Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.

FUNDING

UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.

METHODS

In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2).

RESULTS

Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.

Objective

To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility.

Results

Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy.

Conclusions and Relevance

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Design and Statistical Innovations in a Platform Trial for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Platform trials allow efficient evaluation of multiple interventions for a specific disease. The HEALEY ALS Platform Trial is testing multiple investigational products in parallel and sequentially in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) with the goal of rapidly identifying novel treatments to slow disease progression. Platform trials have considerable operational and statistical efficiencies compared with typical randomized controlled trials due to their use of shared infrastructure and shared control data. We describe the statistical approaches required to achieve the objectives of a platform trial in the context of ALS. This includes following regulatory guidance for the disease area of interest and accounting for potential differences in outcomes of participants within the shared control (potentially due to differences in time of randomization, mode of administration, and eligibility criteria). Within the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, the complex statistical objectives are met using a Bayesian shared parameter analysis of function and survival. This analysis serves to provide a common integrated estimate of treatment benefit, overall slowing in disease progression, as measured by function and survival while accounting for potential differences in the shared control group using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Clinical trial simulation is used to provide a better understanding of this novel analysis method and complex design. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:547-560.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Objective

To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.

RESULTS

On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Conditional Power: How Likely Is Trial Success?

This JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods article examines conditional power, calculated while a trial is ongoing and based on both the currently observed data and an assumed treatment effect for future patients.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.

METHODS

PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.

INTERPRETATION

Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown.

Objective

To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Results

Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment.

AIM

To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE).

METHOD

Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models.

RESULTS

The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4).

CONCLUSION

Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Precision Promise (PrP): An adaptive, multi-arm registration trial in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)

TPS4188

Background: The success rate of drug development in PDAC is disappointingly low.PrP is a transformative, adaptive platform clinical trial designed to continuously evaluate many novel therapeutic options while increasing the probability that patients (pts) are randomized to effective experimental therapies. It cultivates enhanced cooperation among groups representing pts advocacy, pharmaceutical companies, academia, and the FDA. This patient-centric study aims to become the largest Phase 3 registrational study in PDAC and represents a fundamental shift in drug development for PDAC in the United States (US). Methods: PrP (NCT04229004) is a platform clinical trial sponsored by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN), developed based on the FDA 2020 guidance document regarding "complex innovative designs" in registration trials https://www.fda.gov/media/130897/download . It utilizes adaptive randomization and other Bayesian statistical innovations provided by Berry Consultants LLC, including the “time machine” which uses all previously randomized controls for each arm, suitably adjusted for line of therapy and the time period of the arm. Focused on 1st and 2nd line treatment of mPDAC, PrP uses an adaptive platform design with randomization to one of 2 control arms (gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GA) or mFOLFIRINOX, 30% of pts) or experimental therapy (70% of pts). Candidate experimental arms are reviewed by an Arm Selection Committee based on validity of the treatment target and strength of the pre-clinical and clinical data. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Pts undergo pre- and on-treatment biopsies with state-of-the-art genomic, transcriptomic, and immune analysis, along with a serial collection of blood-based research samples. Pts are managed using novel supportive care techniques; PrP contains 3 sub-protocols evaluating quality of life, sarcopenia, and actigraphy. PrP launched in 2020 and has enrolled > 130 pts; 30 US sites have been selected with 17 currently active. Current experimental arms include: (i) GA + Pamrevlumab, an anti-CTGF Ab, (ii) Racemetyrosine monotherapy, a cancer metabolism-based therapy (for follow-up of patients) and (iii) an immuno-oncology arm in activation. Other arms are in the planning stages. Compared to traditional designs, PrP offers several advantages: multiple investigational treatments evaluated in parallel over time; ̃175 pts per experimental arm required to initiate a regulatory registration; and continuous learning from every patient, resulting in significant savings of time and resources. PrP has created an entirely new learning environment for accelerating drug development in PDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT04229004.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.

Objective

To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021).

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions.

Results

The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

How to Use and Interpret the Results of a Platform Trial: Users' Guide to the Medical Literature

Platform trials are a type of randomized clinical trial that allow simultaneous comparison of multiple intervention groups against a single control group that serves as a common control based on a prespecified interim analysis plan. The platform trial design enables introduction of new interventions after the trial is initiated to evaluate multiple interventions in an ongoing manner using a single overarching protocol called a master (or core) protocol. When multiple treatment candidates are available, rapid scientific therapeutic discoveries may be made. Platform trials have important potential advantages in creating an efficient trial infrastructure that can help address critical clinical questions as the evidence evolves. Platform trials have recently been used in investigations of evolving therapies for patients with COVID-19. The purpose of this Users' Guide to the Medical Literature is to describe fundamental concepts of platform trials and master protocols and review issues in the conduct and interpretation of these studies. This Users' Guide is intended to help clinicians and readers understand articles reporting on interventions evaluated using platform trial designs.

Adaptive Platform Trials to Transform ALS Therapy Development

Current therapeutic development in ALS relies on individual randomized clinical trials to test a specific investigational product in a single patient population. This approach has intrinsic limitations including cost, time, and lack of flexibility. Adaptive platform trials represent a novel approach to investigate several interventions for a single disease in a continuous manner. Already in use in oncology, this approach is now being employed more often in neurology. Here, we describe a newly launched, platform trial for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The HEALEY ALS Platform Trial is testing multiple investigational products concurrently in people with ALS, with the goal of rapidly identifying novel treatments, biomarkers, and trial endpoints. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Hypothermia for Patients Requiring Evacuation of Subdural Hematoma: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Hypothermia is neuroprotective in some ischemia–reperfusion injuries. Ischemia–reperfusion injury may occur with traumatic subdural hematoma (SDH). This study aimed to determine whether early induction and maintenance of hypothermia in patients with acute SDH would lead to decreased ischemia–reperfusion injury and improve global neurologic outcome.

Methods

This international, multicenter randomized controlled trial enrolled adult patients with SDH requiring evacuation of hematoma within 6 h of injury. The intervention was controlled temperature management of hypothermia to 35 °C prior to dura opening followed by 33 °C for 48 h compared with normothermia (37 °C). Investigators randomly assigned patients at a 1:1 ratio between hypothermia and normothermia. Blinded evaluators assessed outcome using a 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score. Investigators measured circulating glial fibrillary acidic protein and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 levels.

Results

Independent statisticians performed an interim analysis of 31 patients to assess the predictive probability of success and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended the early termination of the study because of futility. Thirty-two patients, 16 per arm, were analyzed. Favorable 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended outcomes were not statistically significantly different between hypothermia vs. normothermia groups (6 of 16, 38% vs. 4 of 16, 25%; odds ratio 1.8 [95% confidence interval 0.39 to ∞], p = .35). Plasma levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (p = .036), but not ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (p = .26), were lower in the patients with favorable outcome compared with those with unfavorable outcome, but differences were not identified by temperature group. Adverse events were similar between groups.

Conclusions

This trial of hypothermia after acute SDH evacuation was terminated because of a low predictive probability of meeting the study objectives. There was no statistically significant difference in functional outcome identified between temperature groups.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12028-021-01334-w.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community.

METHODS

PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19).

INTERPRETATION

Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications.

FUNDING

National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.

METHODS

In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.

METHODS

In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.

METHODS

We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both.

RESULTS

Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

A meta-analysis platform methodology for determining the comparative effectiveness of antihepatitis C virus regimens

AIM

Many hepatitis C virus regimens are unlikely to be compared head to head. In more difficult to treat populations where there is no standard of care, trials are single arm. We describe a flexible meta-analysis platform in this setting.

METHODS

Our meta-analysis is literature based. We illustrate our methodology and show how inference can be extended to single-arm trials.

RESULTS

As an example, in the single arm setting, a regimen with response rates of 84, 72 and 54% in genotype 1a across treatment naive, previous partial responders and previous null responders, respectively, would have 95% probability of superiority to IFN-α + RBV + TPV.

CONCLUSION

This is a rigorous approach to comparative effectiveness that accounts for varying patient populations and plans for the incorporation of emerging treatments.

Binomial regression with a misclassified covariate and outcome

Misclassification occurring in either outcome variables or categorical covariates or both is a common issue in medical science. It leads to biased results and distorted disease-exposure relationships. Moreover, it is often of clinical interest to obtain the estimates of sensitivity and specificity of some diagnostic methods even when neither gold standard nor prior knowledge about the parameters exists. We present a novel Bayesian approach in binomial regression when both the outcome variable and one binary covariate are subject to misclassification. Extensive simulation results under various scenarios and a real clinical example are given to illustrate the proposed approach. This approach is motivated and applied to a dataset from the Baylor Alzheimer's Disease and Memory Disorders Center.

Decreased immune responses to influenza vaccination in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) patients are at risk for influenza despite widespread vaccination. Both humoral (antibody) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) responses are important for protection. We explored antibody- and CTL-mediated responses to the influenza vaccine in HF patients compared with healthy controls.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 29 HF patients (9 ischemic, 20 nonischemic) stable on HF therapies and 17 healthy controls. Participants had phlebotomy before and after influenza vaccination. Antibody production was measured in serum by hemagglutination inhibition assay and CTL responses (via interferon [IFN]-gamma and interleukin [IL]-10 production) were measured in isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. CTL responses demonstrated increased IL-10 production in HF patients after vaccination (P = .002), but similar IFN-gamma responses to healthy controls. All participants demonstrated antibody seroprotection; groups had similar rates of seroconversion (P = NS). Antibody-mediated response to the newest vaccine antigen, H3N2, was reduced in HF (P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HF had higher vaccine induced IL-10 concentrations, suggesting a different CTL phenotype for vaccine responses. HF patients did not mount as vigorous of an antibody immune response to the newest vaccine viral strain compared with healthy individuals. These data suggest that immunologic memory may be important for vaccine protection in HF patients.

Comparison of baseline dietary intake of Hispanic and matched non-Hispanic white breast cancer survivors enrolled in the Women's Healthy Eating and Living study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reported baseline dietary intake of Hispanic and non-Hispanic white breast cancer survivors in the Women's Healthy Eating and Living study, a randomized plant-based dietary intervention clinical trial.

DESIGN

Dietary data from 4 days repeated 24-hour recalls within 3 weeks included daily total intake of energy, protein, carbohydrates, cholesterol, total fat, monounsaturated fat, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, fruit/vegetable servings, carotenoids, alcohol, caffeine, and percentage of energy from protein, carbohydrates, alcohol, and fats.

SUBJECTS

One hundred sixty-five Hispanic breast cancer survivors age-matched to 165 non-Hispanic white breast cancer survivors diagnosed with Stage I, II, or IIIA primary operable breast cancer.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Two-sample t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare dietary intake, and logistic and ordinal logistic regression analyses to examine the association between ethnicity, alcohol, and lycopene consumption, while controlling for place of birth, education, body mass index, and time since diagnosis.

RESULTS

Hispanics were more likely to be foreign-born (P<0.001), less educated (P<0.0001) and to consume higher amounts of lycopene (P=0.029), while non-Hispanic whites were more likely to consume alcohol (P=0.001). However, no differences were observed in the average amounts of alcohol consumed or total percents of energy from alcohol. Both groups consumed more than five servings of fruits and vegetables daily. Being Hispanic remained a significant predictor of lower alcohol use (P=0.004) and higher lycopene consumption (P=0.005) after controlling for place of birth, education, body mass index, and time since diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There are more similarities than differences in the dietary intake of Hispanic and non-Hispanic white breast cancer survivors in the Women's Healthy Eating and Living study. Further analysis is needed to determine if higher lycopene consumption shown among the Hispanic participants will translate to greater protection against breast cancer recurrence or increased survival.

Long-term follow-up of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation with reduced-intensity conditioning for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) remains an effective strategy for inducing durable remission in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens extend HSCT to older patients and those with comorbidities who would otherwise not be suitable candidates for HSCT. The long-term efficacy of this approach is not established. We evaluated outcomes of 64 CML patients with advanced-phase disease (80% beyond first chronic phase), not eligible for myeloablative preparative regimens due to older age or comorbid conditions, who were treated with fludarabine-based RIC regimens. Donor type was matched related (n =30), 1 antigen-mismatched related (n =4), or matched unrelated (n =30). With median follow-up of 7 years, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 33% and 20%, respectively, at 5 years. Incidence of treatment-related mortality (TRM) was 33%, 39%, and 48% at 100 days, and 2 and 5 years after HSCT, respectively. In multivariate analysis, only disease stage at time of HSCT was significantly predictive for both OS and PFS. RIC HSCT provides adequate disease control in chronic-phase CML patients, but alternative treatment strategies need to be explored in patients with advanced disease. TRM rates are acceptable in this high-risk population but increase over time.

Transplant-associated microangiopathy in patients receiving tacrolimus following allogeneic stem cell transplantation: risk factors and response to treatment

Transplant-associated microangiopathy (TAM) is a life-threatening complication after allogeneic HSCT, particularly with the use of calcineurin inhibitors as post-transplantation immunosuppressive therapy. We report our experience with TAM after HSCT with tacrolimus-based GVHD prophylaxis in a single-center study. Sixty-six of 1219 transplant recipients developed TAM with a cumulative incidence of 5.9%. Risk factors for TAM were female gender, lymphoid malignancy, receipt of a matched unrelated donor, and grade II-IV aGVHD. Most patients had infection and/or active GVHD at the diagnosis of TAM (82%). In the absence of renal dysfunction or encephalopathy, tacrolimus was generally continued, maintaining blood levels within the lower therapeutic range. Sixty-three patients were treated with plasma exchange. The cumulative incidence of response of TAM was 60%. Only 1 patient had a response of TAM without resolution of concomitant infections or GVHD. Six-month survivals were 0% and 50% for TAM nonresponders and responders, respectively. In conclusion, TAM is a common, life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic transplantation using tacrolimus prophylaxis. Control of TAM generally requires response of associated infections and GVHD. TMA response may occur despite continuation of tacrolimus treatment.

Micropapillary bladder cancer

BACKGROUND

Micropapillary bladder carcinoma is a rare variant of urothelial carcinoma. To improve understanding of this disease, the authors performed a retrospective review of their experience.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the records of 100 consecutive patients with micropapillary bladder cancer who were evaluated at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years, with a male:female ratio of 10:1. The TNM stage of disease at the time of presentation was Ta in 5 patients, carcinoma in situ (CIS) in 4 patients, T1 in 35 patients, T2 in 26 patients, T3 in 7 patients, T4 in 6 patients; N+ in 9 patients, and M+ in 8 patients. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year and 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 51% and 24%, respectively. Bladder-sparing therapy with intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin therapy was attempted in 27 of 44 patients with nonmuscle-invasive disease; 67% (18 patients) developed disease progression (>or=cT2), including 22% who developed metastatic disease. Of 55 patients undergoing radical cystectomy for surgically resectable disease (<or=cT4a), 23 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 32 were treated with initial cystectomy, with no significant difference noted in stage distribution between the 2 groups. For the 23 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median OS was 43.2 months with 32% of patients still alive at 5 years. For the 32 patients treated with initial cystectomy, the median survival had not been reached at the time of last follow-up, with 71% still alive at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Micropapillary bladder cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. Intravesical therapy appears to be ineffective in this disease and patients with surgically resectable disease should be offered early radical cystectomy.

The Case for Early Cystectomy in the Treatment of Nonmuscle Invasive Micropapillary Bladder Carcinoma

PURPOSE

Micropapillary bladder carcinoma is a rare variant of UC. Due to paucity of data regarding treatment outcomes, patients with nonmuscle invasive micropapillary UC often receive intravesical therapy in an attempt at bladder preservation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of all patients evaluated at our institution who had micropapillary UC of the bladder. Of these, 44 had nonmuscle invasive disease at presentation and form the basis of this report.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 64.3 years (range 45 to 81) with a male-to-female ratio of 13:1. Stage distribution at presentation was 5 Ta (11%), 4 CIS (9%) and 35 T1 (80%). Median CSS was 81 months. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5 and 10-year CSS rates were 64% and 26%, respectively. Intravesical BCG therapy was attempted in 27 patients (61%). Of these 27 patients, 67% (18 of 27) had progression (cT2 or greater), including 22% in whom metastatic disease developed. Only 19% of patients (5 of 27, all T1) remain disease-free with an intact bladder at a median followup of 30 months. A total of 30 patients (68%) underwent cystectomy. Among patients who underwent cystectomy after progression (18), median CSS was 61.7 months with no patient surviving 10 years, whereas among those undergoing cystectomy as initial therapy (12), median survival was not reached and the 10-year CSS rate was 72%.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravesical BCG therapy appears to be ineffective against micropapillary UC. Our results suggest that the optimal treatment strategy for nonmuscle invasive micropapillary UC is radical cystectomy performed before progression.

Early results of a chemoimmunotherapy regimen of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as initial therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia

PURPOSE

Fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC), which are active in treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), are synergistic with the monoclonal antibody rituximab in vitro in lymphoma cell lines. A chemoimmunotherapy program consisting of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) was developed with the goal of increasing the complete remission (CR) rate in previously untreated CLL patients to >/= 50%.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-arm study of FCR as initial therapy in 224 patients with progressive or advanced CLL. Flow cytometry was used to measure residual disease. Results and safety were compared with a previous regimen using FC.

RESULTS

The median age was 58 years; 75 patients (33%) had Rai stage III to IV disease. The CR rate was 70% (95% CI, 63% to 76%), the nodular partial remission rate was 10%, and the partial remission rate was 15%, for an overall response rate of 95% (95% CI, 92% to 98%). Two thirds of patients evaluated with flow cytometry had less than 1% CD5- and CD19-coexpressing cells in bone marrow after therapy. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia occurred during 52% of courses; major and minor infections were seen in 2.6% and 10% of courses, respectively. One third of the 224 patients had >/= one episode of infection, and 10% had a fever of unknown origin.

CONCLUSION

FCR produced a high CR rate in previously untreated CLL. Most patients had no detectable disease on flow cytometry at the end of therapy. Time to treatment failure analysis showed that 69% of patients were projected to be failure free at 4 years (95% CI, 57% to 81%).

Healthy Growth: project description and baseline findings

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to describe the physical activity, blood pressure, and body fat patterns of sixth-grade, African-American girls (N = 82), who participated in the Healthy Growth Study. The purpose of the primary study questions was to determine which sets of variables best predict blood pressure, physical activity, and body fat.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This paper is a cross sectional analysis of the first assessment of a 5-year longitudinal project. Standard procedures were used to assess height, weight, skinfolds, blood pressure, physical activity, predictors of physical activity, maturation, dietary intake, fitness level, and health behaviors.

RESULTS

The average age of the subjects was 12.3 years; almost two-thirds of the girls had reached menarche. Fifty-two percent of the 13-year-olds had body mass index (BMI) values greater than the 85th percentile for their age and sex compared to 32% of the 12-year-olds. None of the variables were significantly related to diastolic or systolic blood pressure. Physical activity was significantly and negatively related to total percent of calories from fat and to breast stages and positively related to waist/thigh ratio. Body mass index (BMI) was significantly and positively related to breast stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Important developmental differences between 12- and 1 3-year-olds were evident. Body mass index (BMI) was mainly dependent on physical maturity. No relationship was found between BMI and blood pressure. The relationship between physical activity and waist/thigh ratio merits further study. The importance of BMI and physical inactivity as potential indicators of cardiovascular risk in adolescent girls is discussed. Developmentally appropriate and culturally competent interventions are recommended to increase physical activity and healthy eating behaviors among adolescents.

Local ice therapy during bouts of acute gouty arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of local application of ice on duration and severity of acute gouty arthritis.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with acute gout were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups. Group A (n = 10) received topical ice therapy, oral prednisone 30 mg PO tapered to 0 over 6 days and colchicine 0.6 mg/day. Group B was the control group (n = 9), given the same regimen but without the ice therapy. The patients were followed for one week.

RESULTS

The mean reduction in pain for those patients treated with ice therapy was 7.75 cm (on 10 cm visual analog scale) with standard deviation +/- 2.58 compared with 4.42 cm (+/- SD 2.96) for the control group. Using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test there was a significant difference (p = 0.021 ) in pain reduction between the ice therapy and control groups. Joint circumference and synovial fluid volume also tended to be more effectively reduced after one week of therapy in the ice group compared with controls, but these did not achieve statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The group treated with ice had a significantly greater reduction in pain compared with the control group. Although the clinical improvement was impressive, due to the small sample size we could not show statistically significant improvement in all the variables that tended to suggest that effect was more than simply analgesic. Cold applications may be a useful adjunct to treatment of acute gouty arthritis.

Dietary intake of isothiocyanates: evidence of a joint effect with glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms in lung cancer risk

Isothiocyanates (ITCs) are nonnutrient compounds in cruciferous vegetables with anticarcinogenic properties. One proposed mechanism for their protective action is through down-regulation of cytochrome P-450 biotransformation enzyme levels and induction of phase II detoxifying enzymes. Because ITCs also serve as a substrate for GSTs, we evaluated dietary intake of ITCs and GSTM1 and GSTT1 genotype information in a lung cancer case-control study. There were 503 newly diagnosed lung cancer cases (264 men and 239 women) identified from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and 465 controls (252 men and 213 women) recruited from enrollees in a local managed care organization. Subjects had an in-person interview including a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire, and blood samples were obtained for genotyping. Cases reported significantly lower ITC intake per day compared with controls (P = 0.009). There was no main effect associated with the GSTM1 null genotype [odds ratio (OR) = 1.09]. However, there was a statistically significant OR of 1.41 associated with the GSTT1 null genotype. On stratified analysis, low ITC intake and the GSTM1 null genotype were associated with increased lung cancer risk in current smokers, with an OR of 2.22 [confidence interval (CI) = 1.20-4.10). For current smokers with the GSTT1 null genotype, the OR with low ITC intake was 3.19 (CI = 1.54-6.62). The comparable OR in the presence of both null genotypes was 5.45 (CI = 1.72-17.22). These effects were not demonstrable for former smokers by GSTM1 genotype, although the risk for low ITC intake and GSTT1 null genotype was 1.79 (CI = 0.95-3.37). Thus, current smokers who are homozygous null for the GST null genotype and who consume less carcinogenic blocking compounds are at higher lung cancer risk. Some of the inconsistencies reported in the role of GST genotypes in lung cancer risk could be due to unexpected confounding from dietary factors.

D2 dopamine receptor gene polymorphisms among African-Americans and Mexican-Americans: a lung cancer case-control study

Recent research suggests that variant alleles (A1 and B1) of the DRD2 gene play a role in determining smoking status. However, no studies have evaluated these variant alleles in African-Americans and Mexican-Americans. The primary objective of this study, therefore, was to test the hypothesis that ever smokers in these ethnic groups are more likely than never smokers to have the DRD2 alleles associated with tobacco use (A1 and B1). Furthermore, because of a predicted higher prevalence of smokers in a family because of the patterns of inheritance of the genotypes associated with tobacco use, we also anticipated that individuals with these at-risk DRD2 alleles would be more likely to have a family history of smoking-related cancers. Because other inherited genetic variants may interact with smoking on cancer risk, we also hypothesized that this association might differ between cancer patients and control subjects. PCR was used to perform genotyping on peripheral WBC DNA from 140 lung cancer patients (43 Mexican-Americans and 97 African-Americans) and 222 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched controls (111 Mexican-Americans and 111 African-Americans). A personal family history was obtained from each participant. There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of the DRD2 genotypes between cases and controls, although the frequency of the B1 genotype significantly differed by ethnicity (P = 0.002 for controls and P = 0.001 for cases). The DRD2 genotypes and smoking status showed a correlation among Mexican-American controls, although not among African-American controls. The cigarette pack-years in control subjects for the two ethnic groups combined were 30.8, 21.9, and 18.6 for the A1A1, A1A2, and A2A2 genotypes and 36.5, 20.8, and 18.5 for the B1B1, B1B2, and B2B2 genotypes, respectively. Similar trends were found for the number of cigarettes smoked per day among control subjects. From the standpoint of polymorphisms, however, there was a borderline significantly increased (3.6 times greater) frequency of smoking-related cancers among the first-degree relatives of case subjects with an A1 allele than among those without an A1 allele. There was also an elevated (1.8 times greater) frequency of smoking-related cancer among first-degree relatives of case subjects with a B1 allele compared with patients without a B1 allele, but this finding was not statistically significant. This phenomenon was not observed among control subjects. We noted a trend toward interaction of DRD2 A1 genotypes and case status for increased risk of smoking-related cancer among first-degree relatives. These findings suggest that the variant DRD2 genotypes are associated with a greater likelihood to smoke and a greater smoking intensity, as well as with a familial aggregation of smoking-related cancers. However, a large study is needed to confirm this finding.