Late Treatment With Autologous Expanded Regulatory T-cell Therapy After Alemtuzumab Induction Is Safe and Facilitates Immunosuppression Minimization in Living Donor Renal Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The TWO Study (Transplantation Without Overimmunosuppression) aimed to investigate a novel approach to regulatory T-cell (Treg) therapy in renal transplant patients, using a delayed infusion protocol at 6 mo posttransplant to promote a Treg-skewed lymphocyte repopulation after alemtuzumab induction. We hypothesized that this would allow safe weaning of immunosuppression to tacrolimus alone. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the suspension of alemtuzumab use, and therefore, we report the unique cohort of 7 patients who underwent the original randomized controlled trial protocol. This study presents a unique insight into Treg therapy combined with alemtuzumab and is therefore an important proof of concept for studies in other diseases that are considering lymphodepletion. METHODS: Living donor kidney transplant recipients were randomized to receive autologous polyclonal Treg at week 26 posttransplantation, coupled with weaning doses of tacrolimus, (Treg therapy arm) or standard immunosuppression alone (tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil). Primary outcomes were patient survival and rejection-free survival. RESULTS: Successful cell manufacturing and cryopreservation until the 6-mo infusion were achieved. Patient and transplant survival was 100%. Acute rejection-free survival was 100% in the Treg-treated group at 18 mo after transplantation. Although alemtuzumab caused a profound depletion of all lymphocytes, including Treg, after cell therapy infusion, there was a transient increase in peripheral Treg numbers. CONCLUSIONS: The study establishes that delayed autologous Treg therapy is both feasible and safe, even 12 mo after cell production. The findings present a new treatment protocol for Treg therapy, potentially expanding its applications to other indications.

Effectiveness of supervised versus self-directed rehabilitation for adults aged 50 years and over with ankle fractures: protocol for the AFTER trial.

Aims: Ankle fractures are common, mainly affecting adults aged 50 years and over. To aid recovery, some patients are referred to physiotherapy, but referral patterns vary, likely due to uncertainty about the effectiveness of this supervised rehabilitation approach. To inform clinical practice, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of supervised versus self-directed rehabilitation in improving ankle function for older adults with ankle fractures. Methods: This will be a multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomized controlled superiority trial. We aim to recruit 344 participants aged 50 years and older with an ankle fracture treated surgically or non-surgically from at least 20 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomized 1:1 using a web-based service to supervised rehabilitation (four to six one-to-one physiotherapy sessions of tailored advice and prescribed home exercise over three months), or self-directed rehabilitation (provision of advice and exercise materials that participants will use to manage their recovery independently). The primary outcome is participant-reported ankle-related symptoms and function six months after randomization, measured by the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score. Secondary outcomes at two, four, and six months measure health-related quality of life, pain, physical function, self-efficacy, exercise adherence, complications, and resource use. Due to the nature of the interventions, participants and intervention providers will be unblinded to treatment allocation. Conclusion: This study will assess whether supervised rehabilitation is more effective than self-directed rehabilitation for adults aged 50 years and older after ankle fracture. The results will provide evidence to guide clinical practice. At the time of submission, the trial is currently completing recruitment, and follow-up will be completed in 2024.

A protocol for the conduct of a multicentre, prospective, randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures.

Aims: Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods: The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion: The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England - Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Good Statistical Practice-development of tailored Good Clinical Practice training for statisticians.

BACKGROUND: Statisticians are fundamental in ensuring clinical research, including clinical trials, are conducted with quality, transparency, reproducibility and integrity. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is an international quality standard for the conduct of clinical trials research. Statisticians are required to undertake training on GCP but existing training is generic and, crucially, does not cover statistical activities. This results in statisticians undertaking training mostly unrelated to their role and variation in awareness and implementation of relevant regulatory requirements with regards to statistical conduct. The need for role-relevant training is recognised by the UK NHS Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). METHODS: The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project was instigated by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Registered Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) Statisticians Operational Group and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), to develop materials to enable role-specific GCP training tailored to statisticians. Review of current GCP training was undertaken by survey. Development of training materials were based on MHRA GCP. Critical review and piloting was conducted with UKCRC CTU and NIHR researchers with comment from MHRA. Final review was conducted through the UKCRC CTU Statistics group. RESULTS: The survey confirmed the need and desire for the development of dedicated GCP training for statisticians. An accessible, comprehensive, piloted training package was developed tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. The training materials cover legislation and guidance for best practice across all clinical trial processes with statistical involvement, including exercises and real-life scenarios to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Comprehensive feedback was incorporated. The training materials are freely available for national and international adoption. CONCLUSION: All research staff should have training in GCP yet the training undertaken by most academic statisticians does not cover activities related to their role. The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project has developed and extensively piloted new, role-specific, comprehensive, accessible GCP training tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. This role-specific training will encourage best practice, leading to transparent and reproducible statistical activity, as required by regulatory authorities and funders.

Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .