100. Safety Analysis of Live-Attenuated Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccine Among Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients Vaccinated Within Two Years of Transplant

Abstract Background Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is a live-attenuated vaccine usually contraindicated within the first two years of hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). During the 2019 measles outbreak at our center, the benefits of administering MMR vaccine within the first two years after HCT were weighed against the potential risks. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of patients who received MMR vaccination within two years of an autologous or allogeneic HCT. Patients’ demographics, date and type of HCT, underlying hematologic disease, type of immunosuppressive therapy and date of MMR vaccination were extracted from the electronic medical record. Adverse reactions that could be related to the vaccine were collected for up to 42 days post-vaccination and all hospitalizations and deaths following vaccination were reviewed. Results A total of 129 patients (75 autologous and 54 allogeneic HCT) were vaccinated between 300-729 days after HCT (median of 718 days). The median age at vaccination was 61 years old, 57% of the patients were male and 43% were on immunosuppressive therapy, 87% of whom were on maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma after auto-HCT. Seven patients (5%) had adverse reactions within 42 days of vaccination: six had respiratory tract infections (three with associated fever) and one had a rash leading to a brief hospitalization. This was a 37-year-old female who had an allogeneic HCT 542 days prior to MMR vaccination. She presented with a centrifugal maculopapular rash that was confirmed to be caused by the vaccine strain rubella virus (Fig 1). She fully recovered without sequalae. There was no other vaccine-associated illness identified in the cohort, after a median follow-up of 676 days. Conclusion MMR vaccine appears to be well tolerated in selected HCT recipients when given earlier than 2 years after transplant. No attributable severe outcomes or deaths were described. A mild uncomplicated case of vaccine-associated rubella illness was seen after vaccination. In the setting of a measles outbreak, assessment of potential risks and benefits of MMR vaccination given within two years of HCT remains important. Disclosures Stephen R. Walsh, MDCM, Janssen Vaccines (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi Pasteur (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Matthew Cheng, MD, GEn1E Lifesciences (Advisor or Review Panel member)Kanvas Biosciences (Board Member, Shareholder)nplex biosciences (Advisor or Review Panel member) Sanjat Kanjilal, MD, MPH, GlaskoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member) Nicolas C. Issa, MD, AiCuris (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Astellas (Scientific Research Study Investigator)GSK (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Download Full-text

25. Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.025 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S17-S18

Author(s):

Bruce P Bausk ◽

Amy C Sherman ◽

Michaël Desjardins ◽

Natalie E Izaguirre ◽

Chi-An Cheng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Research Study ◽

Stem Cell Transplant ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Healthy Controls ◽

Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant ◽

Review Panel ◽

Study Investigator

Abstract Background Allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients are at an increased risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. While the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly immunogenic in the general population, the immune response in SCT recipients is poorly understood. We characterized the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in a cohort of SCT patients. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of 16 allogeneic SCT patients and 23 healthy controls. Blood samples for both cohorts were collected prior to first vaccination (baseline), at the time of second vaccination, and approximately 28 days post-second vaccination. Anti-Spike (S), anti-S1, anti-receptor binding domain (RBD), and anti-Nucleocapsid (N) IgG levels were measured quantitatively from plasma using a multiplexed single molecule array (Simoa) immunoassay. Reactogenicity was captured for the SCT cohort via a self-reported post-vaccination diary for 7 days after each dose. Results Demographics and SCT recipients’ characteristics are shown in Table 1. In the SCT cohort, we observed a significantly lower anti-S (p< 0.0001), S1 (p< 0.0001), and RBD (p< 0.0001) IgG responses as compared to healthy controls, both at the time of dose 2 and 28 days post-vaccine series (Fig 1). Overall, 62.5% of SCT recipients were responders after vaccine series completion, as compared to 100% of healthy controls (Fig 2). While no patients had a reported history of COVID-19 diagnosis, 2 patients in the SCT cohort had elevated anti-S IgG levels and 1 showed elevated anti-N at baseline. 10/16 participants in the SCT cohort completed at least one post-vaccination diary. Local and systemic reactions were reported by 67% and 22% of participants, respectively, after dose 1, and 63% and 50% after dose 2 (Figure 3). All reported events were mild. Table 1: Demographics Figure 1: Plasma IgG Titers Anti-Spike (A), anti-S1 (B), anti-RBD (C), and anti-nucleocapsid (D) IgG titers were measured at baseline, time of second dose, and approximately 28 days after second vaccination. IgG levels were measured quantitatively using multiplexed single molecule array (Simoa) immunoassays, and are reported as Normalized Average Enzymes per Bead (AEB). Allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients (mauve) showed significantly lower anti-S, S1, and RBD IgG responses as compared to healthy controls (mint). Low titers of anti-N IgG demonstrates no history of COVID-19 natural infection during the course of the study. Figure 3. Solicited Local and Systemic Adverse Events 10 allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients completed at least one diary for 7 days after vaccination. Reactions after dose 1 are shown in light blue, and reactions after dose 2 are shown in dark blue. Local reactions (A) were reported by 67% (6/9) of participants after dose 1, and 63% (5/8) after dose 2. Systemic reactions (B) were reported by 22% (2/9) of participants after dose 1, and 50% (4/8) after dose 2. All reported events were mild (Grade 1). Conclusion Among SCT recipients, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were well-tolerated but less immunogenic than in healthy controls. Further study is warranted to better understand heterogeneous characteristics that may affect the immune response in order to optimize COVID-19 vaccination strategies for SCT recipients. Figure 2: Response Rate to COVID-19 Vaccination An internally validated threshold for responders was established using pre-pandemic sera from healthy adults. A positive antibody response was was defined as individuals with anti-Spike IgG levels above the 1.07 Normalized AEB threshold. Disclosures Amy Joyce, NP, Kadmon (Advisor or Review Panel member) Lewis A. Novack, MS, Lumicell Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)Precision Healing, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support) David Walt, PhD, Quanterix Corporation (Board Member, Shareholder) Robert Soiffer, MD, alexion (Consultant)gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member)jazz (Advisor or Review Panel member)juno/bms (Advisor or Review Panel member)kiadis (Board Member)precision bioscience (Consultant)Rheos (Consultant)takeda (Consultant) Nicolas C. Issa, MD, AiCuris (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Astellas (Scientific Research Study Investigator)GSK (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Download Full-text

1157. Clinical Safety, Efficacy, and Pharmacokinetics of Fosmanogepix, a Novel First-in-class Antifungal, in Patients with Renal Insufficiency: Subset Analysis from a Phase 2 Candidemia Trial

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1343 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S605-S605

Author(s):

Pierre Bulpa ◽

Galia Rahav ◽

Ilana Oren ◽

Mickaël Aoun ◽

George R Thompson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Function ◽

Renal Insufficiency ◽

Antifungal Agents ◽

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Antifungal Treatment ◽

Successful Outcome ◽

Review Panel ◽

Study Investigator

Abstract Background Fosmanogepix (FMGX) is a first-in-class antifungal agent, with a unique MOA targeting the fungal enzyme Gwt1, and broad-spectrum activity against yeasts and molds, including fungi resistant to other antifungal agents. Patients with candidemia often have underlying renal insufficiency or are receiving medications that affect renal function. This analysis evaluated outcomes in patients with varying degrees of renal insufficiency. Methods This global, multicenter, open-label, non-comparative study evaluated the safety and efficacy of FMGX for first-line treatment of candidemia. Patients with a recent diagnosis of candidemia defined as positive blood culture for Candida spp within 96 hrs prior to study entry with ≤ 2 days of prior antifungal treatment were eligible, including those with renal insufficiency. Patients with neutropenia, C. krusei infection, deep-seated Candida infections or receiving hemodialysis were excluded. Subjects were treated with FMGX for up to 14 days: 1000 mg IV BID for 1 day, then 600 mg IV QD for at least 2 days, followed by either 600 mg IV QD or 700 mg PO QD. Patients requiring antifungal treatment beyond 14 days received fluconazole. The primary efficacy endpoint was outcome at end of study treatment (EOST) as determined by an independent data review committee. Successful outcome was defined as survival with clearance of Candida from blood cultures with no additional antifungal treatment. Results 14/21 (66%) subjects had some degree of renal insufficiency: 7 had mild renal insufficiency (GFR:60-89), 5 had moderate renal insufficiency (GFR:30-59), and 2 had severe renal insufficiency (GFR:15-29). 12/14 (86%) completed study treatment, and treatment was successful at EOST in 12/14 (86%) subjects. Decline in renal function was not observed at EOST. 4 had worsening of renal function during the follow-up period; none required dialysis. Renal impairment did not increase exposure of FMGX. There were no treatment-related adverse events. Conclusion FMGX demonstrated high level treatment success with no evidence of drug-related nephrotoxicity, with no dose adjustments required. These preliminary data support the continued evaluation of FMGX in patients with candidemia and renal dysfunction as an alternative to potentially nephrotoxic antifungal agents. Disclosures Pierre Bulpa, MD, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Galia Rahav, MD, AstraZeneca (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Mickaël Aoun, MD, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Peter Pappas, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Bart Jan Kullberg, MD, FRCP, FIDSA, Amplyx (Advisor or Review Panel member) Sara Barbat, BSN, RN, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Pamela Wedel, BSc, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Haran T. Schlamm, MD, Amplyx (Consultant) Michael Hodges, BSc. MD, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Employee)

Download Full-text

120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.120 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S72-S72

Author(s):

Peter G Pappas ◽

Andrej Spec ◽

Marisa Miceli ◽

Gerald McGwin ◽

Rachel McMullen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Serum Levels ◽

Research Support ◽

Open Label ◽

Review Panel ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Endemic Mycoses ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background C-itra is the drug of choice for treatment of most non-CNS, non-life-threatening forms of endemic mycoses (EM), including histoplasmosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, sporotrichosis and talaromycosis. SUBA represents a new formulation of itraconazole that utilizes nanotechnology to improve bioavailability when administered orally. SUBA is formulated as nanoparticles allowing for absorption in the small bowel while not relying on gastric acidity for optimal absorption. MSG-15 is an open-label, comparative clinical trial comparing SUBA to c-itra for the treatment of EM. Herein we report the final PK and AE profiles of these two compounds. Methods Subjects with proven and probable EM were eligible this open-label comparative study. The protocol allowed up to 14 d of prior therapy with any antifungal for this episode of EM. Subjects were randomized to receive either SUBA 130 mg po bid or c-itra 200 mg po bid for up to 6 months. Follow up occurred at 7, 14, 28, 42, 84 and 180 d post-enrollment. PK samples were obtained at 7, 14, and 42 d. Clinical assessment, including symptom assessment, AEs, overall drug tolerance, and quality of life were assessed at each visit. We used descriptive statistics for this analysis. Results 89 subjects with EM entered the trial, including 43 on SUBA and 46 on c-itra. We measured PK serum levels of itra and hydroxyl-itra at days 7, 14, and 42 and these data are depicted in Figures 1-3. There were no significant differences in these levels, including combined itra/hydroxyl-itra levels, among the two study arms. AUC for itra and hydroxyl-itra were similar for both arms. AEs as assessed at each study evaluation were also quite similar among the two study arms. Overall, any AE occurred in 74% vs 85% of SUBA and c-itra recipients, respectively (NS). Drug-related AEs occurred in 35% vs 41% of SUBA and itra recipients, respectively (NS). Most common drug-related AEs included cardiovascular (edema and hypertension), nausea and loss of appetite. Combined Itraconazole and Hydroxy-itraconazole Concentration Over Time Conclusion Compared to c-itra, SUBA demonstrates almost identical serum levels despite being dosed at roughly 60% standard dosing for c-itra (130 mg po bid vs 200 mg po bid). SUBA is slightly better tolerated than c-itra, although the specific AEs are similar. Disclosures Peter G. Pappas, MD, Astellas (Research Grant or Support)Cidara (Research Grant or Support)F2G (Consultant)Matinas (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Mayne Pharma (Research Grant or Support)Scynexis (Research Grant or Support) Andrej Spec, MD, MSCI, Mayne Pharma (Grant/Research Support) Marisa Miceli, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member) George R. R. Thompson III, III, MD, Amplyx (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Appili (Consultant)Astellas (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Avir (Grant/Research Support)Cidara (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)F2G (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Mayne (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Advisor or Review Panel member)

Download Full-text

548. Baseline characteristics associated with clinical improvement and mortality in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.742 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S340-S340

Author(s):

Antonella Castagna ◽

David Shu Cheong Hui ◽

Kathleen M Mullane ◽

Mamta Jain ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Improvement ◽

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Hospitalized Patients ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Baseline Characteristics ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report baseline characteristics associated with clinical improvement at day (d) 14. Methods We enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation >94% on room air, and radiological evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV once daily plus standard of care (SoC), or SoC only. For this analysis, patients were followed through discharge, d14, or death. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics associated with clinical improvement in oxygen support (≥2-point improvement on a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from discharge to death) were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression methods. Results 584 patients were randomized and treated (5/10d RDV, n=384; SoC: n=200). 159 (27%) were ≥65y, 227 (39%) female, 328 (61%) white, 102 (19%) Asian, and 99 (19%) Black. 252 participants (43%) were enrolled in Europe, 260 (45%) North America (NA), and 72 (12%) in Asia. Most patients (483 [83%]) were not on supplemental oxygen but required medical care at baseline. In a multivariable model, 5/10d RDV was significantly positively associated with clinical improvement (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.69, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.65; p=0.0226). Significant covariables positively associated with clinical improvement included age < 65y (p< 0.0001) and region of treatment (Europe and NA vs Asia, p< 0.0001 each; Table); other examined factors were not significantly associated with clinical improvement, including gender, race, ethnicity, baseline oxygen support, duration of symptoms and hospitalization, obesity, and baseline transaminase levels. Table 1. Conclusion In moderate COVID-19 patients, after adjusting for treatment arm, age < 65y and region (NA vs Asia; Europe vs Asia) were associated with higher rates of clinical improvement. These observations recapitulate younger age as positive prognostic factor, and highlight the differences in the impact of the pandemic globally. Disclosures Antonella Castagna, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Shu Cheong Hui, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Kathleen M. Mullane, DO, PharmD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Mamta Jain, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support) Massimo Galli, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Shan-Chwen Chang, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hailin Huang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Christoph Lübbert, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Enrique Navas Elorza, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Mark McPhail, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Download Full-text

1340. The Burden of Influenza and Rhinovirus Among Hospitalized Adults Post the COVID-19 Pandemic

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.1532 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S757-S758

Author(s):

Olivia D Reese ◽

Ashley Tippett ◽

Laila Hussaini ◽

Luis Salazar ◽

Megan Taylor ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Healthy Controls ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Tract Infections ◽

The Impact ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs) are a significant cause of morbidity in adults. Influenza is associated with about 490,600 hospitalizations and 34,200 deaths in the US in the 2018-2019 season. The burden of rhinovirus among adults hospitalized with ARI is less well known. We compared the burden of influenza and rhinovirus from 2 consecutive winter respiratory viral seasons in hospitalized adults and healthy controls pre-COVID-19 and one season mid-COVID-19 to determine the impact of rhinovirus as a pathogen. Methods From Oct 2018 to Apr 2021, prospective surveillance of adults ≥50 years old admitted with ARI or COPD/CHF exacerbations at any age was conducted at two Atlanta hospitals. Adults were eligible if they lived within an eight-county region around Atlanta and if their symptom duration was < 14 days. In the seasons from Oct 2018 to Mar 2020, asymptomatic adults ≥50 years old were enrolled as controls. Standard of care test results were included and those enrolled contributed nasopharyngeal swabs that were tested for respiratory pathogens using BioFire® FilmArray® Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP). Results During the first two seasons, 1566 hospitalized adults were enrolled. Rhinovirus was detected in 7.5% (118) and influenza was detected in 7.7% (121). Rhinovirus was also detected in 2.2% of 466 healthy adult controls while influenza was detected in 0%. During Season 3, the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, influenza declined to 0% of ARI hospitalizations. Rhinovirus also declined (p=0.01) but still accounted for 5.1% of all ARIs screened (Figure 1). Rhinovirus was detected at a greater rate in Season 3 than in asymptomatic controls in the first 2 seasons (p=0.008). In the first two seasons, Influenza was detected in 8.6% (24/276) of those admitted to the ICU. Rhinovirus was detected in 6.1% (17/276) of those admitted to the ICU but declined to 3.1% (8/258) in Season 3. Figure 1. Percent Positive Cases of Influenza and Rhinovirus between Season 1&2 (hospitalized and healthy controls) vs Season 3 (hospitalized) Conclusion Dramatic declines occurred in influenza in adults hospitalized with ARI, CHF, or COPD in Atlanta during the COVID-19 pandemic and with enhanced public health measures. Although rhinovirus declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, it continued to be identified at a rate higher than in historical controls. Additional data are needed to understand the role of rhinovirus in adult ARI, CHF, and COPD exacerbations. Disclosures David L. Swerdlow, MD, Pfizer Vaccines (Employee) Robin Hubler, MS, Pfizer Inc. (Employee) Christina A. Rostad, MD, BioFire Inc, GSK, MedImmune, Micron, Janssen, Merck, Moderna, Novavax, PaxVax, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Pasteur. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)Meissa Vaccines (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-inventor of patented RSV vaccine technology unrelated to this manuscript, which has been licensed to Meissa Vaccines, Inc.) Larry Anderson, MD, ADVI (Consultant)Bavarian Nordic (Consultant)Novavax (Consultant)Phizer (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sciogen (Research Grant or Support) Nadine Rouphael, MD, pfizer, sanofi, lily, quidel, merck (Grant/Research Support) Nadine Rouphael, MD, Lilly (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory Study PI, Grant/Research Support; Merck (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory study PI, Grant/Research Support; Pfizer: I conduct as co-PI the RSV PFIZER study at Emory, Research Grant; Pfizer (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, I conduct as co-PI the RSV PFIZER study at Emory; Quidel (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory Study PI, Grant/Research Support; Sanofi Pasteur (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Chair phase 3 COVID vaccine, Grant/Research Support Evan J. Anderson, MD, GSK (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Kentucky Bioprocessing, Inc (Advisor or Review Panel member)MedImmune (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Medscape (Consultant)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Micron (Scientific Research Study Investigator)PaxVax (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Download Full-text

LB1. Remdesivir for the Treatment of High-Risk Non-Hospitalized Individuals With COVID-19: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.1642 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S806-S807

Author(s):

Joshua A Hill ◽

Roger Paredes ◽

Carlos Vaca ◽

Jorge Mera ◽

Brandon J Webb ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Double Blind ◽

Material Support ◽

Double Blind Placebo ◽

Study Investigator

Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) is a potent nucleotide prodrug inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. This Phase 3 (GS-US-540–9012) double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of 3 days of RDV to standard of care in non-hospitalized, high-risk participants with confirmed COVID-19. Table 1. COVID-19 related hospitalization or death, COVID-19 related medically attended visits or death, and Treatment Emergent Adverse Events Methods Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) RDV (200 mg on day 1, 100 mg on days 2 to 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was composite COVID-19 hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 and compared using Cox proportional hazards model with baseline stratification factors as covariates. The primary safety endpoint was proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events. Study enrollment was terminated early for administrative reasons in light of the evolving pandemic. Results 562 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (279, RDV; 283, placebo). Baseline demographics and characteristics were balanced across arms. Overall, 52% were male, 44% were Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and 30% were ≥ 60 years old. The most common comorbidities were diabetes mellitus (62%), obesity (56%; median BMI, 30.7), and hypertension (48%). Median baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA nasopharyngeal viral load was 6.2 log10 copies/mL. Treatment with RDV significantly reduced COVID-19 hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 – 0.59; p = 0.008; Table 1) compared to placebo. Participants receiving RDV also had significantly lower risk for COVID-19-related medically attended visits or all-cause death by day 28 compared to placebo (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 – 0.56; p = 0.002; Table 1). No deaths occurred in either arm by day 28. There was no difference between arms in time-weighted average change in nasopharyngeal viral loads from baseline up to day 7. The proportion of patients with AEs was similar between arms (Table 1); the most common AEs in the RDV arm were nausea (11%), headache (6%), and diarrhea (4%). Conclusion A 3-day course of IV RDV was safe, well tolerated and highly effective at preventing COVID-19 related hospitalization or death in high-risk non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Disclosures Joshua A. Hill, MD, Allogene (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Allovir (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support; Amplyx (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Covance/CSL (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; CRISPR (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Gilead (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support; Karius: Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator; Medscape (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Octapharma (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; OptumHealth (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Takeda (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator Roger Paredes, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Carlos Vaca, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Jorge Mera, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Consultant, Study Investigator (payment to employer not self)) Gilberto Perez, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Godson Oguchi, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Pablo Ryan, MD PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Jan Gerstoft, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Other Financial or Material Support, Study Investigator (payment to employer)) Michael Brown, FRCP PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Investigator for numerous remdesivir trials (employer received compensation)) Morgan Katz, MD, MHS, Roche (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Advisor or Review Panel member; Skinclique (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant Gregory Camus, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Danielle P. Porter, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, DPhil, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, Employee during the conduct of this trial) Shuguang Chen, PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Kavita Juneja, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Frank Duff, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Eli Lilly (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Gilead Sciences (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Gift in kind to Baylor Scott and White Research Institute for NCT03383419)GSK (Advisor or Review Panel member)Johnson and Johnson (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kinevant (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Roche/Genentech (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Download Full-text

1334. Outcomes Among Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Hospitalized Adults Age ≥ 50 Years and with Underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) or Congestive Heart Failure (CHF)

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.1526 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S755-S755

Author(s):

Megan Taylor ◽

Ashley Tippett ◽

Laila Hussaini ◽

Luis Salazar ◽

Caroline Ciric ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Nursing Home ◽

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Icu Admission ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Significant Burden ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background A significant burden of disease exists for adults infected with influenza (flu) and SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. However, data are limited comparing outcomes between hospitalized adults infected with these viruses. Methods Over the course of 3 consecutive winter respiratory viral seasons, adults ≥ 50 years of age admitted with acute respiratory tract infections (ARI) and adults of any age with COPD or CHF-related admissions were enrolled from 2 Atlanta area hospitals. For the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons, participants were approached in the hospital. If the participant enrolled, nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs were collected and tested using BioFire® FilmArray® respiratory panel. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-21 and limitations involving participant contact, only NP standard of care (SOC) swabs were collected. A comprehensive medical chart review was completed for each subject which encompassed data on their hospitalization, past medical history, and vaccination history. Co-infected patients were excluded from the analyses. Results Of the eligible participants, 118 were flu positive (three RSV-influenza co-infections were excluded) and 527 were COVID-19 positive. Median age was lower for the flu cohort at 62 (IQR 56-71) than those with COVID-19 (67, IQR 59-77) (p < 0.0001). Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in flu-infected patients (median 3 d, IQR 2-6), but was longer for COVID-19 patients (median 5 d, IQR 3-10). ICU admission occurred in 20% of those with flu, and among those admitted to the ICU mechanical ventilation (MV) occurred in 12.5%. ICU admission and MV was significantly higher for those with COVID-19, with 28% of patients admitted to the ICU and 47% of those requiring MV. Among patients with COVID-19, 8.9% died. This was significantly higher than that of flu (3.4%) (p=0.008). Hospital discharge occurred more frequently to a nursing home or LTCF with COVID-19 (10.3%) than with flu (0%) (p< 0.0001). Table 1. Breakdown of age, hospitalization course, and discharge disposition for participants diagnosed with influenza or COVID-19 during hospitalization. Conclusion COVID-19 resulted in a longer hospital admission, a greater chance of ICU admission and MV as compared to flu. Additionally, COVID-19 participants had a high rate of discharge to a nursing home/LTCF and a significantly higher risk of death. While the clinical course was not as severe as COVID-19, influenza contributed a significant burden. Disclosures David L. Swerdlow, MD, Pfizer Vaccines (Employee) Robin Hubler, MS, Pfizer Inc. (Employee) Christina A. Rostad, MD, BioFire Inc, GSK, MedImmune, Micron, Janssen, Merck, Moderna, Novavax, PaxVax, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Pasteur. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)Meissa Vaccines (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-inventor of patented RSV vaccine technology unrelated to this manuscript, which has been licensed to Meissa Vaccines, Inc.) Larry Anderson, MD, ADVI (Consultant)Bavarian Nordic (Consultant)Novavax (Consultant)Phizer (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sciogen (Research Grant or Support) Nadine Rouphael, MD, pfizer, sanofi, lily, quidel, merck (Grant/Research Support) Nadine Rouphael, MD, Lilly (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory Study PI, Grant/Research Support; Merck (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory study PI, Grant/Research Support; Pfizer: I conduct as co-PI the RSV PFIZER study at Emory, Research Grant; Pfizer (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, I conduct as co-PI the RSV PFIZER study at Emory; Quidel (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory Study PI, Grant/Research Support; Sanofi Pasteur (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Chair phase 3 COVID vaccine, Grant/Research Support Evan J. Anderson, MD, GSK (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Kentucky Bioprocessing, Inc (Advisor or Review Panel member)MedImmune (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Medscape (Consultant)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Micron (Scientific Research Study Investigator)PaxVax (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Download Full-text

1178. Sustained Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza-Associated Hospitalization in Children: Evidence from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, 2015-2016 Through 2019-2020

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.1371 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S681-S682

Author(s):

Leila C Sahni ◽

Eric A Naioti ◽

Samantha M Olson ◽

Angela P Campbell ◽

Marian G Michaels ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Influenza Vaccine ◽

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Onset Date ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Material Support ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Adult studies have demonstrated intra-season declines in influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) with increasing time since vaccination; however, data in children are limited. Methods We conducted a prospective, test-negative study of children ages 6 months through 17 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness at 7 pediatric medical centers each season in the New Vaccine Surveillance Network during the 2015-2016 through 2019-2020 influenza seasons. Cases were children with an influenza-positive molecular test; controls were influenza-negative children. Controls were matched to cases by illness onset date using 3:1 nearest neighbor matching. We estimated VE [100% x (1 – odds ratio)] by comparing the odds of receipt of ≥ 1 dose of influenza vaccine ≥ 14 days before the onset of illness that resulted in hospitalization among influenza-positive children to influenza-negative children. Changes in VE over time between vaccination date and illness onset date during each season were estimated using multivariable logistic regression models. Results Of 8,430 hospitalized children (4,781 [57%] male; median age 2.4 years), 4,653 (55%) received ≥ 1 dose of influenza vaccine. On average, 48% and 85% of children were vaccinated by the end of October and December, respectively. Influenza-positive cases (n=1,000; 12%) were less likely to be vaccinated than influenza-negative controls (39% vs. 61%, p< 0.001) and overall VE against hospitalization was 53% (95% CI: 46%, 60%). Pooling data across 5 seasons, the odds of any influenza-associated hospitalization increased 0.96% (95% CI: -0.76%, 2.71%) per week with a corresponding weekly decrease in VE of 0.45% (p=0.275). Odds of hospitalization with time since vaccination increased 0.66% (95% CI: -0.76%, 2.71%) per week in children ≤ 8 years (n=3,084) and 2.16% (95% CI: -1.68%, 6.15%) per week in children 9-17 years (n=771). No significant differences were observed by virus subtype or lineage. Figure 1. Declines in influenza VE over time from 2015-2016 through 2019-2020, overall (a) and by age group (b: ≤ 8 years; c: 9-17 years) Conclusion We observed minimal intra-season declines in VE against influenza-associated hospitalization in U.S. children. Vaccination following Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices guidelines and current timing of vaccine receipt is the best strategy for prevention of influenza-associated hospitalization in children. Disclosures Marian G. Michaels, MD, MPH, Viracor (Grant/Research Support, performs assay for research study no financial support) John V. Williams, MD, GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee)Quidel (Advisor or Review Panel member, Scientific Advisory Board) Elizabeth P. Schlaudecker, MD, MPH, Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Sanofi Pasteur (Advisor or Review Panel member) Natasha B. Halasa, MD, MPH, Genentech (Other Financial or Material Support, I receive an honorarium for lectures - it’s a education grant, supported by genetech)Quidel (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Donation of supplies/kits)Sanofi (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, HAI/NAI testing) Natasha B. Halasa, MD, MPH, Genentech (Individual(s) Involved: Self): I receive an honorarium for lectures - it’s a education grant, supported by genetech, Other Financial or Material Support, Other Financial or Material Support; Sanofi (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support Janet A. Englund, MD, AstraZeneca (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Meissa Vaccines (Consultant)Pfizer (Research Grant or Support)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant)Teva Pharmaceuticals (Consultant) Christopher J. Harrison, MD, GSK (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support) Flor M. Munoz, MD, Biocryst (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Gilead (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Meissa (Other Financial or Material Support, DSMB)Moderna (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Other Financial or Material Support, DSMB)Pfizer (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Other Financial or Material Support, DSMB)Virometix (Other Financial or Material Support, DSMB)

Download Full-text

Safety of Live-Attenuated Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Administered Within 2 Years of Hematopoietic Cell Transplant

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab504 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (12) ◽

Author(s):

Michaël Desjardins ◽

Xhoi Mitre ◽

Amy C Sherman ◽

Stephen R Walsh ◽

Matthew P Cheng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Reactions ◽

Maculopapular Rash ◽

Hematopoietic Cell ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Mmr Vaccine ◽

Hematopoietic Cell Transplant ◽

Live Attenuated Vaccine ◽

Allogeneic Hct ◽

Measles Outbreak ◽

Tract Infections

Abstract Background Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is a live-attenuated vaccine usually contraindicated within the first 2 years of hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). The objective of this study was to assess the safety of MMR vaccine when administered within 2 years of HCT. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of patients who received MMR vaccination within 2 years of an autologous or allogeneic HCT, mostly in the context of the 2019 measles outbreak. Adverse reactions were collected for 42 days postvaccination, and all hospitalizations and deaths following vaccination were reviewed. Results A total of 129 patients (75 autologous and 54 allogeneic HCT) were vaccinated 300–729 days after HCT (median, 718 days), and 39 (30%) of these were vaccinated earlier than 23 months post-transplant. Ten adverse reactions in 7 patients (5%) were identified within 42 days of vaccination: 6 respiratory tract infections (3 with fever) and 1 rash. The rash was seen in a 37-year-old female who had an allogeneic HCT 542 days before vaccination. She presented with a centrifugal maculopapular rash, confirmed to be caused by the vaccine strain rubella virus. She fully recovered. No other vaccine-associated illness was identified in the cohort after a median follow-up of 676 days. Conclusions MMR vaccine appears to be well tolerated in select HCT recipients when given between 300 and 729 days after transplant. An uncomplicated case of vaccine-associated rubella illness was seen after vaccination. Assessment of potential risks and benefits of MMR vaccination given within 2 years of HCT remains important.

Download Full-text

121. A Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prefusion F Protein (RSVPreF3) Candidate Vaccine Administered in Older Adults in a Phase I/II Randomized Clinical Trial Is Immunogenic

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.431 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S188-S189

Author(s):

Javier Ruiz Guiñazú ◽

Jelena Tica ◽

Charles P Andrews ◽

Matthew G Davis ◽

Philippe De Smedt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Research Study ◽

Geometric Mean ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

High Dose ◽

Review Panel ◽

Post Dose ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Antibody Titers

Abstract Background RSV causes significant disease burden in older adults, since reinfections are common and may lead to severe disease presentations while only supportive treatment is available. We present immunogenicity of different formulations of an investigational vaccine (RSVPreF3) in young and older adults. Methods This is a phase I/II, placebo-controlled, multi-country trial (NCT03814590). Healthy adults aged 18–40 years were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive 2 doses of either Low-, Medium- or High-dose of RSVPreF3 non-adjuvanted vaccine or placebo, 2 months apart. Following favorable safety outcomes, adults aged 60–80 years were randomized 1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 in a 2-step staggered manner to receive 1 of the 9 RSV vaccine formulations containing Low-, Medium- or High-dose of RSVPreF3, non-adjuvanted or adjuvanted with AS01E or AS01B, or placebo (same schedule). Humoral and cellular-mediated immune responses are assessed before and after each dose; results up to 1 month post-dose 1 are shown here. Results Of 48 adults aged 18–40 years and 1005 aged 60–80 years included in the exposed set, 42 and 933, respectively, were part of per-protocol set at 1 month post-dose 1. RSVPreF3 IgG geometric mean antibody concentrations were 8.4–13.5 and 7.2–12.8 fold-higher at 1 month post-dose 1 vs baseline in the 18–40- and 60–80-year-old vaccinees, respectively (Fig 1A). RSV-A neutralization activity significantly increased in all RSV vaccinees, geometric mean antibody titers being 7.5–13.7 and 5.6–9.9 fold-higher in 18–40- and 60–80-year-olds, respectively, at 1 month post-dose 1 vs baseline (Fig 1B). Geometric mean ratios of the fold increase between RSVPreF3 IgG antibody concentrations and RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers ranged between 0.9–1.1 in 18–40-year-old and 1.3–1.5 in 60–80-year-old vaccinees. A robust RSVPreF3-specific CD4+ T-cell response was elicited at 1 month post-dose 1 vs baseline in both 18–40- and 60–80-year-olds (Fig 2). Figure 1. RSVPreF3 IgG geometric mean antibody concentrations (GMCs, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, panel A), RSV-A neutralizing geometric mean antibody titers (GMTs, neutralization assay, panel B) Figure 2. RSVPreF3-specific CD4+ T-cells identified as expressing ≥2 markers among IL2, CD40L, TNF-□, IFN-□ (intracellular cytokine staining assay) Conclusion One dose of RSVPreF3 candidate vaccine boosted humoral and cellular immune responses in all vaccinees. In older adults, higher humoral response, mostly neutralizing, was observed with increased RSVPreF3 antigen dosage and a tendency of higher cellular response was observed after adjuvanted formulations. Funding GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA Disclosures Javier Ruiz Guiñazú, MD MSc, GSK group of companies (Employee, Shareholder) Jelena Tica, PhD, GSK group of companies (Employee, Shareholder) Charles P. Andrews, MD, GSK group of companies (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Charles Fogarty, MD, GSK group of companies (Grant/Research Support) Edward Kerwin, MD, Amphastar (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)AstraZeneca (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Boehringer Ingelheim (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Chiesi (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Cipla (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)GSK group of companies (Employee, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Mylan (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Novartis (Employee, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker’s Bureau)other around 40 pharmaceutical companies (Other Financial or Material Support, conducted multicenter clinical research trials)Pearl (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Sunovion (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Theravance (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau) Isabel Leroux-Roels, MD PhD, GSK group of companies (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Corinne Vandermeulen, MD PhD, GSK group of companies (Other Financial or Material Support, My university only received Grant/Research Support) Marie-Pierre David, MSc, GSK group of companies (Employee, Shareholder) Nancy Dezutter, PhD, PharmD, RPh, GSK group of companies (Employee, Shareholder) Nathalie De Schrevel, PhD, GSK group of companies (Employee) Laurence Fissette, MSc, GSK group of companies (Employee) Narcisa Mesaros, MD, MSc, GSK group of companies (Employee)

Download Full-text