A Risk Profile Using Simple Hematologic Parameters to Assess Benefits From Baricitinib in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-2.

BACKGROUND: The ACTT risk profile, which was developed from ACTT-1 (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1), demonstrated that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the high-risk quartile (characterized by low absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], high absolute neutrophil count [ANC], and low platelet count at baseline) benefited most from treatment with the antiviral remdesivir. It is unknown which patient characteristics are associated with benefit from treatment with the immunomodulator baricitinib. OBJECTIVE: To apply the ACTT risk profile to the ACTT-2 cohort to investigate potential baricitinib-related treatment effects by risk quartile. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of ACTT-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04401579). SETTING: Sixty-seven trial sites in 8 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 999; 85% U.S. participants). INTERVENTION: Baricitinib+remdesivir versus placebo+remdesivir. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, and recovery, all within 28 days; ALC, ANC, and platelet count trajectories. RESULTS: In the high-risk quartile, baricitinib+remdesivir was associated with reduced risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.86]; P = 0.020), decreased progression to IMV or death (HR, 0.57 [CI, 0.35 to 0.93]; P = 0.024), and improved recovery rate (HR, 1.53 [CI, 1.16 to 2.02]; P = 0.002) compared with placebo+remdesivir. After 5 days, participants receiving baricitinib+remdesivir had significantly larger increases in ALC and significantly larger decreases in ANC compared with control participants, with the largest effects observed in the high-risk quartile. LIMITATION: Secondary analysis of data collected before circulation of current SARS-CoV-2 variants. CONCLUSION: The ACTT risk profile identifies a subgroup of hospitalized patients who benefit most from baricitinib treatment and captures a patient phenotype of treatment response to an immunomodulator and an antiviral. Changes in ALC and ANC trajectory suggest a mechanism whereby an immunomodulator limits severe COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid antigen are blood biomarkers associated with severe disease outcomes that improve in response to remdesivir.

BACKGROUND: Although antivirals remain important for the treatment COVID-19, methods to assess treatment efficacy are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics and their contribution to understanding antiviral efficacy in the multicenter ACTT-1 clinical trial that randomized patients to remdesivir or placebo. METHODS: Longitudinal specimens collected during hospitalization from a substudy of 642 COVID-19 patients were measured for viral RNA (upper respiratory tract and plasma), viral nucleocapsid antigen (serum), and host immunologic markers. Associations with clinical outcomes and response to therapy were assessed. RESULTS: Higher baseline plasma viral loads were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and decreases in viral RNA and antigen in blood but not the upper respiratory tract correlated with enhanced benefit from remdesivir. The treatment effect of remdesivir was most pronounced in patients with elevated baseline nucleocapsid antigen levels: the recovery rate ratio was 1.95 (95%CI 1.40-2.71) for levels >245 pg/ml vs 1.04 (95%CI 0.76-1.42) for levels < 245 pg/ml. Remdesivir also accelerated the rate of viral RNA and antigen clearance in blood, and patients whose blood levels decreased were more likely to recover and survive. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antigen levels in blood correlated with clinical benefit from antiviral therapy.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

Immune correlates analysis using vaccinees from test negative designs.

Determining the effect of vaccine-induced immune response on disease risk is an important goal of vaccinology. Typically, immune correlates analyses are conducted prospectively with immune response measured shortly after vaccination and subsequent disease status regressed on immune response. In outbreaks and rare disease settings, collecting samples from all vaccinees is not feasible. The test negative design is a retrospective design used to measure vaccine efficacy where symptomatic individuals who present at a clinic are assessed for relevant disease (cases) or some other disease (controls) and vaccination status ascertained. This article proposes that test negative vaccinees have immune response to vaccine assessed both for relevant (e.g., Ebola) and irrelevant (e.g., vector) proteins. If the latter immune response is unaffected by active (Ebola) infection, and is correlated with the relevant immune response, it can serve as a proxy for the immune response of interest proximal to infection. We show that logistic regression using imputed immune response as the covariate and case disease as outcome can estimate the prospective immune response slope and detail the assumptions needed for unbiased inference. The method is evaluated by simulation under various scenarios including constant and decaying immune response. A simulated dataset motivated by ring vaccination for an ongoing Ebola outbreak is analyzed.

Deconstructing the Treatment Effect of Remdesivir in the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1: Implications for Critical Care Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) found that remdesivir therapy hastened recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but the pathway for this improvement was not explored. We investigated how the dynamics of clinical progression changed along 4 pathways: recovery, improvement in respiratory therapy requirement, deterioration in respiratory therapy requirement, and death. METHODS: We analyzed trajectories of daily ordinal severity scores reflecting oxygen requirements of 1051 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who participated in ACTT-1. We developed competing risks models that estimate the effect of remdesivir therapy on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration, and multistate models that utilize the entirety of each patient's clinical course to characterize the effect of remdesivir on progression along the 4 pathways above. RESULTS: Based on a competing risks analysis, remdesivir reduced clinical deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .59-.91) and increased clinical improvement (HR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.39) relative to baseline. Our multistate models indicate that remdesivir inhibits worsening to ordinal scores of greater clinical severity among patients on room air or low-flow oxygen (HR, 0.74; 95% CI: .57-.94) and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: .53-1.00) at baseline. We also find that remdesivir reduces expected intensive care respiratory therapy utilization among patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir speeds time to recovery by preventing worsening to clinical states that would extend the course of hospitalization and increase intensive respiratory support, thereby reducing the overall demand for hospital care.

Remdesivir for the Prevention of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation or Death in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Post Hoc Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1 Cohort Data.

This post hoc analysis of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) shows a treatment effect of remdesivir (RDV) on progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Additionally, we create a risk profile that better predicts progression than baseline oxygen requirement alone. The highest risk group derives the greatest treatment effect from RDV.

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.

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.

Increased Metabolic Activity on 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Associated Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome.

Background: Immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) represents an unexpected inflammatory response shortly after initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in some human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with underlying neoplasia or opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis. We hypothesized that IRIS is associated with increased glycolysis and that 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) could help identify high-risk subjects. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 30 HIV-infected patients (CD4+ count <100 cells/µL) underwent FDG-PET/CT scans at baseline and 4-8 weeks after ART initiation. Ten patients developed IRIS (6 mycobacterial). Results: At baseline, total glycolytic activity, total lesion volume, and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVs) of pathologic FDG uptake (reflective of opportunistic disease burden) were significantly higher in IRIS vs non-IRIS (P = .010, .017, and .029, respectively) and significantly correlated with soluble inflammatory biomarkers (interferon-γ, myeloperoxidase, tumor necrosis factor, interleukin 6, soluble CD14). Baseline bone marrow (BM) and spleen FDG uptake was higher in mycobacterial IRIS specifically. After ART initiation, BM and spleen mean SUV decreased in non-IRIS (P = .004, .013) but not IRIS subjects. Our results were supported by significantly higher glucose transporter 1 (Glut-1) expression of CD4+ cells and monocytes after ART initiation in IRIS/mycobacterial IRIS compared with non-IRIS patients. Conclusions: We conclude that increased pathologic metabolic activity on FDG-PET/CT prior to ART initiation is associated with IRIS development and correlates with inflammatory biomarkers. Abnormally elevated BM and spleen metabolism is associated with mycobacterial IRIS, HIV viremia, and Glut-1 expression on CD4+ cells and monocytes. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02147405.

The importance of adherence in tuberculosis treatment clinical trials and its relevance in explanatory and pragmatic trials.

Andrew Vernon and co-authors discuss adherence to therapy and its measurement in tuberculosis treatment trials.

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 .).

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.

Brain 18F-FDG PET of SIV-infected macaques after treatment interruption or initiation.

BACKGROUND: Although rates of severe HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders have declined in the post-antiretroviral treatment (ART) era, subtle deficits persist, possibly exacerbated by treatment non-adherence. The actual effects of ART interruption/initiation on brain glucose metabolism as a reflection of viral replication and neuroinflammation remain unclear. Our study investigates how treatment initiation and interruption alter brain glucose metabolism in SIV-infected macaques, using 18F-FDG PET in correlation with plasma and CSF viral loads (VL) and cytokine levels. METHODS: SIV-infected macaques (n = 7) underwent ART initiation only, ART interruption only, or both. Five uninfected animals served as controls. 18F-FDG PET imaging was performed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment modification. Mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUV) for the whole-brain and subregions were calculated. Plasma and CSF VL and cytokine levels were measured. Paired t tests evaluated acute changes in whole-brain SUV from baseline to 1 month, while mixed-effect linear regression models evaluated changes over multiple timepoints and correlated SUV values with disease markers. RESULTS: ART interruption was associated with increased SUVmean and SUVmax acutely, after 1 month (SUVmean 95% CI [0.044-0.786 g/ml], p = 0.037; SUVmax 95% CI [0.122-3.167 g/ml], p = 0.041). The correlation between SUV and time, however, was not significant when evaluated across all timepoints. Increased SUVmean and SUVmax correlated with decreased CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell counts and increased plasma VL. SUVmax was positively associated with increases in CSF VL, and there were borderline positive associations between SUVmax and IL-2, and between SUVmean and IL-15. The treatment initiation group showed no associations between imaging and disease biomarkers despite viral suppression, reduced cytokine levels, and increased CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell counts. CONCLUSIONS: ART interruption is associated with increased brain glucose metabolism within 1 month of treatment cessation, which, in concert with increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the CSF, may reflect neuroinflammation in the setting of viral rebound. Although we cannot assert neurologic damage in association with cerebral hypermetabolism, it is a concerning outcome of ART non-adherence. Treatment initiation, meanwhile, did not result in significant changes in brain metabolism. HIV-induced neuroinflammation may require a longer period to abate than our follow-up period allowed.

Controlling the family-wise error rate in multi-arm, multi-stage trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multi-arm, multi-stage trials have recently gained attention as a means to improve the efficiency of the clinical trials process. Many designs have been proposed, but few explicitly consider the inherent issue of multiplicity and the associated type I error rate inflation. It is our aim to propose a straightforward design that controls family-wise error rate while still providing improved efficiency. METHODS: In this article, we provide an analytical method for calculating the family-wise error rate for a multi-arm, multi-stage trial and highlight the potential for considerable error rate inflation in uncontrolled designs. We propose a simple method to control the error rate that also allows for computation of power and expected sample size. RESULTS: Family-wise error rate can be controlled in a variety of multi-arm, mutli-stage trial designs using our method. Additionally, our design can substantially decrease the expected sample size of a study while maintaining adequate power. CONCLUSION: Multi-arm, multi-stage designs have the potential to reduce the time and other resources spent on clinical trials. Our relatively simple design allows this to be achieved while weakly controlling family-wise error rate and without sacrificing much power.

Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Ebola Virus Disease Medical Countermeasures: PREVAIL II, the Ebola MCM Study.

BACKGROUND: Unique challenges posed by emerging infectious diseases often expose inadequacies in the conventional phased investigational therapeutic development paradigm. The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa presents a critical case-study highlighting barriers to faster development. During the outbreak, clinical trials were implemented with unprecedented speed. Yet, in most cases, this fast-tracked approach proved too slow for the rapidly evolving epidemic. Controversy abounded as to the most appropriate study designs to yield safety and efficacy data, potentially causing delays in pivotal studies. Preparation for research during future outbreaks may require acceptance of a paradigm that circumvents, accelerates, or reorders traditional phases, without losing sight of the traditional benchmarks by which drug candidates must be assessed for activity, safety and efficacy. METHODS: We present the design of an adaptive, parent protocol, ongoing in West Africa until January 2016. The exigent circumstances of the outbreak and limited prior clinical experience with experimental treatments, led to more direct bridging from preclinical studies to human trials than the conventional paradigm would typically have sanctioned, and required considerable design flexibility. RESULTS: Preliminary evaluation of the "barely Bayesian" design was provided through computer simulation studies. The understanding and public discussion of the study design will help its future implementation.