Phase 2b Controlled Trial of M72/AS01E Vaccine to Prevent Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: A vaccine to interrupt the transmission of tuberculosis is needed. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial of the M72/AS01E tuberculosis vaccine in Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative adults 18 to 50 years of age with latent M. tuberculosis infection (by interferon-γ release assay) were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive two doses of either M72/AS01E or placebo intramuscularly 1 month apart. Most participants had previously received the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine. We assessed the safety of M72/AS01E and its efficacy against progression to bacteriologically confirmed active pulmonary tuberculosis disease. Clinical suspicion of tuberculosis was confirmed with sputum by means of a polymerase-chain-reaction test, mycobacterial culture, or both. RESULTS: We report the primary analysis (conducted after a mean of 2.3 years of follow-up) of the ongoing trial. A total of 1786 participants received M72/AS01E and 1787 received placebo, and 1623 and 1660 participants in the respective groups were included in the according-to-protocol efficacy cohort. A total of 10 participants in the M72/AS01E group met the primary case definition (bacteriologically confirmed active pulmonary tuberculosis, with confirmation before treatment), as compared with 22 participants in the placebo group (incidence, 0.3 cases vs. 0.6 cases per 100 person-years). The vaccine efficacy was 54.0% (90% confidence interval [CI], 13.9 to 75.4; 95% CI, 2.9 to 78.2; P=0.04). Results for the total vaccinated efficacy cohort were similar (vaccine efficacy, 57.0%; 90% CI, 19.9 to 76.9; 95% CI, 9.7 to 79.5; P=0.03). There were more unsolicited reports of adverse events in the M72/AS01E group (67.4%) than in the placebo group (45.4%) within 30 days after injection, with the difference attributed mainly to injection-site reactions and influenza-like symptoms. Serious adverse events, potential immune-mediated diseases, and deaths occurred with similar frequencies in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: M72/AS01E provided 54.0% protection for M. tuberculosis-infected adults against active pulmonary tuberculosis disease, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and Aeras; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01755598 .)

Melanoma and use of sunscreens: An EORTC case‐control study in germany, belgium and france

Use of sunscreens is widely advocated as a preventive measure against sun‐induced skin cancers. However, to date, no epidemiologic study has reported a decreased melanoma risk associated with sunscreen use. We have conducted a case‐control study aimed at evaluating the influence of sunscreen use on the occurrence of cutaneous malignant melanoma. In 1991 and 1992, 418 melanoma cases and 438 healthy controls were interviewed in Germany, France and Belgium. The questionnaire used differentiated between regular sunscreens, psoralen sunscreen (prepared with 5‐methoxypsoralen, a tanning activator and photocarcinogen), and self‐tanning cosmetics (which produce a tan without ultraviolet radiation). After adjusting for age, sex, hair colour and holiday weeks spent each year in sunny resorts, the melanoma risk was of 1.50 (95% CI:1.09–2.06) for regular sunscreens, and of 2.28 (95% CI: 1.28–4.04) for psoralen sunscreens. No melanoma risk was associated with use of self‐tanning cosmetics. Among subjects with a poor ability to tan, psoralen sunscreen users displayed a melanoma risk of 4.45 (95% CI: 1.25–15.8) when compared with regular sunscreen users. There was a significant negative interaction between regular sunscreen use and sunburns experienced in adulthood. Use of sunscreens, especially psoralen sunscreen, was associated with higher density of pigmented lesions of the skin. Although we cannot exclude the presence of an unknown confounding factor, our results support the hypothesis that sunscreens do not protect against melanoma, probably because of their ability to delay or avoid sunburn episodes, which may allow prolonged exposure to unfiltered ultraviolet radiation. Serious doubts are raised regarding the safety of sunscreens containing psoralens. © 1995 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. Copyright © 1995 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. A Wiley CompanySCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Phase 2b controlled trial of M72/AS01E vaccine to prevent tuberculosis

CITATION: Van der Meeren, O. et al. 2018. Phase 2b controlled trial of M72/AS01E vaccine to prevent tuberculosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 379:1621-1634, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1803484.The original publication is available at https://www.nejm.orgBACKGROUND: A vaccine to interrupt the transmission of tuberculosis is needed. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial of the M72/AS01E tuberculosis vaccine in Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–negative adults 18 to 50 years of age with latent M. tuberculosis infection (by interferon-γ release assay) were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive two doses of either M72/AS01E or placebo intramuscularly 1 month apart. Most participants had previously received the bacille Calmette–Guérin vaccine. We assessed the safety of M72/AS01E and its efficacy against progression to bacteriologically confirmed active pulmonary tuberculosis disease. Clinical suspicion of tuberculosis was confirmed with sputum by means of a polymerase-chain-reaction test, mycobacterial culture, or both. RESULTS: We report the primary analysis (conducted after a mean of 2.3 years of follow-up) of the ongoing trial. A total of 1786 participants received M72/AS01E and 1787 received placebo, and 1623 and 1660 participants in the respective groups were included in the according-to-protocol efficacy cohort. A total of 10 participants in the M72/AS01E group met the primary case definition (bacteriologically confirmed active pulmonary tuberculosis, with confirmation before treatment), as compared with 22 participants in the placebo group (incidence, 0.3 cases vs. 0.6 cases per 100 person-years). The vaccine efficacy was 54.0% (90% confidence interval [CI], 13.9 to 75.4; 95% CI, 2.9 to 78.2; P=0.04). Results for the total vaccinated efficacy cohort were similar (vaccine efficacy, 57.0%; 90% CI, 19.9 to 76.9; 95% CI, 9.7 to 79.5; P=0.03). There were more unsolicited reports of adverse events in the M72/AS01E group (67.4%) than in the placebo group (45.4%) within 30 days after injection, with the difference attributed mainly to injection-site reactions and influenza-like symptoms. Serious adverse events, potential immune-mediated diseases, and deaths occurred with similar frequencies in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: M72/AS01E provided 54.0% protection for M. tuberculosis–infected adults against active pulmonary tuberculosis disease, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and Aeras; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01755598. opens in new tab.)https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1803484Publisher's versio

Hepatitis C Virus Infection Epidemiology among People Who Inject Drugs in Europe: A Systematic Review of Data for Scaling Up Treatment and Prevention

Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) are a key population affected by hepatitis C virus (HCV). Treatment options are improving and may enhance prevention; however access for PWID may be poor. The availability in the literature of information on seven main topic areas (incidence, chronicity, genotypes, HIV co-infection, diagnosis and treatment uptake, and burden of disease) to guide HCV treatment and prevention scale-up for PWID in the 27 countries of the European Union is systematically reviewed. Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for publications between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2012, with a search strategy of general keywords regarding viral hepatitis, substance abuse and geographic scope, as well as topic-specific keywords. Additional articles were found through structured email consultations with a large European expert network. Data availability was highly variable and important limitations existed in comparability and representativeness. Nine of 27 countries had data on HCV incidence among PWID, which was often high (2.7-66/100 person-years, median 13, Interquartile range (IQR) 8.7-28). Most common HCV genotypes were G1 and G3; however, G4 may be increasing, while the proportion of traditionally ‘difficult to treat’ genotypes (G1+G4) showed large variation (median 53,IQR 43-62). Twelve countries reported on HCV chronicity (median 72, IQR 64-81) and 22 on HIV prevalence in HCV-infected PWID (median 3.9%, IQR 0.2-28). Undiagnosed infection, assessed in five countries, was high (median 49%, IQR 38-64), while of those diagnosed, the proportion entering treatment was low (median 9.5%, IQR 3.5-15). Burden of disease, where assessed, was high and will rise in the next decade. Conclusion: Key data on HCV epidemiology, care and disease burden among PWID in Europe are sparse but suggest many undiagnosed infections and poor treatment uptake. Stronger efforts are needed to improve data availability to guide an increase in HCV treatment among PWID