1291. PROVE (Retrospective Cefiderocol Chart Review) Study of Real-World Outcomes and Safety in the Treatment of Patients with Gram-negative Bacterial Infections in the US and Europe

Abstract Background Gram-negative bacterial resistance is a global health problem. Limited treatment options exist, especially for carbapenem resistant (CR) pathogens containing metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) and multidrug resistant non-lactose fermenting bacteria. Cefiderocol (CFDC) retains activity against resistant strains. We describe the objectives, design, and early results of PROVE, a real world retrospective study of CFDC use. Methods PROVE is a multi-center, chart review study of CFDC use for resistant Gram-negative infections (GNI). Cases were eligible if they received ≥ 72 hrs of CFDC. Demographics, comorbidity, pathogen, infection site, and treatment course were assessed. Outcomes included all-cause 14-day and inpatient mortality and length of stay (LOS). Clinical resolution was defined by documentation that clinical signs and/or symptoms had resolved or improved without relapse. Results 24 patients who were treated with CFDC at 2 sites were included to date. Median age was 48 years (Range: 19 - 69 years); 33% were female. The most common comorbidity was diabetes (n=7, 29%). Median total ICU LOS was 36 days. Targeted treatment of documented GNI without preceding failure of prior therapy accounted for 71% of CFDC use. Empirical and salvage treatments accounted for 4% and 25% respectively (Table 1). Median time from admission to 1st CFDC dose was 21 days. Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa accounted for > 75% of isolates (Fig.1). 92% of patients had CR isolates; > 50% were respiratory. Sensitivity to CFDC was tested in 58% of which 71% were sensitive. All-cause 14-day post-CFDC mortality was 13% (95% CI: 2, 27) and overall hospital mortality 25% (95% CI: 6, 44). Clinical resolution was reached in 54% (95% CI: 33, 76). Median post-CFDC LOS was 40 days. Outcomes were stratified by key covariates (Table 2). Conclusion We present initial data for real world use of CFDC for resistant GNI. Patients were complex with multiple comorbidities, some hospitalized for long periods before their index GNI. Outcomes largely reflect this patient population. Additional data are needed to determine the optimal role of CFDC. PROVE offers an opportunity to see how CFDC is being utilized in various settings as well as a first look at key, real world outcomes. Disclosures Stephen Marcella, MD, MPH, Shionogi, Inc (Employee) Steven Smoke, PharmD, Karius (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Ryan K. Shields, PharmD, MS, Shionogi (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) David van Duin, MD, PhD, Entasis (Advisor or Review Panel member)genentech (Advisor or Review Panel member)Karius (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Utility (Advisor or Review Panel member)

Download Full-text

1012. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of switching to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) in HIV-1 infected virologically-suppressed older adults in a real-world setting

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1198 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S534-S535

Author(s):

Charlotte-Paige M Rolle ◽

Vu Nguyen ◽

Kiran Patel ◽

Dan Cruz ◽

Federico Hinestrosa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Drug Interactions ◽

Real World ◽

Research Study ◽

Panel Member ◽

Median Number ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Hiv 1

Abstract Background Approximately 50% of people living with HIV (PLWH) in the United States are ≥50 years old. Efforts are ongoing to identify antiretrovirals associated with fewer drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and long-term side effects in this group. Clinical trials of B/F/TAF demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety in older adults, however, data from real-word settings are needed to validate these results. Methods This retrospective analysis evaluated records from PLWH aged ≥ 50 years at the Orlando Immunology Center who were switched to B/F/TAF between 2/7/2018 and 5/31/2019. Eligible patients had baseline HIV-1 RNA< 50 copies/mL and were followed for 48 weeks post-switch. The primary endpoint was maintenance of HIV-1 RNA< 50 copies/mL at week 48. The impact of switching to B/F/TAF on DDIs, adverse events (AEs) and safety parameters were analyzed throughout the study. Results 306 patients met inclusion criteria. 62 (20%) were female, 126 (41%) were non-white, median age was 58 years (range [r] 50-81), median duration of HIV infection was 19.5 years (r 2-40), median number of chronic co-morbid conditions was 5 (r 0-20), and median number of baseline concomitant medications was 4 (r 0-23). 159 (52%) patients were switched from regimens containing ritonavir or cobicistat. The most commonly documented reason for switch was simplification (Table 1). At Week 48, 287 (94%) patients maintained an HIV-1 RNA< 50 copies/ml and 19 (6%) had an HIV-1 RNA between 50-200 copies/mL (Figure 1). 1 patient discontinued due to lack of efficacy. A total of 123 potential DDIs were identified in 104 (34%) patients taking a boosting agent or rilpivirine at baseline (Table 2). At Week 48, there was a significant median decline in total cholesterol (15.5 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.5; 21.5), LDL cholesterol (9.5 mg/dL, 95% CI: 4; 15.5) and triglycerides (20 mg/dL, 95% CI: 9.5; 32.5), and median weight increased by 2.5 pounds (95% CI: 1.5; 3.5). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 33 (11%) patients (all Grade 1-2) and led to 7 (2%) discontinuations. Table 1-Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics Table 2-Avoidance of Drug-Drug Interactions (DDIs) following switch to B/F/TAF Figure 1-Subgroup analysis of virologic outcomes at Week 48 Conclusion In this real-world cohort, switching to B/F/TAF was associated with maintenance of virologic control, improvement in lipid parameters, and avoidance of DDIs in a large proportion of patients. These data support use of B/F/TAF as a treatment option in older PLWH. Disclosures Charlotte-Paige M. Rolle, MD MPH, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker’s Bureau)Janssen Infectious Disease (Grant/Research Support)ViiV Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau) Kiran Patel, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Federico Hinestrosa, MD, AbbVie (Speaker’s Bureau)Gilead Sciences (Speaker’s Bureau)Merck (Speaker’s Bureau)Theratechnologies (Speaker’s Bureau) Edwin DeJesus, MD, Gilead Sciences (Advisor or Review Panel member)

Download Full-text

1608. Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections in Multiple Urban Hospitals

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1788 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S798-S799

Author(s):

Nicolo Cabrera ◽

Truc T Tran ◽

Travis J Carlson ◽

Faris Alnezary ◽

William R Miller ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Study ◽

Clinical Success ◽

Significant Proportion ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Multidrug Resistant ◽

Outcome Data ◽

Research Support ◽

Gram Negative ◽

Study Investigator

Abstract Background Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) is a novel cephalosporin/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination developed for use against multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative infections, particularly Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). C/T is approved for complicated urinary tract and intraabdominal infections as well as hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonias. However, comprehensive clinical characterization of patients treated with C/T in non-FDA-approved indications is limited. Methods Patients ≥18 years who received C/T for ≥48 hours while hospitalized in 9 acute care centers in Houston, TX from January 2016 through September 2018 were included. Demographic, microbiologic, treatment and clinical outcome data were retrospectively collected by chart review. In patients who received multiple inpatient courses of C/T, only the first course with C/T was assessed. Results 210 patients met inclusion criteria: 58% were non-white, 35% were female and 13% were immunocompromised. Median age was 61 years (IQR, 48 to 69). Median Charlson comorbidity index was 5 (IQR, 2 to 6). At the onset of the index episode, a significant proportion of patients required intensive care unit admission (44%), mechanical ventilation (37%) and pressor support (22%). Respiratory sources were the most common (50%) followed by urine (15%). Positive cultures were documented in 93% of the cases and PA was found in 86%. Majority (95%) of PA which were MDR. C/T use was guided by susceptibility testing of the index isolate in ca. 52%. In 5.7% of cases, C/T was used to escalate therapy without any documented C/T-susceptible organism. Half (51%) of the cohort received initial dosing appropriate for renal function while 36% receiving a lower than recommended dose. Clinical success (i.e., recovery from infection-related signs and symptoms) occured in 77%. The in-hospital mortality rate in our cohort was 15% with 26 of 31 deaths deemed infection-related. Conclusion We report a large multicenter observational cohort that received C/T. A 77% clinical success with the use of C/T was documented. These data support the use of C/T in critically ill patients infected with MDR PA. Disclosures William R. Miller, MD, Entasis Therapeutics (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Grant/Research Support)Shionogi (Advisor or Review Panel member) Laura A. Puzniak, PhD, Merck (Employee) Cesar A. Arias, MD, MSc, PhD, FIDSA, Entasis Therapeutics (Scientific Research Study Investigator)MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Grant/Research Support)

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

178. Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza-associated Hospitalizations and Emergency Department (ED) Visits Among Children in the United States in the 2019–2020 Season

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.488 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S217-S218

Author(s):

Angela P Campbell ◽

Constance E Ogokeh ◽

Geoffrey A Weinberg ◽

Julie A Boom ◽

Janet A Englund ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Influenza B ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Influenza A H1n1 ◽

Ed Visits ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background The 2019–20 influenza season was predominated by early onset B/Victoria viruses followed by A(H1N1)pdm09 virus circulation. Over 95% of circulating B/Victoria viruses were subclade V1A.3, different from the Northern Hemisphere vaccine strain. Annual estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) are important because of frequent changes in circulating and vaccine viruses. Methods We assessed VE among children 6 months–17 years old with acute respiratory illness and <10 days of symptoms enrolled during the 2019–20 influenza season at 7 pediatric hospitals (ED patients < 5 years at 3 sites) in the New Vaccine Surveillance Network. Combined mid-turbinate/throat swabs were tested for influenza virus using molecular assays. We estimated age-stratified VE from a test-negative design using logistic regression to compare odds of vaccination among children testing positive versus negative for influenza, adjusting for age in years, enrollment month, and site. For these preliminary analyses, vaccination status was by parental report. Results Among 2022 inpatients, 324 (16%) were influenza positive: 38% with influenza B/Victoria alone and 44% with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 alone (Table). Among 2066 ED children, 653 (32%) were influenza positive: 45% with influenza B/Victoria alone and 43% with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 alone. VE was 62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51%–70%) against any influenza-related hospitalizations, 68% (95% CI, 55%–78%) for A(H1N1)pdm09 and 55% (95% CI, 35%–69%) for B/Victoria. VE by age group for any influenza-related hospitalizations was 57% (95% CI, 40%–69%) among children 6 months to < 5 years and 66% (95% CI, 49%–77%) among children 5–17 years. VE was 53% (95% CI, 42%–62%) against any influenza-related ED visits, 46% (95% CI, 28%–60%) for A(H1N1)pdm09 and 54% (95% CI, 39%–66%) for B/Victoria. VE by age group was 52% (95% CI, 37%–63%) among children 6 months to < 5 years and 42% (95% CI, 16%–60%) among children 5–17 years. Conclusion Influenza vaccination in the 2019–20 season provided substantial protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations and ED visits associated with the two predominantly circulating influenza viruses among children, including against the emerging B/Victoria virus V1A.3 subclade. Disclosures Janet A. Englund, MD, AstraZeneca (Scientific Research Study Investigator)GSK group of companies (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Meissa vaccines (Consultant)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant) John V. Williams, MD, GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member)IDConnect (Advisor or Review Panel member)Quidel (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)Karius (Consultant)Moderna (Consultant)Quidel (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)Sanofi (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support) Christopher J. Harrison, MD, GSK (Grant/Research Support, Infant menigiciccal B conjugate vaccine trial)Merck (Research Grant or Support, Infant pneumococcal conjugate vaccine trial)

Download Full-text

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

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.429 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S187-S188

Author(s):

Jelena Tica ◽

Javier Ruiz Guiñazú ◽

Charles P Andrews ◽

Matthew G Davis ◽

Brandon Essink ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Event ◽

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Candidate Vaccine ◽

High Dose ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Post Dose ◽

Study Investigator

Abstract Background RSV is a common cause of respiratory acute illness in older adults (OA). We evaluated safety and reactogenicity of RSVPreF3 candidate vaccine in young adults (YA) and OA. Methods In this phase I/II, placebo-controlled, multi-country trial (NCT03814590), YA aged 18–40 years were randomized 1:1:1:1 and received 2 doses of Low-, Medium- or High-dose of RSVPreF3 non-adjuvanted vaccine, or placebo, 2 months apart. Following favorable safety evaluation, a staggered enrolment with 2 steps followed in OA aged 60–80 years, who were randomized 1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 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). Safety/reactogenicity up to 1 month post-dose 1 are reported here. Results Exposed set was comprised of 48 YA and 1005 OA. Within 7 days post-dose 1, any solicited/unsolicited adverse event (AE) ranged from 58.3% to 83.3% across YA vaccinees (placebo YA: 58.3%) and from 29.9% to 84.2% across OA vaccinees (placebo OA: 33.7%) (Fig 1). Pain was the most common solicited local AE, being reported in ≤ 58.3% of YA (placebo YA: 0.0%) and at higher rates in the adjuvanted groups (≤ 75.7%) vs non-adjuvanted groups of OA (≤ 14.1%) and placebo OA (4.1%) (Fig 2A). Of solicited general AEs, fatigue (YA: ≤ 41.7% in vaccinees vs 50.0% in placebo; OA: ≤ 48.5% in vaccinees vs 16.3% in placebo) and headache (YA: ≤ 33.3% in vaccinees vs 16.7% in placebo; OA: ≤ 27.7% in vaccinees vs 8.2% in placebo) were most commonly reported (Fig 2B), while fever ≥ 38.0 °C was observed in ≤ 3.0% of OA vaccinees (placebo OA: 0.0%). Grade 3 solicited local and general AEs were observed in OA only, with erythema (≤ 4.9% in vaccinees vs 0.0% in placebo) and fatigue (≤ 2.0% in vaccinees vs 1.0% in placebo) being most common (Fig 2). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in YA. A number of 11 OA reported a SAE within 1 month post-dose 1, but none was fatal or assessed as vaccine-related. No clinically significant abnormalities occurred in hematological/biochemical parameters in any group. Figure 1. Percentage of participants presenting at least one type of solicited/unsolicited adverse event (AE) within 7 days post-dose 1 Figure 2. Percentage of participants with at least one type of solicited adverse event (AE) within 7 days post-dose 1 Conclusion First dose of RSVPreF3 candidate vaccine is well tolerated. AE rates tended to be higher after AS01B-adjuvanted formulations compared to other vaccine formulations. No safety concerns were raised. Funding GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA Disclosures Jelena Tica, PhD, GSK group of companies (Employee, Shareholder) Javier Ruiz Guiñazú, MD MSc, 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) Laurence Fissette, MSc, GSK group of companies (Employee) Juliane Koch, MD, GSK group of companies (Employee, Shareholder) Narcisa Mesaros, MD, MSc, GSK group of companies (Employee)

Download Full-text