Safety and efficacy of belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in systemic LUPUS erythematosus (BEAT-LUPUS) trial: statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that rituximab, a B cell depletion therapy, is an effective treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Data on the mechanisms of B cell depletion in SLE indicate that the combination of rituximab and belimumab may be more effective than rituximab alone. The safety and efficacy of belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in systemic LUPUS erythematosus (BEAT-LUPUS) trial aims to determine whether belimumab is superior to placebo, when given 4-8 weeks after treatment with rituximab. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for this trial as an update to the published protocol. It is written prior to the end of patient follow-up, while the outcome of the trial is still unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: BEAT-LUPUS is a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial of 52 weeks of belimumab versus placebo, initiated 4-8 weeks after rituximab treatment. The primary outcome is anti-dsDNA antibodies at 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include lupus flares and damage, adverse events, doses of concomitant medications, quality of life, and clinical biomarkers. We describe the trial's clinical context, outcome measures, sample size calculation, and statistical modelling strategy, and the supportive analyses planned to evaluate for mediation of the treatment effect through changes in concomitant medication doses and bias from missing data. DISCUSSION: The analysis will provide detailed information on the safety and effectiveness of belimumab. It will be implemented from July 2020 when patient follow-up and data collection is complete. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 47873003 . Registered on 28 November 2016. EudracT: 2015-005543-14 . Registered on 19 November 2018

A randomised, multi-centre trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of patients with end stage ankle osteoarthritis (TARVA): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial aims to determine which surgical procedure confers the greatest improvement in pain-free function for patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Both procedures are effective but there has not yet been a direct comparison to establish which is superior. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for this trial as an update to the published protocol. It is written prior to the end of patient follow-up, while the outcome of the trial is still unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: TARVA is a randomised, un-blinded, parallel group trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis. The primary outcome is the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score at 52 weeks post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include measures of pain, social interaction, physical function, quality of life, and range of motion. We describe in detail the statistical aspects of TARVA: the outcome measures, the sample size calculation, general analysis principles including treatment of missing data, the planned descriptive statistics and statistical models, and planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: The TARVA statistical analysis will provide comprehensive and precise information on the relative effectiveness of the two treatments. The plan will be implemented in January 2020 when follow-up for the trial is completed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry number 60672307, ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02128555. Registered 1 May 2014. Recruitment started in January 2015 and ended in January 2019

Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery. RESULTS: Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm (n = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm (n = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; p = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; p = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime. LIMITATIONS: This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling. FUTURE WORK: We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

A randomised, controlled, observer-masked trial of corneal cross-linking for progressive keratoconus in children : the KERALINK protocol

This work was supported by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme (reference 14/23/18), a MRC and NIHR partnership.Introduction: The KERALINK trial tests the hypothesis that corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment reduces the progression of keratoconus in comparison to standard care in patients under 17 years old. KERALINK is a randomised controlled, observer-masked, multicentre trial in progressive keratoconus comparing epithelium-off CXL with standard care, including spectacles or contact lenses as necessary for best-corrected acuity. Methods and analysis: A total of 30 participants will be randomised per group. Eligible participants aged 10-16 years with progressive keratoconus in one or both eyes will be recruited. Following randomisation, participants will be followed up 3-monthly for 18 months. The effect on progression will be determined by K-2 on corneal topography. The primary outcome measure is between-group difference in K-2 at 18 months adjusted for K-2 at baseline examination. Secondary outcomes are the effect of CXL on (1) keratoconus progression, (2) time to keratoconus progression, (3) visual acuity, (4) refraction, (5) apical corneal thickness and (6) adverse events. Patient-reported effects will be explored by questionnaires. Ethics and dissemination Research Ethics Committee Approval was obtained on 30 June 2016 (ref: 14/LO/1937). Current protocol: V.5.0 (08/11/2017). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (BEAT Lupus) protocol: a prospective multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, 52-week phase II clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Few treatment options exist for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who fail conventional therapy. Although widely used to treat lupus, the efficacy of B cell depletion therapy using rituximab has not been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. Following rituximab, elevated levels of serum B cell activating factor (BAFF) have been associated with failure to remit or subsequent lupus relapse. The administration of belimumab, a monoclonal antibody specific for BAFF and approved for lupus therapy, could potentiate the efficacy of rituximab and enable longer periods of disease remission. The aim of this trial is to assess the safety and efficacy of belimumab following rituximab in patients with SLE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BEAT Lupus is a double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled, phase II clinical trial. Patients with SLE commencing a treatment cycle of rituximab (two 1g infusions, 2 weeks apart) as standard of care will be randomised to receive belimumab or placebo, 4 to 8 weeks following the first rituximab infusion. Belimumab or placebo infusions are administered for 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure is anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody levels at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes include measures of adverse events, lupus disease activity and cumulative steroid dose. The kinetics of B cell repopulation will be assessed in a subgroup of participants. Belimumab administration after rituximab may provide a novel therapeutic pathway for patients with active lupus if safety is demonstrated in this proof of concept study, and lower anti-dsDNA antibodies levels are achieved in those patients treated with belimumab compared with placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Hampstead Research Ethics Committee - London (reference 16/LO/1024). Trial information is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN47873003, and the results of this trial will be submitted for publication in relevant peer-reviewed journals. Key findings will also be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47873; date assigned to the registry: 28 November 2016. The stage is pre-results

Favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or combination therapy (FLARE): A randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial placebo-controlled trial of early antiviral therapy in COVID-19

BACKGROUND: Early antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: At the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68

M.I.C.E-Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy: a randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MATCH-ADTC in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone for children and young people with common mental health disorders and epilepsy-study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders in the context of long-term conditions in children and young people are currently overlooked and undertreated. Evidence-based psychological treatments for common childhood mental health disorders (anxiety, depression and disruptive behaviour disorders) have not been systematically evaluated in young people with epilepsy despite their high prevalence in this population. The aim of this multi-site randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding a modular psychological intervention to usual care for the mental health disorders in comparison to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. METHODS: In total, 334 participants aged 3-18 years attending epilepsy services will be screened for mental health disorders with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the diagnostic Development and Wellbeing Assessment (DAWBA). Those identified as having a mental health disorder and consenting to the trial will be randomised to either receive up to 22 sessions of the modular psychological intervention (MATCH-ADTC) delivered over the telephone over 6 months by non-mental health professionals in addition to usual care or to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-randomisation. It is hypothesised that MATCH-ADTC plus usual care will be superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving emotional and behavioural symptoms. The primary outcome is the SDQ reported by parents at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include parent-reported mental health measures such as the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, quality of life measures such as the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory and physical health measures such as the Hague Seizure Severity Scale. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Qualitative process evaluations and a health economic evaluation will also be completed. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine whether a systematic and integrated approach to the identification and treatment of mental health disorders in children and young people with epilepsy is clinically and cost-effective. The findings will contribute to policies and practice with regard to addressing mental health needs in children and young people with other long-term conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN57823197 . Registered on 25 February 2019

M.I.C.E—Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy: a randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MATCH-ADTC in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone for children and young people with common mental health disorders and epilepsy—study protocol

Abstract: Background: Mental health disorders in the context of long-term conditions in children and young people are currently overlooked and undertreated. Evidence-based psychological treatments for common childhood mental health disorders (anxiety, depression and disruptive behaviour disorders) have not been systematically evaluated in young people with epilepsy despite their high prevalence in this population. The aim of this multi-site randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding a modular psychological intervention to usual care for the mental health disorders in comparison to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. Methods: In total, 334 participants aged 3–18 years attending epilepsy services will be screened for mental health disorders with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the diagnostic Development and Wellbeing Assessment (DAWBA). Those identified as having a mental health disorder and consenting to the trial will be randomised to either receive up to 22 sessions of the modular psychological intervention (MATCH-ADTC) delivered over the telephone over 6 months by non-mental health professionals in addition to usual care or to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-randomisation. It is hypothesised that MATCH-ADTC plus usual care will be superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving emotional and behavioural symptoms. The primary outcome is the SDQ reported by parents at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include parent-reported mental health measures such as the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale, quality of life measures such as the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory and physical health measures such as the Hague Seizure Severity Scale. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Qualitative process evaluations and a health economic evaluation will also be completed. Discussion: This trial aims to determine whether a systematic and integrated approach to the identification and treatment of mental health disorders in children and young people with epilepsy is clinically and cost-effective. The findings will contribute to policies and practice with regard to addressing mental health needs in children and young people with other long-term conditions. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN57823197. Registered on 25 February 2019