Adaptive Platform Trial Research Articles

CTNI-60. SAFETY LEAD-IN RESULTS FOR QBS10072S IN THE INDIVIDUAL SCREENING TRIAL OF INNOVATIVE GLIOBLASTOMA THERAPY (INSIGHT) TRIAL, A RANDOMIZED ADAPTIVE PLATFORM TRIAL FOR NEWLY DIAGNOSED MGMT UNMETHYLATED GLIOBLASTOMA

Abstract BACKGROUND QBS10072S, is a L-type amino acid transporter 1 (LAT-1) targeted alkylating agent that utilizes LAT1 as both a transport and targeting mechanism. QBS10072S can cross the blood-brain barrier, exhibits potential for cytotoxicity with a mechanism distinct from temozolomide and has low off-target effects. QBS10072S is being evaluated in the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial (NCT02977780), a randomized phase 2 adaptive multi-arm platform trial. METHODS Adult patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma are eligible for INSIGhT. Since there is no safety data available for QBS10072S in combination with radiotherapy, a safety lead-in evaluation was conducted utilizing a 3 + 3 design. Starting dose for QBS10072S was 12mg/m2 in combination with radiation therapy and adjuvantly as monotherapy in 28 day cycles. Patients were monitored for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) to identify the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). RESULTS Nine patients were enrolled December 2022 to October 2023 for safety lead-in testing, and median age was 57 years (41-67) with 6 (66%) males, 6 (66%) patients with gross total resection, and median KPS 90 (range 80-100). Pharmacokinetic studies indicated that drug exposure was lower than prior studies, and three patients received 12mg/m2, 15mg/m2, and 18mg/m2, respectively, per dose escalation protocol. No DLTs nor adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation were reported during the evaluation period. Four patients had possible treatment-related CTCAE grade ≥ 3 toxicity including lymphopenia (n=3) and fatigue (n=1). The RP2D was determined to be 18mg/m2. Seven patients were discontinued from study treatment due to progressive disease and two patients remain on treatment. CONCLUSION QBS10072S, concurrent and adjuvant to radiation therapy, was well-tolerated in patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated MGMT glioblastoma. QBS10072S 18mg/m2 is being evaluated as a treatment arm in phase 2 testing in the ongoing INSIGhT trial.

Lessons from the HEALEY adaptive platform trial in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Lessons from the HEALEY adaptive platform trial in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The Platform trial In COVID-19 vaccine priming and BOOsting (PICOBOO) booster vaccination substudy protocol

BackgroundCoronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in Australia commenced in February 2021. The first vaccines recommended for use were AZD1222 and BNT162b2, both delivered as a two-dose primary schedule. In the absence of sustained immunity following immunisation, recommendations for booster vaccination have followed. It is likely that periodic boosting will be necessary for at least some Australians, but it is unknown what the optimal booster vaccines and schedules are or for whom vaccination should be recommended.MethodsThe Platform Trial In COVID-19 priming and BOOsting (PICOBOO) is a multi-site, multi-arm, randomised, Bayesian adaptive platform trial evaluating different booster vaccine interventions in immunocompetent children and adults, stratified by their primary vaccination schedule and age. Participants are randomised to receive one of three licensed COVID-19 booster vaccines available for use in Australia. PICOBOO aims to generate evidence about the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and cross-protection of different booster vaccine strategies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants/subvariants. The protocol structure specifying PICOBOO is modular and hierarchical. We have previously published the PICOBOO core (master) protocol. Here, we detail the substudy protocol which outlines the study processes which are specific to PICOBOO participants enrolled in the booster vaccination substudy.DiscussionPICOBOO is an adaptive platform trial evaluating different COVID-19 booster vaccination strategies to generate evidence to inform immunisation practice and policy. The modular and flexible protocol structure is intended to enable investigators to respond with agility to new research questions as they arise, such as immunogenicity targeting emergent virus variants, and the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of new vaccines as they become available for use.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12622000238774; registered on 10/02/2022. Protocol V8.0_23112023.

OS09.7.A GBM AGILE PLATFORM TRIAL FOR NEWLY DIAGNOSED AND RECURRENT GBM: RESULTS OF FIRST EXPERIMENTAL ARM, REGORAFENIB

Abstract BACKGROUND GBM AGILE (NCT03970447;https://www.gcaresearch.org/research/gbm-agile) is a phase 3 Bayesian adaptive platform trial that efficiently tests multiple arms against common control, with 6 arms included to date. Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Stage 1 experimental arms are adaptively randomized against other arms. Demonstrated efficacy in stage 1 leads to fixed randomization stage 2. Stages 1 and 2 are combined for registration. Control randomization is fixed. Regorafenib, a multikinase-inhibitor, entered into GBM AGILE as the first arm and therefore was equally randomized against control. Regorafenib showed OS benefit in recurrent disease (RD) in randomized phase 2 REGOMA trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patient subtypes in GBM AGILE are newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU), RD, and—not considered for regorafenib—ND methylated (NDM). Arm indications (signatures) are combinations of subtypes. Control is temozolomide (ND) and lomustine (RD). Efficacy is assessed by OS hazard ratio(HR), arm/control. Efficacy is demonstrated when Bayesian probability of benefit (HR< 1.00) ≥ 98% (roughly analogous P-value: 0.02). Futility occurs at any monthly analysis when Bayesian predictive power (PP) is < 25% for all signatures. Follow-up continues for 12 months after arm’s accrual stops. RESULTS When PP for all 3 pre-defined signatures was < 25%, regorafenib’s accrual was stopped for futility. Regorafenib/control sample sizes were 49/51, 127/128, 176/179 for signatures NDU, RD, and both. Respective PPs: 0.138, 0.030, 0.025—none close to 0.25. Respective mean HRs: 1.26, 1.25, 1.23. Probabilities of benefit (HR< 1.00): 0.35, 0.18, 0.17. At final analysis, mean HRs were 1.07, 1.08, 1.08 with final probabilities of benefit (HR< 1.00) equal to 0.421, 0.312, 0.296—none close to 0.98. CONCLUSION GBM AGILE efficiently and compellingly addressed regorafenib’s role in GBM, in RD and NDU. These findings are germane as they fail to confirm the REGOMA results in RD. GBM AGILE continues to efficiently assess other therapies, including utilizing concurrent and previously accrued controls. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2023 SNO Annual Meeting and published in Neuro-Oncology, Volume 25, Issue Supplement_5, November 2023, Pages v97-v98.

Safety and efficacy of memantine and trazodone versus placebo for motor neuron disease (MND SMART): stage two interim analysis from the first cycle of a phase 3, multiarm, multistage, randomised, adaptive platform trial

Motor neuron disease represents a group of progressive and incurable diseases that are characterised by selective loss of motor neurons, resulting in an urgent need for rapid identification of effective disease-modifying therapies. The MND SMART trial aims to test the safety and efficacy of promising interventions efficiently and definitively against a single contemporaneous placebo control group. We now report results of the stage two interim analysis for memantine and trazodone. MND SMART is an investigator-led, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiarm, multistage, randomised, adaptive platform trial recruiting at 20 hospital centres in the UK. Individuals older than 18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of either amyotrophic lateral sclerosis classified by the revised El Escorial criteria, primary lateral sclerosis, progressive muscular atrophy, or progressive bulbar palsy, regardless of disease duration, were eligible for screening. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to receive oral trazodone 200 mg once a day, oral memantine 20 mg once a day, or matched placebo using a computer-generated minimisation algorithm delivered via a secure web-based system. Co-primary outcome measures were clinical functioning, measured by rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALSFRS-R), and survival. Comparisons were conducted in four stages, with predefined criteria for stopping at the end of stages one and two. We report interim analysis from the stage two results, which was done when 100 participants per group (excluding long survivors, defined as >8 years since diagnosis at baseline) completed a minimum of 12 months of follow-up for the candidate investigational medicinal products. The trial is registered on the European Clinical Trials Registry, 2019-000099-41, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04302870, and is ongoing. Between Feb 27, 2020, and July 24, 2023 (database lock for interim analysis two), 554 people with a motor neuron disease were randomly allocated to memantine (183 [33%]), trazodone (185 [33%]), or placebo (186 [34%]). The primary interim analysis population comprised 530 participants, of whom 175 (33%) had been allocated memantine, 175 (33%) had been allocated trazodone, and 180 (34%) had been allocated placebo. Over 12 months of follow-up, the mean rate of change per month in ALSFRS-R was -0·650 for memantine, -0·625 for trazodone, and -0·655 for placebo (memantine versus placebo estimated mean difference 0·033, one-sided 90% CI lower level -0·085; one-sided p=0·36; trazodone vs placebo: 0·065, -0·051; one-sided p=0·24). The one-sided p values were both above the significance threshold of 10%, indicating that neither memantine nor trazodone groups met the criteria for continuation. There were 483 participants with at least one adverse event (145 [77%] on placebo, 170 [91%] on memantine, and 168 [90%] on trazodone). There were 88 participants with at least one serious adverse event (37 [20%] on memantine, 27 [14%] on trazodone, and 24 [13%] on placebo). A total of 11 serious adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. There was no survival difference between comparisons, with 49 deaths in the memantine group, 52 deaths in the trazodone group, and 48 deaths in the placebo group. Neither memantine nor trazodone improved efficacy outcomes compared with placebo. This result is sufficiently powered to warrant no further testing of trazodone or memantine in motor neuron disease at the doses evaluated in this study. The multiarm multistage design shows important benefits in reducing the time, cost, and participant numbers to reach a definitive result. The Euan MacDonald Centre, MND Scotland, My Name'5 Doddie Foundation, and Baillie Gifford.

500TiP Update on GBM AGILE: A global, phase II/III adaptive platform trial to evaluate multiple regimens in newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma

500TiP Update on GBM AGILE: A global, phase II/III adaptive platform trial to evaluate multiple regimens in newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma

Favipiravir for COVID-19 in adults in the community in PRINCIPLE, an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BackgroundEvidence for the effect of favipiravir treatment of acute COVID-19 on recovery, hospital admissions and longer-term outcomes in community settings is limited. MethodsIn this multicentre. open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial participants aged ≥18 years in the community with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms lasting ≤14 days were randomised to: usual care; usual care plus favipiravir tablets (loading dose of 3600mg in divided doses on day one, then 800mg twice a day for four days); or, usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at six months was the primary longer-term outcome. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. FindingsThe primary analysis model included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive mostly COVID vaccinated participants, randomised to favipiravir (n=1829), usual care (n=3256), and other treatments (n=3726). Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the favipiravir group than usual care (estimated hazard ratio 1·23 [95% credible interval 1·14 to 1·33]), a reduction of 2·98 days [1·99 to 3·94] from 16 days in median time to self-reported recovery for favipiravir versus usual care alone. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar (estimated odds ratio 0·99 [0·61 to 1·61]; estimated difference 0% [-0·9% to 0·6%]). 14 serious adverse events occurred in the favipiravir group and 4 in usual care. By six months, the proportion feeling fully recovered was 74·9% for favipiravir versus 71·3% for usual care (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]). InterpretationIn this open-label trial in a largely vaccinated population with COVID-19 in the community, favipiravir did not reduce hospital admissions, but shortened time to recovery and had a marginal positive impact on long term outcomes.

Analysis of Nonconcurrent Controls in Adaptive Platform Trials: Separating Randomized and Nonrandomized Information.

Adaptive platform trials allow treatments to be added or dropped during the study, meaning that the control arm may be active for longer than the experimental arms. This leads to nonconcurrent controls, which provide nonrandomized information that may increase efficiency but may introduce bias from temporal confounding and other factors. Various methods have been proposed to control confounding from nonconcurrent controls, based on adjusting for time period. We demonstrate that time adjustment is insufficient to prevent bias in some circumstances where nonconcurrent controls are present in adaptive platform trials, and we propose a more general analytical framework that accounts for nonconcurrent controls in such circumstances. We begin by defining nonconcurrent controls using the concept of a concurrently randomized cohort, which is a subgroup of participants all subject to the same randomized design. We then use cohort adjustment rather than time adjustment. Due to flexibilities in platform trials, more than one randomized design may be in force at any time, meaning that cohort-adjusted and time-adjusted analyses may be quite different. Using simulation studies, we demonstrate that time-adjusted analyses may be biased while cohort-adjusted analyses remove this bias. We also demonstrate that the cohort-adjusted analysis may be interpreted as a synthesis of randomized and indirect comparisons analogous to mixed treatment comparisons in network meta-analysis. This allows the use of network meta-analysis methodology to separate the randomized and nonrandomized components and to assess their consistency. Whenever nonconcurrent controls are used in platform trials, the separate randomized and indirect contributions to the treatment effect should bepresented.

Statistical considerations for the platform trial in COVID-19 vaccine priming and boosting

The Platform trial In COVID-19 priming and BOOsting (PICOBOO) is a multi-site, adaptive platform trial designed to generate evidence of the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and cross-protection of different booster vaccination strategies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants, specific for the Australian context. The PICOBOO trial randomises participants to receive one of three COVID-19 booster vaccine brands (Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax) available for use in Australia, where the vaccine brand subtypes vary over time according to the national vaccine roll out strategy, and employs a Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach to efficiently borrow information across consecutive booster doses, age groups and vaccine brand subtypes. Here, we briefly describe the PICOBOO trial structure and report the statistical considerations for the estimands, statistical models and decision making for trial adaptations. This paper should be read in conjunction with the PICOBOO Core Protocol and PICOBOO Sub-Study Protocol 1: Booster Vaccination. PICOBOO was registered on 10 February 2022 with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12622000238774.

Innovative approaches for vaccine trials as a key component of pandemic preparedness - a white paper.

WHO postulates the application of adaptive design features in the global clinical trial ecosystem. However, the adaptive platform trial (APT) methodology has not been widely adopted in clinical research on vaccines. The VACCELERATE Consortium organized a two-day workshop to discuss the applicability of APT methodology in vaccine trials under non-pandemic as well as pandemic conditions. Core aspects of the discussions are summarized in this article. An "ever-warm" APT appears ideally suited to improve efficiency and speed of vaccine research. Continuous learning based on accumulating APT trial data allows for pre-planned adaptations during its course. Given the relative design complexity, alignment of all stakeholders at all stages of an APT is central. Vaccine trial modelling is crucial, both before and in a pandemic emergency. Various inferential paradigms are possible (frequentist, likelihood, or Bayesian). The focus in the interpandemic interval may be on research gaps left by industry trials. For activation in emergency, template Disease X protocols of syndromal design for pathogens yet unknown need to be stockpiled and updated regularly. Governance of a vaccine APT should be fully integrated into supranational pandemic response mechanisms. A broad range of adaptive features can be applied in platform trials on vaccines. Faster knowledge generation comes with increased complexity of trial design. Design complexity should not preclude simple execution at trial sites. Continuously generated evidence represents a return on investment that will garner societal support for sustainable funding. Adaptive design features will naturally find their way into platform trials on vaccines.

P089 FORMaT: Finding the Optimal Regimen for Mycobacterium abscessus Treatment. A randomised, multi-arm, adaptive platform trial

P089 FORMaT: Finding the Optimal Regimen for Mycobacterium abscessus Treatment. A randomised, multi-arm, adaptive platform trial

Evaluation of VAL-083 in GBM AGILE, a phase 3 registration platform trial for newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma.

2005 Background: GBM AGILE (NCT03970447) is a phase 2/3 Bayesian adaptive registration platform trial testing multiple therapies efficiently against a common control (C) with a primary endpoint of overall survival (OS). VAL-083 (VAL) is a DNA targeting agent that, independent of O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status, targets the N7 position of guanine residues and facilitates inter-strand DNA crosslinks, leading to DNA double-strand breaks and cell death. It entered the trial in January 2021, and it is the 2nd arm (of 6) to complete its evaluation. Methods: Patient subtypes considered in GBM AGILE are newly diagnosed methylated (NDM), ND unmethylated (NDU), & recurrent disease (RD). C is temozolomide (in ND) & lomustine (in RD). Arms open to all 3 subtypes are evaluated in 5 prospectively defined signatures (sig): NDU, NDM, RD, all ND and All. Randomization to C is 20% in each subtype. Exp arms in GBM AGILE have 1 or 2 stages. Efficacy is based on OS hazard ratio (HR) of arm/C. Efficacy goal is a final Bayesian probability ≥ 98% for HR <1.00 in combined Stages 1 & 2. Arms stop accruing in Stage 1 if they reach max sample size (N) or drop for futility or safety. Exp arms in Stage 1 are adaptively randomized with allocation being proportional to an arm’s current probability of having ≥ 30% benefit in OS, P(HR <0.70). In stage 1, exp arms are evaluated monthly, and arms showing Bayesian predictive power (PP) ≥ 0.8, graduate into Stage 2 with fixed randomization in one sig. For all exp arms, follow up continues for 12 mos after accrual stops (clinical cutoff). Arms are declared futile at any monthly analysis when PP is <0.25 for all sigs. Open to all 3 subtypes, VAL entered as the 1st arm in NDM and was randomized 1:1 to C in this subtype until additional arms entered. The target max N for VAL in its Stages 1 & 2 were 150 and 50, resp. Results: At the interim after VAL reached max sample size in Stage 1, the PP for all signatures was <0.8 and >0.25 for at least one sig. Thus, VAL did not graduate nor drop for futility, but accrual stopped for maximum N in Stage 1 (see table). Final results will be presented at the meeting. Columns 2-5 show results at the interim after which VAL stopped for max N. Columns 6-8 show near final results. Conclusions: GBM AGILE is an efficient & effective model for phase 3 drug development. VAL did not increase OS compared to C in any glioblastoma subtype. GBM AGILE evaluated this agent in less time, at lower cost, & with fewer patients than typical registration trials & is currently evaluating several other arms. Clinical trial information: NCT03970447 . [Table: see text]

P090 Mission (almost) impossible: setting up a complex investigator led international adaptive platform trial – Finding the Optimal Regimen for Mycobacterium abscessus Treatment (FORMaT)

P090 Mission (almost) impossible: setting up a complex investigator led international adaptive platform trial – Finding the Optimal Regimen for Mycobacterium abscessus Treatment (FORMaT)

Future for cardiogenic shock research.

To discuss future research themes and study design in cardiogenic shock. Cardiogenic shock research faces multiple challenges, hindering progress in understanding and treating this life-threatening condition. Cardiogenic shock's heterogeneous nature poses challenges in patient selection for clinical trials, potentially leading to variability in treatment responses and outcomes. Ethical considerations arise due to the acuity and severity of the condition, posing challenges in obtaining informed consent and conducting randomized controlled trials where time to treatment is pivotal. This review discusses research in this area focusing on the importance of phenotyping patients with cardiogenic shock, based on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and unravel new molecular mechanisms using proteomics and metabolomics. Further, the future research focus in mechanical circulatory support and targeting inflammation is reviewed. Finally, newer trial designs including adaptive platform trials are discussed.

Does Adjunctive Clindamycin Have a Role in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia? A Protocol for the Adjunctive Treatment Domain of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) Randomized Controlled Trial.

The use of adjunctive antibiotics directed against exotoxin production in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is widespread, and it is recommended in many guidelines, but this is based on limited evidence. Existing guidelines are based on the theoretical premise of toxin suppression, as many strains of S. aureus produce toxins such as leukocidins (eg, Panton-Valentine leukocidin, toxic shock syndrome toxin 1, exfoliative toxins, and various enterotoxins). Many clinicians therefore believe that limiting exotoxin production release by S. aureus could reduce its virulence and improve clinical outcomes. Clindamycin, a protein synthesis inhibitor antibiotic, is commonly used for this purpose. We report the domain-specific protocol, embedded in a large adaptive, platform trial, seeking to definitively answer this question. The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter adaptive platform trial that aims to compare different SAB therapies, simultaneously, for 90-day mortality rates. The adjunctive treatment domain aims to test the effectiveness of adjunctive antibiotics, initially comparing clindamycin to no adjunctive antibiotic, but future adaptations may include other agents. Individuals will be randomized to receive either 5 days of adjunctive clindamycin (or lincomycin) or no adjunctive antibiotic therapy alongside standard-of-care antibiotics. Most participants with SAB (within 72 hours of index blood culture and with no contraindications) will be eligible to participate in this domain. Prespecified analyses are defined in the statistical appendix to the core protocol, and domain-specific secondary analyses will be adjusted for resistance to clindamycin, disease phenotype (complicated or uncomplicated SAB) and Panton-Valentine leukocidin-positive isolate.

Adaptive platform trials rather than randomised controlled trials for paediatric sepsis.

Adaptive platform trials (APTs) offer a promising alternative to traditional randomised controlled trials for evaluating treatments for paediatric sepsis. Randomised controlled trials, despite being the gold standard for establishing causality between interventions and outcomes, make many assumptions about disease prevalence, severity and intervention effects, which are often incorrect. As a result, the evidence for most treatments for paediatric sepsis are based on low-quality evidence. APTs use accrued data rather than assumptions to power trial adaptations. They can assess multiple treatments simultaneously with shared research infrastructure. As such, APTs offer a more efficient, flexible and more effective way to identify optimal treatments. The proposed Paediatric Adaptive Sepsis Platform Trial, leveraging the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative network's infrastructure, will evaluate resuscitation fluids, vasoactive medications, corticosteroids and antimicrobials. This trial has the potential to substantially impact clinical practice and reduce global sepsis mortality in children.

Incorporating external real-world data (RWD) in confirmatory adaptive design

ABSTRACT Adaptive designs, such as group sequential designs (and the ones with additional adaptive features) or adaptive platform trials, have been quintessential efficient design strategies in trials of unmet medical needs, especially for generating evidence from global regions. Such designs allow interim decision making and making adjustment to study design when necessary, meanwhile maintaining study integrity and operating characteristics. However, driven by the heightened competitive landscape and the desire to bring effective treatment to patients faster, innovation in the already functional designs is still germane to further propel drug development to a more efficient path. One way to achieve this is by leveraging external real-world data (RWD) in the adaptive designs to support interim or final decision making. In this paper, we propose a novel framework of incorporating external RWD in adaptive design to improve interim and/or final analysis decision making. Within this framework, researchers can prespecify the decision process and choose the timing and amount of borrowing while maintaining objectivity and controlling of type I error. Simulation studies in various scenarios are provided to describe power, type I error, and other performance metrics for interim/final decision making. A case study in non-small cell lung cancer is used for illustration on proposed design framework.

How Much More Efficient Are Adaptive Platform Trials Than Multiple Stand-Alone Trials? A Comprehensive Simulation Study for Streamlining Drug Development During a Pandemic.

With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is growing interest in utilizing adaptive platform clinical trials (APTs), in which multiple drugs are compared with a single common control group, such as a placebo or standard-of-care group. APTs evaluate several drugs for one disease and accept additions or exclusions of drugs as the trials progress; however, little is known about the efficiency of APTs over multiple stand-alone trials. In this study, we simulated the total development period, total sample size, and statistical operating characteristics of APTs and multiple stand-alone trials in drug development settings for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Simulation studies using selected scenarios reconfirmed several findings regarding the efficiency of APTs. The APTs without staggered addition of drugs showed a shorter total development period than stand-alone trials, but the difference rapidly diminished if patient's enrollment was accelerated during the trials owing to the spread of infection. APTs with staggered addition of drugs still have the possibility of reducing the total development period compared with multiple stand-alone trials in some cases. Our study demonstrated that APTs could improve efficiency relative to multiple stand-alone trials regarding the total development period and total sample size without undermining statistical validity; however, this improvement varies depending on the speed of patient enrollment, sample size, presence/absence of family-wise error rate adjustment, allocation ratio between drug and placebo groups, and interval of staggered addition of drugs. Given the complexity of planning and implementing APT, the decision to implement APT during a pandemic must be made carefully.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BackgroundThe evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300–400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome.Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. FindingsThe primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [−1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. InterpretationIvermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FundingUKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Ethical considerations in adaptive platform trial design in public health emergencies: a WHO initiative

Platform trials, using adaptive methodologies, have played an important role in the research response to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and offer prospect of being widely used in future pandemic preparedness and response. As these relatively new methodologies raise a number of ethical and governance challenges, in early 2022 the Health Ethics and Governance Unit of the World Health Organization commissioned five rapid reviews, with the aim of learning from, and building on, experiences during the pandemic. These five reviews have been published separately: this short paper provides an introduction to them, sets out the context in which they were produced, and draws together some cross-cutting themes and future directions.