Extended-release naltrexone versus standard oral naltrexone versus placebo for opioid use disorder: the NEAT three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: People recovering from heroin addiction need better treatments than are currently offered. The chronic relapsing nature of drug dependence means that helping a patient to achieve abstinence is often difficult. Naltrexone blocks the effects of ingested heroin; however, evidence is conflicting regarding the best delivery method. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of the trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus standard oral naltrexone versus relapse prevention therapy without medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). DESIGN: This was a 3-year, definitive, three-centre, three-arm, parallel group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two specialist NHS outpatient addiction clinics: one in London and one in Birmingham. PARTICIPANTS: Planned study sample - 300 adult patients with OUD who had completed detoxification. INTERVENTIONS: One iGen/Atral-Cipan Extended Release Naltrexone device (iGen/Atral-Cipan, Castanheira do Ribatejo, Portugal) (765 mg naltrexone or placebo) at day 0 of study week 1. Three weekly directly observed active or placebo oral naltrexone tablets (2 × 50 mg, Monday and Wednesday; 3 × 50 mg, Friday) at day 0 of study week 1 (for 4 weeks) and then an 8-week regimen of patient-administered dosing at the same dosing level. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of heroin-negative urine drug screen (UDS) results at the end of the 12-week post-randomisation time point. RESULTS: Six patients were recruited and randomised to receive study interventions. Two patients had no positive UDS samples for heroin during the 12-week treatment period, one patient had only one positive UDS sample and the remaining patients had two, six and eight positive UDS results for heroin. All patients had at least one missed clinic visit (range 1-14). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable problems were encountered with (1) the stipulated requirement of a validated 'detoxified' status prior to the initiation of the study naltrexone, (2) the requirement for a consent cooling-off period and (3) delays awaiting the surgical implant procedure. Major upheaval to the organisation and delivery of NHS community treatment services across England led to extremely poor levels of actual entry of patients into the trial. Research-vital clinical and procedural requirements were, therefore, more challenging to implement. The potential therapeutic value of the opioid antagonist naltrexone still needs clear investigation, including comparison of the established oral form with the new ultra-long-acting depot implant formulations (for which no licensed products exist in Europe). Despite the small number of study participants, some tentative conclusions can be reached, relevant to potential future work. The blinding of the active/placebo medications appeared to be good. Self-report was not sufficient to detect instances of heroin use. Self-report plus UDS information provided a fuller picture. Instances of lapsed heroin use were not necessarily followed by full relapse, and future work should consider the lapse-relapse relationship. The prison release setting also warrants special consideration. In future, investigators should consider seeking ethics approval for studies in which clinical procedures to accelerate the treatment process are permitted, even if outside orthodox clinical practice, if they address a clinical need at the time of challenge and clinical risk. In addition, it may be appropriate to seek exemption from the ordinary requirement of a cooling-off period after securing consent because it is often essential to initiate treatment promptly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95809946. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early nutritional support via the parenteral versus the enteral route in critically ill patients (CALORIES).

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a common problem in critically ill patients in UK NHS critical care units. Early nutritional support is therefore recommended to address deficiencies in nutritional state and related disorders in metabolism. However, evidence is conflicting regarding the optimum route (parenteral or enteral) of delivery. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route on mortality at 30 days and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. Secondary objectives were to compare the route of early nutritional support on duration of organ support; infectious and non-infectious complications; critical care unit and acute hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at critical care unit and acute hospital discharge, at 90 days and 1 year; survival to 90 days and 1 year; nutritional and health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Adult general critical care units in 33 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 2400 eligible patients. INTERVENTIONS: Five days of early nutritional support delivered via the parenteral (n = 1200) and enteral (n = 1200) route. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (INB) (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year. RESULTS: By 30 days, 393 of 1188 (33.1%) patients assigned to receive early nutritional support via the parenteral route and 409 of 1195 (34.2%) assigned to the enteral route had died [p = 0.57; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.65 to 4.94; relative risk 0.97 (0.86 to 1.08)]. At 1 year, INB for the parenteral route compared with the enteral route was negative at -£1320 (95% CI -£3709 to £1069). The probability that early nutritional support via the parenteral route is more cost-effective - given the data - is < 20%. The proportion of patients in the parenteral group who experienced episodes of hypoglycaemia (p = 0.006) and of vomiting (p < 0.001) was significantly lower than in the enteral group. There were no significant differences in the 15 other secondary outcomes and no significant interactions with pre-specified subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Blinding of nutritional support was deemed to be impractical and, although the primary outcome was objective, some secondary outcomes, although defined and objectively assessed, may have been more vulnerable to observer bias. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days for early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route among adults admitted to critical care units in England. On average, costs were higher for the parenteral route, which, combined with similar survival and quality of life, resulted in negative INBs at 1 year. FUTURE WORK: Nutritional support is a complex combination of timing, dose, duration, delivery and type, all of which may affect outcomes and costs. Conflicting evidence remains regarding optimum provision to critically ill patients. There is a need to utilise rigorous consensus methods to establish future priorities for basic and clinical research in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17386141. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Phase 2 study of sorafenib in malignant mesothelioma previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of mesothelioma is rising. First-line cisplatin and pemetrexed confers a survival benefit, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.7 months. Sorafenib inhibits tyrosine kinases, including receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor, which are implicated in mesothelioma pathogenesis by preclinical and clinical data. METHODS: Sorafenib, at 400 mg twice daily, was assessed in a single-arm multicenter phase 2 study, using Simon's two-stage design. Eligible patients had received platinum combination chemotherapy earlier. The primary endpoint was PFS at 6 months, with secondary endpoints, including response rate and metabolic response, assessed using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Published reference values for PFS in mesothelioma provide a benchmark for the null hypothesis of 28% progression-free at 6 months, and for moderate or significant clinical activity of 35% or 43% progression-free at 6 months, respectively. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (72%) were treated. Most had epithelioid histology. Ninety-three percent of patients had a performance status 0 or 1. Treatment was well tolerated with few grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Median PFS was 5.1 months, with 36% of patients being progression-free at 6 months. Nine percent of patients remained on study beyond 1 year. Changes in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters did not predict clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib is well tolerated in patients with mesothelioma after completion of platinum-containing chemotherapy. PFS of sorafenib compares favorably with that reported for other targeted agents, and suggests moderate activity in this disease.

Effect of patient socioeconomic status on access to early-phase cancer trials.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the influence of socioeconomic factors on patient access to cancer trials. Differences should be considered to ensure generalizability of trial results and equality of access. METHODS: Phase I trials unit referrals at our center over 5 years, from 2007 to 2012, were reviewed. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD; 1, least deprived; 5, most deprived). Multivariate analysis was performed comparing incident cancer cases with referred patients and those ultimately enrolled onto a trial. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty patients were referred (median age, 62 years). Compared with 10,784 incident cases, referral was less likely for patients in the more-deprived quintiles compared with the least deprived (IMD 5: odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.74). Once reviewed in the unit, enrollment onto a trial was not affected (IMD 5: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.63). Ethnicity analysis showed the nonwhite population was less likely to be recruited (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.88). This relationship was lost with adjustment for age, sex, cancer type, and deprivation index. CONCLUSION: We show for the first time to our knowledge that socioeconomic status affects early-phase cancer trial referrals. The least-deprived patients are almost twice as likely to be referred compared with the most deprived. This may be because more-deprived patients are less suitable for a trial-as a result of comorbidities, for example-or because of inequalities that could be addressed by patient or referrer education. Once reviewed at the unit, enrollment onto a trial is not affected by deprivation.