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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".