pig model of Chlamydia trachomatis genital tract infection.

Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections often result in pelvic inflammatory disease and sequelae including infertility and ectopic pregnancies. In addition to the already established murine models, the development of other animal models is necessary to study the safety and efficacy of prototype vaccine candidates. The intravaginal infection of guinea pigs with C. trachomatis has been tested in three independent studies. The first two studies investigated the effect of hormonal treatment of the animals prior to infection with serovars D and E. The results showed that estradiol treatment was required for sustained infection. The third study conducted an immunization-challenge experiment to explore the feasibility of measuring protection in this guinea pig model. C. trachomatis bacteria were sampled using vaginal swabs and measured by qPCR. Using immunohistochemistry the bacteria were detected in the oviducts 19 days post-infection, indicating that the estradiol treatment resulted in ascending infection. Furthermore, immunization of guinea pigs with live EB formulated with ISCOM matrix led to reduction of cervico-vaginal shedding and diminished the severity of pathology. In this study we have developed a new guinea pig model of C. trachomatis female genital tract infection for the purpose of evaluating potential vaccine candidates.

Effective reversal of moderate rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block with sugammadex, a selective relaxant binding agent.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex rapidly reverses rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block. This study explored the dose-response relation of sugammadex given as a reversal agent at reappearance of the second muscle twitch after rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced block. A secondary objective was to investigate the safety of single doses of sugammadex. METHODS: In this two-center, phase II, dose-finding study, 80 patients (age >or= 18 yr, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, surgery >or= 60 min requiring muscle relaxation for intubation) were randomly assigned to receive rocuronium (0.60 mg/kg) or vecuronium (0.10 mg/kg). Sugammadex or placebo was administered at reappearance of the second muscle twitch. The primary efficacy endpoint was time from starting sugammadex administration until recovery of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, sugammadex produced dose-dependent decreases in mean time to recovery for all train-of-four ratios in the rocuronium and vecuronium groups. The mean time for recovery of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9 in the rocuronium group was 31.8 min after placebo compared with 3.7 and 1.1 min after 0.5 and 4.0 mg/kg sugammadex, respectively. The mean time for recovery of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9 in the vecuronium group was 48.8 min after placebo, compared with 2.5 and 1.4 min after 1.0 and 8.0 mg/kg sugammadex, respectively. Sugammadex was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Sugammadex rapidly reversed rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block at reappearance of the second muscle twitch and was well tolerated. A dose-response relation was observed with sugammadex for reversal of both rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block.