Trial of Anifrolumab in Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody to type I interferon receptor subunit 1 investigated for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), did not have a significant effect on the primary end point in a previous phase 3 trial. The current phase 3 trial used a secondary end point from that trial as the primary end point. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. The primary end point of this trial was a response at week 52 defined with the use of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA). A BICLA response requires reduction in any moderate-to-severe baseline disease activity and no worsening in any of nine organ systems in the BILAG index, no worsening on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index, no increase of 0.3 points or more in the score on the Physician Global Assessment of disease activity (on a scale from 0 [no disease activity] to 3 [severe disease]), no discontinuation of the trial intervention, and no use of medications restricted by the protocol. Secondary end points included a BICLA response in patients with a high interferon gene signature at baseline; reductions in the glucocorticoid dose, in the severity of skin disease, and in counts of swollen and tender joints; and the annualized flare rate. RESULTS: A total of 362 patients received the randomized intervention: 180 received anifrolumab and 182 received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a BICLA response was 47.8% in the anifrolumab group and 31.5% in the placebo group (difference, 16.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 6.3 to 26.3; P = 0.001). Among patients with a high interferon gene signature, the percentage with a response was 48.0% in the anifrolumab group and 30.7% in the placebo group; among patients with a low interferon gene signature, the percentage was 46.7% and 35.5%, respectively. Secondary end points with respect to the glucocorticoid dose and the severity of skin disease, but not counts of swollen and tender joints and the annualized flare rate, also showed a significant benefit with anifrolumab. Herpes zoster and bronchitis occurred in 7.2% and 12.2% of the patients, respectively, who received anifrolumab. There was one death from pneumonia in the anifrolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly administration of anifrolumab resulted in a higher percentage of patients with a response (as defined by a composite end point) at week 52 than did placebo, in contrast to the findings of a similar phase 3 trial involving patients with SLE that had a different primary end point. The frequency of herpes zoster was higher with anifrolumab than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02446899.).

Sample size estimation using a latent variable model for mixed outcome co-primary, multiple primary and composite endpoints.

Mixed outcome endpoints that combine multiple continuous and discrete components are often employed as primary outcome measures in clinical trials. These may be in the form of co-primary endpoints, which conclude effectiveness overall if an effect occurs in all of the components, or multiple primary endpoints, which require an effect in at least one of the components. Alternatively, they may be combined to form composite endpoints, which reduce the outcomes to a one-dimensional endpoint. There are many advantages to joint modeling the individual outcomes, however in order to do this in practice we require techniques for sample size estimation. In this article we show how the latent variable model can be used to estimate the joint endpoints and propose hypotheses, power calculations and sample size estimation methods for each. We illustrate the techniques using a numerical example based on a four-dimensional endpoint and find that the sample size required for the co-primary endpoint is larger than that required for the individual endpoint with the smallest effect size. Conversely, the sample size required in the multiple primary case is similar to that needed for the outcome with the largest effect size. We show that the empirical power is achieved for each endpoint and that the FWER can be sufficiently controlled using a Bonferroni correction if the correlations between endpoints are less than 0.5. Otherwise, less conservative adjustments may be needed. We further illustrate empirically the efficiency gains that may be achieved in the composite endpoint setting.

What matters most? Different stakeholder perspectives on estimands for an invented case study in COPD.

In drug development, we ask ourselves which population, endpoint and treatment comparison should be investigated. In this context, we also debate what matters most to the different stakeholders that are involved in clinical drug development, for example, patients, physicians, regulators and payers. With the publication of draft ICH E9 addendum on estimands in 2017, we now have a common framework and language to discuss such questions in an informed and transparent way. This has led to the estimand discussion being a key element in study development, including design, analysis and interpretation of a treatment effect. At an invited session at the 2018 PSI annual conference, PSI hosted a role-play debate where the aim of the session was to mimic a regulatory and payer scientific advice discussion for a COPD drug. Including role-play views from an industry sponsor, a patient, a regulator and a payer. This paper presents the invented COPD case-study design and considerations relating to appropriate estimands are discussed by each of the stakeholders from their differing viewpoints with the additional inclusion of a technical (academic) perspective. The rationale for each perspective on approaches for handling intercurrent events is presented, with a key emphasis on the application of while-on-treatment and treatment policy estimands in this context. It is increasingly recognised that the treatment effect estimated by the treatment policy approach may not always be of primary clinical interest and may not appropriately communicate to patients the efficacy they can expect if they take the treatment as directed.

Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) attainment discriminates responders in a systemic lupus erythematosus trial: post-hoc analysis of the Phase IIb MUSE trial of anifrolumab.

OBJECTIVES: In a post-hoc analysis, we aimed to validate the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) definition as an endpoint in an systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Phase IIb randomised controlled trial (RCT) (MUSE [NCT01438489]) and then utilize LLDAS to discriminate between anifrolumab and placebo. METHODS: Patients received intravenous placebo (n=102) or anifrolumab (300 mg, n=99; 1,000 mg, n=104) Q4W plus standard of care for 48 weeks. LLDAS attainment (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 ≤4 without major organ activity, no new disease activity, Physician's Global Assessment ≤1, prednisolone ≤7.5 mg/d and standard immunosuppressant dosage tolerance) was assessed. Associations with endpoints and LLDAS attainment differences between treatments were explored. RESULTS: LLDAS attainment at Week 52 was associated with SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI[4]) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) (74/85[87%] and 62/84[74%] were also SRI[4] and BICLA responders, respectively; both nominal p<0.001). Only 74/159 (47%) of SRI(4) and 62/121 (51%) of BICLA responders reached LLDAS.Anifrolumab-treated patients achieved earlier LLDAS, and more spent at least half their observed time in LLDAS (OR vs. placebo; 300 mg: 3.04, 95% CI 1.34 to 6.92, nominal p=0.008; 1,000 mg: 2.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.03, nominal p=0.072) vs placebo-treated patients. At Week 52, 17/102 (17%), 39/99 (39%) and 29/104 (28%) of patients on placebo, anifrolumab 300 and 1,000 mg, respectively, attained LLDAS (OR vs. placebo; 300 mg: 3.41, 95% CI 1.73 to 6.76, p<0.001; 1,000 mg: 2.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.07, nominal p=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: LLDAS attainment represents a clinically meaningful SLE outcome measure, and anifrolumab is associated with more patients who met LLDAS criteria versus placebo. These data support LLDAS as an SLE RCT endpoint. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT1438489; Post-results.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose study of BMS-791325, a hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5B polymerase inhibitor, in HCV genotype 1 infection.

BMS-791325 is a nonnucleoside inhibitor of hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5B polymerase with low-nanomolar potency against genotypes 1a (50% effective concentration [EC50], 3 nM) and 1b (EC50, 7 nM) in vitro. BMS-791325 safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiviral activity were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose study in 24 patients (interferon naive and experienced) with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, randomized (5:1) to receive a single dose of BMS-791325 (100, 300, 600, or 900 mg) or placebo. The prevalence and phenotype of HCV variants at baseline and specific posttreatment time points were assessed. Antiviral activity was observed in all cohorts, with a mean HCV RNA decline of ≈2.5 log10 copies/ml observed 24 h after a single 300-mg dose. Mean plasma half-life among cohorts was 7 to 9 h; individual 24-hour levels exceeded the protein-adjusted EC90 for genotype 1 at all doses. BMS-791325 was generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse events or discontinuations. Enrichment for resistance variants was not observed at 100 to 600 mg. At 900 mg, variants (P495L/S) associated with BMS-791325 resistance in vitro were transiently observed in one patient, concurrent with an observed HCV RNA decline of 3.4 log10 IU/ml, but were replaced with wild type by 48 h. Single doses of BMS-791325 were well tolerated; demonstrated rapid, substantial, and exposure-related antiviral activity; displayed dose-related increases in exposure; and showed viral kinetic and pharmacokinetic profiles supportive of once- or twice-daily dosing. These results support its further development in combination with other direct-acting antivirals for HCV genotype 1 infection. (This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00664625.).

Efficacy of nirsevimab against respiratory syncytial virus lower respiratory tract infections in preterm and term infants, and pharmacokinetic extrapolation to infants with congenital heart disease and chronic lung disease: a pooled analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2b trial and the phase 3 MELODY trial, nirsevimab, an extended half-life, monoclonal antibody against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), protected healthy infants born preterm or at full term against medically attended RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). In the MEDLEY phase 2-3 trial in infants at higher risk for severe RSV infection, nirsevimab showed a similar safety profile to that of palivizumab. The aim of the current analysis was to assess the efficacy of nirsevimab using a weight-banded dosing regimen in infants born between 29 weeks gestational age and full term. METHODS: Infants enrolled in the phase 2b and MELODY trials were randomised (2:1) to receive a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab (infants weighing <5 kg received 50 mg; those weighing ≥5 kg received 100 mg) or placebo before the RSV season. Infants in MEDLEY were randomised (2:1) to receive one dose of nirsevimab (infants weighing <5 kg received 50 mg; those weighing ≥5 kg received 100 mg) followed by four monthly placebo doses, or five once-a-month intramuscular doses of palivizumab. We report a prespecified pooled efficacy analysis assessing the weight-banded dosing regimen proposed on the basis of the phase 2b and MELODY trials, in addition to extrapolated efficacy in infants with chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease, or extreme preterm birth (<29 weeks' gestational age) based on pharmacokinetic data from the phase 2-3 MEDLEY safety trial. For the pooled efficacy analysis, the primary endpoint was incidence of medically attended RSV LRTI through 150 days post-dose. The secondary efficacy endpoint was number of admissions to hospital for medically attended RSV LRTI. The incidence of very severe RSV LRTI was an exploratory endpoint, defined as cases of hospital admission for medically attended RSV LRTI that required supplemental oxygen or intravenous fluids. We also did a prespecified exploratory analysis of medically attended LRTI of any cause (in the investigator's judgement) and hospital admission for respiratory illness of any cause (defined as any upper respiratory tract infection or LRTI leading to hospital admission). Post hoc exploratory analyses of outpatient visits and antibiotic use were also done. Nirsevimab serum concentrations in MEDLEY were assessed using population pharmacokinetic methods and the pooled data from the phase 2b and MELODY trials. An exposure target was defined on the basis of an exposure-response analysis. To successfully demonstrate extrapolation, more than 80% of infants in MEDLEY had to achieve serum nirsevimab exposures at or above the predicted efficacious target. FINDINGS: Overall, 2350 infants (1564 in the nirsevimab group and 786 in the placebo group) in the phase 2b and MELODY trials were included in the pooled analysis. Nirsevimab showed efficacy versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint of medically attended RSV LRTI (19 [1%] nirsevimab recipients vs 51 [6%] placebo recipients; relative risk reduction [RRR] 79·5% [95% CI 65·9-87·7]). Consistent efficacy was shown for additional endpoints of RSV LRTI hospital admission (nine [1%] nirsevimab recipients vs 21 [3%] placebo recipients; 77·3% [50·3-89·7]) and very severe RSV (five [<1%] vs 18 [2%]; 86·0% [62·5-94·8]). Nirsevimab recipients had fewer hospital admissions for any-cause respiratory illness (RRR 43·8% [18·8-61·1]), any-cause medically attended LRTI (35·4% [21·5-46·9]), LRTI outpatient visits (41·9% [25·7-54·6]), and antibiotic prescriptions (23·6% [3·8-39·3]). Among infants with chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease, or extreme preterm birth in MEDLEY, nirsevimab serum exposures were similar to those found in the pooled data; exposures were above the target in more than 80% of the overall MEDLEY trial population (94%), including infants with chronic lung disease (94%) or congenital heart disease (80%) and those born extremely preterm (94%). INTERPRETATION: A single dose of nirsevimab protected healthy infants born at term or preterm from medically attended RSV LRTI, associated hospital admission, and severe RSV. Pharmacokinetic data support efficacy extrapolation to infants with chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease, or extreme prematurity. Together, these data suggest that nirsevimab has the potential to change the landscape of infant RSV disease by reducing a major cause of infant morbidity and the consequent burden on caregivers, clinicians, and health-care providers. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Sanofi.

Increasing power in the analysis of responder endpoints in rheumatology: a software tutorial.

BACKGROUND: Composite responder endpoints feature frequently in rheumatology due to the multifaceted nature of many of these conditions. Current analysis methods used to analyse these endpoints discard much of the data used to classify patients as responders and are therefore highly inefficient, resulting in low power. We highlight a novel augmented methodology that uses more of the information available to improve the precision of reported treatment effects. Since these methods are more challenging to implement, we developed free, user-friendly software available in a web-based interface and as R packages. The software consists of two programs: one that supports the analysis of responder endpoints; the second that facilitates sample size estimation. We demonstrate the use of the software to conduct the analysis with both the augmented and standard analysis method using the MUSE study, a phase IIb trial in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. RESULTS: The software outputs similar point estimates with smaller confidence intervals for the odds ratio, risk ratio and risk difference estimators using the augmented approach. The sample size required in each arm for a future trial using the novel approach based on the MUSE data is 50 versus 135 for the standard method, translating to a reduction in required sample size of approximately 63%. CONCLUSIONS: We encourage trialists to use the software demonstrated to implement the augmented methodology in future studies to improve efficiency.

Employing a latent variable framework to improve efficiency in composite endpoint analysis.

Composite endpoints that combine multiple outcomes on different scales are common in clinical trials, particularly in chronic conditions. In many of these cases, patients will have to cross a predefined responder threshold in each of the outcomes to be classed as a responder overall. One instance of this occurs in systemic lupus erythematosus, where the responder endpoint combines two continuous, one ordinal and one binary measure. The overall binary responder endpoint is typically analysed using logistic regression, resulting in a substantial loss of information. We propose a latent variable model for the systemic lupus erythematosus endpoint, which assumes that the discrete outcomes are manifestations of latent continuous measures and can proceed to jointly model the components of the composite. We perform a simulation study and find that the method offers large efficiency gains over the standard analysis, the magnitude of which is highly dependent on the components driving response. Bias is introduced when joint normality assumptions are not satisfied, which we correct for using a bootstrap procedure. The method is applied to the Phase IIb MUSE trial in patients with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus. We show that it estimates the treatment effect 2.5 times more precisely, offering a 60% reduction in required sample size.

Study protocol for the international Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Prospective Observational Cohort Study (SPOCS): understanding lupus and the role of type I interferon gene signature.

INTRODUCTION: The Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Prospective Observational Cohort Study (SPOCS) aims to describe the disease course of SLE and its association with type I interferon gene signature (IFNGS) status. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SPOCS is an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study designed to follow patients through biannual study visits during a 3-year observation period. Patients ≥18 years old with a physician diagnosis that meets the American College of Rheumatology or Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics SLE classification criteria will be included. SPOCS will comprehensively analyse clinical features, disease progression and treatment, SLE outcomes, health status assessments and quality of life, and healthcare resource utilisation of patients with moderate to severe SLE. A four-gene test will be used to measure IFNGS status; scores will be compared with a pre-established cut-off. Patients will be stratified by low or high IFNGS expression levels. Enrolment began in June 2017, and study completion is expected in 2022. The total number of anticipated patients was initially planned for 1500 patients and was amended to 900 patients owing to slow accrual of eligible patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethics committee/institutional review board/independent ethics committee at each study site approved the SPOCS protocol prior to study initiation (protocol number: D3461R00001, version 3.0, 26 June 2019). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03189875.

Type I interferon inhibitor anifrolumab in active systemic lupus erythematosus (TULIP-1): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Type I interferons are involved in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) pathogenesis. In a phase 2 trial, anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody to type I interferon receptor subunit 1, suppressed interferon gene signatures and substantially reduced SLE disease activity. Here, we sought to confirm the efficacy of anifrolumab versus placebo in a phase 3 trial of adult patients with SLE and moderate-to-severe disease activity despite standard-of-care treatment. METHODS: TULIP-1 was a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 123 sites in 18 countries. Included patients were aged 18-70 years, with moderate-to-severe SLE, and ongoing stable treatment with either prednisone or equivalent, an antimalarial, azathioprine, mizoribine, mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid, or methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:2) to receive placebo, anifrolumab 150 mg, or anifrolumab 300 mg intravenously every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. Stable standard-of-care treatment continued except for mandatory attempts at oral corticosteroid tapering for patients receiving prednisone or equivalent of 10 mg/day or more at baseline. The primary outcome was the difference between the proportion of patients who achieved an SLE responder index-4 (SRI-4) response at week 52 with anifrolumab 300 mg versus with placebo. Key secondary outcomes were the difference between the anifrolumab 300 mg group and the placebo group in: proportion of patients in the interferon gene signature test-high subgroup who achieved SRI-4 at week 52; proportion of patients on 10 mg/day or more corticosteroids at baseline who achieved a sustained dose reduction to 7·5 mg/day or less from week 40 to 52; proportion of patients with a cutaneous lupus erythematosus disease area and severity index (CLASI) activity score of 10 or higher at baseline who achieved a 50% or more reduction in CLASI score by week 12; proportion of patients who achieved SRI-4 at week 24; and annualised flare rate through week 52. Other measures of disease activity were also assessed at week 52, including the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based composite lupus assessment (BICLA). Safety was also assessed. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the population of patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02446912). FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2015, and June 16, 2017, 457 patients were randomly assigned to the anifrolumab 300 mg group (n=180), the anifrolumab 150 mg group (n=93), or the placebo group (n=184). The proportion of patients at week 52 with an SRI-4 response was similar between anifrolumab 300 mg (65 [36%] of 180) and placebo (74 [40%] of 184; difference -4·2 [95% CI -14·2 to 5·8], p=0·41). Similarly, proportions of patients with an SRI-4 response at week 24, and at week 52 in patients in the interferon gene signature test-high subgroup, did not differ between the anifrolumab and placebo groups. In patients with baseline oral corticosteroids of at least 10 mg/day, sustained dose reduction to 7·5 mg/day or less was achieved by 42 (41%) of 103 patients in the anifrolumab 300 mg group and 33 (32%) of 102 patients in the placebo group (difference 8·9 [95% CI -4·1 to 21·9]). In patients with CLASI activity score of at least 10 at baseline, at least 50% reduction by week 12 was achieved by 24 (42%) of 58 patients in the anifrolumab 300 mg group and 14 (25%) of 54 in the placebo group (difference 17·0 [95% CI -0·3 to 34·3]). Annualised flare rates were 0·60 for anifrolumab and 0·72 for placebo (rate ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·60 to 1·14]). BICLA response was achieved by 67 (37%) of 180 patients receiving anifrolumab 300 mg versus 49 (27%) of 184 receiving placebo (difference 10·1 [95% CI 0·6 to 19·7]). Anifrolumab's safety profile was similar to that observed in phase 2, with similar proportions of patients having a serious adverse event between groups (25 [14%] of 180 for anifrolumab 300 mg, ten [11%] of 93 for anifrolumab 150 mg, and 30 [16%] of 184 for placebo). INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint was not reached. However, several secondary endpoints, including reduction in oral corticosteroid dose, CLASI responses, and BICLA responses, suggest clinical benefit of anifrolumab compared with placebo. Conclusive evidence for the efficacy of anifrolumab awaits further phase 3 trial data. Despite the inherent limitations of a 1-year phase 3 study, such as incomplete knowledge of applicability to the general population and scarce detection of rare safety signals, in addition to complications from prespecified restricted medication rules, our results suggest that anifrolumab might have the potential to provide a treatment option for patients who have active SLE while receiving standard therapy. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous and intravenous anifrolumab in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous anifrolumab, an anti-type I interferon receptor monoclonal antibody in development for SLE, in healthy volunteers. METHODS: In this Phase I randomised, placebo-controlled study, 30 adults were assigned to three treatment cohorts (anifrolumab 300 mg SC (n=6), anifrolumab 300 mg intravenous (n=6), anifrolumab 600 mg SC (n=6)) and placebo (n=4/cohort). Serial blood samples were collected up to Day 84 to measure anifrolumab concentrations and antidrug antibodies (ADAs). PK parameters were estimated by noncompartmental analysis. RESULTS: Maximum serum concentrations in SC cohorts occurred after 4-7 days. Anifrolumab serum concentrations were below the limit of detection in all individuals by Day 84. Exposure to SC anifrolumab increased dose proportionally from 300 mg to 600 mg based on area under the serum concentration-time curve. Anifrolumab 300 mg SC exposure reached 87% of the intravenous exposure. Anifrolumab 300 mg SC and placebo administration elicited minimal injection-site reactions. Transient injection-site induration occurred in five of six individuals after anifrolumab 600 mg SC and two of four individuals after placebo. Transient, mild to moderate injection-site induration and pruritus occurred simultaneously in two of six individuals after anifrolumab 600 mg SC. Adverse events were reported by 50% (n=9) of anifrolumab-treated individuals and 33% (n=4) of placebo-treated individuals. ADAs were detected in only one individual in the anifrolumab 300-mg intravenous group at the Day 84 assessment. CONCLUSION: Anifrolumab 300-mg SC exposure was 87% of intravenous administration, with single SC anifrolumab administrations well tolerated in healthy volunteers.

Improving the analysis of composite endpoints in rare disease trials.

BACKGROUND: Composite endpoints are recommended in rare diseases to increase power and/or to sufficiently capture complexity. Often, they are in the form of responder indices which contain a mixture of continuous and binary components. Analyses of these outcomes typically treat them as binary, thus only using the dichotomisations of continuous components. The augmented binary method offers a more efficient alternative and is therefore especially useful for rare diseases. Previous work has indicated the method may have poorer statistical properties when the sample size is small. Here we investigate small sample properties and implement small sample corrections. METHODS: We re-sample from a previous trial with sample sizes varying from 30 to 80. We apply the standard binary and augmented binary methods and determine the power, type I error rate, coverage and average confidence interval width for each of the estimators. We implement Firth's adjustment for the binary component models and a small sample variance correction for the generalized estimating equations, applying the small sample adjusted methods to each sub-sample as before for comparison. RESULTS: For the log-odds treatment effect the power of the augmented binary method is 20-55% compared to 12-20% for the standard binary method. Both methods have approximately nominal type I error rates. The difference in response probabilities exhibit similar power but both unadjusted methods demonstrate type I error rates of 6-8%. The small sample corrected methods have approximately nominal type I error rates. On both scales, the reduction in average confidence interval width when using the adjusted augmented binary method is 17-18%. This is equivalent to requiring a 32% smaller sample size to achieve the same statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: The augmented binary method with small sample corrections provides a substantial improvement for rare disease trials using composite endpoints. We recommend the use of the method for the primary analysis in relevant rare disease trials. We emphasise that the method should be used alongside other efforts in improving the quality of evidence generated from rare disease trials rather than replace them.