LB2307. Safety and Efficacy of Letermovir (LET) versus Valganciclovir (VGCV) for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in Kidney Transplant Recipients (KTRs): A Phase 3 Randomized Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background VGCV is approved for prophylaxis in adult KTRs at high risk for CMV disease (donor CMV-seropositive/recipient CMV-seronegative [D+/R-]); however, its use is limited by myelosuppression. LET is non-myelotoxic, does not require dose modification in renal impairment, and is approved for prophylaxis of CMV infection and disease in adult CMV-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. This randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 non-inferiority study (NCT03443869; MK-8228-002) evaluated CMV prophylaxis with LET vs. VGCV in adult CMV D+/R- KTRs. Methods Adult CMV D+/R- KTRs were randomized 1:1 within 7 days post-kidney transplant (KT) to receive either LET 480 mg QD (PO/IV) with acyclovir (400 mg PO BID, adjusted for renal function), or VGCV (900 mg PO QD, adjusted for renal function), through Week 28 post-KT and followed up through Week 52 post-KT. Randomization was stratified by use of lymphocyte-depleting induction immunosuppression. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants (pts) with CMV disease adjudicated by blinded committee through Week 52 post-KT (non-inferiority margin,10%). Results A total of 601 pts were randomized; 589 received ≥ 1 dose of study medication (median age [range], 51 [18–82] years; male, 72%; Black/African American, 9%; deceased donor, 60%; received lymphocyte-depleting induction immunosuppression, 46%), of whom two had detectable CMV viral DNA on Day 1 and one was CMV R+ (full analysis set, 586 pts). The proportion of pts with CMV disease through Week 52 post-KT was 10.4% with LET vs. 11.8% with VGCV (stratum-adjusted treatment difference, -1.4% [95% CI -6.5, 3.8]; Table 1). Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 19.9% of pts with LET and 35.0% of pts with VGCV through Week 28 post-KT. The rate of discontinuations due to an AE was 4.1% in the LET arm and 13.5% in the VGCV arm (Table 2). The incidence of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 1000/µL) during the treatment phase was lower with LET than with VGCV (4.1% vs. 19.5%; difference, -15.4% [95% CI -20.7, -10.5]). Conclusion The study met its primary endpoint: LET was non-inferior to VGCV in preventing CMV disease in high-risk (CMV D+/R-) KTRs through Week 52 post-KT, and led to a lower rate of myelotoxicity than VGCV. Disclosures Ajit P. Limaye, MD, AiCuris: Advisor/Consultant|MedPace: Data Safety Monitoring Boards|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Moderna: Advisor/Consultant|Novartis: Data Safety Monitoring Boards|Sana: Advisor/Consultant Klemens Budde, MD, Abbvie: Grant/Research Support|Abbvie: Honoraria|Alexion: Grant/Research Support|Alexion: Honoraria|Astellas: Grant/Research Support|Astellas: Honoraria|Bristol Myers Squibb: Grant/Research Support|Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria|Chiesi: Grant/Research Support|Chiesi: Honoraria|CSL Behring: Grant/Research Support|CSL Behring: Honoraria|Fresenius: Grant/Research Support|Fresenius: Honoraria|Hansa: Grant/Research Support|Hansa: Honoraria|Hexal: Grant/Research Support|Hexal: Honoraria|Hookipa Biotech: Grant/Research Support|Hookipa Biotech: Honoraria|Merck Sharp & Dohme: Grant/Research Support|Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria|Novartis: Grant/Research Support|Novartis: Honoraria|Otsuka: Grant/Research Support|Otsuka: Honoraria|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Honoraria|Roche: Grant/Research Support|Roche: Honoraria|Sandoz: Grant/Research Support|Sandoz: Honoraria|Shire: Grant/Research Support|Shire: Honoraria|Siemens: Grant/Research Support|Siemens: Honoraria|Takeda: Grant/Research Support|Takeda: Honoraria|Veloxis: Grant/Research Support|Veloxis: Honoraria|Vitaeris: Grant/Research Support|Vitaeris: Honoraria Atul Humar, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Roche: Grant/Research Support|Takeda: Advisor/Consultant Julia Garcia-Diaz, MD, Astellas Pharma US, Inc.: Advisor/Consultant|Astellas Pharma US, Inc.: Speaker's Bureau Robert P. Carroll, BM BCh (Oxon), FRACP, DM (Oxon), Bristol Myers Squibb: Grant/Research Support|HANSA Biopharma: Advisor/Consultant Yoshihiko Murata, MD, PhD, Former employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.,: Stocks/Bonds Valerie L. Teal, MS, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.,: Current Employee|Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.,: Stocks/Bonds Christopher L. Gilbert, n/a, Current employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.,: Stocks/Bonds Barbara A. Haber, MD, Current employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.,: Stocks/Bonds.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».