Treatment outcomes in patients with proven/probable vs possible invasive mould disease in a phase III trial comparing isavuconazole vs voriconazole.

Treatment outcomes in patients with proven/probable vs possible invasive mould disease (IMD; 2008 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group [EORTC/MSG] criteria) needed further assessment. The Phase III SECURE trial compared isavuconazole vs voriconazole for treatment of IMD. This post hoc analysis assessed all-cause mortality (ACM) through day 42 (primary endpoint) and day 84, overall and clinical success at end of treatment (EOT), and drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in subgroups with proven/probable or possible IMD. Of 516 randomised patients, 304 (58.9%) had proven/probable IMD and 164 (31.8%) had possible IMD as per EORTC/MSG criteria; 48 did not have IMD. Across treatment groups, day 42 and day 84 ACM were numerically lower for possible vs proven/probable IMD (day 42: 17.1% vs 21.1%; P = 0.3, day 84: 26.2% vs 32.6%; P = 0.15). Overall and clinical success at EOT were significantly higher for possible IMD compared with proven/probable IMD (48.2% vs 36.2%; P = 0.01, 75.0% vs 63.1%; P = 0.01 respectively). Fewer drug-related TEAEs were reported with isavuconazole compared with voriconazole in patients with either proven/probable or possible IMD. Compared with patients with proven/probable IMD, those with possible IMD demonstrated higher overall and clinical success rates, supporting early initiation of antifungal treatment.

Isavuconazole treatment for mucormycosis: a single-arm open-label trial and case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mucormycosis is an uncommon invasive fungal disease with high mortality and few treatment options. Isavuconazole is a triazole active in vitro and in animal models against moulds of the order Mucorales. We assessed the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole for treatment of mucormycosis and compared its efficacy with amphotericin B in a matched case-control analysis. METHODS: In a single-arm open-label trial (VITAL study), adult patients (≥18 years) with invasive fungal disease caused by rare fungi, including mucormycosis, were recruited from 34 centres worldwide. Patients were given isavuconazole 200 mg (as its intravenous or oral water-soluble prodrug, isavuconazonium sulfate) three times daily for six doses, followed by 200 mg/day until invasive fungal disease resolution, failure, or for 180 days or more. The primary endpoint was independent data review committee-determined overall response-ie, complete or partial response (treatment success) or stable or progressive disease (treatment failure)-according to prespecified criteria. Mucormycosis cases treated with isavuconazole as primary treatment were matched with controls from the FungiScope Registry, recruited from 17 centres worldwide, who received primary amphotericin B-based treatment, and were analysed for day-42 all-cause mortality. VITAL is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00634049. FungiScope is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01731353. FINDINGS: Within the VITAL study, from April 22, 2008, to June 21, 2013, 37 patients with mucormycosis received isavuconazole for a median of 84 days (IQR 19-179, range 2-882). By day 42, four patients (11%) had a partial response, 16 (43%) had stable invasive fungal disease, one (3%) had invasive fungal disease progression, three (8%) had missing assessments, and 13 (35%) had died. 35 patients (95%) had adverse events (28 [76%] serious). Day-42 crude all-cause mortality in seven (33%) of 21 primary-treatment isavuconazole cases was similar to 13 (39%) of 33 amphotericin B-treated matched controls (weighted all-cause mortality: 33% vs 41%; p=0·595). INTERPRETATION: Isavuconazole showed activity against mucormycosis with efficacy similar to amphotericin B. Isavuconazole can be used for treatment of mucormycosis and is well tolerated. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Global Development, Basilea Pharmaceutica International.

Immunogenicity and safety of BERNA-YF compared with two other 17D yellow fever vaccines in a phase 3 clinical trial.

BERNA-YF (Flavimun) is a live, attenuated yellow fever (YF) vaccine of the 17D strain produced by Berna Biotech Ltd. following a transfer of technology from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in Berlin, Germany. In this phase 3 bridging study, the immunogenicity and safety of BERNA-YF were compared with the original RKI YF vaccine (RKI-YF) and to a current, commercially available YF vaccine, Stamaril (AP-YF; Aventis Pasteur, Lyon, France), in 304 healthy, adult volunteers. All three vaccines elicited an effective immune response with seroprotection achieved in 100% of individuals in each vaccine group at a neutralizing antibody titer > or = 1:10. BERNA-YF was shown to be comparable to the other two vaccine products, and subgroup analysis showed no differences in immune response between three consecutive production batches. The immune response to BERNA-YF and RKI-YF was very similar, with no significant difference in antibody titer between the two groups (P = 0.4634). However, AP-YF vaccination resulted in a significantly lower antibody titer (P < 0.0001 versus BERNA-YF). Males exhibited a higher antibody response than females to both BERNA-YF and RKI-YF, but not to AP-YF. All three vaccines were well tolerated and no serious adverse events were reported.

Safety and reactogenicity of a novel DTPa-HBV-IPV combined vaccine given along with commercial Hib vaccines in comparison with separate concomitant administration of DTPa, Hib, and OPV vaccines in infants.

OBJECTIVE: Combination vaccines simplify vaccine administration and have the potential to promote compliance and cost-effectiveness by decreasing the number of injections needed to immunize a child. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and reactogenicity of the diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-acellular pertussis-hepatitis B virus-inactivated polio virus (DTPa-HBV-IPV) vaccine when coadministered with different Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) vaccines in comparison with separate, commercially available, control vaccines in a 3-dose primary vaccination series. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, parallel-group study in 5318 infants who were 8 to 16 weeks of age at enrollment was conducted in 90 centers in Germany. The incidence of adverse events that occurred in infants who received the DTPa-HBV-IPV candidate vaccine coadministered with 1 of 4 different Hib vaccines (given in separate sites; groups 1-4) was compared with the incidence that occurred in infants who received commercially available control vaccines (DTPa, Hib, and oral polio virus [OPV] vaccine; group 5) administered separately. The vaccines were given as a 3-dose primary series at 3, 4, and 5 months of age. Infants were assessed for solicited local and general adverse events for 4 days and for unsolicited adverse events for 30 days after each vaccine dose. The primary endpoint was to rule out a 7.5% increase in infants who experienced grade 3 (defined as preventing normal everyday activities unless otherwise specified) solicited local and general adverse events over the 3-dose primary course after the combined DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine coadministered with Hib as compared with commercially available vaccines. RESULTS: During the 3-dose primary course, 490 of 3029 infants (16.2%) in the pooled DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine groups and 151 of 744 (20.3%) in the control vaccine group experienced a grade 3 adverse event (rate difference [control minus combination] 4.1%; 90% confidence interval, 1.41-7.13). The lower limit of the 90% confidence interval of the observed difference remained above the prespecified -7.5% limit for noninferiority, thereby meeting the primary endpoint. The incidences of local injection-site reactions were similar for the DTPa-HBV-IPV and DTPa injection sites. Significant differences in the incidence of both local and general adverse events were observed depending on which of the Hib vaccines was coadministered. Infants who received Hib N meningitidis outer-membrane complex protein conjugate vaccine had greater incidences of fever and, to a lesser extent, greater reactions at the Hib injection site than did infants who received other Hib vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The combination DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine administered concomitantly with Hib vaccine at separate sites was at least as safe as coadministration of individual DTPa, Hib, and OPV vaccines in terms of the defined endpoints for safety.