Safety, Tolerability and Immunogenicity of Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine Manufactured by a Modified Process.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus is the leading cause of severe diarrhea in infants and young children. The current formulation of pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5) must be stored refrigerated at 2-8°C. A modified formulation of RV5 (RV5mp) has been developed with stability at 37°C for 7 days and an expiry extended to 36 months when stored at 2-8°C. METHODS: This study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01600092; EudraCT number: 2012-001611-23) evaluated the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of RV5mp versus the currently marketed RV5 in infants. To maintain blinding, both vaccine formulations were stored refrigerated at 2-8°C for the duration of the study. Immunogenicity endpoints were (1) serum neutralizing antibody titers to human rotavirus serotypes G1, G2, G3, G4 and P1A[8] and (2) proportion of subjects with a ≥3-fold rise from baseline for serum neutralizing antibody to human rotavirus serotypes G1, G2, G3, G4 and P1A[8] and serum antirotavirus immunoglobulin A. RESULTS: The RV5mp group (n = 505) and RV5 group (n = 509) had comparable safety profiles. There were no deaths and no vaccine-related serious adverse events in this study. With respect to immunogenicity, RV5mp was noninferior compared with RV5. Serum neutralizing antibody responses by country and breast-feeding status were generally consistent with the overall results. CONCLUSIONS: RV5mp enhances storage requirements while maintaining the immunogenicity and safety profile of the currently licensed RV5. A vaccine that is stable at room temperature may be more convenient for vaccinators, particularly in places where the cold chain is unreliable, and ultimately will permit more widespread use.

Subgroup and resistance analyses of raltegravir for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy of raltegravir and the development of viral resistance in two identical trials involving patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) with triple-class drug resistance and in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. METHODS: We conducted subgroup analyses of the data from week 48 in both studies according to baseline prognostic factors. Genotyping of the integrase gene was performed in raltegravir recipients who had virologic failure. RESULTS: Virologic responses to raltegravir were consistently superior to responses to placebo, regardless of the baseline values of HIV-1 RNA level; CD4 cell count; genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score; use or nonuse of darunavir, enfuvirtide, or both in optimized background therapy; or demographic characteristics. Among patients in the two studies combined who were using both enfuvirtide and darunavir for the first time, HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 89% of raltegravir recipients and 68% of placebo recipients. HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 69% and 80% of the raltegravir recipients and in 47% and 57% of the placebo recipients using either darunavir or enfuvirtide for the first time, respectively. At 48 weeks, 105 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (23%) had virologic failure. Genotyping was performed in 94 raltegravir recipients with virologic failure. Integrase mutations known to be associated with phenotypic resistance to raltegravir arose during treatment in 64 patients (68%). Forty-eight of these 64 patients (75%) had two or more resistance-associated mutations. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with an optimized background regimen in both studies, a consistently favorable treatment effect of raltegravir over placebo was shown in clinically relevant subgroups of patients, including those with baseline characteristics that typically predict a poor response to antiretroviral therapy: a high HIV-1 RNA level, low CD4 cell count, and low genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Raltegravir with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase active against HIV-1 susceptible or resistant to older antiretroviral drugs. METHODS: We conducted two identical trials in different geographic regions to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir, as compared with placebo, in combination with optimized background therapy, in patients infected with HIV-1 that has triple-class drug resistance in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. Patients were randomly assigned to raltegravir or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. RESULTS: In the combined studies, 699 of 703 randomized patients (462 and 237 in the raltegravir and placebo groups, respectively) received the study drug. Seventeen of the 699 patients (2.4%) discontinued the study before week 16. Discontinuation was related to the study treatment in 13 of these 17 patients: 7 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (1.5%) and 6 of the 237 placebo recipients (2.5%). The results of the two studies were consistent. At week 16, counting noncompletion as treatment failure, 355 of 458 raltegravir recipients (77.5%) had HIV-1 RNA levels below 400 copies per milliliter, as compared with 99 of 236 placebo recipients (41.9%, P<0.001). Suppression of HIV-1 RNA to a level below 50 copies per milliliter was achieved at week 16 in 61.8% of the raltegravir recipients, as compared with 34.7% of placebo recipients, and at week 48 in 62.1% as compared with 32.9% (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Without adjustment for the length of follow-up, cancers were detected in 3.5% of raltegravir recipients and in 1.7% of placebo recipients. The overall frequencies of drug-related adverse events were similar in the raltegravir and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In HIV-infected patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir plus optimized background therapy provided better viral suppression than optimized background therapy alone for at least 48 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Multicenter, noncomparative study of caspofungin in combination with other antifungals as salvage therapy in adults with invasive aspergillosis.

BACKGROUND: Caspofungin inhibits synthesis of beta-1,3-glucan, an essential component of the Aspergillus cell wall. This echinocandin has demonstrated efficacy (45% success) as salvage monotherapy of invasive aspergillosis (IA). Interest remains as to whether caspofungin, in combination with other antifungal classes, can improve the efficacy against IA. METHODS: The study involved 53 adults with documented IA who were refractory to or intolerant of standard antifungal therapy and received caspofungin and 1 other mold-active antifungal agent (at the investigator's discretion). Efficacy was assessed by signs, symptoms, and radiographs at the end of combination therapy and Day 84 after combination therapy initiation. Favorable (complete or partial) responses required significant clinical and radiographic improvement. Diagnoses and outcomes were assessed by an independent expert. RESULTS: Among the 53 patients enrolled the most common underlying diseases were acute leukemia (53%), lymphoma (11%), and chronic leukemia (6%). Pulmonary aspergillosis (81%) was the most common site, and most patients (87%) were refractory to prior therapy. Success at the end of combination therapy and Day 84 was 55% (29/53) and 49% (25/51), respectively. Fifty-seven percent of patients with neutropenia and 54% who received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant responded favorably. Survival at Day 84 was 55%. Combination therapy, dosed on average for 31.3 days, was well tolerated. Two (4%) serious drug-related adverse events, both attributed to voriconazole, occurred. None of the patients discontinued caspofungin due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Caspofungin in combination with a triazole or polyene was an effective alternative as salvage therapy for patients with recalcitrant Aspergillus infections.

Caspofungin susceptibility testing of isolates from patients with esophageal candidiasis or invasive candidiasis: relationship of MIC to treatment outcome.

The caspofungin clinical trial database offers an opportunity to assess susceptibility results for Candida pathogens obtained from patients with candidiasis and allows for correlations between efficacy outcomes and MICs. Candida isolates have been identified from patients enrolled in four studies of esophageal candidiasis and two studies of invasive candidiasis. The MICs of caspofungin for all baseline isolates were measured at a central laboratory using NCCLS criteria (document M-27A); MICs for caspofungin were defined as the lowest concentration inhibiting prominent growth at 24 h. MICs were then compared to clinical and microbiological outcomes across the two diseases. Susceptibility testing for caspofungin was performed on 515 unique baseline isolates of Candida spp. obtained from patients with esophageal candidiasis. MICs for caspofungin ranged from 0.008 to 4 microg/ml; the MIC50 and MIC90 were 0.5 and 1.0 microg/ml, respectively. Susceptibility testing was also performed on 231 unique baseline isolates of Candida spp. from patients with invasive candidiasis. The majority (approximately 96%) of MICs were between 0.125 and 2 microg/ml, with MIC50 and MIC90 for caspofungin being 0.5 and 2.0 microg/ml, respectively. Overall, caspofungin demonstrated potent in vitro activity against clinical isolates of Candida species. A relationship between MIC for caspofungin and treatment outcome was not seen for patients with either esophageal candidiasis or invasive candidiasis. Patients with isolates for which the MICs were highest (>2 microg/ml) had better outcomes than patients with isolates for which the MICs were lower (<1 microg/ml). Additionally, no correlation between MIC and outcome was identified for specific Candida species.