Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized, controlled trial involving women in South Africa and Uganda, twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir was superior to daily oral emtricitabine–tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in preventing HIV infection.

The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) provides antifilarial medications to hundreds of millions of people annually to treat filarial infections and prevent elephantiasis. Recent trials have shown that a single-dose, triple-drug treatment (ivermectin with diethylcarbamazine and albendazole [IDA]) is superior to a two-drug combination (diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole [DA]) that is widely used in LF elimination programs. This study was performed to assess the safety of IDA and DA in a variety of endemic settings. Large community studies were conducted in five countries between October 2016 and November 2017. Two studies were performed in areas with no prior mass drug administration (MDA) for filariasis (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia), and three studies were performed in areas with persistent LF despite extensive prior MDA (India, Haiti, and Fiji). Participants were treated with a single oral dose of IDA (ivermectin, 200 μg/kg; diethylcarbamazine, 6 mg/kg; plus albendazole, a fixed dose of 400 mg) or with DA alone. Treatment assignment in each study site was randomized by locality of residence. Treatment was offered to residents who were ≥5 years of age and not pregnant. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed by medical teams with active follow-up for 2 days and passive follow-up for an additional 5 days. A total of 26,836 persons were enrolled (13,535 females and 13,300 males). A total of 12,280 participants were treated with DA, and 14,556 were treated with IDA. On day 1 or 2 after treatment, 97.4% of participants were assessed for AEs. The frequency of all AEs was similar after IDA and DA treatment (12% versus 12.1%, adjusted odds ratio for IDA versus DA 1.15, 95% CI 0.87-1.52, P = 0.316); 10.9% of participants experienced mild (grade 1) AEs, 1% experienced moderate (grade 2) AEs, and 0.1% experienced severe (grade 3) AEs. Rates of serious AEs after DA and IDA treatment were 0.04% (95% CI 0.01%-0.1%) and 0.01% (95% CI 0.00%-0.04%), respectively. Severity of AEs was not significantly different after IDA or DA. Five of six serious AEs reported occurred after DA treatment. The most common AEs reported were headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, fever, nausea, and fatigue. AE frequencies varied by country and were higher in adults and in females. AEs were more common in study participants with microfilaremia (33.4% versus 11.1%, P < 0.001) and more common in microfilaremic participants after IDA than after DA (39.4% versus 25.6%, P < 0.001). However, there was no excess of severe or serious AEs after IDA in this subgroup. The main limitation of the study was that it was open-label. Also, aggregation of AE data from multiple study sites tends to obscure variability among study sites. In this study, we observed that IDA was well tolerated in LF-endemic populations. Posttreatment AE rates and severity did not differ significantly after IDA or DA treatment. Thus, results of this study suggest that IDA should be as safe as DA for use as a MDA regimen for LF elimination in areas that currently receive DA. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02899936.

Patients and clinicians share concerns that generic drug substitution might lead to loss of efficacy or emergence of adverse events. In this trial, we assessed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioequivalence standards by studying the effects of switching between two disparate generic immediate-release lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy. The Equivalence among Generic Antiepileptic Drugs (EQUIGEN) chronic-dose study was a randomised, double-blind, crossover study that enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with epilepsy from six epilepsy centres at academic institutions across the USA who were receiving immediate-release lamotrigine dosed at 100 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 400 mg twice daily. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of two treatment sequences (sequence 1 or sequence 2), comprising four study periods of 14 days each. During each 14-day treatment period, patients received balanced doses of an oral generic lamotrigine product every 12 h (200–800 mg total, identical to lamotrigine dose prior to study enrolment); after each 14-day period, patients were crossed over to receive the other generic product. Computer-based randomisation was done using random permuted blocks of size two or four for each site to prevent sequence predictability. Both patients and study personnel were masked to the generic products selected, their predicted exposure (ie, “high” vs “low”), and their group allocation. The primary outcome of this trial was bioequivalence between the generic products, which was assessed at the end of the study through a comparison of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) for each product in the analysis population (all patients who completed all four treatment periods). Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs of the ratios of these two parameters for the two products were within equivalence limits (80–125%) in the analysis population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov\\, number NCT01713777. Between April 25, 2013, and Aug 12, 2014, 35 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment sequence 1 (n=15) or treatment sequence 2 (n=20). 33 patients completed all four treatment periods and were included in the primary outcome analysis. The 90% CIs of the ratios of both Cmax and AUC were within equivalence limits (AUC 90% CI 98–103, Cmax 90% CI 99–105), showing that lamotrigine exposures were equivalent between the generic products. No significant changes in seizure frequency or adverse events were recorded. No deaths, study-related serious adverse events, or changes in clinical laboratory values or vital signs occurred during this study. Disparate generic lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy showed bioequivalence with no detectable difference in clinical effects, confirming that US Food and Drug Administration bioequivalence standards are appropriate. American Epilepsy Society, Epilepsy Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration.

In adults with mild asthma, a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid with a fast-onset long-acting β-agonist (LABA) used as reliever monotherapy reduces severe exacerbations compared with short-acting β-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy. We investigated the efficacy of combination budesonide–formoterol reliever therapy compared with maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline. We did a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial at 15 primary care or hospital-based clinical trials units and primary care practices in New Zealand. Participants were adults aged 18–75 years with a self-reported doctor's diagnosis of asthma who were using SABA for symptom relief with or without maintenance low to moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids in the previous 12 weeks. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to either reliever therapy with budesonide 200 μg–formoterol 6 μg Turbuhaler (one inhalation as needed for relief of symptoms) or maintenance budesonide 200 μg Turbuhaler (one inhalation twice daily) plus terbutaline 250 μg Turbuhaler (two inhalations as needed). Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment; the statistician was masked for analysis of the primary outcome. Six study visits were scheduled: randomisation, and weeks 4, 16, 28, 40, and 52. The primary outcome was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year analysed by intention to treat (severe exacerbations defined as use of systemic corticosteroids for at least 3 days because of asthma, or admission to hospital or an emergency department visit because of asthma requiring systemic corticosteroids). Safety analyses included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12616000377437. Between May 4, 2016, and Dec 22, 2017, we assigned 890 participants to treatment and included 885 eligible participants in the analysis: 437 assigned to budesonide–formoterol as needed and 448 to budesonide maintenance plus terbutaline as needed. Severe exacerbations per patient per year were lower with as-needed budesonide–formoterol than with maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline as needed (absolute rate per patient per year 0·119 vs 0·172; relative rate 0·69, 95% CI 0·48–1·00; p=0·049). Nasopharyngitis was the most common adverse event in both groups, occurring in 154 (35%) of 440 patients receiving as-needed budesonide–formoterol and 144 (32%) of 448 receiving maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline as needed. In adults with mild to moderate asthma, budesonide–formoterol used as needed for symptom relief was more effective at preventing severe exacerbations than maintenance low-dose budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline. The findings support the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma recommendation that inhaled corticosteroid–formoterol reliever therapy is an alternative regimen to daily low-dose inhaled corticosteroid for patients with mild asthma. Health Research Council of New Zealand.

In this trial, rural communities in Niger were randomly assigned to distribute azithromycin or placebo to children (1 to 59 months of age) or infants (1 to 11 months). All-cause mortality was reduced in the child-treated group.

The emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) threatens global malaria elimination efforts. Mass drug administration (MDA), the presumptive antimalarial treatment of an entire population to clear the subclinical parasite reservoir, is a strategy to accelerate malaria elimination. We report a cluster randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) MDA in reducing falciparum malaria incidence and prevalence in 16 remote village populations in Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Lao People's Democratic Republic, where artemisinin resistance is prevalent. After establishing vector control and community-based case management and following intensive community engagement, we used restricted randomisation within village pairs to select 8 villages to receive early DP MDA and 8 villages as controls for 12 months, after which the control villages received deferred DP MDA. The MDA comprised 3 monthly rounds of 3 daily doses of DP and, except in Cambodia, a single low dose of primaquine. We conducted exhaustive cross-sectional surveys of the entire population of each village at quarterly intervals using ultrasensitive quantitative PCR to detect Plasmodium infections. The study was conducted between May 2013 and July 2017. The investigators randomised 16 villages that had a total of 8,445 residents at the start of the study. Of these 8,445 residents, 4,135 (49%) residents living in 8 villages, plus an additional 288 newcomers to the villages, were randomised to receive early MDA; 3,790 out of the 4,423 (86%) participated in at least 1 MDA round, and 2,520 out of the 4,423 (57%) participated in all 3 rounds. The primary outcome, P. falciparum prevalence by month 3 (M3), fell by 92% (from 5.1% [171/3,340] to 0.4% [12/2,828]) in early MDA villages and by 29% (from 7.2% [246/3,405] to 5.1% [155/3,057]) in control villages. Over the following 9 months, the P. falciparum prevalence increased to 3.3% (96/2,881) in early MDA villages and to 6.1% (128/2,101) in control villages (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.41 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.84]; p = 0.015). Individual protection was proportional to the number of completed MDA rounds. Of 221 participants with subclinical P. falciparum infections who participated in MDA and could be followed up, 207 (94%) cleared their infections, including 9 of 10 with artemisinin- and piperaquine-resistant infections. The DP MDAs were well tolerated; 6 severe adverse events were detected during the follow-up period, but none was attributable to the intervention. Added to community-based basic malaria control measures, 3 monthly rounds of DP MDA reduced the incidence and prevalence of falciparum malaria over a 1-year period in areas affected by artemisinin resistance. P. falciparum infections returned during the follow-up period as the remaining infections spread and malaria was reintroduced from surrounding areas. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample of villages, heterogeneity between villages, and mobility of villagers that may have limited the impact of the intervention. These results suggest that, if used as part of a comprehensive, well-organised, and well-resourced elimination programme, DP MDA can be a useful additional tool to accelerate malaria elimination. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01872702.

In low malaria-endemic settings, screening and treatment of individuals in close proximity to index cases, also known as reactive case detection (RACD), is practised for surveillance and response. However, other approaches could be more effective for reducing transmission. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) in the low malaria-endemic setting of Zambezi (Namibia). We did a cluster-randomised controlled, open-label trial using a two-by-two factorial design of 56 enumeration area clusters in the low malaria-endemic setting of Zambezi (Namibia). We randomly assigned these clusters using restricted randomisation to four groups: RACD only, rfMDA only, RAVC plus RACD, or rfMDA plus RAVC. RACD involved rapid diagnostic testing and treatment with artemether-lumefantrine and single-dose primaquine, rfMDA involved presumptive treatment with artemether-lumefantrine, and RAVC involved indoor residual spraying with pirimiphos-methyl. Interventions were administered within 500 m of index cases. To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions targeting the parasite reservoir in humans (rfMDA vs RACD), in mosquitoes (RAVC vs no RAVC), and in both humans and mosquitoes (rfMDA plus RAVC vs RACD only), an intention-to-treat analysis was done. For each of the three comparisons, the primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of locally acquired malaria cases. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02610400. Between Jan 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 2017, 55 enumeration area clusters had 1118 eligible index cases that led to 342 interventions covering 8948 individuals. The cumulative incidence of locally acquired malaria was 30·8 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 12·8–48·7) in the clusters that received rfMDA versus 38·3 per 1000 person-years (23·0–53·6) in the clusters that received RACD; 30·2 per 1000 person-years (15·0–45·5) in the clusters that received RAVC versus 38·9 per 1000 person-years (20·7–57·1) in the clusters that did not receive RAVC; and 25·0 per 1000 person-years (5·2–44·7) in the clusters that received rfMDA plus RAVC versus 41·4 per 1000 person-years (21·5–61·2) in the clusters that received RACD only. After adjusting for imbalances in baseline and implementation factors, the incidence of malaria was lower in clusters receiving rfMDA than in those receiving RACD (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0·52 [95% CI 0·16–0·88], p=0·009), lower in clusters receiving RAVC than in those that did not (0·48 [0·16–0·80], p=0·002), and lower in clusters that received rfMDA plus RAVC than in those receiving RACD only (0·26 [0·10–0·68], p=0·006). No serious adverse events were reported. In a low malaria-endemic setting, rfMDA and RAVC, implemented alone and in combination, reduced malaria transmission and should be considered as alternatives to RACD for elimination of malaria. Novartis Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Horchow Family Fund.

There is an urgent need to create novel models using human disease-relevant cells to study severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) biology and to facilitate drug screening. Here, as SARS-CoV-2 primarily infects the respiratory tract, we developed a lung organoid model using human pluripotent stem cells (hPSC-LOs). The hPSC-LOs (particularly alveolar type-II-like cells) are permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and showed robust induction of chemokines following SARS-CoV-2 infection, similar to what is seen in patients with COVID-19. Nearly 25% of these patients also have gastrointestinal manifestations, which are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes 1 . We therefore also generated complementary hPSC-derived colonic organoids (hPSC-COs) to explore the response of colonic cells to SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found that multiple colonic cell types, especially enterocytes, express ACE2 and are permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using hPSC-LOs, we performed a high-throughput screen of drugs approved by the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) and identified entry inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2, including imatinib, mycophenolic acid and quinacrine dihydrochloride. Treatment at physiologically relevant levels of these drugs significantly inhibited SARS-CoV-2 infection of both hPSC-LOs and hPSC-COs. Together, these data demonstrate that hPSC-LOs and hPSC-COs infected by SARS-CoV-2 can serve as disease models to study SARS-CoV-2 infection and provide a valuable resource for drug screening to identify candidate COVID-19 therapeutics. The use of lung and colonic organoid systems to assess the susceptibility of lung and gut cells to SARS-CoV-2 and to screen FDA-approved drugs that have antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that kills mosquitoes feeding on treated persons. In this trial in Kenya, ivermectin given once per month for 3 months led to a 26% lower incidence of malaria than albendazole.