Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (FAKTION): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Capivasertib (AZD5363) is a potent selective oral inhibitor of all three isoforms of the serine/threonine kinase AKT. The FAKTION trial investigated whether the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, postmenopausal women aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off (starting on cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment allocation was done using an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0·20. Analyses were done by intention to treat. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 140 (76%) were eligible and were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 4·9 months (IQR 1·6-11·6). At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%) in 69 patients in the capivasertib group compared with 63 (89%) of 71 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0-13·2) in the capivasertib group versus 4·8 months (3·1-7·7) in the placebo group, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (95% CI 0·39-0·84) in favour of the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0·0044; one-sided log rank test p=0·0018). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (22 [32%] of 69 patients in the capivasertib group vs 17 [24%] of 71 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (ten [14%] vs three [4%]), rash (14 [20%] vs 0), infection (four [6%] vs two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] vs three [4%]). Serious adverse reactions occurred only in the capivasertib group, and were acute kidney injury (two), diarrhoea (three), rash (two), hyperglycaemia (one), loss of consciousness (one), sepsis (one), and vomiting (one). One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. One further death in the capivasertib group had an unknown cause; all remaining deaths in both groups (19 in the capivasertib group and 31 in the placebo group) were disease related. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in participants who received capivasertib than in those who received placebo. The combination of capivasertib and fulvestrant warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

A randomised Phase II trial of carboplatin and gemcitabine ± vandetanib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced urothelial cell cancer not suitable to receive cisplatin.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of the dual epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, vandetanib, in combination with carboplatin and gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma urothelial cancer (UC) who were unsuitable for cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, 82 patients were randomised from 16 hospitals across the UK into the TOUCAN double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised Phase II trial, receiving six 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (target area under the concentration versus time curve 4.5, day 1) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8) combined with either oral vandetanib 100 mg or placebo (once daily). Progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint), adverse events, tolerability and feasibility of use, objective response rate and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were used to analyse the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The 82 patients were randomised 1:1 to vandetanib (n = 40) or placebo (n = 42), and 25 patients (30%) completed six cycles of all allocated treatment. Toxicity Grade ≥3 was experienced in 80% (n = 32) and 76% (n = 32) of patients in the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively. The median PFS was 6.8 and 8.8 months for the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.76; P = 0.71); the median OS was 10.8 vs 13.8 months (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.79-2.52; P = 0.88); and radiological response rates were 50% and 55%. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that vandetanib improves clinical outcome in this setting. Our present data do not support its adoption as the regimen of choice for first-line treatment in patients with UC who were unfit for cisplatin.

Activity, safety, and feasibility of cidofovir and imiquimod for treatment of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (RT³VIN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia is a skin disorder affecting the vulva that, if left untreated, can become cancerous. Currently, the standard treatment for patients with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia is surgery, but this approach does not guarantee cure and can be disfiguring, causing physical and psychological problems, particularly in women of reproductive age. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of two topical treatments--cidofovir and imiquimod--as an alternative to surgery in female patients with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia. METHODS: We recruited female patients (age 16 years or older) from 32 centres to an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Eligibility criteria were biopsy-proven vulval intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and at least one lesion that could be measured accurately. We randomly allocated patients to topical treatment with either 1% cidofovir (supplied as a gel in a 10 g tube, to last 6 weeks) or 5% imiquimod (one 250 mg sachet for every application), to be self-applied three times a week for a maximum of 24 weeks. Randomisation (1:1) was done by stratified minimisation via a central computerised system, with stratification by hospital, disease focality, and presentation stage. The primary endpoint was a histologically confirmed complete response at the post-treatment assessment visit 6 weeks after the end of treatment (a maximum of 30 weeks after treatment started). Analysis of the primary endpoint was by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were toxic effects (to assess safety) and adherence to treatment (to assess feasibility). We present results after all patients had reached the primary endpoint assessment point at 6 weeks; 2-year follow-up of complete responders continues. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN 34420460. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2009, and Jan 11, 2013, 180 participants were enrolled to the study; 89 patients were randomly allocated cidofovir and 91 were assigned imiquimod. At the post-treatment assessment visit, a complete response had been achieved by 41 (46%; 90% CI 37·0-55·3) patients allocated cidofovir and by 42 (46%; 37·2-55·3) patients assigned imiquimod. After 6 weeks of treatment, 156 (87%) patients (78 in each group) had adhered to the treatment regimen. Five patients in the cidofovir group and seven in the imiquimod group either withdrew or were lost to follow-up before the first 6-week safety assessment. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 31 (37%) of 84 patients allocated cidofovir and 39 (46%) of 84 patients assigned imiquimod; the most frequent grade 3 and 4 events were pain in the vulva, pruritus, fatigue, and headache. INTERPRETATION: Cidofovir and imiquimod were active, safe, and feasible for treatment of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia and warrant further investigation in a phase 3 setting. Both drugs are effective alternatives to surgery for female patients with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia after exclusion of occult invasive disease. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

The biology of antihormone failure in breast cancer.

Many estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients initially respond to treatment with antihormonal agents such as tamoxifen, but remissions are often followed by acquisition of resistance and ultimately disease relapse. The development of a rationale for the effective treatment of tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer requires an understanding of the complex signal transduction mechanisms that contribute towards loss of antiestrogen response. Interactions between estrogen and growth factor signaling pathways have been identified in estrogen-responsive cells that are thought to reinforce their individual cellular effects on growth and gene responses. Increasing evidence indicates that abnormalities occurring in growth factor signaling pathways, notably the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway, could dramatically influence steroid hormone action and may be critical to antihormonal-resistant breast cancer cell growth. Thus, inhibitory agents targeting growth factor receptors, or their intracellular pathway components, may prove clinically beneficial in antihormone refractory disease. One example, gefitinib ('Iressa', ZD1839), an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is an interesting therapeutic option that may provide benefit in the treatment of antihormonal-resistant breast cancer. Rapid progress with pharmacological and molecular therapeutic agents is now being made. Therapies that target growth factor signaling pathways may prevent development of resistance.

Oestrogen receptor-mediated modulation of the EGFR/MAPK pathway in tamoxifen-resistant MCF-7 cells.

Oestrogen receptor (ER) levels are usually maintained on acquisition of tamoxifen resistance in the clinic, however, tumour re-growth is associated with increased expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and activation of the mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. In the present study we have used the ER down-regulator fulvestrant ('Faslodex') to investigate the influence of the ER on growth of a tamoxifen-resistant (TAM-R) human breast cancer cell line. Expression levels of ER mRNA and protein were equivalent in parental wild-type MCF-7 (WT) and TAM-R cells. Fulvestrant eliminated ER protein expression and inhibited proliferation in both cell lines. The growth inhibitory effects of fulvestrant were associated with a decrease in basal EGFR, c-erbB2 and ERK1/2 activity in TAM-R but not WT cells. ER functionality as determined by oestrogen response element (ERE)-luciferase reporter activity and expression of PgR, pS2 and transforming growth factor alpha (TGFalpha) was significantly reduced in TAM-R compared to WT cells and was further decreased by fulvestrant treatment in both cell lines. Epidermal growth factor (EGF) and TGFalpha significantly increased EGFR/MAPK pathway activity in both cell lines. Ligand-induced EGFR/MAPK activation promoted TAM-R cell growth in both the absence and presence of fulvestrant, whereas no proliferative activity was observed under the same conditions in WT cells. These results suggest that the ER modulates EGFR/MAPK signalling efficiency in TAM-R cells possibly through the regulation of TGFalpha availability. This effect may be overcome by the action of exogenous EGFR ligands, which strengthen EGFR/MAPK signalling activity to generate endocrine-insensitive cell growth.