Romark Laboratories LC.

This phase 3 trial in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections showed IV followed by oral delafloxacin to be noninferior to IV vancomycin/aztreonam combination therapy and well tolerated. Oral delafloxacin appears to maintain the initial response with IV delafloxacin.

Introduction The LumiraDx severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test, which uses a high-sensitivity, microfluidic immunoassay to detect the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2, was evaluated for diagnosing acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults and children across point-of-care settings (NCT04557046). Methods Two paired anterior nasal swabs or two paired nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each participant. Swabs were tested by the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 antigen test and compared with real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR; Roche cobas 6800 platform). Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios were calculated. Results were stratified on the basis of gender, age, duration of symptoms, and rt-PCR cycle threshold. Results Out of the 512 participants, aged 0–90 years, of this prospective validation study, 414 (81%) were symptomatic for COVID-19 and 123 (24%) swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on rt-PCR testing. Compared with rt-PCR, the 12-min nasal swab test had 97.6% sensitivity and 96.6% specificity, and nasopharyngeal swab had 97.5% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity, within 12 days of symptom onset, representing the period of infectivity. All (100%) samples detected within 33 rt-PCR cycles were also identified using the antigen test. Results were consistent across age and gender. The user error rate of the test system when used by minimally trained operators was 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1–3.7%). Conclusion The rapid, high-sensitivity assay using nasopharyngeal or anterior nasal sampling may offer significant improvements for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in clinic- and community-based settings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00413-x.

Summary Background Influenza continues to have a significant socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccine program and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest combination antivirals might be more effective than oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, multicenter phase 2 trial of combination antivirals versus monotherapy for the treatment of influenza. Participants ≥18 years with influenza at increased risk of complications from influenza were randomized by an online computer-generated randomization system to receive either oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin or oseltamivir alone for 5 days, and followed for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by polymerase chain reaction in nasopharyngeal swab at Day 3. Among the secondary outcomes, there were safety and time to alleviation of influenza clinical symptoms. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01227967. Findings Between March 2011 and April 2016 we randomized 633 participants. Seven participants were excluded from analysis: 3 were given treatment without randomization, 3 withdrew before taking any medication, and 1 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 of 200 (40.0%) participants in the combination arm had virus detectable at Day 3 compared to 97 of 194 (50.0%) (95%C.I. 0.2–19.8%, p=0.046) in the control arm. There was no benefit, however, in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4.5 days in the combination arm vs 4.0 days in the oseltamivir arm; p = 0.21). Interpretation Although oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin showed a statistically significant decrease in viral shedding at Day 3 relative to oseltamivir, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand the lack of clinical benefit when a difference in virologic outcome was identified. Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, United States.

Background Duration of viral shedding is a determinant of infectivity and transmissibility, but few data exist about oseltamivir's ability to alter viral shedding. Methods From January 2012 through October 2017, a randomized, double-blinded multicenter clinical trial was conducted in adults aged 18–64 years at 42 sites in Thailand, the United States, and Argentina. Participants with influenza A or B and without risk factors for complications of influenza were screened for the study. Eligible participants were randomized to receive oseltamivir 75 mg or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by polymerase chain reaction in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3. Results Of 716 adults screened for the study, 558 were randomized, and 501 were confirmed to have influenza. Forty-six participants in the pilot study were excluded, and 449 of the 455 participants in the population for the primary analysis had day 3 viral shedding results. Ninety-nine (45.0%) of 220 participants in the oseltamivir arm had virus detected at day 3 compared with 131 (57.2%) of 229 participants in the placebo arm (absolute difference of −12.2% [−21.4%, −3.0%], P =; .010). The median time to alleviation of symptoms was 79.0 hours for the oseltamivir arm and 84.0 hours for the placebo arm (P =; .34) in those with confirmed influenza infection. Conclusions Oseltamivir decreased viral shedding in this low-risk population. However, in the population enrolled in this study, it did not significantly decrease the time to resolution of clinical symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01314911.