Project description:BackgroundImmune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is an autoimmune myopathy characterised by proximal muscle weakness, high creatine kinase (CK) values, and autoantibodies recognizing 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGCR) or the signal recognition particle (SRP). There are currently no approved therapies for IMNM and many patients experience active disease despite off-label treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, glucocorticoids, and immunosuppressants. Detection of complement-activating anti-HMGCR and anti-SRP autoantibodies and the presence of complement deposition on the sarcolemma of non-necrotic myofibers led to the hypothesis that complement activation may be pathogenic in IMNM, therefore zilucoplan, a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor, could be a potential therapy.MethodsIMNM01, a phase 2, multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT04025632) at 15 sites (four countries) evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zilucoplan in adult participants with anti-HMGCR or anti-SRP autoantibody-positive IMNM. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive daily subcutaneous zilucoplan (0·3mg/kg) or placebo for eight weeks; with optional enrolment in the study open-label extension. Primary efficacy endpoint was percent change from baseline to Week 8 in CK levels. Secondary endpoints included safety.FindingsBetween 07 November 2019 and 07 January 2021, 27 participants (13 female and 14 male) received zilucoplan (n=12) or placebo (n=15) and completed the 8-week main study. At Week 8 there were no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences, despite target engagement based on mode of action, between treatment arms in mean percent change (standard deviation) of CK levels versus baseline (-9·86% [26·06] versus -20·72% [31·22] in zilucoplan [n=10] and placebo arms [n=14], p=0·46, respectively) and no clinically relevant improvement over time within the treatment arm. There were no unexpected adverse safety or tolerability findings. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs were reported in n=9 (75·0%) vs n=13 (86·7%) and n=0 (0%) and n=3 (20·0%) participants, respectively. The most frequent TEAEs were headache (n=4 in both groups [33·3% and 26·7%, respectively]) and nausea (n=3 in both groups [25·0% and 20·0%, respectively]).InterpretationC5 inhibition does not appear to be an effective treatment modality for IMNM. Rather than driving myofiber necrosis, complement activation may be secondary to muscle injury.FundingStudy funded by Ra Pharmaceuticals (now part of UCB Pharma).

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed COVID-19 and associated moderate-to-severe ARDS to receive either IVIG (2 g/kg over 4 days) or placebo. Random assignment was done with a web-based system and was stratified according to the participating centre and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation before inclusion in the trial (<12 h, 12-24 h, and >24-72 h), and treatment was administered within the first 96 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimise the risk of adverse events, the IVIG administration was divided into four perfusions of 0·5 g/kg each administered over at least 8 hours. Patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of sodium chloride 0·9% (10 mL/kg) over the same period. The primary outcome was the number of ventilation-free days by day 28, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350580.FindingsBetween April 3, and October 20, 2020, 146 patients (43 [29%] women) were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned: 69 (47%) patients to the IVIG group and 77 (53%) to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistical difference in the median number of ventilation-free days at day 28 between the IVIG group (0·0 [IQR 0·0-8·0]) and the placebo group (0·0 [0·0-6·0]; difference estimate 0·0 [0·0-0·0]; p=0·21). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the IVIG group (78 events in 22 [32%] patients) than in the placebo group (47 events in 15 [20%] patients; p=0·089).InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS, IVIG did not improve clinical outcomes at day 28 and tended to be associated with an increased frequency of serious adverse events, although not significant. The effect of IVIGs on earlier disease stages of COVID-19 should be assessed in future trials.FundingProgramme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.

Project description:BackgroundNo phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients.MethodsThis was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450.FindingsBetween May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group.InterpretationNivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy.FundingStand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Project description:BackgroundIsocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations occur in approximately 13% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, a relatively uncommon cancer with a poor clinical outcome. The aim of this international phase 3 study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ivosidenib (AG-120)-a small-molecule targeted inhibitor of mutated IDH1-in patients with previously treated IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma.MethodsThis multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study included patients from 49 hospitals in six countries aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, advanced, IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma who had progressed on previous therapy, and had up to two previous treatment regimens for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and a measurable lesion as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) with a block size of 6 and stratified by number of previous systemic treatment regimens for advanced disease to oral ivosidenib 500 mg or matched placebo once daily in continuous 28-day cycles, by means of an interactive web-based response system. Placebo to ivosidenib crossover was permitted on radiological progression per investigator assessment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent central review. The intention-to-treat population was used for the primary efficacy analyses. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of ivosidenib or placebo. Enrolment is complete; this study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02989857.FindingsBetween Feb 20, 2017, and Jan 31, 2019, 230 patients were assessed for eligibility, and as of the Jan 31, 2019 data cutoff date, 185 patients were randomly assigned to ivosidenib (n=124) or placebo (n=61). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 6·9 months (IQR 2·8-10·9). Progression-free survival was significantly improved with ivosidenib compared with placebo (median 2·7 months [95% CI 1·6-4·2] vs 1·4 months [1·4-1·6]; hazard ratio 0·37; 95% CI 0·25-0·54; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event in both treatment groups was ascites (four [7%] of 59 patients receiving placebo and nine [7%] of 121 patients receiving ivosidenib). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (30%) of 121 patients receiving ivosidenib and 13 (22%) of 59 patients receiving placebo. There were no treatment-related deaths.InterpretationProgression-free survival was significantly improved with ivosidenib compared with placebo, and ivosidenib was well tolerated. This study shows the clinical benefit of targeting IDH1 mutations in advanced, IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma.FundingAgios Pharmaceuticals.

Project description:BackgroundLithium has neuroprotective effects in cell and animal models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and a small pilot study in patients with ALS showed a significant effect of lithium on survival. We aimed to assess whether lithium improves survival in patients with ALS.MethodsThe lithium carbonate in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (LiCALS) trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral lithium taken daily for 18 months in patients with ALS. Patients aged at least 18 years who had ALS according to the revised El Escorial criteria, had disease duration between 6 and 36 months, and were taking riluzole were recruited from ten centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either lithium or matched placebo tablets. Randomisation was via an online system done at the level of the individual by block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes, stratified by study centre and site of disease onset (limb or bulbar). All patients and assessing study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the rate of survival at 18 months and was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with Eudract, number 2008-006891-31.FindingsBetween May 26, 2009, and Nov 10, 2011, 243 patients were screened, 214 of whom were randomly assigned to receive lithium (107 patients) or placebo (107 patients). Two patients discontinued treatment and one died before the target therapeutic lithium concentration could be achieved. 63 (59%) of 107 patients in the placebo group and 54 (50%) of 107 patients in the lithium group were alive at 18 months. The survival functions did not differ significantly between groups (Mantel-Cox log-rank χ(2) on 1 df=1·64; p=0·20). After adjusting for study centre and site of onset using logistic regression, the relative odds of survival at 18 months (lithium vs placebo) was 0·71 (95% CI 0·40-1·24). 56 patients in the placebo group and 61 in the lithium group had at least one serious adverse event.InterpretationWe found no evidence of benefit of lithium on survival in patients with ALS, but nor were there safety concerns, which had been identified in previous studies with less conventional designs. This finding emphasises the importance of pursuing adequately powered trials with clear endpoints when testing new treatments.FundingThe Motor Neurone Disease Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Project description:BackgroundIron from haemolysed blood is implicated in secondary injury after intracerebral haemorrhage. We aimed to assess the safety of the iron chelator deferoxamine mesylate in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage and to establish whether the drug merits investigation in a phase 3 trial.MethodsWe did a multicentre, futility-design, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial at 40 hospitals in Canada and the USA. Adults aged 18-80 years with primary, spontaneous, supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive deferoxamine mesylate (32 mg/kg per day) or placebo (saline) infusions for 3 consecutive days within 24 h of haemorrhage onset. Randomisation was done via a web-based trial-management system centrally in real time, and treatment allocation was concealed from both participants and investigators. The primary outcome was good clinical outcome, which was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at day 90. We did a futility analysis: if the 90% upper confidence bound of the absolute risk difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants with a good clinical outcome was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, then to move to a phase 3 efficacy trial would be futile. Primary outcome and safety data were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, comprising only participants in whom the study infusions were initiated. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02175225, and is completed.FindingsWe recruited 294 participants between Nov 23, 2014, and Nov 10, 2017. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of 144 patients assigned to the deferoxamine mesylate group and 147 assigned to the placebo group. At day 90, among patients with available data for the primary outcome, 48 (34%) of 140 participants in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 47 (33%) of 143 patients in the placebo group, had modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-2 (adjusted absolute risk difference 0·6% [90% upper confidence bound 6·8%]). By day 90, 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) of 144 patients in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 78 serious adverse events were reported in 49 (33%) of 147 patients in the placebo group. Ten (7%) participants in the deferoxamine mesylate and 11 (7%) in the placebo group died. None of the deaths were judged to be treatment related.InterpretationDeferoxamine mesylate was safe. However, the primary result showed that further study of the efficacy of deferoxamine mesylate with anticipation that the drug would significantly improve the chance of good clinical outcome (ie, mRS score of 0-2) at day 90 would be futile.FundingUS National Institutes of Health and US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Dataset Information

Nebulised heparin for patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets