Efficacy and Safety of an mRNA-Based RSV PreF Vaccine in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause substantial morbidity and mortality among older adults. An mRNA-based RSV vaccine, mRNA-1345, encoding the stabilized RSV prefusion F glycoprotein, is under clinical investigation. METHODS: In this ongoing, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adults 60 years of age or older to receive one dose of mRNA-1345 (50 µg) or placebo. The two primary efficacy end points were the prevention of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms and with at least three signs or symptoms. A key secondary efficacy end point was the prevention of RSV-associated acute respiratory disease. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 35,541 participants were assigned to receive the mRNA-1345 vaccine (17,793 participants) or placebo (17,748). The median follow-up was 112 days (range, 1 to 379). The primary analyses were conducted when at least 50% of the anticipated cases of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease had occurred. Vaccine efficacy was 83.7% (95.88% confidence interval [CI], 66.0 to 92.2) against RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms and 82.4% (96.36% CI, 34.8 to 95.3) against the disease with at least three signs or symptoms. Vaccine efficacy was 68.4% (95% CI, 50.9 to 79.7) against RSV-associated acute respiratory disease. Protection was observed against both RSV subtypes (A and B) and was generally consistent across subgroups defined according to age and coexisting conditions. Participants in the mRNA-1345 group had a higher incidence than those in the placebo group of solicited local adverse reactions (58.7% vs. 16.2%) and of systemic adverse reactions (47.7% vs. 32.9%); most reactions were mild to moderate in severity and were transient. Serious adverse events occurred in 2.8% of the participants in each trial group. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of the mRNA-1345 vaccine resulted in no evident safety concerns and led to a lower incidence of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease and of RSV-associated acute respiratory disease than placebo among adults 60 years of age or older. (Funded by Moderna; ConquerRSV ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05127434.).

Virologic Outcomes with Molnupiravir in Non-hospitalized Adult Patients with COVID-19 from the Randomized, Placebo-Controlled MOVe-OUT Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind MOVe-OUT trial demonstrated molnupiravir (800 mg every 12 h for 5 days) as safe and effective for outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19, significantly reducing the risk of hospitalization/death in high-risk adults. At the time of that report, virologic assessments from the trial were partially incomplete as a result of their time-intensive nature. Here we present final results from all prespecified virology endpoints in MOVe-OUT based on the full trial dataset. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline (day 1, prior to first dose) and days 3, 5 (end-of-treatment visit), 10, 15, and 29. From these samples, change from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers (determined by quantitative PCR), detection of infectious SARS-CoV-2 (by plaque assay), and SARS-CoV-2 viral error induction (determined by whole genome next-generation sequencing) were assessed as exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: Molnupiravir was associated with greater mean reductions from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA than placebo (including 50% relative reduction at end-of-treatment) through day 10. Among participants with infectious virus detected at baseline (n = 96 molnupiravir, n = 97 placebo) and evaluable post-baseline samples, no molnupiravir-treated participant had infectious SARS-CoV-2 by day 3, whereas infectious virus was recovered from 21% of placebo-arm participants on day 3 and 2% at end-of-treatment. Consistent with molnupiravir's mechanism of action, sequence analysis demonstrated that molnupiravir was associated with an increased number of low-frequency transition errors randomly distributed across the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome compared with placebo (median 143.5 molnupiravir, 15 placebo), while transversion errors were infrequent overall (median 2 in both arms). Outcomes were consistent regardless of baseline SARS-CoV-2 clade, presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune response, or viral load. CONCLUSIONS: A 5-day course of orally administered molnupiravir demonstrated a consistently greater virologic effect than placebo, including rapidly eliminating infectious SARS-CoV-2, in high-risk outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04575597.

Impact of Molnupiravir Treatment on Patient-Reported COVID-19 Symptoms in the Phase 3 MOVe-OUT Trial: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir is an orally administered antiviral authorized for COVID-19 treatment in adults at high risk of progression to severe disease. Here, we report secondary and post hoc analyses of participants' self-reported symptoms in the MOVe-OUT trial, which evaluated molnupiravir initiated within 5 days of symptom onset in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible participants completed a 15-item symptom diary daily from day 1 (randomization) through day 29, rating symptom severity as "none," "mild," "moderate," or "severe"; loss of smell and loss of taste were rated as "yes" or "no." Time to sustained symptom resolution/improvement was defined as the number of days from randomization to the first of 3 consecutive days of reduced severity, without subsequent relapse. Time to symptom progression was defined as the number of days from randomization to the first of 2 consecutive days of worsening severity. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate event rates at various time points. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio between molnupiravir and placebo. RESULTS: For most targeted COVID-19 symptoms, sustained resolution/improvement was more likely, and progression was less likely, in the molnupiravir versus placebo group through day 29. When evaluating 5 distinctive symptoms of COVID-19, molnupiravir participants had a shorter median time to first resolution (18 vs 20 d) and first alleviation (13 vs 15 d) of symptoms compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir treatment in at-risk, unvaccinated patients resulted in improved clinical outcomes for most participant-reported COVID-19 symptoms compared with placebo. Clinical Trials Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04575597.

Participant- and Disease-Related Factors as Independent Predictors of Treatment Outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 Clinical Trial: A Multivariable Regression Analysis.

Background: In the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) was noninferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in treating hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine independent predictors of efficacy outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, to assist in treatment decision making. Methods: A stepwise multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify variables that were independently associated with day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM), favorable clinical response at early follow-up (EFU), and favorable microbiologic response at end of treatment (EOT). The analysis accounted for the number of baseline infecting pathogens and in vitro susceptibility to randomized treatment. Results: Vasopressor use, renal impairment, bacteremia at baseline, and Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores ≥15 were associated with a greater risk of day 28 ACM. A favorable clinical response at EFU was associated with normal renal function, an APACHE II score <15, no vasopressor use, and no bacteremia at baseline. At EOT, a favorable microbiologic response was associated with IMI/REL treatment, normal renal function, no vasopressor use, nonventilated pneumonia at baseline, intensive care unit admission at randomization, monomicrobial infections at baseline, and absence of Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex at baseline. These factors remained significant after accounting for polymicrobial infection and in vitro susceptibility to assigned treatment. Conclusions: This analysis, which accounted for baseline pathogen susceptibility, validated well-recognized patient- and disease-related factors as independent predictors of clinical outcomes. These results lend further support to the noninferiority of IMI/REL to piperacillin/tazobactam and suggests that pathogen eradication may be more likely with IMI/REL. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02493764.

Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam efficacy, safety and probability of target attainment in adults with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia among patients with baseline renal impairment, normal renal function, and augmented renal clearance.

Objectives: To assess the relationship between renal function and efficacy/safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam for the treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HABP/VABP) from RESTORE-IMI 2 and determine the PTA. Methods: Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to IV imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 1.25 g or piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g every 6 h for 7-14 days. Initial doses were selected by CLCR and adjusted thereafter, as appropriate. Outcomes included Day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM), clinical response, microbiological response and adverse events. Population pharmacokinetic modelling and Monte Carlo simulations assessed PTA. Results: The modified ITT population comprised those with normal renal function (n = 188), augmented renal clearance (ARC; n = 88), mild renal impairment (RI; n = 124), moderate RI (n = 109) and severe RI (n = 22). ACM rates were comparable between treatment arms among all baseline renal function categories. Clinical response rates were comparable between treatment arms for participants with RI and normal renal function but were higher (91.7% versus 44.4%) for imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam-treated versus piperacillin/tazobactam-treated participants with CLCR ≥250 mL/min (n = 21). Microbiologic response rates were comparable between treatment arms for participants with RI but higher among those treated with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in participants with CLCR ≥90 mL/min (86.6% versus 67.2%). Adverse events were comparable between treatment arms across renal function categories. Joint PTA was >98% for key pathogen MICs for susceptible pathogens (MIC ≤2 mg/L). Conclusions: Prescribing information-defined dose adjustments in participants with baseline RI and full dosing of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 1.25 g every 6 h for participants with normal renal function or augmented renal clearance achieved sufficiently high drug exposures and favourable safety and efficacy profiles.

Molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 in immunocompromised participants: efficacy, safety, and virology results from the phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled MOVe-OUT trial.

PURPOSE: Immunocompromised patients have a potentially increased risk for progression to severe COVID-19 and prolonged replication of SARS-CoV-2. This post hoc analysis examined outcomes among immunocompromised participants in the MOVe-OUT trial. METHODS: In phase 3 of MOVe-OUT, non-hospitalized at-risk adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomized to receive molnupiravir 800 mg or placebo twice daily for 5 days. Immunocompromised participants were identified based on prior/concomitant medications and/or medical history. All-cause hospitalization/death, adverse events, SARS-CoV-2 titers, infectivity, and RNA sequences were compared between immunocompromised participants who received molnupiravir or placebo and with non-immunocompromised participants. RESULTS: Fifty-five of 1408 participants were considered immunocompromised. Compared to placebo, fewer molnupiravir-treated immunocompromised participants were hospitalized/died through Day 29 (22.6% [7/31] vs. 8.3% [2/24]), with fewer adverse events (45.2% [14/31] vs. 25.0% [6/24]). A larger mean change from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA was observed with molnupiravir compared to placebo in non-immunocompromised participants (least squares mean [LSM] difference Day 5: - 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.47 to - 0.15), while the mean change was comparable between treatment groups in immunocompromised participants (LSM difference Day 5: 0.23, 95% CI - 0.71 to 1.17). Molnupiravir treatment was associated with increased clearance of infectious virus. Increased errors in viral nucleotide sequences in post-baseline samples compared to placebo support molnupiravir's mechanism of action and were not associated with observation of novel treatment-emergent amino acid substitutions in immunocompromised participants. CONCLUSION: Although the study population was small, these data suggest that molnupiravir treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in non-hospitalized immunocompromised adults is efficacious and safe and quickly reduces infectious SARS-CoV-2. GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04575597.

Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

Phase 2/3 Trial of Molnupiravir for Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Adults.

Molnupiravir in Nonhospitalized Patients Molnupiravir induces viral mutations to a threshold beyond which Covid-19 cannot replicate. For nonhospitalized adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 symptoms before randomization, molnupiravir did not have dose-related effects on adverse events or laboratory results; 3.1% of patients were hospitalized or died compared with 5.4% treated with placebo.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study).

BACKGROUND: Imipenem combined with the ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7-14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. RESULTS: Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, -5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02493764.

Evaluation of Renal Safety Between Imipenem/Relebactam and Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-Nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections in the Randomized, Phase 3 RESTORE-IMI 1 Study.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized controlled RESTORE-IMI 1 clinical trial (NCT02452047), imipenem/cilastatin (IMI) with relebactam (IMI/REL) was as effective as colistin plus IMI for the treatment of imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative infections. Differences in nephrotoxicity were observed between treatment arms. As there is no standard definition of nephrotoxicity used in clinical trials, we conducted analyses to further understand the renal safety profile of both treatments. METHODS: Nephrotoxicity was retrospectively evaluated using 2 acute kidney injury assessment criteria (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] and Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney Disease [RIFLE]). Additional outcomes included time to onset of protocol-defined nephrotoxicity and incidence of renal adverse events. RESULTS: Of 47 participants receiving treatment, 45 had sufficient data to assess nephrotoxicity (IMI/REL, n = 29; colistin plus IMI, n = 16). By KDIGO criteria, no participants in the IMI/REL but 31.3% in the colistin plus IMI group experienced stage 3 acute kidney injury. No IMI/REL-treated participants experienced renal failure by RIFLE criteria, vs 25.0% for colistin plus IMI. Overall, the time to onset of nephrotoxicity varied considerably (2-22 days). Fewer renal adverse events (12.9% vs 37.5%), including discontinuations due to drug-related renal adverse events (0% vs 12.5%), were observed in the IMI/REL group compared with the colistin plus IMI group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses confirm the findings of a preplanned end point and provide further evidence that IMI/REL had a more favorable renal safety profile than colistin-based therapy in patients with serious, imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative bacterial infections. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02452047.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Analysis Populations in the RESTORE-IMI 1 Phase 3 Trial of Imipenem-Cilastatin-Relebactam versus Colistin plus Imipenem-Cilastatin in Patients with Imipenem-Nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

The RESTORE-IMI 1 phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of imipenem-cilastatin (IMI) combined with relebactam (REL) for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. The objective of this analysis was to compare the outcomes among patients meeting eligibility requirements based on central laboratory susceptibility versus local laboratory susceptibility. Patients with serious infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible, colistin-susceptible, and imipenem-REL-susceptible pathogens were randomized 2:1 to IMI-REL plus placebo or colistin plus IMI for 5 to 21 days. The primary endpoint was a favorable overall response. Key endpoints included the clinical response and all-cause mortality. We compared outcomes between the primary microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population, where eligibility was based on central laboratory susceptibility testing, and the supplemental mMITT (SmMITT) population, where eligibility was based on local, site-level testing. The SmMITT (n = 41) and MITT (n = 31) populations had similar baseline characteristics, including sex, age, illness severity, and renal function. In both analysis populations, favorable overall response rates in the IMI-REL treatment group were >70%. Favorable clinical response rates at day 28 were 71.4% for IMI-REL and 40.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 75.0% for IMI-REL and 53.8% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. Day 28 all-cause mortality rates were 9.5% for IMI-REL and 30.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 10.7% for IMI-REL and 23.1% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. The outcomes in the SmMITT population were generally consistent with those in the mMITT population, suggesting that outcomes may be applicable to the real-world use of IMI-REL for treating infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative pathogens. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02452047.).

RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

BACKGROUND: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5-21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, -27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, -46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02452047.

Elbasvir/grazoprevir and sofosbuvir for hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection with compensated cirrhosis: A randomized trial.

Many direct-acting antiviral regimens have reduced activity in people with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) 3 infection and cirrhosis. The C-ISLE study assessed the efficacy and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) plus sofosbuvir (SOF) with and without ribavirin (RBV) in compensated cirrhotic participants with GT3 infection. This was a phase 2, randomized, open-label study. Treatment-naive participants received EBR/GZR + SOF + RBV for 8 weeks or EBR/GZR + SOF for 12 weeks, and peginterferon/RBV treatment-experienced participants received EBR/GZR + SOF ± RBV for 12 weeks or EBR/GZR + SOF for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was HCV RNA <15 IU/mL 12 weeks after the end of treatment (sustained virologic response at 12 weeks [SVR12]). Among treatment-naive participants, SVR12 was 91% (21/23) in those treated with RBV for 8 weeks and 96% (23/24) in those treated for 12 weeks. Among treatment-experienced participants, SVR12 was 94% (17/18) and 100% (17/17) in the 12-week arm, with and without RBV, respectively, and 94% (17/18) in the 16-week arm. Five participants failed to achieve SVR: 2 relapsed (both in the 8-week arm), 1 discontinued due to vomiting/cellulitis (16-week arm), and 2 discontinued (consent withdrawn/lost to follow-up). SVR12 was not affected by the presence of resistance-associated substitutions (RASs). There was no consistent change in insulin resistance, and 5 participants reported serious adverse events (pneumonia, chest pain, opiate overdose, cellulitis, decreased creatinine). High efficacy was demonstrated in participants with HCV GT3 infection and cirrhosis. Treatment beyond 12 weeks was not required, and efficacy was maintained regardless of baseline RASs. CONCLUSION: Data from this study support the use of EBR/GZR plus SOF for 12 weeks without RBV for treatment-naive and peginterferon/RBV-experienced people with GT3 infection and cirrhosis (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02601573). (Hepatology 2018;67:2113-2126).

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 2 dose-ranging study comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin plus relebactam with imipenem/cilastatin alone in patients with complicated urinary tract infections.

Objectives: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem non-susceptible pathogens. Methods: To explore relebactam's safety, tolerability and efficacy, we conducted a randomized (1:1:1), controlled, Phase 2 trial comparing imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam 250 mg, imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam 125 mg and imipenem/cilastatin alone in adults with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) or acute pyelonephritis, regardless of baseline pathogen susceptibility. Treatment was administered intravenously every 6 h for 4-14 days, with optional step-down to oral ciprofloxacin. The primary endpoint was favourable microbiological response rate (pathogen eradication) at discontinuation of intravenous therapy (DCIV) in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population. Non-inferiority of imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam over imipenem/cilastatin alone was defined as lower bounds of the 95% CI for treatment differences being above -15%. Results: At DCIV, 71 patients in the imipenem/cilastatin + 250 mg relebactam, 79 in the imipenem/cilastatin + 125 mg relebactam and 80 in the imipenem/cilastatin-only group were ME; 51.7% had cUTI and 48.3% acute pyelonephritis. Microbiological response rates were 95.5%, 98.6% and 98.7%, respectively, confirming non-inferiority of both imipenem/cilastatin + relebactam doses to imipenem/cilastatin alone. Clinical response rates were 97.1%, 98.7% and 98.8%, respectively. All 23 ME patients with imipenem non-susceptible pathogens had favourable DCIV microbiological responses (100% in each group). Among all 298 patients treated, 28.3%, 29.3% and 30.0% of patients, respectively, had treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-related adverse events across groups (1.0%-4.0%) were diarrhoea, nausea and headache. Conclusions: Imipenem/cilastatin + relebactam (250 or 125 mg) was as effective as imipenem/cilastatin alone for treatment of cUTI. Both relebactam-containing regimens were well tolerated. (NCT01505634).

Size and Shape Analysis of Error-Prone Shape Data.

We consider the problem of comparing sizes and shapes of objects when landmark data are prone to measurement error. We show that naive implementation of ordinary Procrustes analysis that ignores measurement error can compromise inference. To account for measurement error, we propose the conditional score method for matching configurations, which guarantees consistent inference under mild model assumptions. The effects of measurement error on inference from naive Procrustes analysis and the performance of the proposed method are illustrated via simulation and application in three real data examples. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.