Efficacy and safety of delamanid in combination with an optimised background regimen for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group phase 3 trial

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Background: Delamanid is one of two recently approved drugs for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of delamanid in the first 6 months of treatment. Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 17 sites in seven countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Peru, the Philippines, and South Africa). We enrolled eligible adults (\u3e18 years) with pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis to receive, in combination with an optimised background regimen developed according to WHO and national guidelines, either oral delamanid (100 mg twice daily) for 2 months followed by 200 mg once daily for 4 months or placebo (same regimen). Patients were centrally randomised (2:1) and stratified by risk category for delayed sputum culture conversion. Primary outcomes were the time to sputum culture conversion over 6 months and the difference in the distribution of time to sputum culture conversion over 6 months between the two groups, as assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01424670. Findings: Between Sept 2, 2011, and Nov 27, 2013, we screened 714 patients, of whom 511 were randomly assigned (341 to delamanid plus optimised background regimen [delamanid group] and 170 to placebo plus optimised background regimen [placebo group]) and formed the safety analysis population. 327 patients were culture-positive for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis at baseline and comprised the efficacy analysis population (226 in the delamanid group and 101 in the placebo group). Median time to sputum culture conversion did not differ between the two groups (p=0·0562; modified Peto-Peto), with 51 days (IQR 29–98) in the delamanid group and 57 days (43–85) in the placebo group; the hazard ratio was 1·17 (95% CI 0·91–1·51, p=0·2157). 501 (98·0%) of 511 patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. 136 (26·6%) of 511 patients had at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event; the incidence was similar between treatment groups (89 [26·1%] of 341 patients for delamanid and 47 [27·6%] of 170 for placebo). Deaths related to treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups (15 [4·4%] of 341 for delamanid and six [3·5%] of 170 for placebo). No deaths were considered to be related to delamanid. Interpretation: The reduction in median time to sputum culture conversion over 6 months was not significant in the primary analysis. Delamanid was well tolerated with a highly characterised safety profile. Further evaluation of delamanid is needed to determine its role in a rapidly evolving standard of care. Funding: Otsuka Pharmaceutical

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group