Trial of Early Minimally Invasive Removal of Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Trials of surgical evacuation of supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhages have generally shown no functional benefit. Whether early minimally invasive surgical removal would result in better outcomes than medical management is not known. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized trial involving patients with an acute intracerebral hemorrhage, we assessed surgical removal of the hematoma as compared with medical management. Patients who had a lobar or anterior basal ganglia hemorrhage with a hematoma volume of 30 to 80 ml were assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, within 24 hours after the time that they were last known to be well, to minimally invasive surgical removal of the hematoma plus guideline-based medical management (surgery group) or to guideline-based medical management alone (control group). The primary efficacy end point was the mean score on the utility-weighted modified Rankin scale (range, 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, according to patients' assessment) at 180 days, with a prespecified threshold for posterior probability of superiority of 0.975 or higher. The trial included rules for adaptation of enrollment criteria on the basis of hemorrhage location. A primary safety end point was death within 30 days after enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were enrolled, of whom 30.7% had anterior basal ganglia hemorrhages and 69.3% had lobar hemorrhages. After 175 patients had been enrolled, an adaptation rule was triggered, and only persons with lobar hemorrhages were enrolled. The mean score on the utility-weighted modified Rankin scale at 180 days was 0.458 in the surgery group and 0.374 in the control group (difference, 0.084; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.005 to 0.163; posterior probability of superiority of surgery, 0.981). The mean between-group difference was 0.127 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.035 to 0.219) among patients with lobar hemorrhages and -0.013 (95% Bayesian credible interval, -0.147 to 0.116) among those with anterior basal ganglia hemorrhages. The percentage of patients who had died by 30 days was 9.3% in the surgery group and 18.0% in the control group. Five patients (3.3%) in the surgery group had postoperative rebleeding and neurologic deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in whom surgery could be performed within 24 hours after an acute intracerebral hemorrhage, minimally invasive hematoma evacuation resulted in better functional outcomes at 180 days than those with guideline-based medical management. The effect of surgery appeared to be attributable to intervention for lobar hemorrhages. (Funded by Nico; ENRICH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02880878.).

Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Does adjunctive clindamycin have a role in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia? A protocol for the adjunctive treatment domain of the S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The use of adjunctive antibiotics directed against exotoxin production in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is widespread, and is recommended in many guidelines, but there is limited evidence underpinning this. Existing guidelines are based on the theoretical premise of toxin suppression, as many strains of S. aureus produce toxins such as leucocidins (e.g., Panton-Valentine Leucocidin (PVL), toxic shock syndrome toxin 1 (TSST-1), exfoliative toxins, and various enterotoxins). Many clinicians therefore believe that limiting exotoxin production release by S. aureus could reduce its virulence and improve clinical outcomes. Clindamycin, a protein synthesis inhibitor antibiotic, is commonly used for this purpose. We report the domain-specific protocol, embedded in a large adaptive, platform trial, seeking to definitively answer this question. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, multi-center adaptive platform trial that aims to compare different SAB therapies, simultaneously, for 90-day mortality. The adjunctive treatment domain aims to test the effectiveness of adjunctive antibiotics, initially comparing clindamycin to no adjunctive antibiotic, but future adaptations may include other agents. Individuals will be randomized to receive either five days of adjunctive clindamycin (or lincomycin) or no adjunctive antibiotic therapy alongside standard of care antibiotics. Most participants with SAB (within 72hr of index blood culture and not contraindicated) will be eligible to participate in this domain. Prespecified analyses are defined in the statistical appendix to the core protocol and domain-specific secondary analyses will be adjusted for resistance to clindamycin, disease phenotype (complicated or uncomplicated SAB) and PVL-positive isolate.

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Early oral antibiotic switch in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) Trial Early Oral Switch Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (bacteraemia) is traditionally treated with at least two weeks of IV antibiotics in adults, 3-7 days in children, and often longer for those with complicated disease. The current practice of treating S. aureus bacteraemia (SAB) with prolonged IV antibiotics (rather than oral antibiotics) is based on historical observational research and expert opinion. Prolonged IV antibiotic therapy has significant disadvantages for patients and healthcare systems, and there is growing interest in whether a switch to oral antibiotics following an initial period of IV therapy is a safe alternative for clinically stable patients. PROTOCOL: The early oral switch (EOS) domain of the S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial will assess early switch to oral antibiotics compared with continued IV treatment in clinically stable patients with SAB. The primary endpoint is 90-day all-cause mortality. Hospitalised SAB patients are assessed at platform day 7 +/- 2 (uncomplicated SAB) and day 14 +/-2 (complicated SAB) to determine their eligibility for randomisation to EOS (intervention) or continued IV treatment (current standard of care). DISCUSSION: Recruitment is occurring to the EOS domain of the SNAP trial. As of August 2023, 21% of all SNAP participants had been randomised to the EOS domain, a total of 264 participants across 77 centres, with an aim to recruit at least 1000 participants. We describe challenges and facilitators to enrolment in this domain to aid those planning similar trials.

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform Trial Protocol: New Tools for an Old Foe.

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream (SAB) infection is a common and severe infectious disease, with a 90-day mortality of 15%-30%. Despite this, <3000 people have been randomized into clinical trials of treatments for SAB infection. The limited evidence base partly results from clinical trials for SAB infections being difficult to complete at scale using traditional clinical trial methods. Here we provide the rationale and framework for an adaptive platform trial applied to SAB infections. We detail the design features of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial that will enable multiple questions to be answered as efficiently as possible. The SNAP trial commenced enrolling patients across multiple countries in 2022 with an estimated target sample size of 7000 participants. This approach may serve as an exemplar to increase efficiency of clinical trials for other infectious disease syndromes.

Hypothermia for Patients Requiring Evacuation of Subdural Hematoma: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypothermia is neuroprotective in some ischemia-reperfusion injuries. Ischemia-reperfusion injury may occur with traumatic subdural hematoma (SDH). This study aimed to determine whether early induction and maintenance of hypothermia in patients with acute SDH would lead to decreased ischemia-reperfusion injury and improve global neurologic outcome. METHODS: This international, multicenter randomized controlled trial enrolled adult patients with SDH requiring evacuation of hematoma within 6 h of injury. The intervention was controlled temperature management of hypothermia to 35 °C prior to dura opening followed by 33 °C for 48 h compared with normothermia (37 °C). Investigators randomly assigned patients at a 1:1 ratio between hypothermia and normothermia. Blinded evaluators assessed outcome using a 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score. Investigators measured circulating glial fibrillary acidic protein and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 levels. RESULTS: Independent statisticians performed an interim analysis of 31 patients to assess the predictive probability of success and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended the early termination of the study because of futility. Thirty-two patients, 16 per arm, were analyzed. Favorable 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended outcomes were not statistically significantly different between hypothermia vs. normothermia groups (6 of 16, 38% vs. 4 of 16, 25%; odds ratio 1.8 [95% confidence interval 0.39 to ∞], p = .35). Plasma levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (p = .036), but not ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (p = .26), were lower in the patients with favorable outcome compared with those with unfavorable outcome, but differences were not identified by temperature group. Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial of hypothermia after acute SDH evacuation was terminated because of a low predictive probability of meeting the study objectives. There was no statistically significant difference in functional outcome identified between temperature groups.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Vitamin C, Thiamine, and Hydrocortisone on Ventilator- and Vasopressor-Free Days in Patients With Sepsis: The VICTAS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sepsis is a common syndrome with substantial morbidity and mortality. A combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and corticosteroids has been proposed as a potential treatment for patients with sepsis. Objective: To determine whether a combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone every 6 hours increases ventilator- and vasopressor-free days compared with placebo in patients with sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, adaptive-sample-size, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adult patients with sepsis-induced respiratory and/or cardiovascular dysfunction. Participants were enrolled in the emergency departments or intensive care units at 43 hospitals in the United States between August 2018 and July 2019. After enrollment of 501 participants, funding was withheld, leading to an administrative termination of the trial. All study-related follow-up was completed by January 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g), thiamine (100 mg), and hydrocortisone (50 mg) every 6 hours (n = 252) or matching placebo (n = 249) for 96 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death. Participants could be treated with open-label corticosteroids by the clinical team, with study hydrocortisone or matching placebo withheld if the total daily dose was greater or equal to the equivalent of 200 mg of hydrocortisone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of consecutive ventilator- and vasopressor-free days in the first 30 days following the day of randomization. The key secondary outcome was 30-day mortality. Results: Among 501 participants randomized (median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 50-70] years; 46% female; 30% Black; median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, 27 [IQR, 20.8-33.0]; median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 9 [IQR, 7-12]), all completed the trial. Open-label corticosteroids were prescribed to 33% and 32% of the intervention and control groups, respectively. Ventilator- and vasopressor-free days were a median of 25 days (IQR, 0-29 days) in the intervention group and 26 days (IQR, 0-28 days) in the placebo group, with a median difference of -1 day (95% CI, -4 to 2 days; P = .85). Thirty-day mortality was 22% in the intervention group and 24% in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with sepsis, treatment with vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly increase ventilator- and vasopressor-free days within 30 days. However, the trial was terminated early for administrative reasons and may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03509350.

Comparison of methods for control allocation in multiple arm studies using response adaptive randomization.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Response adaptive randomization has many polarizing properties in two-arm settings comparing control to a single treatment. The generalization of these features to the multiple arm setting has been less explored, and existing comparisons in the literature reach disparate conclusions. We investigate several generalizations of two-arm response adaptive randomization methods relating to control allocation in multiple arm trials, exploring how critiques of response adaptive randomization generalize to the multiple arm setting. METHODS: We perform a simulation study to investigate multiple control allocation schemes within response adaptive randomization, comparing the designs on metrics such as power, arm selection, mean square error, and the treatment of patients within the trial. RESULTS: The results indicate that the generalization of two-arm response adaptive randomization concerns is variable and depends on the form of control allocation employed. The concerns are amplified when control allocation may be reduced over the course of the trial but are mitigated in the methods considered when control allocation is maintained or increased during the trial. In our chosen example, we find minimal advantage to increasing, as opposed to maintaining, control allocation; however, this result reflects an extremely limited exploration of methods for increasing control allocation. CONCLUSION: Selection of control allocation in multiple arm response adaptive randomization has a large effect on the performance of the design. Some disparate comparisons of response adaptive randomization to alternative paradigms may be partially explained by these results. In future comparisons, control allocation for multiple arm response adaptive randomization should be chosen to keep in mind the appropriate match between control allocation in response adaptive randomization and the metric or metrics of interest.

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.

A blueprint for a multi-disease, multi-domain Bayesian adaptive platform trial incorporating adult and paediatric subgroups: the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial.

The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial is a multifactorial Bayesian adaptive platform trial that aims to improve the way that S. aureus bloodstream infection, a globally common and severe infectious disease, is treated. In a world first, the SNAP trial will simultaneously investigate the effects of multiple intervention modalities within multiple groups of participants with different forms of S. aureus bloodstream infection. Here, we formalise the trial structure, modelling approach, and decision rules that will be used for the SNAP trial. By summarising the statistical principles governing the design, our hope is that the SNAP trial will serve as an adaptable template that can be used to improve comparative effectiveness research efficiency in other disease areas.Trial registration NCT05137119 . Registered on 30 November 2021.

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.

Association of Subcutaneous or Intravenous Administration of Casirivimab and Imdevimab Monoclonal Antibodies With Clinical Outcomes in Adults With COVID-19.

Importance: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but the association with patient outcomes is understudied. Objectives: To evaluate whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization and death compared with nontreatment among mAb-eligible patients and whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study evaluated high-risk outpatients in a learning health system in the US with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021, who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also studied. Exposures: Subcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of 600 mg of casirivimab and 600 mg of imdevimab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the 28-day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28-day adjusted risk ratios and differences in hospitalization, death, a composite end point of emergency department admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. Among 1959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19, 969 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [16.7] years; 547 women [56.4%]) who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization or death of 3.4% (22 of 653 patients) compared with 7.0% (92 of 1306 patients) in nontreated controls (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .002). Among 2185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n = 969) or intravenous (n = 1216; mean [SD] age, 54.3 [16.6] years; 672 women [54.4%]) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 2.8% vs 1.7%, which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% CI, -0.6% to 3.5%; P = .16). Among all infusion patients, there was no difference in intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%; 95% CI, -3.5% to 5.0%) or need for mechanical ventilation (adjusted risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 5.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms, subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab was associated with reduced hospitalization and death when compared with no treatment. These results provide preliminary evidence of potential expanded use of subcutaneous mAb treatment, particularly in areas that are facing treatment capacity and/or staffing shortages.

The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab. METHODS: A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound. FINDINGS: Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30-1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. FUNDING AND REGISTRATION: This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab and Sotrovimab During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge: A Cohort Study and Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria. Exposure: For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound. Results: A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Sutureless aortic valves are a novel option for aortic valve replacement. We sought to demonstrate noninferiority of sutureless versus standard bioprostheses in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. METHODS: The Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients were randomized (March 2016 to September 2018) to aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or stented valve using conventional or minimally invasive approach. Primary outcome was freedom from major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention) at 1 year. RESULTS: At 47 centers (12 countries), 910 patients were randomized to sutureless (n = 453) or conventional stented (n = 457) valves; mean ages were 75.4 ± 5.6 and 75.0 ± 6.1 years, and 50.1% and 44.9% were female, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were 2.4 ± 1.7 and 2.1 ± 1.3, and a ministernotomy approach was used in 50.4% and 47.3%, respectively. Concomitant procedures were performed with similar rates in both groups. Noninferiority was demonstrated for major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year, whereas aortic valve hemodynamics improved equally in both groups. Use of sutureless valves significantly reduced surgical times (mean extracorporeal circulation times: 71.0 ± 34.1 minutes vs 87.8 ± 33.9 minutes; mean crossclamp times: 48.5 ± 24.7 vs 65.2 ± 23.6; both P < .0001), but resulted in a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11.1% vs 3.6% at 1 year). Incidences of perivalvular and central leak were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless valves were noninferior to stented valves with respect to major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (alone or with coronary artery bypass grafting). This suggests that sutureless valves should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program.