Infectious Diseases and Therapy最新文献

Introduction: Clinicians commonly escalate empiric antibiotic therapy due to poor clinical progress without microbiology guidance. When escalating, they should take account of how resistance to an initial antibiotic affects the probability of resistance to subsequent options. The term "escalation antibiogram" (EA) has been coined to describe this concept. One difficulty when applying the EA concept to clinical practice is understanding the uncertainty in results and how this changes for specific patient subgroups.

Methods: A Bayesian model was developed to estimate antibiotic resistance rates in Gram-negative bloodstream infections based on phenotypic resistance data. The model generates a series of "credible" curves to fit the resistance data, each with the same probability of representing the true rate given the inherent uncertainty. To avoid overfitting, an integrated penalisation term adaptively smooths the curves given the level of evidence.

Results: Rates of resistance to empiric first-choice and potential escalation antibiotics were calculated for the whole hospitalised population based on 10,486 individual bloodstream infections, and for a range of specific patient groups, including ICU (intensive care unit), haematolo-oncology, and paediatric patients. The model generated an expected value (posterior mean) with 95% credible interval to illustrate uncertainty, based on the size of the patient subgroup. For example, the posterior means of piperacillin/tazobactam resistance rates in Gram-negative bloodstream infection are different between patients on ICU and the general hospital population: 27.3% (95% CI 18.1-37.2 vs. 13.4% 95% CI 11.0-16.1) respectively. The model can also estimate the probability of inferiority between two antibiotics for a specific patient population. Differences in optimal escalation antibiotic options between specific patient groups were noted.

Conclusions: EA analysis informed by our Bayesian model is a useful tool to support empiric antibiotic switches, providing an estimate of local resistance rates, and a comparison of antibiotic options with a measure of the uncertainty in the data. We demonstrate that EAs calculated for the whole hospital population cannot be assumed to apply to specific patient group.

Introduction: This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a US payer perspective using data from a real-world US administrative claims study. Given baloxavir's ability to rapidly stop viral shedding, the potential health economic implications of a baloxavir-induced population-level reduction in viral transmission was also explored.

Methods: A decision tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for seasonal influenza (2018-2020) using a lifetime time horizon with 3.0% discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients aged ≥ 12 years could receive baloxavir, oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. Patient characteristics, complications, and costs were derived from the Merative™ MarketScan^® Research Databases including US commercial claims and Medicare and Medicaid Supplemental databases. A scenario analysis explored the impact of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir.

Results: In the base case analysis, baloxavir was cost-effective within a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/QALY compared with oseltamivir [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), $6813/QALY gained] or no antiviral treatment (ICER, $669/QALY gained). The net monetary benefit (NMB) of baloxavir was $1180 and $6208 compared with oseltamivir and no treatment, respectively. The NMB of baloxavir increased linearly with reductions in viral transmission, where a 5% transmission reduction yielded an NMB of $2592 versus oseltamivir and $7621 versus no treatment. Baloxavir became dominant (more effective and less costly, with ICERs < 0) starting with a 12.0% reduction in viral transmission versus oseltamivir and 6.0% versus no antiviral treatment.

Conclusion: Baloxavir was cost-effective compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. The potential of baloxavir to reduce viral transmission offers a substantial economic benefit from a US payer perspective.

Introduction: Human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of lower respiratory tract infection, especially in children and older people. However, no effective treatment is currently available. Type I interferons (IFNs) are a group of cytokines that help regulate the activity of the immune system. GB05, human IFNα1b inhalation solution, was developed under US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standard guidelines to combat RSV infection. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation phase I trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of nebulized GB05.

Methods: A total of 35 eligible healthy Chinese adult volunteers were enrolled in this study. In the single ascending dose (SAD) study, volunteers were randomized into 0.2, 0.6, 1.2, and 1.8 million IU of GB05 or placebo. In the multiple ascending dose (MAD) study, volunteers received 1.2 or 1.8 million IU of GB05 or placebo for four consecutive days. Safety, tolerability, immunogenicity, and plasma pharmacokinetics were assessed for all groups.

Results: All adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved spontaneously. The most common adverse event was decreased white blood cell count (8.6% in SAD and 10% in MAD). No serious adverse events, deaths, or adverse events that reached the termination criteria occurred during the study. In SAD, the maximum concentration and area under the curve increased across the dose range of 1.2-1.8 million IU in a non-linear relationship. The maximum plasma concentration after GB05 nebulization (1.06 IU/ml in the 1.8 million IU group) reflected a low concentration in the blood, suggesting a better lung uptake of GB05 and reduced incidence or risks of adverse events. In MAD, a steady state was reached after continuous administrations of twice daily for 3 days.

Conclusions: Overall, nebulized GB05 exhibited satisfactory safety, tolerability, and favorable pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles in healthy adult volunteers, supporting further clinical investigation in patients infected with respiratory syncytial virus.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT06277167.

Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is an uncommon but serious and potentially fatal condition that can result in reduced life expectancy and a broad spectrum of sequelae, many of which may be lifelong and devastating for those who survive the acute disease period. In the United States of America (USA), vaccination is available against the five meningococcal serogroups (A, B, C, W, and Y), but meningococcal vaccination rates among healthy USA adolescents and individuals at high risk because of medical conditions are low, rendering them vulnerable to IMD and its sequelae. Despite the severity of the disease, the clinical impact and rates of IMD sequelae in the USA are poorly understood, as USA-specific data are limited, and the methodology of existing research is heterogenous. This commentary presents clinical experts’ perspectives on IMD sequelae based on the available published evidence and direct clinical experience. Among sequelae previously identified in a global systematic literature review, 16 conditions were considered as related to IMD by the present authors. These sequelae include short- and long-term physical, neurological, and emotional consequences that impose a substantial humanistic burden on survivors and their caregivers and result in considerable healthcare and societal costs. This commentary highlights existing knowledge gaps concerning IMD sequelae, including the unclear relationship between IMD and mental health disorders, the contribution of sequelae to the disease burden, prevalence of late-onset sequelae among survivors, and timing of the development of sequelae in different age groups. Addressing these knowledge gaps can inform decisions regarding clinical management in the post-acute period and help quantify the impact of prevention through meningococcal vaccination.

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the effects of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) combination on symptoms, daily function, and overall health-related quality of life.

Methods: We analyzed patient-reported outcomes data from symptomatic outpatients in a phase 1/2/3 trial. Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥ 1 risk factor for severe COVID-19 received mAb treatment (casirivimab plus imdevimab 1200 mg) or placebo. Prespecified exploratory assessments included time to sustained symptoms resolution, usual health, and return to usual activities (assessed daily for 29 days). The trial was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021, prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination programs and Omicron-lineage variants against which casirivimab + imdevimab is not active.

Results: In this analysis 736 outpatients received mAb and 1341 received placebo. Median time to sustained symptoms resolution was consistently shorter with mAb versus placebo (≥ 2 consecutive days: 14 vs 17 days, [nominal p = 0.0017]; ≥ 3 consecutive days: 17 vs 21 days, [nominal p = 0.0046]). Median time to sustained return to usual health and usual activities were both consistently shorter with mAb versus placebo (≥ 2 consecutive days: 12 vs 15 days [nominal p = 0.0001] and 9 vs 11 days [nominal p = 0.0001], respectively; ≥ 3 consecutive days: 14 vs 18 days [nominal p = 0.0003] and 10 vs 13 days [nominal p = 0.0041], respectively).

Conclusions: mAb treatment against susceptible SARS-CoV-2 strains improved how patients feel and function, as evidenced by shortened time to sustained symptoms resolution and return to usual health and activities. Future studies are warranted to assess the patient experience with next generation mAbs.

Clinicaltrials: GOV: Registration number, NCT04425629; Submission date June 11, 2020.

Introduction: Once-daily fixed-dose combinations (FDC) containing abacavir (ABC), dolutegravir (DTG), and lamivudine (3TC) have been approved in the US for adults and children with HIV weighing ≥ 6 kg. This analysis assessed the ability of previously developed ABC, DTG, and 3TC pediatric population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models using multiple formulations to describe and predict PK data in young children using dispersible tablet (DT) and tablet formulations of ABC/DTG/3TC FDC in the IMPAACT 2019 study.

Methods: IMPAACT 2019 was a Phase I/II study assessing the PK, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ABC/DTG/3TC FDC in children with HIV-1. Intensive and sparse PK samples were collected over 48 weeks. Existing drug-specific pediatric PopPK models for ABC (2-compartment), DTG (1-compartment), and 3TC (1-compartment) were applied to the IMPAACT 2019 drug concentration data without re-estimation (external validation) of PopPK parameters. Drug exposures were then simulated across World Health Organization weight bands for children weighing ≥ 6 to < 40 kg for each drug and compared with pre-defined exposure target ranges.

Results: Goodness-of-fit and visual predictive check plots demonstrated that the previously developed pediatric PopPK models sufficiently described and predicted the data. Thus, new PopPK models describing the IMPAACT 2019 data were unnecessary. Across weight bands, the predicted geometric mean (GM) for ABC AUC_0-24 ranged from 14.89 to 18.50 μg*h/ml, DTG C24 ranged from 0.74 to 0.95 μg/ml, and 3TC AUC_0-24 ranged from 10.50 to 13.20 μg*h/ml. These exposures were well within the pre-defined target ranges set for each drug.

Conclusion: This model-based approach leveraged existing pediatric data and models to confirm dosing of ABC/DTG/3TC FDC formulations in children with HIV-1. This analysis supports ABC/DTG/3TC FDC dosing in children weighing ≥ 6 kg.

Introduction: Efficient epidemiological monitoring of virus diseases is crucial in evaluating general public health, the prevalence of specific diseases, the pattern of spread, and implementing preventative and control strategies into action.

Methods: This study analyzed data obtained from the Field Epidemiology Program (FETP) which is part of the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Saudi Arabia, which contained reported cases of infectious diseases over four years, from January 2018 to December 2021, to investigate and highlight the significant trend and incidence rate for each viral infectious disease.

Results: Of the reported viral infectious diseases, hepatitis B and C, dengue fever (DF), influenza, chickenpox, and measles were the highest reported viral cases over four years. For the aforementioned diseases, males were often more susceptible to viral infections than females. Except for DF, this viral infection was more common in Saudi citizens. Viral illnesses like hand, foot, and mouth disease were less prevalent, while neurological viral disorders such as acute flaccid paralysis were rarely detected. There was an overall reduction in viral cases recorded during 2020-2021, which may be attributed to the implementation of preventive measures during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic or an underreporting of cases during the lockdown of that time.

Conclusion: The prevalence of these common viral infections in the Saudi population suggests that understanding the mechanisms influencing changes in these viruses, methods of transmission, and the burden of these diseases is a priority for health policy. This understanding is necessary to develop effective intervention and preventive strategies.

Introduction: Recent data have shown elevated infection rates in several subpopulations at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19, including immunocompromised (IC) individuals. Previous research suggests that IC persons have reduced risks of hospitalization and medically attended COVID-19 with two doses of mRNA-1273 (SpikeVax; Moderna) compared to two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty; Pfizer/BioNTech). The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare real-world effectiveness of third doses of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 at multiple time points on occurrence of COVID-19 hospitalization and medically attended COVID-19 among IC adults in the United States (US).

Methods: This retrospective, observational comparative effectiveness study identified patients from the US HealthVerity database from December 11, 2020, through August 31, 2022. Medically attended SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations were assessed following a three-dose mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 regimen. Inverse probability weighting was applied to balance baseline confounders between vaccine groups. Relative risk (RR) and risk difference were calculated for subgroup and sensitivity analyses using a non-parametric method.

Results: In propensity score-adjusted analyses, receiving mRNA-1273 vs. BNT162b2 as third dose was associated with 32.4% (relative risk 0.676; 95% confidence interval 0.506-0.887), 29.3% (0.707; 0.573-0.858), and 23.4% (0.766; 0.626-0.927) lower risk of COVID-19 hospitalization after 90, 180, and 270 days, respectively. Corresponding reductions in medically attended COVID-19 were 8.4% (0.916; 0.860-0.976), 6.4% (0.936; 0.895-0.978), and 2.4% (0.976; 0.935-1.017), respectively.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest a third dose of mRNA-1273 is more effective than a third dose of BNT162b2 in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization and breakthrough medically attended COVID-19 among IC adults in the US.

Introduction: Understanding the differences between respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) subgroups A and B provides insights for the development of prevention strategies and public health interventions. We aimed to describe the structural differences of RSV subgroups, their epidemiology, and genomic diversity. The associated immune response and differences in clinical severity were also investigated.

Methods: A literature review from PubMed and Google Scholar (1985-2023) was performed and extended using snowballing from references in captured publications.

Results: RSV has two major antigenic subgroups, A and B, defined by the G glycoprotein. The RSV F fusion glycoprotein in the prefusion conformation is a major target of virus neutralizing antibodies and differs in surface exposed regions between RSV A and RSV B. The subgroups co-circulate annually, but there is considerable debate as to whether clinical severity is impacted by the subgroup of the infecting RSV strain. Large variations between the studies reporting RSV subgroup impact on clinical severity were observed. A tendency for higher disease severity may be attributed to RSV A but no consensus could be reached as to whether infection by one of the subgroup caused more severe outcomes. RSV genotype diversity decreased over the last two decades, and ON and BA have become the sole lineages detected for RSV A and RSV B, since 2014. No studies with data obtained after 2014 reported a difference in disease severity between the two subgroups. RSV F is relatively well conserved and highly similar between RSV A and B, but changes in the amino acid sequence have been observed. Some of these changes led to differences in F antigenic sites compared to reference F sequences (e.g., RSV/A Long strain), which are more pronounced in antigenic sites of the prefusion conformation of RSV B. Initial results from the second season after vaccination suggest specific RSV B efficacy wanes more rapidly than RSV A for RSV PreF-based monovalent vaccines.

Conclusions: RSV A and RSV B both contribute substantially to the global RSV burden. Both RSV subgroups cause severe disease and none of the available evidence to date suggests any differences in clinical severity between the subgroups. Therefore, it is important to implement measures effective at preventing disease due to both RSV A and RSV B to ensure impactful public health interventions. Monitoring overtime will be needed to assess the impact of waning antibody levels on subgroup-specific efficacy.

Introduction: Many immunization programs in Europe recommend quadrivalent meningococcal vaccinations, which are often administered concomitantly with other vaccines. We compared the immune response of a tetanus toxoid conjugated quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine (MenACYW-TT, MenQuadfi^®) with another quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4-TT; Nimenrix^®) when administered alone or concomitantly with Tdap-IPV and 9vHPV vaccines in adolescents.

Methods: In this phase IIIb trial, healthy adolescents (MenC-naïve or MenC-primed before 2 years of age) from Spain, Italy, Hungary, and Singapore were randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio to receive either MenACYW-TT or MCV4-TT alone, or MenACYW-TT concomitantly with 9vHPV and Tdap-IPV. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the seroprotection rate (human serum bactericidal assay [hSBA] titer ≥ 1:8) to serogroups A, C, W, and Y 30 days post-vaccination with a single dose of MenACYW-TT or MCV4-TT. Secondary objectives included describing hSBA titers for the four serogroups before and 1 month following vaccination and according to MenC priming status.

Results: A total of 463 participants were enrolled (MenACYW-TT, n = 173; MCV4-TT, n = 173; MenACYW-TT/9vHPV/Tdap-IPV n = 117). Non-inferiority based on seroprotection was demonstrated for MenACYW-TT versus MCV4-TT for all serogroups. Immune responses were comparable whether MenACYW-TT was administered alone or concomitantly with Tdap-IPV and 9vHPV. Post-vaccination hSBA GMTs were higher in MenACYW-TT vs. MCV4-TT for serogroups C, Y, and W and comparable for serogroup A. The percentages of participants with an hSBA vaccine seroresponse were higher in MenACYW-TT vs. MCV4-TT for all serogroups. For serogroup C, higher GMTs were observed in both MenC-naïve or -primed participants vaccinated with MenACYW-TT vs. MCV4-TT. Seroprotection and seroresponse were higher in MenC-naïve participants vaccinated with MenACYW-TT vs. MCV4-TT and comparable in MenC-primed. The safety profiles were comparable between groups and no new safety concerns were identified.

Conclusions: These data support the concomitant administration of MenACYW-TT with 9vHPV and Tdap-IPV vaccines in adolescents.

Trial registrations: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04490018; EudraCT: 2020-001665-37; WHO: U1111-1249-2973.