Search

Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose.ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing.Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36·0 (15·0-62·0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75·2% (adjusted 95% CI 54·6-87·3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55·6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57·5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58·5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52·7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity.A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed.Janssen ResearchDevelopment.

Background Hepatitis B virus infection remains an important public health problem in the United States. Currently approved alum-adjuvanted vaccines require three doses and have reduced immunogenicity in adults, particularly in those who have diabetes mellitus, or are older, male, obese, or who smoke. Methods Phase 3 observer–blinded, randomized (2:1 HBsAg-1018 [HEPLISAV-B™]:HBsAg-Eng [Engerix-B®]), active–controlled trial in adults 18–70 years of age. HBsAg-1018 was administered intramuscularly at weeks 0 and 4 and placebo at week 24 and HBsAg-Eng at weeks 0, 4, and 24. The primary immunogenicity endpoint assessed the noninferiority of the seroprotection rate at week 28 in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary endpoints included seroprotection rates in the total trial population and by age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. Results Among 8374 participants randomized, 961 participants in the per-protocol population had type 2 diabetes mellitus. In diabetes participants, the seroprotection rate in the HBsAg-1018 group at week 28 was 90.0%, compared with 65.1% in the HBsAg-Eng group, with a difference of 24.9% (95% CI: 19.3%, 30.7%), which met the prospectively-defined criteria for noninferiority and statistical significance. In the total study per-protocol population (N = 6826) and each pre-specified subpopulation, the seroprotection rate in the HBsAg-1018 group was statistically significantly higher than in the HBsAg-Eng group. Conclusion Two doses of HBsAg-1018, administered over 4 weeks, induced significantly higher seroprotection rates than three doses of HBsAg-Eng, given over 24 weeks, in adults with factors known to reduce the immune response to hepatitis B vaccines as well as in those without those factors. With fewer doses in a shorter time, and greater immunogenicity, HBsAg-1018 has the potential to significantly improve protection against hepatitis B in adults at risk for hepatitis B infection. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02117934.

Summary Background Influenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza. Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967. Findings Between March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2–19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention. Interpretation Although combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified. Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of adults with acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) compared the efficacy and safety of two azithromycin (AZM) regimens, 500 mg/day once daily for 3 days (AZM-3) or 6 days (AZM-6) to the efficacy and safety of an amoxicillin-clavulanate (AMC) regimen of 500-125 mg three times daily for 10 days. A total of 936 subjects with clinically and radiologically documented ABS were treated (AZM-3, 312; AZM-6, 311; AMC, 313). Clinical success rates were equivalent among per-protocol subjects at the end of therapy (AZM-3, 88.8%; AZM-6, 89.3%; AMC, 84.9%) and at the end of the study (AZM-3, 71.7%; AZM-6, 73.4%; AMC, 71.3%). Subjects treated with AMC reported a higher incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) (51.1%) than AZM-3 (31.1%, P < 0.001) or AZM-6 (37.6%, P < 0.001). More AMC subjects discontinued the study ( n = 28) than AZM-3 ( n = 7) and AZM-6 ( n = 11) subjects. Diarrhea was the most frequent treatment-related AE. AZM-3 and AZM-6 were each equivalent in efficacy and better tolerated than AMC for ABS.

Background: Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) is currently the first choice for empiric therapy of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) in women. In areas where resistance to TMP/SMX is known to be high, ciprofloxacin and other fluoroquinolones are recommended as first-line choices for the empiric therapy of UTI. Objective: This study compared the efficacy and safety profile of once-daily extended-release ciprofloxacin 500 mg (referred to hereafter as ciprofloxacin QD) with those of conventional ciprofloxacin 250 mg BID, each administered orally for 3 days, in the treatment of uncomplicated UTI in women. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III trial, adult women with clinical signs and symptoms of acute uncomplicated UTI, pyuria, and a positive pretherapy urine culture (≥10 5 colony - forming units / mL ) received ciprofloxacin QD or ciprofloxacin BID. Bacteriologic and clinical outcomes were assessed at the test-of-cure visit (4–11 days after completion of therapy) and the late follow-up visit (25–50 days after completion of therapy). Results: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 891 patients (444 ciprofloxacin QD, 447 ciprofloxacin BID); 422 patients were evaluable for efficacy (199 ciprofloxacin QD, 223 ciprofloxacin BID). At the test-of-cure visit, bacteriologic eradication was achieved in 94.5% (188/199) of the ciprofloxacin QD group and 93.7% (209/223) of the ciprofloxacin BID group (95% CI, −3.5 to 5.1). Clinical cure was achieved in 95.5% (189/198) of the ciprofloxacin QD group and 92.7% (204/220) of the ciprofloxacin BID group (95% CI, −1.6 to 7.1). Bacteriologic and clinical outcomes at the late follow-up visit were consistent with the test-of-cure findings. The rate of eradication of Escherichia coli , the most prevalent organism, was >97% in each treatment group. Rates of drug-related adverse events were similar with the once- and twice-daily ciprofloxacin regimens (10% and 9%, respectively). Conclusion: Extended-release ciprofloxacin 500 mg given once daily for 3 days was as effective and well tolerated as conventional ciprofloxacin 250 mg given twice daily for 3 days in the treatment of acute uncomplicated UTI in women.

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of clarithromycin extended-release (ER) to amoxicillin/ clavulanate in patients diagnosed with acute bacterial sinusitis.In a controlled, multicenter, investigator-blinded study, 437 ambulatory patients at least 12 years old with signs/symptoms and radiographic findings of acute sinusitis were randomized to receive clarithromycin ER 1000 mg once daily or amoxicillin/ clavulanate 875 mg/l25 mg twice daily for 14 days.Clinical and bacteriological response rates were determined at a test-of-cure visit, which was conducted up to 10 days following the completion of treatment. Radiological response was assessed at a follow-up visit.The clinical cure rate in clinically evaluable patients was 98% (184/188) in the clarithromycin ER group and 97% (179/185) in the amoxicillin/clavulanate group (95% CI for the difference in rates [-2.4%, 4.7%]). Clinical cure was sustained at the follow-up visit (96% for each treatment group). The pathogen eradication rates were 94% (61/65) in the clarithromycin ER group and 98% (61/62) in the amoxicillin/clavulanate group (95% CI for difference in rates [-12.0%, 2.9%]). The radiological success rate was 94% (172/183) in both the clarithromycin ER and amoxicillin/clavulanate groups (95% CI for difference in rates [-4.9%, 4.9%]). Symptomatic improvement or relief was observed as early as 2 days-5 days after the initiation of study drug, with a statistically significantly higher resolution rate of sinus pressure (p = 0.027) and improvement/resolution rate of nasal congestion (p = 0.035) during treatment with clarithromycin ER. The resolution/improvement rate at the test-of-cure visit for each treatment group wasor = 94% for the primary acute sinusitis signs/symptoms, with a statistically significantly higher resolution/improvement rate of purulent nasal discharge with clarithromycin ER (p = 0.010). Both study drugs had a positive and rapid impact on quality of life. Patients reported a high level of satisfaction and probability of using either study antibiotic again, and health care resource use was low, with slightly fewer sinusitis-related physician and outpatient visits required by patients in the clarithromycin ER group (p = 0.055). The treatment groups were comparable with respect to incidence of drug-related adverse events.In this multinational population of patients with acute bacterial sinusitis, clarithromycin ER was comparable, and for selected measures superior, to amoxicillin/clavulanate based on clinical, bacteriological, and radiological responses as well as quality of life measures, satisfaction with antibiotic therapy, and health care resource utilization.

Background: Macrolides and fluoroquinolones are frequently used for the empiric treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the safety profile and efficacy of clarithromycin extended-release (ER) tablets with those of levofloxacin tablets for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory adult patients. Methods: In a Phase III, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study, ambulatory adult patients (≥18 years) with signs and symptoms of CAP received a 7-day course of treatment with either clarithromycin ER (two 500-mg tablets once daily) or levofloxacin (two 250-mg tablets once daily). A diagnosis of CAP was confirmed by radiography of the chest and physical examination, and sputum samples were analyzed to identify etiologic pathogen(s). Tolerability was assessed through subjective reports of adverse events and through changes in physical findings, concomitant medications, and laboratory values. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in terms of sex, age, race, or body weight. The mean age was 50 years (range, 18–91 years). Of 299 patients randomized and treated, 252 were clinically evaluable (128 clarithromycin ER, 124 levofloxacin). The 95% CI for the difference between cure rates demonstrated equivalence of the 2 treatments. Among clinically evaluable patients at the test-of-cure visit, clinical cure rates were 88% (113/128) and 86% (107/124), and radiographic success rates were 95% (117/123) and 88% (104/118) for clarithromycin ER and levofloxacin, respectively. Both treatment regimens were effective in resolving and improving clinical signs and symptoms of CAP. Among clinically and bacteriologically evaluable patients, bacteriologic cure rates were 86% (80/93) and 88% (85/97) for clarithromycin ER and levofloxacin, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 treatment groups in the overall incidence of adverse events. Conclusions: Clarithromycin ER demonstrated equivalent efficacy and tolerability to the fluoroquinolone levofloxacin in a group of ambulatory adult patients with CAP. Clarithromycin ER also appeared to be safe in the population studied.