Extended-Release 7-Day Injectable Buprenorphine for Patients With Minimal to Mild Opioid Withdrawal.

Importance: Buprenorphine is an effective yet underused treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Objective: To evaluate the feasibility (acceptability, tolerability, and safety) of 7-day injectable extended-release buprenorphine in patients with minimal to mild opioid withdrawal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized trial comprising 4 emergency departments in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and Pacific geographic areas of the US included adults aged 18 years or older with moderate to severe OUD and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores less than 8 (minimal to mild), in which scores range from 0 to 7, with higher scores indicating increasing withdrawal. Exclusion criteria included methadone-positive urine, pregnancy, overdose, or required admission. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, daily for 7 days by telephone surveys, and in person at 7 days. Patient recruitment occurred between July 13, 2020, and May 25, 2023. Intervention: Injection of a 24-mg dose of a weekly extended-release formulation of buprenorphine (CAM2038) and referral for ongoing OUD care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary feasibility outcomes included the number of patients who (1) experienced a 5-point or greater increase in the COWS score or (2) transitioned to moderate or greater withdrawal (COWS score ≥13) within 4 hours of extended-release buprenorphine or (3) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 1 hour of extended-release buprenorphine. Secondary outcomes included injection pain, satisfaction, craving, use of nonprescribed opioids, adverse events, and engagement in OUD treatment. Results: A total of 100 adult patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.7] years; 72% male). Among the patients, 10 (10.0% [95% CI, 4.9%-17.6%]) experienced a 5-point or greater increase in COWS and 7 (7.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-13.9%]) transitioned to moderate or greater withdrawal within 4 hours, and 2 (2.0% [95% CI, 0.2%-7.0%]) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 1 hour of extended-release buprenorphine. A total of 7 patients (7.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-13.9%]) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 4 hours of extended-release buprenorphine, which included 2 of 63 (3.2%) with a COWS score of 4 to 7 and 5 of 37 (13.5%) with a COWS score of 0 to 3. Site pain scores (based on a total pain score of 10, in which 0 indicated no pain and 10 was the worst possible pain) after injection were low immediately (median, 2.0; range, 0-10.0) and after 4 hours (median, 0; range, 0-10.0). On any given day among those who responded, between 29 (33%) and 31 (43%) patients reported no cravings and between 59 (78%) and 75 (85%) reported no use of opioids; 57 patients (60%) reported no days of opioid use. Improving privacy (62%) and not requiring daily medication (67%) were deemed extremely important. Seventy-three patients (73%) were engaged in OUD treatment on day 7. Five serious adverse events occurred that required hospitalization, of which 2 were associated with medication. Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized trial of the feasibility of a 7-day buprenorphine injectable in patients with minimal to mild opioid withdrawal (COWS scores, 0-7) found the formulation to be acceptable, well tolerated, and safe in those with COWS scores of 4 to 7. This new medication formulation could substantially increase the number of patients with OUD receiving buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04225598.

Evidence for generalizability of edaravone efficacy using a novel machine learning risk-based subgroup analysis tool.

Introduction: The edaravone development program for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) included trials MCI186-16 (Study 16) and MCI186-19 (Study 19). A cohort enrichment strategy was based on a Study 16 post hoc analysis and applied to Study 19 to elucidate a treatment effect in that study. To determine whether the Study 19 results could be generalized to a broader ALS population, we used a machine learning (ML) model to create a novel risk-based subgroup analysis tool. Methods: A validated ML model was used to rank order all Study 16 participants by predicted time to 50% expected vital capacity. Subjects were stratified into nearest-neighbor risk-based subgroups that were systematically expanded to include the entire Study 16 population. For each subgroup, a statistical analysis generated heat maps that revealed statistically significant effect sizes. Results: A broad region of the Study 16 heat map with significant effect sizes was identified, including up to 70% of the trial population. Incorporating participants identified in the cohort enrichment strategy yielded a broad group comprising 76% of the original participants with a statistically significant treatment effect. This broad group spanned the full range of the functional score progression observed in Study 16. Conclusions: This analysis, applying predictions derived using an ML model to a novel methodology for subgroup identification, ascertained a statistically significant edaravone treatment effect in a cohort of participants with broader disease characteristics than the Study 19 inclusion criteria. This novel methodology may assist clinical interpretation of study results and potentially inform efficient future clinical trial design strategies.

Development and validation of a machine-learning ALS survival model lacking vital capacity (VC-Free) for use in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Vital capacity (VC) is routinely used for ALS clinical trial eligibility determinations, often to exclude patients unlikely to survive trial duration. However, spirometry has been limited by the COVID-19 pandemic. We developed a machine-learning survival model without the use of baseline VC and asked whether it could stratify clinical trial participants and a wider ALS clinic population. Methods. A gradient boosting machine survival model lacking baseline VC (VC-Free) was trained using the PRO-ACT ALS database and compared to a multivariable model that included VC (VCI) and a univariable baseline %VC model (UNI). Discrimination, calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope were quantified. Models were validated using 10-fold internal cross validation, the VITALITY-ALS clinical trial placebo arm and data from the Emory University tertiary care clinic. Simulations were performed using each model to estimate survival of patients predicted to have a > 50% one year survival probability. Results. The VC-Free model suffered a minor performance decline compared to the VCI model yet retained strong discrimination for stratifying ALS patients. Both models outperformed the UNI model. The proportion of excluded vs. included patients who died through one year was on average 27% vs. 6% (VCI), 31% vs. 7% (VC-Free), and 13% vs. 10% (UNI). Conclusions. The VC-Free model offers an alternative to the use of VC for eligibility determinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The observation that the VC-Free model outperforms the use of VC in a broad ALS patient population suggests the use of prognostic strata in future, post-pandemic ALS clinical trial eligibility screening determinations.

Effect of Ularitide on Cardiovascular Mortality in Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute heart failure, early intervention with an intravenous vasodilator has been proposed as a therapeutic goal to reduce cardiac-wall stress and, potentially, myocardial injury, thereby favorably affecting patients' long-term prognosis. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 2157 patients with acute heart failure to receive a continuous intravenous infusion of either ularitide at a dose of 15 ng per kilogram of body weight per minute or matching placebo for 48 hours, in addition to accepted therapy. Treatment was initiated a median of 6 hours after the initial clinical evaluation. The coprimary outcomes were death from cardiovascular causes during a median follow-up of 15 months and a hierarchical composite end point that evaluated the initial 48-hour clinical course. RESULTS: Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 236 patients in the ularitide group and 225 patients in the placebo group (21.7% vs. 21.0%; hazard ratio, 1.03; 96% confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.25; P=0.75). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant between-group difference with respect to the hierarchical composite outcome. The ularitide group had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and in levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide than the placebo group. However, changes in cardiac troponin T levels during the infusion did not differ between the two groups in the 55% of patients with paired data. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute heart failure, ularitide exerted favorable physiological effects (without affecting cardiac troponin levels), but short-term treatment did not affect a clinical composite end point or reduce long-term cardiovascular mortality. (Funded by Cardiorentis; TRUE-AHF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01661634 .).

On independent data monitoring committees in oncology clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: An independent data safety monitoring committee (IDMC) that is established to monitor the safety of participants in a clinical trial has, as its primary purpose, the protection of participants in the trial and the maintenance of the integrity of the trial. The IDMC should operate under a clear charter, with expectations understood by all its members. The investigators and sponsors should trust their IDMCs and give the IDMC the tools that it needs to operate effectively. The need to separate the investigators of randomized clinical trials from ongoing data has become widely appreciated. Especially when the study in question is a so-called 'phase III', or confirmatory, trial, knowledge of ongoing results can subtly or explicitly affect the care of participants in the trial, the methods of data collection, and the recruitment of new participants into the trial. These changes, if data-driven, can induce bias and therefore affect the scientific integrity of the trial. Failure to monitor the ongoing data, however, may put patients at undesirable risk, especially if emerging data indicate an unknown adverse consequence of therapy. The use of IDMCs has increased perhaps in response to the growing sophistication of the community of clinical trialists, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance on data monitoring committees, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s current rules for data monitoring plans, and the Data Monitoring Committees: Lessons, Ethics, Statistics Study Group from the UK National Health Service (DAMOCLES) recommendations. METHODS: This article summarizes and describes the design and operations of IDMCs in oncology. RESULTS: IDMCs in oncology share many similarities with IDMCs in other disease areas, but the particular nature of cancer patients affects the operation of these committees. COMMENTS: IDMC are important in oncology clinical trials because of the severity of illness and the often toxic effects of treatments.

A phase 1B dose escalation trial of Scutellaria barbata (BZL101) for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of BZL101 (FDA IND# 59,521), an orally delivered aqueous extract from the herb Scutellaria barbata, in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The trial was an open-label, phase 1B, multicenter, dose escalation study. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed breast cancer and measurable stage IV disease. The standard phase 1 "3 + 3" study design was used to determine the MTD. Primary endpoints were toxicity and MTD of BZL101. Secondary outcomes included efficacy based on RECIST criteria. A total of 27 women with a median of 2 prior chemotherapy treatments for metastatic disease were treated in four different dose cohorts. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were uncommon. Dose-limiting toxicities included the following: grade 4 AST elevation, grade 3 diarrhea, grade 3 fatigue, and grade 3 rib pain. Fourteen patients were evaluable according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Investigator assessment classified three patients with stable disease for >120 days (21%). One patient was on BZL101 for 449 days and remains stable for 700 + days. Independent radiology review identified three patients with objective tumor regression (>0% and <30%). The MTD was not reached, thus per protocol, the MTD was defined as the maximum administered dose of BZL101 40 g/day. In conclusion, oral administration of BZL101 was safe, well tolerated, and showed promising clinical evidence of anticancer activity in this heavily pretreated population of women with MBC.