Investigator choice of standard therapy versus sequential novel therapy arms in the treatment of relapsed follicular lymphoma (REFRACT): study protocol for a multi-centre, open-label, randomised, phase II platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL) is an incurable disease associated with shorter remissions and survival after each line of standard therapy. Many promising novel, chemotherapy-free therapies are in development, but few are licensed as their role in current treatment pathways is poorly defined. METHODS: The REFRACT trial is an investigator-initiated, UK National Cancer Research Institute, open-label, multi-centre, randomised phase II platform trial aimed at accelerating clinical development of novel therapies by addressing evidence gaps. The first of the three sequential novel therapy arms is epcoritamab plus lenalidomide, to be compared with investigator choice standard therapy (ICT). Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy proven relapsed or refractory CD20 positive, grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma and assessable disease by PET-CT are eligible. The primary outcome is complete metabolic response by PET-CT at 24 weeks using the Deauville 5-point scale and Lugano 2014 criteria. Secondary outcomes include overall metabolic response, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, and quality of life assessed by EQ-5D-5 L and FACT-Lym. The trial employs an innovative Bayesian design with a target sample size of 284 patients: 95 in the ICT arm and 189 in the novel therapy arms. DISCUSSION: Whilst there are many promising novel drugs in early clinical development for rrFL, understanding the relative efficacy and safety of these agents, and their place in modern treatment pathways, is limited by a lack of randomised trials and dearth of published outcomes for standard regimens to act as historic controls. Therefore, the aim of REFRACT is to provide an efficient platform to evaluate novel agents against standard therapies for rrFL. The adaptive Bayesian power prior methodology design will minimise patient numbers and accelerate trial delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05848765; 08-May-2023. EUDRACT: 2022-000677-75; 10-Feb-2022.

Axitinib in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (Axi-STS): an open-label, multicentre, phase II trial in four histological strata.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor with anti-tumour activity in renal, thyroid, and pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Axi-STS was a pathologically-stratified, non-randomised, open-label, multi-centre, phase II trial of continuous axitinib treatment in patients ≥16 years, performance status ≤2, with pathologically-confirmed advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Patients were recruited within four tumour strata, each analysed separately: angiosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, or other eligible STSs. The primary outcome was progression-free survival at 12 weeks (PFS12). A Simon's two-stage design with activity defined as PFS12 rate of 40% determined a sample size of 33 patients per strata. RESULTS: Between 31-August-2010 and 29-January-2016, 145 patients were recruited: 38 angiosarcoma, 37 leiomyosarcoma, 36 synovial sarcoma, and 34 other subtypes. PFS12 rate for each stratum analysed was 42% (95% lower confidence interval (LCI); 29), 45% (95% LCI; 32), 57% (95% LCI; 42), and 33% (95% LCI; 21), respectively. There were 74 serious adverse events including two treatment-related deaths of pulmonary haemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding. Fatigue and hypertension were the most common grade 3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib showed clinical activity in all STS strata investigated. The adverse event profile was acceptable, supporting further investigation in phase III trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 60791336.

SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses and clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with immune-suppressive disease.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immune responses and infection outcomes were evaluated in 2,686 patients with varying immune-suppressive disease states after administration of two Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Overall, 255 of 2,204 (12%) patients failed to develop anti-spike antibodies, with an additional 600 of 2,204 (27%) patients generating low levels (<380 AU ml-1). Vaccine failure rates were highest in ANCA-associated vasculitis on rituximab (21/29, 72%), hemodialysis on immunosuppressive therapy (6/30, 20%) and solid organ transplant recipients (20/81, 25% and 141/458, 31%). SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were detected in 513 of 580 (88%) patients, with lower T cell magnitude or proportion in hemodialysis, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and liver transplant recipients (versus healthy controls). Humoral responses against Omicron (BA.1) were reduced, although cross-reactive T cell responses were sustained in all participants for whom these data were available. BNT162b2 was associated with higher antibody but lower cellular responses compared to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. We report 474 SARS-CoV-2 infection episodes, including 48 individuals with hospitalization or death from COVID-19. Decreased magnitude of both the serological and the T cell response was associated with severe COVID-19. Overall, we identified clinical phenotypes that may benefit from targeted COVID-19 therapeutic strategies.

Defective T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccination in acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

Limited data exist on COVID-19 vaccination efficacy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplasia with excess blasts (AML/MDS-EB2). We report results from a prospective study, PACE (Patients with AML and COVID-19 Epidemiology). 93 patients provided samples post-vaccine 2 or 3 (PV2, PV3). Antibodies against SARS-COV-2 spike antigen were detectable in all samples. Neutralization of the omicron variant was poorer than ancestral variants but improved PV3. In contrast, adequate T-cell reactivity to SARS-COV-2 spike protein was seen in only 16/47 (34%) patients PV2 and 23/52 (44%) PV3. Using regression models, disease response (not in CR/Cri), and increasing age predicted poor T cell response.

Namilumab or infliximab compared with standard of care in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (CATALYST): a randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the efficacy of namilumab (a granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor inhibitor) and infliximab (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, parallel-group, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST), we recruited patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations of 40 mg/L or greater, at nine hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to usual care or usual care plus a single intravenous dose of namilumab (150 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified by care location within the hospital (ward vs intensive care unit [ICU]). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation, measured by CRP concentration over time, analysed using Bayesian multilevel models. This trial is now complete and is registered with ISRCTN, 40580903. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021, we screened 299 patients and 146 were enrolled and randomly assigned to usual care (n=54), namilumab (n=57), or infliximab (n=35). For the primary outcome, 45 patients in the usual care group were compared with 52 in the namilumab group, and 29 in the usual care group were compared with 28 in the infliximab group. The probabilities that the interventions were superior to usual care alone in reducing CRP concentration over time were 97% for namilumab and 15% for infliximab; the point estimates for treatment-time interactions were -0·09 (95% CI -0·19 to 0·00) for namilumab and 0·06 (-0·05 to 0·17) for infliximab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the namilumab group compared with 145 in 29 (54%) of 54 in the usual care group. 102 adverse events occurred in 20 (69%) of 29 patients in the infliximab group compared with 112 in 17 (50%) of 34 in the usual care group. Death occurred in six (11%) patients in the namilumab group compared with ten (19%) in the usual care group, and in four (14%) in the infliximab group compared with five (15%) in the usual care group. INTERPRETATION: Namilumab, but not infliximab, showed proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation-as measured by CRP concentration-in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

Beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyrate/arginine/glutamine (HMB/Arg/Gln) supplementation to improve the management of cachexia in patients with advanced lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled phase II trial (NOURISH).

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia causes significant morbidity and mortality in advanced lung cancer patients. Clinical benefit of ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate, arginine, and glutamine (HMB/Arg/Gln) was assessed in newly diagnosed patients. METHODS: NOURISH, a prospective, two-arm, open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled phase II trial compared cachexia in patients who received HMB/Arg/Gln with those who did not. All patients received structured nutritional, exercise and symptom control via a Macmillan Durham Cachexia Pack. Conducted in five UK centres, patients aged > 18 years, with newly diagnosed advanced small cell lung cancer (SCLC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who were able to take oral nutrition, with a performance status of 0-to-2 and a life expectancy > 4 months were eligible for trial entry. Patients suitable for treatment with curative intent were ineligible. The trial was designed as a signal-seeking pilot study with target recruitment of 96 patients. One-to-one randomisation was stratified by diagnosis (SCLC or NSCLC), stage of disease (locally advanced or metastatic) and performance status. The primary outcome measure was treatment success defined as a patient being alive without significant loss of lean body mass (not > 5%) by 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life. RESULTS: Between February-2012 and February-2013, 38 patients were recruited, 19 to each arm. Baseline characteristics were balanced. The trial was halted due to slow accrual and partial adherence. Trial data demonstrated no evidence of treatment benefit. No serious adverse events were reported during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Further evaluation of HMB/Arg/Gln in this setting could not be recommended on the basis of this trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: 39911673; 14-Apr-2011 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN39911673 .