Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Background. Ceftriaxone is the foundation of currently recommended gonorrhea treatment. There is an urgent need for backup treatment options for patients with cephalosporin allergy or infections due to suspected cephalosporin-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae. We evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of 2 combinations of existing non-cephalosporin antimicrobials for treatment of patients with urogenital gonorrhea. Methods. We conducted a randomized, multisite, open-label, noncomparative trial in 5 outpatient sexually transmitted disease clinic sites in Alabama, California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Patients aged 15–60 years diagnosed with uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhea were randomly assigned to either gentamicin 240 mg intramuscularly plus azithromycin 2 g orally, or gemifloxacin 320 mg orally plus azithromycin 2 g orally. The primary outcome was microbiological cure of urogenital infections (negative follow-up culture) at 10–17 days after treatment among 401 participants in the per protocol population. Results. Microbiological cure was achieved by 100% (lower 1-sided exact 95% confidence interval [CI] bound, 98.5%) of 202 evaluable participants receiving gentamicin/azithromycin, and 99.5% (lower 1-sided exact 95% CI bound, 97.6%) of 199 evaluable participants receiving gemifloxacin/azithromycin. Gentamicin/azithromycin cured 10 of 10 pharyngeal infections and 1 of 1 rectal infection; gemifloxacin/azithromycin cured 15 of 15 pharyngeal and 5 of 5 rectal infections. Gastrointestinal adverse events were common in both arms. Conclusions. Gentamicin/azithromycin and gemifloxacin/azithromycin were highly effective for treatment of urogenital gonorrhea. Gastrointestinal adverse events may limit routine use. These non-cephalosporin-based regimens may be useful alternative options for patients who cannot be treated with cephalosporin antimicrobials. Additional treatment options for gonorrhea are needed. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00926796.

Rates of sustained virological response (SVR) to peginterferon–ribavirin are low in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 and HIV. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of triple therapy with boceprevir plus pegylated interferon alfa-2b (peginterferon) and ribavirin, which increases rates of SVR in patients with HCV alone. In our double-blind, randomised controlled phase 2 trial, we enrolled adults (18–65 years) with untreated HCV genotype 1 infection and controlled HIV (HIV RNA <50 copies per mL) at 30 academic and non-academic study sites. We randomly allocated patients (1:2) according to a computer generated sequence, stratified by Metavir score and baseline HCV RNA level, to receive peginterferon 1·5 μg/kg per week with weight-based ribavirin (600–1400 mg per day) for 4 weeks, followed by peginterferon–ribavirin plus either placebo (control group) or 800 mg boceprevir three times per day (boceprevir group) for 44 weeks. Non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, zidovudine, and didanosine were not permitted. The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR (defined as undetectable plasma HCV RNA) at follow-up week 24 after end of treatment. We assessed efficacy and safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00959699. From Jan 15, 2010, to Dec 29, 2010, we enrolled 99 patients, 98 of whom received at least one treatment dose. 40 (63%) of 64 patients in the boceprevir group had an SVR at follow-up week 24, compared with ten (29%) of 34 control patients (difference 33·1%, 95% CI 13·7–52·5; p=0·0008). Adverse events were more common in patients who received boceprevir than in control patients: 26 (41%) versus nine (26%) had anaemia, 23 (36%) versus seven (21%) pyrexia, 22 (34%) versus six (18%) decreased appetite, 18 (28%) versus five (15%) dysgeusia, 18 (28%) versus five (15%) vomiting, and 12 (19%) versus two (6%) neutropenia. Three patients who received boceprevir plus peginterferon–ribavirin and four controls had HIV virological breakthrough. Boceprevir in combination with peginterferon–ribavirin could be an important therapeutic option for patients with HCV and HIV. Merck.