Description: Publication date: Available online 24 December 2016 Source: The Lancet

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Martin P Grobusch, Abraham Goorhuis

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Carolyn Jack, Therese El Helou

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Ana Maria Henao-Restrepo, Anton Camacho, Ira M Longini, Conall H Watson, W John Edmunds, Matthias Egger, Miles W Carroll, Natalie E Dean, Ibrahima Diatta, Moussa Doumbia, Bertrand Draguez, Sophie Duraffour, Godwin Enwere, Rebecca Grais, Stephan Gunther, Pierre-Stéphane Gsell, Stefanie Hossmann, Sara Viksmoen Watle, Mandy Kader Kondé, Sakoba Kéïta, Souleymane Kone, Eewa Kuisma, Myron M Levine, Sema Mandal, Thomas Mauget, Gunnstein Norheim, Ximena Riveros, Aboubacar Soumah, Sven Trelle, Andrea S Vicari, John-Arne Røttingen, Marie-Paule Kieny Background rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus. We tested the effect of rVSV-ZEBOV in preventing Ebola virus disease in contacts and contacts of contacts of recently confirmed cases in Guinea, west Africa. Methods We did an open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial (Ebola ça Suffit!) in the communities of Conakry and eight surrounding prefectures in the Basse-Guinée region of Guinea, and in Tomkolili and Bombali in Sierra Leone. We assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular dose of rVSV-ZEBOV (2×10 7 plaque-forming units administered in the deltoid muscle) in the prevention of laboratory confirmed Ebola virus disease. After confirmation of a case of Ebola virus disease, we definitively enumerated on a list a ring (cluster) of all their contacts and contacts of contacts including named contacts and contacts of contacts who were absent at the time of the trial team visit. The list was archived, then we randomly assigned clusters (1:1) to either immediate vaccination or delayed vaccination (21 days later) of all eligible individuals (eg, those aged ≥18 years and not pregnant, breastfeeding, or severely ill). An independent statistician generated the assignment sequence using block randomisation with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 individuals vs >20 individuals). Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of assignments. After a recommendation by an independent data and safety monitoring board, randomisation was stopped and immediate vaccination was also offered to children aged 6–17 years and all identified rings. The prespecified primary outcome was a laboratory confirmed case of Ebola virus disease with onset 10 days or more from randomisation. The primary analysis compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals assigned to immediate vaccination versus eligible contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to delayed vaccination. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. Findings In the randomised part of the trial we identified 4539 contacts and contacts of contacts in 51 clusters randomly assigned to immediate vaccination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 4557 contacts and contacts of contacts in 47 clusters randomly assigned to delayed vaccination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation). No cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and contacts of contacts vaccinated in immediate clusters versus 16 cases (7 clusters affected) among all eligible individuals in delayed clusters. Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 68·9–100·0, p=0·0045), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient was 0·035. Additionally, we defined 19 non-randomised clusters in which we enumerated 2745 contacts and contacts of contacts, 2006 of whom were eligible and 1677 were immediately vaccinated, including 194 children. The evidence from all 117 clusters showed that that no cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts and contacts of contacts versus 23 cases (11 clusters affected) among all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts in delayed plus all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts never vaccinated in immediate clusters. The estimated vaccine efficacy here was 100% (95% CI 79·3–100·0, p=0·0033). 52% of contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to immediate vaccination and in non-randomised clusters received the vaccine immediately; vaccination protected both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in those clusters. 5837 individuals in total received the vaccine (5643 adults and 194 children), and all vaccinees were followed up for 84 days. 3149 (53·9%) of 5837 individuals reported at least one adverse event in the 14 days after vaccination; these were typically mild (87·5% of all 7211 adverse events). Headache (1832 [25·4%]), fatigue (1361 [18·9%]), and muscle pain (942 [13·1%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events in this period across all age groups. 80 serious adverse events were identified, of which two were judged to be related to vaccination (one febrile reaction and one anaphylaxis) and one possibly related (influenza-like illness); all three recovered without sequelae. Interpretation The results add weight to the interim assessment that rVSV-ZEBOV offers substantial protection against Ebola virus disease, with no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters. Funding WHO, UK Wellcome Trust, Médecins Sans Frontières, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme), and the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development).

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Raffaella Bosurgi, Richard Horton

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Heinz Ludwig, Michel Delforge

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Thomas W Geisbert

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Brian G M Durie, Antje Hoering, Muneer H Abidi, S Vincent Rajkumar, Joshua Epstein, Stephen P Kahanic, Mohan Thakuri, Frederic Reu, Christopher M Reynolds, Rachael Sexton, Robert Z Orlowski, Bart Barlogie, Angela Dispenzieri Background Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown significant efficacy in the setting of newly diagnosed myeloma. We aimed to study whether the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival and provide better response rates in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma who were not planned for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18 years and older from participating Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) and National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) institutions (both inpatient and outpatient settings). Key inclusion criteria were presence of CRAB (C=calcium elevation; R=renal impairment; A=anaemia; B=bone involvement) criteria with measurable disease (measured by assessment of free light chains), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–3, haemoglobin concentration 9 g/dL or higher, absolute neutrophil count 1 × 10 3 cells per mm 3 or higher, and a platelet count of 80 000/mm 3 or higher. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either an initial treatment of bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd group). Randomisation was stratified based on International Staging System stage (I, II, or III) and intent to transplant (yes vs no). The VRd regimen was given as eight 21-day cycles. Bortezomib was given at 1·3 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, combined with oral lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1–14 plus oral dexamethasone 20 mg daily on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The Rd regimen was given as six 28-day cycles. The standard Rd regimen consisted of 25 mg oral lenalidomide once a day for days 1–21 plus 40 mg oral dexamethasone once a day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a prespecified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0·02. Analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00644228 . Findings Between April, 2008, and February, 2012, we randomly assigned 525 patients at 139 participating institutions (264 to VRd and 261 to Rd). In the randomly assigned patients, 21 patients in the VRd group and 31 in the Rd group were deemed ineligible based mainly on missing, insufficient, or early or late baseline laboratory data. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved in the VRd group (43 months vs 30 months in the Rd group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·712, 96% CI 0·56–0·906; one-sided p value 0·0018). The median overall survival was also significantly improved in the VRd group (75 months vs 64 months in the Rd group, HR 0·709, 95% CI 0·524–0·959; two-sided p value 0·025). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 82% (176/216) in the VRd group and 72% (153/214) in the Rd group, and 16% (34/216) and 8% (18/214) of patients who were assessable for response in these respective groups had a complete response or better. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 198 (82%) of 241 patients in the VRd group and 169 (75%) of 226 patients in the Rd group; 55 (23%) and 22 (10%) patients discontinued induction treatment because of adverse events, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Rd group, and two in the VRd group. Interpretation In patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free and overall survival and had an acceptable risk-benefit profile. Funding NIH, NCI, NCTN, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Oncology Company, and Celgene Corporation.

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Feng-Cai Zhu, Alie H Wurie, Li-Hua Hou, Qi Liang, Yu-Hua Li, James B W Russell, Shi-Po Wu, Jing-Xin Li, Yue-Mei Hu, Qiang Guo, Wen-Bo Xu, Abdul R Wurie, Wen-Juan Wang, Zhe Zhang, Wen-Jiao Yin, Manal Ghazzawi, Xu Zhang, Lei Duan, Jun-Zhi Wang, Wei Chen Background A recombinant adenovirus type-5 vector-based vaccine expressing the glycoprotein of Ebola Zaire Makona variant showed good safety and immunogenicity in a phase 1 trial of healthy Chinese adults. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in healthy adults in Sierra Leone and to determine the optimal dose. Methods We did a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 clinical trial at Sierra Leone–China Friendship Hospital, Freetown, Sierra Leone. We recruited healthy adults aged 18–50 years who were HIV negative, had no history of Ebola virus infection, and had no previous immunisation with other Ebola vaccine candidates. Participants were sequentially enrolled and randomly assigned (2:1:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive the high-dose vaccine (1·6 × 10 11 viral particles), low-dose vaccine (8·0 × 10 10 viral particles), or placebo (containing only vaccine excipients, with no viral particles). Participants, investigators, and study staff (except two study pharmacists) were masked from treatment allocation. The primary safety outcome was occurrence of solicited adverse reactions within 7 days of vaccination, analysed by intention to treat. The primary immunogenicity outcome was glycoprotein-specific antibody responses at days 14, 28, and 168 after vaccination, analysed in all vaccinated participants who had blood samples drawn for antibody tests. The trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201509001259869, and is completed. Findings During Oct 10–28, 2015, 500 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the high-dose vaccine (n=250), low-dose vaccine (n=125), or placebo (n=125). 132 (53%) participants in the high-dose group, 60 (48%) in the low-dose group, and 54 (43%) in the placebo group reported at least one solicited adverse reaction within 7 days of vaccination. Most adverse reactions were mild and self-limiting. Solicited injection-site adverse reactions were significantly more frequent in vaccine recipients (65 [26%] in high-dose group and 31 [25%] in low-dose group) than in those receiving placebo (17 [14%]; p=0·0169). Glycoprotein-specific antibody responses were detected from day 14 onwards (geometric mean titre 1251·0 [95% CI 976·6–1602·5] in low-dose group and 1728·4 [1459·4–2047·0] in high-dose group) and peaked at day 28 (1471·8 [1151·0–1881·8] and 2043·1 [1762·4–2368·4]), but declined quickly in the following months (223·3 [148·2–336·4] and 254·2 [185·0–349·5] at day 168). Geometric mean titres in the placebo group remained around 6·0–6·8 throughout the study period. Three serious adverse events (malaria, gastroenteritis, and one fatal asthma episode) were reported in the high-dose vaccine group, but none was deemed related to the vaccine. Interpretation The recombinant adenovirus type-5 vector-based Ebola vaccine was safe and highly immunogenic in healthy Sierra Leonean adults, and 8·0 × 10 10 viral particles was the optimal dose. Funding Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology and the National Health and Family Planning Commission, Beijing Institute of Biotechnology, and Tianjin CanSino Biotechnology.

Description: Publication date: Available online 22 December 2016 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Richard B Warren, Ulrich Mrowietz, Ralph von Kiedrowski, Johannes Niesmann, Dagmar Wilsmann-Theis, Kamran Ghoreschi, Ina Zschocke, Thomas M Falk, Norbert Blödorn-Schlicht, Kristian Reich Background Methotrexate is one of the most commonly used systemic drugs for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis; however, high-quality evidence for its use is sparse and limited to use of oral dosing. We aimed to assess the effect of an intensified dosing schedule of subcutaneous methotrexate in patients with moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis. Methods We did this prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (METOP) at 16 sites in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of chronic plaque psoriasis for at least 6 months before baseline, had currently moderate to severe disease, and were methotrexate treatment-naive. Participants were randomly assigned (3:1), via a computer-generated random number sequence integrated into an electronic data capture system, to receive either methotrexate at a starting dose of 17·5 mg/week or placebo for the first 16 weeks, followed by methotrexate treatment of all patients up to 52 weeks (methotrexate–methotrexate vs placebo–methotrexate groups). Dose escalation to 22·5 mg/week was allowed after 8 weeks of methotrexate treatment if patients had not achieved at least a 50% reduction in baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI), with corresponding volume increases in placebo injections. Treatment was combined with folic acid 5 mg/week. Group allocation was concealed from participants and investigators from the time of randomisation until an interim database lock at week 16, and was open label from week 16 onwards, with no masking of participants or investigators. The primary efficacy endpoint was a 75% reduction in PASI score (PASI 75) from baseline to week 16. We did analysis by modified intention to treat, with non-responder imputation. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2012-002716-10. Findings Between Feb 22, 2013, and May 13, 2015, we randomly assigned 120 patients to receive methotrexate (n=91) or placebo (n=29). At week 16, a PASI 75 response was achieved in 37 (41%) patients in the methotrexate group compared with three (10%) patients in the placebo group (relative risk 3·93, 95% CI 1·31–11·81; p=0·0026). Subcutaneous methotrexate was generally well tolerated; no patients died or had serious infections, malignancies, or major adverse cardiovascular events. Serious adverse events were recorded in three (3%) patients who received methotrexate for the full 52 week treatment period. Interpretation Our findings show a favourable 52 week risk–benefit profile of subcutaneous methotrexate in patients with psoriasis. The route of administration and the intensified dosing schedule should be considered when methotrexate is used in this patient group. Funding Medac.