Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Introduction of vincristine mini-bags and an assessment of the subsequent risk of extravasation

Introduction: Numerous international organisations have advocated the preparation of vincristine in small volume intravenous bags in order to eliminate inadvertent intrathecal administration. However, the risk of extravasation is a significant deterrent, and adoption of this practice has been variable and only hesitantly accepted in the clinical setting.Purpose: We carried out a study with the aims of establishing the incidence of reported extravasation of vincristine administration to paediatric and adult patients in mini-bags; here we describe motivating factors and barriers faced by clinical staff. The secondary aim was to support the need for change and implementation of the international recommendations. Methods: Chemotherapy-certified nurses completed a survey spanning August 2009 to August 2011, to ascertain the incidence of extravasation associated with the administration of vincristine in mini-bags.Results: This period captured 421 occasions of vincristine administration in 25-ml or 50-ml mini-bags (in 0.9% sodium chloride). The median age of patients was 13 years (range 2.5 months to 99 years). Vincristine was administered through peripheral lines (26.4%), portacath (52.0%), PICC line (15.9%) and Hickman line (5.7%). The majority of infusions were over at least 10 minutes (50.1%). There were no cases of extravasation reported.Conclusions: The administration of vincristine in small volume intravenous bags was safe, practical, and feasible in all patient groups. The successful implementation of the international recommendations for vincristine administration in mini-bags to eliminate potential inadvertent intrathecal administration was dependent on stakeholder buy-in

Introduction of vincristine mini-bags and an assessment of the subsequent risk of extravasation

Introduction: Numerous international organisations have advocated the preparation of vincristine in small volume intravenous bags in order to eliminate inadvertent intrathecal administration. However, the risk of extravasation is a significant deterrent, and adoption of this practice has been variable and only hesitantly accepted in the clinical setting.Purpose: We carried out a study with the aims of establishing the incidence of reported extravasation of vincristine administration to paediatric and adult patients in mini-bags; here we describe motivating factors and barriers faced by clinical staff. The secondary aim was to support the need for change and implementation of the international recommendations. Methods: Chemotherapy-certified nurses completed a survey spanning August 2009 to August 2011, to ascertain the incidence of extravasation associated with the administration of vincristine in mini-bags.Results: This period captured 421 occasions of vincristine administration in 25-ml or 50-ml mini-bags (in 0.9% sodium chloride). The median age of patients was 13 years (range 2.5 months to 99 years). Vincristine was administered through peripheral lines (26.4%), portacath (52.0%), PICC line (15.9%) and Hickman line (5.7%). The majority of infusions were over at least 10 minutes (50.1%). There were no cases of extravasation reported.Conclusions: The administration of vincristine in small volume intravenous bags was safe, practical, and feasible in all patient groups. The successful implementation of the international recommendations for vincristine administration in mini-bags to eliminate potential inadvertent intrathecal administration was dependent on stakeholder buy-in

Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy

Successful advances in the treatment of advanced malignant diseases rely on recruitment of patients into clinical trials of novel agents. However, there is a genuine concern for the welfare of individual patients. The aim of this study was to examine motives of patients entering early clinical trials of novel cancer therapies. Questionnaire survey with both open- and close-ended questions. The patients were surveyed after they had given informed consent and before or during the first cycle of treatment. In all, 38 phase I/II trial patients participated and completed the survey. Obtaining possible health benefit was listed by 89% as being a 'very important' factor in their decision to participate, with only 17% giving reasons of helping future cancer patients and treatment. Other items cited as a 'very important' motivating factor were 'trust in the doctor' (66%), 'being treated by the latest treatment available' (66%), 'better standard of care and closer follow-up' (61%), and 'closer monitoring of patients in trials' (58%). Only 47% patients indicated that someone had explained to them about any 'reasonable' alternatives to the trial. In total, 71% strongly agreed that 'surviving for as long time as possible was the most important thing (for them)'. Nearly all (97%) indicated that they knew the purpose of the trial and had enough time to consider participation in the trial (100%). In this survey, most patients entering phase I and II clinical trials felt they understood the purpose of the research and had given truly informed consent. Despite this, most patients participated in the hope of therapeutic benefit, although this is known to be a rare outcome in this patient subset. Trialists should be aware, and take account of the expectations that participants place in trial drugs