Search

The delayed and modest uptake of evidence-based treatments following cardiovascular clinical trials highlights the need for greater attention to implementation early in the development and testing of treatments. However, implementation science is not well understood and is often an afterthought following phase 3 trials. In this review, we describe the goals, frameworks, and methods of implementation science, along with common multilevel barriers and facilitators of implementation. We propose that some of the approaches used for implementation well after a trial has ended can be incorporated into the design of phase 3 trials to foster early post-trial implementation. Approaches include, but are not limited to, engaging broad stakeholders including patients, clinicians, and decision-makers in trial advisory boards; using less restrictive eligibility criteria that ensure both internal validity and generalizability; having trial protocols reviewed by regulators; integrating trial execution with the health care system; evaluating and addressing barriers and facilitators to deployment of the intervention; and undertaking cost-effectiveness and cost utility analyses across jurisdictions. We provide case examples to highlight concepts and to guide end-of-trial implementation., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures CVCT meetings are supported by unrestricted educational grants with no allocation for speakers’ fees. Dr Van Spall has received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Heart and Stroke Foundation (HSF); has institution educational accounts with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis; has received consulting fees from the Baim Institute for Clinical Research; has trial committee roles with Medtronic, CardioVascular Research Foundation, and the Colorado Prevention Center Clinical Research; and has received travel and/or meeting attendance support from CVCT. Drs Desveaux, Finch, and Singh have received travel and/or meeting attendance support from CVCT. Dr Lewis has received royalties or licenses from Springer Publishing for Practical Implementation Science. Dr Venter has received Institutional grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, SA Medical Research Council, National Institutes for Health, Unitaid, Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Merck and the Children's Investment Fund Foundation, USAID, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, ViiV Healthcare, and Novo Nordisk; has received honoraria for educational events and advisory board participation from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Mylan/Viatris, Merck, Adcock-Ingram, Aspen, Abbott, Roche, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Thermo-Fischer, and Virology Education; has received honorarium from the International National Institutes of Health HIV Data and Safety Monitoring Board; and has received drug donations from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, and Gilead Sciences for investigator-led clinical studies. Dr Zannad has received consulting fees from 89bio, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior Pharmaceuticals, Cellprothera, Cereno Scientific, CEVA, CVRx, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, and Servier; has received honoraria for lectures from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CEVA, CVRx, Merck, and Novartis; has received fees for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Acceleron/Merck; and has equity interests in G3 Pharmaceuticals, Cereno Pharmaceuticals, Cardiorenal, Eshmoun Clinical Research, and CVCT. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Similarly, the views expressed in this paper by other authors are their personal views and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the organizations with which the authors are employed/affiliated., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Tracking of emergent symptoms (ES) in de novo Parkinson Disease (PD) patients using Parts Ib and II of the MDS-UPDRS rating scale has been proposed as an outcome measure for PD clinical trials, based on observations in the Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy Assessment of Isradipine for PD (STEADY-PD3) clinical trial., Methods: Individual item-level data was extracted from the SURE-PD3 study (coded as "PD-1018" in the C-path pooled dataset). We sought to confirm the observations made in the STEADY-PD3 dataset by analyzing data from a different Phase 3 clinical trial, the Phase 3 Study of Urate Elevation in Parkinson Disease (SURE-PD3), in which MDS-UPDRS was assessed more frequently than the 12-month intervals in STEADY-PD3, using similar methodology., Results: We were able to broadly validate results that demonstrated the frequency of ES, lack of impact of the introduction of symptomatic medications, and in the reduction in sample size required to demonstrate slowing of disease progression at a group level compared with the traditional total MDS-UPDRS summed score scoring methods. Counts of ES generally correlated modestly with summed MDS-UPRDS scores, both for the various sub-parts and for the overall scale as well. However, instability of individual item responses, especially during the first 6 months of observation complicated the assessment of the temporal evolution and stability of ES over time in the course of the SURE-PD3 study., Conclusion: Further validation using data sets with frequent administration of MDS-UPDRS is necessary to assess value of this approach as an outcome measure in PD clinical trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sheng Luo PhD. reports financial support was provided by Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research. Sheng Luo, PhD reports a relationship with Bial that includes: funding grants. Glenn T Stebbins reports a relationship with Contera Pharma that includes: consulting or advisory. Glenn T. Stebbins reports a relationship with Eli Lilly and Company that includes: consulting or advisory. Glenn T. Stebbins reports a relationship with Neurocrine Biosciences Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Glenn T. Stebbins reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: consulting or advisory. Glenn T. Stebbins reports a relationship with Vima Therapeutics that includes: consulting or advisory. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with AskBio that includes: consulting or advisory. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Amneal Pharmaceuticals that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Blue Rock Therapeutics that includes: consulting or advisory. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Denali Therapeutics Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Kyowa Kirin Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with NeuroDerm Ltd that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Prevail Therapeutics that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Roche that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Sanofi that includes: consulting or advisory. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Sinopia Biosciences Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Konseka that includes: consulting or advisory. Tanya Simuni reports a relationship with Biogen that includes: funding grants. Jesse M Cedarbaum reports a relationship with MiCure that includes: consulting or advisory. Jesse M Cedarbaum reports a relationship with The Marcus Foundation that includes: funding grants. Jesse M Cedarbaum reports a relationship with Aligning Science Across Parkinson's that includes: funding grants. None If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

An assurance calculation is a Bayesian alternative to a power calculation. One may be performed to aid the planning of a clinical trial, specifically setting the sample size or to support decisions about whether or not to perform a study. Immuno-oncology is a rapidly evolving area in the development of anticancer drugs. A common phenomenon that arises in trials of such drugs is one of delayed treatment effects, that is, there is a delay in the separation of the survival curves. To calculate assurance for a trial in which a delayed treatment effect is likely to be present, uncertainty about key parameters needs to be considered. If uncertainty is not considered, the number of patients recruited may not be enough to ensure we have adequate statistical power to detect a clinically relevant treatment effect and the risk of an unsuccessful trial is increased. We present a new elicitation technique for when a delayed treatment effect is likely and show how to compute assurance using these elicited prior distributions. We provide an example to illustrate how this can be used in practice and develop open-source software to implement our methods. Our methodology has the potential to improve the success rate and efficiency of Phase III trials in immuno-oncology and for other treatments where a delayed treatment effect is expected to occur., (© 2024 The Author(s). Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The failure rates of phase 3 trials are high. Incorrect sample size due to uncertainty of effect size could be a critical contributing factor. Adaptive sequential design (ASD), which may include one or more sample size re-estimations (SSR), has been a popular approach for dealing with such uncertainties. The operating characteristics (OCs) of ASD, including the unconditional power and mean sample size, can be substantially affected by many factors, including the planned sample size, the interim analysis schedule and choice of critical boundaries and rules for interim analysis. We propose a systematic, comprehensive strategy which uses iterative simulations to investigate the operating characteristics of adaptive designs and help achieve adequate unconditional power and cost-effective mean sample size if the effect size is in a pre-identified range.

Background and Objectives: Pivotal trials for neurologic drugs in clinical development are often initiated without a phase 2 trial ("bypass") or despite a negative phase 2 efficacy result ("override"). Such practices may degrade the risk/benefit ratio of phase 3 trials. The aim of this study is to estimate the proportion of phase 3 trials for 10 neurologic diseases started without a positive phase 2 trial, to identify factors associated with this practice, and to investigate any association with unfavorable phase 3 trial outcomes., Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase 3 trials completed during 2011-2021, with at least 1 research site in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, or Australia, and investigating drugs or biologics for treatment of 10 neurologic conditions. Our primary objective was to assess the prevalence of phase 2 bypass/override by searching for preceding phase 2 trials. We used Fisher exact tests to determine whether phase 3 trial characteristics and trial results were associated with phase 2 bypass/override., Results: Of the 1,188 phase 3 trials captured in our search, 113 met eligibility for inclusion. Of these, 46% were not preceded by a phase 2 trial that was positive on an efficacy endpoint (31% bypassed and 15% overrode phase 2 trial). Phase 2 bypass/override was not associated with industry funding (77% vs 89%, 95% CI 0.75-7.55, p = 0.13) or testing already approved interventions (23% vs 15%, 95% CI 0.60-5.14, p = 0.33). Overall, phase 3 trials based on phase 2 bypassed/override were statistically significantly less likely to be positive on their primary outcome (31% vs 57%, respectively, 95% CI 1.21-6.92, p = 0.01). This effect disappeared when indications characterized by nearly universal positive or negative results were excluded. Trials that bypassed/overrode phase 2 trials were not statistically significantly more likely to be terminated early because of safety or futility (29% vs 15%, respectively, 95% CI 0.15-1.18, p = 0.11) and did not show increased risk of adverse events in experimental arms (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79, vs RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.10-1.69, respectively, p = 0.65)., Discussion: Almost half of the neurologic disease phase 3 trials were initiated without the support of a positive phase 2 trial. Although our analysis does not establish harm with bypass/override, its prevalence and the scientific rationale for phase 2 trial testing favor development of criteria defining when phase 2 bypass/override is justified.

We present the motivation, experience, and learnings from a data challenge conducted at a large pharmaceutical corporation on the topic of subgroup identification. The data challenge aimed at exploring approaches to subgroup identification for future clinical trials. To mimic a realistic setting, participants had access to 4 Phase III clinical trials to derive a subgroup and predict its treatment effect on a future study not accessible to challenge participants. A total of 30 teams registered for the challenge with around 100 participants, primarily from Biostatistics organization. We outline the motivation for running the challenge, the challenge rules, and logistics. Finally, we present the results of the challenge, the participant feedback as well as the learnings. We also present our view on the implications of the results on exploratory analyses related to treatment effect heterogeneity., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In recently conducted phase III trials in a rare disease area, patients received monthly treatment at a high dose of the drug, which targets to lower a specific biomarker level, closely associated with the efficacy endpoint, to around 10% across patients. Although this high dose demonstrated strong efficacy, treatments were withheld due to the reports of serious adverse events. Dosing in these studies were later resumed at a reduced dosage which targets to lower the biomarker level to 15%-35% across patients. Two questions arose after this disruption. The first is whether the efficacy of this revised regimen as measured by the reduction in annualized event rate is adequate to support the continuation of the development and the second is whether the potential bias due to the loss of patients during this dosing gap process can be gauged. To address these questions, we built a prediction model that quantitatively characterizes biomarker vs. endpoint relationship and predicts efficacy at the 15%-35% range of the biomarker level using the available data from the original high dose. This model predicts favorable event rate in the target biomarker level and shows that the bias due to the loss of patients is limited. These results support the continued development of the revised regimen, however, given the limitation of the data available, this prediction is planned to be validated further when data under the revised regimen become available., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Project Optimus with the aim of shifting the paradigm of dose-finding and selection toward identifying the optimal biological dose that offers the best balance between benefit and risk, rather than the maximum tolerated dose. However, achieving dose optimization is a challenging task that involves a variety of factors and is considerably more complicated than identifying the maximum tolerated dose, both in terms of design and implementation. This article provides a comprehensive review of various design strategies for dose-optimization trials, including phase 1/2 and 2/3 designs, and highlights their respective advantages and disadvantages. In addition, practical considerations for selecting an appropriate design and planning and executing the trial are discussed. The article also presents freely available software tools that can be utilized for designing and implementing dose-optimization trials. The approaches and their implementation are illustrated through real-world examples., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Since the 1950s, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have served as the gold standard for confirming the benefits of a new drug. Accordingly, phase 3 trials, the last steps in the evaluation process for a new drug, have been recommended to all be RCTs. Nevertheless, single-arm phase 3 trials still appear to be in use., Methods: We performed a PubMed search to identify the use of a single-arm design in phase 3 trials, excluding only non-English articles. Three categories were distinguished: past use of an RCT, of any other trial design, or no previous trial; and according to diagnosis (oncology, infection, others)., Results: A total of 176 single-arm phase 3 trials (19 oncology, 43 infections and 114 others) were identified by the search, with exponential growth since 1994, in parallel with that of RCTs. Among them, 64 (36%) were preceded by an RCT, 58 (33%) by a non-randomized trial, and 54 (31%) had no previous trial, with no main influence of the diagnosis setting. Justification of the design was reported in 30 (18%) of those trials, with ethical concerns comprising one-third of those justifications. This was similar in the 14 single-arm phase 2-3 trials, with about one-third in each group, and 17% justification of a non-comparative design., Conclusion: The use of a single-arm phase 3 trial is heterogeneous, ranging from first trials up to confirmatory trials after a previously conducted RCT. Justification for these single-arm designs as confirmatory evidence should be more clearly reported, along with potential sources of bias., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Common statistical theory applicable to confirmatory phase III trial designs usually assumes that patients are enrolled simultaneously and there is no time gap between enrollment and outcome observation. However, in practice, patients are enrolled successively and there is a lag between the enrollment of a patient and the measurement of the primary outcome. For single-stage designs, the difference between theory and practice only impacts on the trial duration but not on the statistical analysis and its interpretation. For designs with interim analyses, however, the number of patients already enrolled into the trial and the number of patients with available outcome measurements differ, which can cause issues regarding the statistical analyses of the data. The main issue is that current methodologies either imply that at the time of the interim analysis there are so-called pipeline patients whose data are not used to make a statistical decision (like stopping early for efficacy) or the enrollment into the trial needs to be at least paused for interim analysis to avoid pipeline patients. There are methods for delayed responses available that introduced error-spending stopping boundaries for the enrollment of patients followed by critical values to reject the null hypothesis in case the stopping boundaries have been crossed beforehand. Here, we will discuss other solutions, considering different boundary determination algorithms using conditional power and introducing a design allowing for recruitment restart while keeping the type I error rate controlled., (© 2024 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Vaccine efficacy (VE) assessed in a randomized controlled clinical trial can be affected by demographic, clinical, and other subject-specific characteristics evaluated as baseline covariates. Understanding the effect of covariates on efficacy is key to decisions by vaccine developers and public health authorities., Methods: This work evaluates the impact of including correlate of protection (CoP) data in logistic regression on its performance in identifying statistically and clinically significant covariates in settings typical for a vaccine phase 3 trial. The proposed approach uses CoP data and covariate data as predictors of clinical outcome (diseased versus non-diseased) and is compared to logistic regression (without CoP data) to relate vaccination status and covariate data to clinical outcome., Results: Clinical trial simulations, in which the true relationship between CoP data and clinical outcome probability is a sigmoid function, show that use of CoP data increases the positive predictive value for detection of a covariate effect. If the true relationship is characterized by a decreasing convex function, use of CoP data does not substantially change positive or negative predictive value. In either scenario, vaccine efficacy is estimated more precisely (i.e., confidence intervals are narrower) in covariate-defined subgroups if CoP data are used, implying that using CoP data increases the ability to determine clinical significance of baseline covariate effects on efficacy., Conclusions: This study proposes and evaluates a novel approach for assessing baseline demographic covariates potentially affecting VE. Results show that the proposed approach can sensitively and specifically identify potentially important covariates and provides a method for evaluating their likely clinical significance in terms of predicted impact on vaccine efficacy. It shows further that inclusion of CoP data can enable more precise VE estimation, thus enhancing study power and/or efficiency and providing even better information to support health policy and development decisions., (© 2024. Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates, Institute of Computer Science of the Czech Academy of Sciences.)

Introduction: Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-associated cirrhosis have the highest rates of major adverse liver outcomes (MALO) within the fatty liver disease spectrum and therefore have the highest unmet need for effective therapeutic agents. Several drugs are being tested for patients with NASH cirrhosis with different mechanisms of action and endpoints., Areas Covered: This article summarizes the available data on the natural history of NASH cirrhosis and the rates of developing MALO. We provide examples of ongoing clinical trials for NASH cirrhosis including the study design and endpoints. We then discuss the FDA-guidance on acceptable endpoints for NASH cirrhosis trials that will lead to approval., Expert Opinion: Metabolic and antifibrotic drugs are currently in phase 2b trials for NASH cirrhosis with outcomes ranging from histologic improvement on liver biopsy to the development of varices or MALO. We provide the readers with pragmatic advice on trial design for phase 2B and 3 NASH cirrhosis trials. The data presented in the article justify further development and investigation of therapeutic agents for the treatment of NASH cirrhosis.

Background: Only one recommendation currently exists for the treatment of Lassa fever (LF), which is ribavirin administered in conjunction with supportive care. This recommendation is primarily based on evidence generated from a single clinical trial that was conducted more than 30 years ago-the methodology and results of which have recently come under scrutiny. The requirement for novel therapeutics and reassessment of ribavirin is therefore urgent. However, a significant amount of work now needs to be undertaken to ensure that future trials for LF can be conducted consistently and reliably to facilitate the efficient generation of evidence., Methodology: We convened a consultation group to establish the position of clinicians and researchers on the core components of future trials. A Core Eligibility Criteria (CEC), Core Case Definition (CCD), Core Outcome Set (COS) and Core Data Variables (CDV) were developed through the process of a multi-stakeholder consultation that took place using a modified-Delphi methodology., Results: A consensus position was achieved for each aspect of the framework, which accounts for the inclusion of pregnant women and children in future LF clinical trials. The framework consists of 8 core criteria, as well as additional considerations for trial protocols., Conclusions: This project represents the first step towards delineating the clinical development pathway for new Lassa fever therapeutics, following a period of 40 years without advancement. Future planned projects will bolster the work initiated here to continue the advancement of LF clinical research through a regionally-centred, collaborative methodology, with the aim of delineating a clear pathway through which LF clinical trials can progress efficiently and ensure sustainable investments are made in research capacity at a regional level., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Treatment of regional lymph nodes in melanoma has been controversial for more than a century. A series of clinical trials evaluating elective lymph node dissection and then sentinel lymph node biopsy have helped define the current standard of care. These trials resulted in increasingly selective application of surgical intervention for regional lymph nodes in melanoma. First by focusing on optimal candidates for elective lymph node dissection and then by identifying patients through sentinel lymph node biopsy. The current standard of sentinel lymph node biopsy for appropriately selected patients and nodal observation for many patients, even with involved sentinel nodes is both more accurate in staging and much less morbid than what came before., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Soft-tissue sarcomas are rare tumors arising from mesenchymal tissues. As a heterogeneous group comprising more than 50 types, the development of clinical trials remains challenging. Decision-making for neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy is based on the available evidence of contemporary trials and multidisciplinary clinical judgment., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognized as important when evaluating cancer treatments. The use, reporting, and analysis of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), however, are not standardized in clinical trials and are often poorly implemented in clinical practice. We report the results of a systematic literature review (PubMed search: January 1, 2000 to August 15, 2020) of PROM use, reporting, and analysis in phase 3 clinical trials of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Further inspection of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor publications was performed to examine PROMs in the HR+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative setting. A total of 88 results were identified in the initial search; 32 were included in the final analysis. Among included studies, most (66%) had been published in the last 5 years (2015 to 2020). CDK4/6 inhibitors (38%) were the most common agents reported. No clear standard for PROM use, reporting, or analysis was found. The most common PROMs were European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30; 59%) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B; 34%). Important differences, among studies that reported them, ranged from 5 to 10 points for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and 8 points for the FACT-B total score. This review showed that a lack of clear consistency remains for PROM use, reporting, and analysis in phase 3 clinical trials of HR+ ABC. However, HRQOL is of high interest in the literature, including for CDK4/6 inhibitors., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Nearly 5% of individuals in the USA had serious thoughts of suicide in 2019 and over 30% of individuals suffering with major depressive disorder reported suicidal ideation with 2 million of those reporting suicidal ideation with some level of intent. However, options to treat depressed individuals considered at imminent risk of suicide remain limited. Until the recent approval of esketamine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder with serious suicidal thoughts or actions, no medications had been specifically evaluated for use in this population in the acute setting. This review discusses the history and the current understanding of the role of ketamine and esketamine in depression and suicidal ideation and behavior. It covers some of the pivotal studies in this field and provides a summary of their major findings. The trials of esketamine in patients with major depressive disorder with active suicidal ideation or behavior are the first large-scale trials in patients considered at imminent risk of suicide. As such, the design of these studies is by definition novel, a fact that complicates the interpretation of the data and assessment of the true clinical meaningfulness of the findings. Despite this, the findings in toto draw a consistent picture of benefits that appears to outweigh the potential risks of the treatment. The studies also serve to highlight the complexities and limitations associated with clinical trials aiming to test the ability of novel therapeutics to reduce the burden and risks in patients with suicide ideation and behavior., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease of the central nervous system (CNS) characterized by acute optic neuritis (ON) and transverse myelitis (TM). NMO is caused by a pathogenic serum IgG antibody against the water channel aquoporin 4 (AQP4) in the majority of patients. AQP4-antibody (AQP4-ab) presence is highly specific, and differentiates NMO from multiple sclerosis. It binds to AQP4 channels on astrocytes, triggering activation of the classical complement cascade, causing granulocyte, eosinophil, and lymphocyte infiltration, culminating in injury first to astrocyte, then oligodendrocytes followed by demyelination and neuronal loss. NMO spectrum disorder (NMOSD) has recently been defined and stratified based on AQP4-ab serology status. Most NMOSD patients experience severe relapses leading to permanent neurologic disability, making suppression of relapse frequency and severity, the primary objective in disease management. The most common treatments used for relapses are steroids and plasma exchange.Currently, long-term NMOSD relapse prevention includes off-label use of immunosuppressants, particularly rituximab. In the last 2 years however, three pivotal clinical trials have expanded the spectrum of drugs available for NMOSD patients. Phase III studies have shown significant relapse reduction compared to placebo in AQP4-ab-positive patients treated with satralizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6R) inhibitor, inebilizumab, an antibody against CD19 + B cells; and eculizumab, an antibody blocking the C5 component of complement. In light of the new evidence on NMOSD pathophysiology and of preliminary results from ongoing trials with new drugs, we present this descriptive review, highlighting promising treatment modalities as well as auspicious preclinical and clinical studies., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The quality and reporting of neuroendocrine tumour (NET) clinical trials has previously been found to be heterogeneous impairing trial interpretability. We aimed to perform an updated review of the quality of phase II/III clinical trials in NET to assess if trial design and reporting have improved since 2011. We performed a PubMed search for phase II/III trials evaluating systemic anticancer therapies or liver-directed therapies published between 2011 and 2018. Data collected comprised administrative data, study population characteristics, endpoints, reporting and statistical design parameters, and results. Sixty studies were included (5218 patients): 50 phase II and 10 phase III trials. Study populations were heterogeneous: 52% of trials allowed tumours from various primary sites, 28% allowed both well- and poorly-differentiated tumour morphology or did not specify, and 57% did not report proliferative indices and/or tumour grade in ≥80% of the study population. Only 36% of trials mandated radiological disease progression on participant enrolment using a validated measure. Statistical design and primary endpoint were clearly defined in 67% and 88% of trials, respectively. Toxicity (88%), radiological response rate (85%) and progression-free survival/time to progression (82%) were well reported in a majority of trials, but health-related quality of life was included in the minority. Of the randomised trials (n = 11), study populations were more homogeneous and study design was more often clearly defined; however, only 45% mandated radiological progression at baseline as measured per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours, and reporting of health-related quality of life (55%) remained suboptimal. The design and reporting of NET clinical trials, predominantly of single-arm phase II trials, remains suboptimal and has not considerably improved over time despite the growth in our knowledge of the biology and unique characteristics of NETs. Higher quality is seen in randomised trials, although certain design and reporting elements remain inadequate in some studies. We must prioritise the design and conduct of NET clinical trials to effectively inform future research and guide practice change., (© 2021 British Society for Neuroendocrinology.)

Stress and low mood are powerful triggers for compulsive overeating, a maladaptive form of eating leading to negative physical and mental health consequences. Stress-vulnerable individuals, such as people with obesity, are particularly prone to overconsumption of high energy foods and may use it as a coping mechanism for general life stressors. Recent advances in the treatment of obesity and related co-morbidities have focused on the therapeutic potential of anorexigenic gut hormones, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), which acts both peripherally and centrally to reduce energy intake. Besides its appetite suppressing effect, GLP-1 acts on areas of the brain involved in stress response and emotion regulation. However, the role of GLP-1 in emotion and stress regulation, and whether it is a viable treatment for stress-induced compulsive overeating, has yet to be established. A thorough review of the pre-clinical literature measuring markers of stress, anxiety and mood after GLP-1 exposure points to potential divergent effects based on temporality. Specifically, acute GLP-1 injection consistently stimulates the physiological stress response in rodents whereas long-term exposure indicates anxiolytic and anti-depressive benefits. However, the limited clinical evidence is not as clear cut. While prolonged GLP-1 analogue treatment in people with type 2 diabetes improved measures of mood and general psychological wellbeing, the mechanisms underlying this may be confounded by associated weight loss and improved blood glucose control. There is a paucity of longitudinal clinical literature on mechanistic pathways by which stress influences eating behavior and how centrally-acting gut hormones such as GLP-1, can modify these. (250)., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Several vaccine candidates have been developed using different platforms, including nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), viral vectors (replicating and non-replicating), virus-like particles, peptide-based, recombinant proteins, live attenuated, and inactivated virus modalities. Although many of these vaccines are undergoing pre-clinical trials, several large clinical trials investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have produced promising findings., Areas Covered: In this review, we provide a status update on COVID-19 vaccines currently undergoing clinical trials and discuss issues of concern beyond vaccine efficacy and safety, including dosing regimens, the mixed vaccine strategy, prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection, antibody levels, cellular immunity and protection, variants of concern, COVID-19 vaccine distribution, vaccination willingness, herd immunity, immunity passports, and vaccine indications., Expert Opinion: Four vaccines have obtained emergency use authorization, 87 are at the clinical development stage, and 186 are in pre-clinical development. While the knowledge and development of COVID-19 vaccines is rapidly expanding, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines must outweigh the potential risks of adverse events. To combat the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians should consistently update COVID-19-associated information, and healthcare authorities and manufacturers should work together to provide adequate and appropriate vaccinations for the prevention of COVID-19., Plain Language Summary: What is the context? Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a global pandemic: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. The development and implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine could be an important measure to control the COVID-19 pandemic. What is new? Several phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Several COVID-19 vaccines have obtained emergency use authorization and been implemented in many countries. Although concerns regarding unusual blood clots and low platelet counts have been raised, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the potential risks of adverse events. What is the impact? Except for children, the COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for all people, including those pregnant or immunocompromised. Healthcare authorities should advise people receiving the vaccine that they must seek medical attention if they have associated thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia symptoms. More studies are necessary to determine the appropriate vaccine dose and regimen strategy, as well as the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against variants of concerns. A global effort must be made to achieve widespread vaccination and herd immunity.

Multiple candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, and several have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. At some point after demonstration of substantial efficacy, placebo recipients should be offered the efficacious vaccine from their trial, which will occur before longer-term efficacy and safety are known. The absence of a placebo group could compromise assessment of longer-term vaccine effects. However, by continuing follow-up after vaccination of the placebo group, this study shows that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be mathematically derived by assuming that the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the original placebo recipients after their vaccination. Although this derivation provides less precise estimates than would be obtained by a standard trial where the placebo group remains unvaccinated, this proposed approach allows estimation of longer-term effect, including durability of vaccine efficacy and whether the vaccine eventually becomes harmful for some. Deferred vaccination, if done open-label, may lead to riskier behavior in the unblinded original vaccine group, confounding estimates of long-term vaccine efficacy. Hence, deferred vaccination via blinded crossover, where the vaccine group receives placebo and vice versa, would be the preferred way to assess vaccine durability and potential delayed harm. Deferred vaccination allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain them on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunologic and clinical effectiveness over time.

Viloxazine (QELBREE ™ ), a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is being developed by Supernus Pharmaceuticals as a non-stimulant for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in pediatric and adult patients. This is a novel formulation of a pharmacological agent formerly marketed in Europe for the treatment of depression in adults. Viloxazine received its first pediatric approval in April 2021 in the USA for the treatment of ADHD in pediatric patients aged 6-17 years. Approval was based on positive results from a series of short-term phase III clinical trials in which viloxazine improved the severity of ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents with diagnosed ADHD. Viloxazine is available as extended-release capsules for once-daily oral administration. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of viloxazine leading to this first pediatric approval for ADHD., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Mirabegron (MYRBETRIQ ® ), a beta-3 adrenergic agonist developed by Astellas Pharma Inc., is well established as a treatment for overactive bladder in adults and is available as extended-release (ER) tablets administered once daily. More recently, mirabegron has been investigated in pediatric patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) and received its first approval in this indication in pediatric patients aged ≥ 3 years on 25 March 2021 in the USA. In addition to mirabegron ER tablets (which can be used in pediatric patients weighing ≥ 35 kg), mirabegron is available as an ER oral suspension (MYRBETRIQ ® Granules) for pediatric patients; in those weighing < 35 kg, only the ER oral suspension formulation should be used. The ER tablet and ER oral suspension formulations are not substitutable on a mg-by-mg basis. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of mirabegron for NDO leading to this pediatric first approval., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Severe asthma is associated with a broad range of phenotypes and clinical characteristics. This analysis assessed whether select baseline patient characteristics could prognosticate mepolizumab efficacy in severe eosinophilic asthma., Methods: This was a post hoc meta-analysis of data from the Phase III MENSA (NCT01691521/MEA115588) and MUSCA (NCT02281318/200862) studies. Patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of exacerbations were randomised to receive placebo (MENSA/MUSCA), mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously (MENSA) or 100 mg subcutaneously (SC) (MENSA/MUSCA) every 4 weeks for 32 (MENSA) or 24 (MUSCA) weeks. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations; other outcomes included the proportion of patients with no exacerbations and changes from baseline in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score. Analyses were performed by baseline age of asthma onset (< 18 years; 18-40 years; ≥ 40 years); lung function (% predicted FEV 1  ≤ 60; 60-80; > 80); airway reversibility (reversible [≥ 12% change in FEV 1 ]; non-reversible [< 12% change in FEV 1 ]); perennial and/or seasonal allergen sensitivity (yes/no); asthma control (uncontrolled [ACQ-5 score ≥ 1.5]; partial/complete control [ACQ-5 score < 1.5])., Results: Overall, 936 patients received mepolizumab 100 mg SC or placebo. Across age at asthma onset, lung function and airway reversibility subgroups, mepolizumab reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations by 49-63% versus placebo. Improvements in lung function, SGRQ total score and ACQ-5 score were also seen with mepolizumab versus placebo across most age and lung function subgroups. Clinically significant exacerbations were reduced with mepolizumab versus placebo irrespective of season or allergen sensitivity; SGRQ total and ACQ-5 scores were generally improved across seasons., Conclusions: Mepolizumab efficacy was consistent for patients with varying age at asthma onset, lung function, airway reversibility and allergen sensitivities at baseline. Our results indicate that mepolizumab is likely to be beneficial for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with a broad range of baseline clinical characteristics; large-scale real-world studies are needed to confirm the external validity of these findings. Trial registration Post hoc meta-analysis of data from MENSA (NCT01691521/MEA115588) and MUSCA (NCT02281318/200862).

Surrogate endpoints are being used more frequently in randomized controlled trials, even though they do not consistently corelate with patient outcomes. We systemically evaluated the use of surrogate endpoints in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials over the past 15 years. We searched three databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane) for multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2005 to December 30, 2019. The primary outcome of our study was the proportion of randomized controlled trials that used overall survival as their primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included the use of surrogate endpoints, and trends over time, and whether they differed based on study sponsorship. We included 151 randomized controlled trials in our analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in 17 (11.3%) of studies, progression free survival (PFS) or event-defined endpoints in 91 studies (60.3%) and response-based endpoints in 44 studies (29.1%). Quality of life was a primary endpoint in only three studies (2%). The use of OS as a primary endpoint decreased from 28.5% of trials from 2005 to 2009 to 5.5% from 2015 to 2019. There has been a decrease in the clinically meaningful endpoint of OS over the past 15 years in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials. Use of quality of life as a primary endpoint remains exceedingly low. It remains paramount to recognize that the use of surrogate endpoints is imperfect, and care based upon them requires constant physician and patient re-analysis., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: An ibuprofen (IBU)/acetaminophen (APAP) fixed-dose combination (FDC) for over-the-counter (OTC) use was developed with the goal of providing the same effective analgesic activity as full doses of the individual monocomponents, while reducing individual monocomponent drug exposures. Here, the safety and tolerability of the FDC is characterized using pooled safety data from phase 1-3 clinical trials in the FDC development program., Methods: We conducted a pooled safety analysis of data from 7 clinical trials: three phase 1 pharmacokinetic trials, a phase 2 proof-of-concept trial, and three phase 3 trials (a single- and a multiple-dose trial in a dental pain model and a single-dose trial in an induced-fever model). Safety and tolerability of the FDC were assessed by adverse events (AEs) for the total group and subgroups (age, sex, race)., Results: A total of 1,477 participants were enrolled in the 7 trials; 715 were treated with FDC IBU/APAP, 432 with IBU monotherapy, 330 with APAP monotherapy, and 156 with placebo. Most subjects were white (86.5%), and 44% were female. Two trials enrolling 195 adolescents accounted for 13.2% of the overall study population. All-causality treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 19.7% of the 1477 participants. Nausea (13.5%), vomiting (7.4%), dizziness (4.5%), headache (1.2%), and feeling hot (1.0%) were the only TEAEs reported in ≥1% of subjects. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 1.8% of the subjects in the overall population. The incidence of AEs, including treatment-related AEs, was consistently lower in all active treatment groups than in the placebo group; this also applied to subgroups according to sex, race, and age, including adolescents aged 12-17 years. The higher rate of AEs with placebo was likely due to lack of pain/fever control., Conclusion: Single-dose or short-course FDC IBU/APAP OTC use was well tolerated, with an AE profile similar to its IBU and APAP monocomponents., Clinicaltrials.gov Registration: NCT01559259; NCT02912650; NCT02837952; NCT02761980. The pharmacokinetic studies (n = 3) did not require registration.

Competing Interests: I report personal fees and non-financial support from Real Appeal, Boeringer Ingelheim, Epitommee, Novo Nordisk, Bausch Health, Janssen, Naturally Slim, ReDesign Health, IFA Celtic, and Sanofi; personal fees from Alyvent, Roman, and Pfizer; and equity in lieu of cash compensation for services from Gila Therapeutics, Xeno Bioscience, Scientific Intake, Epitommee, ReDesign Health, and Phenomix.

The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to the focused application of resources and scientific expertise toward the goal of developing investigational vaccines to prevent COVID-19. The highly collaborative global efforts by private industry, governments and non-governmental organizations have resulted in a number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates moving to Phase III trials in a period of only months since the start of the pandemic. In this review, we provide an overview of the preclinical and clinical data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that are currently in Phase III clinical trials and in few cases authorized for emergency use. We further discuss relevant vaccine platforms and provide a discussion of SARS-CoV-2 antigens that may be targeted to increase the breadth and durability of vaccine responses., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inclisiran is a double-stranded small interfering RNA that suppresses proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) translation in the liver, leading to sustained reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and other atherogenic lipoproteins with twice-yearly dosing., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to conduct a patient-level pooled analysis from 3 phase 3 studies of inclisiran., Methods: Participants with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (ORION-9 [Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Inclisiran Treatment on Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) in Subjects With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia (HeFH)]), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (ORION-10 [Inclisiran for Participants With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Elevated Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol]), or ASCVD and ASCVD risk equivalents (ORION-11 [Inclisiran for Subjects With ASCVD or ASCVD-Risk Equivalents and Elevated Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol]) taking maximally tolerated statin therapy, with or without other LDL-C-lowering agents, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either inclisiran or placebo, administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1, day 90, and every 6 months thereafter for 540 days. The coprimary endpoints were the placebo-corrected percentage change in LDL-C level from baseline to day 510 and the time-adjusted percentage change in LDL-C level from baseline after day 90 to day 540. Levels of other atherogenic lipoproteins and treatment-emergent adverse events were also assessed., Results: A total of 3,660 participants (n = 482, n = 1,561, and n = 1,617 from ORION-9, -10, and -11, respectively) underwent randomization. The placebo-corrected change in LDL-C with inclisiran at day 510 was -50.7% (95% confidence interval: -52.9% to -48.4%; p < 0.0001). The corresponding time-adjusted change in LDL-C was -50.5% (95% confidence interval: -52.1% to -48.9%; p < 0.0001). Safety was similar in both groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events at the injection site were more frequent with inclisiran than placebo (5.0% vs. 0.7%), but were predominantly mild, and none were severe or persistent. Liver and kidney function tests, creatine kinase values, and platelet counts did not differ between groups., Conclusions: These pooled safety and efficacy data show that inclisiran, given twice yearly in addition to maximally tolerated statin therapy with or without other LDL-C lowering agents, is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment to lower LDL-C in adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, ASCVD, or ASCVD risk equivalents., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The analyses presented here were funded by Novartis Pharma AG. Statistical analysis was carried out by Summit Analytical, with funding from Novartis Pharma AG, Basel. Dr. Wright has received support from the Mayo Clinic and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) contract 75A50120C00096; has received fees for serving on steering committees from Boehringer Ingelheim and The Medicines Company; and has nonfinancial conflicts with AstraZeneca and Novartis. Dr. Ray has received support from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre; has received lecture fees from Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Kowa, Cipla, Algorithm, and Zuelling Pharma; has received grant support, paid to his institution, lecture fees, and advisory board fees from Amgen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals/Sanofi, and Pfizer; has received lecture fees and fees for serving on steering committees for trials from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly; has received fees for serving on steering committees for trials from Cerenis Therapeutics, The Medicines Company, and Esperion; has received advisory board fees from Akcea Therapeutics, Novartis, Silence Therapeutics, Bayer, and Daiichi-Sankyo; has received lecture fees and advisory board fees from Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories; has received grant support and advisory board fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; has received fees for serving on a clinical events adjudication committee from AbbVie; and has received fees for serving as principal investigator for a trial from Resverlogix. Dr. Raal has received advisory board fees and lecture fees from Amgen, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Kallend was employed by and held stock options in The Medicines Company at the time of study; and was employed by DalCor Pharmaceuticals at the time of publication. Dr. Jaros has received fees for providing statistical analysis for trials from The Medicines Company and Novartis. Dr. Koenig has received consulting fees and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Amgen; has received consulting fees from Pfizer, The Medicines Company, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Kowa, Corvidia Therapeutics, and Daiichi-Sankyo; has received lecture fees from Berlin-Chemie, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi; and has received grant support and provision of reagents from Singulex, Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and Dr. Beckmann Pharma. Dr. Leiter has received grant support paid to his institution, advisory board fees, and fees for CME from Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals/Sanofi; has received fees for serving on a steering committee from Esperion; has received grant support paid to his institution and fees for serving on a steering committee from Kowa, The Medicines Company, and Novartis; has received advisory board fees and fees for CME from Merck; and has received advisory board fees from HLS Therapeutics. Dr. Landmesser has received lecture fees and advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Sanofi, Berlin Chemie, Novartis, and Abbott; has received advisory fees from The Medicines Company; and has received grant support, lecture fees, and advisory fees from Bayer. Dr. Schwartz has received research support, paid to his institution, from AstraZeneca, Resverlogix, Roche, and The Medicines Company; and has a patent (62/806313) on a method for reducing cardiovascular risk assigned in full to the University of Colorado. Dr. Friedman was employed by and held shares and stock options in The Medicines Company at the time of the study; and was employed by Novartis at the time of publication. Dr. Wijngaard was employed by and held shares and stock options in The Medicines Company at the time of the study; and was employed by and held shares and stock options in Novartis at the time of publication. Dr. Kastelein has received consulting fees from Akcea Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, CiVi Biopharma, Corvidia Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Draupnir Bio, Esperion, Gemphire Therapeutics, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Matinas BioPharma, NorthSea Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, REGENXBIO, Staten Biotechnology, and 89bio. Dr. Garcia Conde was employed by Novartis at the the time of publication., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Although the discovery and characterization of multiple tumor antigens have sparked the development of many antigen/derived cancer vaccines, many are poorly immunogenic and thus, lack clinical efficacy. Adjuvants are therefore incorporated into vaccine formulations to trigger strong and long-lasting immune responses. Adjuvants have generally been classified into two categories: those that 'depot' antigens (e.g. mineral salts such as aluminum hydroxide, emulsions, liposomes) and those that act as immunostimulants (Toll Like Receptor agonists, saponins, cytokines). In addition, several novel technologies using vector-based delivery of antigens have been used. Unfortunately, the immune system declines with age, a phenomenon known as immunosenescence, and this is characterized by functional changes in both innate and adaptive cellular immunity systems as well as in lymph node architecture. While many of the immune functions decline over time, others paradoxically increase. Indeed, aging is known to be associated with a low level of chronic inflammation-inflamm-aging. Given that the median age of cancer diagnosis is 66 years and that immunotherapeutic interventions such as cancer vaccines are currently given in combination with or after other forms of treatments which themselves have immune-modulating potential such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the choice of adjuvants requires careful consideration in order to achieve the maximum immune response in a compromised environment. In addition, more clinical trials need to be performed to carefully assess how less conventional form of immune adjuvants, such as exercise, diet and psychological care which have all be shown to influence immune responses can be incorporated to improve the efficacy of cancer vaccines. In this review, adjuvants will be discussed with respect to the above-mentioned important elements., Competing Interests: SMa is the Chief Development Officer at Ultimovacs AB, a company that develops cancer vaccines and holds patent applications within the field of cancer vaccines. SMa is also the founder of Immuneed AB and Vivologica AB. AP is the Chief Executive Officer of multimmune GmbH, a company that develops cancer “theranostics” based on tumor expression of membrane Hsp70. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Cuzzubbo, Mangsbo, Nagarajan, Habra, Pockley and McArdle.)

Background: Which patients should receive dual therapy as initial treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is only loosely defined. We evaluated if a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) identifies a population more likely to benefit from dual therapy than monotherapy among group B COPD patients in whom Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GOLD) recommends monotherapy as initial treatment., Methods: This was a patient-level pooled analysis of phase-3 randomized controlled trials involving dual bronchodilators. Study patients were classified into two groups based on the FEV 1 of 50% of the predicted value (GOLD I/II versus GOLD III/IV). We evaluated the efficacy of dual versus monotherapy (long-acting beta-2 agonist [LABA] or long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) between these two groups in the following outcomes: changes in trough FEV 1 , the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, the proportion of SGRQ responders, time to first exacerbation, and risk of adverse events., Results: A total of 14,449 group B patients from 12 studies were divided into GOLD III/IV (n = 8043) or GOLD I/II group (n = 6406). In the GOLD III/IV group, dual therapy was significantly more effective in improving FEV 1 , reducing SGRQ scores, and achieving a higher proportion of SGRQ responders compared with either LABA or LAMA. Dual therapy also showed a significantly longer time to first exacerbation compared with LABA in the GOLD III/IV group. In contrast, in the GOLD I/II group, the benefits of dual therapy over monotherapy were less consistent. Although dual therapy resulted in significantly higher FEV 1 than either LABA or LAMA, it did not show significant differences in the SGRQ score and proportion of SGRQ responders as compared with LABA. The time to first exacerbation was also not significantly different between dual therapy and either LABA or LAMA in the GOLD I/II group., Conclusions: Dual therapy demonstrated benefits over monotherapy more consistently in patients with lower FEV 1 than those with higher FEV 1 .

Several vaccine candidates to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered or will soon enter large-scale, phase 3, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. To facilitate harmonized evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines, a general set of clinical endpoints is proposed, along with considerations to guide the selection of the primary endpoints on the basis of clinical and statistical reasoning. The plausibility that vaccine protection against symptomatic COVID-19 could be accompanied by a shift toward more SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic is highlighted, as well as the potential implications of such a shift.

Background: The National Cancer Institute Moonshot research initiative calls for improvements in the analysis and reporting of treatment toxicity to advise key stakeholders on treatment tolerability and inform regulatory and clinical decision making. This study illustrates alternative approaches to toxicity evaluation using the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project R-04 clinical trial as an example., Methods: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project R-04 was a neoadjuvant chemoradiation trial in stage II-III rectal cancer patients. A 2 x 2 factorial design was used to evaluate whether the addition of oxaliplatin (Oxa) to 5-fluorouracil (5FU) or capecitabine (Cape) with radiation therapy improved local-regional tumor control. The toxicity index (TI), which accounts for the frequency and severity of toxicities, was compared across treatments using multivariable probabilistic index models, where Pr A < B indicates the probability that higher values of TI were observed for A when compared with B. Baseline age, sex, performance status, body mass index, surgery type, and stage were evaluated as independent risk factors., Results: A total of 4560 toxicities from 1558 patients were analyzed. Results from adjusted probabilistic index models indicate that oxaliplatin-containing regimens had statistically significant (P < .001) probability (Pr) for higher TI compared with regimens without oxaliplatin (Pr 5FU < 5FU + Oxa = 0.619, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.560 to 0.674; Pr 5FU < Cape + Oxa = 0.627, 95% CI = 0.568 to 0.682; Pr Cape < 5FU + Oxa = 0.587, 95% 0.527 to 0.644; and Pr Cape < Cape + Oxa = 0.596, 95% 0.536 to 0.653). When compared with other existing toxicity analysis methods, TI provided greater power to detect differences between treatments., Conclusions: This article uses standard data collected in a cancer clinical trial to introduce descriptive and analytic methods that account for the additional burden of multiple toxicities. These methods may provide a more accurate description of a patient's treatment experience that could lead to individualized dosing for better toxicity control. Future research will evaluate the generalizability of these findings in trials with similar drugs., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: More than 95% of recent cancer randomized controlled trials used the log-rank test to detect a treatment difference making it the predominant tool for comparing two survival functions. As with other tests, the log-rank test has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that it offers the highest power against proportional hazards differences, which may be a major reason why alternative methods have rarely been employed in practice. The performance of statistical tests has traditionally been investigated both theoretically and numerically for several patterns of difference between two survival functions. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no attempt to compare the performance of various statistical tests using empirical data from past oncology randomized controlled trials. So, it is unknown whether the log-rank test offers a meaningful power advantage over alternative testing methods in contemporary cancer randomized controlled trials. Focusing on recently reported phase III cancer randomized controlled trials, we assessed whether the log-rank test gave meaningfully greater power when compared with five alternative testing methods: generalized Wilcoxon, test based on maximum of test statistics from multiple weighted log-rank tests, difference in t -year event rate, and difference in restricted mean survival time with fixed and adaptive τ ., Methods: Using manuscripts from cancer randomized controlled trials recently published in high-tier clinical journals, we reconstructed patient-level data for overall survival (69 trials) and progression-free survival (54 trials). For each trial endpoint, we estimated the empirical power of each test. Empirical power was measured as the proportion of trials for which a test would have identified a significant result ( p value < .05)., Results: For overall survival, t -year event rate offered the lowest (30.4%) empirical power and restricted mean survival time with fixed τ offered the highest (43.5%). The empirical power of the other types of tests was almost identical (36.2%-37.7%). For progression-free survival, the tests we investigated offered numerically equivalent empirical power (55.6%-61.1%). No single test consistently outperformed any other test., Conclusion: The empirical power assessment with the past cancer randomized controlled trials provided new insights on the performance of statistical tests. Although the log-rank test has been used in almost all trials, our study suggests that the log-rank test is not the only option from an empirical power perspective. Near universal use of the log-rank test is not supported by a meaningful difference in empirical power. Clinical trial investigators could consider alternative methods, beyond the log-rank test, for their primary analysis when designing a cancer randomized controlled trial. Factors other than power (e.g. interpretability of the estimated treatment effect) should garner greater consideration when selecting statistical tests for cancer randomized controlled trials.

Aim: This systematic review and random-effect model, network meta-analysis of the phase 3 trials in Japan assessed the efficacy and safety profile of lurasidone compared with olanzapine and quetiapine extended-release (QUE-XR) for the treatment of bipolar depression., Methods: The study included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials in Japan that included patients with bipolar depression. Outcomes included response rate (primary), remission rate (secondary), improvement of Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, discontinuation rates, and incidence of individual adverse events., Results: Three studies were included (n = 1223). Lurasidone and olanzapine but not QUE-XR were superior to placebo in response rate [risk ratio (95% credible interval): lurasidone = 0.78 (0.66, 0.92); olanzapine = 0.84 (0.71, 0.99); QUE-XR = 0.87 (0.73, 1.03)]. Lurasidone, olanzapine and QUE-XR were superior to placebo in remission rate [lurasidone = 0.90 (0.83, 0.98); olanzapine = 0.87 (0.77, 0.99); QUE-XR = 0.84 (0.73, 0.98)] and the improvement of MADRS total score. There were not differences in discontinuation rates between each antipsychotic and placebo. Compared with placebo, lurasidone was higher incidence of akathisia, and increased body weight and blood prolactin level; olanzapine was higher incidence of somnolence and ≥7% weight gain, and increased body weight, blood total cholesterol level, blood LDL cholesterol level, and blood triglyceride levels; QUE-XR was higher incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, somnolence, dry mouth, constipation and ≥7% weight gain, and increased body weight, blood total cholesterol level, blood LDL cholesterol level, and blood triglyceride levels., Conclusions: Our results suggested although the efficacy of three SGAs was similar, there were the differences in the safety profile among the SGAs., (© 2020 The Authors. Neuropsychopharmacology Reports published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japanese Society of Neuropsycho Pharmacology.)

Objective: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in clinical trials are typically reported for the full duration of the treatment period including titration and maintenance. Drug-related central nervous system (CNS) TEAEs are common with antiseizure medications (ASMs) and can affect drug tolerability. In this report, we test the hypothesis that drug-related CNS TEAEs have early onset and decrease with time. Unlike prior ASM clinical trials, a novel design was used for brivaracetam (BRV) without initial drug titration allowing assessment of habituation to TEAEs separate from dose titration., Methods: Data were pooled from three studies (N01252 [NCT00490035], N01253 [NCT00464269], N01358 [NCT01261325]) in adult patients (≥16 years of age) with focal seizures receiving BRV adjunctive therapy. This post hoc analysis reports data on the prevalence and incidence of all drug-related CNS TEAEs and all TEAEs over time in patients who received BRV doses of 50-200 mg/day (without titration) vs. placebo during a 12-week treatment period., Results: A total of 1262 patients received the following: placebo (n = 459), BRV 50 mg/day (n = 200), BRV 100 mg/day (n = 353), and BRV 200 mg/day (n = 250). Both the incidence (p < .0001) and prevalence (p < .0001) of drug-related CNS TEAEs (all with frequency ≥ 5%) changed across time with peak TEAEs in week 1 then significantly reducing over the first 6 weeks for prevalence and the first 3 weeks for incidence., Conclusions: Drug-related CNS TEAEs occurred early and substantially habituated over several weeks. TEAEs of ASMs might be better represented by division into early and late phases to guide clinician monitoring and patient expectations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Meador has received research support from the National Institutes of Health and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and travel support from UCB Pharma. The Epilepsy Study Consortium pays Dr. Meador's university for his research consultant time related to Eisai, GW Pharmaceuticals, NeuroPace, Novartis, Supernus, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, and UCB Pharma. C. Laloyaux, S. Elmoufti, T. Gasalla, and M. Martin are employees of UCB Pharma. J. Fishman was an employee of UCB Pharma at the time this analysis was conducted. Dr. Klein has served as a consultant for Abbott; served on medical advisory boards for Alliance and Aquestive; was a consultant for Aquestive, Eisai, SK Life Sciences, Sunovion, and UCB Pharma; a speaker for Aquestive, Eisai, Sunovion, and UCB Pharma; and has received research support from Lundbeck., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Creating an environment that supports conditions of routine clinical practice and enables an effectiveness trial design with a pre-licensed medicine is extremely challenging. Here, we summarise our experiences and achievements with engaging and mobilising community pharmacies in and around Salford, United Kingdom, in the Phase III effectiveness Salford Lung Studies (SLS)., Methods: This article provides the authors' personal experiences and viewpoints on community pharmacy involvement in the SLS., Key Findings: More than 130 community pharmacies were enabled, and >2500 pharmacy staff trained, for involvement in the SLS. Key to community pharmacy participation in the SLS was the formation of the SLS Pharmacy Steering Group (PSG), contributing to study oversight, and the development of a pharmacy standard operating procedure document, the major principle of which was to ensure minimum disruption to the normal medicine dispensing process while ensuring compliance with regulations, guidelines, good clinical practice and requirements for pharmacovigilance. The high level of commitment and collaboration of community pharmacy in the SLS demonstrated a willingness to work together and take on additional and novel roles beyond their everyday commercial functions for the benefit of patients, despite normally competing for prescription business., Conclusions: The involvement and integration of community pharmacy as a key partner in the SLS was pivotal in securing the delivery of these world-first clinical effectiveness studies. To our knowledge, this has not been previously achieved in a study of a pre-licensed maintenance therapy for a common disease in primary care., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by progressive airflow limitation and chronic inflammation. Predicting exacerbations of COPD, which contribute to disease progression, is important to guide preventative treatment and improve outcomes. Blood eosinophils are a biomarker for patient responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS); however, their effectiveness as a predictive biomarker for COPD exacerbations is unclear., Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled data from 11 Boehringer Ingelheim-sponsored Phase III and IV randomised COPD studies with similar methodologies. Exacerbation data were collected from these studies, excluding patients from the ICS withdrawal arm of the WISDOM® study. Patients were grouped according to their baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline ICS use and number of exacerbations in the year prior to each study., Results: Exacerbation rate data and baseline eosinophil count were available for 22,125 patients; 45.6% presented with a baseline blood eosinophil count of ≤ 150 cells/μL, 34.3% with 150-300 cells/μL and 20.1% with > 300 cells/μL. The lowest exacerbation rates were observed in patients with ≤ 150 cells/μL, with small increases in exacerbation rate observed with increasing eosinophil count. When stratified by exacerbation history, the annual rate of exacerbations for patients with 0 exacerbations in the previous year increased in line with increasing eosinophil counts (0.38 for ≤ 150 cells/μL, 0.39 for 150-300 cells/μL and 0.44 for > 300 cells/μL respectively). A similar trend was identified for patients with one exacerbation in the previous year, 0.62, 0.66 and 0.67 respectively. For patients with ≥ 2 exacerbations, exacerbation rates fluctuated between 1.02 (≤ 150 cells/μL) to 1.10 (150-300 cells/μL) and 1.07 (> 300 cells/μL). Higher exacerbation rates were noted in patients treated with ICS at baseline (range 0.75 to 0.82 with increasing eosinophil count) compared with patients not on ICS (range 0.45 to 0.49)., Conclusion: We found no clinically important relationship between baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate. Hence, the current analysis does not support the use of blood eosinophils to predict exacerbation risk; however, previous exacerbation history was found to be a more reliable predictor of future exacerbations., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00168844 , NCT00168831 , NCT00387088 , NCT00782210 , NCT00782509 , NCT00793624 , NCT00796653 , NCT01431274 , NCT01431287 , NCT02296138 and NCT00975195 .

In drug development, treatments are most often selected at Phase 2 for further development when an initial trial of a new treatment produces a result that is considered positive. This selection due to a positive result means, however, that an estimator of the treatment effect, which does not take account of the selection is likely to over-estimate the true treatment effect (ie, will be biased). This bias can be large and researchers may face a disappointingly lower estimated treatment effect in further trials. In this paper, we review a number of methods that have been proposed to correct for this bias and introduce three new methods. We present results from applying the various methods to two examples and consider extensions of the examples. We assess the methods with respect to bias of estimation of the treatment effect and compare the probabilities that a bias-corrected treatment effect estimate will exceed a decision threshold. Following previous work, we also compare average power for the situation where a Phase 3 trial is launched given that the bias-corrected observed Phase 2 treatment effect exceeds a launch threshold. Finally, we discuss our findings and potential application of the bias correction methods., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Considering that the efficacy results of the Japan lurasidone phase 3 trials for acute schizophrenia were inconsistent, we conducted a systematic review and a random-effect model network meta-analysis of those trials to examine whether lurasidone was beneficial for the treatment of Japanese patients with acute schizophrenia., Methods: The study included the double-blind, randomized trial in Japan that included patients with acute schizophrenia. Efficacy outcomes were improvement of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score (PANSS-T, primary), positive (PANSS-P), negative (PANSS-N), and general (PANSS-G) subscale scores; and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) score and response rate. Other outcomes were discontinuation rates and incidence of individual adverse events., Results: We included four studies (n = 1,608). Although both lurasidone 40 mg/d (LUR40) and 80 mg/d (LUR80) outperformed placebo in PANSS-T [standardized mean difference (95% credible interval): LUR40 = -0.298 (-0.420, -0.176), LUR80 = -0.170 (-0.320, -0.019)], PANSS-P, and CGI-S scores, LUR40 but not LUR80 outperformed placebo in PANSS-N and PANSS-G scores and response rate. LUR40 outperformed LUR80 regarding PANSS-G score. Both LUR40 and LUR80 were associated with a higher incidence of akathisia, somnolence, and increased body weight compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, LUR40 was associated with a higher incidence of weight gain (≥7%), and LUR80 was associated with a higher incidence of dystonia and weight loss (≥7%) and higher Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale score., Conclusions: Both LUR40 and LUR80 improved overall symptoms in Japanese patients with acute schizophrenia. However, LUR80 seemed to have a risk of extrapyramidal symptoms., (© 2020 The Authors. Neuropsychopharmacology Reports published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japanese Society of Neuropsycho Pharmacology.)

The number of people in the United States living with Alzheimer disease (AD) is growing, resulting in significant clinical and economic impact. Substantial research investment has led to drug development in stages of AD before symptomatic dementia, such as preclinical AD. Although there are no treatments approved for preclinical AD, there are currently 6 phase 3 clinical trials for preclinical AD treatments. In this article, we review these clinical trials and highlight considerations for future coverage decisions. In line with the definition of preclinical AD, enrollment in these trials focuses on cognitively unimpaired patients that are at high risk of AD because of family history and then genetic testing or brain imaging. Enrollment in most of these trials also allows for younger patients, including those aged under 65 years. Primary clinical trial endpoints focus on cognition often 4 or more years after treatment. Secondary endpoints include other measures of cognition and function, as well as biomarkers. Review of these trials brings to light a few potential considerations when covering these new medications in the future. First, novel and potentially costly approaches involving genetic testing and/or positron emission tomography imaging may be needed to identify appropriate patients and should be developed efficiently. Second, the long duration of these clinical trials suggest that there may be a need for alternative payment approaches in the United States that encourage early payers to pay for a medication for which the long-term benefits may not be realized until after the beneficiary is no longer with the health plan. Third, the value of AD treatments may differ across populations, creating a potential role for indication-based or population-based contracting. Finally, considering the potentially high budgetary impact and little real-world evidence for a new drug class, payers and manufacturers may want to consider outcomes-based payment approaches and coverage with evidence development to mitigate uncertainty about the value of the treatment demonstrated in well-defined populations in clinical trials versus more heterogeneous real-world settings. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded through a generous gift from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer Disease. Hung reports grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America outside the submitted work and past employment at CVS Health and BlueCross BlueShield Association. McClellan is an independent board member on the boards of Johnson & Johnson, Cigna, Alignment Healthcare, and Seer; co-chairs the Accountable Care Learning Collaborative and the Guiding Committee for the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network; and receives fees for serving as an advisor for Cota and MITRE. Hamilton Lopez and Schneider have nothing to disclose. Part of this work was presented at the 2019 AMCP Nexus Meeting, October 29-November 1, 2019, in National Harbor, MD.

Aim: To define the inclusion/exclusion status of patients with brain metastasis in phase-III clinical trials and the effect of systemic therapies in metastatic renal cell cancer patients with brain metastasis., Methods: "kidney neoplasms"[MeSH Terms] OR ("kidney"[All Fields] AND "neoplasms"[All Fields]) OR "kidney neoplasms"[All Fields] OR ("kidney"[All Fields] AND "cancer"[All Fields]) OR "kidney cancer"[All Fields] AND "brain metastasis" were used for searching "PubMed" electronic database and "clinicaltrials.gov" website., Results: Five of 19 landmark phase-III clinical trials included patients with stable or asymptomatic brain metastasis and there was no data about outcomes of brain metastasis. The effect of systemic therapy on prevention of brain metastasis in renal cell cancer was evaluated in four studies. Two studies showed that the incidence of brain metastasis decreased, while the other two studies showed no effect of antiangiogenic agents on the prevention of brain metastasis in patients with renal cell cancer. There were 10 trials regarding systemic therapy of renal cell cancer brain metastasis. The overall response rate improved through a combination of targeted therapies and local treatment. The results of the trials studying the effect of tyrosine kinase inhibitors without local treatment were controversial. None of the ongoing clinical trials included patients with active brain metastasis., Conclusion: In metastatic renal cell cancer patients with brain metastasis, the overall response rate improved with the combination of targeted agents and local treatment. Further trials are needed to evaluate the effect of systemic treatment on the prevention or treatment of brain metastasis in patients with renal cell cancer.