-
1.
Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MAIA): overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Facon, T, Kumar, SK, Plesner, T, Orlowski, RZ, Moreau, P, Bahlis, N, Basu, S, Nahi, H, Hulin, C, Quach, H, et al
The Lancet. Oncology. 2021;(11):1582-1596
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival. METHODS MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172. FINDINGS Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7-59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8-not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6-39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7-not reached; HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·86]; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation. FUNDING Janssen Research & Development.
-
2.
All-trans retinoic acid plus high-dose dexamethasone as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.
Huang, QS, Liu, Y, Wang, JB, Peng, J, Hou, M, Liu, H, Feng, R, Wang, JW, Xu, LP, Wang, Y, et al
The Lancet. Haematology. 2021;(10):e688-e699
Abstract
BACKGROUND High-dose dexamethasone is the standard initial treatment for patients with immune thrombocytopenia, but many patients still relapse and require further treatments. All-trans retinoic acid has been shown to exert immunomodulatory effects and promote thrombopoiesis, and so we aimed to assess the activity and safety of all-trans retinoic acid plus high-dose dexamethasone as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed patients with immune thrombocytopenia. METHODS This multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial was done at six different tertiary medical centres in China. Eligible participants were adults (aged >18 years) with treatment-naive, newly diagnosed, primary immune thrombocytopenia who had either a platelet count of less than 30 × 109 platelets per L or a platelet count of less than 50 × 109 platelets per L and clinically significant bleeding. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either all-trans retinoic acid (10 mg orally twice daily for 12 weeks) plus high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day intravenously for 4 consecutive days) or high-dose dexamethasone alone using a central, web-based randomisation system. If patients did not respond by day 14, the 4-day course of dexamethasone was repeated. The primary endpoint was 6-month sustained response, defined as the maintenance of a platelet count of at least 30 × 109 platelets per L and at least 2-times higher than the baseline count and the absence of bleeding, with no need for rescue medication at this time. The primary endpoint was analysed by intention-to-treat and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04217148, and is now completed. FINDINGS Between Jan 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020, 132 patients were randomly assigned to either all-trans retinoic acid plus high-dose dexamethasone (n=66) or high-dose dexamethasone alone (n=66). Three patients did not receive their allocated treatment, leaving 129 in the safety analysis set. At 6 months, a significantly higher proportion of participants in the all-trans retinoic acid plus high-dose dexamethasone group (45 [68%] of 66) than in the high-dose dexamethasone monotherapy group (27 [41%] of 66) had a sustained response (OR 3·095, 95% CI 1·516-6·318; p=0·0017). The most common adverse events were dry skin (31 [48%] of 64 patients), headaches (12 [19%]), and insomnia (12 [19%]) in the combination group, and insomnia (ten [15%] of 65 patients) and anxiety or mood disorders (eight [12%]) in the monotherapy group. Both treatments were well tolerated and no grade 4 or worse adverse events occurred. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION The combination of all-trans retinoic acid and high-dose dexamethasone was safe and active in newly diagnosed patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia, providing a sustained response. This regimen represents a potential first-line treatment in this setting, but further studies are needed to validate its efficacy and safety. FUNDING The Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Natural Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
-
3.
Enhanced recovery after surgery program involving preoperative dexamethasone administration for head and neck surgery with free tissue transfer reconstruction: Single-center prospective observational study.
Imai, T, Kurosawa, K, Asada, Y, Momma, Y, Takahashi, M, Satake, N, Azuma, M, Suzuki, A, Sasaki, M, Morita, S, et al
Surgical oncology. 2020;:197-205
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are few reports on Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)-based perioperative management following head and neck surgery with free tissue transfer reconstruction (HNS-FTTR). Here, we prospectively evaluated our ERAS program involving preoperative glucocorticoid administration in HNS-FTTR. METHODS This prospective study included 60 patients who underwent HNS-FTTR at the Miyagi Cancer Center from June 2017 to December 2018. Their treatment plan included receiving perioperative management in accordance with our head and neck ERAS program. Major outcomes of hospitalization periods, early mobilization, early enteral nutrition, and patient satisfaction were assessed, and blood date and vital signs were compared with control patients who underwent HNS-FTTR from January 2014 to September 2016 at our institution before ERAS was implemented. RESULTS The duration of hospital stay and the duration until completion of the discharge criteria was a median of 25 days and 17 days, respectively. Early mobilization was achieved in 86.0% of the patients at postoperative-day (POD)1 and 96.5% at POD2. Enteral nutrition was started in 80.1% at POD1 and 100% at POD2. Postoperative pain was controlled at mean VAS scores of 1.51-3.13. Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher postoperative complications were evident in 27.6% of the patients. The mean QOR40 score was 179.6 preoperatively, 146.1 at POD3, and 167.8 at POD7. Compared with the control group, there were significantly lower C-reactive protein levels, higher albumin levels, a lower body temperature, a lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, less body weight fluctuation, and fewer incidences of decreased blood pressure in the ERAS group. CONCLUSION Patients who underwent HNS-FTTR with ERAS-based perioperative management achieved early mobilization, early enteral nutrition, favorable pain control, remarkable recovery of patient satisfaction at POD7, and there was evidence of better hemodynamic stability and less inflammatory response compared with control patients.
-
4.
A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Povidone-Iodine 0.6% and Dexamethasone 0.1% Ophthalmic Suspension for Acute Bacterial Conjunctivitis.
Ta, CN, Raizman, MB, Gross, RD, Joshi, S, Mallick, S, Wang, Y, Segal, B
American journal of ophthalmology. 2020;:56-65
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a topical ophthalmic suspension combination of povidone-iodine 0.6% (PVP-I) and dexamethasone 0.1% (DEX) for infectious and inflammatory components of bacterial conjunctivitis. DESIGN Randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS Subjects of all ages (those <3 months had to be full-term) with a diagnosis of bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized 3:1:3 to either PVP-I/DEX, PVP-I alone, or placebo. The primary endpoint was clinical resolution in the study eye, and the key secondary efficacy endpoint was bacterial eradication, both at the day 5 visit. Adverse events (AEs) were documented at all visits. RESULTS Overall, 753 subjects were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] population; PVP-I/DEX [n = 324]; PVP-I [n = 108]; placebo [n = 321]); mean and standard deviation (SD) age was 44.3 (22.9) years, and most were female (61.2%) and white (78.1%). In all treatment groups, mean treatment compliance was >98%. The modified ITT population for the efficacy analysis comprised 526 subjects. In the study eye at the day 5 visit, clinical resolution was achieved by 50.5% (111/220) subjects in the PVP-I/DEX group vs 42.8% (95/222) in the placebo group (P = .127), and bacterial eradication was achieved by 43.3% (94/217) and 46.8% (102/218), respectively (P = .500). Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 32.8% (106/323), 39.8% (43/108), and 19.0% (61/321) of subjects in the safety population treated with PVP-I/DEX, PVP-I, and placebo, respectively (most mild in severity). CONCLUSION In this study, PVP-I/DEX did not demonstrate additional benefit in clinical efficacy compared with placebo in subjects with bacterial conjunctivitis.
-
5.
Study protocol for efficacy and safety of steroid-containing mouthwash to prevent chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in women with breast cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 study.
Kuba, S, Yamanouchi, K, Matsumoto, M, Maeda, S, Hatachi, T, Sakiko, S, Kawashita, Y, Morita, M, Sakimura, C, Inamasu, E, et al
BMJ open. 2020;(2):e033446
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Stomatitis is a frequent adverse event in patients undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. Stomatitis can hamper oral nutrition resulting in malnutrition, reduce quality of life and introduce the need for dose reductions and interruption of chemotherapy; however, there is currently no standard approach for preventing chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a dexamethasone-based elixir mouthwash for preventing chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in patients with early breast cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS In this multicenter, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial, we will randomly assign 120 women with early breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy to use of a dexamethasone-based elixir or standard oral care, to compare their preventive effects on chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. Patients will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the intervention group will receive chemotherapy, oral care and a dexamethasone-based elixir (10 mL 0.1 mg/mL; swish for 2 min and spit, four times daily for 9 weeks), and patients in the control group will receive chemotherapy and oral care. The primary endpoint is the difference in incidence of stomatitis between the two groups. The sample size allows for the detection of a minimum difference of 20% in the incidence of stomatitis between the two groups. Secondary endpoints are severity of stomatitis, duration of stomatitis, completion rate of chemotherapy and adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION All participants signed a written consent form, and the study protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Clinical Research Review Board of Nagasaki University (CRB7180001). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000030489).
-
6.
The feasibility of dexamethasone omission in weekly paclitaxel treatment for breast cancer patients.
de Castro Baccarin, AL, Irene, MN, de Iracema Gomes Cubero, D, Luz, AS, Castro, SN, Sordi, R, Móz, LES, Del Giglio, A
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2019;(3):927-931
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patients with breast cancer who receive weekly paclitaxel therapy may experience deleterious effects associated with prophylactic dexamethasone use for 12 consecutive weeks. Approximately 90% of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) occur within the first 10 to 15 min of the first two infusions. We investigated the feasibility of dexamethasone withdrawal between weeks 3 and 12 (W3 and W12) in early stage breast cancer patients treated with weekly paclitaxel at the standard dose (80 mg/m2). METHODS All patients received intravenous prophylaxis of dexamethasone 20 mg, ranitidine 50 mg, and diphenhydramine 50 mg in the first 2 weeks (W1 and W2) of treatment. Provided that no serious (G3/G4) HSRs events occurred, dexamethasone was omitted between W3 and W12, while ranitidine and diphenhydramine were continued. The primary end point was the incidence of any grade HSRs during the treatment period, and the secondary end points were quality of life and weight changes. RESULTS Twenty-five patients were included in the study, and 300 infusion cycles of paclitaxel were evaluated for HSRs. The overall incidence of HSRs was 0.6% (2 events), and both of these events occurred in the first week. There were no incidents of serious HSRs or anaphylaxis and no G3 or G4 toxicities. Scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire did not change significantly for the global health status/quality of life scale or for the symptoms scales, although changes in scores differed significantly for the functional scales. There were no clinically relevant weight changes during the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS Dexamethasone withdrawal from W3 to W12 in early stage breast cancer patients treated with weekly paclitaxel is feasible. The incidence of all grades of HSRs was comparable to that reported in trials with dexamethasone for 12 consecutive weeks, and no serious events (G3/G4) occurred. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm our results which are important, especially for patients for whom corticosteroids are contraindicated.
-
7.
Safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in Chinese patients: randomized, sham-controlled, multicenter study.
Li, X, Wang, N, Liang, X, Xu, G, Li, XY, Jiao, J, Lou, J, Hashad, Y, ,
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2018;(1):59-69
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) for treatment of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO). METHODS This study was a six-month, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial with a 2-month open-label study extension. Patients with branch or central RVO received DEX (n = 129) or sham procedure (n = 130) in the study eye at baseline; all patients who met re-treatment criteria received DEX at month 6. Efficacy measures included Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography. RESULTS Time to ≥15-letter BCVA improvement from baseline during the first 6 months (primary endpoint) was earlier with DEX than sham (p < 0.001). At month 2 (peak effect), the percentage of patients with ≥15-letter BCVA improvement from baseline was DEX: 35%, sham: 12%; mean BCVA change from baseline was DEX: +10.6 letters, sham: +1.7 letters; and mean CRT change from baseline was DEX: -407 μm, sham: -62 μm (all p < 0.001). Outcomes were better with DEX than sham in both branch and central RVO. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Increases in IOP generally were controlled with topical medication. Mean IOP normalized by month 4, and no patient required incisional glaucoma surgery. CONCLUSIONS DEX had a favorable safety profile and provided clinically significant benefit in a Chinese patient population with RVO. Visual and anatomic outcomes were improved with DEX relative to sham for 3-4 months after a single implant.
-
8.
Effect of Adding Dexamethasone to Continued Ranibizumab Treatment in Patients With Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema: A DRCR Network Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.
Maturi, RK, Glassman, AR, Liu, D, Beck, RW, Bhavsar, AR, Bressler, NM, Jampol, LM, Melia, M, Punjabi, OS, Salehi-Had, H, et al
JAMA ophthalmology. 2018;(1):29-38
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Some eyes have persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for DME. Subsequently adding intravitreous corticosteroids to the treatment regimen might result in better outcomes than continued anti-VEGF therapy alone. OBJECTIVE To compare continued intravitreous ranibizumab alone with ranibizumab plus intravitreous dexamethasone implant in eyes with persistent DME. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Phase 2 multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 40 US sites in 129 eyes from 116 adults with diabetes between February 2014 and December 2016. Eyes had persistent DME, with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 after at least 3 anti-VEGF injections before a run-in phase, which included an additional 3 monthly 0.3-mg ranibizumab injections. Data analysis was according to intent to treat. INTERVENTIONS Following the run-in phase, study eyes that had persistent DME and were otherwise eligible were randomly assigned to receive 700 μg of dexamethasone (combination group, 65 eyes) or sham treatment (ranibizumab group, 64 eyes) in addition to continued 0.3-mg ranibizumab in both treatment arms as often as every 4 weeks based on a structured re-treatment protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change in mean visual acuity letter score at 24 weeks as measured by the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS). The principal secondary outcome was change in mean central subfield thickness as measured with the use of optical coherence tomography. RESULTS Of the 116 randomized patients, median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58-71 years); 50.9% were female and 60.3% were white. Mean (SD) improvement in visual acuity from randomization was 2.7 (9.8) letters in the combination group and 3.0 (7.1) letters in the ranibizumab group, with the adjusted treatment group difference (combination minus ranibizumab) of -0.5 letters (95% CI, -3.6 to 2.5; 2-sided P = .73). Mean (SD) change in central subfield thickness in the combination group was -110 (86) μm compared with -62 (97) μm for the ranibizumab group (adjusted difference, -52; 95% CI, -82 to -22; 2-sided P < .001). Nineteen eyes (29%) in the combination group experienced increased intraocular pressure or initiated treatment with antihypertensive eyedrops compared with 0 in the ranibizumab group (2-sided P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although its use is more likely to reduce retinal thickness and increase intraocular pressure, the addition of intravitreous dexamethasone to continued ranibizumab therapy does not improve visual acuity at 24 weeks more than continued ranibizumab therapy alone among eyes with persistent DME following anti-VEGF therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01945866.
-
9.
Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in retinal vein occlusion: real-life data from a prospective, multicenter clinical trial.
Eter, N, Mohr, A, Wachtlin, J, Feltgen, N, Shirlaw, A, Leaback, R, ,
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2017;(1):77-87
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the relationship between duration of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and the achievement of vision gain in patients receiving dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) in real-world clinical practice, and to define patterns of use of DEX implant and its efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with RVO in clinical practice. METHODS This prospective, open-label, multicenter, 6-month observational phase IV study conducted at 70 sites in Germany enrolled patients diagnosed with macular edema following branch or central RVO (BRVO, CRVO) who were given DEX implant. Follow-up visits and evaluations occurred in accordance with normal clinical practice. Re-treatment with DEX implant and use of other RVO therapies was at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline at week 12. RESULTS The analysis population consisted of 573 patients (64 % BRVO, 36 % CRVO). Patients received a mean of 1.17 DEX implant treatments during the study period; 84.3 % of patients received a single DEX implant and 19.9 % received adjunctive other RVO treatment. Among patients with analyzable BCVA data at baseline and week 12 (n = 351), mean change from baseline BCVA at week 12 was -0.16 (standard deviation, 0.30) logMAR (+7.8 approximate Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters) (p < 0.001), and 33.9 % of patients had gained at least 3 lines in BCVA from baseline. Mean change from baseline BCVA at week 12 was +9.5, +7.3, and +5.4 approximate ETDRS letters in patients with macular edema duration < 90 days, from 90 to 180 days, and >180 days respectively. Improvement in BCVA through week 24 and decreases in central retinal thickness were seen in both BRVO and CRVO. The most common adverse drug reaction was increased intraocular pressure. No glaucoma incisional surgeries were required. CONCLUSIONS DEX implant was effective in improving BCVA and central retinal thickness in patients with BRVO and CRVO in real-world clinical practice. The largest gains in BCVA over 6 months occurred in patients with recent onset macular edema, confirming the benefit of early treatment. DEX implant was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile.
-
10.
Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Durie, BGM, Hoering, A, Abidi, MH, Rajkumar, SV, Epstein, J, Kahanic, SP, Thakuri, M, Reu, F, Reynolds, CM, Sexton, R, et al
Lancet (London, England). 2017;(10068):519-527
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
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 × 103 cells per mm3 or higher, and a platelet count of 80 000/mm3 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/m2 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.