METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, assessor-masked trial at ten Australian hospitals. Our hypothesis was CRBSI equivalence for central venous access devices and non-inferiority for peripheral arterial catheters (both 2% margin). Adults and children with expected greater than 24 h central venous access device-peripheral arterial catheter use were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by hospital, catheter type, and intensive care unit or ward) by a centralised, web-based service (concealed before allocation) to infusion set replacement every 7 days, or 4 days. This included crystalloids, non-lipid parenteral nutrition, and medication infusions. Patients and clinicians were not masked, but the primary outcome (CRBSI) was adjudicated by masked infectious diseases physicians. The analysis was modified intention to treat (mITT). This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000505000 and is complete.

FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec, 9, 2016, from 6007 patients assessed, we assigned 2944 patients to 7-day (n=1463) or 4-day (n=1481) infusion set replacement, with 2941 in the mITT analysis. For central venous access devices, 20 (1·78%) of 1124 patients (7-day group) and 16 (1·46%) of 1097 patients (4-day group) had CRBSI (absolute risk difference [ARD] 0·32%, 95% CI -0·73 to 1·37). For peripheral arterial catheters, one (0·28%) of 357 patients in the 7-day group and none of 363 patients in the 4-day group had CRBSI (ARD 0·28%, -0·27% to 0·83%). There were no treatment-related adverse events.

INTERPRETATION: Infusion set use can be safely extended to 7 days with resultant cost and workload reductions.

METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study was done at 26 sites (primarily secondary or tertiary centres) in 12 countries. Men, boys, and young adults aged 12 years or older with severe haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors previously treated with on-demand bypassing agents were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous fitusiran prophylaxis (fitusiran prophylaxis group) or to continue with bypassing agents on-demand (bypassing agents on-demand group) for 9 months. The primary endpoint was mean annualised bleeding rate during the efficacy period in the intention-to-treat population estimated by negative binomial model. Safety was assessed as a secondary endpoint in the safety population. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03417102.

FINDINGS: Between Feb 14, 2018, and June 23, 2021, 85 participants were screened for inclusion, of whom 57 (67%; 57 [100%] men; median age 27·0 years [IQR 19·5-33·5]) were randomly assigned: 19 (33%) participants to the bypassing agent on-demand group and 38 (67%) participants to the fitusiran prophylaxis. Negative binomial model-based mean annualised bleeding rate was significantly lower in the fitusiran prophylaxis group (1·7 [95% CI 1·0-2·7]) than in the bypassing agents on-demand group (18·1 [10·6-30·8]), corresponding to a 90·8% (95% CI 80·8-95·6) reduction in annualised bleeding rate in favour of fitusiran prophylaxis (p<0·0001). 25 (66%) participants had zero treated bleeds in the fitusiran prophylaxis group versus one (5%) in the bypassing agents on-demand group. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event in the fitusiran prophylaxis group was increased alanine aminotransferase in 13 (32%) of 41 participants in the safety population; there were no increased alanine aminotransferase treatment-emergent adverse events in the bypassing agents on-demand group. Suspected or confirmed thromboembolic events were reported in two (5%) participants in the fitusiran prophylaxis group. No deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous fitusiran prophylaxis resulted in statistically significant reductions in annualised bleeding rate in participants with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors, with two-thirds of participants having zero bleeds. Fitusiran prophylaxis might show haemostatic efficacy in participants with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors; therefore, the therapeutic might have the potential to improve the management of people with haemophilia.

METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial was done at 60 hospitals and clinics in 20 countries. Eligible study participants were aged between 12 and 75 years with a documented history of GPP as per the European Rare and Severe Psoriasis Expert Network criteria, with a history of at least two past GPP flares, and a GPP Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) score of 0 or 1 at screening and random assignment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous placebo, subcutaneous low-dose spesolimab (300 mg loading dose followed by 150 mg every 12 weeks), subcutaneous medium-dose spesolimab (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 12 weeks), or subcutaneous high-dose spesolimab (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 4 weeks) over 48 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate a non-flat dose-response curve on the primary endpoint, time to first GPP flare.

FINDINGS: From June 8, 2020, to Nov 23, 2022, 157 patients were screened, of whom 123 were randomly assigned. 92 were assigned to receive spesolimab (30 high dose, 31 medium dose, and 31 low dose) and 31 to placebo. All patients were either Asian (79 [64%] of 123) or White (44 [36%]). Patient groups were similar in sex distribution (76 [62%] female and 47 [38%] male), age (mean 40·4 years, SD 15·8), and GPP Physician Global Assessment score. A non-flat dose-response relationship was established on the primary endpoint. By week 48, 35 patients had GPP flares; seven (23%) of 31 patients in the low-dose spesolimab group, nine (29%) of 31 patients in the medium-dose spesolimab group, three (10%) of 30 patients in the high-dose spesolimab group, and 16 (52%) of 31 patients in the placebo group. High-dose spesolimab was significantly superior versus placebo on the primary outcome of time to GPP flare (hazard ratio [HR]=0·16, 95% CI 0·05-0·54; p=0·0005) endpoint. HRs were 0·35 (95% CI 0·14-0·86, nominal p=0·0057) in the low-dose spesolimab group and 0·47 (0·21-1·06, p=0·027) in the medium-dose spesolimab group. We established a non-flat dose-response relationship for spesolimab compared with placebo, with statistically significant p values for each predefined model (linear p=0·0022, emax1 p=0·0024, emax2 p=0·0023, and exponential p=0·0034). Infection rates were similar across treatment arms; there were no deaths and no hypersensitivity reactions leading to discontinuation.

INTERPRETATION: High-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo in GPP flare prevention, significantly reducing the risk of a GPP flare and flare occurrence over 48 weeks. Given the chronic nature of GPP, a treatment for flare prevention is a significant shift in the clinical approach, and could ultimately lead to improvements in patient morbidity and quality of life.