Neoadjuvant radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil-cisplatin plus cetuximab in operable, locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: Results of a phase I-II trial (FFCD-0505/PRODIGE-3).

Background: Radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil (5FU) and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal cancer is associated with a 20-25% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Cetuximab increases the efficacy of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck carcinomas. The aim of this phase I/II trial was to determine the optimal doses and the pCR rate with chemoradiotherapy (C-RT) plus cetuximab. Methods: A 45-Gy radiotherapy regimen was delivered over 5 weeks. The phase I study determined the dose-limiting toxicity and the maximum tolerated dose of 5FU-cisplatin plus cetuximab. The phase II trial aimed to exhibit a pCR rate > 20 % (25 % expected), requiring 33 patients (6 from phase I part plus 27 in phase II part). pCR was defined as ypT0Nx. Results: The phase I study established the following recommended doses: weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 one week before, and 250 mg/m2 during radiotherapy); 5FU (500 mg/m2/day, d1-d4) plus cisplatin (40 mg/m2, d1) during week 1 and 5. In the phase II part, 32 patients received C-RT before surgery, 31 patients underwent surgery, and resection was achieved in 27 patients. A pCR was achieved in five patients (18.5 %) out of 27. After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached. Conclusions: Adding cetuximab to preoperative C-RT was toxic and did not achieve a pCR > 20 % as required. The recommended doses, determined during the phase I part, could explain these disappointing results due to a reduction in chemotherapy dose-intensity. Trial registration: This trial was registered with EudraCT number 2006-004770-27.

Precision cancer medicine platform trials: Concepts and design of AcSé-ESMART.

Precision cancer medicine brought the promise of improving outcomes for patients with cancer. High-throughput molecular profiling of tumors at treatment failure aims to direct a patient to a treatment matched to the tumor profile. In this way, improved outcome has been achieved in a small number of patients whose tumors exhibit unique targetable oncogenic drivers. Most cancers, however, contain multiple genetic alterations belonging to and of various hallmarks of cancer; for most of these alterations, there is limited knowledge on the level of evidence, their hierarchical roles in oncogenicity, and utility as biomarkers for response to targeted treatment(s). We developed a proof-of-concept trial that explores new treatment strategies in a molecularly-enriched tumor-agnostic, pediatric population. The evaluation of novel agents, including first-in-child molecules, alone or in combination, is guided by the available understanding of or hypotheses for the mechanisms of action of the diverse cancer events. Main objectives are: to determine 1) recommended phase 2 doses, 2) activity signals to provide the basis for disease specific development, and 3) to define new predictive biomarkers. Here we outline concepts, rationales and designs applied in the European AcSé-ESMART trial and highlight the feasibility but also complexity and challenges of such innovative platform trials.

Open-label, dose-escalation FIGHT-101 study of pemigatinib combined with targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Pemigatinib is an oral, potent, selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3 inhibitor. FIGHT-101, a three-part, open-label, first-in-human, phase I/II study (NCT02393248), evaluated pemigatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors. In parts 1 and 2, pemigatinib monotherapy had a manageable safety profile and antitumor activity in FGFR-altered tumors. Part 3 (pemigatinib combination therapies) results are presented here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received 9, 13.5, or 20 mg oral once-daily pemigatinib on continuous or intermittent schedules with gemcitabine and cisplatin (pemi/gem/cis), docetaxel (pemi/doc), trastuzumab (pemi/tras), pembrolizumab (pemi/pembro), or retifanlimab (pemi/reti) irrespective of whether the tumor was confirmed as FGFR altered. Primary endpoints were safety and pharmacodynamics. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed tumor objective response rates (ORRs) and pharmacokinetics (PK). RESULTS: Of 65 enrolled patients (pemi/gem/cis, n = 8; pemi/doc, n = 7; pemi/tras, n = 6; pemi/pembro, n = 26; pemi/reti, n = 18), all discontinued. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were generally consistent with individual drug AEs. Serious and grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 0%-85.7% and 33.3%-100.0% of patients across treatment groups, respectively. All pemigatinib combinations demonstrated steady-state PK comparable to monotherapy. Pharmacodynamic effects in all pemigatinib combinations, except pemi/gem/cis, were consistent with monotherapy. Less inhibition of FGFR2α phosphorylation was observed with this combination. ORRs (95% confidence interval) were 37.5% [8.5% to 75.5% (pemi/gem/cis)], 14.3% [0.4% to 57.9% (pemi/doc)], 0% (pemi/tras), 26.9% [11.6% to 47.8% (pemi/pembro)], and 11.1% [1.4% to 34.7% (pemi/reti)]. All groups had instances of tumor shrinkage. ORRs in assessable patients with FGFR rearrangements and mutations were 50% and 33%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pemigatinib combination therapy showed no unexpected toxicities. PK and pharmacodynamics were mostly consistent with pemigatinib monotherapy. Pemi/gem/cis (37.5%) and pemi/pembro (26.9%) had the highest ORR; most responders had FGFR alterations.

REDOMA: Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis using spike-and-slab priors.

The rise of cutting-edge precision cancer treatments has led to a growing significance of the optimal biological dose (OBD) in modern oncology trials. These trials now prioritize the consideration of both toxicity and efficacy simultaneously when determining the most desirable dosage for treatment. Traditional approaches in early-phase oncology trials have conventionally relied on the assumption of a monotone relationship between treatment efficacy and dosage. However, this assumption may not hold valid for novel oncology therapies. In reality, the dose-efficacy curve of such treatments may reach a plateau at a specific dose, posing challenges for conventional methods in accurately identifying the OBD. Furthermore, achieving reliable identification of the OBD is typically not possible based on a single small-sample trial. With data from multiple phase I and phase I/II trials, we propose a novel Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis (REDOMA) approach to identify the OBD by synthesizing toxicity and efficacy data from each trial. The REDOMA method can address trials with heterogeneous characteristics. We adopt a curve-free approach based on a Gamma process prior to model the average dose-toxicity relationship. In addition, we utilize a Bayesian model selection framework that uses the spike-and-slab prior as an automatic variable selection technique to eliminate monotonic constraints on the dose-efficacy curve. The good performance of the REDOMA method is confirmed by extensive simulation studies.

Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I/II clinical trials.

In recent years, both model-based and model-assisted designs have emerged to efficiently determine the optimal biological dose (OBD) in phase I/II trials for immunotherapy and targeted cellular agents. Model-based designs necessitate repeated model fitting and computationally intensive posterior sampling for each dose-assignment decision, limiting their practical application in real trials. On the other hand, model-assisted designs employ simple statistical models and facilitate the precalculation of a decision table for use throughout the trial, eliminating the need for repeated model fitting. Due to their simplicity and transparency, model-assisted designs are often preferred in phase I/II trials. In this paper, we systematically evaluate and compare the operating characteristics of several recent model-assisted phase I/II designs, including TEPI, PRINTE, Joint i3+3, BOIN-ET, STEIN, uTPI, and BOIN12, in addition to the well-known model-based EffTox design, using comprehensive numerical simulations. To ensure an unbiased comparison, we generated 10,000 dosing scenarios using a random scenario generation algorithm for each predetermined OBD location. We thoroughly assess various performance metrics, such as the selection percentages, average patient allocation to OBD, and overdose percentages across the eight designs. Based on these assessments, we offer design recommendations tailored to different objectives, sample sizes, and starting dose locations.

Phase I/II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy boost in patients with cervical cancer ineligible for intracavitary brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) boost is a promising treatment for cervical cancer patients who are ineligible for intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). The aim of this multicenter, single-arm, phase I/II study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of SBRT boost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ICBT-ineligible patients with untreated cervical cancer were enrolled. Patients underwent whole-pelvic radiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions) with SBRT boost to the primary lesion. In the phase I dose-escalation cohort (3 + 3 design), patients were treated with SBRT boost of 21 or 22.5 Gy in three fractions. Although dose-limiting toxicity was not confirmed, a dose of 21 Gy was selected for the phase II cohort because it was difficult to reproduce the pelvic organs position in two patients during the phase I trial. The primary endpoint was 2-year progression-free survival. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (phase I, n = 3; phase II, n = 18) were enrolled between April 2016 and October 2020; 17 (81%) had clinical stage III-IV (with para-aortic lymph node metastases) disease. The median (range) follow-up was 40 (10-84) months. The initial response was complete response in 20 patients and partial response in one patient. The 2-year locoregional control, progression-free survival, and overall survival rates were 84%, 67%, and 81%, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 toxicity was confirmed in one patient each in the acute (diarrhea) and late (urinary tract obstruction) phases. CONCLUSION: These findings suggested that a SBRT boost is more effective than the conventional EBRT boost and can be an important treatment option for ICBT-ineligible patients with cervical cancer. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000036845).

Aldosterone synthase inhibitor (BI 690517) therapy for people with diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase I trial.

AIM: This Phase I study evaluated the safety and early efficacy of an aldosterone synthase inhibitor (BI 690517) in people with diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. METHODS: Double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT03165240) at 40 sites across Europe. Eligible participants [estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥20 and <75 ml/min/1.73 m2; urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) ≥200 and <3500 mg/g] were randomized 6:1 to receive once-daily oral BI 690517 3, 10 or 40 mg, or eplerenone 25-50 mg, or placebo, for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with drug-related adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in the UACR. RESULTS: Fifty-eight participants were randomized and treated from 27 November 2017 to 16 April 2020 (BI 690517: 3 mg, n = 18; 10 mg, n = 13; 40 mg, n = 14; eplerenone, n = 4; placebo, n = 9) for 28 days. Eight (13.8%) participants experienced drug-related AEs [BI 690517: 3 mg (two of 18); 10 mg (four of 13); 40 mg (two of 14)], most frequently constipation [10 mg (one of 13); 40 mg (one of 14)] and hyperkalaemia [3 mg (one of 18); 10 mg (one of 13)]. Most AEs were mild to moderate; one participant experienced severe hyperkalaemia (serum potassium 6.9 mmol/L; BI 690517 10 mg). UACR responses [≥20% decrease from baseline (first morning void urine) after 28 days] were observed for 80.0% receiving BI 690517 40 mg (eight of 10) versus 37.5% receiving placebo (three of eight). Aldosterone levels were suppressed by BI 690517, but not eplerenone or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: BI 690517 was generally well tolerated, reduced plasma aldosterone and may decrease albuminuria in participants with diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease.

Rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in relapsed or refractory indolent and mantle cell lymphoma: results of a multicenter phase I/II-study of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group.

Rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) has demonstrated to be effective and safe in lymphoma patients. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of oxaliplatin in combination with rituximab and gemcitabine and to explore the efficacy and safety of R-GemOx in relapsed or refractory (r/r) indolent and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In this single-arm, phase I/II trial, we enrolled 55 patients with r/r indolent lymphoma and MCL not suitable for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Patients received 4 cycles of R-GemOx. In the dose escalation group, 70 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin was applied and interindividually increased by 10 mg/m2 until the MTD was reached together with fixed doses of rituximab and gemcitabine. At the oxaliplatin MTD, an extension cohort was opened. Primary aim was to detect an overall response rate (ORR) greater than 65% (α = 0.05). Oxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 (MTD) was chosen for the extension cohort after 3 of 6 patients experienced a DLT at 80 mg/m2. Among 46 patients evaluable for the efficacy analysis ORR was 72% (33/46), missing the primary aim of the study (p = 0.21). After a median follow-up of 7.9 years, median PFS and OS were 1.0 and 2.1 years. Most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were cytopenias. R-GemOx induces decent response rates in r/r indolent lymphoma and MCL, though novel targeted therapies have largely replaced chemotherapy in the relapse setting. Particularly in MCL, R-GemOx might be an alternative option in late relapses or as bridging to CAR-T-cells. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on Aug 4th, 2009, number NCT00954005.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial, 66 individuals with T1D (age 18-64 years; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤ 9%]) were to receive once-weekly icodec (8 weeks) and once-daily insulin glargine U100 (2 weeks) at individualized fixed equimolar total weekly doses established during up to 10 weeks' run-in with glargine U100 titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). Insulin aspart was used as bolus insulin. Blood sampling for icodec pharmacokinetics was performed from the first icodec dose until 35 days after the last dose. The glucose infusion rate at steady state was assessed in glucose clamps (target 6.7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]) at 16-52 h and 138-168 h after the last icodec dose and 0-24 h after the last glargine U100 dose. Icodec pharmacodynamics during 1 week were predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Hypoglycaemia was recorded during the treatment periods based on self-measured PG. RESULTS: Icodec reached pharmacokinetic steady state on average within 2-3 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose infusion rate during the 1-week dosing interval were 14.3%, 19.6%, 18.3%, 15.7%, 13.1%, 10.6% and 8.4%, respectively. Rates and duration of Level 2 hypoglycaemic episodes (PG <3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were 32.8 versus 23.9 episodes per participant-year of exposure and 33 ± 25 versus 30 ± 18 min (mean ± SD) for icodec versus glargine U100. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of icodec suggest its potential to provide basal coverage in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T1D.

Adaptive phase I-II clinical trial designs identifying optimal biological doses for targeted agents and immunotherapies.

Targeted agents and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment, offering promising options for various cancer types. Unlike traditional therapies the principle of "more is better" is not always applicable to these new therapies due to their unique biomedical mechanisms. As a result, various phase I-II clinical trial designs have been proposed to identify the optimal biological dose that maximizes the therapeutic effect of targeted therapies and immunotherapies by jointly monitoring both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. This review article examines several innovative phase I-II clinical trial designs that utilize accumulated efficacy and toxicity outcomes to adaptively determine doses for subsequent patients and identify the optimal biological dose, maximizing the overall therapeutic effect. Specifically, we highlight three categories of phase I-II designs: efficacy-driven, utility-based, and designs incorporating multiple efficacy endpoints. For each design, we review the dose-outcome model, the definition of the optimal biological dose, the dose-finding algorithm, and the software for trial implementation. To illustrate the concepts, we also present two real phase I-II trial examples utilizing the EffTox and ISO designs. Finally, we provide a classification tree to summarize the designs discussed in this article.

First-in-human study of CPL207280, a novel G-protein-coupled receptor 40/free fatty acid receptor 1 agonist, in healthy volunteers after single and multiple administration.

AIM: To assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of single and multiple doses of CPL207280, a new G-protein-coupled receptor 40 agonist developed to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: The phase 1 study in healthy volunteers (White, age 18-55 years, body mass index 18.5-29.9 kg/m2 ) was performed after single (24 subjects, 5-480 mg) and multiple (32 subjects, 60-480 mg) once-daily administration of CPL207280.  The effect of food intake and interaction with metformin were evaluated in additional cohort (12 subjects, 120 mg). The primary objective was the safety and tolerability of CPL207280. Secondary objectives included PK and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics (glucose, insulin, C-peptide, proinsulin, glucagon levels) observed during the 14-day treatment period. RESULTS: No deaths or serious adverse events (AEs) were reported. All reported AEs were classified as unrelated to the study product. No clinically significant differences in safety parameters were observed between cohorts and no food or metformin effect on safety parameters was identified. The ascending dose of CPL207280 caused an increase in the PK parameters maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax ) or area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to 24 h. However, dose-normalized Cmax decreased with ascending dose. There was no relationship between the CPL207280 dose or prandial state and terminal elimination half-life and terminal elimination rate constant. No clear relationship between CPL207280 dose and PD area under the effect curve values was observed. CONCLUSIONS: CPL207280 was found to be safe and well tolerated by healthy volunteers (with a low risk of hepatotoxicity) for up to 14 days of administration. The PK profile of CPL207280 supports single-daily administration and justifies further development of this therapy for patients with T2D.

Bayesian dose escalation with overdose and underdose control utilizing all toxicities in Phase I/II clinical trials.

Escalation with overdose control (EWOC) is a commonly used Bayesian adaptive design, which controls overdosing risk while estimating maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in cancer Phase I clinical trials. In 2010, Chen and his colleagues proposed a novel toxicity scoring system to fully utilize patients' toxicity information by using a normalized equivalent toxicity score (NETS) in the range 0 to 1 instead of a binary indicator of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Later in 2015, by adding underdosing control into EWOC, escalation with overdose and underdose control (EWOUC) design was proposed to guarantee patients the minimum therapeutic effect of drug in Phase I/II clinical trials. In this paper, the EWOUC-NETS design is developed by integrating the advantages of EWOUC and NETS in a Bayesian context. Moreover, both toxicity response and efficacy are treated as continuous variables to maximize trial efficiency. The dose escalation decision is based on the posterior distribution of both toxicity and efficacy outcomes, which are recursively updated with accumulated data. We compare the operation characteristics of EWOUC-NETS and existing methods through simulation studies under five scenarios. The study results show that EWOUC-NETS design treating toxicity and efficacy outcomes as continuous variables can increase accuracy in identifying the optimized utility dose (OUD) and provide better therapeutic effects.

Optimal biological dose selection in dose-finding trials with model-assisted designs based on efficacy and toxicity: a simulation study.

With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies in anti-cancer treatment, a concept of optimal biological dose (OBD), accounting for efficacy and toxicity in the framework of dose-finding, has been widely introduced into phase I oncology clinical trials. Various model-assisted designs with dose-escalation rules based jointly on toxicity and efficacy are now available to establish the OBD, where the OBD is generally selected at the end of the trial using all toxicity and efficacy data obtained from the entire cohort. Several measures to select the OBD and multiple methods to estimate the efficacy probability have been developed for the OBD selection, leading to many options in practice; however, their comparative performance is still uncertain, and practitioners need to take special care of which approaches would be the best for their applications. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive simulation study to demonstrate the operating characteristics of the OBD selection approaches. The simulation study revealed key features of utility functions measuring the toxicity-efficacy trade-off and suggested that the measure used to select the OBD could vary depending on the choice of the dose-escalation procedure. Modelling the efficacy probability might lead to limited gains in OBD selection.

Risk-benefit trade-offs and precision utilities in phase I-II clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Identifying optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is critically important. Therapies administered at doses that are either unsafe or biologically ineffective are unlikely to be successful in subsequent clinical trials or to obtain regulatory approval. Identifying appropriate doses for new agents is a complex process that involves balancing the risks and benefits of outcomes such as biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life. PURPOSE: While conventional phase I trials rely solely on toxicity to determine doses, phase I-II trials explicitly account for both efficacy and toxicity, which enables them to identify doses that provide the most favorable risk-benefit trade-offs. It is also important to account for patient covariates, since one-size-fits-all treatment decisions are likely to be suboptimal within subgroups determined by prognostic variables or biomarkers. Notably, the selection of estimands can influence our conclusions based on the prognostic subgroup studied. For example, assuming monotonicity of the probability of response, higher treatment doses may yield more pronounced efficacy in favorable prognosis compared to poor prognosis subgroups when the estimand is mean or median survival. Conversely, when the estimand is the 3-month survival probability, higher treatment doses produce more pronounced efficacy in poor prognosis compared to favorable prognosis subgroups. METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we first describe why it is essential to consider clinical practice when designing a clinical trial and outline a stepwise process for doing this. We then review a precision phase I-II design based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups that characterize efficacy-toxicity risk-benefit trade-offs. The design chooses each patient's dose to optimize their expected utility and allows patients in different prognostic subgroups to have different optimal doses. We illustrate the design with a dose-finding trial of a new therapeutic agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Repurposing pantoprazole in combination with systemic therapy in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a phase I/II randomized study.

Pantoprazole decreases the acidity of the tumor microenvironment by inhibiting proton pumps on the cancer cell. This possibly leads to increased sensitivity to cytotoxic therapy. We conducted a phase I/II randomized controlled trial in adult patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) planned for first-line palliative chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy + / - intravenous (IV) pantoprazole. The primary endpoint in phase I was to determine the maximum safe dose of intravenous pantoprazole, whereas it was progression-free survival (PFS) in phase II. The dose of IV pantoprazole established in phase I was 240 mg. Between Nov'18 and Oct'20, we recruited 120 patients in phase II, 59 on pantoprazole and 61 on the standard arm. Median age was 51 years (IQR 43-60), 80% were men. Systemic therapy was IV cisplatin in 22% and oral-metronomic-chemotherapy (OMC) in 78%. Addition of pantoprazole did not prolong PFS, which was 2.2 months (95% CI 2.07-3.19) in the pantoprazole arm and 2.5 months (95% CI 2.04-3.81, HR, 1.14; 95% CI 0.78-1.66; P = 0.48) in the standard arm. Response rates were similar; pantoprazole arm 8.5%, standard arm 6.6%; P = 0.175. Overall survival was also similar; 5.6 months (95% CI 4.47-8.51) in the pantoprazole arm and 5.4 months (95% CI 3.48-8.54, HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.72-1.57; P = 0.75) in the standard arm. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were similar. Thus, pantoprazole 240 mg IV added to systemic therapy does not improve outcomes in patients with advanced HNSCC.

Safety and Immunogenicity of Inactivated Whole Virion COVID-19 Vaccine CoviVac in Clinical Trials in 18-60 and 60+ Age Cohorts.

We present the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center clinical trial phase I/II of the tolerability, safety, and immunogenicity of the inactivated whole virion concentrated purified coronavirus vaccine CoviVac in volunteers aged 18-60 and open multi-center comparative phase IIb clinical trial in volunteers aged 60 years and older. The safety of the vaccine was assessed in 400 volunteers in the 18-60 age cohort who received two doses of the vaccine (n = 300) or placebo (n = 100) and in 200 volunteers in 60+ age cohort all of whom received three doses of the vaccine. The studied vaccine has shown good tolerability and safety. No deaths, serious adverse events (AEs), or other significant AEs related to vaccination have been detected. The most common AE in vaccinated participants was pain at the injection site (p < 0.05). Immunogenicity assessment in stage 3 of Phase II was performed on 167 volunteers (122 vaccinated and 45 in Placebo Group) separately for the participants who were anti-SARS-CoV-2 nAB negative (69/122 in Vaccine Group and 28/45 in Placebo Group) or positive (53/122 in Vaccine Group and 17/45 in Placebo Group) at screening. On Day 42 after the 1st vaccination, the seroconversion rate in participants who were seronegative at screening was 86.9%, with the average geometric mean neutralizing antibody (nAB) titer of 1:20. A statistically significant (p < 0.05) increase in IFN-γ production by peptide-stimulated T-cells was observed at Days 14 and 21 after the 1st vaccination. In participants who were seropositive at screening but had nAB titers below 1:256, the rate of fourfold increase in nAB levels was 85.2%, while in the participants with nAB titers > 1:256, the rate of fourfold increase in nAB levels was below 45%; the participants who were seropositive at screening of the 2nd vaccination did not lead to a significant increase in nAB titers. In conclusion, inactivated vaccine CoviVac has shown good tolerability and safety, with over 85% NT seroconversion rates after complete vaccination course in participants who were seronegative at screening in both age groups: 18-60 and 60+. In participants who were seropositive at screening and had nAB titers below 1:256, a single vaccination led to a fourfold increase in nAB levels in 85.2% of cases. These findings indicate that CoviVac can be successfully used both for primary vaccination in a two-dose regimen and for booster vaccination as a single dose in individuals with reduced neutralizing antibody levels.

A 1-year pilot study of intralymphatic injections of GAD-alum in individuals with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) with signs of high immunity: No safety concerns and resemblance to juvenile type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To test, for the first time in latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA), the effects of autoantigen-specific immunotherapy by intralymphatic administration of aluminium-formulated recombinant human glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD-alum); specifically, to test if this treatment is safe, to test whether it induces a strong immunological response akin to a similar protocol in type 1 diabetes and to look for associations with preserved beta-cell function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three GAD-alum injections, 4 µg each, were administered 1 month apart into an inguinal lymph node in 14 people with newly diagnosed LADA (age 30-62 years) presenting with high levels of antibodies against glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA). Adverse effects, immunological variables and beta-cell function were monitored, with detailed measurements at 5 and 12 months from baseline. RESULTS: Clinical adverse effects were minor and transient and measured laboratory variables were unaffected. All participants completed the study. Treatment raised levels of GADA, elicited strong effects on reactivity of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to GAD and raised cytokine/chemokine levels. Beta-cell function appeared stable preferentially in the seven participants carrying human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes DR3DQ2, as assessed by C-peptide glucagon tests (P < 0.05 vs. seven non-carriers). CONCLUSION: Intralymphatic treatment with GAD-alum in LADA is without clinical or other safety concerns over a 12-month period. As in a similar protocol used in type 1 diabetes, treatment exerts a strong immunological impact and is compatible with protection of beta-cell function preferentially in HLA-DR3DQ2 LADA patients. These findings pave the way for a randomized controlled trial in this important subgroup of LADA patients.

A Bayesian optimal interval design for dose optimization with a randomization scheme based on pharmacokinetics outcomes in oncology.

The primary objective of an oncology dose-finding trial for novel therapies, such as molecularly targeted agents and immune-oncology therapies, is to identify the optimal dose (OD) that is tolerable and therapeutically beneficial for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. Pharmacokinetic (PK) information is considered an appropriate indicator for evaluating the level of drug intervention in humans from a pharmacological perspective. Several novel anticancer agents have been shown to have significant exposure-efficacy relationships, and some PK information has been considered an important predictor of efficacy. This paper proposes a Bayesian optimal interval design for dose optimization with a randomization scheme based on PK outcomes in oncology. A simulation study shows that the proposed design has advantages compared to the other designs in the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to OD in various realistic settings.

A Bayesian phase I-II clinical trial design to find the biological optimal dose on drug combination.

In recent years, combined therapy shows expected treatment effect as they increase dose intensity, work on multiple targets and benefit more patients for antitumor treatment. However, dose -finding designs for combined therapy face a number of challenges. Therefore, under the framework of phase I-II, we propose a two-stage dose -finding design to identify the biologically optimal dose combination (BODC), defined as the one with the maximum posterior mean utility under acceptable safety. We model the probabilities of toxicity and efficacy by using linear logistic regression models and conduct Bayesian model selection (BMS) procedure to define the most likely pattern of dose-response surface. The BMS can adaptively select the most suitable model during the trial, making the results robust. We investigated the operating characteristics of the proposed design through simulation studies under various practical scenarios and showed that the proposed design is robust and performed well.

TITE-gBOIN-ET: Time-to-event generalized Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding accounting for ordinal graded efficacy and toxicity outcomes.

One of the primary objectives of an oncology dose-finding trial for novel therapies, such as molecular-targeted agents and immune-oncology therapies, is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is tolerable and therapeutically beneficial for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. These new therapeutic agents appear more likely to induce multiple low or moderate-grade toxicities than dose-limiting toxicities. Besides, for efficacy, evaluating the overall response and long-term stable disease in solid tumors and considering the difference between complete remission and partial remission in lymphoma are preferable. It is also essential to accelerate early-stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make real-time adaptive decisions due to late-onset outcomes, fast accrual rates, and differences in outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity. To solve the issues, we propose a time-to-event generalized Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose finding, accounting for efficacy and toxicity grades. The new design named "TITE-gBOIN-ET" design is model-assisted and straightforward to implement in actual oncology dose-finding trials. Simulation studies show that the TITE-gBOIN-ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment while having comparable or higher performance in the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across various realistic settings.