Safety and immunogenicity of intramuscular, single-dose V590 (rVSV-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine) in healthy adults: Results from a phase 1 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines against COVID-19 are needed to overcome challenges associated with mitigating the global pandemic. We report the safety and immunogenicity of V590, a live recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate. METHODS: In this placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-part phase 1 study, healthy adults were randomised to receive a single intramuscular dose of vaccine or placebo. In Part 1, younger (18-54 years) and, in Part 2, older (≥55 years) adults seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid received one of four V590 dose levels (5.00 × 105; 2.40 × 106; 1.15 × 107; or 5.55 × 107 plaque-forming units [pfu]) or placebo. In Part 3, a single V590 dose level (5.55 × 107 pfu) or placebo was administered to younger SARS-CoV-2 seropositive adults. Primary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and for Parts 1 and 2 anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralising antibody responses measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation (PRNT50) assay at Day 28. Registration NCT04569786 [P001-02]. FINDINGS: 232 participants were randomised and 219 completed the study. In seronegative participants, anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody responses to V590 were low and comparable to placebo across the lower dose levels. At the highest dose level (5.55 × 107 pfu), anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific PRNT50 was 2.3-fold higher than placebo. The most frequently reported AEs were injection-site pain (38.4%), headache (15.1%) and fatigue (13.4%). INTERPRETATION: V590 was generally well-tolerated. However, Day 28 anti-SARS-Cov-2 spike-specific antibody responses in seronegative participants following a single intramuscular administration of V590 were not sufficient to warrant continued development. FUNDING: The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.

Clinical safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate at the 200-mg once-daily dose approved for 6-day treatment of skin and skin-structure infections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Clinical adverse event (AE) and laboratory data were pooled across completed clinical studies (13 phase 1, two phase 2, and two phase 3), for all participants who received ≥1 dose of tedizolid 200 mg, linezolid 600 mg (phase 3 only), or placebo (phase 1 only). RESULTS: 1280 participants received tedizolid (phase 1: n = 355; phase 2/3: n = 925). In total, 13% received >6 doses of tedizolid (range: 7-21); in phase 2/3, 94% of participants received ≥5 doses (range: 5-10). Drug-related AEs occurred in 27% of participants (most commonly gastrointestinal reactions in 13% of participants and headache in 4%). Most AEs were mild-moderate in severity; <1% of participants discontinued treatment due to AEs. Tedizolid and linezolid had similar frequency, severity, and types of drug-related AEs. Tolerability in clinically important subpopulations (obese, n = 346; elderly, n = 99; renal impairment, n = 40; hepatic disease/impairment, n = 294) appeared comparable to the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Tedizolid, given orally or intravenously at 200 mg, has a favorable safety profile. Clinical trial and postmarketing experience with treatment ≥7 days is limited.

Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with neutropenia resulting from chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia or the myelodysplastic syndrome are at high risk for difficult-to-treat and often fatal invasive fungal infections. METHODS: In this randomized, multicenter study involving evaluators who were unaware of treatment assignments, we compared the efficacy and safety of posaconazole with those of fluconazole or itraconazole as prophylaxis for patients with prolonged neutropenia. Patients received prophylaxis with each cycle of chemotherapy until recovery from neutropenia and complete remission, until occurrence of an invasive fungal infection, or for up to 12 weeks, whichever came first. We compared the incidence of proven or probable invasive fungal infections during treatment (the primary end point) between the posaconazole and fluconazole or itraconazole groups; death from any cause and time to death were secondary end points. RESULTS: A total of 304 patients were randomly assigned to receive posaconazole, and 298 patients were randomly assigned to receive fluconazole (240) or itraconazole (58). Proven or probable invasive fungal infections were reported in 7 patients (2%) in the posaconazole group and 25 patients (8%) in the fluconazole or itraconazole group (absolute reduction in the posaconazole group, -6%; 95% confidence interval, -9.7 to -2.5%; P<0.001), fulfilling statistical criteria for superiority. Significantly fewer patients in the posaconazole group had invasive aspergillosis (2 [1%] vs. 20 [7%], P<0.001). Survival was significantly longer among recipients of posaconazole than among recipients of fluconazole or itraconazole (P=0.04). Serious adverse events possibly or probably related to treatment were reported by 19 patients (6%) in the posaconazole group and 6 patients (2%) in the fluconazole or itraconazole group (P=0.01). The most common treatment-related adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal tract disturbances. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia or the myelodysplastic syndrome, posaconazole prevented invasive fungal infections more effectively than did either fluconazole or itraconazole and improved overall survival. There were more serious adverse events possibly or probably related to treatment in the posaconazole group. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00044486 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).