Influence of Cooling duration on Efficacy in Cardiac Arrest Patients (ICECAP): study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, adaptive allocation clinical trial to identify the optimal duration of induced hypothermia for neuroprotection in comatose, adult survivors of after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Background: Cardiac arrest is a common and devastating emergency of both the heart and brain. More than 380,000 patients suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest annually in the United States. Induced cooling of comatose patients markedly improved neurological and functional outcomes in pivotal randomized clinical trials, but the optimal duration of therapeutic hypothermia has not yet been established. Methods: This study is a multi-center randomized, response-adaptive, duration (dose) finding, comparative effectiveness clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. We investigate two populations of adult comatose survivors of cardiac arrest to ascertain the shortest duration of cooling that provides the maximum treatment effect. The design is based on a statistical model of response as defined by the primary endpoint, a weighted 90-day mRS (modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurologic disability), across the treatment arms. Subjects will initially be equally randomized between 12, 24, and 48 hours of therapeutic cooling. After the first 200 subjects have been randomized, additional treatment arms between 12 and 48 hours will be opened and patients will be allocated, within each initial cardiac rhythm type (shockable or non-shockable), by response adaptive randomization. As the trial continues, shorter and longer duration arms may be opened. A maximum sample size of 1800 subjects is proposed. Secondary objectives are to characterize: the overall safety and adverse events associated with duration of cooling, the effect on neuropsychological outcomes, and the effect on patient reported quality of life measures. Discussion: In-vitro and in-vivo studies have shown the neuroprotective effects of therapeutic hypothermia for cardiac arrest. We hypothesize that longer durations of cooling may improve either the proportion of patients that attain a good neurological recovery or may result in better recovery among the proportion already categorized as having a good outcome. If the treatment effect of cooling is increasing across duration, for at least some set of durations, then this provides evidence of the efficacy of cooling itself versus normothermia, even in the absence of a normothermia control arm, confirming previous RCTs for OHCA survivors of shockable rhythms and provides the first prospective controlled evidence of efficacy in those without initial shockable rhythms. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04217551, 2019-12-30).

A Systematic Review of Adaptive Seamless Clinical Trials for Late-Phase Oncology Development.

INTRODUCTION: Although oncology has seen large scientific and clinical advances over the last decade, it also has one of the lowest success rates for novel agents across therapeutic areas. Adaptive clinical trial design has been a popular option for increasing clinical trial efficiency and the chances of trial success. Seamless clinical trial design are studies in which two or more clinical trial phases are combined into a single study with a pre-specified transition between stages. This integration of phases may enhance efficiency. METHODS: To understand the precedent for the use of seamless designs, this working group was formed to conduct a comprehensive literature search on seamless clinical trials conducted with confirmatory intent in oncology. Trial design features were extracted into a database and analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A literature search identified 68 clinical trials meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common design feature was a gate on treatment efficacy, where the trial would only proceed to the second stage if sufficient efficacy was observed in the first. The next most common feature was a selection of a dose or treatment regimen. Inferentially and operationally seamless designs were approximately equally represented. DISCUSSION: Key statistical considerations for seamless phase II/III designs include optimizing design choices by evaluating and comparing operating characteristics across design alternatives as well as showing control of overall Type I error rates. Executing the transition between phases should be evaluated for issues related to accrual, drug production, and procedures to maintain trial integrity. CONCLUSIONS: While there are unique statistical, regulatory, and operational considerations for seamless designs they are also uniquely suited to many development settings. These include, for example, addressing dose selection under FDA's Project Optimus and addressing the growing use of biomarkers and personalized medicine approaches in cancer treatment.

Use of Seamless Study Designs in Oncology Clinical Development- A Survey Conducted by IDSWG Oncology Sub-team.

Seamless study designs have the potential to accelerate clinical development. The use of innovative seamless designs has been increasing in the oncology area; however, while the concept of seamless designs becomes more popular and accepted, many challenges remain in both the design and conduct of these trials. This may be especially true when seamless designs are used in late phase development supporting regulatory decision-making. The Innovative Design Scientific Working Group (IDSWG) Oncology team conducted a survey to understand the current use of seamless study designs for registration purposes in oncology clinical development. The survey was designed to provide insights into the benefits and to identify the roadblocks. A total of 16 questions were included in the survey that was distributed using the ASA Biopharmaceutical Section and IDSWG email listings from August to September 2022. A total of 51 responses were received, with 39 (76%) respondents indicating that their organizations had seamless oncology studies in planning or implementation for registration purposes. Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript. Overall, while seamless designs offer advantages in terms of timeline reduction and cost saving, they also present challenges related to additional complexity and the need for efficient surrogate clinical endpoints in oncology drug development.

Unlocking the Potential: A Systematic Review of Master Protocol in Pediatrics.

The use of master protocols allows for innovative approaches to clinical trial designs, potentially enabling new approaches to operations and analytics and creating value for patients and drug developers. Pediatric research has been conducted for many decades, but the use of novel designs such as master protocols in pediatric research is not well understood. This study aims to provide a systematic review on the utilization of master protocols in pediatric drug development. A search was performed in September 2022 using two data sources (PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) and included studies conducted in the past10 years. General study information was extracted such as study type, study status, therapeutic area, and clinical trial phase. Study characteristics that are specific to pediatric studies (such as age of the participants and pediatric drug dosing) and important study design elements (such as number of test drug arms and whether randomization and/or concurrent control was used) were also collected. Our results suggest that master protocol studies are being used in pediatrics, with platform and basket trials more common than umbrella trials. Most of this experience is in oncology and early phase studies. There is a rise in the use starting in 2020, largely in oncology and COVID-19 trials. However, adoption of master protocols in pediatric clinical research is still on a small scale and could be substantially expanded. Work is required to further understand the barriers in implementing pediatric master protocols, from setting up infrastructure to interpreting study findings.

Therapeutic Hypothermia in Low-Risk Nonpumped Brain-Dead Kidney Donors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Delayed graft function in kidney-transplant recipients is associated with increased financial cost and patient burden. In donors with high Kidney Donor Profile Index whose kidneys are not pumped, therapeutic hypothermia has been shown to confer a protective benefit against delayed graft function. Objective: To determine whether hypothermia is superior to normothermia in preventing delayed graft function in low-risk nonpumped kidney donors after brain death. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a multicenter randomized clinical trial, brain-dead kidney donors deemed to be low risk and not requiring machine perfusion per Organ Procurement Organization protocol were prospectively randomized to hypothermia (34.0-35 °C) or normothermia (36.5-37.5 °C) between August 10, 2017, and May 21, 2020, across 4 Organ Procurement Organizations in the US (Arizona, Upper Midwest, Pacific Northwest, and Texas). The final analysis report is dated June 15, 2022, based on the data set received from the United Network for Organ Sharing on June 2, 2021. A total of 509 donors (normothermia: n = 245 and hypothermia: n = 236; 1017 kidneys) met inclusion criteria over the study period. Intervention: Donor hypothermia (34.0-35.0 °C) or normothermia (36.5-37.5 °C). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was delayed graft function in the kidney recipients, defined as the need for dialysis within the first week following kidney transplant. The primary analysis follows the intent-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 934 kidneys were transplanted from 481 donors, of which 474 were randomized to the normothermia group and 460 to the hypothermia group. Donor characteristics were similar between the groups, with overall mean (SD) donor age 34.2 (11.1) years, and the mean donor creatinine level at enrollment of 1.03 (0.53) mg/dL. There was a predominance of Standard Criteria Donors (98% in each treatment arm) with similar low mean (SD) Kidney Donor Profile Index (normothermia: 28.99 [20.46] vs hypothermia: 28.32 [21.9]). Cold ischemia time was similar in the normothermia and hypothermia groups (15.99 [7.9] vs 15.45 [7.63] hours). Delayed graft function developed in 87 of the recipients (18%) in the normothermia group vs 79 (17%) in the hypothermia group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.33; P = .66). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, in low-risk non-pumped kidneys from brain-dead kidney donors, therapeutic hypothermia compared with normothermia does not appear to prevent delayed graft function in kidney transplant recipients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02525510.

Study protocol of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm parallel-group, multi-centre phase 3 pivotal trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human alkaline phosphatase for treatment of patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis, the leading cause of acute kidney injury (AKI), is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an endogenous detoxifying enzyme. A recombinant human ALP compound, ilofotase alfa, showed no safety or tolerability concerns in a phase 2 trial. Renal function improvement over 28 days was significantly greater in the ilofotase alfa group. Moreover, a significant relative reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality of >40% was observed. A follow-up trial has been designed to confirm these findings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase 3, global, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential design trial in which patients are randomly assigned to either placebo or 1.6 mg/kg ilofotase alfa. Randomisation is stratified by baseline modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) score and trial site. The primary objective is to confirm the survival benefit with ilofotase alfa by demonstrating a reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with sepsis-associated AKI requiring vasopressors. A maximum of 1400 patients will be enrolled at ∼120 sites in Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Up to four interim analyses will take place. Based on predefined decision rules, the trial may be stopped early for futility or for effectiveness. In addition, patients with COVID-19 disease and patients with 'moderate to severe' chronic kidney disease are analysed as 2 separate cohorts of 100 patients each. An independent Data Monitoring Committee evaluates safety data at prespecified intervals throughout the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by relevant institutional review boards/independent ethics committees and is conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, guidelines of Good Clinical Practice, Code of Federal Regulations and all other applicable regulations. Results of this study will determine the potential of ilofotase alfa to reduce mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated AKI and will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT CT Number 2019-0046265-24. US IND Number 117 605 Pre-results. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT04411472.

Hypothermia or Machine Perfusion in Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic hypothermia in brain-dead organ donors has been shown to reduce delayed graft function in kidney recipients after transplantation. Data are needed on the effect of hypothermia as compared with machine perfusion on outcomes after kidney transplantation. METHODS: At six organ-procurement facilities in the United States, we randomly assigned brain-dead kidney donors to undergo therapeutic hypothermia (hypothermia group), ex situ kidney hypothermic machine perfusion (machine-perfusion group), or both (combination-therapy group). The primary outcome was delayed graft function in the kidney transplant recipients (defined as the initiation of dialysis during the first 7 days after transplantation). We also evaluated whether hypothermia alone was noninferior to machine perfusion alone and whether the combination of both methods was superior to each of the individual therapies. Secondary outcomes included graft survival at 1 year after transplantation. RESULTS: From 725 enrolled donors, 1349 kidneys were transplanted: 359 kidneys in the hypothermia group, 511 in the machine-perfusion group, and 479 in the combined-therapy group. Delayed graft function occurred in 109 patients (30%) in the hypothermia group, in 99 patients (19%) in the machine-perfusion group, and in 103 patients (22%) in the combination-therapy group. Adjusted risk ratios for delayed graft function were 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35 to 2.17) for hypothermia as compared with machine perfusion, 1.57 (95% CI, 1.26 to 1.96) for hypothermia as compared with combination therapy, and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.40) for combination therapy as compared with machine perfusion. At 1 year, the frequency of graft survival was similar in the three groups. A total of 10 adverse events were reported, including cardiovascular instability in 9 donors and organ loss in 1 donor owing to perfusion malfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Among brain-dead organ donors, therapeutic hypothermia was inferior to machine perfusion of the kidney in reducing delayed graft function after transplantation. The combination of hypothermia and machine perfusion did not provide additional protection. (Funded by Arnold Ventures; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02525510.).

Who wants to go first? A simulation study of accrual in a stand-alone trial versus starting a platform trial.

Others have quantified the efficiency of the platform approach as compared to a sequence of independent two-arm trials and have shown the platform approach more efficiently evaluates a set of candidate therapies. However, a practical barrier to initiating a platform trial is incentivizing the first candidate therapies to enter the platform. A platform trial is more complex and will take longer to design and operationalize than a traditional trial. For the first therapy, this additional up-front planning time must be considered along with the ability to enroll. There is a common concern that accrual in a platform setting would take longer than for a single stand-alone trial because intuition suggests that a two-arm trial with a smaller total sample size should complete accrual more quickly than a multi-armed trial. We focus on the accrual duration for the first therapy as a particular barrier to initiating a platform trial strategy. We simulate accrual into a platform trial versus a stand-alone trial in the setting of a large clinical trial network. Accrual duration in the platform strategy dominates that of a single stand-alone trial if the platform leverages a large enough fraction of the site network. Patient preference for a particular stand-alone trial has little impact on the ability of a stand-alone trial to enroll more quickly.

Current usage and challenges of master protocols-based on survey results by ASA BIOP oncology methodology working group master protocol sub-team.

Background: Master protocol trials, such as basket trials, umbrella trials or platform trials, have the potential of increasing efficiency in modern drug development. Meanwhile, though the concept of master protocol is getting more and more accepted, many challenges exist from design to implementation of these trials. To understand current usage and challenges of master protocol trials in action, American Statistical Association (ASA) Biopharmaceutical Section (BIOP) Oncology Methods Scientific Working Group Master Protocol Sub-team conducted a survey with the goal of providing valuable information for the community to understand the current usage of master protocol, with the goal to identify the challenges. Methods: A total of 19 questions were included in an online survey that was distributed between April and May 2021. To avoid over-reporting within an organization, a pre-determined list of contacts from 37 organizations were reached out with the shared online link of the survey. Literature research and experience from the working group on challenges of master protocols are also summarized and discussed extensively. Results: A total of 39 responses were received from 37 organizations. Thirty-one (79%) respondents indicated that they had trials with master protocol(s) in planning or implementation in their organization with most applications (54%) in oncology. Self-reported challenges on trial design, regulatory engagement and trial implementations were further summarized in the report. Conclusions: The survey results were consistent with previous literatures and expectations of members from the Scientific Working Group Sub-team. Multiple stakeholders are called to work collaboratively to remove roadblocks for future usage of master protocol trials.

PET-CR as a potential surrogate endpoint in untreated DLBCL: meta-analysis and implications for clinical trial design.

This study's focus is the association of end-of-therapy (EOT) PET results with progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving first-line chemoimmunotherapy. We develop a Bayesian hierarchical model for predicting PFS and OS from EOT PET-complete response (PET-CR) using a literature-based meta-analysis of 20 treatment arms and a substudy of 4 treatment arms in 3 clinical trials for which we have patient-level data. The PET-CR rate in our substudy was 72%. The modeled estimates for hazard ratio (PET-CR/non-PET-CR) were 0.13 for PFS (95% CI 0.10, 0.16) and 0.10 for OS (CI 0.07, 0.12). Hazard ratios varied little by patient subtype and were confirmed by the overall meta-analysis. We link these findings to designing future clinical trials and show how our model can be used in adapting the sample size of a trial to accumulating results regarding treatment benefits on PET-CR and a survival endpoint.

Comparison of Bayesian vs Frequentist Adaptive Trial Design in the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort Trial.

Importance: Bayesian adaptive trial design has the potential to create more efficient clinical trials. However, a barrier to the uptake of bayesian adaptive designs for confirmatory trials is limited experience with how they may perform compared with a frequentist design. Objective: To compare the performance of a bayesian and a frequentist adaptive clinical trial design. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study compared 2 trial designs for a completed multicenter acute stroke trial conducted within a National Institutes of Health neurologic emergencies clinical trials network, with individual patient-level data, including the timing and order of enrollments and outcome ascertainment, from 1151 patients with acute stroke and hyperglycemia randomized to receive intensive or standard insulin therapy. The implemented frequentist design had group sequential boundaries for efficacy and futility interim analyses at 90 days after randomization for 500, 700, 900, and 1100 patients. The bayesian alternative used predictive probability of trial success to govern early termination for efficacy and futility with a first interim analysis at 500 randomized patients and subsequent interims after every 100 randomizations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the sample size at end of study, which was defined as the sample size at which each of the studies stopped accrual of patients. Results: Data were collected from 1151 patients. As conducted, the frequentist design passed the futility boundary after 936 participants were randomized. Using the same sequence and timing of randomization and outcome data, the bayesian alternative crossed the futility boundary approximately 3 months earlier after 800 participants were randomized. Conclusions and Relevance: Both trial designs stopped for futility before reaching the planned maximum sample size. In both cases, the clinical community and patients would benefit from learning the answer to the trial's primary question earlier. The common feature across the 2 designs was frequent interim analyses to stop early for efficacy or for futility. Differences between how these analyses were implemented between the 2 trials resulted in the differences in early stopping.

Comparing Go/No-Go Decision-Making Properties Between Single Arm Phase II Trial Designs in Oncology.

INTRODUCTION: Simon's design has been widely used in oncology to conduct single arm phase II trials and to make Go/No-Go development decision. Other authors have proposed designs with decision-making frameworks that include a third, "Consider" outcome. For results in the Consider zone, a final Go/No-Go development decision must still be made; however it is typically a subjective decision based on the totality of data and the development landscape. Under this framework, the probability of continuing development when the candidate therapy is truly ineffective or the probability of stopping development when the candidate therapy is truly effective is undefined. METHODS: We use a motivating example to compare end of trial decision-making between Simon's two-stage approach and a Multilevel outcome approach. We present the minimum and maximum development decision error probabilities by varying whether candidates that end in the Consider zone would ultimately continue with development or not. RESULTS: The Multilevel approach typically requires fewer patients, but the risk of making an incorrect drug development decision is inflated above the statistically defined Type I and Type II error rates. Compared to a Type I error rate of 20%, the Multilevel trial's maximum probability of moving forward with an ineffective therapy is 22%, 27%, and 36% for Consider zone sizes of 10%, 20%, and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Multilevel approach provides flexibility in interpreting moderate efficacy results. However, the flexibility is accomplished with a lower sample size and corresponding uncertainty in the trial outcome that increases the risk of incorrect drug development decisions.

Practical Considerations and Recommendations for Master Protocol Framework: Basket, Umbrella and Platform Trials.

Master protocol, categorized as basket trial, umbrella trial or platform trial, is an innovative clinical trial framework that aims to expedite clinical drug development, enhance trial efficiency, and eventually bring medicines to patients faster. Despite a clear uptake on the advantages in the concepts and designs, master protocols are still yet to be widely used. Part of that may be due to the fact that the master protocol framework comes with the need for new statistical designs and considerations for analyses and operational challenges. In this article, we provide an overview of the master protocol framework, unify the definitions with some examples, review the statistical methods for the designs and analyses, and focus our discussions on some practical considerations and recommendations of master protocols to help practitioners better design and implement such studies.

Bayesian adaptive design for clinical trials in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

A Bayesian adaptive design is proposed for a clinical trial in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The trial was designed to demonstrate treatment efficacy on an ambulatory-based clinical endpoint and to identify early success on a biomarker (dystrophin protein levels) that can serve as a basis for accelerated approval in the United States. The trial incorporates placebo augmentation using placebo data from past clinical trials. A thorough simulation study was conducted to understand the operating characteristics of the trial. This trial design was selected for the US FDA Complex Innovative Trial Design Pilot Meeting Program and the experience in that program is summarized.

The Design of an Adaptive Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a promising therapy for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) that is refractory to standard therapy, but no multicenter randomized clinical trials have been conducted to establish its efficacy. We report the design and operating characteristics of a proposed randomized Bayesian adaptive "enrichment" clinical trial designed to determine whether ECPR is effective for refractory OHCA and, if effective, to define the interval after arrest during which patients derive benefit. METHODS: Through iterative trial simulation and trial design modification, we developed a Bayesian adaptive trial of ECPR for adults who experience non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Our proposed trial design addresses the threats to trial success identified during the design process, which were (1) the uncertainty surrounding the cardiac arrest (CA)-to-ECPR interval within which clinical benefit might be preserved (2) the difference in prognosis between patients with an initial rhythm that is non-shockable vs. shockable. Trial subjects will be randomized 1:1 to receive either standard care or expedited transport to a hospital for potential ECPR. The CA-to-ECPR interval will be estimated in real time based on the sum of the estimated paramedic response time (911 call to scene arrival), paramedic scene time, and transport time to hospital. A Bayesian decreasing step function will be used to estimate the efficacy of the treatment with an outcome of the 90-day utility-weighted Modified Rankin Scale (uwmRS) for each rhythm subgroup and estimated CA-to-ECPR interval at pre-specified interims. The trial will adaptively lengthen the estimated CA-to-ECPR eligibility window if the treatment appears effective at the upper limit of initial eligibility window. If ECPR appears ineffective at longer estimated CA-to-ECPR intervals, the upper limit of the window for enrollment eligibility will be shortened. The analysis will be stratified by rhythm subgroup. RESULTS: With a maximum total sample size of 400, and a cap on the maximum sample size of 300 for the non-shockable rhythm subgroup, the trial design has power ranging from 91-100% to detect a benefit from ECPR for non-shockable rhythms under the various efficacy scenarios simulated and power ranging from 69-98% for shockable rhythms under the same scenarios. The trial design also has a high probability of correctly identifying the maximum CA-to-ECPR interval within which ECPR produces a clinically significant benefit of 0.2 on the uwMRS. If ECPR is equivalent to standard CA care, the type I error is 2.5% with a 99% probability of stopping enrollment early for futility in the non-shockable subgroup and a 97% probability of stopping enrollment early for futility in the shockable subgroup. CONCLUSION: This proposed adaptive trial design helps to ensure the population of patients who are most likely to benefit from treatment-as defined both by rhythm subgroup and estimated CA-to-ECPR interval-is enrolled. The design promotes early termination of the trial if continuation is likely to be futile.

A prospective, multi-center randomized, controlled, blinded trial of vagus nerve stimulation for difficult to treat depression: A novel design for a novel treatment.

Few treatment options exist for patients with difficult-to-treat depression (DTD). One potentially efficacious treatment is vagus nerve stimulation (VNS): chronic stimulation of the vagus nerve using an implanted stimulator. Given a series of recent VNS clinical studies, including a large, five-year naturalistic investigation, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reconsidered the previous non coverage determination and announced coverage for patients participating in a "coverage with evidence" trial. This study, entitled, A PRospective, Multi-cEnter, Randomized Controlled Blinded Trial DemOnstrating the Safety and Effectiveness of VNS Therapy® System as AdjunctivE Therapy Versus a No Stimulation Control in Subjects With Treatment-Resistant Depression (RECOVER), includes DTD patients with at least four unsuccessful antidepressant treatments in the current episode and will randomize both unipolar and bipolar DTD participants, each up to 500 evaluable enrollees. Predetermined interim analyses will define the necessary sample size. All participants will be implanted with VNS devices: half receive active stimulation during year one, and half receive delayed stimulation after year one. Participants will be followed for 5 years. This RCT is unique for DTD studies: 1) large sample size and long study duration (one year of controlled comparison); 2) use of a percent time in response as the primary outcome measure, given the chronic illness and its fluctuating course (vis-à-vis meeting a response criteria at a single time point); 3) inclusion of diverse measures of VNS impact on function, including quality of life, degree of disability, health status, and suicidality.

A subset analysis of a phase II trial evaluating the use of DFMO as maintenance therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma.

Neuroblastoma is a sympathetic nervous system tumor, primarily presenting in children under 6 years of age. The long-term prognosis for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (HRNB) remains poor despite aggressive multimodal therapy. This report provides an update to a phase II trial evaluating DFMO as maintenance therapy in HRNB. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) of 81 subjects with HRNB treated with standard COG induction, consolidation and immunotherapy followed by 2 years of DFMO on the NMTRC003/003b Phase II trial were compared to a historical cohort of 76 HRNB patients treated at Beat Childhood Cancer Research Consortium (BCC) hospitals who were disease-free after completion of standard upfront therapy and did not receive DFMO. The 2- and 5-year EFS were 86.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.3%-94.2%] and 85.2% [77.8%-93.3%] for the NMTRC003/003b subset vs 78.3% [69.5%-88.3%] and 65.6% [55.5%-77.5%] for the historical control group. The 2- and 5-year OS were 98.8% [96.4-100%] and 95.1% [90.5%-99.9%] vs 94.4% [89.3%-99.9%] and 81.6% [73.0%-91.2%], respectively. DFMO maintenance for HRNB after completion of standard of care therapy was associated with improved EFS and OS relative to historical controls treated at the same institutions. These results support additional investigations into the potential role of DFMO in preventing relapse in HRNB.

The REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) Study. Rationale and Design.

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

Comparison of response adaptive randomization features in multiarm clinical trials with control.

We investigate multiple features of response adaptive randomization (RAR) in the context of a multiple arm randomized trial with control, where the primary goal is the identification of the best arm for use in a broader patient population. We maintain constant control allocation and vary the length of time until RAR is started, interim frequency, the underlying quantity used to calculate the randomization probabilities, and a threshold resulting in temporary arm dropping. We evaluate the designs on five metrics measuring benefit to the internal trial population, the future external population, and statistical estimation. Our results indicate these features have minimal interaction within the space explored, with preference for earlier activation of RAR, more frequent interim analyses, randomizing in proportion to the probability each arm is the best, and aggressive thresholding for temporarily dropping arms. The results illustrate useful principles for maximizing the benefit of RAR in practice.