154. Circulation of Rhinovirus/Enterovirus Respiratory Infections in Children During 2020-21 in the United States

Abstract Background Sharp declines in influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) circulation across the U.S. have been described during the pandemic in temporal association with community mitigation for control of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to determine relative frequencies of rhinovirus/enterovirus (RV/EV) and other respiratory viruses in children presenting to emergency departments or hospitalized with acute respiratory illness (ARI) prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a multi-center active prospective ARI surveillance study in children as part of the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN) from December 2016 through January 2021. Molecular testing for RV/EV, RSV, influenza, and other respiratory viruses [i.e., human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus (Types 1-4), and adenovirus] were performed on specimens collected from children enrolled children. Cumulative percent positivity of each virus type during March 2020–January 2021 was compared from March-January in the prior seasons (2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) using Pearson’s chi-squared. Data are provisional. Results Among 69,403 eligible children, 37,676 (54%) were enrolled and tested for respiratory viruses. The number of both eligible and enrolled children declined in early 2020 (Figure 1), but 4,691 children (52% of eligible) were enrolled and tested during March 2020-January 2021. From March 2020-January 2021, the overall percentage of enrolled children with respiratory testing who had detectable RV/EV was similar compared to the same time period in 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 (Figure 1, Table 1). In contrast, the percent positivity of RSV, influenza, and other respiratory viruses combined declined compared to prior years, (p< 0.001, Figure 1, Table 1). Figure 1. Percentage of Viral Detection Among Enrolled Children Who Received Respiratory Testing, New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN), United States, December 2016 – January 2021 Table 1. Percent of Respiratory Viruses Circulating in March 2020– January 2021, compared to March-January in Prior Years, New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN), United States, March 2017 – January 2021 Conclusion During 2020, RV/EV continued to circulate among children receiving care for ARI despite abrupt declines in other respiratory viruses within this population. These findings warrant further studies to understand virologic, behavioral, biological, and/or environmental factors associated with this continued RV/EV circulation. Disclosures Jennifer E. Schuster, MD, Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support 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) Christopher J. Harrison, MD, GSK (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, 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) Claire Midgley, PhD, Nothing to disclose 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

Download Full-text

1104. Risk Factors and Outcomes of Refractory and/or Resistant Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Infection after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1290 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S582-S583

Author(s):

Eleni Karantoni ◽

Yiqi Su ◽

Anat Stern ◽

Phaedon D Zavras ◽

Sergio Giralt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Overall Survival ◽

T Cell ◽

Panel Member ◽

Multivariable Model ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Material Support ◽

Advisory Boards ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background The epidemiology of CMV end-organ disease (EOD) after Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (HCT) in the era of preemptive therapy (PET) is defined. In contrast, less data exists on refractory and/or resistant (R/R) CMV. We report on 1) the incidence; 2) risk factors and outcomes of R/R CMV by 1-year post HCT. Methods Retrospective review of 167 CMV seropositive (R+) recipients of first marrow or peripheral blood HCT from 1/2014 - 12/2017 managed by PET. Refractory CMV was defined as failure to achieve >1 log10 decrease in CMV viral load (VL) and having VL >1,000 IU/mL after ≥14 day of PET. Resistant CMV required genotypic confirmation of resistance mutation(s) in UL54 and/or UL97 genes. End organ disease (EOD) was defined by standard criteria. Patients (pts) were followed through 1-year post HCT and were categorized in two mutually exclusive groups as R/R and no R/R. Demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes were extracted from medical records and hospital databases. Univariable and multivariable logistic models were used to identify risk factors for R/R CMV. Results Of 167 PET recipients, 91 (54.5%) received ex vivo T cell depleted (TCD) HCT; 40 (24.0%) had mismatched donor; and 26 (15.6%) had multiple myeloma. 66/167 (39.5%) pts developed refractory CMV (6 pts also had resistant CMV). Time from HCT to CMV viremia was shorter in R/R group: median (IQR) 21.5 (17.2-27.8) days compared to no R/R group: 26 (19-32) days (p=0.031). Maximum VL was higher for R/R compared to no R/R: median (IQR) 9,118 (2,849-18,456) and 868 (474-1,908), respectively (p< 0.001). In multivariable model, risk factors for R/R included TCD HCT (p< 0.0001) and higher VL at PET initiation (p=0.0002). In contrast, CMV seropositive donor (p=0.035) was protective (Figure 1). CMV EOD developed in 28.2% of R/R and 16.2% of no R/R groups (p=0.085) (Figure 2). Overall survival at 1 year was 59.1% for R/R compared to 83.1% for no R/R group (p=0.00027) (Figure 3). Figure 1. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) from multivariable model evaluating risk factors of refractory/resistant (R/R) CMV. Figure 2. Cumulative incidence curves of CMV end-organ disease (EOD) at 1-year post HCT Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of overall survival (OS) at 1-year post HCT Conclusion 1) Refractory and/or resistant CMV occurred in 39,5% of PET recipients. 2) T-cell depletion and higher CMV VL at PET initiation were risk factors for R/R CMV in multivariable models. 3) R/R CMV was associated with more EOD and worse overall survival. Disclosures Sergio Giralt, MD, Amgen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Served an advisory board for Amgen, Actinuum, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, JAZZ pharmaceutical, Takeda, Novartis, KITE, and Spectrum pharma and has received research support from Amgen, Actinuum, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Miltenyi, Takeda.) Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, Abbvie (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria from Abbvie, Bellicum, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck, Novartis, Nektar Therapeutics, Omeros, and Takeda.)ASTCT (Other Financial or Material Support, Volunteer member of the Board of Directors of American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT), Be The Match (National Marrow Donor Program, NMDP), and the CIBMTR Cellular Immunotherapy Data Resource (CIDR) Committee)Cidara Therapeutics (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Serve on DSMBs for Cidara Therapeutics, Servier and Medigene, and the scientific advisory boards of MolMed and NexImmune.)Kite/Gilead (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Received research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead and Miltenyi Biotec.) Genovefa Papanicolaou, MD, Chimerix (Research Grant or Support)Merck&Co (Research Grant or Support, Investigator and received funding and consulting fees from Merck, Chimerix, Shire and Astellas)

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

127. Development of a Kinetic ELISA (kELISA) and Reactive B-cell Frequency (RBF) Assay to Detect Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Pre-Fusion F Protein-Specific Immune Responses in Infants

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.127 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S77-S78

Author(s):

Stephanie L Rolsma ◽

Sandy M Yoder ◽

Rachel S Nargi ◽

Eric Brady ◽

Natalia Jimenez-Truque ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Panel Member ◽

Multiple Time ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Cell Frequency ◽

Material Support ◽

F Protein ◽

Multiple Time Points ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background RSV is a major cause of pediatric respiratory disease. Antibodies to the prefusion conformation of the RSV fusion (pre-F) protein are needed for virus neutralization. Methods We measured RSV-specific responses in two groups of children < 3 years of age; subjects with laboratory-confirmed RSV (RSV-infected) or infants born in the period May to September and enrolled prior to their first RSV season (RSV-uninfected). RSV-infected infants had blood samples obtained at 1, 6, 9, and 12 months after infection. RSV-uninfected infants had blood samples obtained at enrollment, at the end of their first RSV season, and 6 months later. A kELISA to measure RSV pre-F-specific antibodies and an RBF assay to identify RSV F-specific B cells were developed. Results 102 subjects were enrolled; 11 were excluded due to missed visits or withdrawal. Of the 65 subjects in the RSV-uninfected group, all were kELISA positive at enrollment, consistent with maternal antibody transfer. 53 subjects had sufficient samples for analysis at multiple time points; 29 became seronegative and 24 remained seropositive. In the seronegative group, the kELISA value decreased rapidly to < 0.25 by 6 months after the RSV season in 27/29 (93%), (Figure 1a). In the persistently seropositive group, all 24 subjects maintained a positive kELISA value, with some developing higher values over time, consistent with asymptomatic infection (Figure 1b). An RBF assay was used to determine whether antibodies were due to persistent maternal antibodies or endogenous production (Figure 2). In the seronegative group, 24/29 (80%) had a negative RBF; in the seropositive group, 23/24 (96%) had a positive RBF during follow-up. There were 26 subjects in the RSV-infected group; 22 had sufficient samples for analysis at multiple time points. All were seropositive by kELISA at one month post-infection with variable kELISA values during follow-up (Figure 3). 17/22 (77%) had a positive RBF, although 4 of the subjects without a positive RBF had indeterminate results at ≥ 1 visit. Figure 1. kELISA values of baseline RSV-negative subjects, by subject age at time of sample. Panel A: Subjects classified as seronegative (n=29). Panel B: Subjects without known RSV classified as persistently seropositive (n=24). Figure 2. Reactive B-cell frequency assay. The first step in the RBF assay is growth of Lymphoblastoid Cell Lines (LCLs), as shown over days 1-3 (Left-Day 1, Middle-Day 2, Right-Day 3, magnification 200X). The cells circled in the figure indicate a single LCL’s growth over time. LCL supernatant is used to detect RSV F-protein specific antibodies using traditional ELISA, resulting in a positive, indeterminate, or negative result. Indeterminate results occur due to a lack of cell viability and/or failure to form LCLs, resulting in failure to exceed an optical density of 5x background. Figure 3. kELISA values of RSV-infected subjects, by subject age at time of sample. First sample was obtained at approximately one month after laboratory-confirmed RSV. Conclusion Assays measuring F-specific immune responses in infants will be critical for RSV vaccine development. A kELISA targeting RSV pre-F epitopes, with an RBF assay targeting RSV F-specific B cells, may allow discrimination for maternal and infant-derived antibodies. Disclosures Isaac Thomsen, MD, MSCI, Horizon Therapeutics (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant James E. Crowe, Jr., MD, Astra Zeneca (Grant/Research Support)IDBiologics (Board Member, Grant/Research Support, Shareholder)Luna Biologics (Consultant)Meissa Vaccines (Advisor or Review Panel member)Takeda Vaccines (Grant/Research Support) Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, Bionet (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; CDC (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Research Grant or Support; IBM (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Merck (Individual(s) Involved: Self): member DSMC, Other Financial or Material Support; Moderna (Individual(s) Involved: Self): member DSMC, Other Financial or Material Support; NIH (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Research Grant or Support; Pfizer (Individual(s) Involved: Self): member DSMC, Other Financial or Material Support; Roche (Individual(s) Involved: Self): member of DSMB, Other Financial or Material Support; Sanofi Pasteur (Individual(s) Involved: Self): member DSMB, Other Financial or Material Support; Sequiras (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Member DSMB, Other Financial or Material Support; X4 Pharmaceuticals (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, Altimmune (Consultant)Astellas (Other Financial or Material Support, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee)Diotheris (Consultant)GSK (Consultant)Horizon (Consultant)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Premier Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member)Vir (Consultant)

Download Full-text

73. Geographical Disparities in Clinical Outcomes of Severe COVID-19 Patients Treated with Remdesivir

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.383 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S167-S167

Author(s):

George Diaz ◽

Jose Ramon Arribas ◽

Philip A Robinson ◽

Anna Maria Cattelan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Study ◽

Clinical Status ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Ordinal Scale ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Material Support ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV), a RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, is the only treatment with demonstrated efficacy in shortening the duration of COVID-19. Here we report regional differences in clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV, as part of an open-label, randomized phase-3 trial establishing RDV treatment duration. Methods Hospitalized patients with oxygen saturation ≤94%, a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR in the past 4 days and radiographic evidence of pneumonia were randomized 1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV. We compared d14 clinical outcomes of patients from different geographical areas, as measured by mortality rates, change in clinical status from baseline (BL) on a 7-point ordinal scale and change in O2 requirements from BL. Based on previous analyses in compassionate use data showing region as an important predictor of outcome, Italy was examined separately from other regions. Results 397 patients were treated with RDV, of which 229 (58%) were in the US, 77 (19%) Italy, 61 (15% in Spain), 12 (3%) Republic of Korea, 9 (2%) Singapore, 4 (1%) Germany, 4 (1%) Hong Kong and 1 (< 1%) Taiwan. BL clinical status was worse in Italy compared to other regions (72% vs 17% requiring high-flow oxygen delivery or higher), and Italian patients were more likely to be male than patients from other regions (69% vs 63%). Overall results showed 5d RDV was as effective as 10d. Mortality at d14 was higher in Italy (18%) compared to all other countries except Italy (7%). Similarly, clinical improvement at d14, measured as ≥2-point increase in the ordinal scale, was lower in Italian patients (39%) compared to all other countries combined (64%). (Fig.1). Figure 1. Change from Baseline in Clinical Status (measured on a 7-point Ordinal Scale) at d14. Conclusion Overall, our results demonstrate significant geographical differences in the clinical course of severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV. We observed worse outcomes, such as increased mortality and lower rate of clinical improvement, in patients from Italy compared to other regions. Disclosures George Diaz, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, Alexa (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Viiv Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Philip A. Robinson, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Anna Maria Cattelan, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA 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) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Yao-Shen Chen, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Elena Vendrame, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Christiana Blair, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Bum Sik Chin, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Bum Sik Chin, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Christoph Spinner, MD, AbbVie (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)MSD (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel) Gerard J. Criner, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gerard J. Criner, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Jose Muñoz, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA David Chien Boon Lye, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Download Full-text

638. Safety, Efficacy, and Durability of Long-Acting CAB and RPV as Maintenance Therapy for HIV-1 Infection: LATTE-2 Week 256 Results

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.832 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S379-S380

Author(s):

Graham Smith ◽

Keith Henry ◽

Daniel Podzamczer ◽

Mar Masiá ◽

Christopher Bettacchi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Panel Member ◽

Virologic Response ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Material Support ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Long Acting ◽

Hiv 1 ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Long-acting (LA) injectable suspensions of cabotegravir (CAB) & rilpivirine (RPV) are in phase III development. LATTE-2 W160 results demonstrated high rates of virologic response & overall tolerability. This W256 analysis evaluated long-term efficacy, safety, & tolerability of every 8-week (Q8W) & 4-week (Q4W) intramuscular (IM) dosing. Methods LATTE-2 is a phase IIb, multicenter, parallel arm, open-label study in antiretroviral therapy–naive adults with HIV. After a 20-week Induction Period on oral CAB+abacavir/lamivudine, participants (pts) with plasma HIV-1 RNA< 50c/mL were randomized 2:2:1 to IM CAB LA+RPV LA Q8W, Q4W, or continue oral (PO) regimen in the Maintenance Period (MP). After W96, pts on IM regimens continued their current MP regimen. Pts randomized to PO in MP chose a Q8W or Q4W IM regimen in the Extension Period (EP). W256 analysis of MP & EP included virologic success with HIV-1 RNA< 50 c/mL (Food & Drug Administration Snapshot analysis), protocol-defined virologic failure (PDVF), & safety (intention-to-treat–Maintenance Exposed population). Results At W256, 88% (101/115; Q8W) & 74% (85/115; Q4W) of randomized IM pts had HIV-1 RNA< 50 c/mL, as did 93% (41/44) of PO to IM pts. No pt developed PDVF after W48. In the randomized IM arm (MP & EP), excluding injection-site reactions (ISRs), nasopharyngitis (45%), diarrhea (28%), & headache (24%) were the most common adverse events (AEs), with 34% (39/115; Q8W) & 33% (38/115; Q4W) of pts reporting AEs ≥grade 3, of which 12% (14/115; Q8W) & 11% (13/115; Q4W) were drug related. 3% (3/115; Q8W) & 17% (20/115; Q4W) of pts had AEs leading to withdrawal. 22% (25/115; Q8W) & 23% (27/115; Q4W) reported serious AEs (3 were drug related). In the PO to IM arm (EP only), most common AEs excluding ISRs were nasopharyngitis (25%), influenza (23%), & back pain (18%). 23% (10/44) reported AEs ≥grade 3 & 5% (2/44) had AEs leading to withdrawal. Majority of ISRs were mild/moderate pain & discomfort. < 1% of ISRs were severe, with 5 pts discontinuing due to ISRs. Table 1 Table 2 Conclusion CAB+RPV LA injectable therapy, administered Q8W or Q4W, demonstrated high rates of virologic response & tolerability through 5 years. W256 results add to previous results & demonstrate long-term durability of CAB+RPV LA for people living with HIV. Disclosures Keith Henry, MD, Gilead (Research Grant or Support, Paid to institution)GSK/ViiV (Research Grant or Support, Paid to institution)Janssen (Research Grant or Support, Paid to institution)Merck (Research Grant or Support, Paid to institution) Daniel Podzamczer, MD, PhD, Gilead (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen Pharmaceutica (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck Sharp & Dohme (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)ViiV Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member) Mar Masiá, MD, PhD, Janssen Pharmaceutica (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses)Merck Sharp & Dohme (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses)ViiV Healthcare (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses) Hans Jaeger, MD, Abbvie (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Janssen (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)MSD Sharp & Dohme (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV Healthcare (Consultant, Research Grant or Support, Speaker’s Bureau) Marie-Aude Khuong-Josses, MD, Viiv HC (Advisor or Review Panel member) Kenneth Sutton, MA, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Cynthia C. McCoig, MD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Kati Vandermeulen, MSC, Janssen Pharmaceutica (Employee, Shareholder) Rodica Van Solingen-Ristea, MD, Janssen R&D (Employee) William Spreen, PharmD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee, Shareholder) David Margolis, MD, MPH, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee)

Download Full-text

72. Remdesivir vs Standard Care in Patients with Moderate covid-19

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.382 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S166-S167

Author(s):

Francisco M Marty ◽

Prashant Malhotra ◽

Robert L Gottlieb ◽

Karen T Tashima ◽

Massimo Galli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Study ◽

Clinical Status ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Ordinal Scale ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Material Support ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) shortens time to recovery time in patients with severe COVID-19. Its effect in patients with moderate COVID-19 remains unclear. Methods We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive up to 5d or 10d of RDV with standard of care (SoC), or SoC alone; patients could be discharged prior to completing per-protocol assigned treatment duration. RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on d1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Patients were evaluated daily while hospitalized, and via telephone if discharged. The primary endpoint was clinical status on d11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. Results regarding the primary endpoint are expected to be published before IDWeek 2020; we plan to present d28 results at the meeting. Results In total, 584 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (191, 5d RDV; 193, 10d RDV; 200, SoC). By d11, ³ 2 point improvement on the ordinal scale occurred in 70% of patients in the 5d arm, 65% in the 10d arm, and 61% in the SoC arm. Patients in the 5d RDV arm were significantly more likely to have an improvement in clinical status than those receiving SoC (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–2.48; P=0.017); OR of improvement for the 10d RDV arm compared to SoC was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.88–1.95]; p=0.183). This improvement in the 5-day arm over the SOC arm was noted from d6 through d11. We observed a peak of discharges corresponding with the assigned treatment duration of RDV, with increased discharges at d6 in the 5-day arm and at d11 in the 10-day arm. A worsening of clinical status of ≥ 1 point in the ordinal scale was observed more commonly in the SoC am (n=19, 10%) versus the 5d RDV (n=7, 4%) and 10d RDV (n=9, 5%). Conclusion RDV for up to 5 days was superior to SoC in improving the clinical status of patients with moderate COVID-19 by d11. We will report d28 outcomes at the meeting. Disclosures Francisco M. Marty, MD, Allovir (Consultant)Amplyx (Consultant)Ansun (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Avir (Consultant)Cidara (Scientific Research Study Investigator)F2G (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kyorin (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)New England Journal of Medicine (Other Financial or Material Support, Honorarium for Video)Regeneron (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ReViral (Consultant)Scynexis (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Symbio (Consultant)Takeda (Scientific Research Study Investigator)United Medical (Consultant)WHISCON (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Prashant Malhotra, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert L. Gottlieb, 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) 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) Louis Yi Ann Chai, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Lijie Zhong, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Michael Brown, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Ane Josune Goikoetxea, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (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) David Shu Cheong Hui, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Enos Bernasconi, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Christoph Spinner, MD, AbbVie (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)MSD (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)

Download Full-text

1248. Efficacy and Safety of Oral Ibrexafungerp in 41 Patients with Refractory Fungal Diseases, Interim Analysis of a Phase 3 Open-label Study (FURI)

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1432 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S642-S642

Author(s):

Barbara D Alexander ◽

Oliver Cornely ◽

Peter Pappas ◽

Rachel Miller ◽

Jose A Vazquez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Research Support ◽

Open Label ◽

Review Panel ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Material Support ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Candida infections resistant to currently available antifungals are an emerging global threat. Ibrexafungerp is an investigational broad-spectrum glucan synthase inhibitor antifungal with activity against Candida and Aspergillus species, including azole- and echinocandin-resistant strains. A Phase 3 open-label, single-arm study of oral ibrexafungerp (FURI) (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03059992) is ongoing for the treatment of patients (≥18 years) with fungal diseases who are intolerant of or refractory to standard antifungal therapies. Methods An independent Data Review Committee (DRC) provided an assessment of treatment response for 41 patients. Patients were enrolled in 22 centers from 6 countries. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they had proven or probable, invasive or severe mucocutaneous candidiasis and documented evidence of failure of, intolerance to, or toxicity related to a currently approved standard-of-care antifungal treatment or could not receive approved oral antifungal options (e.g., susceptibility of the organism) and a continued IV antifungal therapy was undesirable or unfeasible. Results The 41 patients assessed had the following infection types: intra-abdominal abscesses, oropharyngeal candidiasis, esophageal candidiasis, candidemia, and others. The DRC adjudicated 23 patients (56%) as achieving complete or partial response, 11 patients (27%) maintaining stable disease, 6 patients (15%) with progression of disease and one case was considered as indeterminate. The efficacy of oral ibrexafungerp by pathogen is shown in Table 1. Ibrexafungerp was well-tolerated with the most common treatment-related adverse events being of gastrointestinal origin. No deaths due to progression of fungal disease were reported. Table 1: Ibrexafungerp Outcomes by Pathogen Conclusion Preliminary analysis of these 41 cases indicate that oral ibrexafungerp provides a favorable therapeutic response in the majority of patients with difficult to treat Candida spp. infections, including those caused by non-albicans Candida species. Disclosures Barbara D. Alexander, MD, MHS, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Employee, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support) Oliver Cornely, Prof., Actelion (Grant/Research Support)Actelion (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Al Jazeera Pharmaceuticals (Consultant)Allecra Therapeutics (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Amplyx (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Amplyx (Grant/Research Support)Astellas (Grant/Research Support)Astellas (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Basilea (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Basilea (Grant/Research Support)Biosys UK Limited (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Cidara (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Cidara (Grant/Research Support)Da Volterra (Grant/Research Support)Da Volterra (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Entasis (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)F2G (Other Financial or Material Support)F2G (Grant/Research Support)Gilead (Grant/Research Support)Gilead (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Grupo Biotoscana (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Janssen Pharmaceuticals (Grant/Research Support)Matinas (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Medicines Company (Grant/Research Support)MedPace (Grant/Research Support)MedPace (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Melinta Therapeutics (Grant/Research Support)Menarini Ricerche (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Merck/MSD (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Merck/MSD (Grant/Research Support)Mylan Pharmaceuticals (Consultant)Nabriva Therapeutics (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Octapharma (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Paratek Pharmaceuticals (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Pfizer (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)PSI (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Rempex (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Roche Diagnostics (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Scynexis (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Scynexis (Grant/Research Support)Seres Therapeutics (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Tetraphase (Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Peter Pappas, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Rachel Miller, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, MD, Amplyx (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Astellas (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Other Financial or Material Support, Non-branded educational speaking)Biotoscana (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Non-branded educational speaking)Cidara (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)F2G (Consultant)Gilead (Consultant)Mayne (Consultant)Octapharma (Consultant)Pfizer (Other Financial or Material Support, Non-branded educational speaking)Scynexis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Stendhal (Consultant)Viracor (Consultant) Andrej Spec, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Riina Rautemaa-Richardson, DDS, PhD, FRCPath, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert Krause, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Caryn Morse, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) John W. Sanders, III, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Andes, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) George Lyon, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Francisco M. Marty, MD, Allovir (Consultant)Amplyx (Consultant)Ansun (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Avir (Consultant)Cidara (Scientific Research Study Investigator)F2G (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kyorin (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)New England Journal of Medicine (Other Financial or Material Support, Honorarium for Video)Regeneron (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ReViral (Consultant)Scynexis (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Symbio (Consultant)Takeda (Scientific Research Study Investigator)United Medical (Consultant)WHISCON (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Marisa H. Miceli, MD, FIDSA, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member) Thomas F. Patterson, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member) Martin Hoenigl, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Nkechi Azie, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) David A. Angulo, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

Download Full-text

354. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Viability Culture and Sequencing from Immunocompromised Patients with Persistently Positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR Results

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.555 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S281-S281

Author(s):

Abby Sung ◽

Adam Bailey ◽

Meghan Wallace ◽

Henry B Stewart ◽

David McDonald ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Study ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Panel Member ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Material Support ◽

Study Investigator ◽

Jewish Hospital ◽

Support Research ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Immunocompromised (IC) patients (pts) can have prolonged SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity, even after resolution of COVID-19 symptoms. This study aimed to determine if viable virus could be detected in samples collected > 21 days after an initial positive (pos) SARS-CoV-2 PCR in IC pts. Methods We obtained 20 remnant SARS-CoV-2 PCR pos nasopharyngeal swabs from IC pts (bone marrow or solid organ transplant, high dose steroids, immunosuppressive medications) with a pos repeat PCR within the previous 30 days. The repeat specimens were cultured on Vero-hACE2-TMPRSS2 cells and incubated for 96 hours to assess viral viability. Viable RNA and infectious virus in the cultured cells were measured by qPCR and infectious plaque assays. RNA sequencing was performed on a HiSeq platform (Illumina). Samples also underwent SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) testing (BD Veritor). Clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record by chart review. Results Pt characteristics are in Table 1. Viral cultures from the repeat specimen were negative (neg) for 18 pts and pos for 2 (Table 2). Pt 1 is a 60M treated with obinatuzumab 19 days prior to his first pos PCR test, with repeat specimen collected 21 days later (cycle threshold (Ct) not available). Pt 1 had a low viral titer (27 PFU/mL) & a D614G mutation on sequencing. Pt 2 is a 75M treated with rituximab 10 days prior to his first pos PCR test, with repeat specimen collected 23 days later (Ct 27.56/27.74). Pt 2 had a high viral titer (2e6 PFU/mL) and D614G, S98F, and S813I mutations. Demographics of Study Population (N=20) Characteristics of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral culture Conclusion 90% of specimens collected > 21 days after an initial pos SARS-CoV-2 PCR did not have viable virus detected on their repeat specimen. The 2 pts with pos viral cultures had active hematologic malignancies treated with an anti-CD20 mAb at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. One pt had a high concentration of active, viable virus. No known variants of concern were noted in this cohort, collected in Q2 2020, though prolonged replication is a risk for variant development. Further data are needed about risk factors for persistent viable viral shedding & methods to prevent transmission of viable virus from IC hosts. Disclosures Victoria J. Fraser, MD, CDC Epicenters (Grant/Research Support)Cigna/Express Scripts (Other Financial or Material Support, Spouse is Chief Clinical Officer)Doris Duke Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support) Victoria J. Fraser, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support; Cigna/Express Scripts (Individual(s) Involved: Spouse/Partner): Employee; Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support; National Institutes of Health (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support; The Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support Michael S. Diamond, MD, PhD, Carnival Corporation (Consultant)Emergent BioSolutions (Grant/Research Support)Fortress Biotech (Consultant)Immunome (Advisor or Review Panel member)Inbios (Consultant)Moderna (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Vir Biotechnology (Consultant, Grant/Research Support) Carey-Ann Burnham, PhD, BioFire (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support)bioMerieux (Grant/Research Support)Cepheid (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Luminex (Grant/Research Support)Roche (Other Financial or Material Support) Carey-Ann Burnham, PhD, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; bioMerieux (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speakers’ bureau; Cepheid (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator; Luminex (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Scientific Research Study Investigator Hilary Babcock, MD, MPH, FIDSA, FSHEA, Nothing to disclose

Download Full-text

5. How Does Frailty Impact the Efficacy, Reactogenicity, Immunogenicity and Safety of the Adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine? A Secondary Analysis of the ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 Studies

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa417.004 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S2-S3

Author(s):

Melissa K Andrew ◽

Joon Hyung Kim ◽

Sean Matthews ◽

Christophe Dessart ◽

myron J levin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Panel Member ◽

Zoster Vaccine ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Material Support ◽

Recombinant Zoster Vaccine ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background Herpes zoster can negatively impact older adults’ health and quality of life. An adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has excellent vaccine efficacy (VE), including in older adults. Given that frailty is strongly associated with vulnerability to illness and adverse health outcomes, we studied how frailty impacts RZV VE, immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety. Methods In the ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 pivotal Phase 3 efficacy studies of RZV, 29,305 participants aged 50–96 received 2 doses of RZV vs. placebo in 1:1 randomization. In this secondary analysis (NCT03563183), a baseline frailty index (FI) was created retrospectively following previously validated methods using pre-existing comorbidities and patient reported outcomes. Participants were categorized as non-frail (FI≤ 0.08), pre-frail (FI=0.08–0.25) or frail (FI≥ 0.25) for stratified analyses. Results FI was calculated for 99.8% of participants included in this secondary analysis (n=26,976), and was balanced between RZV and placebo groups. 45.6% were pre-frail and 11.3% were frail. Mean age was 68.8 years; 58.1% were women. RZV VE against HZ was consistently above 90% for all frailty categories [non-frail: 95.8% (95%CI: 91.6–98.2), pre-frail: 90.4% (84.4–94.4), frail: 90.2% (75.4–97.0)]. The RZV group demonstrated robust antibody responses post-dose 2 across frailty categories. In the RZV group, the percentage of participants reporting solicited adverse events decreased with increasing frailty. Unsolicited medically attended visits and serious adverse events increased with frailty and were balanced between placebo and RZV groups. Conclusion The ZOE studies included older adults who were frail and pre-frail, and VE was high across frailty categories. Reactogenicity decreased with increasing frailty, and no safety concerns were identified in any frailty group. Disclosures Melissa K. Andrew, MD, PhD, MSc(Ph), GSK (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support) Joon Hyung Kim, MD, GSK (Employee, Shareholder) Sean Matthews, MSc, GSK (Consultant) Christophe Dessart, MSc, GSK (Employee) myron J. levin, MD, Curevo (Advisor or Review Panel member)GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck Research Laboratories (Advisor or Review Panel member, GlaxoSmithKline)Merck Research Laboratories (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck ResearchLaboratories (Advisor or Review Panel member) Lidia Oostvogels, MD, GSK (Shareholder) Megan Riley, PhD, GSK (Employee) Shelly McNeil, FRCPC, MD, GSK (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, honoraria for talks) Anne Schuind, MD, GSK (Employee, Other Financial or Material Support, own GSK stock options or restricted shares as part of renumeration) Desmond Curran, PhD, GSK (Employee, Shareholder)

Download Full-text

108. Selective Decay of Intact HIV-1 Proviral DNA on Antiretroviral Therapy

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.418 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S183-S183

Author(s):

Rajesh Gandhi ◽

Joshua Cyktor ◽

Ronald Bosch ◽

Hanna Mar ◽

Gregory Laird ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Antiretroviral Therapy ◽

Panel Member ◽

Plasma Viremia ◽

Research Support ◽

Review Panel ◽

Proviral Dna ◽

Hiv 1 ◽

Over Time ◽

Residual Plasma Viremia ◽

Research Grant

Abstract Background HIV-1 proviruses persist in people on antiretroviral therapy (ART) but most are defective and do not constitute a replication-competent reservoir. The decay of infected cells carrying intact compared with defective HIV-1 proviruses has not been well-defined in people on ART. Methods We separately quantified intact and defective proviruses (using an intact proviral DNA assay), residual plasma viremia, and markers of inflammation and activation in people on long-term ART. Longitudinal measurements were done at three timepoints: timepoint 1 was a median of 7.1 years on ART; timepoint 2 was a median of 3.7 years later; timepoint 3 was a median of 5.5 years after timepoint 1 and a median 12 years after starting ART (Figure 1). Figure 1: Study timepoints Results Among 40 participants tested longitudinally from a median of 7.1 years to 12 years after ART initiation, intact provirus levels declined significantly over time (median half-life 7.1 years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9, 18), whereas defective provirus levels did not decrease. The median half-life of total HIV-1 DNA was 41.6 years (95% CI, 13.6, 75). When we evaluated the change in proviral DNA per year, intact proviral DNA declined significantly more (p< 0.001) than defective proviral DNA (the latter did not change) (Figure 2). The proportion of all proviruses that were intact diminished over time on ART, from about 10% at the first on-ART timepoint to about 5% at the last timepoint (Figure 3). At timepoint 1, intact provirus levels on ART correlated with total HIV-1 DNA and residual plasma viremia, but there was no evidence for associations between intact provirus levels and inflammation or immune activation. Figure 2: Percent change in HIV-1 proviral DNA per year Figure 3: Total HIV-1 proviruses (grey bars) and the percentage of intact proviruses (red lines, displaying median, Q1, Q3) by timepoint. Conclusion Cells containing intact, replication-competent proviruses are selectively lost during suppressive ART. Defining the mechanisms involved should inform strategies to accelerate HIV-1 reservoir depletion. Disclosures Rajesh Gandhi, MD, Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member) Gregory Laird, PhD, Accelevir Diagnostics (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, Employee) Albine Martin, PhD, Accelevir Diagnostics (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, Employee) Bernard Macatangay, MD, Gilead (Grant/Research Support) Joseph J. Eron, MD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Consultant)ViiV Healthcare (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) Janet Siliciano, PhD, Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member)US Military HIV Research Program (Advisor or Review Panel member) John Mellors, MD, Abound Bio (Shareholder)Accelevir Diagnostics (Consultant)Co-Crystal Pharmaceuticals (Shareholder)Gilead (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant)

Download Full-text