Randomized Trial of Three Anticonvulsant Medications for Status Epilepticus.

BACKGROUND: The choice of drugs for patients with status epilepticus that is refractory to treatment with benzodiazepines has not been thoroughly studied. METHODS: In a randomized, blinded, adaptive trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of three intravenous anticonvulsive agents - levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate - in children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus that was unresponsive to treatment with benzodiazepines. The primary outcome was absence of clinically evident seizures and improvement in the level of consciousness by 60 minutes after the start of drug infusion, without additional anticonvulsant medication. The posterior probabilities that each drug was the most or least effective were calculated. Safety outcomes included life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, seizure recurrence, and death. RESULTS: A total of 384 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive levetiracetam (145 patients), fosphenytoin (118), or valproate (121). Reenrollment of patients with a second episode of status epilepticus accounted for 16 additional instances of randomization. In accordance with a prespecified stopping rule for futility of finding one drug to be superior or inferior, a planned interim analysis led to the trial being stopped. Of the enrolled patients, 10% were determined to have had psychogenic seizures. The primary outcome of cessation of status epilepticus and improvement in the level of consciousness at 60 minutes occurred in 68 patients assigned to levetiracetam (47%; 95% credible interval, 39 to 55), 53 patients assigned to fosphenytoin (45%; 95% credible interval, 36 to 54), and 56 patients assigned to valproate (46%; 95% credible interval, 38 to 55). The posterior probability that each drug was the most effective was 0.41, 0.24, and 0.35, respectively. Numerically more episodes of hypotension and intubation occurred in the fosphenytoin group and more deaths occurred in the levetiracetam group than in the other groups, but these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of benzodiazepine-refractory convulsive status epilepticus, the anticonvulsant drugs levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate each led to seizure cessation and improved alertness by 60 minutes in approximately half the patients, and the three drugs were associated with similar incidences of adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; ESETT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01960075.).

Efficacy of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate for established status epilepticus by age group (ESETT): a double-blind, responsive-adaptive, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (<18 years, 18-65 years, and >65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075. FINDINGS: Between Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged <18 years), 186 adults (18-65 years), and 51 older adults (>65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group. INTERPRETATION: Children, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. FUNDING: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. METHODS: We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner. FUNDING: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

Inhaled steroids reduce pain and sVCAM levels in individuals with sickle cell disease: A triple-blind, randomized trial.

Clinical and preclinical data demonstrate that altered pulmonary physiology (including increased inflammation, increased blood flow, airway resistance, and hyper-reactivity) is an intrinsic component of Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) and may contribute to excess SCD morbidity and mortality. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), a safe and effective therapy for pulmonary inflammation in asthma, may ameliorate the altered pulmonary physiologic milieu in SCD. With this single-center, longitudinal, randomized, triple-blind, placebo controlled trial we studied the efficacy and feasibility of ICS in 54 nonasthmatic individuals with SCD. Participants received once daily mometasone furoate 220 mcg dry powder inhalation or placebo for 16 weeks. The primary outcome was feasibility (the number who complete the trial divided by the total number enrolled) with prespecified efficacy outcomes including daily pain score over time (patient reported) and change in soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule (sVCAM) levels between entry and 8-weeks. For the primary outcome of feasibility, the result was 96% (52 of 54, 95% CI 87%-99%) for the intent-to-treat analysis and 83% (45 of 54, 95% CI 71%-91%) for the per-protocol analysis. The adjusted treatment effect of mometasone was a reduction in daily pain score of 1.42 points (95%CI 0.61-2.21, P = 0.001). Mometasone was associated with a reduction in sVCAM levels of 526.94 ng/mL more than placebo (95% CI 50.66-1003.23, P = 0.03). These results support further study of ICS in SCD including multicenter trials and longer durations of treatment. www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02061202).

Using Bayesian Adaptive Trial Designs for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Virtual Trial Execution.

BACKGROUND: Bayesian and adaptive clinical trial designs offer the potential for more efficient processes that result in lower sample sizes and shorter trial durations than traditional designs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the use and potential benefits of Bayesian adaptive clinical trial designs in comparative effectiveness research. DESIGN: Virtual execution of ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) as if it had been done according to a Bayesian adaptive trial design. SETTING: Comparative effectiveness trial of antihypertensive medications. PATIENTS: Patient data sampled from the more than 42 000 patients enrolled in ALLHAT with publicly available data. MEASUREMENTS: Number of patients randomly assigned between groups, trial duration, observed numbers of events, and overall trial results and conclusions. RESULTS: The Bayesian adaptive approach and original design yielded similar overall trial conclusions. The Bayesian adaptive trial randomly assigned more patients to the better-performing group and would probably have ended slightly earlier. LIMITATIONS: This virtual trial execution required limited resampling of ALLHAT patients for inclusion in RE-ADAPT (REsearch in ADAptive methods for Pragmatic Trials). Involvement of a data monitoring committee and other trial logistics were not considered. CONCLUSION: In a comparative effectiveness research trial, Bayesian adaptive trial designs are a feasible approach and potentially generate earlier results and allocate more patients to better-performing groups. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Percutaneous alternative to the Maze procedure for the treatment of persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (aMAZE trial): Rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVI) as a treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a high rate of success; however, outcomes for treating persistent and long-standing persistent AF with PVI alone are substantially lower and often require multiple procedures to maintain long-term freedom from atrial arrhythmias. Foci and/or substrate outside the pulmonary veins, particularly in the left atrial appendage (LAA), has been identified as a key mechanism in the maintenance of persistent AF and long-standing persistent AF. OBJECTIVE: The goals of the study are to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the LARIAT System to percutaneously isolate and ligate the LAA and to determine if LAA ligation as adjunctive therapy to PVI improves maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF. STUDY DESIGN: The trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study. The trial design incorporates a Bayesian adaptive design that will randomize a maximum of 600 patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF to LAA ligation and PVI vs PVI alone in a 2:1 randomization. The primary end points include 30-day safety of the LARIAT procedure and freedom from documented AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia of more than 30 seconds at 12 months after the PVI off antiarrhythmic drugs. Key secondary outcomes include a composite of cardiovascular death and stroke, as well as quality of life. CONCLUSION: The aMAZE trial will determine if LAA ligation as adjunctive therapy to PVI increases the efficacy of maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF.

The utility of Bayesian predictive probabilities for interim monitoring of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Bayesian predictive probabilities can be used for interim monitoring of clinical trials to estimate the probability of observing a statistically significant treatment effect if the trial were to continue to its predefined maximum sample size. PURPOSE: We explore settings in which Bayesian predictive probabilities are advantageous for interim monitoring compared to Bayesian posterior probabilities, p-values, conditional power, or group sequential methods. RESULTS: For interim analyses that address prediction hypotheses, such as futility monitoring and efficacy monitoring with lagged outcomes, only predictive probabilities properly account for the amount of data remaining to be observed in a clinical trial and have the flexibility to incorporate additional information via auxiliary variables. LIMITATIONS: Computational burdens limit the feasibility of predictive probabilities in many clinical trial settings. The specification of prior distributions brings additional challenges for regulatory approval. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Bayesian predictive probabilities enables the choice of logical interim stopping rules that closely align with the clinical decision-making process.

Not too big, not too small: a goldilocks approach to sample size selection.

We present a Bayesian adaptive design for a confirmatory trial to select a trial's sample size based on accumulating data. During accrual, frequent sample size selection analyses are made and predictive probabilities are used to determine whether the current sample size is sufficient or whether continuing accrual would be futile. The algorithm explicitly accounts for complete follow-up of all patients before the primary analysis is conducted. We refer to this as a Goldilocks trial design, as it is constantly asking the question, "Is the sample size too big, too small, or just right?" We describe the adaptive sample size algorithm, describe how the design parameters should be chosen, and show examples for dichotomous and time-to-event endpoints.

Training the Next Generation of Data Monitoring Committee Members: An Initiative of the Heart Failure Collaboratory.

Clinical trials are vital for assessing therapeutic interventions. The associated data monitoring committees (DMCs) safeguard patient interests and enhance trial integrity, thus promoting timely, reliable evaluations of those interventions. We face an urgent need to recruit and train new DMC members. The HFC (Heart Failure Collaboratory), a multidisciplinary public-private consortium of academics, trialists, patients, industry representatives, and government agencies, is working to improve the clinical trial ecosystem. The HFC aims to improve clinical trial efficiency and quality by standardizing concepts, and to help meet the demand for experienced individuals on DMCs by creating a standardized approach to training new members. This paper discusses the HFC's training workshop, and an apprenticeship model for new DMC members. It describes opportunities and challenges DMCs face, along with common myths and best practices learned through previous experiences, with an emphasis on data confidentiality and need for quality independent statistical reporting groups.

Personalized neoantigen vaccine and pembrolizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase 1/2 trial.

Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have modest efficacy as a monotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A personalized therapeutic cancer vaccine (PTCV) may enhance responses to PD-1 inhibitors through the induction of tumor-specific immunity. We present results from a single-arm, open-label, phase 1/2 study of a DNA plasmid PTCV (GNOS-PV02) encoding up to 40 neoantigens coadministered with plasmid-encoded interleukin-12 plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced HCC previously treated with a multityrosine kinase inhibitor. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed as primary endpoints, and treatment efficacy and feasibility were evaluated as secondary endpoints. The most common treatment-related adverse events were injection-site reactions, observed in 15 of 36 (41.6%) patients. No dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related grade ≥3 events were observed. The objective response rate (modified intention-to-treat) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 was 30.6% (11 of 36 patients), with 8.3% (3 of 36) of patients achieving a complete response. Clinical responses were associated with the number of neoantigens encoded in the vaccine. Neoantigen-specific T cell responses were confirmed in 19 of 22 (86.4%) evaluable patients by enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays. Multiparametric cellular profiling revealed active, proliferative and cytolytic vaccine-specific CD4+ and CD8+ effector T cells. T cell receptor ß-chain (TCRß) bulk sequencing results demonstrated vaccination-enriched T cell clone expansion and tumor infiltration. Single-cell analysis revealed posttreatment T cell clonal expansion of cytotoxic T cell phenotypes. TCR complementarity-determining region cloning of expanded T cell clones in the tumors following vaccination confirmed reactivity against vaccine-encoded neoantigens. Our results support the PTCV's mechanism of action based on the induction of antitumor T cells and show that a PTCV plus pembrolizumab has clinical activity in advanced HCC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04251117 .