Duchenne muscular dystrophy respiratory profiles from real world registry data.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding real-world profiles from neuromuscular databases is helpful for optimizing clinical care and planning research studies. The Canadian Neuromuscular Disease Registry (CNDR) has respiratory data from a population of boys with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). OBJECTIVES: To describe cross-sectional respiratory profiles from a national DMD real-world dataset. To explore the relationship between forced vital capacity percent predicted (FVC%) and disease severity parameters: scoliosis, ambulation and ventilation status. METHODS: Descriptive statistics summarized the respiratory profiles. The CNDR registry enrolls and collects DMD clinic data from 36 Canadian centers. RESULTS: There were 414 participants enrolled. The age ranged from 2 to 36 years old. Pulmonary function test data were available for 323 participants. The use of ventilatory support was seen in a significant proportion (19.5%) of subjects by age 14-16 years and was used by the majority (69.2%) by age 20-22 years. FVC% declined at a rate of 3.19% per year with every 1-year increase in age. FVC% declined annually by 2.47% in nonambulatory participants versus by 0.96% in ambulatory participants. FVC% did not significantly change over age with the presence of scoliosis or use of ventilatory technology. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this large cohort are valuable for understanding real-world patterns of clinical care and disease progression. There is a significant association between the loss of ambulation and the rate of FVC% decline. Further longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the impact of disease parameters on pulmonary function decline and the need for ventilatory support.

Two-Year Tumor Outcomes of a Phase 2B, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Avasopasem Manganese (GC4419) Versus Placebo to Reduce Severe Oral Mucositis Owing to Concurrent Radiation Therapy and Cisplatin for Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: Avasopasem manganese (GC4419), an investigational selective dismutase mimetic radioprotector, reduced duration, incidence, and severity of severe oral mucositis (World Health Organization grade 3-4) in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial of patients receiving concurrent cisplatin (cis) and radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. We report the secondary endpoints of final 1- and 2-year tumor outcomes and exploratory data on trismus and xerostomia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced oral cavity or oropharynx cancer to be treated with definitive or postop cis and RT were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: 30 mg avasopasem, 90 mg avasopasem, or placebo. Pairwise comparisons of Kaplan-Meier estimates (each active arm separately vs placebo) were made for overall survival, progression-free survival, locoregional control, and distant metastasis-free survival. Xerostomia and trismus data were collected at each follow-up visit and analyzed for trends by post-RT timepoint and treatment group. RESULTS: At a median follow-up for the entire cohort of 25.5 months (25th-75th percentile, 24.6-26.2 months; range, 0.2-31.9 months), Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1- and 2-year overall survival, progression-free survival, locoregional control, and distant metastasis-free survival were not statistically different. No trends were apparent in xerostomia or trismus data. CONCLUSIONS: Avasopasem does not lead to statistically different tumor control outcomes when used concurrently with cis and RT for head and neck cancer. There was no detectable effect on trismus or xerostomia.

Phase IIb, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of GC4419 Versus Placebo to Reduce Severe Oral Mucositis Due to Concurrent Radiotherapy and Cisplatin For Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: Oral mucositis (OM) remains a common, debilitating toxicity of radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. The goal of this phase IIb, multi-institutional, randomized, double-blind trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of GC4419, a superoxide dismutase mimetic, with placebo to reduce the duration, incidence, and severity of severe OM (SOM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 223 patients (from 44 institutions) with locally advanced oral cavity or oropharynx cancer planned to be treated with definitive or postoperative intensity-modulated RT (IMRT; 60 to 72 Gy [≥ 50 Gy to two or more oral sites]) plus cisplatin (weekly or every 3 weeks) were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg (n = 73) or 90 mg (n = 76) of GC4419 or to receive placebo (n = 74) by 60-minute intravenous administration before each IMRT fraction. WHO grade of OM was assessed biweekly during IMRT and then weekly for up to 8 weeks after IMRT. The primary endpoint was duration of SOM tested for each active dose level versus placebo (intent-to-treat population, two-sided α of .05). The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03, was used for adverse event grading. RESULTS: Baseline patient and tumor characteristics as well as treatment delivery were balanced. With 90 mg GC4419 versus placebo, SOM duration was significantly reduced (P = .024; median, 1.5 v 19 days). SOM incidence (43% v 65%; P = .009) and severity (grade 4 incidence, 16% v 30%; P = .045) also were improved. Intermediate improvements were seen with the 30-mg dose. Safety was comparable across arms, with no significant GC4419-specific toxicity nor increase of known toxicities of IMRT plus cisplatin. The 2-year follow-up for tumor outcomes is ongoing. CONCLUSION: GC4419 at a dose of 90 mg produced a significant, clinically meaningful reduction of SOM duration, incidence, and severity with acceptable safety. A phase III trial (ROMAN; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03689712) has begun.

Some practical problems in implementing randomization.

BACKGROUND: While often theoretically simple, implementing randomization to treatment in a masked, but confirmable, fashion can prove difficult in practice. PURPOSE: At least three categories of problems occur in randomization: (1) bad judgment in the choice of method, (2) design and programming errors in implementing the method, and (3) human error during the conduct of the trial. This article focuses on these latter two types of errors, dealing operationally with what can go wrong after trial designers have selected the allocation method. RESULTS: We offer several case studies and corresponding recommendations for lessening the frequency of problems in allocating treatment or for mitigating the consequences of errors. Recommendations include: (1) reviewing the randomization schedule before starting a trial, (2) being especially cautious of systems that use on-demand random number generators, (3) drafting unambiguous randomization specifications, (4) performing thorough testing before entering a randomization system into production, (5) maintaining a dataset that captures the values investigators used to randomize participants, thereby allowing the process of treatment allocation to be reproduced and verified, (6) resisting the urge to correct errors that occur in individual treatment assignments, (7) preventing inadvertent unmasking to treatment assignments in kit allocations, and (8) checking a sample of study drug kits to allow detection of errors in drug packaging and labeling. LIMITATIONS: Although we performed a literature search of documented randomization errors, the examples that we provide and the resultant recommendations are based largely on our own experience in industry-sponsored clinical trials. We do not know how representative our experience is or how common errors of the type we have seen occur. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience underscores the importance of verifying the integrity of the treatment allocation process before and during a trial. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 235-245. http://ctj.sagepub.com.