How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis

Objectives: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. Design: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. Setting: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. Participants: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. Main outcome measures: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. Results: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. Conclusions: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave

Visual outcome measures in clinical trials of remyelinating drugs

One of the most promising approaches to delay, prevent or reverse disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS) is to enhance endogenous remyelination and limit axonal degeneration. In clinical trials of remyelinating drugs, there is a need for reliable, sensitive and clinically relevant outcome measures. The visual pathway, which is frequently affected by MS, provides a unique model system to evaluate remyelination of acute and chronic MS lesions in vivo and non-invasively. In this review, we discuss the different measures that have been used and scrutinise visual outcome measure selection in current and future remyelination trials

Remyelination in humans due to a retinoid‐X receptor agonist is age‐dependent

Funder: Cambridge NIHR Biomedical CentreFunder: Cambridge NIHR Clinical Research FacilityAbstract: Remyelination efficiency declines with advancing age in animal models, but this has been harder to demonstrate in people with multiple sclerosis. We show that bexarotene, a putatively remyelinating retinoid‐X receptor agonist, shortened the visual evoked potential latency in patients with chronic optic neuropathy aged under 42 years only (with the effect diminishing by 0.45 ms per year of age); and increased the magnetization transfer ratio of deep gray matter lesions in those under 43 years only. Addressing this age‐related decline in human remyelination capacity will be an important step in the development of remyelinating therapies that work across the lifespan

How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis

Objectives: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. Design: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. Setting: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. Participants: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. Main outcome measures: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. Results: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. Conclusions: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave

Remyelination varies between and within lesions in multiple sclerosis following bexarotene.

Funder: MS Society of the United KingdomFunder: NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research CentreFunder: UCLFunder: University College LondonFunder: NIHRFunder: Thorne Family FoundationFunder: Adeslon Medical Research FoundationOBJECTIVE: In multiple sclerosis chronic demyelination is associated with axonal loss, and ultimately contributes to irreversible progressive disability. Enhancing remyelination may slow, or even reverse, disability. We recently trialled bexarotene versus placebo in 49 people with multiple sclerosis. While the primary MRI outcome was negative, there was converging neurophysiological and MRI evidence of efficacy. Multiple factors influence lesion remyelination. In this study we undertook a systematic exploratory analysis to determine whether treatment response - measured by change in magnetisation transfer ratio - is influenced by location (tissue type and proximity to CSF) or the degree of abnormality (using baseline magnetisation transfer ratio and T1 values). METHODS: We examined treatment effects at the whole lesion level, the lesion component level (core, rim and perilesional tissues) and at the individual lesion voxel level. RESULTS: At the whole lesion level, significant treatment effects were seen in GM but not WM lesions. Voxel-level analyses detected significant treatment effects in WM lesion voxels with the lowest baseline MTR, and uncovered gradients of treatment effect in both WM and CGM lesional voxels, suggesting that treatment effects were lower near CSF spaces. Finally, larger treatment effects were seen in the outer and surrounding components of GM lesions compared to inner cores. INTERPRETATION: Remyelination varies markedly within and between lesions. The greater remyelinating effect in GM lesions is congruent with neuropathological observations. For future remyelination trials, whole GM lesion measures require less complex post-processing compared to WM lesions (which require voxel level analyses) and markedly reduce sample sizes

Safety and efficacy of bexarotene in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (CCMR One): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2a study

Progressive disability in multiple sclerosis occurs because CNS axons degenerate as a late consequence of demyelination. In animals, retinoic acid receptor RXR-gamma agonists promote remyelination. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist in promoting remyelination in people with multiple sclerosis. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2a trial (CCMR One) recruited patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis from two centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18-50 years and had been receiving dimethyl fumarate for at least 6 months. Via a web-based system run by an independent statistician, participants were randomly assigned (1:1), by probability-weighted minimisation using four binary factors, to receive 300 mg/m of body surface area per day of oral bexarotene or oral placebo for 6 months. Participants, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. MRI scans were done at baseline and at 6 months. The primary safety outcome was the number of adverse events and withdrawals attributable to bexarotene. The primary efficacy outcome was the patient-level change in mean lesional magnetisation transfer ratio between baseline and month 6 for lesions that had a baseline magnetisation transfer ratio less than the within-patient median. We analysed the primary safety outcome in the safety population, which comprised participants who received at least one dose of their allocated treatment. We analysed the primary efficacy outcome in the intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who completed the study. This study is registered in the ISRCTN Registry, 14265371, and has been completed. Between Jan 17, 2017, and May 17, 2019, 52 participants were randomly assigned to receive either bexarotene (n=26) or placebo (n=26). Participants who received bexarotene had a higher mean number of adverse events (6·12 [SD 3·09]; 159 events in total) than did participants who received placebo (1·63 [SD 1·50]; 39 events in total). All bexarotene-treated participants had at least one adverse event, which included central hypothyroidism (n=26 vs none on placebo), hypertriglyceridaemia (n=24 vs none on placebo), rash (n=13 vs one on placebo), and neutropenia (n=10 vs none on placebo). Five (19%) participants on bexarotene and two (8%) on placebo discontinued the study drug due to adverse events. One episode of cholecystitis in a placebo-treated participant was the only serious adverse event. The change in mean lesional magnetisation transfer ratio was not different between the bexarotene group (0·25 percentage units [pu; SD 0·98]) and the placebo group (0·09 pu [0·84]; adjusted bexarotene-placebo difference 0·16 pu, 95% CI -0·39 to 0·71; p=0·55). We do not recommend the use of bexarotene to treat patients with multiple sclerosis because of its poor tolerability and negative primary efficacy outcome. However, statistically significant effects were seen in some exploratory MRI and electrophysiological analyses, suggesting that other retinoid X receptor agonists might have small biological effects that could be investigated in further studies. Multiple Sclerosis Society of the United Kingdom

Systematic approach to selecting licensed drugs for repurposing in the treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a rigorous, expert-led, evidence-based approach to the evaluation of licensed drugs for repurposing and testing in clinical trials of people with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: We long-listed licensed drugs with evidence of human safety, blood-brain barrier penetrance and demonstrable efficacy in at least one animal model, or mechanistic target, agreed by a panel of experts and people with MS to be relevant to the pathogenesis of progression. We systematically reviewed the preclinical and clinical literature for each compound, condensed this into a database of summary documents and short-listed drugs by scoring each one of them. Drugs were evaluated for immediate use in a clinical trial, and our selection was scrutinised by a final independent expert review. RESULTS: From a short list of 55 treatments, we recommended four treatments for immediate testing in progressive MS: R-α-lipoic acid, metformin, the combination treatment of R-α-lipoic acid and metformin, and niacin. We also prioritised clemastine, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, nimodipine and flunarizine. CONCLUSIONS: We report a standardised approach for the identification of candidate drugs for repurposing in the treatment of progressive MS.JB received expense payments from Novartis for speaking as patient representative during Siponimod licensing. AJC receives funding from the MRC and MS Society UK. DF is funded by the Wellcome and BBSRC, and has a project with Sangamo. A.G. de la Fuente has been supported by the ECTRIMS postdoctoral fellowship during this period. GG declares current research funding from Merck KGa (CLAD-B study), Roche (ORATORIO-HAND study) and Takeda (SIZOMUS Study). DM received funding previously from Biogen, MedDay and SanofiGenzyme. BN received funding from the Cambridge Centre for Myelin Repair, funded by MS Society UK. SP declares current funding from Italian and US Multiple Sclerosis Societies. LP has been supported by a senior research fellowship FISM - Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla - cod. 2017/B/5 and financed or co financed with the ‘5 per mille' public funding, by the Isaac Newton Trust RG 97440 and the Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust RG 97519. KS declares current funding from Fondation Leducq, Multiple Sclerosis Society, Rosetrees Trust. A. Wilkins received a research grant from Sanofy (2018). A. Williams declares funding from MS Society UK, Roche, MRC, Lifearc

Early non-disabling relapses are important predictors of disability accumulation in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Peer reviewed: TrueBACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of non-disabling relapses in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether early non-disabling relapses predict disability accumulation in RRMS. METHODS: We redefined mild relapses in MSBase as 'non-disabling', and moderate or severe relapses as 'disabling'. We used mixed-effects Cox models to compare 90-day confirmed disability accumulation events in people with exclusively non-disabling relapses within 2 years of RRMS diagnosis to those with no early relapses; and any early disabling relapses. Analyses were stratified by disease-modifying therapy (DMT) efficacy during follow-up. RESULTS: People who experienced non-disabling relapses within 2 years of RRMS diagnosis accumulated more disability than those with no early relapses if they were untreated (n = 285 vs 4717; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-1.68) or given platform DMTs (n = 1074 vs 7262; HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.15-1.54), but not if given high-efficacy DMTs (n = 572 vs 3534; HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.71-1.13) during follow-up. Differences in disability accumulation between those with early non-disabling relapses and those with early disabling relapses were not confirmed statistically. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that early non-disabling relapses are associated with a higher risk of disability accumulation than no early relapses in RRMS. This risk may be mitigated by high-efficacy DMTs. Therefore, non-disabling relapses should be considered when making treatment decisions