Adjunctive lumateperone (ITI-007) in the treatment of bipolar depression: Results from a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT02600507) evaluated the efficacy and safety of lumateperone adjunctive therapy to lithium or valproate in patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: Patients (18-75 years) with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (MDE), with inadequate therapeutic response to lithium or valproate, were randomized 1:1:1 to 6 weeks adjunctive therapy with lumateperone 28 mg (n = 176), lumateperone 42 mg (n = 177), or placebo (n = 176). The primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline to Day 43 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score and the Clinical Global Impression Scale-Bipolar Version-Severity Scale (CGI-BP-S) depression subscore. Safety assessments included adverse events, laboratory evaluations, vital signs, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and suicidality. RESULTS: Patients treated with adjunctive lumateperone 42 mg showed significantly greater improvement compared with adjunctive placebo in MADRS Total score (LS mean difference vs placebo [LSMD], -2.4; p = 0.02) and CGI-BP-S depression subscore (LSMD, -0.3; p = 0.01), while adjunctive lumateperone 28 mg showed numerical improvement in MADRS Total score (LSMD, -1.7; p = 0.10) and improvement in the CGI-BP-S depression subscore (LSMD, -0.3; p = 0.04). Adjunctive lumateperone treatment was well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse events reported at rates >5% and twice placebo for lumateperone 42 mg were somnolence (11.3%), dizziness (10.7%), and nausea (8.5%), with minimal risk of EPS, metabolic abnormalities, or increased prolactin. CONCLUSIONS: Lumateperone 42-mg treatment adjunctive to lithium or valproate significantly improved depression symptoms and was generally well tolerated in patients with MDEs associated with either bipolar I or bipolar II disorder.

Randomized Trial of Ceftazidime-Avibactam vs Meropenem for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia (REPROVE): Analyses per US FDA-Specified End Points.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP; nosocomial pneumonia) due to Gram-negative pathogens are associated with significant morbidity and mortality; treatment options for multidrug-resistant infections are limited. The pivotal phase III REPROVE trial evaluated the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) vs meropenem in the treatment of patients with HAP/VAP. Study results for prespecified analyses per US Food and Drug Administration-recommended trial end points are reported here. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with HAP/VAP proven or suspected to be caused by a Gram-negative pathogen were randomized 1:1 to receive CAZ-AVI or meropenem for 7 to 14 days. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary outcomes included clinical cure at test of cure (TOC) in the ITT and microbiological ITT (micro-ITT) populations, and safety and tolerability throughout the study. RESULTS: hundred seventy randomized patients received treatment and were included in the ITT population (CAZ-AVI, n = 436; meropenem, n = 434). CAZ-AVI was noninferior to meropenem for the primary end point (28-day all-cause mortality; ITT) based on the prespecified 10% noninferiority margin (CAZ-AVI, 9.6%; meropenem, 8.3%; difference, 1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.4% to 5.3%) and for the clinical cure end point in the ITT population based on a prespecified -10% noninferiority margin (CAZ-AVI, 67.2%; meropenem, 69.1%; difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -8.1% to 4.3%). Clinical cure rates at TOC for patients infected with CAZ-nonsusceptible pathogens were similar (CAZ-AVI, 75.5%; meropenem, 71.2%; micro-ITT). Safety data were consistent with established safety profiles for both agents. CONCLUSIONS: CAZ-AVI provides an important new treatment option for HAP/VAP due to Gram-negative pathogens, including CAZ-nonsusceptible strains.

An open randomized study of inactivated hepatitis A vaccine administered concomitantly with typhoid fever and yellow fever vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of several vaccines is a common practice when travel clinics prepare persons for international travel. The purpose of the study was to compare the immunogenicity and safety of hepatitis A, typhoid fever, and yellow fever vaccines administered concomitantly with hepatitis A vaccine administered alone and typhoid fever and yellow fever vaccines administered alone. METHODS: Healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age were randomized to receive either VAQTA, TyphimVi, and YF-VAX on day 0 and VAQTA at week 24 (Group 1); TyphimVi and YF-VAX on day 0 and an optional dose of VAQTA 1 month later (Group 2); or VAQTA at day 0 and week 24 (Group 3). RESULTS: From March to December 1997, a total of 240 subjects were enrolled, 80 in each treatment group. Most were female and Caucasian, and the mean age was 29.4 years. Four weeks after vaccine dose 1, seroconversion to protective antibody levels against hepatitis A was 95.9% in Group 1 and 100% in Group 3. In Group 1, 93.4% of subjects demonstrated at least a 4-fold rise in neutralizing antibody levels against typhoid, compared with 90% in Group 2. Serum neutralizing antibody against yellow fever developed in 98.6% of subjects in Group 1 compared with 100% in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: These findings were consistent with similarity in the immune responses between treatment groups as defined a priori. The adverse experience (AE) profile did not appear to be substantially affected by concomitant administration of all three vaccines. Providing these three vaccines concomitantly can simplify the process of obtaining pretravel prophylaxis and may help ensure that all needed vaccines are administered.

Post-licensure comparative study of unusual high-pitched crying and prolonged crying following COMVAX and placebo versus PedvaxHIB and RECOMBIVAX HB in healthy infants.

BACKGROUND: In a previous clinical trial comparing COMVAX with its monovalent components, PedvaxHIB and RECOMBIVAX HB, one of 92 comparisons of post-vaccination adverse experiences revealed a higher rate of unusual, high-pitched crying following the second, but not the first or third doses of COMVAX compared with two monovalent control vaccines. Rates of prolonged crying were similar between groups at each visit. OBJECTIVES: To compare the frequencies of unusual, high-pitched crying between recipients of COMVAX plus placebo and recipients of PedvaxHIB plus RECOMBIVAX HB following the second vaccine doses (primary) and to summarize the frequency of unusual, high-pitched crying and prolonged crying after each vaccination visit. DESIGN: We enrolled 1215 healthy infants in a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Participating infants received study vaccines at 2 and 4 months of age and other routine childhood vaccines at 6-7 weeks and 3 months of age. Crying was evaluated via questionnaire at the time of enrollment (baseline) and daily from days 0 to 2 after each injection. RESULTS: Reports of unusual, high-pitched crying and prolonged crying were uncommon (<1%) prior to the first vaccination visit and were comparable in both treatment groups. After each injection, rates of unusual, high-pitched crying (range: 4.26-6.96%) and prolonged crying (range: 0-1.36%) appeared similar between treatment groups and for each vaccination visit. Crying resolved in all infants; no neurological impairment was reported. CONCLUSION: This study found no statistically significant differences in rates of unusual, high-pitched crying and prolonged crying in infants vaccinated with COMVAX plus placebo compared with infants vaccinated with its monovalent components, PedvaxHIB and RECOMBIVAX HB.