Prespecified Noninferiority Margin Research Articles

Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke in Chinese Patients: Protocol for the ORIGINAL Study

BACKGROUND Tenecteplase, a bioengineered variant of alteplase, is a new alternative thrombolytic agent. The ORIGINAL study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase versus standard care in Chinese patients with acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. METHODS This is a multicenter phase III study that employs a randomized (1:1), active‐controlled, parallel‐group, prospective, open‐label, blinded–end point design. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) with acute ischemic stroke who are eligible for intravenous thrombolysis within 4.5 hours of symptom onset according to current guideline recommendations are recruited from ≈55 neurology clinics/stroke centers throughout China. RESULTS The primary objective of the ORIGINAL study is to demonstrate the noninferiority of tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) to alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) on the basis of the proportion of patients who achieve a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 on day 90, that is, a favorable functional outcome. The prespecified noninferiority risk ratio margin is 0.937. Secondary end points include other functional outcomes and the following safety end points: adjudicated symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (up to 36 hours after the end of study drug administration) based on the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study III definition; all‐cause death within 90 days; and the proportion of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 5 or 6 on day 90. CONCLUSIONS It is anticipated that the results of this study will contribute to the growing body of evidence for the noninferiority of tenecteplase to alteplase given within 4.5 hours of acute ischemic stroke symptom onset and support a new indication for tenecteplase in China. Clinical Trial Registration Information NCT04915729 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04915729 )

Abstract PO5-19-10: First oncological outcomes of HypoG-01: a UNICANCER phase III trial comparing loco-regional hypo vs normo fractionated radiation therapy in early breast cancer patients

Abstract Objective Normofractionated (NF) radiation therapy (RT) is still standard for loco-regional early breast cancer (EBC) in many countries. HypoG-01, a UNICANCER, non-inferiority, open-label, multicenter, randomized phase III trial (NCT03127995), conducted in parallel with the DBCG Skagen trial 1 (NCT02384733), evaluated hypofractionated (HF) RT with 40 Gy/15 fr (2.67 Gy/fr) versus NF RT 50 Gy/25 fr (2.0 Gy/fr). This is the first report of oncological outcomes, secondary endpoints of the trial. Methods Patients (pts) ≥18 years old were operated for T1-3, N0-3, M0 breast cancer. All pts received nodal and thoracic wall or breast RT. Tumor-bed boost (sequential or simultaneous) and nodal levels treated were decided according to local guidelines. Target volumes were delineated according to the ESTRO consensus. RT technique was left at the investigator’s discretion. Stratification factors included treating center, type of surgery, number of positive nodes and body mass index. The primary endpoint, reported previously, was time to occurrence of arm lymphedema. Oncological outcomes included locoregional relapse free survival (LRFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) as defined per DATECAN guidelines. All time to cancer related endpoints were defined as starting from the date of randomization until the event. The primary statistic test was stratified one-sided logrank test: 5% significance level in per-protocol population (PPP) with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.545. Stratified Cox model was used for calculating hazard ratios of oncological outcomes. Results In total, 1265 pts were randomized to HF versus NF RT from Sep 2016 to Mar 2020 with 1221 in the PPP (HF group 614 pts (50.3%); NF group 607 (49.7%)), 5 consent withdrawn and 39 major deviations. Median age was 58 years (range 23-91), surgery included mastectomy (501 pts; 45%) and axillary clearance (921 pts; 82.8%). Sequential (67.8%) or simultaneous integrated (32.2%) tumor-bed boost was used in 596 pts (48.8%). With a median follow-up for OS in PP analysis of 3.8 years (95% CI 3.3 to 3.9), HF was non-inferior to NF RT in terms of lymphedema (HR=1.07; 90% CI 0.86-1.34, non-inferiority p=0.003). Table 1 reports the hazard ratio and 3-year survival rates for the oncological endpoints LRFS, IDFS, DDFS, BCCS and OS. There was no sign of disadvantage for any of these endpoints comparing HF to NF. Additional analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion Moderately HF loco-regional RT is non-inferior to NF RT in terms of lymphedema risk in EBC and does not show a disadvantage in terms of LRFS, IDFS, DDFS, BCCS and OS with a median follow-up of 3.8 years. Together with the Skagen 1 trial, this study provides level 1A evidence supporting the use of 40 Gy/15 fr for loco-regional radiation therapy in EBC with respect to arm lymphedema risk; Table 1: Oncological outcomes according to treatment arm in the per protocol analysis HF: Moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy; NF: Normofractionated radiation therapy; n:number of patients; N: number of events Citation Format: Sofia Rivera, Eleni Karamouza, Youlia Kirova, Séverine Racadot, Mohamed Benchalal, Jean-Baptiste Clavier, Claire Charra-Brunaud, Marie-Eve Chand-Fouche, Delphine Argo-Leignel, Karine Peignaux, Ahmed Benyoucef, David Pasquier, Philippe Guilbert, Julien Blanchecotte, Agnès Tallet, Adeline Petit, Guillemette Bernadou, Xavier Zasadny, Claire Lemanski, Jacques Fourquet, Emmanuelle Malaurie, Honorine Kouto, Carole Massabeau, Alexandre Henni, Pauline Regnault, Aurélie Belliere, Yazid Belkacemi, Magali Le Blanc-Onfroy, Julien Geffrelot, Jean-Briac Prevost, Marie Bergeaud, Assia Lamrani-Ghaouti, Amandine Ruffier, Naima Bonnet, Stephanie Wong, Christine Rossier, Thomas Brion, Pierre Maroun, Claire Petit, Guillaume Auzac, Stefan Michiels. First oncological outcomes of HypoG-01: a UNICANCER phase III trial comparing loco-regional hypo vs normo fractionated radiation therapy in early breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-19-10.

Non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing CricOid pressure and para-laryngeal pressure in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery: NiCOP trial

BackgroundCricoid pressure has been surrounded with controversies regarding its effectiveness. Application of ultrasound-guided para-laryngeal (PL) force has been shown to occlude the esophagus effectively compared with cricoid pressure (CP) in awake patients. We hypothesized that there would be no meaningful difference in the change in antero-posterior esophageal diameter from with application of cricoid or para-laryngeal pressure in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery under general anesthesia. MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 40 parturients scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under general anesthesia were randomized to receive rapid sequence induction with either cricoid pressure (n = 20) or para-laryngeal pressure (n = 20). The antero-posterior diameter of the esophagus, measured by sonography, was the primary outcome. Visualization of the esophagus, its position in relation to the glottic aperture, esophageal occlusion, percentage of glottic opening (POGO), time to intubation, first pass success rate, overall success rate and adverse events like desaturation or bronchospasm were secondary outcomes. ResultsThe mean change in anterior-posterior diameter in the CP group was 0.17 ±0.1 cm vs. 0.28 ±0.1 cm in the PL group. The mean difference (CP-para-laryngeal pressure) between the groups was -0.11 (95% CI −0.17 to −0.1) cm. As the upper limit of the 95% CI was lower than the prespecified non-inferiority margin (δ = −0.2), non-inferiority was established (P <0.001]. There was no significant difference in the POGO score (P = 0.818), time to intubation (P =0.55), or intubation attempts (P = 0.99). ConclusionsPara-laryngeal pressure was non-inferior to CP in occluding the esophagus in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery under general anesthesia and furthermore, no significant deterioration in intubation parameters was seen.

Remotely delivered physiotherapy is as effective as face-to-face physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions (REFORM): a randomised trial

QuestionIs remotely delivered physiotherapy as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions? DesignRandomised controlled, non-inferiority trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis. ParticipantsA total of 210 adult participants with a musculoskeletal condition who presented for outpatient physiotherapy at five public hospitals in Sydney. InterventionOne group received a remotely delivered physiotherapy program for 6 weeks that consisted of one face-to-face physiotherapy session in conjunction with weekly text messages, phone calls at 2 and 4 weeks, and an individualised home exercise program delivered through an app. The other group received usual face-to-face physiotherapy care in an outpatient setting. Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of –15 out of 100 points. Secondary outcomes included: the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 26 weeks; kinesiophobia, pain, function/disability, global impression of change and quality of life at 6 and 26 weeks; and satisfaction with service delivery at 6 weeks. ResultsThe mean between-group difference (95% CI) for the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks was 2.7 out of 100 points (–3.5 to 8.8), where a positive score favoured remotely delivered physiotherapy. The lower end of the 95% CI was greater than the non-inferiority margin. Whilst non-inferiority margins were not set for the secondary outcomes, the 95% CI of the mean between-group difference ruled out clinically meaningful differences. ConclusionRemotely delivered physiotherapy with support via phone, text and an app is as good as face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Trial registrationACTRN12619000065190.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer

BackgroundRetrospective data suggest that the incidence of parametrial infiltration is low in patients with early-stage low-risk cervical cancer, which raises questions regarding the need for radical hysterectomy in these patients. However, data from large, randomized trials comparing outcomes of radical and simple hysterectomy are lacking.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing radical hysterectomy with simple hysterectomy including lymph-node assessment in patients with low-risk cervical cancer (lesions of ≤2 cm with limited stromal invasion). The primary outcome was cancer recurrence in the pelvic area (pelvic recurrence) at 3 years. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 4 percentage points.ResultsAmong 700 patients who underwent randomization (350 in each group), the majority had tumors that were stage IB1 according to the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) criteria (91.7%), that had squamous-cell histologic features (61.7%), and that were grade 1 or 2 (59.3%). With a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, the incidence of pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group and 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group (an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, −1.62 to 2.32). Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis. The incidence of urinary incontinence was lower in the simple hysterectomy group than in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (2.4% vs. 5.5%; P=0.048) and beyond 4 weeks (4.7% vs. 11.0%; P=0.003). The incidence of urinary retention in the simple hysterectomy group was also lower than that in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (0.6% vs. 11.0%; P<0.001) and beyond 4 weeks (0.6% vs. 9.9%; P<0.001).ConclusionsIn patients with low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy with respect to the 3-year incidence of pelvic recurrence and was associated with a lower risk of urinary incontinence or retention. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01658930.)

Comparative immunogenicity and safety of SpikoGen®, a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein vaccine in children and young adults: An immuno-bridging clinical trial

BackgroundSpikoGen® is a recombinant subunit spike protein ectodomain vaccine manufactured in insect cells and formulated with the novel polysaccharide-based Advax-CpG55.2 adjuvant. This study aimed to compare the immunogenicity and safety of SpikoGen® vaccine in children, adolescents and young adults. MethodsThis was a non-randomized, three-arm, open-label, parallel-group, immuno-bridging, non-inferiority trial to compare the immunogenicity and safety of a primary course of two intramuscular doses of SpikoGen® vaccine in children aged 5 to < 12 years, adolescents aged 12 to < 18 years and young adults aged 18 to 40 years. Children 5–12 years received a half dose of 12.5 μg spike protein, whereas the other groups received the full vaccine dose. Vaccine immunogenicity was evaluated via assessment of serum anti-spike and neutralizing antibodies 14 days after the second dose. Solicited adverse events were recorded for 7 days after each vaccination. Safety assessments including serious adverse events were continued through six months after the second dose in children and adolescents. ResultsTwo weeks after the second dose, seroconversion rates for neutralizing antibody levels were not significantly different for children (59.50 %), adolescents (52.06 %) and adults (56.01 %). The 95 % confidence interval of the difference in seroconversion rates between children and adults was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10 % (−12 % to 5 %). SpikoGen® vaccine was well tolerated in all age groups with the most common solicited adverse events being injection site pain and fatigue which were generally transient and mild. ConclusionSpikoGen® vaccine was shown to be safe, well tolerated and immunogenic in children as young as 5 years of age, with non-inferior responses to those seen in adults. The Iranian FDA authorisation of SpikoGen® vaccine is now extended down to 5 years of age.

Comparison of continuous popliteal nerve blocks using lidocaine vs. bupivacaine infusions for ambulatory foot surgery: a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial

Background and objectivesContinuous sciatic popliteal nerve block effectively manages pain after ankle and foot surgery. Most studies on continuous infusion of local anesthetics by perineural catheters have been made with bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine, but lidocaine has not been used. The main objective of this study was to compare the quality of analgesia, motor function, and side effects between lidocaine and bupivacaine infusions in bilateral continuous popliteal nerve blocks for foot surgery.MethodsThis was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority study. We enrolled 70 patients undergoing bilateral foot or ankle surgery that could be performed under general anesthesia and continuous regional analgesia using sciatic popliteal nerve blocks. During their postoperative care, they were randomized into 2 groups: group lidocaine (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 ml/h) or group bupivacaine (bupivacaine 0.1%, 5 ml/h), administered through elastomeric pumps. The primary outcome was pain at 24 h after surgery, assessed by a verbal numeric rating scale (ranging from 0 to 10). A pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 was defined. Secondary outcomes were the degree of motor and sensitive block, total opioid use, and difficulties with pump or catheter management.ResultsThe mean postoperative pain at 24 h of surgery was 2.06 (95% bootstrap confidence interval bCI 1.29, 2.83) and 1.82 (95% bCI 1.02, 2.62) in the lidocaine and bupivacaine group, respectively. The upper limit of the 95% bCI for the mean difference between lidocaine and bupivacaine was 0.82, declaring non-inferiority. No differences in the postoperative rescue analgesia use and satisfaction with care were found. No differences in postoperative NRS, sensory block and motor block were seen between groups.ConclusionsLidocaine 0.5% and bupivacaine 0.1% provide similar postoperative analgesia through a sciatic popliteal catheter in ambulatory bilateral foot surgery patients.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier: NCT02121119

Head-to-head trial of pegunigalsidase alfa versus agalsidase beta in patients with Fabry disease and deteriorating renal function: results from the 2-year randomised phase III BALANCE study

BackgroundPegunigalsidase alfa is a PEGylated α-galactosidase A enzyme replacement therapy. BALANCE (NCT02795676) assessed non-inferiority of pegunigalsidase alfa versus agalsidase beta in adults with Fabry disease with an annualised estimated glomerular...

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Animal-assisted Activities for Pediatric Oncology Patients: Psychosocial and Microbial Outcomes

Evidence about the effectiveness and safety of dog visits in pediatric oncology is limited. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (n=26) of dog visits versus usual care among pediatric oncology inpatients. Psychological functioning and microbial load from hand wash samples were evaluated. Parental anxiety was a secondary outcome. We did not observe a difference in the adjusted mean present functioning score (-3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.4 to 6.4). The difference in microbial load on intervention versus control hands was -0.04 (95% CI, -0.60 to 0.52) log10 CFU/mL, with an upper 95% CI limit below the prespecified noninferiority margin. Anxiety was lower in parents of intervention versus control patients. We did not detect an effect of dog visits on functioning; however, our study was underpowered by low recruitment. Visits improved parental anxiety. With hand sanitization, visits did not increase hand microbial levels. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03471221.

Intraoperative landmark-based genicular nerve block versus periarticular infiltration for postoperative analgesia in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized non-inferiority trial

IntroductionGenicular nerve blocks (GNBs) are an emerging technique that have been used as a part of multimodal analgesia for total knee arthroplasty. The efficacy of intraoperative landmark-based GNBs, a recently...

Large-scale real-world data analysis of source plasma collections using a novel technology-enabled nomogram.

Source plasma collections are needed to satisfy the growing demand for plasma-derived medicinal products. The US plasma collection target volume has been guided by a standard weight-based FDA-issued nomogram (STAN) since 1992. In this research, large-scale US-based real-world data (RWD) were analyzed to confirm the safety and volume gains of a newly introduced personalized nomogram (PERS) that was previously studied in a premarket randomized controlled environment. A non-inferiority (NI) analysis was conducted to compare the novel nomogram's significant hypotensive adverse event (AE) incidence rate with large historical standard nomogram AE datasets. Additionally, the average target volumes and donor return rates were compared for collections following PERS and STAN. A total of 4,816,784 donations (PERS) by 414,957 donors resulted in a rate of 0.0998% (95% CI [0.0970, 0.1027]) significant hypotensive AEs. NI analysis suggested strong non-inferiority of the new technology (Δ = -0.0082%, 95% CI [-0.0113, -0.0050], prespecified NI margin = 0.1080). Average plasma collection target volumes increased by 66.39 mL (8.49%; p < .0001). Consecutive weekly donor return rates were consistent between the two nomograms (PERS: 73.6%, 95% CI [69.6%-76.7%]; STAN: 74.1%, 95% CI [66.1%-77.2%]). This analysis confirms in a large-scale real-world dataset the key safety parameter and collection benefit of a novel, technology-enabled nomogram. The nomogram may help meet the growing demand for plasma-derived therapies by providing approximately 8.5% more plasma per donation on average while maintaining donor safety and return rates.

Nasal Iodophor Antiseptic vs Nasal Mupirocin Antibiotic in the Setting of Chlorhexidine Bathing to Prevent Infections in Adult ICUs

Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization. To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing. Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included. Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline). ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%. Among the 801 668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%]). Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.

Modified anterior approach versus traditional posterior approach for ultrasound-guided superior laryngeal nerve block in awake endotracheal intubation: a randomized non-inferiority clinical trial

Study objective This study was undertaken to compare the effect of the modified ultrasound-guided anterior superior laryngeal nerve block (SLNB) with the traditional ultrasound-guided posterior SLNB in providing intubation conditions during awake tracheal intubation (ATI) in patients without difficult airway. Design Randomized, assessor-blind. Registration number: ChiCTR2200058086. Setting West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. Patients 104 patients aged 18–65 years, of American Society of Anesthesiologists status I-III, posted for elective general surgery with general endotracheal anesthesia. Interventions The patients were randomized into two groups (modified group, n = 52; traditional group, n = 52). Modified anterior SLNB or traditional posterior SLNB was performed under ultrasound guidance. Measurements The primary outcome was the proportion of acceptable intubation condition (AIC), which was analyzed in both per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was −4.8%. Secondary outcomes included intubation success rate on the first attempt, hemodynamic parameters during ATI, time taken for airway anesthesia and intubation, recall of intubation, patient perception of comfort, and incidence and severity of postoperative complications. Main results In the PP population, the proportion of AIC in the modified group was 49/49 (100%) and that in the traditional group was 49/49 (100%), absolute difference 0, lower limit of 1-sided 95% CI, −0.3%. In the ITT population, the primary outcomes in the modified and traditional group were 52/52 (100%) and 51/52 (98.1%), respectively, with an absolute difference of 1.9% and a lower limit of 1-sided 95% CI of −1.2%. The non-inferiority of modified ultrasound-guided anterior SLNB was confirmed in both populations. Conclusions Among adults without difficult airways during videolaryngoscope-assisted ATI, the modified ultrasound-guided anterior SLNB, compared to the traditional posterior approach, showed a statistically non-inferior effect in terms of providing AIC.

Short Course Adjuvant Vaginal Cuff Brachytherapy (VCB) in Early Endometrial Cancer: Primary Endpoint Results of the SAVE Randomized Clinical Trial

Prospective trials in early stage endometrial cancer demonstrate increased locoregional control with adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high risk features. VCB is widely utilized, yet there is substantial practice variation and limited randomized data examining optimal dose/fractionation. We aimed to study the safety and efficacy of short course VCB compared to commonly used regimens. We conducted a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial examining short course adjuvant VCB (11 Gy x 2 fractions at the surface) compared with other standard regimens (7 Gy x 3 fractions at 0.5 cm depth, 6 Gy x 5 fractions at the surface, or 5-5.5 Gy x 4 fractions at 0.5 cm depth). Eligible patients underwent hysterectomy and had pathologically confirmed endometrioid adenocarcinoma, serous, clear cell, or carcinosarcoma. Patients with stage I and II cancers were included, with lymphovascular invasion (LVI) required for stage IAG1. The primary outcome was Global Health Status measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 15 points. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, toxicities as assessed by CTCAEv5, and patterns of recurrence. Data were collected at each brachytherapy fraction and at 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. One hundred eight patients were enrolled, 54 in each study arm. Data completion was 94%, 91%, and 77% at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. 70% of patients had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 18% serous carcinoma, and 12% other histologies. 23% were FIGO grade 1, 33% grade 2, and 43% grade 3 or high risk histologies. The majority of patients were stage I (56% IA, 38% IB). 22% of patients had LVI. The QLQ-C30 Global Health Status for the experimental arm was within the predefined boundary and thus 2 fractions were non-inferior to standard of care at one month (p = 0.000005) and 12 months (p = 0.0005). Using EORTC EN24 for patient reported vaginal/sexual, urologic, and gastrointestinal symptoms, the change in mean patient reported symptom score from baseline to 1 month and baseline to 12 months were not significantly different between arms. Using CTCAEv5, 51 patients experienced short-term AEs related to study treatment, 20 in the experimental arm and 31 in the control arm (p = 0.053). All study treatment-related AEs were grade 1-2, except for two grade 3-4 AEs, both on the control arm. At median follow-up of 19 months, the isolated vaginal control rate in each arm was 100%. There was no significant difference in the total number of recurrences between study arms, with 3 distant and 3 distant/pelvic/vaginal recurrences in the experimental arm, and 2 distant, 2 pelvic, and 1 pelvic/vaginal recurrence in the control arm. Short course VCB is safe with acceptable acute toxicity and non-inferior patient reported outcomes. Short course VCB improves patient convenience and may improve access to care for rural or underserved populations while providing similar local control.

Is colchicine prophylaxis required with start-low go-slow allopurinol dose escalation in gout? A non-inferiority randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial

ObjectivesTo determine whether placebo is non-inferior to low-dose colchicine for reducing gout flares during the first 6 months of allopurinol using the ‘start-low go-slow’ dose approach.MethodsA 12-month double-blind, placebo-controlled non-inferiority...

Switching From Cangrelor to Prasugrel in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Switching Antiplatelet-6 (SWAP-6) Study

BackgroundA drug-drug interaction (DDI) may occur when transitioning from intravenous P2Y12 inhibition with cangrelor to oral P2Y12 inhibition with prasugrel. However, this has never been tested in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). ObjectivesThis study sought to rule out a DDI when cangrelor and prasugrel are concomitantly administered in PCI patients. MethodsSWAP-6 (Switching Antiplatelet-6) was a prospective, randomized, 3-arm, open-label pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) study. Patients (N = 77) were randomized to 1) prasugrel only at the start of PCI, 2) cangrelor plus prasugrel concomitantly at the start of PCI, or 3) cangrelor at the start of PCI plus prasugrel at the end of infusion. Cangrelor infusion was maintained for 2 hours. PK/PD assessments were performed at baseline and 6 time points postrandomization. The primary endpoint was noninferiority in VerifyNow (Werfen) P2Y12 reaction units measured at 4 hours after randomization between cangrelor plus prasugrel concomitantly administered vs prasugrel only. PK assessments included plasma levels of the active metabolite of prasugrel. ResultsCompared with prasugrel, cangrelor further enhances P2Y12 inhibitory effects. At 4 hours postrandomization, P2Y12 reaction unit levels were significantly lower with prasugrel only compared to cangrelor and prasugrel concomitantly administered (least squares means difference = 130; 95% CI: 85-176), failing to meet the prespecified noninferiority margin. Findings were corroborated by multiple PD assays. The active metabolite of prasugrel levels were not affected by concomitant administration of cangrelor and were low at the end of cangrelor infusion. ConclusionsIn patients undergoing PCI, concomitant administration of prasugrel with cangrelor leads to a marked increase in platelet reactivity after stopping cangrelor infusion, supporting the presence of a DDI. (Switching Antiplatelet Therapy-6 [SWAP-6]; NCT04668144)

Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for initial treatment of HIV-1 and hepatitis B coinfection (ALLIANCE): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

For most adults with HIV-1 and hepatitis B virus (HBV) coinfection, initial recommended treatment is a tenofovir-containing antiretroviral regimen, but no randomised studies have compared tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with tenofovir alafenamide. We aimed to investigate whether bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide is non-inferior to dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for viral suppression in individuals with HIV-1 and HBV coinfection at 48 and 96 weeks. We did this randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 46 outpatient centres in China, Dominican Republic, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and the USA. Eligible participants were treatment-naive adults (aged ≥18 years) with plasma HIV-1 RNA of at least 500 copies per mL and plasma HBV DNA of at least 2000 IU/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive daily oral bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, or dolutegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg, each with corresponding matching placebo. Randomisation was stratified by hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status (positive vs negative), HBV DNA (<8 vs ≥8 log10 IU/mL), and CD4 count (<50 vs ≥50 cells per μL) at screening. All investigators, participants, and staff providing treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to study treatment for 96 weeks. Coprimary endpoints were the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm) and plasma HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL (using the missing-equals-failure approach) at week 48, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. Coprimary endpoints were assessed in the full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV-1 RNA or HBV DNA result while on study drug. Safety endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03547908. Between May 30, 2018 and March 16, 2021, 381 participants were screened, of whom 243 initiated treatment (121 in the receive bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group; 122 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). At week 48, both endpoints met the criteria for non-inferiority: 113 (95%) of 119 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 111 (91%) of 122 participants in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (difference 4·1, 95% CI -2·5 to 10·8; p=0·21), and 75 (63%) of 119 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group versus 53 (43%) of 122 participants in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group had HBV DNA suppression (difference 16·6, 5·9 to 27·3; nominal p=0·0023). Drug-related adverse events up to week 96 occurred in 35 (29%) of 121 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 34 (28%) of 122 participants in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. One (1%) of 121 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group reported a serious adverse event (cryptococcal meningitis attributed to immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome) that was deemed to be treatment-related. Coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide is an effective therapy for adults with HIV-1 and HBV coinfection starting antiviral therapy. Gilead Sciences.

Intramuscular vs Intravenous SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab for Treatment of COVID-19 (COMET-TAIL): A Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

Convenient administration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment in community settings is desirable. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus dual-action monoclonal antibody formulated for intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) administration for early treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19. This multicenter phase 3 study based on a randomized open-label design tested the noninferiority of IM to IV administration according to an absolute noninferiority margin of 3.5%. From June to August 2021, patients aged ≥12 years with COVID-19, who were neither hospitalized nor receiving supplemental oxygen but were at high risk for progression, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive sotrovimab as a single 500-mg IV infusion or a 500- or 250-mg IM injection. The primary composite endpoint was progression to (1) all-cause hospitalization for >24 hours for acute management of illness or (2) all-cause death through day 29. Sotrovimab 500 mg IM was noninferior to 500 mg IV: 10 (2.7%) of 376 participants vs 5 (1.3%) of 378 met the primary endpoint, respectively (absolute adjusted risk difference, 1.06%; 95% CI, -1.15% to 3.26%). The 95% CI upper limit was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.5%. The 250-mg IM group was discontinued early because of the greater proportion of hospitalizations vs the 500-mg groups. Serious adverse events occurred in <1% to 2% of participants across groups. Four participants experienced serious disease-related events and died (500 mg IM, 2/393, <1%; 250 mg IM, 2/195, 1%). Sotrovimab 500-mg IM injection was well tolerated and noninferior to IV administration. IM administration could expand outpatient treatment access for COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04913675.

Polyacrylamide gel versus hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled study.

To assess non-inferiority of intra-articular injectable polyacrylamide hydrogel (iPAAG) to hyaluronic acid (HA) on symptomatic benefit in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). This randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial recruited adults with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA from 3 clinical rheumatology sites in Denmark; two private clinics and one public hospital department. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive a single intra-articular 6 mL injection of either HA or iPAAG on an outpatient basis. Primary outcome was change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale after 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were changes from baseline in WOMAC stiffness and physical function subscales, patients' global assessment of disease impact, EuroQoL-5D-5L, and proportion of positive OMERACT-OARSI responders after 26 and 52 weeks. 239 adults were randomised: 120 to HA and 119 to iPAAG. For the primary outcome, the least squares mean changes in WOMAC pain were -14.8 (95% CI: -18.0 to -11.7) for HA and -18.5 (95% CI: -21.7 to -15.4) for iPAAG; group difference: 3.7 (95% CI: -0.7 to 8.1). The lower boundary of the 95% CI respected the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 9 WOMAC pain points. No statistically significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. For HA, 9 participants (7.6%) reported 13 adverse device effects (ADEs). For iPAAG, 35 participants (28.9%) reported 41 ADEs. All ADEs were mild/moderate, with no serious ADEs reported. iPAAG was found to be as effective and safe as HA for treatment of knee OA symptoms for at least 1 year after a single injection.