A comparison of model-free phase I dose escalation designs for dual-agent combination therapies.

It is increasingly common for therapies in oncology to be given in combination. In some cases, patients can benefit from the interaction between two drugs, although often at the risk of higher toxicity. A large number of designs to conduct phase I trials in this setting are available, where the objective is to select the maximum tolerated dose combination. Recently, a number of model-free (also called model-assisted) designs have provoked interest, providing several practical advantages over the more conventional approaches of rule-based or model-based designs. In this paper, we demonstrate a novel calibration procedure for model-free designs to determine their most desirable parameters. Under the calibration procedure, we compare the behaviour of model-free designs to model-based designs in a comprehensive simulation study, covering a number of clinically plausible scenarios. It is found that model-free designs are competitive with the model-based designs in terms of the proportion of correct selections of the maximum tolerated dose combination. However, there are a number of scenarios in which model-free designs offer a safer alternative. This is also illustrated in the application of the designs to a case study using data from a phase I oncology trial.

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome.

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's "Consultation on proposals for legislative changes for clinical trials": a response from the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, with a focus on data sharing.

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals "to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines". The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing - making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use - is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council's Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic.

Reducing intrusive memories after trauma via an imagery-competing task intervention in COVID-19 intensive care staff: a randomised controlled trial.

Intrusive memories (IMs) after traumatic events can be distressing and disrupt mental health and functioning. We evaluated the impact of a brief remotely-delivered digital imagery-competing task intervention on the number of IMs for intensive care unit (ICU) staff who faced repeated trauma exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic using a two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind randomised controlled trial, with the comparator arm receiving delayed access to active treatment (crossover). Eligible participants worked clinically in a UK NHS ICU during the pandemic and had at least 3 IMs of work-related traumatic events in the week before recruitment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to immediate (weeks 1-4) or delayed (weeks 5-8) intervention access. Sequential Bayesian analyses to optimise the intervention and increase trial efficiency are reported elsewhere [1]. The primary endpoint for the pre-specified frequentist analysis of the final study population compared the number of IMs experienced in week 4 between the immediate and delayed access arms. Secondary outcomes included clinical symptoms, work functioning and wellbeing. Safety was assessed throughout the trial by scheduled questions and free report. All analyses were undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis (86 randomised participants). There were significantly fewer intrusive memories during week 4 in the immediate (median = 1, IQR = 0-3, n = 43), compared to the comparator delayed arm (median = 10, IQR = 6-17, n = 43), IRR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.48, p < 0.001. After crossover, the delayed arm also showed a significant reduction in IMs at week 8 compared to week 4. There were convergent findings for symptoms of PTSD, insomnia and anxiety, work engagement and burnout, general functioning and quality of life. The intervention was found safe and acceptable to participants. All adverse events were unrelated to the study. Our study provides the first evidence of a benefit on reducing IMs, improving other clinical symptoms, work functioning and wellbeing, as well as safety of a brief remotely-delivered digital imagery-competing task intervention. An efficacy trial with an active control and longer follow-up is warranted. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04992390).

A comparison of Bayesian information borrowing methods in basket trials and a novel proposal of modified exchangeability-nonexchangeability method.

Recent innovation in trial design to improve study efficiency has led to the development of basket trials in which a single therapeutic treatment is tested on several patient populations, each of which forms a basket. In a common setting, patients across all baskets share a genetic marker and as such, an assumption can be made that all patients may have a homogeneous response to treatments. Bayesian information borrowing procedures utilize this assumption to draw on information regarding the response in one basket when estimating the response rate in others. This can improve power and precision of estimates particularly in the presence of small sample sizes, however, can come at a cost of biased estimates and an inflation of error rates, bringing into question validity of trial conclusions. We review and compare the performance of several Bayesian borrowing methods, namely: the Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM), calibrated Bayesian hierarchical model (CBHM), exchangeability-nonexchangeability (EXNEX) model and a Bayesian model averaging procedure. A generalization of the CBHM is made to account for unequal sample sizes across baskets. We also propose a modification of the EXNEX model that allows for better control of a type I error. The proposed method uses a data-driven approach to account for the homogeneity of the response data, measured through Hellinger distances. Through an extensive simulation study motivated by a real basket trial, for both equal and unequal sample sizes across baskets, we show that in the presence of a basket with a heterogeneous response, unlike the other methods discussed, this model can control type I error rates to a nominal level whilst yielding improved power.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study.

BACKGROUND: Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). METHODS: The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback. RESULTS: The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. CONCLUSIONS: By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Exploring the issues that influence how people with rare neurological conditions engage in physical activity.

PURPOSE: People with rare neurological conditions (RNCs) struggle to achieve regular physical activity (PA). This study explored experiences of people with RNC engaging in PA, their carers, and health care professionals (HCPs) working with them. MATERIALS & METHODS: We developed three surveys: for individuals living with RNCs, their carers, and HCPs working with them. Themes from interviews with RNC charity representatives were used to co-design questions, together with people living with RNCs, their representatives, and an expert panel. Surveys were disseminated via charity mailing lists, social media accounts, and professional networks (HCPs). RESULTS: We received 436 responses (225 people with RNC, 94 carers, 117 HCPs). Most respondents with RNC achieved some level of regular PA but needed motivation to maintain it. Many felt they lacked knowledge on starting and staying active, with scarce resources and support. Most HCP respondents worked in specialist services, and overwhelmingly agreed that people with RNC should be physically active, while acknowledging lack of evidence and resources. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key barriers at environmental/organisational, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels, highlighting a critical lack of support for people with RNC across UK health services. These factors can be targeted to increase engagement in PA.Implications for rehabilitationPeople living with rare neurological conditions experience barriers to engaging in physical activity, with some common to more prevalent neurological diseases, e.g. access and facilities, but some notable differences due to the rarity of the conditionFor people living with rare neurological conditions, and their carers, there is a lack of knowledge on safe and appropriate engagement in physical activityIncreasing the knowledge of health and exercise professionals may improve how they support people with rare neurological disease to engage with physical activity.Evidence based resources and recommendations for people living with rare neurological conditions, and professionals working with them, may facilitate engagement in physical activity.

Determining the minimum duration of treatment in tuberculosis: An order restricted non-inferiority trial design.

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the biggest killers among infectious diseases worldwide. Together with the identification of drugs that can provide benefits to patients, the challenge in TB is also the optimisation of the duration of these treatments. While conventional duration of treatment in TB is 6 months, there is evidence that shorter durations might be as effective but could be associated with fewer side effects and may be associated with better adherence. Based on a recent proposal of an adaptive order-restricted superiority design that employs the ordering assumptions within various duration of the same drug, we propose a non-inferiority (typically used in TB trials) adaptive design that effectively uses the order assumption. Together with the general construction of the hypothesis testing and expression for type I and type II errors, we focus on how the novel design was proposed for a TB trial concept. We consider a number of practical aspects such as choice of the design parameters, randomisation ratios, and timings of the interim analyses, and how these were discussed with the clinical team.

Early phase clinical trials in oncology: Realising the potential of seamless designs.

BACKGROUND: The pharmaceutical industry's productivity has been declining over the last two decades and high attrition rates and reduced regulatory approvals are being seen. The development of oncology drugs is particularly challenging with low rates of approval for novel treatments when compared with other therapeutic areas. Reliably establishing the potential of novel treatment and the corresponding optimal dosage is a key component to ensure efficient overall development. A growing interest lies in terminating developments of poor treatments quickly while enabling accelerated development for highly promising interventions. METHODS: One approach to reliably establish the optimal dosage and the potential of a novel treatment and thereby improve efficiency in the drug development pathway is the use of novel statistical designs that make efficient use of the data collected. RESULTS: In this paper, we discuss different (seamless) strategies for early oncology development and illustrate their strengths and weaknesses through real trial examples. We provide some directions for good practices in early oncology development, discuss frequently seen missed opportunities for improved efficiency and some future opportunities that have yet to fully develop their potential in early oncology treatment development. DISCUSSION: Modern methods for dose-finding have the potential to shorten and improve dose-finding and only small changes to current approaches are required to realise this potential.

A Bayesian multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial design incorporating information about treatment ordering.

Multi-Arm Multi-Stage (MAMS) designs can notably improve efficiency in later stages of drug development, but they can be suboptimal when an order in the effects of the arms can be assumed. In this work, we propose a Bayesian multi-arm multi-stage trial design that selects all promising treatments with high probability and can efficiently incorporate information about the order in the treatment effects as well as incorporate prior knowledge on the treatments. A distinguishing feature of the proposed design is that it allows taking into account the uncertainty of the treatment effect order assumption and does not assume any parametric arm-response model. The design can provide control of the family-wise error rate under specific values of the control mean and we illustrate its operating characteristics in a study of symptomatic asthma. Via simulations, we compare the novel Bayesian design with frequentist multi-arm multi-stage designs and a frequentist order restricted design that does not account for the order uncertainty and demonstrate the gains in the sample sizes the proposed design can provide. We also find that the proposed design is robust to violations of the assumptions on the order.

Treating intrusive memories after trauma in healthcare workers: a Bayesian adaptive randomised trial developing an imagery-competing task intervention.

Intensive care unit (ICU) staff continue to face recurrent work-related traumatic events throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Intrusive memories (IMs) of such traumatic events comprise sensory image-based memories. Harnessing research on preventing IMs with a novel behavioural intervention on the day of trauma, here we take critical next steps in developing this approach as a treatment for ICU staff who are already experiencing IMs days, weeks, or months post-trauma. To address the urgent need to develop novel mental health interventions, we used Bayesian statistical approaches to optimise a brief imagery-competing task intervention to reduce the number of IMs. We evaluated a digitised version of the intervention for remote, scalable delivery. We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised, adaptive Bayesian optimisation trial. Eligible participants worked clinically in a UK NHS ICU during the pandemic, experienced at least one work-related traumatic event, and at least three IMs in the week prior to recruitment. Participants were randomised to receive immediate or delayed (after 4 weeks) access to the intervention. Primary outcome was the number of IMs of trauma during week 4, controlling for baseline week. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis as a between-group comparison. Prior to final analysis, sequential Bayesian analyses were conducted (n = 20, 23, 29, 37, 41, 45) to inform early stopping of the trial prior to the planned maximum recruitment (n = 150). Final analysis (n = 75) showed strong evidence for a positive treatment effect (Bayes factor, BF = 1.25 × 106): the immediate arm reported fewer IMs (median = 1, IQR = 0-3) than the delayed arm (median = 10, IQR = 6-16.5). With further digital enhancements, the intervention (n = 28) also showed a positive treatment effect (BF = 7.31). Sequential Bayesian analyses provided evidence for reducing IMs of work-related trauma for healthcare workers. This methodology also allowed us to rule out negative effects early, reduced the planned maximum sample size, and allowed evaluation of enhancements. Trial Registration NCT04992390 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance.

In adaptive clinical trials, the conventional end-of-trial point estimate of a treatment effect is prone to bias, that is, a systematic tendency to deviate from its true value. As stated in recent FDA guidance on adaptive designs, it is desirable to report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. However, it may be unclear which of the available estimators are preferable, and their use remains rare in practice. This article is the second in a two-part series that studies the issue of bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provided a methodological review of approaches to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation for adaptive designs. In part II, we discuss how bias can affect standard estimators and assess the negative impact this can have. We review current practice for reporting point estimates and illustrate the computation of different estimators using a real adaptive trial example (including code), which we use as a basis for a simulation study. We show that while on average the values of these estimators can be similar, for a particular trial realization they can give noticeably different values for the estimated treatment effect. Finally, we propose guidelines for researchers around the choice of estimators and the reporting of estimates following an adaptive design. The issue of bias should be considered throughout the whole lifecycle of an adaptive design, with the estimation strategy prespecified in the statistical analysis plan. When available, unbiased or bias-reduced estimates are to be preferred.

Online error rate control for platform trials.

Platform trials evaluate multiple experimental treatments under a single master protocol, where new treatment arms are added to the trial over time. Given the multiple treatment comparisons, there is the potential for inflation of the overall type I error rate, which is complicated by the fact that the hypotheses are tested at different times and are not necessarily pre-specified. Online error rate control methodology provides a possible solution to the problem of multiplicity for platform trials where a relatively large number of hypotheses are expected to be tested over time. In the online multiple hypothesis testing framework, hypotheses are tested one-by-one over time, where at each time-step an analyst decides whether to reject the current null hypothesis without knowledge of future tests but based solely on past decisions. Methodology has recently been developed for online control of the false discovery rate as well as the familywise error rate (FWER). In this article, we describe how to apply online error rate control to the platform trial setting, present extensive simulation results, and give some recommendations for the use of this new methodology in practice. We show that the algorithms for online error rate control can have a substantially lower FWER than uncorrected testing, while still achieving noticeable gains in power when compared with the use of a Bonferroni correction. We also illustrate how online error rate control would have impacted a currently ongoing platform trial.

SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding clinical trials: the DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) studies are critical for the development of new treatments, directly influencing whether compounds or interventions can be investigated in further trials to confirm their safety and efficacy. There exists guidance for clinical trial protocols and reporting of completed trials in the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Randomised Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statements. However, neither the original statements nor their extensions adequately cover the specific features of EPDF trials. The DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study aims to enhance transparency, completeness, reproducibility and interpretation of EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and their reports once completed (CONSORT-DEFINE), across all disease areas, building on the original SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A methodological review of published EPDF trials will be conducted to identify features and deficiencies in reporting and inform the initial generation of the candidate items. The early draft checklists will be enriched through a review of published and grey literature, real-world examples analysis, citation and reference searches and consultation with international experts, including regulators and journal editors. Development of CONSORT-DEFINE commenced in March 2021, followed by SPIRIT-DEFINE from January 2022. A modified Delphi process, involving worldwide, multidisciplinary and cross-sector key stakeholders, will be run to refine the checklists. An international consensus meeting in autumn 2022 will finalise the list of items to be included in both guidance extensions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was approved by ICR's Committee for Clinical Research. The Health Research Authority confirmed Research Ethics Approval is not required. The dissemination strategy aims to maximise guideline awareness and uptake, including but not limited to dissemination in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications and on the EQUATOR Network and DEFINE study websites. REGISTRATION DETAILS: SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network.

Backfilling cohorts in phase I dose-escalation studies.

BACKGROUND: The use of 'backfilling', assigning additional patients to doses deemed safe, in phase I dose-escalation studies has been used in practice to collect additional information on the safety profile, pharmacokinetics and activity of a drug. These additional patients help ensure that the maximum tolerated dose is reliably estimated and give additional information to determine the recommended phase II dose. METHODS: In this article, we study the effect of employing backfilling in a phase I trial on the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose and the duration of the study. We consider the situation where only one cycle of follow-up is used for escalation as well as the case where there may be delayed onset toxicities. RESULTS: We find that, over a range of scenarios, the use of backfilling gives an increase in the percentage of correct selections by up to 9%. On average, for a treatment with a cycle length of 6 weeks, each additional backfilling patient reduces the trial duration by half a week. CONCLUSIONS: Backfilling in phase I dose-escalation studies can substantially increase the accuracy of estimation of the maximum tolerated dose, with a larger impact in the setting with a dose-limiting toxicity event assessment period of only one cycle. This increased accuracy and reduction in the trial duration are at the cost of increased sample size.

Updating the probability of study success for combination therapies using related combination study data.

Combination therapies are becoming increasingly used in a range of therapeutic areas such as oncology and infectious diseases, providing potential benefits such as minimising drug resistance and toxicity. Sets of combination studies may be related, for example, if they have at least one treatment in common and are used in the same indication. In this setting, value can be gained by sharing information between related combination studies. We present a framework that allows the study success probabilities of a set of related combination therapies to be updated based on the outcome of a single combination study. This allows us to incorporate both direct and indirect data on a combination therapy in the decision-making process for future studies. We also provide a robustification that accounts for the fact that the prior assumptions on the correlation structure of the set of combination therapies may be incorrect. We show how this framework can be used in practice and highlight the use of the study success probabilities in the planning of clinical studies.

Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial. INTERPRETATION: We found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive. FUNDING: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.