Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Representativeness of Patients Enrolled in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP).

PURPOSE: Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP), a public-private partnership, established infrastructure for conducting a biomarker-driven master protocol in molecularly targeted therapies. We compared characteristics of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP with those of patients in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials to examine if master protocols improve trial access. METHODS: We examined patients enrolled in Lung-MAP (2014-2020) according to sociodemographic characteristics. Proportions for characteristics were compared with those for a set of advanced NSCLC trials (2001-2020) and the US advanced NSCLC population using SEER registry data (2014-2018). Characteristics of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP treatment substudies were examined in subgroup analysis. Two-sided tests of proportions at an alpha of .01 were used for all comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 3,556 patients enrolled in Lung-MAP were compared with 2,215 patients enrolled in other NSCLC studies. Patients enrolled in Lung-MAP were more likely to be 65 years and older (57.2% v 46.3%; P < .0001), from rural areas (17.3% v 14.4%; P = .004), and from socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods (42.2% v 36.7%, P < .0001), but less likely to be female (38.6% v 47.2%; P < .0001), Asian (2.8% v 5.1%; P < .0001), or Hispanic (2.4% v 3.8%; P = .003). Among patients younger than 65 years, Lung-MAP enrolled more patients using Medicaid/no insurance (27.6% v 17.8%; P < .0001). Compared with the US advanced NSCLC population, Lung-MAP under represented patients 65 years and older (57.2% v 69.8%; P < .0001), females (38.6% v 46.0%; P < .0001), and racial or ethnic minorities (14.8% v 21.5%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Master protocols may improve access to trials using novel therapeutics for older patients and socioeconomically vulnerable patients compared with conventional trials, but specific patient exclusion criteria influenced demographic composition. Further research examining participation barriers for under represented racial or ethnic minorities in precision medicine clinical trials is warranted.

Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate for Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of inhaled glucocorticoids in shortening the time to symptom resolution or preventing hospitalization or death among outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial in the United States to assess the use of repurposed medications in outpatients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Nonhospitalized adults 30 years of age or older who had at least two symptoms of acute infection that had been present for no more than 7 days before enrollment were randomly assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate at a dose of 200 µg once daily for 14 days or placebo. The primary outcome was the time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Key secondary outcomes included hospitalization or death by day 28 and a composite outcome of the need for an urgent-care or emergency department visit or hospitalization or death through day 28. RESULTS: Of the 1407 enrolled participants who underwent randomization, 715 were assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate and 692 to receive placebo, and 656 and 621, respectively, were included in the analysis. There was no evidence that the use of fluticasone furoate resulted in a shorter time to recovery than placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% credible interval, 0.91 to 1.12; posterior probability of benefit [defined as a hazard ratio >1], 0.56). A total of 24 participants (3.7%) in the fluticasone furoate group had urgent-care or emergency department visits or were hospitalized, as compared with 13 participants (2.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% credible interval, 0.8 to 3.5). Three participants in each group were hospitalized, and no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with inhaled fluticasone furoate for 14 days did not result in a shorter time to recovery than placebo among outpatients with Covid-19 in the United States. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; ACTIV-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04885530.).

Lessons From COVID-19 for Pandemic Preparedness: Proceedings From a Multistakeholder Think Tank.

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to present global challenges, sufficient time has passed to reflect on lessons learned and use those insights to inform policy and approaches to prepare for the next pandemic. In May 2022, the Duke Clinical Research Institute convened a think tank with thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy, the National Institutes of Health, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to share, firsthand, expert knowledge of the insights gained from the COVID-19 pandemic and how this acquired knowledge can help inform the next pandemic response. The think tank focused on pandemic preparedness, therapeutics, vaccines, and challenges related to clinical trial design and scale-up during the early phase of a pandemic. Based on the multi-faceted discussions, we outline 10 key steps to an improved and equitable pandemic response.

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Effect of Fluvoxamine vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) for 10 days compared with placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to test repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 participants aged 30 years or older with test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less were enrolled between August 6, 2021, and May 27, 2022, at 91 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as the third day of 3 consecutive days without symptoms). There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite outcome of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death through day 28. Results: Among 1331 participants who were randomized (median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-57 years]; 57% were women; and 67% reported receiving ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (674 in the fluvoxamine group and 614 in the placebo group). The median time to sustained recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-14 days) in the fluvoxamine group and 13 days (IQR, 12-13 days) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% credible interval, 0.86-1.06], posterior P = .21 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR >1]). For the composite outcome, 26 participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized, had an urgent care visit, had an emergency department visit, or died compared with 23 participants (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.1 [95% credible interval, 0.5-1.8], posterior P = .35 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR <1]). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 participants in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred in either group. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days, compared with placebo, did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Challenges to Using Big Data in Cancer.

Big data in healthcare can enable unprecedented understanding of diseases and their treatment, particularly in oncology. These data may include electronic health records, medical imaging, genomic sequencing, payor records, and data from pharmaceutical research, wearables, and medical devices. The ability to combine datasets and use data across many analyses is critical to the successful use of big data and is a concern for those who generate and use the data. Interoperability and data quality continue to be major challenges when working with different healthcare datasets. Mapping terminology across datasets, missing and incorrect data, and varying data structures make combining data an onerous and largely manual undertaking. Data privacy is another concern addressed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Common Rule, and the General Data Protection Regulation. The use of big data is now included in the planning and activities of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency. The willingness of organizations to share data in a precompetitive fashion, agreements on data quality standards, and institution of universal and practical tenets on data privacy will be crucial to fully realizing the potential for big data in medicine.

Case Studies for Overcoming Challenges in Using Big Data in Cancer.

The analysis of big healthcare data has enormous potential as a tool for advancing oncology drug development and patient treatment, particularly in the context of precision medicine. However, there are challenges in organizing, sharing, integrating, and making these data readily accessible to the research community. This review presents five case studies illustrating various successful approaches to addressing such challenges. These efforts are CancerLinQ, the American Association for Cancer Research Project GENIE, Project Data Sphere, the National Cancer Institute Genomic Data Commons, and the Veterans Health Administration Clinical Data Initiative. Critical factors in the development of these systems include attention to the use of robust pipelines for data aggregation, common data models, data deidentification to enable multiple uses, integration of data collection into physician workflows, terminology standardization and attention to interoperability, extensive quality assurance and quality control activity, incorporation of multiple data types, and understanding how data resources can be best applied. By describing some of the emerging resources, we hope to inspire consideration of the secondary use of such data at the earliest possible step to ensure the proper sharing of data in order to generate insights that advance the understanding and the treatment of cancer.

Effect of Ivermectin 600 µg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin, dosed at 600 µg/kg, daily for 6 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Methods: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants age ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days, were enrolled from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Participants were randomized to ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n=602), daily vs. placebo daily (n=604) for 6 days. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, median (interquartile range) age was 48 (38-58) years; 713 (59%) were women; and 1008 (84%) reported ≥2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. Median time to recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [CrI], posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (0.92-1.13; P[HR>1]=0.68). In those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (HR 1.0, 0.6- 1.5; P[HR<1]=0.53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530 .

Abatacept for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: We investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Methods: We conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results: Between October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). Conclusions: Addition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

MYC oncogene elicits tumorigenesis associated with embryonic, ribosomal biogenesis, and tissue-lineage dedifferentiation gene expression changes.

MYC is a transcription factor frequently overexpressed in cancer. To determine how MYC drives the neoplastic phenotype, we performed transcriptomic analysis using a panel of MYC-driven autochthonous transgenic mouse models. We found that MYC elicited gene expression changes mostly in a tissue- and lineage-specific manner across B-cell lymphoma, T-cell acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and lung adenocarcinoma. However, despite these gene expression changes being mostly tissue-specific, we uncovered a convergence on a common pattern of upregulation of embryonic stem cell gene programs and downregulation of tissue-of-origin gene programs across MYC-driven cancers. These changes are representative of lineage dedifferentiation, that may be facilitated by epigenetic alterations that occur during tumorigenesis. Moreover, while several cellular processes are represented among embryonic stem cell genes, ribosome biogenesis is most specifically associated with MYC expression in human primary cancers. Altogether, MYC's capability to drive tumorigenesis in diverse tissue types appears to be related to its ability to both drive a core signature of embryonic genes that includes ribosomal biogenesis genes as well as promote tissue and lineage specific dedifferentiation.

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin, 400 µg/kg, daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1591 participants aged 30 years and older with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less, were enrolled from June 23, 2021, through February 4, 2022, with follow-up data through May 31, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive ivermectin, 400 µg/kg (n = 817), daily for 3 days or placebo (n = 774). Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28. Results: Among 1800 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years; 932 women [58.6%]; 753 [47.3%] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin [n = 5]; placebo [n = 7]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin [n = 1]; placebo [n = 5]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Fluvoxamine for Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19: A Decentralized, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Platform Clinical Trial.

Background: The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Design: ACTIV-6 is an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial testing repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 non-hospitalized adults aged ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days prior to randomization were randomized to receive fluvoxamine 50 mg or placebo twice daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Secondary outcomes included composites of hospitalization or death with or without urgent or emergency care visit by day 28. Results: Of 1331 participants randomized (mean [SD] age, 48.5 [12.8] years; 57% women; 67% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (n=614 placebo, n=674 fluvoxamine). Median time to recovery was 13 days (IQR 12-13) in the placebo group and 12 days (IQR 11-14) in the fluvoxamine group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.86-1.07; posterior probability for benefit [HR>1]=0.22). Twenty-six participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 23 (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.6-1.8; posterior probability for benefit [HR<1]=0.340). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Treatment with fluvoxamine 50 mg twice daily for 10 days did not improve time to recovery, compared with placebo, among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care. Methods: We conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality. Results: A total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections. Conclusions: Infliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

Accelerating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-Selecting Compounds for Clinical Evaluation in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Clinical Trials.

Given the urgent need for coronavirus disease 2019 therapeutics, early in the pandemic the Accelerating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) public-private partnership rapidly designed a unique therapeutic agent intake and assessment process for candidate treatments of coronavirus disease 2019. These treatments included antivirals, immune modulators, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 neutralizing antibodies, and organ-supportive treatments at both the preclinical and clinical stages of development. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group Agent Prioritization subgroup established a uniform data collection process required to perform an assessment of any agent type using review criteria that were identified and differentially weighted for each agent class. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group evaluated over 750 therapeutic agents with potential application for coronavirus disease 2019 and prioritized promising candidates for testing within the master protocols conducted by ACTIV. In addition, promising agents among preclinical candidates were selected by ACTIV to be matched with laboratories that could assist in executing rigorous preclinical studies. Between April 14, 2020, and May 31, 2021, the Agent Prioritization subgroup advanced 20 agents into the Accelerating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines master protocols and matched 25 agents with laboratories to assist with preclinical testing.

Minimal Residual Disease in Myeloma: Application for Clinical Care and New Drug Registration.

The development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow-based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy-based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid-based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes.

Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV): Designing Master Protocols for Evaluation of Candidate COVID-19 Therapeutics.

Working in an unprecedented time frame, the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) public-private partnership developed and launched 9 master protocols between 14 April 2020 and 31 May 2021 to allow for the coordinated and efficient evaluation of multiple investigational therapeutic agents for COVID-19. The ACTIV master protocols were designed with a portfolio approach to serve the following patient populations with COVID-19: mild to moderately ill outpatients, moderately ill inpatients, and critically ill inpatients. To facilitate the execution of these studies and minimize start-up time, ACTIV selected several existing networks to launch the master protocols. The master protocols were also designed to test several agent classes prioritized by ACTIV that covered the spectrum of the disease pathophysiology. Each protocol, either adaptive or pragmatic, was designed to efficiently select those treatments that provide benefit to patients while rapidly eliminating those that were either ineffective or unsafe. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group members describe the process by which these master protocols were designed, developed, and launched. Lessons learned that may be useful in meeting the challenges of a future pandemic are also described.

Network for Biomarker Immunoprofiling for Cancer Immunotherapy: Cancer Immune Monitoring and Analysis Centers and Cancer Immunologic Data Commons (CIMAC-CIDC).

PURPOSE: Immunoprofiling to identify biomarkers and integration with clinical trial outcomes are critical to improving immunotherapy approaches for patients with cancer. However, the translational potential of individual studies is often limited by small sample size of trials and the complexity of immuno-oncology biomarkers. Variability in assay performance further limits comparison and interpretation of data across studies and laboratories. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To enable a systematic approach to biomarker identification and correlation with clinical outcome across trials, the Cancer Immune Monitoring and Analysis Centers and Cancer Immunologic Data Commons (CIMAC-CIDC) Network was established through support of the Cancer MoonshotSM Initiative of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Partnership for Accelerating Cancer Therapies (PACT) with industry partners via the Foundation for the NIH. RESULTS: The CIMAC-CIDC Network is composed of four academic centers with multidisciplinary expertise in cancer immunotherapy that perform validated and harmonized assays for immunoprofiling and conduct correlative analyses. A data coordinating center (CIDC) provides the computational expertise and informatics platforms for the storage, integration, and analysis of biomarker and clinical data. CONCLUSIONS: This overview highlights strategies for assay harmonization to enable cross-trial and cross-site data analysis and describes key elements for establishing a network to enhance immuno-oncology biomarker development. These include an operational infrastructure, validation and harmonization of core immunoprofiling assays, platforms for data ingestion and integration, and access to specimens from clinical trials. Published in the same volume are reports of harmonization for core analyses: whole-exome sequencing, RNA sequencing, cytometry by time of flight, and IHC/immunofluorescence.

Enhanced Detection of Treatment Effects on Metastatic Colorectal Cancer with Volumetric CT Measurements for Tumor Burden Growth Rate Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Mathematical models combined with new imaging technologies could improve clinical oncology studies. To improve detection of therapeutic effect in patients with cancer, we assessed volumetric measurement of target lesions to estimate the rates of exponential tumor growth and regression as treatment is administered. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Two completed phase III trials were studied (988 patients) of aflibercept or panitumumab added to standard chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. Retrospectively, radiologists performed semiautomated measurements of all metastatic lesions on CT images. Using exponential growth modeling, tumor regression (d) and growth (g) rates were estimated for each patient's unidimensional and volumetric measurements. RESULTS: Exponential growth modeling of volumetric measurements detected different empiric mechanisms of effect for each drug: panitumumab marginally augmented the decay rate [tumor half-life; d [IQR]: 36.5 days (56.3, 29.0)] of chemotherapy [d: 44.5 days (67.2, 32.1), two-sided Wilcoxon P = 0.016], whereas aflibercept more significantly slowed the growth rate [doubling time; g = 300.8 days (154.0, 572.3)] compared with chemotherapy alone [g = 155.9 days (82.2, 347.0), P ≤ 0.0001]. An association of g with overall survival (OS) was observed. Simulating clinical trials using volumetric or unidimensional tumor measurements, fewer patients were required to detect a treatment effect using a volumetric measurement-based strategy (32-60 patients) than for unidimensional measurement-based strategies (124-184 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Combined tumor volume measurement and estimation of tumor regression and growth rate has potential to enhance assessment of treatment effects in clinical studies of colorectal cancer that would not be achieved with conventional, RECIST-based unidimensional measurements.