Recombinant fragment of human surfactant protein D to prevent neonatal chronic lung disease (RESPONSE): a protocol for a phase I safety trial in a tertiary neonatal unit.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic respiratory morbidity from bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains the most common complication of preterm birth and has consequences for later respiratory, cardiovascular and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The early phases of respiratory illness are characterised by rapid consumption of endogenous surfactant and slow replenishment. Exogenous surfactant is routinely administered to infants born before 28 weeks of gestation as prophylaxis. Endogenous surfactant includes four proteins, known as surfactant proteins (SPs) A, B, C and D. Current bovine-derived and porcine-derived surfactant preparations only contain SPs B and C. SP-D has a key role in lung immune homeostasis as part of the innate immune system. Laboratory studies using recombinant SP-D have demonstrated reduced inflammation, which may be a pathway to reducing the associated morbidity from BPD. RESPONSE uses a recombinant fragment of human SP D (rfhSP-D), in a phase I safety and dose-escalation trial as the first stage in determining its effect in humans. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre, dose-escalation, phase I safety study aiming to recruit 24 infants born before 30 weeks gestation with respiratory distress syndrome. In addition to routine surfactant replacement therapy, participants will receive three doses of rfhSP-D via endotracheal route at either 1 mg/kg, 2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg. The study uses a Bayesian continual reassessment method to make dose escalation decisions. Dose-limiting events (DLE) in this trial will be graded according to the published Neonatal Adverse Event Severity Score. The primary outcome of this study is to evaluate the safety profile of rfhSP-D across each dose level based on the profile of DLE to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of rfhSP-D. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The RESPONSE study has received ethical approval from London-Brent NHS Research Health Authority ethics committee. Results from the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN17083028, NCT05898633. PROTOCOL VERSION: RESPONSE Protocol V.4.0 24th July 2024.

Predicting radiotherapy response, Toxicities and quality-of-life related functional outcomes in soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities (PredicT) using dose-volume constraints development: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Radiotherapy improves local tumour control in patients with soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities (STSE) but it also increases the probability of long-term toxicities such as tissue fibrosis, joint stiffness and lymphoedema. The use of radiation dose and volume thresholds, called dose constraints, may potentially reduce the development of toxicities in STSE. The aim of this study is to determine predictors of radiotherapy-related side effects for STSE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Predicting radiotherapy response, Toxicities and quality-of-life related functional outcomes in soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities (PredicT) is a multicentre observational study comprising two cohorts (PredicT A and B). PredicT A, a retrospective analysis of the UK VorteX (NCT00423618) and IMRiS clinical trials (NCT02520128), is aimed at deriving a statistical model for development of dose-volume constraints. This model will use receiving operator characteristics and multivariate analysis to predict radiotherapy side effects and patient-reported outcomes. PredicT B, a prospective cohort study of 150 patients with STSE, is aimed at testing the validity of those dose-volume constraints. PredicT B is open and planned to complete recruitment by September 2024. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PredicT B has received ethical approval from North West - Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0267). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part. We will disseminate our findings via publications, presentations, national and international conference meetings and engage with local charities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05978024.

Elicitation of expert prior opinion to design the BARJDM trial in juvenile dermatomyositis.

OBJECTIVES: To elicit and quantify expert opinion concerning the relative merits of two treatments for a rare inflammatory disease: Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM). The formal expression of expert opinion reported in this paper will be used in a Bayesian analysis of a forthcoming randomised controlled trial known as BARJDM (baricitinib for juvenile dermatomyositis). METHODS: A Bayesian prior elicitation meeting was convened, following a previously described methodological template. Opinion was sought on the probability that a patient in the BARJDM trial would achieve clinically inactive disease, off glucocorticoids (GC) within a 12-month period with either methotrexate (standard of care); or baricitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor, JAKi), with GC schedules identical in both arms of the trial. Experts' views were discussed and refined following presentation and further discussion of summated published data regarding efficacy of methotrexate or JAKi for JDM. RESULTS: Ten UK paediatric rheumatology consultants (including one adolescent paediatric rheumatologist) participated in the elicitation meeting. All had expertise in JDM, leading active National Health Service clinics for this disease. Consensus expert prior opinion was that the most likely probability of clinically inactive disease off GC within 12 months was 0.55 on baricitinib and 0.23 on methotrexate, with a greater degree of uncertainty for baricitinib. CONCLUSION: Experts currently think that baricitinib is superior to MTX for the treatment of JDM, although there is uncertainty around this. BARJDM will therefore integrate randomised trial data with this expert prior opinion to derive a posterior distribution for the relative efficacy of baricitinib compared with MTX.

Feasibility of a new 'balanced binocular viewing' treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged 3-8 years (BALANCE): results of a phase 2a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the safety of dichoptic balanced binocular viewing (BBV) for amblyopia in children, plus feasibility, adherence, acceptability, trial methodology and clinical measures of visual function. DESIGN: We carried out an observer-masked parallel-group phase 2a feasibility randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two study sites, a secondary/tertiary and a community site. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 32 children aged 3-8 years with unilateral amblyopia who had completed optical adaptation where indicated. 20 children attended the 16-week exit visit (retention 63%). INTERVENTIONS: Children were randomised to BBV (movies customised to interocular acuity difference at baseline) for 1 hour a day (active intervention) or standard management as per parental choice (part-time occlusion or atropine blurring, control). All interventions were used at home, daily for 16 weeks. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: 'VacMan suppression test' of interocular balance at 16 weeks from randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: feasibility outcomes (recruitment and retention ratios, adherence with the allocated intervention); safety outcomes at other time points (changes in prevalence of diplopia, manifest strabismus, suppression/interocular balance on a range of tests); efficacy outcomes (clinical measures of visual function, such as best-corrected visual acuity, BCVA). Outcome measures were identical to those planned in the protocol. RESULTS: Primary outcome: At baseline, values for the interocular balance point were higher (indicating greater suppression of the amblyopic eye) in the occlusion group than in the BBV group. These values shifted downwards on average for the occlusion group, significantly decreasing from baseline to week 16 (t8=4.49, p=0.002). Balance values did not change between baseline and week 16 for the BBV group (t9=-0.82, p=0.435). At 16 weeks, there was no statistical difference in interocular balance/suppression change over time between the two arms. The difference at follow-up between the arms, adjusted for baseline, was -0.02 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.23, p=0.87). FEASIBILITY: We prescreened 144 records of potentially eligible children. Between 28 October 2019 and 31 July 2021, including an interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 32 children were screened and randomised (recruitment rate 22%), 16 to BBV and 16 to standard treatment. 20 children attended the 16-week exit visit (retention 63%). Mean adherence with BBV as proportion of viewing time prescribed was 56.1% (SD36) at 8 and 57.9% (SD 30.2) at 16 weeks. Mean adherence with prescribed occlusion time was 90.1% (SD 19.7) at 8 and 59.2% (SD 24.8) at 16 weeks. SECONDARY SAFETY/EFFICACY OUTCOMES: One child in the BBV arm reported transient double vision, which resolved; two reported headaches, which led to withdrawal. BCVA improved from mean 0.47 (SD0.18) logMAR at randomisation to 0.26 (0.14) with standard treatment, and from 0.55 (0.28) to 0.32 (0.26) with BBV. Outcomes at 16 weeks did not differ between treatments. PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCE: Families were generally positive about BBV, but families found both patching and BBV difficult to integrate into family routines. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment rates indicate that a future phase 3 trial will require multiple sites or a longer enrolment period. Retention and adherence rates were lower than anticipated, which will influence future study designs. Dichoptic treatment may be equal to occlusion treatment in safety and efficacy; headaches may lead to discontinuation. Integration into family routines may constitute a barrier to implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03754153.

Implementing and assessing Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation for backfilling in dose-finding trials.

Traditional approaches in dose-finding trials, such as the continual reassessment method, focus on identifying the maximum tolerated dose. In contemporary early-phase dose-finding trials, especially in oncology with targeted agents or immunotherapy, a more relevant aim is to identify the lowest dose level that maximises efficacy whilst remaining tolerable. Backfilling, defined as the practice of assigning patients to dose levels lower than the current highest tolerated dose, has been proposed to gather additional pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and biomarker data to recommend the most appropriate dose to carry forward for subsequent studies. The first formal framework [5] for backfilling proposed randomising backfill patients with equal probability among those doses below the dose level where the study is currently at. Here, we propose to use Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation to backfill patients. This patient-oriented approach to backfilling aims to allocate more patients to dose levels in the backfill set with higher expected efficacy based on emerging data. The backfill set constitutes of the doses below the dose the dose-finding algorithm is at. At study completion, collective patient data inform the dose-response curve, suggesting an optimal dose level balancing toxicity and efficacy. Our simulation study across diverse clinical trial settings demonstrates that a backfilling strategy using Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation can result in a patient-oriented patient assignment procedure which simultaneously enhances the likelihood of correctly identifying the most appropriate dose level. This contribution offers a methodological framework and practical implementation for patient-oriented backfilling, encompassing design and analysis considerations in early-phase trials.

The 3 + 3 design in dose-finding studies with small sample sizes: Pitfalls and possible remedies.

In the last few years, numerous novel designs have been proposed to improve the efficiency and accuracy of phase I trials to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) or the optimal biological dose (OBD) for noncytotoxic agents. However, the conventional 3+3 approach, known for its and poor performance, continues to be an attractive choice for many trials despite these alternative suggestions. The article seeks to underscore the importance of moving beyond the 3+3 design by highlighting a different key element in trial design: the estimation of sample size and its crucial role in predicting toxicity and determining the MTD. We use simulation studies to compare the performance of the most used phase I approaches: 3+3, Continual Reassessment Method (CRM), Keyboard and Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN) designs regarding three key operating characteristics: the percentage of correct selection of the true MTD, the average number of patients allocated per dose level, and the average total sample size. The simulation results consistently show that the 3+3 algorithm underperforms in comparison to model-based and model-assisted designs across all scenarios and metrics. The 3+3 method yields significantly lower (up to three times) probabilities in identifying the correct MTD, often selecting doses one or even two levels below the actual MTD. The 3+3 design allocates significantly fewer patients at the true MTD, assigns higher numbers to lower dose levels, and rarely explores doses above the target dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate. The overall performance of the 3+3 method is suboptimal, with a high level of unexplained uncertainty and significant implications for accurately determining the MTD. While the primary focus of the article is to demonstrate the limitations of the 3+3 algorithm, the question remains about the preferred alternative approach. The intention is not to definitively recommend one model-based or model-assisted method over others, as their performance can vary based on parameters and model specifications. However, the presented results indicate that the CRM, Keyboard, and BOIN designs consistently outperform the 3+3 and offer improved efficiency and precision in determining the MTD, which is crucial in early-phase clinical trials.

Safety and Efficacy of Metabolic Modulation With Ninerafaxstat in Patients With Nonobstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: In nonobstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (nHCM), there are no approved medical therapies. Impaired myocardial energetics is a potential cause of symptoms and exercise limitation. Ninerafaxstat, a novel cardiac mitotrope, enhances cardiac energetics. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ninerafaxstat in nHCM. METHODS: Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular outflow tract gradient <30 mm Hg, ejection fraction ≥50%, and peak oxygen consumption <80% predicted were randomized to ninerafaxstat 200 mg twice daily or placebo (1:1) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability, with efficacy outcomes also assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients with nHCM were enrolled at 12 centers (57 ± 11.8 years of age; 55% women). Serious adverse events occurred in 11.8% (n = 4 of 34) in the ninerafaxstat group and 6.1% (n = 2 of 33) of patients in the placebo group. From baseline to 12 weeks, ninerafaxstat was associated with significantly better VE/Vco2 (ventilatory efficiency) slope compared with placebo with a least-squares (LS) mean difference between the groups of -2.1 (95% CI: -3.6 to -0.6; P = 0.006), with no significant difference in peak VO2 (P = 0.90). The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score was directionally, though not significantly, improved with ninerafaxstat vs placebo (LS mean 3.2; 95% CI: -2.9 to 9.2; P = 0.30); however, it was statistically significant when analyzed post hoc in the 35 patients with baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score ≤80 (LS mean 9.4; 95% CI: 0.3-18.5; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic nHCM, novel drug therapy targeting myocardial energetics was safe and well tolerated and associated with better exercise performance and health status among those most symptomatically limited. The findings support assessing ninerafaxstat in a phase 3 study.

WAFER trial: a study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing wide-awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) to general and regional anaesthesia with tourniquet for flexor tendon repair.

INTRODUCTION: Flexor tendons are traditionally repaired under either general anaesthesia (GA) or regional anaesthesia (RA), allowing for the use of an arm tourniquet to minimise blood loss and establish a bloodless surgical field. However, the use of tourniquets exposes the patient to certain risks, including skin, muscle and nerve injuries. A recent advancement in anaesthesia delivery involves the use of a wide-awake approach where no sedation nor tourniquets are used (wide-awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT)). WALANT uses local anaesthetic with epinephrine to provide pain relief and vasoconstriction, reducing operative bleeding. Several studies revealed potential benefits for WALANT compared with GA or RA. However, there remains a paucity of high-quality evidence to support the use of WALANT. As a result of this uncertainty, the clinical practice varies considerably. We aim to evaluate the feasibility of WALANT as an alternative to GA and RA in patients undergoing surgical repair of flexor tendon injuries. This involves addressing factors such as clinician and patient support for a trial, clinical equipoise, trial recruitment and dropout and the most relevant outcomes measures for a future definitive trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: WAFER is a multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of WALANT versus RA and GA. The target population is patients with acute traumatic flexor tendon injuries, across 3 major hand surgery units in England involving a total of 60 participants. Outcome assessors will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the ability to recruit patients into the trial, while secondary outcomes include difference in functional outcome, patient-reported outcome measures, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and complication rates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the London-City and East Research Ethics Committee (22/PR/1197). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conferences, patient information websites and social media networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN identifier: 15052559.

Toxicity, normal tissue and dose-volume planning parameters for radiotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Patients with soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities (STSE) are left with high incidence of toxicities after Radiotherapy (RT). Understanding the normal tissue dose relationship with the development of long-term toxicities may enable better RT planning in order to reduce treatment toxicities for STSE. This systematic review of the literature aims at reporting the incidence of acute and late toxicities and identifying RT delineation guidance the normal tissues structures and dose-volume parameters for STSE. METHODS: A literature search of PUBMED-MEDLINE for studies that reported data on RT toxicity outcomes, delineation guidelines and dose-volume parameters for STSE from 2000 to 2022. Data has been tabulated and reported. RESULTS: Thirty of 586 papers were selected after exclusion criteria. External beam RT prescriptions ranged from 30 to 72 Gy. The majority of studies reported the use of Intensity Modulated RT (IMRT) (27%). Neo-adjuvant RT was used in 40%. The highest long-term toxicities were subcutaneous and lymphoedema, reported when delivering 3DCRT. IMRT had a lower incidence of toxicities. Normal tissue outlining such as weight-bearing bones, skin and subcutaneous tissue, corridor and neurovascular bundle was recommended in 6 studies. Nine studies recommended the use of dose-volume constraints, but only one recommended evidence-based dose-volume constraints. CONCLUSION: Although the literature is replete with toxicity reports, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance on normal tissue and dose-volume parameters and strategies to reduce the normal tissues irradiation when optimising RT plans for STSE are poor compared to other tumour sites.

PROTEUS Study: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Stress Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Stress echocardiography (SE) is one of the most commonly used diagnostic imaging tests for coronary artery disease (CAD) but requires clinicians to visually assess scans to identify patients who may benefit from invasive investigation and treatment. EchoGo Pro provides an automated interpretation of SE based on artificial intelligence (AI) image analysis. In reader studies, use of EchoGo Pro when making clinical decisions improves diagnostic accuracy and confidence. Prospective evaluation in real world practice is now important to understand the impact of EchoGo Pro on the patient pathway and outcome. METHODS: PROTEUS is a randomized, multicenter, 2-armed, noninferiority study aiming to recruit 2,500 participants from National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the UK referred to SE clinics for investigation of suspected CAD. All participants will undergo a stress echocardiogram protocol as per local hospital policy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to a control group, representing current practice, or an intervention group, in which clinicians will receive an AI image analysis report (EchoGo Pro, Ultromics Ltd, Oxford, UK) to use during image interpretation, indicating the likelihood of severe CAD. The primary outcome will be appropriateness of clinician decision to refer for coronary angiography. Secondary outcomes will assess other health impacts including appropriate use of other clinical management approaches, impact on variability in decision making, patient and clinician qualitative experience and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study to assess the impact of introducing an AI medical diagnostic aid into the standard care pathway of patients with suspected CAD being investigated with SE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT05028179, registered on 31 August 2021; ISRCTN: ISRCTN15113915; IRAS ref: 293515; REC ref: 21/NW/0199.

STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: A structured protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID (LC), the persistent symptoms ≥12 weeks following acute COVID-19, presents major threats to individual and public health across countries, affecting over 1.5 million people in the UK alone. Evidence-based interventions are urgently required and an integrated care pathway approach in pragmatic trials, which include investigations, treatments and rehabilitation for LC, could provide scalable and generalisable solutions at pace. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised clinical trial of two components of an integrated care pathway (Coverscan™, a multi-organ MRI, and Living with COVID Recovery™, a digitally enabled rehabilitation platform) with a nested, Phase III, open label, platform randomised drug trial in individuals with LC. Cluster randomisation is at level of primary care networks so that integrated care pathway interventions are delivered as "standard of care" in that area. The drug trial randomisation is at individual level and initial arms are rivaroxaban, colchicine, famotidine/loratadine, compared with no drugs, with potential to add in further drug arms. The trial is being carried out in 6-10 LC clinics in the UK and is evaluating the effectiveness of a pathway of care for adults with LC in reducing fatigue and other physical, psychological and functional outcomes at 3 months. The trial also includes an economic evaluation which will be described separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was reviewed by South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/SC/0416). All participating sites obtained local approvals prior to recruitment. Coverscan™ has UK certification (UKCA 752965). All participants will provide written consent to take part in the trial. The first participant was recruited in July 2022 and interim/final results will be disseminated in 2023, in a plan co-developed with public and patient representatives. The results will be presented at national and international conferences, published in peer reviewed medical journals, and shared via media (mainstream and social) and patient support organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10665760.

Protocol for a MULTI-centre feasibility study to assess the use of 99mTc-sestaMIBI SPECT/CT in the diagnosis of kidney tumours (MULTI-MIBI study).

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of renal tumours is increasing and anatomic imaging cannot reliably distinguish benign tumours from renal cell carcinoma. Up to 30% of renal tumours are benign, with oncocytomas the most common type. Biopsy has not been routinely adopted in many centres due to concerns surrounding non-diagnostic rate, bleeding and tumour seeding. As a result, benign masses are often unnecessarily surgically resected. 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT has shown high diagnostic accuracy for benign renal oncocytomas and other oncocytic renal neoplasms of low malignant potential in single-centre studies. The primary aim of MULTI-MIBI is to assess feasibility of a multicentre study of 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT against a reference standard of histopathology from surgical resection or biopsy. Secondary aims of the study include obtaining estimates of 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT sensitivity and specificity and to inform the design and conduct of a future definitive trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A feasibility prospective multicentre study of participants with indeterminate, clinical T1 renal tumours to undergo 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT (index test) compared with histopathology from biopsy or surgical resection (reference test). Interpretation of the index and reference tests will be blinded to the results of the other. Recruitment rate as well as estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value will be reported. Semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians will provide qualitative data to inform onward trial design and delivery. Training materials for 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT interpretation will be developed, assessed and optimised. Early health economic modelling using a decision analytic approach for different diagnostic strategies will be performed to understand the potential cost-effectiveness of 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted (UK HRA REC 20/YH/0279) protocol V.5.0 dated 21/6/2022. Study outputs will be presented and published nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12572202.

Controlled amplification in oncology dose-finding trials.

In oncology clinical trials the guiding principle of model-based dose-finding designs for cytotoxic agents is to progress as fast as possible towards, and identify, the dose level most likely to be the MTD. Recent developments with non-cytotoxic agents have broadened the scope of early phase trials to include multiple objectives. The ultimate goal of dose-finding designs in our modern era is to collect the relevant information in the study for final RP2D determination. While some information is collected on dose levels below and in the vicinity of the MTD during the escalation (using conventional tools such as the Continual Reassessment Method for example), designs that include expansion cohorts or backfill patients effectively amplify the information collected on the lower dose levels. This is achieved by allocating patients to dose levels slightly differently during the study in order to take into account the possibility that "less (dose) might be more". The objective of this paper is to study the concept of amplification. Under the heading of controlled amplification we can include dose expansion cohorts and backfill patients among others. We make some general observations by defining these concepts more precisely and study a specific design that exploits the concept of controlled amplification.

Finger-Prick Autologous Blood (FAB) Eye Drops for Dry Eye Disease: Single Masked Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial.

Purpose: To investigate the quantitative and qualitative efficacy of finger-prick autologous blood (FAB) eye drops versus conventional medical therapy for the treatment of severe dry eye disease (DED). Methods: Two centre, single masked, randomised controlled trial. Sixty patients in total were recruited with thirty patients (sixty eyes) treated with FAB eye drops four times per day in addition to their conventional DED treatment, and thirty patients (fifty-eight eyes) served as control subjects on conventional treatment alone. Ocular surface disease index (OSDI), Schirmer's test, fluorescein ocular staining grade (OCSG) Oxford schema and fluorescein tear film break-up time (TBUT), were performed at baseline, at 4 and 8 weeks. Results: OSDI scores significantly decreased in the FAB arm by greater than -17.68 (-37.67 to -2.96, p=0.02) compared to the control arm. There were greater improvements in OCSG and TBUT in the FAB arm but these were non-significant (p>0.05). Conclusion: This feasibility study demonstrates adding FAB eye drops to conventional medical therapy for DED improves mean OSDI symptom score compared to conventional medical therapy alone. It may have particular use in settings where serum is unobtainable. An adequately powered and well-designed randomised trial is needed to further evaluate the long-term clinical benefit of FAB.

Favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or combination therapy (FLARE): A randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial placebo-controlled trial of early antiviral therapy in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Early antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: At the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68.

ASEPTIC: primary antibiotic prophylaxis using co-trimoxazole to prevent SpontanEous bacterial PeritoniTIs in Cirrhosis-study protocol for an interventional randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial infection is a major cause of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a serious and common infection in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Secondary prophylactic antibiotic therapy has been shown to improve outcomes after an episode of SBP but primary prophylaxis to prevent the first episode of SBP remains contentious. The aim of this trial is to assess whether primary antibiotic prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole improves overall survival compared to placebo in adults with cirrhosis and ascites. METHODS: The ASEPTIC trial is a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, and Wales. Patients aged 18 years and older with cirrhosis and ascites requiring diuretic treatment or paracentesis, and no current or previous episodes of SBP, are eligible, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to recruit 432 patients from at least 30 sites. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral co-trimoxazole 960 mg or an identical placebo once daily for 18 months, with 6 monthly follow-up visits thereafter (with a maximum possible follow-up period of 48 months, and a minimum of 18 months). The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include the time to the first incidence of SBP, hospital admission rates, incidence of other infections (including Clostridium difficile) and antimicrobial resistance, patients' health-related quality of life, health and social care resource use, incidence of cirrhosis-related decompensation events, liver transplantation, and treatment-related serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: This trial will investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of co-trimoxazole for patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites to determine whether this strategy improves clinical outcomes. Given there are no treatments that improve survival in decompensated cirrhosis outside of liver transplant, if the trial has a positive outcome, we anticipate widespread adoption of primary antibiotic prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT043955365 . Registered on 18 April 2020. Research ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central - Oxford B; REC 19/SC/0311) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Favipiravir and/or nitazoxanide: a randomized, double-blind, 2×2 design, placebo-controlled trial of early therapy in COVID-19 in health workers, their household members, and patients treated at IMSS (FANTAZE).

BACKGROUND: The 2020 pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 disease is an unprecedented global emergency. COVID-19 appears to be a disease with an early phase where the virus replicates, coinciding with the first presentation of symptoms, followed by a later 'inflammatory' phase which results in severe disease in some individuals. It is known from other rapidly progressive infections such as sepsis and influenza that early treatment with antimicrobials is associated with a better outcome. The hypothesis is that this holds for COVID-19 and that early antiviral treatment may prevent progression to the later phase of the disease. METHODS: Trial design: Phase IIA randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 design, placebo-controlled, interventional trial. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised 1:1 by stratification, with the following factors: gender, obesity, symptomatic or asymptomatic, current smoking status presence or absence of comorbidity, and if the participant has or has not been vaccinated. BLINDING: Participants and investigators will both be blinded to treatment allocation (double-blind). DISCUSSION: We propose to conduct a proof-of-principle placebo-controlled clinical trial of favipiravir plus or minus nitazoxanide in health workers, their household members and patients treated at the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) facilities. Participants with or without symptomatic COVID-19 or who tested positive will be assigned to receive favipiravir plus nitazoxanide or favipiravir plus nitazoxanide placebo. The primary outcome will be the difference in the amount of virus ('viral load') in the upper respiratory tract after 5 days of therapy. Secondary outcomes will include hospitalization, major morbidity and mortality, pharmacokinetics, and impact of antiviral therapy on viral genetic mutation rate. If favipiravir with nitazoxanide demonstrates important antiviral effects without significant toxicity, there will be a strong case for a larger trial in people at high risk of hospitalization or intensive care admission, for example older patients and/or those with comorbidities and with early disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04918927 . Registered on June 9, 2021.