Optimal timing of anticoagulation after acute ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (OPTIMAS): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Atrial fibrillation causes one-fifth of ischemic strokes, with a high risk of early recurrence. Although long-term anticoagulation is highly effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, initiation after stroke is usually delayed by concerns over intracranial hemorrhage risk. Direct oral anticoagulants offer a significantly lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage than other anticoagulants, potentially allowing earlier anticoagulation and prevention of recurrence, but the safety and efficacy of this approach has not been established. AIM: Optimal timing of anticoagulation after acute ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (OPTIMAS) will investigate whether early treatment with a direct oral anticoagulant, within four days of stroke onset, is as effective or better than delayed initiation, 7 to 14 days from onset, in atrial fibrillation patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS AND DESIGN: OPTIMAS is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with blinded outcome adjudication. Participants with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation eligible for anticoagulation with a direct oral anticoagulant are randomized 1:1 to early or delayed initiation. As of December 2021, 88 centers in the United Kingdom have opened. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite of recurrent stroke (ischemic stroke or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage) and systemic arterial embolism within 90 days. Secondary outcomes include major bleeding, functional status, anticoagulant adherence, quality of life, health and social care resource use, and length of hospital stay. SAMPLE SIZE TARGET: A total of 3478 participants assuming event rates of 11.5% in the control arm and 8% in the intervention arm, 90% power and 5% alpha. We will follow a non-inferiority gatekeeper analysis approach with a non-inferiority margin of 2 percentage points. DISCUSSION: OPTIMAS aims to provide high-quality evidence on the safety and efficacy of early direct oral anticoagulant initiation after atrial fibrillation-associated ischemic stroke.Trial registrations: ISRCTN: 17896007; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03759938.

Effect of Corneal Cross-linking versus Standard Care on Keratoconus Progression in Young Patients: The KERALINK Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy and safety of corneal cross-linking (CXL) for stabilization of progressive keratoconus. DESIGN: Observer-masked, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty participants 10 to 16 years of age with progressive keratoconus, one eye of each deemed the study eye. METHODS: The study eye was randomized to either CXL plus standard care or standard care alone, with spectacle or contact lens correction as necessary for vision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was steep keratometry (K2) in the study eye as a measure of the steepness of the cornea at 18 months. Secondary outcomes included keratoconus progression defined as a 1.5-diopter (D) increase in K2, visual acuity, keratoconus apex corneal thickness, and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 60 participants, 30 were randomized to CXL and standard care groups. Of these, 30 patients in the CXL group and 28 patients in the standard care group were analyzed. Mean K2 in the study eye 18 months after randomization was 49.7 D (standard deviation [SD], 3.8 D) in the CXL group and 53.4 D (SD, 5.8 D) in the standard care group. The adjusted mean difference in K2 in the study eye was -3.0 D (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to -1.1 D; P = 0.002), favoring CXL. Adjusted differences between groups in uncorrected and corrected vision favored eyes receiving CXL: -0.31 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.11 logMAR; P = 0.002) and -0.51 logMAR (95% CI, -1.37 to 0.35 logMAR; P = 0.002). Keratoconus progression in the study eye occurred in 2 patients (7%) randomized to CXL compared with 12 patients (43%) randomized to standard care. The unadjusted odds ratio suggests that on average, patients in the CXL arm had 90% (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02-0.48; P = 0.004) lower odds of experiencing progression compared with those receiving standard care. CONCLUSIONS: CXL arrests progression of keratoconus in the majority of young patients. CXL should be considered as a first-line treatment in progressive disease. If the arrest of keratoconus progression induced by CXL is sustained in longer follow-up, particular benefit may be derived from avoiding a later requirement for contact lens wear or corneal transplantation.

Imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin, with and without human papillomavirus vaccine, for anogenital warts: the HIPvac factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy, and cost-effectiveness, of imiquimod or podophyllotoxin cream, either alone or in combination with the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) in the treatment and prevention of recurrence of anogenital warts is not known. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the efficacy of imiquimod and podophyllotoxin creams to treat anogenital warts and to assess whether or not the addition of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine increases wart clearance or prevention of recurrence. DESIGN: A randomised, controlled, multicentre, partially blinded factorial trial. Participants were randomised equally to four groups, combining either topical treatment with quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by gender, a history of previous warts and human immunodeficiency virus status. There was an accompanying economic evaluation, conducted from the provider perspective over the trial duration. SETTING: The setting was 22 sexual health clinics in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients with a first or repeat episode of anogenital warts who had not been treated in the previous 3 months and had not previously received quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to 5% imiquimod cream (Aldara®; Meda Pharmaceuticals, Takeley, UK) for up to 16 weeks or 0.15% podophyllotoxin cream (Warticon®; GlaxoSmithKlein plc, Brentford, UK) for 4 weeks, which was extended to up to 16 weeks if warts persisted. Participants were simultaneously randomised to quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil) or saline control at 0, 8 and 24 weeks. Cryotherapy was permitted after week 4 at the discretion of the investigator. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were a combined primary outcome of wart clearance at week 16 and remaining wart free at week 48. Efficacy analysis was by logistic regression with multiple imputation for missing follow-up values; economic evaluation considered the costs per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: A total of 503 participants were enrolled and attended at least one follow-up visit. The mean age was 31 years, 66% of participants were male (24% of males were men who have sex with men), 50% had a previous history of warts and 2% were living with human immunodeficiency virus. For the primary outcome, the adjusted odds ratio for imiquimod cream versus podophyllotoxin cream was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.23), and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.46 (95% confidence interval 0.97 to 2.20). For the components of the primary outcome, the adjusted odds ratio for wart free at week 16 for imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin was 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.14) and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo was 1.30 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.91). The adjusted odds ratio for remaining wart free at 48 weeks (in those who were wart free at week 16) for imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.78) and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo was 1.39 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 2.63). Podophyllotoxin plus quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine had inconclusive cost-effectiveness compared with podophyllotoxin alone. LIMITATIONS: Hepatitis A vaccine as control was replaced by a saline placebo in a non-identical syringe, administered by someone outside the research team, for logistical reasons. Sample size was reduced from 1000 to 500 because of slow recruitment and other delays. CONCLUSIONS: A benefit of the vaccine was not demonstrated in this trial. The odds of clearance at week 16 and remaining clear at week 48 were 46% higher with vaccine, and consistent effects were seen for both wart clearance and recurrence separately, but these differences were not statistically significant. Imiquimod and podophyllotoxin creams had similar efficacy for wart clearance, but with a wide confidence interval. The trial results do not support earlier evidence of a lower recurrence with use of imiquimod than with use of podophyllotoxin. Podophyllotoxin without quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine is the most cost-effective strategy at the current vaccine list price. A further larger trial is needed to definitively investigate the effect of the vaccine; studies of the immune response in vaccine recipients are needed to investigate the mechanism of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32729817 and EudraCT 2013-002951-14. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The HIPvac [Human papillomavirus infection: a randomised controlled trial of Imiquimod cream (5%) versus Podophyllotoxin cream (0.15%), in combination with quadrivalent human papillomavirus or control vaccination in the treatment and prevention of recurrence of anogenital warts] trial compared two commonly used creams to treat genital warts: 0.15% podophyllotoxin cream (Warticon^®; GlaxoSmithKlein plc, Brentford, UK) and 5% imiquimod cream (Aldara^®; Meda Pharmaceuticals, Takeley, UK). It also investigated whether or not a vaccine used to prevent human papillomavirus infection, quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil^®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA), could help treat warts or prevent them from coming back in patients whose warts had been cleared. The HIPvac trial was a randomised controlled trial involving 503 patients with warts attending sexual health clinics in England and Wales. The creams and the vaccine were well tolerated; there was some soreness where the cream was applied, but no unexpected side effects. When deciding which treatment was better, we looked at whether or not the warts had cleared by 16 weeks after starting treatment and, if cleared, whether or not they returned by 48 weeks. We compared the creams against each other, and the addition of vaccine against no vaccine (a placebo injection). Patients were allowed to have cryotherapy (freezing treatment) as well, if the investigator advised this. We also calculated the value for money of each type of treatment. The two creams were very similar in how well they worked to clear the warts. One difference was that podophyllotoxin cream worked slightly quicker. The number of patients given cryotherapy was about the same for both types of cream. We had expected that recurrence of warts after treatment with imiquimod cream might be less than after treatment with podophyllotoxin cream, but, in fact, the two creams were similar. Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine did not improve clearance of warts or reduce the chance of recurrence, but the result remains inconclusive. If we had been able to recuit 1000 participants as originally planned, we might have been able to be more certain about whether there was any benefit of vaccination. Further research would be needed to investigate any possible effect. The two creams offered similar value for money in treating warts. Giving patients the vaccine in addition to the cream is not good value for money at its current list price, given the uncertainty about the benefit it offers.

Belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (BEAT Lupus) protocol: a prospective multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, 52-week phase II clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Few treatment options exist for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who fail conventional therapy. Although widely used to treat lupus, the efficacy of B cell depletion therapy using rituximab has not been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. Following rituximab, elevated levels of serum B cell activating factor (BAFF) have been associated with failure to remit or subsequent lupus relapse. The administration of belimumab, a monoclonal antibody specific for BAFF and approved for lupus therapy, could potentiate the efficacy of rituximab and enable longer periods of disease remission. The aim of this trial is to assess the safety and efficacy of belimumab following rituximab in patients with SLE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BEAT Lupus is a double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled, phase II clinical trial. Patients with SLE commencing a treatment cycle of rituximab (two 1g infusions, 2 weeks apart) as standard of care will be randomised to receive belimumab or placebo, 4 to 8 weeks following the first rituximab infusion. Belimumab or placebo infusions are administered for 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure is anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody levels at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes include measures of adverse events, lupus disease activity and cumulative steroid dose. The kinetics of B cell repopulation will be assessed in a subgroup of participants. Belimumab administration after rituximab may provide a novel therapeutic pathway for patients with active lupus if safety is demonstrated in this proof of concept study, and lower anti-dsDNA antibodies levels are achieved in those patients treated with belimumab compared with placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Hampstead Research Ethics Committee - London (reference 16/LO/1024). Trial information is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN47873003, and the results of this trial will be submitted for publication in relevant peer-reviewed journals. Key findings will also be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47873; date assigned to the registry: 28 November 2016. The stage is pre-results.