ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Randomised comparative outcomes are unavailable for focal therapy in localised prostate cancer. IP4 CHRONOS is an RCT aimed to optimise recruitment of patients dependent upon clinician and patient equipoise. METHOD(S): Patients with clinically significant localised prostate cancer could opt for IP4-CHRONOS-A or IP4-CHRONOS-B. IP4- CHRONOS-A randomised patients 1:1 between focal therapy(HIFU or cryotherapy) versus radical therapy(radiation or prostatectomy). Using a multi-arm-multistage(MAMS)design, IP4-CHRONOS-B randomised between focal alone(FTA) and focal combined with neoadjuvant medication (12 weeks of finasteride [FTF] or bicalutamide [FTB]). We report the pilot phase outcomes on feasibility of randomisation, early safety outcomes relative to treatment and genito-urinary functional outcomes following over 12 months treatment in IP4-CHRONOS-B. IP4-CHRONOS had ethics committee approval and was registered(ISRCTN17796995). RESULT(S): Following COVID-19 adjustments, IP4-CHRONOSA did not meet its feasibility target. Having randomised 36 patients via10 sites with a recruitment rate (95% CI) of 18% (13-23) & randomisation rate of 97%(86-100). IP4-CHRONOS-B did meet its target, randomising 64 patients across 7 sites with a recruitment rate of 43% (35-52) &randomisation rate of 100%(94-100). The only patients to withdraw were randomised to the radical arm of IP4-CHRONOS-A(4 [22%]) All patients in IP4-CHRONOS-B were compliant with neoadjuvant treatment.Only 1 patient reported CTCAE V4.0 grade>=3 adverse event(AE) in IP4-CHRONOS-A following radical treatment, another patient in each arm reported a serious adverse event(SAE) following treatment. 1 &3 patients reported an AE &SAE following FTB. 2 and 3 patients reported an AE &SAE following FTA. No patients reported any AE or SAE event following FTF. Figure 1 demonstrates generally well preserved genito-urinary function following focal treatment+/-neoadjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION(S): IP4-CHRONOS evaluated patient and physician equipoise regarding focal therapy. Traditional randomisation was not feasible due to strong patient preferences, while a MAMS RCT investigating the role of neoadjuvant agents combined with focal therapy was.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving anti-TNF or JAK-inhibitor therapy have attenuated responses to COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to determine how IBD treatments affect neutralising antibody responses against the currently dominant Omicron BA.4/5 variants. Method(s): We prospectively recruited 329 adults (68 healthy controls (HC) and 261 IBD) who had received three doses of COVID-19 vaccine at nine UK centres. The IBD population was established (>12 weeks therapy) on either thiopurine (n=60), infliximab (IFX) (n=43), thiopurine and IFX combination (n=46), ustekinumab (n=43), vedolizumab (n=46) or tofacitinib (n=23). Pseudoneutralisation assays were performed and the half maximal inhibitory concentration (NT50) of participant sera was calculated. The primary outcome was anti-SARSCoV-2 neutralising response against wild-type (WT) virus and the BA.4/5 variant after the second and third doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, stratified by immunosuppressive therapy, adjusting for prior infection, ethnicity, vaccine type and age. Result(s): Heterologous (two doses adenovirus vaccine, third dose mRNA vaccine) and homologous (three doses mRNA vaccine) vaccination strategies significantly increased neutralising titres against both WT SARS-CoV-2 virus and the BA.4/5 variants in HCs and IBD (fig 1). Antibody titres against BA.4/5 were significantly lower than antibodies against WT virus in both groups (Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) [95% CI], 0.11 [0.09, 0.15], P<0.0001 in healthy participants;GMR 0.07 [0.06, 0.08], P<0.0001 in IBD patients). Multivariable models showed that neutralising antibodies against BA.4/5 after three doses of vaccine were significantly lower in IBD patients on IFX (GMR 0.44 [0.20, 0.97], P=0.042), IFX and thiopurine combination (GMR 0.34 [0.15, 0.77], P=0.0098) or tofacitinib (GMR 0.37 [0.15, 0.92], P=0.032), but not in patients on thiopurine monotherapy, ustekinumab or vedolizumab. Breakthrough infection was associated with lower neutralising antibodies against WT and BA.4/5 (P<0.05). Conclusion(s): A third dose of COVID-19 vaccine based on the WT spike glycoprotein boosts neutralising antibody titres in patients with IBD. However, responses are lower against the currently dominant variant BA.4/5, particularly in patients taking anti-TNF or JAK-inhibitor therapy. Breakthrough infections are associated with lower neutralising antibodies and immunosuppressed IBD patients may receive additional benefit from bivalent vaccine boosters which target Omicron variants. .
ABSTRACT
Background: Randomised comparative data is lacking for focal therapy in localised prostate cancer. Imperial Prostate 4 CHRONOS (IP4-CHRONOS) is an RCT designed to reflect patient and physician equipoise to maximise acceptance to randomisation. Methods: Patients and physicians could opt for CHRONOS-A or CHRONOS-B. CHRONOS-A randomised between focal therapy (HIFU/cryotherapy) and radical therapy (radiation/prostatectomy). Using a multi-arm-multistage design, CHRONOS-B randomised between focal and focal combined with neoadjuvant medication (3 months of either finasteride or bicalutamide). We report the pilot phase outcomes on feasibility of randomisation. IP4-CHRONOS had ethics committee approval and was registered (ISRCTN17796995). Results: Due to impact of COVID-19, the target for CHRONOS-A was modified from 60 to 36;36 patients were randomised over 24 months from 7 sites (Nov/2019-Nov/2021). CHRONOS-B randomised 64 patients over 14 months across 6 sites (Dec/2019-Feb/2021). Median (IQR) age and PSA (ng/ml) for CHRONOS-A were 69 (65-72) years and 6 (5-7) and for 66 (60.5-70) years and 6 (4-7) for CHRONOS-B, respectively. 34/36 (94%) and 60/64 (94%) had ISUP Grade Group > / = 2, respectively. 4/18 (22%) randomised to radical in CHRONOS-A withdrew consent;1/22 (5%) randomised to focal withdrew. In CHRONOS-B, only 1/21 (5%) randomised to focal alone, and another randomised to focal with neoadjuvant bicalutamide withdrew. A qualitative recruitment intervention partially improved accrual to CHRONOS-A. Conclusions: IP4-CHRONOS evaluated patient and physician equipoise regarding focal therapy. Randomising between focal and radical therapy is not feasible due to strong patient preferences. A multi-arm, multi-stage RCT investigating the role of neoadjuvant agents combined with focal therapy is feasible.
ABSTRACT
Background : Robust COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody (Ab) responses are important for protective anti-viral immunity. Data are urgently needed to determine whether vaccineinduced immunity is impacted by commonly used immunosuppressive drug regimens in IBD. Methods: We prospectively recruited 447 adults (90 healthy controls and 357 IBD) at nine UK centres. The IBD study population was established (>12 weeks therapy) on either thiopurine monotherapy (n=78), infliximab (IFX) monotherapy (n=61), thiopurine & IFX combination therapy (n=70), ustekinumab (uste) monotherapy (n=56), vedolizumab (vedo) monotherapy (n=62) or tofacitinib (tofa) monotherapy (n=30). Participants had two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2 or mRNA1273 vaccines. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1 RBD) Ab concentrations, measured using the Elecsys anti- SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) Ab assay, 53-92 days after second vaccine dose, in participants without prior infection, adjusted by age & vaccine type. Secondary outcomes included proportions failing to generate protective Ab responses (defined cut-off anti-S concentration 15 U/ml, which correlated with 20% viral neutralization). Results: Geometric mean S Ab concentrations (figure 1) were lower in patients treated with IFX (153U/ml;p<0.0001), IFX and thiopurine combination (109U/mL;p<0.0001), tofa (430U/ml;p<0.0001) and uste (561U/ml;p=0.013) compared to controls (1596U/ml). No differences in S Ab concentrations were found between controls and thiopurine monotherapy-treated patients (1020U/ml;p=0.62), nor between controls and vedo-treated patients (944U/ml;p=0.69). In multivariable modelling (figure 2), lower S Ab concentrations were independently associated with IFX (FC 0.10 [95% CI 0.07-0.14], p<0.0001), tofa (0.36 [95% CI 0.19-0.69], p=0.002) and uste (0.56 [95% CI 0.31-1.00], p=0.049), but not with thiopurine (0.77 [95% CI 0.54-1.11], p=0.17) or vedo (1.01 [95% CI 0.61-1.68], p=0.96). mRNA vaccines (3.67 [95% CI 2.72-4.96], p<0.0001) and older age (0.82 [95% CI 0.73-0.91], p=0.0003) were independently associated with higher & lower S Ab concentrations respectively. Protective Ab responses were generated by all thiopurine monotherapy, vedo, tofa and healthy control participants, but not by 11% of patients on IFX monotherapy, 13% on thiopurine & IFX combination therapy and 4% on uste. Conclusions : COVID-19 vaccine-induced Ab responses are significantly reduced in patients treated with IFX, or tofa, and to a lesser extent with uste. No significant reduction was seen in vedo or thiopurine monotherapy-treated patients. Our data suggest that 3rd primary or booster vaccine doses for IBD patients might be tailored to an individual's immunosuppressive treatment. (Figure Presented) (Figure Presented)
ABSTRACT
Background: Robust COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody (Ab) responses are important for protective anti-viral immunity. Data are urgently needed to determine whether vaccine-induced immunity is impacted by commonly used immunosuppressive drug regimens in IBD. Methods: We prospectively recruited 447 adults (90 healthy controls and 357 IBD) at nine UK centres. The IBD study population was established (>12 weeks therapy) on either thiopurine monotherapy (n=78), infliximab (IFX) monotherapy (n=61), thiopurine & IFX combination therapy (n=70), ustekinumab (uste) monotherapy (n=56), vedolizumab (vedo) monotherapy (n=62) or tofacitinib (tofa) monotherapy (n=30). Participants had two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2 or mRNA1273 vaccines. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1 RBD) Ab concentrations, measured using the Elecsys anti- SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) Ab assay, 53-92 days after second vaccine dose, in participants without prior infection, adjusted by age & vaccine type. Secondary outcomes included proportions failing to generate protective Ab responses (defined cut-off anti-S concentration 15 U/mL, which correlated with 20% viral neutralization). Results: Geometric mean S Ab concentrations (figure 1) were lower in patients treated with IFX (153U/mL;p<0.0001), IFX and thiopurine combination (109U/mL;p<0.0001), tofa (430U/mL;p<0.0001) and uste (561U/mL;p=0.013) compared to controls (1596U/ml). No differences in S Ab concentrations were found between controls and thiopurine monotherapy- treated patients (1020U/mL;p=0.62), nor between controls and vedo-treated patients (944 U/mL;p=0.69). In multivariable modelling (figure 2), lower S Ab concentrations were independently associated with IFX (FC 0.10 [95% CI 0.07-0.14], p<0.0001), tofa (0.36 [95% CI 0.19-0.69], p=0.002) and uste (0.56 [95% CI 0.31-1.00], p=0.049), but not with thiopurine (0.77 [95% CI 0.54-1.11], p=0.17) or vedo (1.01 [95% CI 0.61-1.68], p=0.96). mRNA vaccines (3.67 [95% CI 2.72- 4.96], p<0.0001) and older age (0.82 [95% CI 0.73-0.91], p=0.0003) were independently associated with higher & lower S Ab concentrations respectively. Protective Ab responses were generated by all thiopurine monotherapy, vedo, tofa and healthy control participants, but not by 11% of patients on IFX monotherapy, 13% on thiopurine & IFX combination therapy and 4% on uste. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccine-induced Ab responses are significantly reduced in patients treated with IFX, or tofa, and to a lesser extent with uste. No significant reduction was seen in vedo or thiopurine monotherapy-treated patients. Our data suggest that 3rd primary or booster vaccine doses for IBD patients might be tailored to an individual's immunosuppressive treatment.