Search

Background: The mRNA-1345 vaccine demonstrated efficacy against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease with acceptable safety in adults aged ≥60 years in the ConquerRSV trial. Here, humoral immunogenicity results from the trial are presented., Methods: This phase 2/3 trial randomly assigned adults (≥60 years) to mRNA-1345 50-µg encoding prefusion F (preF) glycoprotein (n = 17 793) vaccine or placebo (n = 17 748). RSV-A and RSV-B neutralizing antibody (nAb) and preF binding antibody (bAb) levels at baseline and day 29 postvaccination were assessed in a per-protocol immunogenicity subset (PPIS; mRNA-1345, n = 1515; placebo, n = 333)., Results: Day 29 nAb geometric mean titers (GMTs) increased 8.4-fold against RSV-A and 5.1-fold against RSV-B from baseline. Seroresponses (4-fold rise from baseline) in the mRNA-1345 groups were 74.2% and 56.5% for RSV-A and RSV-B, respectively. Baseline GMTs were lower among participants who met the seroresponse criteria than those who did not. mRNA-1345 induced preF bAbs at day 29, with a pattern similar to nAbs. Day 29 antibody responses across demographic and risk subgroups were generally consistent with the overall PPIS., Conclusions: mRNA-1345 enhanced RSV-A and RSV-B nAbs and preF bAbs in adults (≥60 years) across various subgroups, including those at risk for severe disease, consistent with its demonstrated efficacy in the prevention of RSV disease., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT05127434., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. G. P. M. reports funding from Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Medicago, GSK, and Cassara. C. J. A. D. reports receiving grants from the Medical Research Council and Wellcome, a consultancy for Synarigen, and is a member of the data and safety monitoring board at Oxford University. J. G., L. L., J. D., A. K., S. M., W. H., H. Z., S. K. S., F. P., N. L., C. A. S., E. W., J. M. M., and R. D. are employees of Moderna, Inc., and may hold stock/stock options in the company. N. L. C., K. S., and J. E. T. are consultants for Moderna, Inc. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause substantial morbidity and mortality among older adults. An mRNA-based RSV vaccine, mRNA-1345, encoding the stabilized RSV prefusion F glycoprotein, is under clinical investigation., Methods: In this ongoing, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adults 60 years of age or older to receive one dose of mRNA-1345 (50 μg) or placebo. The two primary efficacy end points were the prevention of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms and with at least three signs or symptoms. A key secondary efficacy end point was the prevention of RSV-associated acute respiratory disease. Safety was also assessed., Results: Overall, 35,541 participants were assigned to receive the mRNA-1345 vaccine (17,793 participants) or placebo (17,748). The median follow-up was 112 days (range, 1 to 379). The primary analyses were conducted when at least 50% of the anticipated cases of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease had occurred. Vaccine efficacy was 83.7% (95.88% confidence interval [CI], 66.0 to 92.2) against RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms and 82.4% (96.36% CI, 34.8 to 95.3) against the disease with at least three signs or symptoms. Vaccine efficacy was 68.4% (95% CI, 50.9 to 79.7) against RSV-associated acute respiratory disease. Protection was observed against both RSV subtypes (A and B) and was generally consistent across subgroups defined according to age and coexisting conditions. Participants in the mRNA-1345 group had a higher incidence than those in the placebo group of solicited local adverse reactions (58.7% vs. 16.2%) and of systemic adverse reactions (47.7% vs. 32.9%); most reactions were mild to moderate in severity and were transient. Serious adverse events occurred in 2.8% of the participants in each trial group., Conclusions: A single dose of the mRNA-1345 vaccine resulted in no evident safety concerns and led to a lower incidence of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease and of RSV-associated acute respiratory disease than placebo among adults 60 years of age or older. (Funded by Moderna; ConquerRSV ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05127434.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection causes considerable illness in older adults. The efficacy and safety of an investigational bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based (RSVpreF) vaccine in this population are unknown., Methods: In this ongoing, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adults (≥60 years of age) to receive a single intramuscular injection of RSVpreF vaccine at a dose of 120 μg (RSV subgroups A and B, 60 μg each) or placebo. The two primary end points were vaccine efficacy against seasonal RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with at least two or at least three signs or symptoms. The secondary end point was vaccine efficacy against RSV-associated acute respiratory illness., Results: At the interim analysis (data-cutoff date, July 14, 2022), 34,284 participants had received RSVpreF vaccine (17,215 participants) or placebo (17,069 participants). RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with at least two signs or symptoms occurred in 11 participants in the vaccine group (1.19 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 33 participants in the placebo group (3.58 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) (vaccine efficacy, 66.7%; 96.66% confidence interval [CI], 28.8 to 85.8); 2 cases (0.22 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 14 cases (1.52 cases per 1000 person-years of observation), respectively, occurred with at least three signs or symptoms (vaccine efficacy, 85.7%; 96.66% CI, 32.0 to 98.7). RSV-associated acute respiratory illness occurred in 22 participants in the vaccine group (2.38 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 58 participants in the placebo group (6.30 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) (vaccine efficacy, 62.1%; 95% CI, 37.1 to 77.9). The incidence of local reactions was higher with vaccine (12%) than with placebo (7%); the incidences of systemic events were similar (27% and 26%, respectively). Similar rates of adverse events through 1 month after injection were reported (vaccine, 9.0%; placebo, 8.5%), with 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, considered by the investigators to be injection-related. Severe or life-threatening adverse events were reported in 0.5% of vaccine recipients and 0.4% of placebo recipients. Serious adverse events were reported in 2.3% of participants in each group through the data-cutoff date., Conclusions: RSVpreF vaccine prevented RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness in adults (≥60 years of age), without evident safety concerns. (Funded by Pfizer; RENOIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05035212; EudraCT number, 2021-003693-31.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19., Methods: In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18-79 years (Part 1) or ≥70 years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90 mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28., Results: In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI -0.8-11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2-33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70-79 years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI -9.3-11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J. Patel, D. Bass, A. Cahn, K. Davy, S. Fernandes, A. Gupta, K. Hanrott, D. Inman, E. Jarvis, D. Lakshminarayanan, S. Mukherjee, C. O'Shea, L. Schifano, J.E. Smith, R. Williamson and M. Layton are shareholders and/or employees of GSK. A. Beishuizen, X. Bocca Ruiz, H. Boughanmi, H. Colombo, G.J. Criner, J. de-Miguel-Díez, P.A. Doreski, B. François, T. Hatlen, J.D. Isaacs, N. Kostina, T. Kropotina, J-C. Lacherade, P. Martinez-Ayala, C. McEvoy, F. Meziani, M. Monchi, R. Muñoz-Bermúdez, G. Plantefeve, L.E. Schwab, Z. Shahid, M. Shirano, E. Sprinz, C. Summers, N. Terzi and Y. Trefilova were investigators in the OSCAR trial, which was funded by GSK. X. Bocca Ruiz has served as a clinical trial investigator for AstraZeneca and Zambon. B. François reports consultancy fees with GSK, Enlivex, Inotrem, Takeda, Aridis, Transgene, AM-Pharma, Asahi-Kasai and Biomérieux within the past 36 months. R. Muñoz-Bermúdez has participated on an advisory board for GSK. J.D. Isaacs has received research funding from GSK, Janssen and Pfizer, and personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Roche and UCB, all outside the submitted work, as well as support for event attendance from Eli Lilly and Gilead. A. Beishuizen has received consultancy fees from GSK. C. McEvoy has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, US Department of Defense, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GSK and AstraZeneca. C. Summers’ institution has received research funding from GSK, AstraZeneca, the Wellcome Trust, The Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research to support her work outside the area of the submitted manuscript. C. Summers has received personal fees from AbbVie, Roche and GSK. G.J. Criner has received research grants from ALung Technologies Inc., American College of Radiology, American Lung Associations, AstraZeneca, BioScale Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim, BREATH Therapeutics Inc., COPD Foundation, Coridea/ZIDAN, Corvus, Dr Karen Burns of St Michael's Hospital, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd, Galapagos NV, GSK, Kinevent, Lungpacer Medical Inc., National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, Nurvaira Inc., Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, PulmonX, Respironics Inc., Respivant Sciences, Spiration Inc., Steward St Elizabeth's Medical Center of Boston Inc. and Veracyte Inc.; and received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Broncus Medical, CSA Medical, EOLO Medical, Gala Therapeutics, GSK, Helios Medical, Ion, Merck, Medtronic, Mereo BioPharma, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Olympus, PulmonX, Respironics Inc., Respivant Sciences, The Implementation Group and Verona Pharma. J. Neisen is an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca, and a shareholder and former employee of GSK. L.E. Schwab reports holding shares in Johnson & Johnson and BMS, and participated on the Holy Cross Health Institutional Review Board. Z. Shahid has received research funding from Karyopharm. M. Shirano is an investigator in separate trials funded by Roche and AstraZeneca, and has received payment for lectures from Gilead Sciences. E. Sprinz participates on a data safety monitoring board/advisory board for, and has received consulting fees and honoraria from, GSK, Janssen and Gilead. M.A. Tidswell received a fee for serving on the independent data monitoring committee for this study, as well as for serving on a data safety monitoring board/advisory board for Spectral Diagnostics Inc., ReAlta Life Sciences Inc., Celltrion Inc., AstraZeneca and Molecular Partners AG. Additionally, M.A. Tidswell has held a research contract with Edesa Biotech Research Inc., RevImmune SAS, Spectral Diagnostics, Beyond Air Inc., National Institutes of Health and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. D. Wyncoll received a fee for serving on the independent data monitoring committee for this study, has served as a study adjudicator for AstraZeneca, and reports consulting fees and/or honoraria from Gilead and Shionogi. J. de-Miguel-Díez, H. Boughanmi, J-C. Lacherade, P. Martinez-Ayala, T. Hatlen, G. Plantefeve, N. Terzi, M. Shirano, N. Kostina, T. Kropotina, Y. Trefilova and M. Monchi have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to this work.

Introduction: Sodium ibuprofenate in hypertonic saline (NaIHS) administered directly to the lungs by nebulization and inhalation has antibacterial and anti-inflammatory effects, with the potential to deliver these benefits to hypoxic patients. We describe a compassionate use program that offered this therapy to hospitalized COVID-19 patients., Methods: NaIHS (50 mg ibuprofen, tid) was provided in addition to standard of care (SOC) to hospitalized COVID-19 patients until oxygen saturation levels of > 94% were achieved on ambient air. Patients wore a containment hood to diminish aerosolization. Outcome data from participating patients treated at multiple hospitals in Argentina between April 4 and October 31, 2020, are summarized. Results were compared with a retrospective contemporaneous control (CC) group of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with SOC alone during the same time frame from a subset of participating hospitals from Córdoba and Buenos Aires., Results: The evolution of 383 patients treated with SOC + NaIHS [56 on mechanical ventilation (MV) at baseline] and 195 CC (21 on MV at baseline) are summarized. At baseline, NaIHS-treated patients had basal oxygen saturation of 90.7 ± 0.2% (74.3% were on supplemental oxygen at baseline) and a basal respiratory rate of 22.7 ± 0.3 breath/min. In the CC group, basal oxygen saturation was 92.6 ± 0.4% (52.1% were on oxygen supplementation at baseline) and respiratory rate was 19.3 ± 0.3 breath/min. Despite greater pulmonary compromise at baseline in the NaIHS-treated group, the length of treatment (LOT) was 9.1 ± 0.2 gs with an average length of stay (ALOS) of 11.5 ± 0.3 days, in comparison with an ALOS of 13.3 ± 0.9 days in the CC group. In patients on MV who received NaIHS, the ALOS was lower than in the CC group. In both NaIHS-treated groups, a rapid reversal of deterioration in oxygenation and NEWS2 scores was observed acutely after initiation of NaIHS therapy. No serious adverse events were considered related to ibuprofen therapy. Mortality was lower in both NaIHS groups compared with CC groups., Conclusions: Treatment of COVID-19 pneumonitis with inhalational nebulized NaIHS was associated with rapid improvement in hypoxia and vital signs, with no serious adverse events attributed to therapy. Nebulized NaIHS s worthy of further study in randomized, placebo-controlled trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04382768)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 [SARS-CoV-2], leading to the COVID-19 infection) can be harboured in the testes and/or semen is currently unanswered. It is essential to understand the limitations of both antibody and real-time PCR tests in interpreting SARS-CoV-2 data in relation to analyses of semen and testicular tissue without appropriate controls. This article critically analyses the evidence so far on this, and the possible implications. The limitations of diagnostic tests in both sampling and testing methodologies, their validation and their relevance in interpreting data are also highlighted., (Copyright © 2020 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and treatment recommendations, each with specific limitations, vary globally. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of solithromycin, a novel macrolide, with moxifloxacin for treatment of CABP., Methods: We did this global, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, Latin America, Europe, and South Africa. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with clinically and radiographically confirmed pneumonia of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II, III, or IV were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based central block randomisation procedure (block size of four), to receive either oral solithromycin (800 mg on day 1, 400 mg on days 2-5, placebo on days 6-7) or oral moxifloxacin (400 mg on days 1-7). Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, PORT risk class (II vs III or IV), and medical history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study sponsor, investigators, staff, and patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was early clinical response, defined as an improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, chest pain, sputum production, dyspnoea) with no worsening in any symptom at 72 h after the first dose of study drug, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT-01756339., Findings: Between Jan 3, 2013, and Sept 24, 2014, we randomly assigned 860 patients to receive solithromycin (n=426) or moxifloxacin (n=434). Patients were followed up to days 28-35 after first dose. Solithromycin was non-inferior to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response: 333 (78·2%) patients had an early clinical response in the solithromycin group versus 338 (77·9%) patients in the moxifloxacin group (difference 0·29, 95% CI -5·5 to 6·1). Both drugs had a similar safety profile. 43 (10%) of 155 treatment-emergent adverse events in the solithromycin group and 54 (13%) of 154 such events in the moxifloxacin group were deemed to be related to study drug. The most common adverse events, mostly of mild severity, were gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhoea (18 [4%] patients in the solithromycin group vs 28 [6%] patients in the moxifloxacin group), nausea (15 [4%] vs 17 [4%] patients) and vomiting (ten [2%] patients in each group); and nervous system disorders, including headache (19 [4%] vs 11 [3%] patients) and dizziness (nine [2%] vs seven [2%] patients)., Interpretation: Oral solithromycin was non-inferior to oral moxifloxacin for treatment of patients with CABP, showing the potential to restore macrolide monotherapy for this indication., Funding: Cempra., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)