A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparator-Controlled Study to Evaluate Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of V114, a 15-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine, in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients (PNEU-STEM).

BACKGROUND: Individuals who receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) are immunocompromised and at high risk of pneumococcal infections, especially in the months following transplant. This study evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of V114 (VAXNEUVANCE; Merck, Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA), a 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), when given to allo-HCT recipients. METHODS: Participants received 3 doses of V114 or PCV13 (Prevnar 13; Wyeth LLC) in 1-month intervals starting 3-6 months after allo-HCT. Twelve months after HCT, participants received either PNEUMOVAX 23 or a fourth dose of PCV (if they experienced chronic graft vs host disease). Safety was evaluated as the proportion of participants with adverse events (AEs). Immunogenicity was evaluated by measuring serotype-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for all V114 serotypes in each vaccination group. RESULTS: A total of 274 participants were enrolled and vaccinated in the study. The proportions of participants with AEs and serious AEs were generally comparable between intervention groups, and the majority of AEs in both groups were of short duration and mild-to-moderate intensity. For both IgG GMCs and OPA GMTs, V114 was generally comparable to PCV13 for the 13 shared serotypes, and higher for serotypes 22F and 33F at day 90. CONCLUSIONS: V114 was well tolerated in allo-HCT recipients, with a generally comparable safety profile to PCV13. V114 induced comparable immune responses to PCV13 for the 13 shared serotypes, and was higher for V114 serotypes 22F and 33F. Study results support the use of V114 in allo-HCT recipients. Clinical Trials Registration. clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03565900) and European Union at EudraCT 2018-000066-11.

Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: 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 Use in the Setting of Severe Renal Impairment: A Theoretical Concern or Real Risk?

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.

A Phase 2b, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Multicenter Study Evaluating Antiviral Effects, Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Presatovir in Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients with Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection of the Lower Respiratory Tract.

BACKGROUND: Presatovir significantly reduced nasal viral load, signs, and symptoms of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in a human challenge study. We evaluated presatovir in hematopoietic-cell transplant (HCT) recipients with RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). METHODS: Patients with confirmed RSV in upper and lower respiratory tract and new chest X-ray abnormalities were randomized (1:1), stratified by supplemental oxygen and ribavirin use, to receive oral presatovir 200 mg or placebo every 4 days for 5 doses. The primary endpoint was time-weighted average change in nasal RSV viral load through day 9. Secondary endpoints included supplemental oxygen-free days, incident respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: From January 31, 2015, to March 20, 2017, 60 patients from 17 centers were randomized (31 presatovir, 29 placebo); 59 received study treatment (50 allogeneic, 9 autologous HCT). In the efficacy population (29 presatovir, 28 placebo), presatovir treatment did not significantly reduce time-weighted average change in viral load (-1.12 vs -1.09 log10 copies/mL; treatment difference -0.02 log10 copies/mL, 95% confidence interval: -.62, .57; P = .94), median supplemental oxygen-free days (26 vs 28 days, P = .84), incident respiratory failure (10.3 vs 10.7%, P = .98), or all-cause mortality (0 vs 7.1%, P = .19) versus placebo. Adverse events were similar between arms (presatovir 80%, placebo 79%). Resistance-associated substitutions in RSV fusion protein emerged in 6/29 presatovir-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Presatovir treatment was well tolerated in HCT patients with RSV LRTI but did not improve virologic or clinical outcomes versus placebo. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02254421; EudraCT, #2014-002475-29.

A Phase 2, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Presatovir for the Treatment of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Upper Respiratory Tract Infection in Hematopoietic-Cell Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Hematopoietic-cell transplant (HCT) recipients are at risk for severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We evaluated the RSV fusion inhibitor presatovir in a randomized, double-blind, Phase II trial in HCT recipients with RSV upper respiratory tract infections. METHODS: Patients were stratified by lymphopenia (<200/µL) and ribavirin use; were randomized, stratified by lymphopenia (<200/µL) and ribavirin use, to receive oral presatovir at 200 mg or a placebo on Days 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17, and were followed through Day 28. The coprimary efficacy endpoints were the time-weighted average change in the nasal RSV viral load between Days 1 and 9 and the proportion of patients developing lower respiratory tract complications (LRTCs) through Day 28. RESULTS: From 23 January 2015 to 16 June 2017, 189 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (96 to presatovir and 93 to the placebo). Presatovir treatment, compared with the placebo treatment, did not significantly affect (prespecified α = 0.01) a time-weighted average decline in the RSV viral load from Day 1 to 9 (treatment difference, -0.33 log10 copies/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] -.64 to -.02 log10 copies/mL; P = .040) or the progression to LRTC (11.2% vs 19.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, .22-1.18; P = .11). In a post hoc analysis among patients with lymphopenia, presatovir decreased LRTC development by Day 28 (2/15 [13.3%] vs 9/14 [64.3%], respectively; P = .008), compared with the placebo. Adverse events were similar for patients receiving presatovir and the placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Presatovir had a favorable safety profile in adult HCT recipients with RSV but did not achieve the coprimary endpoints. Exploratory analyses suggest an antiviral effect among patients with lymphopenia. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02254408; EUDRA-CT#2014-002474-36.

Letermovir Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus in Hematopoietic-Cell Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a common complication after allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation. Letermovir is an antiviral drug that inhibits the CMV-terminase complex. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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 .).

Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: 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. Objective: 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. Design, Setting, and Participants: 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. Interventions: 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. Main Outcomes and Measures: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions and Relevance: 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. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.

Definitions of Resistant and Refractory Cytomegalovirus Infection and Disease in Transplant Recipients for Use in Clinical Trials.

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.

A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Fidaxomicin for Prophylaxis of Clostridium difficile-associated Diarrhea in Adults Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

Background: Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) is common during hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We evaluated fidaxomicin for prevention of CDAD in HSCT patients. Methods: In this double-blind study, subjects undergoing HSCT with fluoroquinolone prophylaxis stratified by transplant type (autologous/allogeneic) were randomized to once-daily oral fidaxomicin (200 mg) or a matching placebo. Dosing began within 2 days of starting conditioning or fluoroquinolone prophylaxis and continued until 7 days after neutrophil engraftment or completion of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis/clinically-indicated antimicrobials for up to 40 days. The primary endpoint was CDAD incidence through 30 days after study medication. The primary endpoint analysis counted confirmed CDAD, receipt of CDAD-effective medications (for any indication), and missing CDAD assessment (for any reason, including death) as failures; this composite analysis is referred to as "prophylaxis failure" to distinguish from the pre-specified sensitivity analysis, which counted only confirmed CDAD (by toxin immunoassay or nucleic acid amplification test) as failure. Results: Of 611 subjects enrolled, 600 were treated and analyzed. Prophylaxis failure was similar in fidaxomicin and placebo recipients (28.6% vs 30.8%; difference 2.2% [-5.1, 9.5], P = .278). However, most failures were due to non-CDAD events. Confirmed CDAD was lower in fidaxomicin vs placebo recipients (4.3% vs 10.7%; difference 6.4% [2.2, 10.6], P = .0014). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 15.0% of fidaxomicin recipients and 20.0% of placebo recipients. Conclusions: While no difference was demonstrated between arms in the primary analysis, results of the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that fidaxomicin significantly reduced the incidence of CDAD in HSCT recipients. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01691248.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trial of Oral Brincidofovir for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). In this trial, we randomized adult CMV-seropositive HCT recipients without CMV viremia at screening 2:1 to receive brincidofovir or placebo until week 14 post-HCT. Randomization was stratified by center and risk of CMV infection. Patients were assessed weekly through week 15 and every third week thereafter through week 24 post-HCT. Patients who developed clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi; CMV viremia requiring preemptive therapy or CMV disease) discontinued the study drug and began anti-CMV treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with CS-CMVi through week 24 post-HCT; patients who discontinued the trial or with missing data were imputed as primary endpoint events. Between August 2013 and June 2015, 452 patients were randomized at a median of 15 days after HCT and received study drug. The proportion of patients who developed CS-CMVi or were imputed as having a primary endpoint event through week 24 was similar between brincidofovir-treated patients and placebo recipients (155 of 303 [51.2%] versus 78 of 149 [52.3%]; odds ratio, .95 [95% confidence interval, .64 to 1.41]; P = .805); fewer brincidofovir recipients developed CMV viremia through week 14 compared with placebo recipients (41.6%; P < .001). Serious adverse events were more frequent among brincidofovir recipients (57.1% versus 37.6%), driven by acute graft-versus-host disease (32.3% versus 6.0%) and diarrhea (6.9% versus 2.7%). Week 24 all-cause mortality was 15.5% among brincidofovir recipients and 10.1% among placebo recipients. Brincidofovir did not reduce CS-CMVi by week 24 post-HCT and was associated with gastrointestinal toxicity.

Inactivated varicella zoster vaccine in autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients: an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recipients of autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplants (auto-HSCT) have an increased risk of herpes zoster and herpes zoster-related complications. The aim of this study was to establish the efficacy and safety of an inactivated varicella zoster vaccine for the prevention of herpes zoster after auto-HSCT. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 135 medical centres (ie, stem-cell transplant centres and hospitals) in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, scheduled to receive an auto-HSCT within 60 days of enrolment, and had a history of varicella infection or were seropositive for antibodies to varicella zoster virus, or both. Exclusion criteria included a history of herpes zoster within the previous year of enrolment, and intended antiviral prophylaxis for longer than 6 months after transplantation. Participants were randomly assigned according to a central randomisation schedule generated by the trial statistician, to receive either the inactivated-virus vaccine from one of three consistency lots, a high-antigen lot, or placebo, stratified by age (<50 vs ≥50 years) and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis after transplantation (≤3 months vs >3 to ≤6 months). Participants, investigators, trial staff, and the funder's clinical and laboratory personnel were masked to group assignment. Participants were given four doses of inactivated vaccine or placebo, with the first dose 5-60 days before auto-HSCT, and the second, third, and fourth doses at about 30, 60, and 90 days after transplantation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of herpes zoster, confirmed by PCR or adjudication by a masked clinical committee, or both, assessed in all participants randomly assigned to the vaccine consistency lot group or placebo group who received at least one dose of vaccine and had auto-HSCT. Safety was assessed in all randomised participants who received at least one dose of vaccine and had follow-up data. A prespecified vaccine efficacy success criterion required the lower bound of the 95% CI be higher than 25% for the relative reduction of the hazard ratio of herpes zoster infection in participants given the vaccine from one of the consistency lots compared with those given placebo. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01229267) and EudraCT (2010-020150-34). FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2010, and April 25, 2013, 560 participants were randomly assigned to the vaccine consistency lot group, 106 to the high-antigen lot group, and 564 to the placebo group. 249 (44%) of patients in the vaccine consistency lot group, 35 (33%) in the high-antigen lot group, and 220 (39%) in the placebo group discontinued before study end, mostly because of death or withdrawal. 51 participants were excluded from the primary efficacy endpoint analyses because they did not undergo auto-HSCT or were not vaccinated, or both (22 [4%] in the vaccine consistency lot group, and 29 [5%] in the placebo group). Mean follow-up for efficacy was 2·4 years (SD 1·3) in the vaccine consistency lot group and 2·3 years (SD 1·3) in the placebo group. 42 (8%) of 538 participants in the vaccine consistency lot group (32·9 per 1000 person-years) and 113 (21%) of 535 in the placebo group (91·9 per 1000 person-years) had a confirmed case of herpes zoster. The estimated vaccine efficacy was 63·8% (95% CI 48·4-74·6), meeting the pre-specified success criterion. For the combined vaccine groups versus the placebo group, the proportion of patients with serious adverse events (216 [33%] of 657 vs 181 [33%] of 554; risk difference 0·2%, 95% CI -5·1 to 5·5) and serious vaccine-related adverse events (five [1%] vs five [1%]; risk difference 0·1%, -1·4 to 1·1) were similar. Vaccine-related injection-site adverse events occurred more frequently in participants given vaccine than those given placebo (191 [29%] vs 36 [7%]; risk difference 22·6%, 95% CI 18·5-26·6; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: This study shows for the first time in a large phase 3 trial that early vaccination of auto-HSCT recipients during the peri-transplant period can be effective for the prevention of an opportunistic infection like herpes zoster and that the vaccine is well tolerated. FUNDING: Merck & Co., Inc.

Management of Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) in solid organ transplant recipients: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Community of Practice.

These updated guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice address the prevention and management of Clostridium difficile infection in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) is among the most common hospital acquired infections. In SOT recipients, the incidence of CDI varies by type and number or organs transplanted. While a meta-analysis of published literature found the prevalence of postoperative CDI in the general surgical population to be approximately 0.51%, the prevalence of CDI that is seen in the solid organ transplant population ranges from a low of 3.2% in the pancreatic transplant population to 12.7% in those receiving multiple organ transplants. There are no randomized, controlled trials evaluating the management of CDI in the SOT population. Herein is a review and summary of the currently available literature that has been synthesized into updated treatment guidelines for the management of CDI in the SOT population.

Isavuconazole treatment for rare fungal diseases and for invasive aspergillosis in patients with renal impairment: Challenges and lessons of the VITAL trial.

Invasive fungal disease (IFD) confers a substantial risk for morbidity and mortality to immunocompromised patients. Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common IFD caused by moulds but the prevalence of other rare mould diseases, such as mucormycosis, hyalohyphomycosis and phaeohyphomycosis, may be increasing. Treatments are available for IA, but evidence to support efficacy and safety of antifungal agents for rare IFDs, or for IFDs in special patient populations, is limited or lacking. The VITAL trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole for the treatment of patients with IA and renal impairment, or with IFDs caused by rare moulds, yeasts or dimorphic fungi. These patients stand to benefit most from a new treatment option but are unlikely to be included in a randomised, controlled trial. In this article, we review the challenges faced in the design and conduct of the VITAL trial. We also review the findings of VITAL, which included evidence of the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole. Finally, we consider the importance of trials such as VITAL to inform therapeutic decision making for clinicians faced with the challenge of treating patients with rare IFDs and as one paradigm of how to determine efficacy and safety of new drugs for rare and resistant infections without a suitable comparator.

Isavuconazole for treatment of invasive fungal diseases caused by more than one fungal species.

The optimal approach to treat invasive fungal disease (IFD) caused by more than one fungal species is unknown. We documented the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole for treatment of IFDs caused by more than one fungal species. VITAL was a single-arm, international, open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole (200 mg orally or intravenously every 8 hours for 48 hours, then once daily) for treatment of rare IFDs. The primary outcome was the overall response at Day 42; key secondary outcomes were overall responses at Day 84 and end of treatment (EOT), mortality at Days 42 and 84, and safety. This analysis includes patients with IFD caused by multiple fungal species. Fifteen patients were included in this analysis (including Aspergillus spp., n = 11; without Aspergillus spp., n = 4); median treatment duration was 97 days [range, 6-544] days). Overall treatment success was observed in 2/15 patients (13.3%) at Days 42 and 84, and 2/14 (14.3%) at EOT. All-cause mortality was 2/15 (13.3%) at Day 42 and 4/15 (26.7%) at Day 84. All patients had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 12 patients (80.0%) had serious TEAEs; TEAEs led to discontinuation of isavuconazole in two patients (13.3%). Isavuconazole may be useful to treat some IFDs caused by multiple fungal species.

Isavuconazole for treatment of rare invasive fungal diseases.

Data regarding treatment of rare invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) are scarce. We documented the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole for treatment of uncommonly diagnosed IFDs. VITAL was a single-arm, international, open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole (200 mg orally or intravenously every 8 hours for 48 hours, then once daily). The primary outcome was overall response at Day 42; key secondary outcomes were overall responses at Day 84 and end of treatment (EOT), mortality at Days 42 and 84, and safety. This analysis includes patients with IFD caused by rare or unidentified pathogens. Twenty-six patients with IFDs caused by rare moulds (n = 17), non-Candida yeasts (n = 2), or unidentified moulds (n = 7) were enrolled (median treatment duration [range], 114.5 [1-496]) days. Overall treatment success was observed in 11/26 (42.3%), 10/26 (38.5%), and 15/26 (57.7%) patients at Days 42, 84, and EOT, respectively. All-cause mortality rates were 2/26 patients (7.7%) at Day 42 and 4/26 patients (15.4%) at Day 84; another two patients died after Day 84. All patients had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 15 patients (57.7%) had serious TEAEs, and TEAEs led to discontinuation of isavuconazole in four patients (15.4%). Isavuconazole may be efficacious for treatment of a range of rare IFDs.

Letermovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in hematopoietic-cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a leading cause of illness and death in patients who have undergone allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation. Available treatments are restricted by clinically significant toxic effects and drug resistance. METHODS: In this phase 2 study, we evaluated the effect of letermovir (also known as AIC246), a new anti-CMV drug with a novel mechanism of action, on the incidence and time to onset of prophylaxis failure in CMV-seropositive recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplants from matched related or unrelated donors. From March 2010 through October 2011, we randomly assigned 131 transplant recipients in a 3:1 ratio to three sequential study cohorts according to a double-blind design. Patients received oral letermovir (at a dose of 60, 120, or 240 mg per day, or matching placebo) for 12 weeks after engraftment. The primary end point was all-cause prophylaxis failure, defined as discontinuation of the study drug because of CMV antigen or DNA detection, end-organ disease, or any other cause. Patients underwent weekly surveillance for CMV infection. RESULTS: The reduction in the incidence of all-cause prophylaxis failure was dose-dependent. The incidence of prophylaxis failure with letermovir, as compared with placebo, was 48% versus 64% at a daily letermovir dose of 60 mg (P=0.32), 32% at a dose of 120 mg (P=0.01), and 29% at a dose of 240 mg (P=0.007). Kaplan-Meier time-to-onset profiles for prophylaxis failure showed a significant difference in the comparison of letermovir at a dose of 240 mg per day with placebo (P=0.002). The safety profile of letermovir was similar to placebo, with no indication of hematologic toxicity or nephrotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Letermovir, as compared with placebo, was effective in reducing the incidence of CMV infection in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplants. The highest dose (240 mg per day) had the greatest anti-CMV activity, with an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by AiCuris; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01063829.).

Pharmacokinetics and safety results from the Phase 3 randomized, open-label, study of intravenous posaconazole in patients at risk of invasive fungal disease.

OBJECTIVES: A two-part (Phase 1B/3), sequential, open-label, multicentre study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of intravenous (iv) posaconazole given as antifungal prophylaxis to neutropenic patients with AML or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or to recipients at risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) after allogeneic HSCT. METHODS: Patients (N = 237) received 300 mg of posaconazole iv twice daily on day 1, followed by 300 mg of posaconazole iv once daily for 4-28 days. After at least 5 days, patients were randomly assigned to receive posaconazole oral suspension, 400 mg twice daily or 200 mg three times daily, to complete a 28 day treatment course. Primary PK parameters were steady-state average concentration over the dosing interval (Cavg) and posaconazole trough levels (Cmin). RESULTS: Mean posaconazole Cmin was 1320 ng/mL (day 6) and 1297 ng/mL (day 8); steady-state Cmin was 1090 ng/mL (day 10). Mean steady-state posaconazole Cavg was 1500 ng/mL (day 10 or 14) and was similar in HSCT recipients (1560 ng/mL) and AML/MDS patients (1470 ng/mL). The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (8%), nausea (5%) and rash (5%). IFD was reported in 3/237 patients (1%; 2 proven, 1 probable). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous posaconazole at 300 mg was well tolerated, resulted in adequate steady-state systemic exposure and was associated with a low incidence of IFD in this population at high risk. TRIAL REGISTRY AND NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01075984.

CMX001 to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in hematopoietic-cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.).

Surotomycin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection: Phase 2, randomized, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority, multicentre trial.

OBJECTIVES: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a major public health concern. Treatment with commonly prescribed antibiotics is associated with high rates of recurrence after initial cure. Here, we present the efficacy and safety of surotomycin, an orally administered, minimally absorbed, selective bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide, compared with vancomycin, in patients with CDI. METHODS: In this Phase 2, randomized, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority, multicentre trial, participants received surotomycin 125 mg twice daily, surotomycin 250 mg twice daily or vancomycin 125 mg four times daily for 10 days. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical response at end of treatment. The registration number of the study on clinicaltrials.gov is NCT01085591. RESULTS: Clinical cure rates were similar among treatment groups (92.4% for surotomycin 125 mg twice daily, 86.6% for surotomycin 250 mg twice daily and 89.4% for vancomycin). Recurrence rates were 27.9% for surotomycin 125 mg twice daily, 17.2% for surotomycin 250 mg twice daily and 35.6% for vancomycin. The lower recurrence rate with surotomycin 250 mg twice daily versus vancomycin was statistically significant (P = 0.035). Recurrence rates were statistically similar between the surotomycin dose groups (P = 0.193). Rates of sustained clinical response at end of study were 66.7% for surotomycin 125 mg twice daily, 70.1% for surotomycin 250 mg twice daily and 56.1% for vancomycin. Incidence of adverse events was similar among treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence rates of CDI were lower with surotomycin with higher sustained clinical response rates compared with vancomycin, both of which may offer potential clinical benefits.

Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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 non­North American Pulsed Field type 1 strains. The adverse-event profile was similar for the two therapies. CONCLUSIONS: 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 non­North American Pulsed Field type 1 strains. (Funded by Optimer Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00314951.)