Comparing pulsed field electroporation and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: design and rationale of the BEAT PAROX-AF randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: Using thermal-based energy sources [radiofrequency (RF) energy/cryo energy] for catheter ablation is considered effective and safe when performing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, treatment success remains limited and complications can occur due to the propagation of thermal energy into non-target tissues. We aim to compare pulsed field ablation (PFA) with RF ablation in terms of efficacy and safety for patients with drug-resistant paroxysmal AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The BEAT PAROX-AF trial is a European multicentre, superiority, open-label randomized clinical trial in two parallel groups. A total of 292 participants were recruited in 9 high-volume European clinical centres in 5 countries. Patients with paroxysmal AF were randomized to PFA (FARAPULSE Endocardial Ablation System©, Boston Scientific) or RF using the CLOSE protocol with contact force sensing catheter (SmartTouch© catheter and CARTO© Biosense Webster). The primary endpoint will be the 1-year recurrence of atrial arrhythmia, and the major secondary safety endpoint will be the occurrence of acute (<7 days) procedure-related serious adverse events, or pulmonary vein stenosis, or atrio-oesophageal fistula up to 12 months. Additionally, five sub-studies investigate the effect of PFA on oesophageal safety, cerebral lesions, cardiac autonomic nervous system, durability of PVI as assessed during redo ablation procedures, and atrial and ventricular function. The study began on 27 December 2021 and concluded recruitment on 17 January 2024. Results will be available in mid-2025. CONCLUSION: The BEAT PAROX-AF trial aims to provide critical insights into the optimal treatment approach for patients with paroxysmal AF.

Detection of drug safety signals from clinical trials data: Role of SUSARs.

One of the main goals of safety management in clinical trials is to detect suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (SUSARs). The unexpectedness concerns the nature, frequency or severity of an adverse reaction. Drug safety signals could thus be retrieved, and a study was performed to investigate whether SUSARs allow signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Data from six academic safety units were collected from 2005 to 2016. Characteristics of SUSARs were analysed and signals were identified i) by evaluating the presence of other causes, ii) by assessing the summary of product characteristics (SPC), iii) by searching for specific safety information in Pubmed and health agencies, and iv) by investigating the narrative of each case. Pharmacological plausibility was evaluated by compatible mechanism of reaction and time-to-onset. During the study period, 211 SUSARs were collected. They mostly concerned general disorders (26.1%) and protein kinase inhibitors (24.6%). After eliminating SUSARs with other causes or those considered as expected, 50 SUSARs (23.7%), involving a total of 115 drug-reaction pairs, concerned potential safety signals. Among these pairs, 12 (10.4%) were considered as pharmacologically plausible. This study indicates that one quarter of SUSARs collected in academic clinical trials refers to potential safety signals, especially for oncologic drugs. One tenth of drug-reaction pairs was considered to have a pharmacological plausibility and could merit further evaluation. This is the first study suggesting that SUSARs could be a source of safety signals and that their routine analysis should be complementary to spontaneous reporting.

Serious adverse drug events related to non-investigational drugs in academic clinical trials: another source of safety data for risk assessment?

AIMS: Sponsors of clinical trials have to analyze serious adverse events (SAEs). Both sponsors and investigators determine the relationship between the investigational medicinal product, the investigational device or procedure and SAEs. SAEs related to another cause, such as a non-investigational medicinal product (NIMP), do not have clear pharmacovigilance reporting requirements. The aim of this study was to evaluate the amount and the nature of NIMP-related SAEs recorded by three French academic sponsors and to propose pharmacovigilance requirements for these cases. METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive study including all cases of NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials and reported to three academic sponsors between January 2009 and October 2014. RESULTS: Among 5870 cases of SAEs, 300 (5%) were related to a NIMP in 50 clinical trials. Involved NIMPs were mainly antithrombotics, cytostatics and immunosuppressants. Some of these drugs were currently followed by a risk management plan (e.g. rivoxaban). The most frequent NIMP-related SAEs were neurological, gastrointestinal and infectious disorders. Seven NIMP-related SAEs were known as 'rare' or 'very rare' and two were 'unlabelled'. CONCLUSIONS: As far as we know, this is the first study to focus about NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials. This work highlights the potential high quality source of safety data via NIMP-related SAE collection. Globally, we propose that NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials should systematically be notified to the pharmacovigilance system of the concerned country. Clearer procedures of interactions between safety units of academic sponsors and pharmacovigilance systems are needed to allow an effective recording of NIMP-related SAEs.

[Reporting of harms in clinical trials: Vigilant support to the investigator. A guideline of REVISE' Group]. / Sécurité des essais cliniques : accompagnement de l'investigateur par le vigilant pour la publication des données de sécurité. Une ligne directrice du groupe REVISE.

Since August 9, 2004, the 2001 European Directive for clinical trials is applied to the French law. Since the 2006 implementing decree amending public health law on biomedical researches, safety data are managed by sponsor vigilant. Competent authorities collect sponsor's data, implement the vigilance system (Article L. 1123-12 of French Health Code) and supervise drastically safety data in clinical research from clinical trial authorization to final report. However, although available to competent authorities, final reports are not addressed to scientific community, who has only access to scientific publications for clinical trials safety data. Final report is under sponsor's responsibility (Article R. 1123-60 of French Health Code), but scientific publication is written by the study coordinating investigator. Therefore, at the end of the clinical trial, two actors will interpret safety data from the same database but with different scientific objectives. The lack of reporting of harms in scientific communications impacts the information. The REVISE group (safety officers of French institutional sponsors) suggests help to investigators in the safety data writing for their trial scientific publication. The group published a guideline, based on the international recommendations for publications of safety data in randomized clinical trials and expanded its scope to all clinical trials.

Home Treatment of Older People with Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19): A structured Summary of a Study Protocol for a Multi-Arm Multi-Stage (MAMS) Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Tolerability of Several Experimental Treatments to Reduce the Risk of Hospitalisation or Death in outpatients aged 65 years or older (COVERAGE trial).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of several repurposed drugs to prevent hospitalisation or death in patients aged 65 or more with recent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and no criteria for hospitalisation. TRIAL DESIGN: Phase III, multi-arm (5) and multi-stage (MAMS), randomized, open-label controlled superiority trial. Participants will be randomly allocated 1:1:1:1:1 to the following strategies: Arm 1: Control arm Arms 2 to 5: Experimental treatment arms Planned interim analyses will be conducted at regular intervals. Their results will be reviewed by an Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Experimental arms may be terminated for futility, efficacy or toxicity before the end of the trial. New experimental arms may be added if new evidence suggests that other treatments should be tested. A feasibility and acceptability substudy as well as an immunological substudy will be conducted alongside the trial. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria are: 65-year-old or more; Positive test for SARS-CoV-2 on a nasopharyngeal swab; Symptoms onset within 3 days before diagnosis; No hospitalisation criteria; Signed informed consent; Health insurance. Exclusion criteria are: Inability to make an informed decision to participate (e.g.: dementia, guardianship); Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale ≥7; Long QT syndrome; QTc interval > 500 ms; Heart rate <50/min; Kalaemia >5.5 mmol/L or <3.5 mmol/L; Ongoing treatment with piperaquine, halofantrine, dasatinib, nilotinib, hydroxyzine, domperidone, citalopram, escitalopram, potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 CYP3A4 isoenzyme, repaglinide, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, theophylline, pyrazinamide, warfarin; Known hypersensitivity to any of the trial drugs or to chloroquine and other 4-aminoquinolines, amodiaquine, mefloquine, glafenine, floctafenine, antrafenine, ARB; Hepatic porphyria; Liver failure (Child-Pugh stage ≥B); Stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m²); Dialysis; Hypersentivity to lactose; Lactase deficiency; Abnormalities in galactose metabolism; Malabsorption syndrome; Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency; Symptomatic hyperuricemia; Ileus; Colitis; Enterocolitis; Chronic hepatitis B virus disease. The trial is being conducted in France in the Bordeaux, Corse, Dijon, Nancy, Paris and Toulouse areas as well as in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Participants are recruited either at home, nursing homes, general practices, primary care centres or hospital outpatient consultations. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The four experimental treatments planned in protocol version 1.2 (April 8th, 2020) are: (1) Hydroxychloroquine 200 mg, 2 tablets BID on day 0, 2 tablets QD from day 1 to 9; (2) Imatinib 400 mg, 1 tablet QD from day 0 to 9; (3) Favipiravir 200 mg, 12 tablets BID on day 0, 6 tablets BID from day 1 to 9; (4) Telmisartan 20 mg, 1 tablet QD from day 0 to 9. The comparator is a complex of vitamins and trace elements (AZINC Forme et Vitalité®), 1 capsule BID for 10 days, for which there is no reason to believe that they are active on the virus. In protocol version 1.2 (April 8th, 2020): People in the control arm will receive a combination of vitamins and trace elements; people in the experimental arms will receive hydroxychloroquine, or favipiravir, or imatinib, or telmisartan. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with an incidence of hospitalisation and/or death between inclusion and day 14 in each arm. RANDOMISATION: Participants are randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to each arm using a web-based randomisation tool. Participants not treated with an ARB or ACEI prior to enrolment are randomized to receive the comparator or one of the four experimental drugs. Participants already treated with an ARB or ACEI are randomized to receive the comparator or one of the experimental drugs except telmisartan (i.e.: hydroxychloroquine, imatinib, or favipiravir). Randomisation is stratified on ACEI or ARBs treatment at inclusion and on the type of residence (personal home vs. nursing home). BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open-label trial. Participants, caregivers, investigators and statisticians are not blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 1057 participants will be enrolled if all arms are maintained until the final analysis and no additional arm is added. Three successive futility interim analyses are planned, when the number of participants reaches 30, 60 and 102 in the control arm. Two efficacy analyses (interim n°3 and final) will be performed successively. TRIAL STATUS: This describes the Version 1.2 (April 8th, 2020) of the COVERAGE protocol that was approved by the French regulatory authority and ethics committee. The trial was opened for enrolment on April 15th, 2020 in the Nouvelle Aquitaine region (South-West France). Given the current decline of the COVID-19 pandemic in France and its unforeseeable dynamic in the coming months, new trial sites in 5 other French regions and in Luxembourg are currently being opened. A revised version of the protocol was submitted to the regulatory authority and ethics committee on June 15th, 2020. It contains the following amendments: (i) Inclusion criteria: age ≥65 replaced by age ≥60; time since first symptoms <3 days replaced by time since first symptoms <5 days; (ii) Withdrawal of the hydroxychloroquine arm (due to external data); (iii) increase in the number of trial sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on Clinical Trials.gov on April 22nd, 2020 (Identifier: NCT04356495): and on EudraCT on April 10th, 2020 (Identifier: 2020-001435-27). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Phase I study of axitinib and everolimus in metastatic solid tumours and extension to metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results of EVAX study.

PURPOSE: Anti-angiogenic and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors have shown efficacy in solid tumours. Reported combination of both drugs was deemed to be too toxic. Due to a potential favourable safety profile of axitinib (AX), a phase I study combining everolimus (EV) and AX for solid tumours was explored. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients (pts) with advanced cancers were enrolled in an escalation phase I study to investigate the safety of the combination. Pharmacokinetic profile and functional vascular imaging were performed. An extension to pts with naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) was explored. RESULTS: 15 pts were included over three different dose levels (DLs); DL 0: AX 3 mg BID (twice daily)/EV 5 mg OD (once daily); DL 1: AX 5 mg BID/EV 5 mg OD and DL 2: AX 5 mg BID/EV 10 mg OD for 28 d. One dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was reported at DL 0: grade (Gr) III diarrhoea and one DLT at DL 2: Gr III asthenia. Three severe adverse events (AEs) in two pts were unexpected: jaw osteonecrosis, recurrent renal failure and cardiomyopathy. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was level 2. After 1st cycle, Gr III or Gr II AEs of interest were mainly asthenia, diarrhoea and anorexia. All pts but one showed tumour shrinkage. Partial responses (PRs) were seen in one pt with bladder carcinoma and in one pt in 1st line MRCC in the escalating phase. In the extension phase in naive MRCC treated at MTD, five pts had a PR and one pt had a prolonged stable disease. CONCLUSION: The recommended dose for phase II is AX 5 mg BID/EV 10 mg OD.

A multicenter phase II study of sunitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated, anaplastic or medullary thyroid carcinomas: mature data from the THYSU study.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced radioactive iodine resistant differentiated (MDTC) or medullary (MMTC) thyroid cancer had an unmet need. Early data showed promising efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors. We investigated sunitinib in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase 2 trial enrolled MDTC, anaplastic (MATC) and MMTC patients in 1st line anti-angiogenic therapy with sunitinib at 50 mg/d, 4/6w. Objective response rate was the primary end-point. Secondary end-points were progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were enrolled from August 2007 to October 2009, 41 MDTC/4 MATC patients and 26 MMTC patients. Patients received a median of 8 and 9 cycles, respectively. In the MDTC/MATC group, 13% of patients and 43% of cycles and in the MMTC group, 23% of the patients and 48.8% of cycles remained at 50 mg/d, respectively. The primary end-point was reached with an objective response rate of 22% (95% CI: 10.6-37.6) in MDTC patients and in 38.5% (95% CI: 22.6-56.4) in MMTC patients. No objective response was seen in MATC patients. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 13.1 and 26.4 months in MDTC patients, 16.5 and 29.4 months in MMTC patients. The most frequent side effects were asthenia/fatigue (27.8% ≥ grade 3), mucosal (9.9% ≥ grade 3), cutaneous toxicities, hand-foot syndrome (18.3% ≥ grade 3). Of all, 14.1% had a cardiac event. Nine unexpected side effects were reported, out of which, five induced deaths. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib is active in MDTC and MMTC patients. Side effects were more severe than with previous reports. If using sunitinib, alternative schedule/dosage should be considered.