Dataset Information

Nivolumab versus placebo in patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (CONFIRM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

No 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.

Methods

This 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.

Findings

Between 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.

Interpretation

Nivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy.

Funding

Stand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

SUBMITTER: Fennell DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8560642 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mesothelioma is an incurable, apoptosis-resistant cancer caused in most cases by previous exposure to asbestos and is increasing in incidence. It represents a growing health burden but remains under-researched, with limited treatment options. Early promising signals of activity relating to both PD-L1- and PD-1-targeted treatment in mesothelioma implicate a dependency of mesothelioma on this immune checkpoint. There is a need to evaluate checkpoint inhibitors in patients with relapsed mesothelioma where treatment options are limited. METHODS:The addition of 12 months of nivolumab (anti-PD1 antibody) to standard practice will be conducted in the UK using a randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial (the Cancer Research UK CONFIRM trial). A total of 336 patients with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma who have received at least two prior lines of therapy will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients will be randomised 2:1 (nivolumab:placebo), stratified according to epithelioid/non-epithelioid, to receive either 240 mg nivolumab monotherapy or saline placebo as a 30-min intravenous infusion. Treatment will be for up to 12 months. We will determine whether the use of nivolumab increases overall survival (the primary efficacy endpoint). Secondary endpoints will include progression-free survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a Cox regression analysis for the primary endpoint (and for other time-to-event endpoints). DISCUSSION:The outcome of this trial will provide evidence of the potential benefit of the use of nivolumab in the treatment of relapsed mesothelioma. If found to be clinically effective, safe and cost-effective it is likely to become the new standard of care in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT Number: 2016-003111-35 (entered on 21 July 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03063450 . Registered on 24 February 2017.

Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Project description:BackgroundMemantine has been used off-label to treat frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD). A previous 26-week open-label study suggested a transient, modest benefit on neuropsychiatric symptoms as measured by the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI). We aimed to determine whether memantine is an effective treatment for FTD.MethodsWe did a randomised, parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 20 mg memantine taken orally daily for 26 weeks in patients with FTD. Participants met Neary criteria for behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD) or semantic dementia and had characteristic brain atrophy. Use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors was prohibited. Individuals were randomly assigned to receive either memantine or matched placebo tablets (1:1) in blocks of two and four patients. All patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were the change in total NPI score and clinical global impression of change (CGIC) score after 26 weeks and were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00545974.FindingsOf 100 patients screened, 81 were randomly assigned to receive memantine (39 patients) or placebo (42 patients). Five (6%) patients discontinued, and 76 completed the 26-week treatment. Enrolment numbers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase inhibitors off-label rather than participate in a clinical trial. Memantine treatment had no effect on either the NPI (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI -3·9 to 8·3, p=0·47) or CGIC (mean difference 0·0, -0·4 to 0·4, p=0·90) after 26 weeks of treatment. Memantine was generally well tolerated; however, patients in the memantine group had more frequent cognitive adverse events (six patients) than those in the placebo group (one).InterpretationMemantine treatment showed no benefit in patients with FTD. These data do not support memantine use in FTD.FundingForest Research Institute.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.