Safety and Efficacy of CR6261 in an Influenza A H1N1 Healthy Human Challenge Model.

BACKGROUND: It is imperative to identify new targets for improved vaccines and therapeutics against influenza. One such target is the relatively conserved stalk region of the influenza A hemagglutinin (HA) surface protein. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 2, placebo-controlled trial of a monoclonal antibody that targets the HA stalk (CR6261) in a H1N1pdm09 healthy volunteer human challenge model. A single 50 mg/kg dose of CR6261 was infused 24 hours after challenge. The primary efficacy outcome was area under the curve (AUC) of viral RNA detection over time. RESULTS: Ninety-one healthy volunteers were randomized and underwent influenza challenge; 49 received CR6261 and 42 received placebo. CR6261 had no statistically significant effect on AUC (AUC, 48.56 log [copies/mL] × days, interquartile range [IQR], 202 vs AUC, 25.53 log [copies/mL] × days, IQR, 155; P = .315) and no clinically significant effect on influenza disease measures including number of symptoms, duration of symptoms, or inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) scores. Preexisting anti-NA antibody titers were most predictive of reduced influenza disease. CR6261 reached a mean peak serum concentration of 1 × 106 ng/mL 15 minutes after infusion and a mean peak of 5.97 × 102 ng/mL in the nasal mucosa 2-3 days after infusion. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that a monoclonal anti-stalk approach to prevent or treat influenza infection may be limited in efficacy. Future approaches should consider including and evaluating anti-stalk antibodies as part of a multifaceted strategy rather than as a stand-alone therapeutic. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02371668.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of pimodivir, a novel, non-nucleoside polymerase basic protein 2 subunit inhibitor of the influenza A virus polymerase complex, and interaction with oseltamivir: a Phase 1 open-label study in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the drug-drug interaction between pimodivir, a novel, non-nucleoside polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) subunit inhibitor of the influenza A virus polymerase complex, and oseltamivir, to assess the feasibility of this combination therapy. Furthermore, single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of pimodivir in healthy volunteers were assessed. METHODS: In Part 1 of this open-label Phase 1 study, healthy volunteers (n = 18) were randomized to one of six cross-over treatment sequences, each comprising administration of oseltamivir 75 mg or pimodivir 600 mg or combination thereof twice daily on Days 1-4, followed by a single morning dose on Day 5. Between each treatment session, there was a minimum 5-day washout period. In Part 2, healthy volunteers (n = 16) randomly received pimodivir 600 mg or placebo (3:1) twice daily on Days 1-9, followed by a single morning dose on Day 10. Pharmacokinetics of pimodivir, oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: In Part 1, co-administration of pimodivir with oseltamivir increased the Cmax of pimodivir by 31% (90% CI: 0.92-1.85) with no change in Cmin or AUC12h . Pimodivir had no effect on oseltamivir or oseltamivir carboxylate pharmacokinetics. In Part 2, after single- and multiple-dose administration of pimodivir, there was a 1.2- and 1.8-fold increase in Cmax and AUC12h , respectively, between Day 1 and Day 10. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhoea (n = 7 each in Part 1 and 2). CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with pimodivir and oseltamivir in healthy volunteers showed no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. No safety concerns were identified with pimodivir 600 mg twice daily alone or in combination with oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily.

Mode of death in advanced heart failure: the Comparison of Medical, Pacing, and Defibrillation Therapies in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the mode of death in patients with advanced chronic heart failure (HF) and intraventricular conduction delay treated with optimal pharmacologic therapy (OPT) alone or OPT with biventricular pacing to provide cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or CRT + an implantable defibrillator (CRT-D). BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on mode of death in advanced HF. No data have existed on mode of death in these patients who also have an intraventricular conduction delay and are treated with CRT or CRT-D. METHODS: Using prespecified definitions and source materials, seven cardiologists assessed mode of death among the 313 deaths that occurred in the Comparison of Medical, Pacing, and Defibrillation Therapies in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial. RESULTS: A primary cardiac cause was present in 78% of deaths. Pump failure (44.4%) was the most common mode of death followed by sudden cardiac death (SCD) (26.5%). Compared with OPT, CRT-D significantly reduced the number of cardiac deaths (38%, p = 0.006), whereas CRT alone was associated with a non-significant 14.5% reduction (p = 0.33). Both CRT and CRT-D tended to reduce pump failure deaths (29%, p = 0.11 and 27%, p = 0.14, respectively). The CRT-D significantly reduced SCD (56%, p = 0.02), but CRT alone did not. CONCLUSIONS: Pump failure deaths are the predominant mode of death in patients with advanced HF and are modestly reduced by both CRT and CRT-D. Only CRT-D reduced SCD and thus produced a favorable effect on cardiac mortality.