Explore the vast range of titles available.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) presents a major public health problem for which currently available treatments are modestly effective. We report the findings of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-site phase 3 clinical trial (NCT03537014) to test the efficacy and safety of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted therapy for the treatment of patients with severe PTSD, including those with common comorbidities such as dissociation, depression, a history of alcohol and substance use disorders, and childhood trauma. After psychiatric medication washout, participants ( n  = 90) were randomized 1:1 to receive manualized therapy with MDMA or with placebo, combined with three preparatory and nine integrative therapy sessions. PTSD symptoms, measured with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5, the primary endpoint), and functional impairment, measured with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS, the secondary endpoint) were assessed at baseline and at 2 months after the last experimental session. Adverse events and suicidality were tracked throughout the study. MDMA was found to induce significant and robust attenuation in CAPS-5 score compared with placebo ( P  < 0.0001, d  = 0.91) and to significantly decrease the SDS total score ( P  = 0.0116, d  = 0.43). The mean change in CAPS-5 scores in participants completing treatment was −24.4 (s.d. 11.6) in the MDMA group and −13.9 (s.d. 11.5) in the placebo group. MDMA did not induce adverse events of abuse potential, suicidality or QT prolongation. These data indicate that, compared with manualized therapy with inactive placebo, MDMA-assisted therapy is highly efficacious in individuals with severe PTSD, and treatment is safe and well-tolerated, even in those with comorbidities. We conclude that MDMA-assisted therapy represents a potential breakthrough treatment that merits expedited clinical evaluation. Results from a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial demonstrate that MDMA-assisted therapy is safe and effective in treating severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

Findings of retrospective studies suggest that sorafenib maintenance post-transplantation might reduce relapse in patients with FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib maintenance post-transplantation in this population. We did an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial at seven hospitals in China. Eligible patients (aged 18–60 years) had FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukaemia, were undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, had composite complete remission before and after transplantation, and had haematopoietic recovery within 60 days post-transplantation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to sorafenib maintenance (400 mg orally twice daily) or non-maintenance (control) at 30–60 days post-transplantation. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks (block size four) and implemented through an interactive web-based randomisation system. The primary endpoint was the 1-year cumulative incidence of relapse in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02474290; the trial is complete. Between June 20, 2015, and July 21, 2018, 202 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sorafenib maintenance (n=100) or control (n=102). Median follow-up post-transplantation was 21·3 months (IQR 15·0–37·0). The 1-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 7·0% (95% CI 3·1–13·1) in the sorafenib group and 24·5% (16·6–33·2) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·25, 95% CI 0·11–0·57; p=0·0010). Within 210 days post-transplantation, the most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were infections (25 [25%] of 100 patients in the sorafenib group vs 24 [24%] of 102 in the control group), acute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD; 23 [23%] of 100 vs 21 [21%] of 102), chronic GVHD (18 [18%] of 99 vs 17 [17%] of 99), and haematological toxicity (15 [15%] of 100 vs seven [7%] of 102). There were no treatment-related deaths. Sorafenib maintenance post-transplantation can reduce relapse and is well tolerated in patients with FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. This strategy could be a suitable therapeutic option for patients with FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukaemia. None.

Preclinical studies suggest that treatment with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is associated with enhanced survival and antigen-specific T cell responses compared with adjuvant treatment 1 ; however, optimal regimens have not been defined. Here we report results from a randomized phase 2 study of neoadjuvant nivolumab versus combined ipilimumab with nivolumab in 23 patients with high-risk resectable melanoma ( NCT02519322 ). RECIST overall response rates (ORR), pathologic complete response rates (pCR), treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) and immune correlates of response were assessed. Treatment with combined ipilimumab and nivolumab yielded high response rates (RECIST ORR 73%, pCR 45%) but substantial toxicity (73% grade 3 trAEs), whereas treatment with nivolumab monotherapy yielded modest responses (ORR 25%, pCR 25%) and low toxicity (8% grade 3 trAEs). Immune correlates of response were identified, demonstrating higher lymphoid infiltrates in responders to both therapies and a more clonal and diverse T cell infiltrate in responders to nivolumab monotherapy. These results describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma and emphasize the need for additional studies to optimize treatment regimens and to validate putative biomarkers. Neoadjuvant combination treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with high-risk melanoma results in higher response rates than nivolumab monotherapy and warrants future optimization of dosing regimens to preserve efficacy while limiting toxicity.

Surufatinib showed superior efficacy in extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) in the phase 3 SANET-ep study. In SANET-p, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of surufatinib in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs. SANET-p was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, done in 21 hospitals across China. Eligible patients were adults (aged 18 years or older) with progressive, advanced, well differentiated pancreatic NETs, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and progression on up to two kinds of previous systemic regimens for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system to receive 300 mg of surufatinib or placebo, taken orally once per day in consecutive 4-week treatment cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, poor compliance, use of other antitumour medication, pregnancy, loss to follow-up, or if the investigator deemed discontinuation in the patient's best interest. Randomisation was done centrally using stratified block randomisation (block size three), stratified by pathological grade, previous systemic antitumour treatment, and ECOG performance status score. Patients, investigators, research staff, and the sponsor study team were masked to treatment allocation. Crossover to surufatinib was permitted for patients in the placebo group with disease progression. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients in randomisation. A pre-planned interim analysis was done at 70% of the predicted progression-free survival events. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02589821. Between Feb 18, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, of 264 patients who were screened, 172 (65%) patients were randomly assigned to receive surufatinib (n=113) or placebo (n=59). The median follow-up was 19·3 months (95% CI 9·3–19·4) in the surufatinib group and 11·1 months (5·7–35·9) in the placebo group. The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 10·9 months (7·5–13·8) for surufatinib versus 3·7 months (2·8–5·6) for placebo (hazard ratio 0·49, 95% CI 0·32–0·76; p=0·0011). The trial met the early stopping criteria at the interim analysis and was terminated on recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (43 [38%] of 113 with surufatinib vs four [7%] of 59 with placebo), proteinuria (11 [10%] vs one [2%]), and hypertriglyceridaemia (eight [7%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 25 (22%) patients in the surufatinib group and four (7%) patients in the placebo group. There were three on-treatment deaths in the surufatinib group, including two deaths due to adverse events (gastrointestinal haemorrhage [possibly treatment-related] and cerebral haemorrhage [unlikely to be treatment-related]), and one death attributed to disease progression. One on-treatment death in the placebo group was attributed to disease progression. Surufatinib significantly improves progression-free survival and has an acceptable safety profile in patients with progressive, advanced pancreatic NETs, and could be a potential treatment option in this patient population. Hutchison MediPharma.

Therapeutic options for advanced neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are limited. We investigated the efficacy and safety of surufatinib (HMPL-012, sulfatinib) in patients with extrapancreatic NETs. SANET-ep was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial undertaken at 24 hospitals across China. Patients (aged 18 years or older) with unresectable or metastatic, well differentiated, extrapancreatic NETs, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and progression on no more than two types of previous systemic regimens were enrolled. Patients were centrally randomly assigned (2:1) using stratified block randomisation (block size 3) via an interactive web response system to receive oral surufatinib at 300 mg per day or matching placebo. Randomisation was stratified by tumour origin, pathological grade, and previous treatment. Patients, investigators, research staff and the sponsor study team were masked to treatment allocation. Crossover to the surufatinib group was allowed for patients in the placebo group at disease progression. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. A preplanned interim analysis was done at 70% of predicted progression-free survival events. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02588170. Follow-up is ongoing. Between Dec 9, 2015, and March 31, 2019, 198 patients were randomly assigned to surufatinib (n=129) or placebo (n=69). Median follow-up was 13·8 months (95% CI 11·1–16·7) in the surufatinib group and 16·6 months (9·2–not calculable) in the placebo group. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 9·2 months (95% CI 7·4–11·1) in the surufatinib group versus 3·8 months (3·7–5·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·33; 95% CI 0·22–0·50; p<0·0001). As the trial met the predefined criteria for early discontinuation of the study at the interim analysis, the study was terminated early, as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee. The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were hypertension (47 [36%] of 129 patients in the surufatinib group vs nine [13%] of 68 patients in the placebo group) and proteinuria (25 [19%] vs zero). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 32 (25%) of 129 patients in the surufatinib group and nine (13%) of 68 patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in three patients in the surufatinib group (disseminated intravascular coagulation and hepatic encephalopathy, liver injury, and death with unknown reason) and one patient in the placebo group (cachexia and respiratory failure). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients given surufatinib compared with patients given placebo, and surufatinib has a favourable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with progressive, advanced, well differentiated extrapancreatic NETs. Our results suggest that surufatinib might be a new treatment option for this population. Hutchison MediPharma.

VEGF and VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR-2)-mediated signalling and angiogenesis can contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of gastric cancer. We aimed to assess whether the addition of ramucirumab, a VEGFR-2 antagonist monoclonal antibody, to first-line chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. For this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 20 countries, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic, HER2-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive web response system to receive cisplatin (80 mg/m2, on the first day) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m2, twice daily for 14 days), every 21 days, and either ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. 5-Fluorouracil (800 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on days 1–5) was permitted in patients unable to take capecitabine. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat in the first 508 patients. We did a sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint, including a central review of CT scans. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02314117. Between Jan 28, 2015, and Sept 16, 2016, 645 patients were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab plus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin (n=326) or placebo plus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin (n=319). Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab group than the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·753, 95% CI 0·607–0·935, p=0·0106; median progression-free survival 5·7 months [5·5–6·5] vs 5·4 months [4·5–5·7]). A sensitivity analysis based on central independent review of the radiological images did not corroborate the investigator-assessed difference in progression-free survival (HR 0·961, 95% CI 0·768–1·203, p=0·74). There was no difference in overall survival between groups (0·962, 0·801–1·156, p=0·6757; median overall survival 11·2 months [9·9–11·9] in the ramucirumab group vs 10·7 months [9·5–11·9] in the placebo group). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (85 [26%] of 323 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 85 [27%] of 315 in the placebo group), anaemia (39 [12%] vs 44 [14%]), and hypertension (32 [10%] vs 5 [2%]). The incidence of any-grade serious adverse events was 160 (50%) of 323 patients in the ramucirumab group and 149 (47%) of 315 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse events were vomiting (14 [4%] in the ramucirumab group vs 21 [7%] in the placebo group) and diarrhoea (11 [3%] vs 19 [6%]). There were seven deaths in each group, either during study treatment or within 30 days of discontinuing study treatment, which were the result of treatment-related adverse events. In the ramucirumab group, these adverse events were acute kidney injury, cardiac arrest, gastric haemorrhage, peritonitis, pneumothorax, septic shock, and sudden death (n=1 of each). In the placebo group, these adverse events were cerebrovascular accident (n=1), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (n=2), pulmonary embolism (n=2), sepsis (n=1), and small intestine perforation (n=1). Although the primary analysis for progression-free survival was statistically significant, this outcome was not confirmed in a sensitivity analysis of progression-free survival by central independent review, and did not improve overall survival. Therefore, the addition of ramucirumab to cisplatin plus fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy is not recommended as first-line treatment for this patient population. Eli Lilly and Company.

Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in a second-line setting for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. This study investigated whether the doublet of carboplatin plus etoposide was superior to topotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 38 hospitals in France, we enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced stage IV or locally relapsed small-cell lung cancer, who responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide treatment, but who had disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of first-line treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination carboplatin plus etoposide (six cycles of intravenous carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min] on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide [100 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 3]) or oral topotecan (2·3 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 5, for six cycles). Randomisation was done using the minimisation method with biased-coin balancing for ECOG performance status, response to the first-line chemotherapy, and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally reviewed and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02738346. Between July 18, 2013, and July 2, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 164 patients (82 in each study group). One patient from each group withdrew consent, therefore 162 patients (81 in each group) were included in the intention-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 22·7 months (IQR 20·0−37·3), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination chemotherapy group than in the topotecan group (4·7 months, 90% CI 3·9–5·5 vs 2·7 months, 2·3–3·2; stratified hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·41–0·73; p=0·0041). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (18 [22%] of 81 patients in the topotecan group vs 11 [14%] of 81 patients in the combination chemotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (29 [36%] vs 25 [31%]), anaemia (17 [21%] vs 20 [25%]), febrile neutropenia (nine [11%] vs five [6%]), and asthenia (eight [10%] vs seven [9%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan group (both were febrile neutropenia with sepsis) and no treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group. Our results suggest that carboplatin plus etoposide rechallenge can be considered as a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie).

Chagas disease is a major neglected vector-borne disease. In this study, we investigated the safety and efficacy of three oral E1224 (a water-soluble ravuconazole prodrug) regimens and benznidazole versus placebo in adult chronic indeterminate Chagas disease. In this proof-of-concept, double-blind, randomised phase 2 clinical trial, we recruited adults (18–50 years) with confirmed diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi infection from two outpatient units in Bolivia. Patients were randomised with a computer-generated randomisation list, which was stratified by centre and used a block size of ten. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to five oral treatment groups: high-dose E1224 (duration 8 weeks, total dose 4000 mg), low-dose E1224 (8 weeks, 2000 mg), short-dose E1224 (4 weeks + 4 weeks placebo, 2400 mg), benznidazole (60 days, 5 mg/kg per day), or placebo (8 weeks, E1224-matched tablets). Double-blinding was limited to the E1224 and placebo arms, and assessors were masked to all treatment allocations. The primary efficacy endpoint was parasitological response to E1224 at the end of treatment, assessed by PCR. The secondary efficacy endpoints were parasitological response to benznidazole at end of treatment, assessed by PCR; sustainability of parasitological response until 12 months; parasite clearance and changes in parasite load; incidence of conversion to negative response in conventional and non-conventional (antigen trypomastigote chemiluminescent ELISA [AT CL-ELISA]) serological response; changes in levels of biomarkers; and complete response. The primary analysis population consisted of all randomised patients by their assigned treatment arms. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01489228. Between July 19, 2011, and July 26, 2012, we screened 560 participants with confirmed Chagas disease, of whom 231 were enrolled and assigned to high-dose E1224 (n=45), low-dose E1224 (n=48), short-dose E1224 (n=46), benznidazole (n=45), or placebo (n=47). Parasite clearance was observed with E1224 during the treatment phase, but no sustained response was seen with low-dose and short-dose regimens, whereas 13 patients (29%, 95% CI 16·4–44·3) had sustained response with the high-dose regimen compared with four (9%, 2·4–20·4) in the placebo group (p<0·0001). Benznidazole had a rapid and sustained effect on parasite clearance, with 37 patients (82%, 67·9–92·0) with sustained response at 12-month follow-up. After 1 week of treatment, mean quantitative PCR repeated measurements showed a significant reduction in parasite load in all treatment arms versus placebo. Parasite levels in the low-dose and short-dose E1224 groups gradually returned to placebo levels. Both treatments were well tolerated. Reversible, dose-dependent liver enzyme increases were seen with E1224 and benznidazole. 187 (81%) participants developed treatment-emergent adverse events and six (3%) developed treatment-emergent serious adverse events. Treatment-emergent adverse events were headaches, nausea, pruritus, peripheral neuropathy, and hypersensitivity. E1224 is the first new chemical entity developed for Chagas disease in decades. E1224 displayed a transient, suppressive effect on parasite clearance, whereas benznidazole showed early and sustained efficacy until 12 months of follow-up. Despite PCR limitations, our results support increased diagnosis and access to benznidazole standard regimen, and provide a development roadmap for novel benznidazole regimens in monotherapy and in combinations with E1224. Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative.

Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria represent the highest priority for addressing global antibiotic resistance. Cefiderocol (S-649266), a new siderophore cephalosporin, has broad activity against Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenting bacteria, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, including carbapenem-resistant strains. We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in patients at risk of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. We did a phase 2, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group non-inferiority trial at 67 hospitals in 15 countries. Adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with a clinical diagnosis of complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis or those with acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis were randomly assigned (2:1) by an interactive web or voice response system to receive 1 h intravenous infusions of cefiderocol (2 g) or imipenem-cilastatin (1 g each) three times daily, every 8 h for 7–14 days. Patients were excluded if they had a baseline urine culture with more than two uropathogens, a fungal urinary tract infection, or pathogens known to be carbapenem resistant. The primary endpoint was the composite of clinical and microbiological outcomes at test of cure (ie, 7 days after treatment cessation), which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% and 20% margins) of cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned individuals who received at least one dose of study drug and had a qualifying Gram-negative uropathogen (≥1 × 105 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned individuals who received at least one dose of study drug, according to the treatment they received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02321800. Between Feb 5, 2015, and Aug 16, 2016, 452 patients were randomly assigned to cefiderocol (n=303) or imipenem-cilastatin (n=149), of whom 448 patients (n=300 in the cefiderocol group; n=148 in the imipenem-cilastatin group) received treatment. 371 patients (n=252 patients in the cefiderocol group; n=119 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group) had qualifying Gram-negative uropathogen (≥1 × 105 CFU/mL) and were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At test of cure, the primary efficacy endpoint was achieved by 183 (73%) of 252 patients in the cefiderocol group and 65 (55%) of 119 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group, with an adjusted treatment difference of 18·58% (95% CI 8·23–28·92; p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of cefiderocol. Cefiderocol was well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 122 (41%) of 300 patients in the cefiderocol group and 76 (51%) of 148 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group, with gastrointestinal disorders (ie, diarrhoea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain) the most common adverse events for both treatment groups (35 [12%] patients in the cefiderocol group and 27 [18%] patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group). Intravenous infusion of cefiderocol (2 g) three times daily was non-inferior compared with imipenem-cilastatin (1 g each) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in people with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. The results of this study will provide the basis for submission of a New Drug Application to the US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials of hospital-acquired pneumonia and carbapenem-resistant infections are ongoing. Shionogi & Co Ltd, Shionogi Inc.

Hepatitis D is the most severe form of chronic viral hepatitis. Treatment guidelines recommend 1 year of peginterferon alfa, which is effective in 25–30% of patients only. Whether prolonged therapy with peginterferon alfa-2a for 96 weeks and combination therapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) would increase hepatitis D virus (HDV) RNA suppression is unknown. We aimed to explore whether prolonged treatment of HDV with 96 weeks of peginterferon would increase HDV RNA response rates and reduces post-treatment relapses. We did two parallel, investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind randomised, controlled trials at 14 study sites in Germany, Greece, Romania, and Turkey. Patients with chronic HDV infection and compensated liver disease who were aged 18 years or older were eligible for inclusion. All patients were HBsAg positive for at least 7 months, anti-HDV positive for at least 3 months, and HDV-RNA positive at the local laboratory at the screening visit. Patients were ineligible if alanine aminotransferase levels were higher than ten times above the upper limit of normal and if platelet counts were lower than 90 000 per μL, or if they had received interferon therapy or treatment with a nucleoside and nucleotide analogue within the preceding 6 months. Patients were randomly assigned by blinded stratified block randomisation (1:1) to receive 180 μg of peginterferon alfa-2a weekly plus either TDF (300 mg once daily) or placebo for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with undetectable HDV RNA at the end of treatment assessed by intention to treat. The trials are registered as NCT00932971 and NCT01088659. Between June 24, 2009, and Feb 28, 2011, we randomly assigned 59 HDV RNA-positive patients to receive peginterferon alfa-2a plus TDF and 61 to receive peginterferon alfa-2a plus placebo, including 48 (40%) patients with cirrhosis to the two treatment groups (23 in the peginterferon alfa-2a plus TDF group and 25 in the peginterferon alfa-2a plus placebo group). The primary endpoint was achieved in 28 (48%) of 59 patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a plus TDF group and in 20 (33%) of 61 patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a plus placebo group (odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 0·86–3·91, p=0·12). We recorded 944 adverse events (459 in the peginterferon alfa-2a plus TDF group and 485 in the peginterferon alfa-2a plus placebo group). The most common adverse events were haematological, behavioural (eg, fatigue), musculoskeletal, influenza-like syndromes, and psychiatric complaints. Addition of TDF resulted in no significant improvement in HDV RNA response rates at the end of treatment. These findings highlight that alternative treatment options are needed for hepatitis D. The HepNet Study-House (a project of the German Liver Foundation founded by the German Liver Foundation, the German Ministry for Education and Research, and the German Center for Infectious Disease Research), Hoffmann-La Roche, and Gilead Sciences.