Patients and MethodsPatients received eight weekly infusions of ofatumumab followed by four monthly infusions during a 24-week period (dose 1 ϭ 300 mg; doses 2 to 12 ϭ 2,000 mg); response by an independent review committee (1996 National Cancer Institute Working Group criteria) was assessed every 4 weeks until week 24 and then every 3 months until month 24. Results This planned interim analysis included 138 treated patients with FA-ref (n ϭ 59) and BF-ref (n ϭ 79)CLL. The overall response rates (primary end point) were 58% and 47% in the FA-ref and BF-ref groups, respectively. Complete resolution of constitutional symptoms and improved performance status occurred in 57% and 48% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 5.7 and 13.7 months in the FA-ref group, respectively, and 5.9 and 15.4 months in the BF-ref group, respectively. The most common adverse events during treatment were infusion reactions and infections, which were primarily grade 1 or 2 events. Hematologic events during treatment included anemia and neutropenia. ConclusionOfatumumab is an active, well-tolerated treatment providing clear clinical improvements for fludarabine-refractory patients with very poor-prognosis CLL.

SummaryBackgroundSince the 1918 influenza pandemic, non-randomised studies and small clinical trials have suggested that convalescent plasma or anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) might have clinical benefit for patients with influenza infection, but definitive data do not exist. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hIVIG in a randomised controlled trial.MethodsThis randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was planned for 45 hospitals in Argentina, Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Spain, Thailand, UK, and the USA over five influenza seasons from 2013–14 to 2017–18. Adults (≥18 years of age) were admitted for hospital treatment with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B infection and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard care plus either a single 500-mL infusion of high-titre hIVIG (0·25 g/kg bodyweight, 24·75 g maximum; hIVIG group) or saline placebo (placebo group). Eligible patients had a National Early Warning score of 2 points or greater at the time of screening and their symptoms began no more than 7 days before randomisation. Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded, as well as any patients for whom the treatment would present a health risk. Separate randomisation schedules were generated for each participating clinical site using permuted block randomisation. Treatment assignments were obtained using a web-based application by the site pharmacist who then masked the solution for infusion. Patients and investigators were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was a six-category ordinal outcome of clinical status at day 7, ranging in severity from death to resumption of normal activities after discharge. The choice of day 7 was based on haemagglutination inhibition titres from a pilot study. It was analysed with a proportional odds model, using all six categories to estimate a common odds ratio (OR). An OR greater than 1 indicated that, for a given category, patients in the hIVIG group were more likely to be in a better category than those in the placebo group. Prespecified primary analyses for safety and efficacy were based on patients who received an infusion and for whom eligibility could be confirmed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02287467.Findings313 patients were enrolled in 34 sites between Dec 11, 2014, and May 28, 2018. We also used data from 16 patients enrolled at seven of the 34 sites during the pilot study between Jan 15, 2014, and April 10, 2014. 168 patients were randomly assigned to the hIVIG group and 161 to the placebo group. 21 patients were excluded (12 from the hIVIG group and 9 from the placebo group) because they did not receive an infusion or their eligibility could not be confirmed. Thus, 308 were included in the primary analysis. hIVIG treatment produced a robust rise in haemagglutination inhibition titres against influenza A and smaller rises in influenza B titres. Based on the proportional odds model, the OR on day 7 was 1·25 (95% CI 0·79–1·97; p=0·33). In subgroup analyses for the pr...

Oral valacyclovir for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in bone marrow transplantation (BMT) was investigated in a randomized, double-blind, acyclovircontrolled, multicenter clinical trial in recipients of allogeneic BMT who were CMV seropositive (or donor positive) before transplantation and were aged 13 years or older. Patients were randomized before BMT. All initially received intravenous acyclovir (500 mg/m 2 ) 3 times daily until day 28 after transplantation or after discharge, then oral valacyclovir (2 g) or acyclovir (800 mg) 4 times daily until week 18 after transplantation. Evidence of CMV infection, CMV disease, and death were documented for 22 weeks. Primary end points were time to CMV infection (detection of CMV in blood, bronchoalveolar lavage) or CMV disease and survival. Preemptive CMV therapy was permitted. Seven hundred twenty-seven patients were evaluable for efficacy. After the administration of intravenous acyclovir, valacyclovir was significantly more effective than oral acyclovir in reducing the incidence of CMV infection. CMV infection or disease developed in 102 (28%) valacyclovir patients, compared with 143 (40%) acyclovir patients (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .0001). Survival did not differ between treatments (76% and 75% in the valacyclovir and acyclovir groups, respectively). The safety of oral valacyclovir was similar to that of high-dose oral acyclovir. Valacyclovir was more effective than acyclovir in preventing CMV reactivation in BMT recipients and showed a similar safety profile. CMV disease incidence was low, and no differences were observed between oral valacyclovir and acyclovir. Survival was similar in each group. Valacyclovir prophylaxis provides a clinically valuable intervention but must be part of an overall strategy for CMV prevention in BMT. (Blood. 2002;99: 3050-3056)