Interval between prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and booster vaccination impacts magnitude and quality of antibody and B cell responses.

SARS-CoV-2 mRNA booster vaccines provide protection from severe disease, eliciting strong immunity that is further boosted by previous infection. However, it is unclear whether these immune responses are affected by the interval between infection and vaccination. Over a 2-month period, we evaluated antibody and B cell responses to a third-dose mRNA vaccine in 66 individuals with different infection histories. Uninfected and post-boost but not previously infected individuals mounted robust ancestral and variant spike-binding and neutralizing antibodies and memory B cells. Spike-specific B cell responses from recent infection (<180 days) were elevated at pre-boost but comparatively less so at 60 days post-boost compared with uninfected individuals, and these differences were linked to baseline frequencies of CD27lo B cells. Day 60 to baseline ratio of BCR signaling measured by phosphorylation of Syk was inversely correlated to days between infection and vaccination. Thus, B cell responses to booster vaccines are impeded by recent infection.

Combination anti-HIV antibodies provide sustained virological suppression.

Antiretroviral therapy is highly effective in suppressing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)1. However, eradication of the virus in individuals with HIV has not been possible to date2. Given that HIV suppression requires life-long antiretroviral therapy, predominantly on a daily basis, there is a need to develop clinically effective alternatives that use long-acting antiviral agents to inhibit viral replication3. Here we report the results of a two-component clinical trial involving the passive transfer of two HIV-specific broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, 3BNC117 and 10-1074. The first component was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled participants who initiated antiretroviral therapy during the acute/early phase of HIV infection. The second component was an open-label single-arm trial that enrolled individuals with viraemic control who were naive to antiretroviral therapy. Up to 8 infusions of 3BNC117 and 10-1074, administered over a period of 24 weeks, were well tolerated without any serious adverse events related to the infusions. Compared with the placebo, the combination broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies maintained complete suppression of plasma viraemia (for up to 43 weeks) after analytical treatment interruption, provided that no antibody-resistant HIV was detected at the baseline in the study participants. Similarly, potent HIV suppression was seen in the antiretroviral-therapy-naive study participants with viraemia carrying sensitive virus at the baseline. Our data demonstrate that combination therapy with broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies can provide long-term virological suppression without antiretroviral therapy in individuals with HIV, and our experience offers guidance for future clinical trials involving next-generation antibodies with long half-lives.

Changing interim monitoring in response to internal clinical trial data.

Designing clinical trials for emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19 is challenging because information needed for proper planning may be lacking. Pre-specified adaptive designs can be attractive options, but what happens if a trial with no such design needs to be modified? For example, unexpectedly high efficacy (approximately 95%) in two COVID-19 vaccine trials might cause investigators in other COVID-19 vaccine trials to increase the number of interim analyses to allow earlier stopping for efficacy. If such a decision is based solely on external data, there are no issues, but what if internal trial data by arm are also examined? Fortunately, the conditional error principle of Müller and Schäfer (2004) can be used to ensure no inflation of the type 1 error rate, even if no interim analyses were planned. We study the properties, including limitations, of this method. We provide a shiny app to evaluate changes in timing of interim analyses in response to outcome data by arm in clinical trials.

Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need to conduct efficient randomized clinical trials with interim monitoring guidelines for efficacy and futility. Several randomized coronavirus disease 2019 trials, including the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial (mpRCT), used Bayesian guidelines with the belief that they would lead to quicker efficacy or futility decisions than traditional "frequentist" guidelines, such as spending functions and conditional power. We explore this belief using an intuitive interpretation of Bayesian methods as translating prior opinion about the treatment effect into imaginary prior data. These imaginary observations are then combined with actual observations from the trial to make conclusions. Using this approach, we show that the Bayesian efficacy boundary used in mpRCT is actually quite similar to the frequentist Pocock boundary. METHODS: The mpRCT's efficacy monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 99% probability that the treatment was effective (odds ratio greater than 1). The mpRCT's futility monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 95% probability that the treatment was less than 20% effective (odds ratio less than 1.2). The mpRCT used a normal prior distribution that can be thought of as supplementing the actual patients' data with imaginary patients' data. We explore the effects of varying probability thresholds and the prior-to-actual patient ratio in the mpRCT and compare the resulting Bayesian efficacy monitoring guidelines to the well-known frequentist Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming efficacy guidelines. We also contrast Bayesian futility guidelines with a more traditional 20% conditional power futility guideline. RESULTS: A Bayesian efficacy and futility monitoring boundary using a neutral, weakly informative prior distribution and a fixed probability threshold at all interim analyses is more aggressive than the commonly used O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary coupled with a 20% conditional power threshold for futility. The trade-off is that more aggressive boundaries tend to stop trials earlier, but incur a loss of power. Interestingly, the Bayesian efficacy boundary with 99% probability threshold is very similar to the classic Pocock efficacy boundary. CONCLUSIONS: In a pandemic where quickly weeding out ineffective treatments and identifying effective treatments is paramount, aggressive monitoring may be preferred to conservative approaches, such as the O'Brien-Fleming boundary. This can be accomplished with either Bayesian or frequentist methods.

A note on familywise error rate for a primary and secondary endpoint.

Hung et al. (2007) considered the problem of controlling the type I error rate for a primary and secondary endpoint in a clinical trial using a gatekeeping approach in which the secondary endpoint is tested only if the primary endpoint crosses its monitoring boundary. They considered a two-look trial and showed by simulation that the naive method of testing the secondary endpoint at full level α at the time the primary endpoint reaches statistical significance does not control the familywise error rate at level α. Tamhane et al. (2010) derived analytic expressions for familywise error rate and power and confirmed the inflated error rate of the naive approach. Nonetheless, many people mistakenly believe that the closure principle can be used to prove that the naive procedure controls the familywise error rate. The purpose of this note is to explain in greater detail why there is a problem with the naive approach and show that the degree of alpha inflation can be as high as that of unadjusted monitoring of a single endpoint.

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Although several experimental therapeutics for Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been developed, the safety and efficacy of the most promising therapies need to be assessed in the context of a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a trial of four investigational therapies for EVD in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an outbreak began in August 2018. Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled. All patients received standard care and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to intravenous administration of the triple monoclonal antibody ZMapp (the control group), the antiviral agent remdesivir, the single monoclonal antibody MAb114, or the triple monoclonal antibody REGN-EB3. The REGN-EB3 group was added in a later version of the protocol, so data from these patients were compared with those of patients in the ZMapp group who were enrolled at or after the time the REGN-EB3 group was added (the ZMapp subgroup). The primary end point was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 681 patients were enrolled from November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, at which time the data and safety monitoring board recommended that patients be assigned only to the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups for the remainder of the trial; the recommendation was based on the results of an interim analysis that showed superiority of these groups to ZMapp and remdesivir with respect to mortality. At 28 days, death had occurred in 61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P = 0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P = 0.002). A shorter duration of symptoms before admission and lower baseline values for viral load and for serum creatinine and aminotransferase levels each correlated with improved survival. Four serious adverse events were judged to be potentially related to the trial drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Both MAb114 and REGN-EB3 were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. Scientifically and ethically sound clinical research can be conducted during disease outbreaks and can help inform the outbreak response. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PALM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03719586.).

Noninferiority testing with censoring when the event rate is low.

The PREDICT TB trial tests noninferiority of an abbreviated treatment regimen (arm A) vs a conventional treatment regimen (arm C). Treatment trials of drug-susceptible tuberculosis are expected to have low event rates (ie, relapse probabilities around 3-5%). We examine the question of what is the "best" way to test for noninferiority in a setting with low event rates. In a series of simulations supported by theoretical arguments, we examine operating characteristics of five tests, including normal approximation, exact, and simulation-based tests. Two of these tests are constructed from Kaplan-Meier based-estimators, which account for variable follow-up time (and those lost to follow-up). We evaluate the effect of loss to follow-up via simulations. We also examine the results of the five tests on a data set similar to PREDICT TB, the REMoxTB trial. We find that the normal approximation tests perform well, albeit with small type I error rate inflation. We also find that the Kaplan-Meier methods generally have larger power than the other tests, especially when there is between 10-30% loss to follow-up.

Discussion on "Improving precision and power in randomized trials for COVID-19 treatments using covariate adjustment for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes".

Benkeser et al. present a very informative paper evaluating the efficiency gains of covariate adjustment in settings with binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes. The adjustment method focuses on estimating the marginal treatment effect averaged over the covariate distribution in both arms combined. The authors show that covariate adjustment can achieve power gains that could find answers more quickly. The suggested approach is an important weapon in the armamentarium against epidemics like COVID-19. I recommend evaluating the procedure against more traditional approaches for conditional analyses (e.g., logistic regression) and against blinded methods of building prediction models followed by randomization-based inference.

Kinetics of Plasma HIV Rebound in the Era of Modern Antiretroviral Therapy.

Historical data regarding time to viral rebound following analytical treatment interruption (ATI) have been used to determine therapeutic efficacy in HIV cure trials; however, such data were collected from studies conducted a decade or more ago and included participants receiving older antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens with infrequent virologic monitoring. We conducted a study of 22 HIV-infected participants receiving modern ART to determine the kinetics of plasma viral rebound following ATI. Our data suggest that modern ART does not alter kinetics of viral rebound when compared to previous regimens and that immunologic interventions may be necessary to achieve ART-free virologic remission. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicaTrials.gov identifier: NCT03225118.

Resist the Temptation of Response-Adaptive Randomization.

Response-adaptive randomization (RAR) has recently gained popularity in clinical trials. The intent is noble: minimize the number of participants randomized to inferior treatments and increase the amount of information about better treatments. Unfortunately, RAR causes many problems, including (1) bias from temporal trends, (2) inefficiency in treatment effect estimation, (3) volatility in sample-size distributions that can cause a nontrivial proportion of trials to assign more patients to an inferior arm, (4) difficulty of validly analyzing results, and (5) the potential for selection bias and other issues inherent to being unblinded to ongoing results. The problems of RAR are most acute in the very setting for which RAR has been proposed, namely long-duration "platform" trials and infectious disease settings where temporal trends are ubiquitous. Response-adaptive randomization can eliminate the benefits that randomization, the most powerful tool in clinical trials, provides. Use of RAR is discouraged.

Eight-day Inpatient Directly Observed Therapy for Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Failure: A Tool For Preventing Unnecessary ART Changes and Optimizing Adherence Support.

Eight-day inpatient directly observed therapy confirmed nonadherence as the major cause of virologic failure for 9 (45%) of 20 highly treatment-experienced persons with human immunodeficiency virus, extensive antiretroviral drug resistance, and high self-reported adherence rates, preventing unnecessary regimen changes.

A primer on strong vs weak control of familywise error rate.

Multiple comparison adjustments have a long history, yet confusion remains about which procedures control type 1 error rate in a strong sense and how to show this. Part of the confusion stems from a powerful technique called the closed testing principle, whose statement is deceptively simple, but is sometimes misinterpreted. This primer presents a straightforward way to think about multiplicity adjustment.

Endpoints for randomized controlled clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments.

BACKGROUND: Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19) is complex. Trials must start rapidly to identify treatments that can be used as part of the outbreak response, in the midst of considerable uncertainty and limited information. COVID-19 presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks to over a month and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about the clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical, particularly given a multitude of putative therapies to evaluate. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly given the variable time course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time points, such as a comparison of severity scores between treatment and control at day 14, may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time to improvement (or recovery) avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" versus "not recovered." METHODS: We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials. RESULTS: Power for fixed time-point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared with a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time. DISCUSSION: Time-to-event analysis methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of ZMapp for Ebola Virus Infection.

BACKGROUND: Data from studies in nonhuman primates suggest that the triple monoclonal antibody cocktail ZMapp is a promising immune-based treatment for Ebola virus disease (EVD). METHODS: Beginning in March 2015, we conducted a randomized, controlled trial of ZMapp plus the current standard of care as compared with the current standard of care alone in patients with EVD that was diagnosed in West Africa by polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay. Eligible patients of any age were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the current standard of care or the current standard of care plus three intravenous infusions of ZMapp (50 mg per kilogram of body weight, administered every third day). Patients were stratified according to baseline PCR cycle-threshold value for the virus (≤22 vs. >22) and country of enrollment. Oral favipiravir was part of the current standard of care in Guinea. The primary end point was mortality at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were enrolled at sites in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and the United States. Of the 71 patients who could be evaluated, 21 died, representing an overall case fatality rate of 30%. Death occurred in 13 of 35 patients (37%) who received the current standard of care alone and in 8 of 36 patients (22%) who received the current standard of care plus ZMapp. The observed posterior probability that ZMapp plus the current standard of care was superior to the current standard of care alone was 91.2%, falling short of the prespecified threshold of 97.5%. Frequentist analyses yielded similar results (absolute difference in mortality with ZMapp, -15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -36 to 7). Baseline viral load was strongly predictive of both mortality and duration of hospitalization in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, controlled trial of a putative therapeutic agent for EVD, although the estimated effect of ZMapp appeared to be beneficial, the result did not meet the prespecified statistical threshold for efficacy. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PREVAIL II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02363322 .).

Effect of HIV Antibody VRC01 on Viral Rebound after Treatment Interruption.

BACKGROUND: The discovery of potent and broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has made passive immunization a potential strategy for the prevention and treatment of HIV infection. We sought to determine whether passive administration of VRC01, a bNAb targeting the HIV CD4-binding site, can safely prevent or delay plasma viral rebound after the discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: We conducted two open-label trials (AIDS Clinical Trials Group [ACTG] A5340 and National Institutes of Health [NIH] 15-I-0140) of the safety, side-effect profile, pharmacokinetic properties, and antiviral activity of VRC01 in persons with HIV infection who were undergoing interruption of ART. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants were enrolled, and one serious alcohol-related adverse event occurred. Viral rebound occurred despite plasma VRC01 concentrations greater than 50 µg per milliliter. The median time to rebound was 4 weeks in the A5340 trial and 5.6 weeks in the NIH trial. Study participants were more likely than historical controls to have viral suppression at week 4 (38% vs. 13%, P=0.04 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the A5340 trial; and 80% vs. 13%, P<0.001 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the NIH trial) but the difference was not significant at week 8. Analyses of virus populations before ART as well as before and after ART interruption showed that VRC01 exerted pressure on rebounding virus, resulting in restriction of recrudescent viruses and selection for preexisting and emerging antibody neutralization-resistant virus. CONCLUSIONS: VRC01 slightly delayed plasma viral rebound in the trial participants, as compared with historical controls, but it did not maintain viral suppression by week 8. In the small number of participants enrolled in these trials, no safety concerns were identified with passive immunization with a single bNAb (VRC01). (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTG A5340 and NIH 15-I-0140 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02463227 and NCT02471326 .).

Re-randomization tests in clinical trials.

As randomization methods use more information in more complex ways to assign patients to treatments, analysis of the resulting data becomes challenging. The treatment assignment vector and outcome vector become correlated whenever randomization probabilities depend on data correlated with outcomes. One straightforward analysis method is a re-randomization test that fixes outcome data and creates a reference distribution for the test statistic by repeatedly re-randomizing according to the same randomization method used in the trial. This article reviews re-randomization tests, especially in nonstandard settings like covariate-adaptive and response-adaptive randomization. We show that re-randomization tests provide valid inference in a wide range of settings. Nonetheless, there are simple examples demonstrating limitations.

The Past Need Not Be Prologue: Recommendations for Testing and Positioning the Most-Promising Medical Countermeasures for the Next Outbreak of Ebola Virus Infection.

Background: The 2013-2016 outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa led to unprecedented morbidity and mortality. Although different classes of putative antiviral agents with supportive preclinical data were available for testing, and although several attempts to perform meaningful evaluation of these agents were undertaken during the epidemic, different research methods, a lack of appropriate controls in most studies, and formidable logistical challenges to completion of studies under field conditions hampered the success of these efforts. Ultimately only 1 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (PREVAIL II) was performed in this setting, and, owing to a decrease in the number of new cases available for study, it, too, ended prior to reaching definitive results. Retrospective review of the lessons learned from this outbreak argues strongly for the need for much better preparedness in terms of selecting the trial design and drug(s) for use during the next outbreak. Methods: Using recent data provided by representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, clinical and laboratory subject matter experts from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, other US government agencies, and academic partners were consulted regarding the current state of knowledge about several lead compounds with putative activity against EVD. Consensus was sought on recommendations concerning the most promising treatment strategies against EVD that should be studied in the context of a randomized clinical trial during the next outbreak. Results: Four compounds from 2 different classes (monoclonal antibody [mAb] cocktails and direct-acting antiviral agents [DAAs]) were highlighted as lead candidates, limitations in the current knowledge base about these drug classes were reviewed, and recommendations about the optimal clinical research design for studying combinations of these different agents were made. Conclusions: Although achieving the desired sample size could be challenging, a randomized, controlled clinical trial based on a combination strategy of a mAb with a DAA was recommended as the most appropriate clinical trial design to be undertaken during the next outbreak of EVD.

Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis From Patients Who Are Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Negative.

Background: Among adults with signs and symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), recognition of transmissible TB has implications for airborne infection isolation and public health activities. Sputum smear-negative TB patients account for around one-fifth of tuberculosis transmission. The tuberculosis transmission risk of TB patients with negative results on nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) of respiratory specimens has not been established. We sought to estimate the tuberculosis transmission risk of NAAT-negative TB patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed Maryland TB program data collected from 2004 to 2009, during which time NAAT using the Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test (MTD) was performed routinely. Patients with sputum Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) isolates having matching genotypes were assigned to clusters. Transmission sequence was approximated by collection order of individuals' first culture-positive specimens. Minimum transmission risks of NAAT (MTD)-negative TB patients and of smear-negative TB patients were estimated based on individuals' positions within clusters. Results: Among 809 patients with culture-confirmed TB, M.tb genotypes were available for 782 (96.7%). For NAA-negative TB patients, the minimum transmission risk estimate was 5.1% (95% CI 0-11.4). For smear-negative TB patients, the minimum transmission risk estimate was 11.2% (95% CI 7.2-15.3). Conclusions: Minimum transmission risk of NAAT-negative TB patients was lower than that of smear-negative TB patients. However, transmission risk of NAA-negative TB patients appears to not be negligible.

Development process of a consensus-driven CONSORT extension for randomised trials using an adaptive design.

BACKGROUND: Adequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline. METHODS: We developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages: 1) Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline; 2) A scoping literature review to inform future stages; 3) Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel; 4) A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders; 5) A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document; 6) Refining and finalising the checklist; and 7) Writing-up and dissemination of the E&E document. The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process. RESULTS: Delphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements.