Liver Venous Deprivation or Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy?: A Retrospective Multicentric Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 techniques of remnant liver hypertrophy in candidates for extended hepatectomy: radiological simultaneous portal vein embolization and hepatic vein embolization (HVE); namely LVD, and ALPPS. BACKGROUND: Recent advances in chemotherapy and surgical techniques have widened indications for extended hepatectomy, before which remnant liver augmentation is mandatory. ALPPS and LVD typically show higher hypertrophy rates than portal vein embolization, but their respective places in patient management remain unclear. METHODS: All consecutive ALPPS and LVD procedures performed in 8 French centers between 2011 and 2020 were included. The main endpoint was the successful resection rate (resection rate without 90-day mortality) analyzed according to an intention-to-treat principle. Secondary endpoints were hypertrophy rates, intra and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Among 209 patients, 124 had LVD 37 [13,1015] days before surgery, whereas 85 underwent ALPPS with an inter-stages period of 10 [6, 69] days. ALPPS was mostly-performed for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), LVD for CRLM and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hypertrophy was faster for ALPPS. Successful resection rates were 72.6% for LVD ± rescue ALPPS (n = 6) versus 90.6% for ALPPS (P < 0.001). Operative duration, blood losses and length-of-stay were lower for LVD, whereas 90-day major complications and mortality were comparable. Results were globally unchanged for CRLM patients, or after excluding the early 2 years of experience (learning-curve effect). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first 1 comparing LVD versus ALPPS in the largest cohort so far. Despite its retrospective design, it yields original results that may serve as the basis for a prospective study.

Methodological Challenges and Statistical Approaches in the COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services Study.

BACKGROUND: The COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services study was a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial designed to evaluate a comprehensive care transitions model versus usual care. The data collected during this trial were complex and analysis methodology was required that could simultaneously account for the cluster-randomized design, missing patient-level covariates, outcome nonresponse, and substantial nonadherence to the intervention. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to discuss an array of complementary statistical methods to evaluate treatment effectiveness that appropriately addressed the challenges presented by the complex data arising from this pragmatic trial. METHODS: We utilized multiple imputation combined with inverse probability weighting to account for missing covariate and outcome data in the estimation of intention-to-treat effects (ITT). The ITT estimand reflects the effectiveness of assignment to the COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services intervention compared with usual care (ie, it does not take into account intervention adherence). Per-protocol analyses provide complementary information about the effect of treatment, and therefore are relevant for patients to inform their decision-making. We describe estimation of the complier average causal effect using an instrumental variables approach through 2-stage least squares estimation. For all preplanned analyses, we also discuss additional sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: Pragmatic trials are well suited to inform clinical practice. Care should be taken to proactively identify the appropriate balance between control and pragmatism in trial design. Valid estimation of ITT and per-protocol effects in the presence of complex data requires application of appropriate statistical methods and concerted efforts to ensure high-quality data are collected.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation in couples with infertility in whom the male partner has normal total sperm count and motility: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection has increased substantially worldwide, primarily in couples with non-male factor infertility. However, there is a paucity of evidence from randomised trials supporting this approach compared with conventional in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). We aimed to investigate whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection would result in a higher livebirth rate compared with conventional IVF. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised trial was done at two IVF centres in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (IVFMD, My Duc Hospital and IVFAS, An Sinh Hospital). Eligible couples were aged at least 18 years and the male partner's sperm count and motility (progressive motility) were normal based on WHO 2010 criteria. Couples had to have undergone two or fewer previous conventional IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection attempts, have used an antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation, and agree to have two or fewer embryos transferred. Couples were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either intracytoplasmic sperm injection or conventional IVF, using block randomisation with variable block size of 2, 4, or 8 and a telephone-based central randomisation method. The computer-generated randomisation list was prepared by an independent statistician who had no other involvement in the study. Embryologists and couples were not masked to study groups because of the type of interventions and differences in hospital fees, but clinicians performing embryo transfer were unaware of study group allocation. The primary outcome was livebirth after the first embryo transfer from the initiated cycle. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03428919. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2018, and Aug 12, 2019, we randomly assigned 1064 couples to intracytoplasmic sperm injection (n=532) or conventional IVF (n=532). Livebirth after the first embryo transfer from the initiated cycle occurred in 184 (35%) of 532 couples randomly assigned to intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in 166 (31%) of 532 couples randomly assigned to conventional IVF (absolute difference 3·4%, 95% CI -2·4 to 9·2; risk ratio [RR] 1·11, 95% CI 0·93 to 1·32; p=0·27). 29 (5%) couples in the intracytoplasmic sperm injection group and 34 (6%) couples in the conventional IVF group had fertilisation failure (absolute difference -0·9%, -4·0 to 2·1, RR 0·85, 95% CI 0·53 to 1·38; p=0·60). INTERPRETATION: In couples with infertility in whom the male partner has a normal total sperm count and motility, intracytoplasmic sperm injection did not improve the livebirth rate compared with conventional IVF. Our results challenge the value of the routine use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in assisted reproduction techniques for this population. FUNDING: My Duc Hospital and Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Rituximab plus high-dose chemotherapy (MegaCHOEP) or conventional chemotherapy (CHOEP-14) in young, high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma: 10-year follow-up of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: R-MegaCHOEP was the first phase 3 study comparing high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) with conventional chemotherapy plus rituximab in first-line therapy for patients aged 60 years or younger with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Little is known about the long-term outcomes of these patients. We aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of conventional chemotherapy versus high-dose chemotherapy after 10 years of follow-up in the R-MegaCHOEP trial. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 61 centres in Germany, patients aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk (age-adjusted International Prognostic Index [IPI] 2 or 3) aggressive B-cell lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1, using Pocock minimisation) to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclosphosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The trial was unmasked. Patients were stratified by age-adjusted IPI factors, presence of bulky disease (tumour mass ≥7·5 cm diameter), and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was event-free survival, analysed here 10 years after randomisation. 10-year overall survival, progression-free survival, conditional survival, relapse patterns, secondary malignancies, and molecular characteristics were also analysed. All analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00129090. FINDINGS: Between March 3, 2003, and April 7, 2009, 275 patients were randomly assigned to R-CHOEP-14 (n=136) or R-MegaCHOEP (n=139). 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group were included in the intention-to-treat population. After a median follow-up of 9·3 years (IQR 5·1-11·1), 10-year event-free survival was 51% (95% CI 42-61) in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% (47-67) in the R-CHOEP-14 group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·3 [95% CI 0·9-1·8], p=0·23). 10-year progression-free survival was 59% (50-68) in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (51-70) in the R-CHOEP-14 group (adjusted HR 1·1 [0·7-1·7], p=0·64). 10-year overall survival was 66% (57-76) in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% (63-81) in the R-CHOEP-14 group (adjusted HR 1·3 [0·8-2·1], p=0·26). Relapse occurred in 30 (16% [95% CI 11-22]) of 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission; 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. Seven (23%) of 30 patients had low-grade histology at relapse and had better outcomes compared with patients who relapsed with aggressive histologies. Lymphoma affected the CNS in 18 (28%) of 64 patients with treatment failure. 22 secondary malignancies were reported in the intention-to-treat population; in 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and ten (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. INTERPRETATION: Event-free survival and overall survival were similar between groups after 10 years of follow-up; outcomes were not improved in the R-MegaCHOEP group by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous HSCT. Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology showed a high incidence of CNS involvement and poor prognosis. For these patients, novel therapies are greatly warranted. FUNDING: Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid).

Dexamethasone plus oseltamivir versus dexamethasone in treatment-naive primary immune thrombocytopenia: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary immune thrombocytopenia is an autoimmune bleeding disorder. Preclinical reports suggest that the sialidase inhibitor oseltamivir induces a platelet response in the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia. This study investigated the activity and safety of dexamethasone plus oseltamivir versus dexamethasone alone as initial treatment in adult patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel group, phase 2 trial was done in five tertiary medical hospitals in China. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, treatment-naive primary immune thrombocytopenia. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using block randomisation, to receive either dexamethasone (orally at 40 mg per day for 4 days) plus oseltamivir (orally at 75 mg twice a day for 10 days) or dexamethasone monotherapy (orally at 40 mg a day for 4 days). Patients who did not respond to treatment (platelet counts remained <30 × 109 cells per L or showed bleeding symptoms by day 10) were given an additional cycle of dexamethasone for 4 days in each group. Patients in the dexamethasone plus oseltamivir group who relapsed (platelet counts reduced again to <30 × 109 cells per L) after an initial response were allowed a supplemental course of oseltamivir (75 mg twice a day for 10 days). The coprimary endpoints were 14-day initial overall response and 6-month overall response. Complete response was defined as a platelet count at or above 100 × 109 cells per L and an absence of bleeding. Partial response was defined as a platelet count at or above 30 × 109 cells per L but less than 100 × 109 cells per L and at least a doubling of the baseline platelet count and an absence of bleeding. A response lasting for at least 6 months without any additional primary immune thrombocytopenia-specific intervention was defined as sustained response. All patients who were randomly assigned and received the allocated intervention were included in the modified intention-to-treat population analysis. This study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01965626. FINDINGS: From Feb 1, 2016, to May 1, 2019, 120 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 24 were ineligible and excluded, 96 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dexamethasone plus oseltamivir (n=47) or dexamethasone (n=49), and 90 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Six patients did not receive the allocated intervention. Patients in the dexamethasone plus oseltamivir group had a significantly higher initial response rate (37 [86%] of 43 patients) than did those in the dexamethasone group (31 [66%] of 47 patients; odds ratio [OR] 3·18; 95 CI% 1·13-9·23; p=0·030) at day 14. The 6-month sustained response rate in the dexamethasone plus oseltamivir group was also significantly higher than that in the dexamethasone group (23 [53%] vs 14 [30%]; OR 2·17; 95 CI% 1·16-6·13; p=0·032). During the median follow-up of 8 months (IQR 5-14), two of 90 patients discontinued treatment due to serious adverse events (grade 3); one (2%) patient with general oedema in the dexamethasone plus oseltamivir group and one (2%) patient with fever in the dexamethasone group. The most frequently observed adverse events of any grade were fatigue (five [12%] of 43 in the dexamethasone plus oseltamivir group vs eight [17%] of 47 in the dexamethasone group), gastrointestinal reactions (eight [19%] vs three [6%]), insomnia (seven [16%] vs four [9%]), and anxiety (five [12%] vs three [6%]). There were no grade 4 or 5 adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Dexamethasone plus oseltamivir offers a readily available combination therapy in the management of newly diagnosed primary immune thrombocytopenia. The preliminary activity of this combination warrants further investigation. Multiple cycles of oseltamivir, as a modification of current first-line treatment, might be more effective in maintaining the platelet response. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS-HF.

Background Ultrafiltration is not commonly used because of higher incidence of worsening renal function without improved decongestion. We examined differential outcomes of high versus low fluid removal and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (EF) in CARRESS-HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure). Methods and Results Baseline characteristics in the ultrafiltration arm were compared according to 24-hour ultrafiltration-based fluid removal above versus below the median. Patients were stratified by EF (≤40% or >40%). We compared clinical parameters of clinical decongestion during the hospitalization based on initial (≤24 hours) response to ultrafiltration. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to identify associations between fluid removal <24 hours and composite of death, hospitalization, or unscheduled outpatient/emergency department visit during study follow-up. The intention-to-treat analysis included 93 patients. Within 24 hours, median fluid removal was 1.89 L (Q1, Q3: 1.22, 3.16). The high fluid removal group had a greater urine output (9.08 versus 6.23 L, P=0.027) after 96 hours. Creatinine change from baseline to 96 hours was similar in both groups (0.10 mg/dL increase, P=0.610). The EF >40% group demonstrated larger increases of change in creatinine (P=0.023) and aldosterone (P=0.038) from baseline to 96 hours. Among patients with EF >40%, those with above median fluid removal (n=17) when compared with below median (n=17) had an increased rate of the combined end point (87.5% versus 47.1%, P=0.014). Conclusions In patients with acute heart failure, higher initial fluid removal with ultrafiltration had no association with worsening renal function. In patients with EF >40%, ultrafiltration was associated with worsening renal function irrespective of fluid removal rate and higher initial fluid removal was associated with higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes, highlighting variable responses to decongestive therapy.

Proactive prophylaxis with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (ProPAC-COVID): a statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for treatments that can shorten hospitalization and lower the risk of secondary infection and death in patients with corona disease. The ProPac-COVID trial evaluates whether combination therapy with macrolide azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine via anti-inflammation/immune modulation, antiviral efficacy, and pre-emptive treatment of supra-infections can shorten hospitalization duration and reduce the risk of non-invasive ventilation, treatment in the intensive care unit, and death in patients with acute hospital admission and a positive test for 2019-nCoV and symptoms of COVID-19 disease. METHODS: The ProPAC-COVID is a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial. The primary outcome is number of days spent alive and out of hospital within 14 days from randomization. Randomization will be in blocks of unknown size, and the final allocation will be stratified for age, site of recruitment, and whether the patient has any chronic lung diseases. Data is analyzed using intention-to-treat (ITT) principles, and main analyses will also be subject to modified ITT analysis and per protocol analysis. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the evaluation of primary and secondary endpoints of the ProPAC-COVID study. Enrolment of patients to the ProPAC-COVID study is still ongoing. The purpose of this paper is to provide primary publication of study results to prevent selective reporting of outcomes, data-driven analysis, and to increase transparency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04322396 . Registered on 26 March 2020.

Intent-to-treat analysis of cluster randomized trials when clusters report unidentifiable outcome proportions.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials are designed to evaluate interventions at the cluster or group level. When clusters are randomized but some clusters report no or non-analyzable data, intent-to-treat analysis, the gold standard for the analysis of randomized controlled trials, can be compromised. This article presents a very flexible statistical methodology for cluster randomized trials whose outcome is a cluster-level proportion (e.g. proportion from a cluster reporting an event) in the setting where clusters report non-analyzable data (which in general could be due to nonadherence, dropout, missingness, etc.). The approach is motivated by a previously published stratified randomized controlled trial called, "The Randomized Recruitment Intervention Trial (RECRUIT)," designed to examine the effectiveness of a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention on increasing minority recruitment into clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01911208). METHODS: The novel approach exploits the use of generalized estimating equations for cluster-level reports, such that all clusters randomized at baseline are able to be analyzed, and intervention effects are presented as risk ratios. Simulation studies under different outcome missingness scenarios and a variety of intra-cluster correlations are conducted. A comparative analysis of the method with imputation and per protocol approaches for RECRUIT is presented. RESULTS: Simulation results show the novel approach produces unbiased and efficient estimates of the intervention effect that maintain the nominal type I error rate. Application to RECRUIT shows similar effect sizes when compared to the imputation and per protocol approach. CONCLUSION: The article demonstrates that an innovative bivariate generalized estimating equations framework allows one to implement an intent-to-treat analysis to obtain risk ratios or odds ratios, for a variety of cluster randomized designs.

Standard gastroenterologist versus multidisciplinary treatment for functional gastrointestinal disorders (MANTRA): an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders are common and costly to the health-care system. Most specialist care is provided by a gastroenterologist, but only a minority of patients have improvement in symptoms. Although they have proven to be effective, psychological, behavioural, and dietary therapies are not provided routinely. We aimed to compare the outcome of gastroenterologist-only standard care with multidisciplinary care. METHODS: In an open-label, single-centre, pragmatic trial, consecutive new referrals of eligible patients aged 18-80 years with Rome IV criteria-defined functional gastrointestinal disorders were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive gastroenterologist-only standard care or multidisciplinary clinic care. The multidisciplinary clinic included gastroenterologists, dietitians, gut-focused hypnotherapists, psychiatrists, and behavioural (biofeedback) physiotherapists. Randomisation was stratified by Rome IV disorder and whether referred from gastroenterology or colorectal clinic. Outcomes were assessed at clinic discharge or 9 months after the initial visit. The primary outcome was a score of 4 (slightly better) or 5 (much better) on a 5-point Likert scale assessing global symptom improvement. Modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who attended at least one clinic visit and who had answered the primary outcome question. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03078634. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2017, and May 10, 2018, 1632 patients referred to the hospital gastrointestinal clinics were screened, of whom 442 were eligible for a screening telephone call and 188 were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (n=65) or multidisciplinary care (n=123). 144 patients formed the modified intention-to-treat analysis (n=46 in the standard-care group and n=98 in the multidisciplinary-care group), 90 (63%) of whom were women. 61 (62%) of 98 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group patients saw allied clinicians. 26 (57%) patients in the standard-care group and 82 (84%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had global symptom improvement (risk ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·13-1·93]; p=0·00045). 29 (63%) patients in the standard-care group and 81 (83%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had adequate relief of symptoms in the past 7 days (p=0·010). Patients in the multidisciplinary-care group were more likely to experience a 50% or higher reduction in all Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index symptom clusters than were patients in the standard-care group. Of the patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a 50-point or higher reduction in IBS-SSS occurred in 10 (38%) of 26 patients in the standard care group compared with 39 (66%) of 59 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·017). Of the patients with functional dyspepsia, a 50% reduction in the Nepean Dyspepsia Index was noted in three (11%) of 11 patients in the standard-care group and in 13 (46%) of 28 in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·47). After treatment, the median HADS scores were higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (13 [8-20] vs 10 [6-16]; p=0·096) and the median EQ-5D-5L quality of life visual analogue scale was lower in the standard-care group compared with the multidisciplinary-care group (70 [IQR 50-80] vs 75 [65-85]; p=0·0087). The eight SF-36 scales did not differ between the groups at discharge. After treatment, median Somatic Symptom Scale-8 score was higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (10 [IQR 7-7] vs 9 [5-13]; p=0·082). Cost per successful outcome was higher in the standard-care group than the multidisciplinary-care group. INTERPRETATION: Integrated multidisciplinary clinical care appears to be superior to gastroenterologist-only care in relation to symptoms, specific functional disorders, psychological state, quality of life, and cost of care for the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Consideration should be given to providing multidisciplinary care for patients with a functional gastrointestinal disorder. FUNDING: None.

Effects of food supplementation on cognitive function, cerebral blood flow, and nutritional status in young children at risk of undernutrition: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of food supplementation on improving working memory and additional measures including cerebral blood flow in children at risk of undernutrition. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: 10 villages in Guinea-Bissau. PARTICIPANTS: 1059 children aged 15 months to 7 years; children younger than 4 were the primary population. INTERVENTIONS: Supervised isocaloric servings (≈1300 kJ, five mornings each week, 23 weeks) of a new food supplement (NEWSUP, high in plant polyphenols and omega 3 fatty acids, within a wide variety and high fortification of micronutrients, and a high protein content), or a fortified blended food (FBF) used in nutrition programs, or a control meal (traditional rice breakfast). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was working memory, a core executive function predicting long term academic achievement. Additional outcomes were hemoglobin concentration, growth, body composition, and index of cerebral blood flow (CBFi). In addition to an intention-to-treat analysis, a predefined per protocol analysis was conducted in children who consumed at least 75% of the supplement (820/925, 89%). The primary outcome was assessed by a multivariable Poisson model; other outcomes were assessed by multivariable linear mixed models. RESULTS: Among children younger than 4, randomization to NEWSUP increased working memory compared with the control meal (rate ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.41, P=0.03), with a larger effect in the per protocol population (1.25, 1.06 to 1.47, P=0.009). NEWSUP also increased hemoglobin concentration among children with anemia (adjusted mean difference 0.65 g/dL, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 1.07, P=0.003) compared with the control meal, decreased body mass index z score gain (-0.23, -0.43 to -0.02, P=0.03), and increased lean tissue accretion (2.98 cm2, 0.04 to 5.92, P=0.046) with less fat (-5.82 cm2, -11.28 to -0.36, P=0.04) compared with FBF. Additionally, NEWSUP increased CBFi compared with the control meal and FBF in both age groups combined (1.14 mm2/s×10-8, 0.10 to 2.23, P=0.04 for both comparisons). Among children aged 4 and older, NEWSUP had no significant effect on working memory or anemia, but increased lean tissue compared with FBF (4.31 cm2, 0.34 to 8.28, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Childhood undernutrition is associated with long term impairment in cognition. Contrary to current understanding, supplementary feeding for 23 weeks could improve executive function, brain health, and nutritional status in vulnerable young children living in low income countries. Further research is needed to optimize nutritional prescriptions for regenerative improvements in cognitive function, and to test effectiveness in other vulnerable groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03017209.

Ozanimod induction therapy for patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease: a single-arm, phase 2, prospective observer-blinded endpoint study.

BACKGROUND: Although treatment of Crohn's disease has improved with development of tumour necrosis factor antagonists, fewer than 50% of patients have sustained benefit. Durable maintenance therapy with orally administered alternative treatments remains an unmet need. We aimed to evaluate the effects of ozanimod, an oral agent selectively targeting sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor subtypes 1 and 5, on endoscopic disease activity in Crohn's disease. METHODS: STEPSTONE was a phase 2, uncontrolled, multicentre trial in adults with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease recruited at 28 hospital and community research centres in Canada, the USA, Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine. All patients began treatment with a 7-day dose escalation (4 days on ozanimod 0·25 mg daily followed by 3 days at 0·5 mg daily). Patients then received ozanimod 1·0 mg oral capsule daily for a further 11 weeks, for a 12-week induction period, followed by a 100-week extension. The primary endpoint was change in Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) from baseline to week 12, as determined by a blinded central reader. Data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02531113 and EudraCT, number 2015-002025-19, and is completed. FINDINGS: 69 patients were enrolled between Nov 17, 2015, and Aug 18, 2016. At week 12, the mean change from baseline in SES-CD was -2·2 (SD 6·0); 16 (23·2%, 95% CI 13·9-34·9) patients experienced endoscopic response. A reduction from baseline in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score also was observed (mean change -130·4 [SD 103·9]). Clinical remission (CDAI <150 points) was shown in 27 (39·1%, 95% CI 27·6-51·6) patients and response (CDAI decrease from baseline ≥100) in 39 (56·5%, 95% CI 44·0-68·4) of patients. The mean change from baseline in two-item patient-reported outcome (PRO2, stool frequency, abdominal pain scores) score was -66·1 (SD 65·4). Mean change from baseline in Geboes Histology Activity Score (GHAS) was -5·9 (SD 11·0) and in Robart's Histopathology Index (RHI) -10·6 (25·1). Adverse events were most frequently those attributed to Crohn's disease, most commonly Crohn's disease (flare) in 18 (26%) patients. The most commonly reported serious treatment-related adverse events were Crohn's disease (six [9%]) and abdominal abscess (two [3%]). INTERPRETATION: Endoscopic, histological, and clinical improvements were seen within 12 weeks of initiating ozanimod therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. Phase 3 placebo-controlled trials have been initiated. FUNDING: Celgene Corporation.

Precision oncology: the intention-to-treat analysis fallacy.

It has recently been suggested that precision oncology studies should be reanalysed using the intention-to-treat (ITT) methodology developed for randomized controlled clinical trials. This reanalysis dramatically decreases response rates in precision medicine studies. We contend that the ITT analysis of precision oncology trials is invalid. The ITT methodology was developed three decades ago to mitigate the problems of randomized trials, which try to ensure that both arms have an unselected patient population free from confounders. In contrast, precision oncology trials specifically select patients for confounders (that is biomarkers) that predict response. To demonstrate the issues inherent in an ITT reanalysis for precision cancer medicine studies, we take as an example the drug larotrectinib (TRK inhibitor) approved because of remarkable responses in malignancies harbouring NTRK fusions. Based on large-scale studies, NTRK fusions are found in ~0.31% of tumours. In a non-randomized pivotal study of larotrectinib, 75% of the 55 treated patients responded. Based upon the prevalence of NTRK fusions, ~18,000 patients would need to be screened to enrol the 55 treated patients. Utilizing the ITT methodology, the revised response rate to larotrectinib would be 0.23%. This is, of course, a dramatic underestimation of the efficacy of this now Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug. Similar issues can be shown for virtually any biomarker-based precision clinical trial. Therefore, retrofitting the ITT analysis developed for unselected patient populations in randomized trials yields misleading conclusions in precision medicine studies.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. METHODS: In this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and May 31, 2017, we randomly assigned 368 patients to receive CBT plus standardised medical care (n=186) or standardised medical care alone (n=182); of whom 313 had primary outcome data at 12 months (156 [84%] of 186 patients in the CBT plus standardised medical care group and 157 [86%] of 182 patients in the standardised medical care group). At 12 months, no significant difference in monthly dissociative seizure frequency was identified between the groups (median 4 seizures [IQR 0-20] in the CBT plus standardised medical care group vs 7 seizures [1-35] in the standardised medical care group; estimated incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·56-1·09]; p=0·144). Dissociative seizures were rated as less bothersome in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference -0·53 [95% CI -0·97 to -0·08]; p=0·020). The CBT plus standardised medical care group had a longer period of dissociative seizure freedom in the previous 6 months (estimated IRR 1·64 [95% CI 1·22 to 2·20]; p=0·001), reported better health-related quality of life on the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Level Health Today visual analogue scale (estimated mean difference 6·16 [95% CI 1·48 to 10·84]; p=0·010), less impairment in psychosocial functioning on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (estimated mean difference -4·12 [95% CI -6·35 to -1·89]; p<0·001), less overall psychological distress than the standardised medical care group on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 scale (estimated mean difference -1·65 [95% CI -2·96 to -0·35]; p=0·013), and fewer somatic symptoms on the modified Patient Health Questionnaire-15 scale (estimated mean difference -1·67 [95% CI -2·90 to -0·44]; p=0·008). Clinical improvement at 12 months was greater in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care alone group as reported by patients (estimated mean difference 0·66 [95% CI 0·26 to 1·04]; p=0·001) and by clinicians (estimated mean difference 0·47 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·73]; p<0·001), and the CBT plus standardised medical care group had greater satisfaction with treatment than did the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference 0·90 [95% CI 0·48 to 1·31]; p<0·001). No significant differences in patient-reported seizure severity (estimated mean difference -0·11 [95% CI -0·50 to 0·29]; p=0·593) or seizure freedom in the last 3 months of the study (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1·77 [95% CI 0·93 to 3·37]; p=0·083) were identified between the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were identified in the proportion of patients who had a more than 50% reduction in dissociative seizure frequency compared with baseline (OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·80 to 2·02]; p=0·313). Additionally, the 12-item Short Form survey-version 2 scores (estimated mean difference for the Physical Component Summary score 1·78 [95% CI -0·37 to 3·92]; p=0·105; estimated mean difference for the Mental Component Summary score 2·22 [95% CI -0·30 to 4·75]; p=0·084), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale score (estimated mean difference -1·09 [95% CI -2·27 to 0·09]; p=0·069), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scale depression score (estimated mean difference -1·10 [95% CI -2·41 to 0·21]; p=0·099) did not differ significantly between groups. Changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others) could not be assessed due to insufficient data. During the 12-month period, the number of adverse events was similar between the groups: 57 (31%) of 186 participants in the CBT plus standardised medical care group reported 97 adverse events and 53 (29%) of 182 participants in the standardised medical care group reported 79 adverse events. INTERPRETATION: CBT plus standardised medical care had no statistically significant advantage compared with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of monthly seizures. However, improvements were observed in a number of clinically relevant secondary outcomes following CBT plus standardised medical care when compared with standardised medical care alone. Thus, adults with dissociative seizures might benefit from the addition of dissociative seizure-specific CBT to specialist care from neurologists and psychiatrists. Future work is needed to identify patients who would benefit most from a dissociative seizure-specific CBT approach. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme.

Intention to treat and per protocol analysis in clinical trials.

In clinical epidemiology, experimental studies usually take the form of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). The data analysis of an RCT can be performed by using two complementary strategies, that is according to the intention to treat (ITT) principle and the per protocol (PP) analysis. By using the ITT approach, investigators aim to assess the effect of assigning a drug whereas by adopting the PP analysis, researchers investigate the effect of receiving the assigned treatment, as specified in the protocol. Both ITT and PP analyses are essentially valid but they have different scopes and interpretations dependent on the context.

Ixekizumab treatment of biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 3-year results from a phase III clinical trial (SPIRIT-P1).

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to 156 weeks of ixekizumab (an IL-17A antagonist) treatment in PsA patients. METHODS: In a phase III study, patients naïve to biologic treatment were randomized to placebo, adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (ADA; active reference) or ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) or every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) after an initial dose of 160 mg. At week 24 (week 16 for inadequate responders), ADA (after 8-week washout) and placebo patients were re-randomized to IXEQ2W or IXEQ4W. Outcomes were evaluated using a modified non-responder imputation [linear extrapolation for radiographic progression (modified total Sharp score = 0)] during extended treatment until week 156. RESULTS: Of 417 patients, 381 entered the extension, and 243 of 381 (63.8%) completed the 156-week study. Incidence rates of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events, respectively, were 38.0 and 5.2 with IXEQ2W (n = 189) and 38.1 and 8.0 with IXEQ4W (n = 197). One death occurred (IXEQ4W). With IXEQ2W and IXEQ4W, respectively, the response rates persisted to week 156 as measured by the ACR response ≥20% (62.5 and 69.8%), ≥50% (56.1 and 51.8%) and ≥70% (43.8 and 33.4%), psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 (69.1 and 63.5%), PASI 90 (64.5 and 51.2%) and PASI 100 (60.5 and 43.6%). Inhibition of radiographic progression also persisted to week 156 in 61% of IXEQ2W and 71% of IXEQ4W patients. CONCLUSION: In this 156-week study of ixekizumab, the safety profile remained consistent with previous reports, and improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA were observed, including persistent low rates of radiographic progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01695239, EudraCT 2011-002326-49.

Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPACT): a multicentre, open-label phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer are scarce. Results from a subanalysis of the phase 3 MPACT trial in metastatic pancreatic cancer suggested potential activity of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine against locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The objective of this phase 2 trial was to evaluate safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in previously untreated locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This international, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial (LAPACT) took place at 35 sites in five countries (USA, France, Spain, Canada, and Italy). Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 1 underwent six cycles of induction with nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle). After induction, patients without progressive disease or unacceptable adverse events were eligible to receive continued therapy per investigator's choice: continued nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, chemoradiation, or surgery. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure; secondary endpoints were disease control rate, overall response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and quality of life. The reported efficacy outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety outcomes were analysed in the treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02301143, and EudraCT, 2014-001408-23 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2015, and April 26, 2018, 107 patients were enrolled in the study. 106 received the study treatment; one patient enrolled but did not receive treatment. 44 (41%) of 107 enrolled patients discontinued induction; the most common reason for discontinuing induction was adverse events (22 [21%] patients). 62 (58%) of 107 enrolled patients completed induction treatment and 47 (44%) patients subsequently received continued treatment per investigator's choice: 12 (11%) continued nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, 18 (17%) received chemoradiation, and 17 (16%) underwent surgery (seven had R0 resection status, nine had R1). 15 (14%) patients completed induction treatment but did not receive continued treatment. Median time to treatment failure was 9·0 months (90% CI 7·3-10·1); median progression-free survival was 10·9 months (90% CI 9·3-11·6), and median overall survival was 18·8 months (90% CI 15·0-24·0). During induction, 83 patients achieved disease control and the disease control rate was 77·6% (90% CI 70·3-83·5). 36 patients had a best response of partial response; the overall response rate during induction was 33·6% (90% CI 26·6-41·5). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that were grade 3 or higher in the treated population during induction were neutropenia (35 [33%] of 106 patients), anaemia (12 [11%]), and fatigue (11 [10%]). The most common treatment-emergent serious adverse events during induction were pneumonia (five [5%] patients), pyrexia (five [5%]), and febrile neutropenia (three [3%]). No deaths were caused by treatment-related adverse events during the induction phase, and global quality of life was maintained in most patients. INTERPRETATION: The data from this trial support the tolerability and activity of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and a potential to convert unresectable, locally advanced disease to surgically resectable disease. The safety profile was generally consistent with previous findings. FUNDING: Celgene.

Berberine versus placebo for the prevention of recurrence of colorectal adenoma: a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Chemoprevention of colorectal adenoma and colorectal cancer remains an important public health goal. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical potential and safety of berberine for prevention of colorectal adenoma recurrence. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done in seven hospital centres across six provinces in China. Individuals aged 18-75 years who had at least one but no more than six histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas that had undergone complete polypectomy within the 6 months before recruitment were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive berberine (0·3 g twice daily) or placebo tablets via block randomisation (block size of six). Participants were to undergo a first follow-up colonoscopy 1 year after enrolment, and if no colorectal adenomas were detected, a second follow-up colonoscopy at 2 years was planned. The study continued until the last enrolled participant reached the 2-year follow-up point. All participants, investigators, endoscopists, and pathologists were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the recurrence of adenomas at any follow-up colonoscopy. Analysis was based on modified intention-to-treat, with the full analysis set including all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication and who had available efficacy data. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02226185; the trial has ended and this report represents the final analysis. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 553 participants were randomly assigned to the berberine group and 555 to the placebo group. The full analysis set consisted of 429 participants in the berberine group and 462 in the placebo group. 155 (36%) participants in the berberine group and 216 (47%) in the placebo group were found to have recurrent adenoma during follow-up (unadjusted relative risk ratio for recurrence 0·77, 95% CI 0·66-0·91; p=0·001). No colorectal cancers were detected during follow-up. The most common adverse event was constipation (six [1%] of 446 patients in the berberine group vs one [<0·5%] of 478 in the placebo group). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Berberine 0·3 g twice daily was safe and effective in reducing the risk of recurrence of colorectal adenoma and could be an option for chemoprevention after polypectomy. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China.