Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation. METHODS: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up. INTERPRETATION: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Standard or high dose chemoradiotherapy, with or without the protease inhibitor nelfinavir, in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: The phase 1/randomised phase 2 SCALOP-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The multi-centre two-stage SCALOP-2 trial (ISRCTN50083238) assessed whether dose escalation of consolidative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or concurrent sensitization using the protease inhibitor nelfinavir improve outcomes in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) following four cycles of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. METHODS: In stage 1, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nelfinavir concurrent with standard-dose CRT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) was identified from a cohort of 27 patients. In stage 2, 159 patients were enrolled in an open-label randomized controlled comparison of standard versus high dose (60 Gy in 30 fractions) CRT, with or without nelfinavir at MTD. Primary outcomes following dose escalation and nelfinavir use were respectively overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: High dose CRT did not improve OS (16.9 (60 % confidence interval, CI 16.2-17.7) vs. 15.6 (60 %CI 14.3-18.2) months; adjusted hazard ratio, HR 1.13 (60 %CI 0.91-1.40; p = 0.68)). Similarly, median PFS was not improved by nelfinavir (10.0 (60 %CI 9.9-10.2) vs. 11.1 (60 %CI 10.3-12.8) months; adjusted HR 1.71 (60 %CI 1.38-2.12; p = 0.98)). Local progression at 12 months was numerically lower with high-dose CRT than with standard dose CRT (n = 11/46 (23.9 %) vs. n = 15/45 (33.3 %)). Neither nelfinavir nor radiotherapy dose escalation impacted on treatment compliance or grade 3/4 adverse event rate. There were no sustained differences in HRQoL scores between treatment groups over 28 weeks post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated CRT may improve local tumour control and is well tolerated when used as consolidative treatment in LAPC but does not impact OS. Nelfinavir use does not improve PFS.

Statistical analysis plan for the TRANSLATE (TRANSrectal biopsy versus Local Anaesthetic Transperineal biopsy Evaluation of potentially clinically significant prostate cancer) multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSLATE (TRANSrectal biopsy versus Local Anaesthetic Transperineal biopsy Evaluation) trial assesses the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two biopsy procedures in terms of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). This article describes the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the TRANSLATE randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS/DESIGN: TRANSLATE is a parallel, superiority, multicentre RCT. Biopsy-naïve men aged ≥ 18 years requiring a prostate biopsy for suspicion of possible PCa are randomised (computer-generated 1:1 allocation ratio) to one of two biopsy procedures: transrectal (TRUS) or local anaesthetic transperineal (LATP) biopsy. The primary outcome is the difference in detection rates of clinically significant PCa (defined as Gleason Grade Group ≥ 2, i.e. any Gleason pattern ≥ 4 disease) between the two biopsy procedures. Secondary outcome measures are th eProBE questionnaire (Perception Part and General Symptoms) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF, Domain A) scores, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) values, EQ-5D-5L scores, resource use, infection rates, complications, and serious adverse events. We describe in detail the sample size calculation, statistical models used for the analysis, handling of missing data, and planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. This SAP was pre-specified, written and submitted without prior knowledge of the trial results. DISCUSSION: Publication of the TRANSLATE trial SAP aims to increase the transparency of the data analysis and reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias. Any deviations from the current SAP will be described and justified in the final study report and results publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN98159689, registered on 28 January 2021 and registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05179694) trials registry.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Phase 1 safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic results of KCL-286, a novel retinoic acid receptor-ß agonist for treatment of spinal cord injury, in male healthy participants.

AIMS: KCL-286 is an orally available agonist that activates the retinoic acid receptor (RAR) ß2, a transcription factor which stimulates axonal outgrowth. The investigational medicinal product is being developed for treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). This adaptive dose escalation study evaluated the tolerability, safety and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic activity of KCL-286 in male healthy volunteers to establish dosing to be used in the SCI patient population. METHODS: The design was a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled dose escalation study in 2 parts: a single ascending dose adaptive design with a food interaction arm, and a multiple ascending dose design. RARß2 mRNA expression was evaluated in white blood cells. RESULTS: At the highest single and multiple ascending doses (100 mg), no trends or clinically important differences were noted in the incidence or intensity of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs or other safety assessments with none leading to withdrawal from the study. The AEs were dry skin, rash, skin exfoliation, raised liver enzymes and eye disorders. There was an increase in mean maximum observed concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to 24 h showing a trend to subproportionality with dose. RARß2 was upregulated by the investigational medicinal product in white blood cells. CONCLUSION: KCL-286 was well tolerated by healthy human participants following doses that exceeded potentially clinically relevant plasma exposures based on preclinical in vivo models. Target engagement shows the drug candidate activates its receptor. These findings support further development of KCL-286 as a novel oral treatment for SCI.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Effect of moderate to high intensity aerobic exercise on blood pressure in young adults: The TEPHRA open, two-arm, parallel superiority randomized clinical trial.

Background: Exercise is advised for young adults with elevated blood pressure, but no trials have investigated efficacy at this age. We aimed to determine whether aerobic exercise, self-monitoring and motivational coaching lowers blood pressure in this group. Methods: The study was a single-centre, open, two-arm, parallel superiority randomized clinical trial with open community-based recruitment of physically-inactive 18-35 year old adults with awake 24 h blood pressure 115/75mmHg-159/99 mmHg and BMI<35 kg/m2. The study took place in the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Facility, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. Participants were randomized (1:1) with minimisation factors sex, age (<24, 24-29, 30-35 years) and gestational age at birth (<32, 32-37, >37 weeks) to the intervention group, who received 16-weeks aerobic exercise training (three aerobic training sessions per week of 60 min per session at 60-80% peak heart rate, physical activity self-monitoring with encouragement to do 10,000 steps per day and motivational coaching to maintain physical activity upon completion of the intervention. The control group were sign-posted to educational materials on hypertension and recommended lifestyle behaviours. Investigators performing statistical analyses were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was 24 h awake ambulatory blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) change from baseline to 16-weeks on an intention-to-treat basis. Clinicaltrials.gov registered on March 30, 2016 (NCT02723552). Findings: Enrolment occurred between 30/06/2016-26/10/2018. Amongst the 203 randomized young adults (n = 102 in the intervention group; n = 101 in the control group), 178 (88%; n = 76 intervention group, n = 84 control group) completed 16-week follow-up and 160 (79%; n = 68 intervention group, n = 69 control group) completed 52-weeks follow-up. There were no group differences in awake systolic (0·0 mmHg [95%CI, -2·9 to 2·8]; P = 0·98) or awake diastolic ambulatory blood pressure (0·6 mmHg [95%CI, -1·4. to 2·6]; P = 0·58). Aerobic training increased peak oxygen uptake (2·8 ml/kg/min [95%CI, 1·6 to 4·0]) and peak wattage (14·2watts [95%CI, 7·6 to 20·9]) at 16-weeks. There were no intervention effects at 52-weeks follow-up. Intepretation: These results do not support the exclusive use of moderate to high intensity aerobic exercise training for blood pressure control in young adults. Funding: Wellcome Trust, British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Visualising harms in publications of randomised controlled trials: consensus and recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To improve communication of harm in publications of randomised controlled trials via the development of recommendations for visually presenting harm outcomes. DESIGN: Consensus study. SETTING: 15 clinical trials units registered with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, an academic population health department, Roche Products, and The BMJ. PARTICIPANTS: Experts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, one data graphics designer, and two clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME: measures A methodological review of statistical methods identified visualisations along with those recommended by consensus group members. Consensus on visual recommendations was achieved (at least 60% of the available votes) over a series of three meetings with participants. The participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework and voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until consensus was reached. RESULTS: 28 visualisations were considered, of which 10 are recommended for researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type (eg, binary, count, time-to-event, or continuous), and the scenario (eg, summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest). A decision tree is presented to assist trialists in deciding which visualisations to use. Examples are provided of each endorsed visualisation, along with an example interpretation, potential limitations, and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Visualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of information and enable more informative interpretations. The limitations of each visualisation are discussed and examples of where their use would be inappropriate are given. Although the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation, the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. Trialists should continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles.

Discovery of a Series of 7-Azaindoles as Potent and Highly Selective CDK9 Inhibitors for Transient Target Engagement.

Optimization of a series of azabenzimidazoles identified from screening hit 2 and the information gained from a co-crystal structure of the azabenzimidazole-based lead 6 bound to CDK9 led to the discovery of azaindoles as highly potent and selective CDK9 inhibitors. With the goal of discovering a highly selective and potent CDK9 inhibitor administrated intravenously that would enable transient target engagement of CDK9 for the treatment of hematological malignancies, further optimization focusing on physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties led to azaindoles 38 and 39. These compounds are highly potent and selective CDK9 inhibitors having short half-lives in rodents, suitable physical properties for intravenous administration, and the potential to achieve profound but transient inhibition of CDK9 in vivo.

A multicentre retrospective review of SABR reirradiation in rectal cancer recurrence.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is associated with considerable morbidity, poor quality of life and an overall survival of 9 months. The non-operative treatment of LRRC is an understudied area, there is no consensus on management in this setting. We aim to perform a retrospective, multicentre analysis of patients treated with SABR reirradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients were identified who received SABR re-irradiation for LRRC, at 3 UK centres, between August 2015 and September 2020. Eligible patients had pelvic recurrence and were either not suitable/opted not for surgery, or margin positive after exenturative surgery. Patients were treated with 30 Gy in 5 fractions and followed up with clinical review and CT scan at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. RESULTS: 69 patients with 81 lesions were identified and median follow up was 28 months. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 12.1 months (10.4, 17.7) and 38.7 months (28.9,-) respectively. 2-year OS was 0.77 (0.66, 0.89). 58.3% of deaths were as a result of consequences of local relapse. 42.6% of patients had local relapse at death or last follow up. CONCLUSION: Our outcomes are encouraging for a population who had R1 resections, refused or were refused surgery; as they are similar to those in surgical series. Prospective data including details of survival, local relapse and QOL; with an optimised SABR technique, is required to establish SABR as an alternative to surgery.

Mitochondrial Inhibitor Atovaquone Increases Tumor Oxygenation and Inhibits Hypoxic Gene Expression in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Tumor hypoxia fuels an aggressive tumor phenotype and confers resistance to anticancer treatments. We conducted a clinical trial to determine whether the antimalarial drug atovaquone, a known mitochondrial inhibitor, reduces hypoxia in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NSCLC scheduled for surgery were recruited sequentially into two cohorts: cohort 1 received oral atovaquone at the standard clinical dose of 750 mg twice daily, while cohort 2 did not. Primary imaging endpoint was change in tumor hypoxic volume (HV) measured by hypoxia PET-CT. Intercohort comparison of hypoxia gene expression signatures using RNA sequencing from resected tumors was performed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were evaluable for hypoxia PET-CT analysis, 15 per cohort. Median treatment duration was 12 days. Eleven (73.3%) atovaquone-treated patients had meaningful HV reduction, with median change -28% [95% confidence interval (CI), -58.2 to -4.4]. In contrast, median change in untreated patients was +15.5% (95% CI, -6.5 to 35.5). Linear regression estimated the expected mean HV was 55% (95% CI, 24%-74%) lower in cohort 1 compared with cohort 2 (P = 0.004), adjusting for cohort, tumor volume, and baseline HV. A key pharmacodynamics endpoint was reduction in hypoxia-regulated genes, which were significantly downregulated in atovaquone-treated tumors. Data from multiple additional measures of tumor hypoxia and perfusion are presented. No atovaquone-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first clinical evidence that targeting tumor mitochondrial metabolism can reduce hypoxia and produce relevant antitumor effects at the mRNA level. Repurposing atovaquone for this purpose may improve treatment outcomes for NSCLC.

Randomised phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OCTOVA): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Patients relapsing within 12 months of platinum-based chemotherapy usually have a poorer response to subsequent treatments. To date, extensive research into the mechanism of resistance to platinum agents in the treatment of ovarian cancer has not resulted in improved responses or longer survival. Further experimental work and clinical trials with novel agents are therefore justified to address this unmet need.Patients with ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer that has relapsed within 12 months of platinum-based chemotherapy will be randomised with stratification for BReast CAncer gene (BRCA) status, prior poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) exposure and prior antiangiogenic therapy into weekly paclitaxel (chemotherapy), olaparib or the combination of cediranib and olaparib. They will be followed until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity develops. Our trial design permits two investigations. We will compare the efficacy and tolerability of single-agent olaparib with weekly paclitaxel. We will also compare the efficacy and tolerability of olaparib with the combination of olaparib and cediranib. The required sample size of 138 participants (46 per arm) was calculated using a 20% one-sided type I error, 80% power and 15% dropout rate. Recruitment will last 34 months with a follow-up of 18 months. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted under a UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Clinical Trials Authorisation. Approval to conduct the study was obtained from the responsible authority before beginning the study. The sponsor will retain ownership of all data arising from the trial. We aim to publish this research in a specialist peer-reviewed scientific journal on study completion. EudraCT number: 2016-000559-28, ethics reference number: 16/LO/2150. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN14784018, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03117933; Pre-results.

Discovery of AZD4573, a Potent and Selective Inhibitor of CDK9 That Enables Short Duration of Target Engagement for the Treatment of Hematological Malignancies.

A CDK9 inhibitor having short target engagement would enable a reduction of Mcl-1 activity, resulting in apoptosis in cancer cells dependent on Mcl-1 for survival. We report the optimization of a series of amidopyridines (from compound 2), focusing on properties suitable for achieving short target engagement after intravenous administration. By increasing potency and human metabolic clearance, we identified compound 24, a potent and selective CDK9 inhibitor with suitable predicted human pharmacokinetic properties to deliver transient inhibition of CDK9. Furthermore, the solubility of 24 was considered adequate to allow i.v. formulation at the anticipated effective dose. Short-term treatment with compound 24 led to a rapid dose- and time-dependent decrease of pSer2-RNAP2 and Mcl-1, resulting in cell apoptosis in multiple hematological cancer cell lines. Intermittent dosing of compound 24 demonstrated efficacy in xenograft models derived from multiple hematological tumors. Compound 24 is currently in clinical trials for the treatment of hematological malignancies.

A Bayesian phase 2 model based adaptive design to optimise antivenom dosing: Application to a dose-finding trial for a novel Russell's viper antivenom in Myanmar.

For most antivenoms there is little information from clinical studies to infer the relationship between dose and efficacy or dose and toxicity. Antivenom dose-finding studies usually recruit too few patients (e.g. fewer than 20) relative to clinically significant event rates (e.g. 5%). Model based adaptive dose-finding studies make efficient use of accrued patient data by using information across dosing levels, and converge rapidly to the contextually defined 'optimal dose'. Adequate sample sizes for adaptive dose-finding trials can be determined by simulation. We propose a model based, Bayesian phase 2 type, adaptive clinical trial design for the characterisation of optimal initial antivenom doses in contexts where both efficacy and toxicity are measured as binary endpoints. This design is illustrated in the context of dose-finding for Daboia siamensis (Eastern Russell's viper) envenoming in Myanmar. The design formalises the optimal initial dose of antivenom as the dose closest to that giving a pre-specified desired efficacy, but resulting in less than a pre-specified maximum toxicity. For Daboia siamensis envenoming, efficacy is defined as the restoration of blood coagulability within six hours, and toxicity is defined as anaphylaxis. Comprehensive simulation studies compared the expected behaviour of the model based design to a simpler rule based design (a modified '3+3' design). The model based design can identify an optimal dose after fewer patients relative to the rule based design. Open source code for the simulations is made available in order to determine adequate sample sizes for future adaptive snakebite trials. Antivenom dose-finding trials would benefit from using standard model based adaptive designs. Dose-finding trials where rare events (e.g. 5% occurrence) are of clinical importance necessitate larger sample sizes than current practice. We will apply the model based design to determine a safe and efficacious dose for a novel lyophilised antivenom to treat Daboia siamensis envenoming in Myanmar.

Practicalities in running early-phase trials using the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) for interventions with long toxicity periods using two radiotherapy oncology trials as examples.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of model-based designs for dose-finding studies such as the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) is now becoming more commonplace amongst clinicians, statisticians and trial management staff. In some settings toxicities can occur a long time after treatment has finished, resulting in extremely long, interrupted, CRM design trials. The Time-to-Event CRM (TiTE-CRM), a modification to the original CRM, accounts for the timing of late-onset toxicities and results in shorter trial duration. In this article, we discuss how to design and deliver a trial using this method, from the grant application stage through to dissemination, using two radiotherapy trials as examples. METHODS: The TiTE-CRM encapsulates the dose-toxicity relationship with a statistical model. The model incorporates observed toxicities and uses a weight to account for the proportion of completed follow-up of participants without toxicity. This model uses all available data to determine the next participant's dose and subsequently declare the maximum tolerated dose. We focus on two trials designed by the authors to illustrate practical issues when designing, setting up, and running such studies. RESULTS: In setting up a TiTE-CRM trial, model parameters need to be defined and the time element involved might cause complications, therefore looking at operating characteristics through simulations is essential. At the grant application stage, we suggest resources to fund statisticians' time before funding is awarded and make recommendations for the level of detail to include in funding applications. While running the trial, close contact of all involved staff is required as a dose decision is made each time a participant is recruited. We suggest ways of capturing data in a timely manner and give example code in R for design and delivery of the trial. Finally, we touch upon dissemination issues while the trial is running and upon completion. CONCLUSION: Model-based designs can be complex. We hope this paper will help clinical trial teams to demystify the conduct of TiTE-CRM trials and be a starting point for using this methodology in practice.

A phase 1 trial of the safety, tolerability and biological effects of intravenous Enadenotucirev, a novel oncolytic virus, in combination with chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (CEDAR).

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy remains the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. Efforts to intensify treatment and increase response rates have yet to yield practice changing results due to increased toxicity and/or absence of increased radiosensitization. Enadenotucirev (EnAd) is a tumour selective, oncolytic adenovirus which can be given intravenously. Pre-clinical evidence of synergy with radiation warrants further clinical testing and assessment of safety with radiation. METHODS: Eligibility include histology confirmed locally advanced rectal cancer that require chemoradiation. The trial will use a Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Model-based (TiTE-CRM) approach using toxicity and efficacy as co-primary endpoints to recommend the optimal dose and treatment schedule 30 patients will be recruited. Secondary endpoints include pathological complete response the neoadjuvant rectal score. A translational program will be based on a mandatory biopsy during the second week of treatment for 'proof-of-concept' and exploration of mechanism. The trial opened to recruitment in July 2019, at an expected rate of 1 per month for up to 4 years. DISCUSSION: Chemoradiation with Enadenotucirev as a radiosensitiser in locally Advanced Rectal cancer (CEDAR) is a prospective multicentre study testing a new paradigm in radiosensitization in rectal cancer. The unique ability of EnAd to selectively infect tumour cells following intravenous delivery is an exciting opportunity with a clear translational goal. The novel statistical design will make efficient use of both toxicity and efficacy data to inform subsequent studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03916510. Registered 16th April 2019.

A phase II open label, randomised study of ipilimumab with temozolomide versus temozolomide alone after surgery and chemoradiotherapy in patients with recently diagnosed glioblastoma: the Ipi-Glio trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Median survival for patients with glioblastoma is less than a year. Standard treatment consists of surgical debulking if feasible followed by temozolomide chemo-radiotherapy. The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab targets cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and has shown clinical efficacy in preclinical models of glioblastoma. The aim of this study is to explore the addition of ipilimumab to standard therapy in patients with glioblastoma. METHODS/DESIGN: Ipi-Glio is a phase II, open label, randomised study of ipilimumab with temozolomide (Arm A) versus temozolomide alone (Arm B) after surgery and chemoradiotherapy in patients with recently diagnosed glioblastoma. Planned accrual is 120 patients (Arm A: 80, Arm B: 40). Endpoints include overall survival, 18-month survival, 5-year survival, and adverse events. The trial is currently recruiting in seven centres in the United Kingdom. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN84434175. Registered 12 November 2018.

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. METHODS: We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner. FUNDING: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.