Experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee for the RECOVERY trial, a large-scale adaptive platform randomised trial of treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

AIM: To inform the oversight of future clinical trials during a pandemic, we summarise the experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) for the Randomised Evaluation of COVID therapy trial (RECOVERY), a large-scale randomised adaptive platform clinical trial of treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: During the first 24 months of the trial (March 2020 to February 2022), the DMC oversaw accumulating data for 14 treatments in adults (plus 10 in children) involving > 45,000 randomised patients. Five trial aspects key for the DMC in performing its role were: a large committee of members, including some with extensive DMC experience and others who had broad clinical expertise; clear strategic planning, communication, and responsiveness by the trial principal investigators; data collection and analysis systems able to cope with phases of very rapid recruitment and link to electronic health records; an ability to work constructively with regulators (and other DMCs) to address emerging concerns without the need to release unblinded mortality results; and the use of videoconferencing systems that enabled national and international members to meet at short notice and from home during the pandemic when physical meetings were impossible. Challenges included that the first four treatments introduced were effectively 'competing' for patients (increasing pressure to make rapid decisions on each one); balancing the global health imperative to report on findings with the need to maintain confidentiality until the results were sufficiently certain to appropriately inform treatment decisions; and reliably assessing safety, especially for newer agents introduced after the initial wave and in the small numbers of pregnant women and children included. We present a series of case vignettes to illustrate some of the issues and the DMC decision-making related to hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, casirivimab + imdevimab, and tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: RECOVERY's streamlined adaptive platform design, linked to hospital-level and population-level health data, enabled the rapid and reliable assessment of multiple treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. The later introduction of factorial assessments increased the trial's efficiency, without compromising the DMC's ability to assess safety and efficacy. Requests for the release of unblinded primary outcome data to regulators at points when data were not mature required significant efforts in communication with the regulators by the DMC to avoid inappropriate early trial termination.

The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, the United Kingdom has invested significant resources in its clinical trial infrastructure. Clinical research networks have been formed, and some general oversight functions for clinical research have been centralised. One of the initiatives is a registration programme for Clinical Trials Units involved in the coordination of clinical trials. An international review panel of experts in clinical trials has been convened for three reviews over time, reviewing applications from Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The process benefited from earlier work by the National Cancer Research Institute that developed accreditation procedures for trials units involved in cancer trials. This article describes the experience with the three reviews of UK Clinical Trials Units which submitted applications. PURPOSE: This article describes the evolution and impact of this registration process from the perspective of the current international review panel members, some of whom have served on all reviews, including two done by the National Cancer Research Institute. PROCESS: Applications for registration were invited from all active, non-commercial Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The invitations were issued in 2007, 2009 and 2012, and applicants were asked to describe their expertise and staffing levels in specific areas. To ensure that the reviews were as objective as possible, a description of expected core competencies was developed and applicants were asked to document their compliance with meeting these. The review panel assessed each Clinical Trials Unit against the competencies. The Clinical Trials Unit registration process has evolved over time with each successive review benefiting from what was learned in earlier ones. RESULTS: The review panel has seen positive changes over time, including an increase in the number of units applying, a greater awareness on the part of host institutions about the trials activity within their organisations, more widespread development of Standard Operating Procedures in key areas and improvements in information technology systems used to host clinical trials databases. Key funders are awarding funds only to registered units, and host institutions are implementing procedures and structures to ensure improved communication between all parties involved in trials within their organisation. CONCLUSION: The registration process developed in the United Kingdom has helped to ensure that trials units in the United Kingdom are compliant with regulatory standards and can meet acceptable standards of quality in their conduct of clinical trials. There is an increased awareness among funders, host institutions and Clinical Trials Units themselves of the required competencies, and communication between all those involved in trials has increased. The registration process is an effective and financially viable way of ensuring that objective standards are met at a national level.

Video Rating in Neurodegenerative Disease Clinical Trials: The Experience of PRION-1.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Large clinical trials including patients with uncommon diseases involve assessors in different geographical locations, resulting in considerable inter-rater variability in assessment scores. As video recordings of examinations, which can be individually rated, may eliminate such variability, we measured the agreement between a single video rater and multiple examining physicians in the context of PRION-1, a clinical trial of the antimalarial drug quinacrine in human prion diseases. METHODS: We analysed a 43-component neurocognitive assessment battery, on 101 patients with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, focusing on the correlation and agreement between examining physicians and a single video rater. RESULTS: In total, 335 videos of examinations of 101 patients who were video-recorded over the 4-year trial period were assessed. For neurocognitive examination, inter-observer concordance was generally excellent. Highly visual neurological examination domains (e.g. finger-nose-finger assessment of ataxia) had good inter-rater correlation, whereas those dependent on non-visual clues (e.g. power or reflexes) correlated poorly. Some non-visual neurological domains were surprisingly concordant, such as limb muscle tone. CONCLUSION: Cognitive assessments and selected neurological domains can be practically and accurately recorded in a clinical trial using video rating. Video recording of examinations is a valuable addition to any trial provided appropriate selection of assessment instruments is used and rigorous training of assessors is undertaken.

Cost effectiveness analysis of clinically driven versus routine laboratory monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in Uganda and Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: Despite funding constraints for treatment programmes in Africa, the costs and economic consequences of routine laboratory monitoring for efficacy and toxicity of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have rarely been evaluated. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the DART trial (ISRCTN13968779). Adults in Uganda/Zimbabwe starting ART were randomised to clinically-driven monitoring (CDM) or laboratory and clinical monitoring (LCM); individual patient data on healthcare resource utilisation and outcomes were valued with primary economic costs and utilities. Total costs of first/second-line ART, routine 12-weekly CD4 and biochemistry/haematology tests, additional diagnostic investigations, clinic visits, concomitant medications and hospitalisations were considered from the public healthcare sector perspective. A Markov model was used to extrapolate costs and benefits 20 years beyond the trial. RESULTS: 3316 (1660LCM;1656CDM) symptomatic, immunosuppressed ART-naive adults (median (IQR) age 37 (32,42); CD4 86 (31,139) cells/mm(3)) were followed for median 4.9 years. LCM had a mean 0.112 year (41 days) survival benefit at an additional mean cost of $765 [95%CI:685,845], translating into an adjusted incremental cost of $7386 [3277,dominated] per life-year gained and $7793 [4442,39179] per quality-adjusted life year gained. Routine toxicity tests were prominent cost-drivers and had no benefit. With 12-weekly CD4 monitoring from year 2 on ART, low-cost second-line ART, but without toxicity monitoring, CD4 test costs need to fall below $3.78 to become cost-effective (<3xper-capita GDP, following WHO benchmarks). CD4 monitoring at current costs as undertaken in DART was not cost-effective in the long-term. CONCLUSIONS: There is no rationale for routine toxicity monitoring, which did not affect outcomes and was costly. Even though beneficial, there is little justification for routine 12-weekly CD4 monitoring of ART at current test costs in low-income African countries. CD4 monitoring, restricted to the second year on ART onwards, could be cost-effective with lower cost second-line therapy and development of a cheaper, ideally point-of-care, CD4 test.

Results of antiretroviral treatment interruption and intensification in advanced multi-drug resistant HIV infection from the OPTIMA trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidance is needed on best medical management for advanced HIV disease with multidrug resistance (MDR) and limited retreatment options. We assessed two novel antiretroviral (ARV) treatment approaches in this setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a 2×2 factorial randomized open label controlled trial in patients with a CD4 count≤300 cells/µl who had ARV treatment (ART) failure requiring retreatment, to two options (a) re-treatment with either standard (≤4 ARVs) or intensive (≥5 ARVs) ART and b) either treatment starting immediately or after a 12-week monitored ART interruption. Primary outcome was time to developing a first AIDS-defining event (ADE) or death from any cause. Analysis was by intention to treat. From 2001 to 2006, 368 patients were randomized. At baseline, mean age was 48 years, 2% were women, median CD4 count was 106/µl, mean viral load was 4.74 log(10) copies/ml, and 59% had a prior AIDS diagnosis. Median follow-up was 4.0 years in 1249 person-years of observation. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary composite outcome of ADE or death between re-treatment options of standard versus intensive ART (hazard ratio 1.17; CI 0.86-1.59), or between immediate retreatment initiation versus interruption before re-treatment (hazard ratio 0.93; CI 0.68-1.30), or in the rate of non-HIV associated serious adverse events between re-treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe clinical benefit or harm assessed by the primary outcome in this largest and longest trial exploring both ART interruption and intensification in advanced MDR HIV infection with poor retreatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00050089.

Randomised, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate co-trimoxazole to reduce mortality and morbidity in HIV-infected post-natal women in Zambia (TOPAZ).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of prophylactic trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole) antibacterial prophylaxis in reducing morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected post-natal women in southern Africa. METHODS: Double-blind placebo-controlled trial. HIV-infected women with WHO stage 2 or 3 HIV disease who had recently delivered in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia were randomised to receive daily co-trimoxazole (cotox) or matched placebo daily for the duration of the trial. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. Primary outcome measures were mortality from any cause or hospital admission and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Of 600 women randomised, follow-up information was available from 355 (180 cotox, 175 placebo) participants. Thirty-six (17 cotox, 19 placebo) women died during the trial, and another 11 (5 cotox, 6 placebo) were admitted to hospital. There was no significant difference in the combined event rates between the two treatment arms: HR = 0.82, 95% CI (0.46, 1.45), P = 0.49; morbidity was reduced over a range of symptoms. Secondary analyses of the outcome in babies indicated some evidence of reduced mortality in those whose mothers were allocated cotox. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up rates were poor; there was no evidence that co-trimoxazole prophylaxis reduced mortality or hospital admission rates, although fewer symptoms were reported in the cotox arm. Cotox was safe and well tolerated.

PRO2000 vaginal gel for prevention of HIV-1 infection (Microbicides Development Programme 301): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Innovative prevention strategies for HIV-1 transmission are urgently needed. PRO2000 vaginal gel was efficacious against HIV-1 transmission in studies in macaques; we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of 2% and 0·5% PRO2000 gels against vaginal HIV-1 transmission in women in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: Microbicides Development Programme 301 was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, undertaken at 13 clinics in South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. We randomly assigned sexually active women, aged 18 years or older (≥16 years in Tanzania and Uganda) without HIV-1 infection in a 1:1:1 ratio to 2% PRO2000, 0·5% PRO2000, or placebo gel groups for 52 weeks (up to 104 weeks in Uganda). Randomisation was done by computerised random number generator. Investigators and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was incidence of HIV-1 infection before week 52, which was censored for pregnancy and excluded participants without HIV-1 follow-up data or with HIV-1 infection at enrolment. HIV-1 status was established by rapid tests or ELISA at screening at 12 weeks, 24 weeks, 40 weeks, and 52 weeks, and confirmed in a central reference laboratory. The primary safety endpoint was an adverse event of grade 3 or worse. Use of 2% PRO2000 gel was discontinued on Feb 14, 2008, on the recommendation of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee because of low probability of benefit. This trial is registered at http://isrctn.org, number ISRCTN 64716212. FINDINGS: We enrolled 9385 of 15 818 women screened. 2591 (95%) of 2734 participants enrolled to the 2% PRO2000 group, 3156 (95%) of 3326 in the 0·5% PRO2000 group, and 3112 (94%) of 3325 in the placebo group were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Mean reported gel use at last sex act was 89% (95% CI 86-91). HIV-1 incidence was much the same between groups at study end (incidence per 100 woman-years was 4·5 [95% CI 3·8-5·4] for 0·5% PRO2000 vs 4·3 [3·6-5·2] for placebo, hazard ratio 1·05 [0·82-1·34], p=0·71), and at discontinuation (4·7 [3·8-5·8] for 2% PRO2000 gel, 3·9 [3·0-4·9] for 0·5% PRO2000 gel, and 3·9 [3·1-5·0] for placebo gel). Incidence of the primary safety endpoint at study end was 4·6 per 100 woman-years (95% CI 3·9-5·4) in the 0·5% PRO2000 group and 3·9 (3·2-4·6) in the placebo group; and was 4·5 (3·7-5·5) in the 2% PRO2000 group at discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Although safe, 0·5% PRO2000 and 2% PRO2000 are not efficacious against vaginal HIV-1 transmission and are not indicated for this use. FUNDING: UK Department for International Development, UK Medical Research Council, European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, International Partnership for Microbicides, and Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions.

Regulatory impediments jeopardizing the conduct of clinical trials in Europe funded by the National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: A number of reports have highlighted problems of conducting publicly funded trials in Europe as a consequence of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive. The impact of the EU Directive on multi-national trials, which include sites in Europe that are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not been described. METHODS: Four problems in the conduct of two international HIV treatment trials funded by NIH in the EU are described: (1) conflicting regulations on the continuing review of protocols by Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees; (2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States. RESULTS: A lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants. LIMITATIONS: The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate. CONCLUSIONS: Disharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority.

Safety and efficacy of quinacrine in human prion disease (PRION-1 study): a patient-preference trial.

BACKGROUND: The propagation of prions, the causative agents of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and other human prion diseases, requires post-translational conversion of normal cellular prion protein to disease-associated forms. The antimalarial drug quinacrine (mepacrine) prevents this conversion in vitro, and was given to patients with various prion diseases to assess its safety and efficacy in changing the course of these invariably fatal and untreatable diseases. METHODS: Patients with prion disease were recruited via the UK national referral system and were offered a choice between quinacrine (300 mg daily), no quinacrine, or randomisation to immediate quinacrine or deferred quinacrine in an open-label, patient-preference trial. The primary endpoints were death and serious adverse events possibly or probably related to the study drug. This study is registered, ISRCTN 06722585. FINDINGS: 107 patients with prion disease (45 sporadic, two iatrogenic, 18 variant, and 42 inherited) were enrolled, 23 in a pilot study and 84 in the main study. Only two patients chose randomisation; 40 took quinacrine during follow-up (37 who chose it at enrollment). Choice of treatment was associated with disease severity, with those least and most severely affected more likely to choose not to receive quinacrine. 78 (73%) patients died: one randomly assigned to deferred treatment, 26 of 38 who chose immediate quinacrine, and 51 of 68 who chose no quinacrine. Although adjusted mortality was lower in those who chose to take quinacrine than in those who did not, this was due to confounding with disease severity, and there was no difference in mortality between groups after adjustment. Four of 40 patients who took quinacrine had a transient response on neurological rating scales. Only two of 14 reported serious adverse events were judged quinacrine-related. INTERPRETATION: Quinacrine at a dose of 300 mg per day was reasonably tolerated but did not significantly affect the clinical course of prion diseases in this observational study.

Estimating glomerular filtration rate in HIV-infected adults in Africa: comparison of Cockcroft-Gault and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formulae.

BACKGROUND: Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formulae are recommended for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation, but neither has been validated or directly compared longitudinally in HIV-infected patients or in Africa. METHODS: We investigated differences between formulae in baseline GFR, GFR changes and incidence of impaired GFR after initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in 3,316 HIV-infected adults in Africa, considering sex, age, body mass index and baseline laboratory parameters as predictors. RESULTS: Participants were 65% women, median age 36.8 years, median weight 56.7 kg. Baseline GFR was lower using CG (median 89 ml/min/1.73 m2, 7.4% <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) versus MDRD (103 ml/min/1.73 m2, 3.1% <60 ml/min/1.73 m2). At 36 weeks, median CG-GFR increased (92 ml/min/1.73 m2), whereas MDRD-GFR decreased (96 ml/min/1.73 m2). Weight (explicitly a factor in CG only) concurrently increased to 62.0 kg. GFR changes from weeks 36-96 (after weight stabilization) were similar across formulae. By 96 weeks, 56 patients developed severe GFR impairment (<30 ml/min/1.73 m2) using one or both formulae (both n=45, CG n=7, MDRD n=4) compared with only 24 by serum creatinine alone. Multivariate models identified different sets of predictors for each formula. CONCLUSIONS: Although severe GFR impairments are similarly classified by different formulae, moderate impairments were more frequently identified using CG-GFR versus MDRD-GFR (with Black ethnicity correction factor 1.21), and creatinine alone had low sensitivity. Given overestimation in underweight patients and sensitivity to weight changes, this MDRD formula might not necessarily be superior for monitoring ART in African HIV-infected adults.

Role of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in reducing mortality in HIV infected adults being treated for tuberculosis: randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of prophylactic oral co-trimoxazole in reducing mortality in HIV positive Zambian adults being treated for pulmonary tuberculosis. DESIGN: Double blind placebo controlled randomised clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two groups of antiretroviral treatment naive adults with HIV infection: patients newly diagnosed as having tuberculosis and receiving tuberculosis treatment either for the first time or for retreatment after relapse; previously treated patients not receiving treatment. INTERVENTION: Oral co-trimoxazole or matching placebo daily. Primary outcome measures Time to death and occurrence of serious adverse events related to study drug. RESULTS: 1003 patients were randomised: 835 (416 co-trimoxazole, 419 placebo) were receiving treatment for tuberculosis, 762 (376 co-trimoxazole, 386 placebo) of them newly diagnosed previously untreated patients and 73 (40 co-trimoxazole, 33 placebo) receiving a retreatment regimen; 168 (84 co-trimoxazole, 84 placebo) were not on treatment but had received treatment in the past. Of 835 participants receiving tuberculosis treatment, follow-up information was available for 757, with a total of 1012.6 person years of follow-up. A total of 310 (147 co-trimoxazole, 163 placebo) participants died, corresponding to death rates of 27.3 and 34.4 per 100 person years. In the Cox regression analysis, the hazard ratio for death (co-trimoxazole:placebo) was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.99). The effect of co-trimoxazole waned with time, possibly owing to falling adherence levels; in a per protocol analysis based on patients who spent at least 90% of their time at risk supplied with study drug, the hazard ratio was 0.65 (0.45 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole reduces mortality in HIV infected adults with pulmonary tuberculosis. Co-trimoxazole was generally safe and well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15281875.

The impact of episodic CD4 cell count-guided antiretroviral therapy on quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of episodic antiretroviral therapy on quality of life (QOL). DESIGN: This was a substudy of the Strategies of Management of Antiretroviral Therapy study, in which patients were randomized to continuous versus CD4 cell count-guided episodic antiretroviral therapy. QOL assessments included an analog scale for current health and the Short-Form 12 Item Survey, a standard abbreviated QOL instrument. RESULTS: A total of 1225 patients had QOL assessments over a mean follow-up time of 2.4 years. Most (76%) were on antiretroviral therapy at enrollment; the median CD4 lymphocyte count was 575 (interquartile range: 455 to 784) cells/mm3; and mean current health was 75 on a scale from 0 to 100, and 50% reported very good or excellent general health. Through follow-up, whenever QOL outcomes differed, the results were inferior among patients in the episodic therapy group compared with the continuous therapy group (current health, Physical Health Component Score [both P = 0.05], general health perceptions, physical functioning, and energy [all P = 0.03]). HIV disease progression (opportunistic disease or death) was more common in the episodic therapy arm and was preceded by marked declines in QOL, but excluding participants with disease progression had minimal effect on QOL comparisons. CONCLUSION: CD4 count-guided episodic use of antiretroviral therapy resulted in inferior QOL compared with continuous therapy.

Main morbidities recorded in the women's international study of long duration oestrogen after menopause (WISDOM): a randomised controlled trial of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long term risks and benefits of hormone replacement therapy (combined hormone therapy versus placebo, and oestrogen alone versus combined hormone therapy). DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, placebo controlled, double blind trial. SETTING: General practices in UK (384), Australia (91), and New Zealand (24). PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women aged 50-69 years at randomisation. At early closure of the trial, 56,583 had been screened, 8980 entered run-in, and 5692 (26% of target of 22,300) started treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Oestrogen only therapy (conjugated equine oestrogens 0.625 mg orally daily) or combined hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogens plus medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5/5.0 mg orally daily). Ten years of treatment planned. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: major cardiovascular disease, osteoporotic fractures, and breast cancer. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: other cancers, death from all causes, venous thromboembolism, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, and quality of life. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely closed during recruitment, after a median follow-up of 11.9 months (interquartile range 7.1-19.6, total 6498 women years) in those enrolled, after the publication of early results from the women's health initiative study. The mean age of randomised women was 62.8 (SD 4.8) years. When combined hormone therapy (n=2196) was compared with placebo (n=2189), there was a significant increase in the number of major cardiovascular events (7 v 0, P=0.016) and venous thromboembolisms (22 v 3, hazard ratio 7.36 (95% CI 2.20 to 24.60)). There were no statistically significant differences in numbers of breast or other cancers (22 v 25, hazard ratio 0.88 (0.49 to 1.56)), cerebrovascular events (14 v 19, 0.73 (0.37 to 1.46)), fractures (40 v 58, 0.69 (0.46 to 1.03)), and overall deaths (8 v 5, 1.60 (0.52 to 4.89)). Comparison of combined hormone therapy (n=815) versus oestrogen therapy (n=826) outcomes revealed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Hormone replacement therapy increases cardiovascular and thromboembolic risk when started many years after the menopause. The results are consistent with the findings of the women's health initiative study and secondary prevention studies. Research is needed to assess the long term risks and benefits of starting hormone replacement therapy near the menopause, when the effect may be different. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 63718836.

A virological benefit from an induction/maintenance strategy: the Forte trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of a fourth drug for up to 32 weeks to a standard three-drug antiretroviral combination decreases the risk of virological failure without increasing toxicity in treatment-naive patients. DESIGN: Induction/maintenance (IM) therapy [two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) + one non-NRTI (NNRTI) + one protease inhibitor for 24-32 weeks until plasma HIV RNA viral load (VL) < or =50 copies/ml then two NRTIs + NNRTI] was compared with standard therapy (ST) (two NRTIs + NNRTI). The primary endpoint was virological failure: VL >50 copies/ml at 32 (and 24) weeks or subsequent rebound to >400 copies/ml. RESULTS: 122 (62 IM, 60 ST) participants were randomized and followed for a median of 81 weeks (IQR 64-145). 52% were asymptomatic; median CD4+ T-cell count was 160 x 10(6)/l (IQR 92-260) and median VL 98,830 copies/ml (IQR 37,500-241,290). In an intent-to-treat analysis, the proportion of participants with virological failure at or after 32 weeks was higher in the ST arm [26 (43%) versus 11 (18%), P = 0.002]. The mean decrease in VL at 48 weeks was 0.84 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.15, 1.53) log10 copies/ml greater in the IM arm (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T-cell count from baseline to 48 weeks, the number of participants with adverse events or the frequency of progression to AIDS/death. Drug resistance at failure was detected less frequently in the IM arm. CONCLUSIONS: Starting antiretroviral therapy with an IM strategy improved virological outcomes compared with a three-drug regimen, without significantly increasing toxicity.

Prevalence, incidence and predictors of severe anaemia with zidovudine-containing regimens in African adults with HIV infection within the DART trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence, incidence and predictors of severe anaemia in previously untreated symptomatic HIV-infected adults with CD4+ T-cells <200 cells/mm(3) initiating zidovudine-containing regimens in Africa. DESIGN: DART is a randomized trial comparing two strategies for HIV/AIDS management in Uganda and Zimbabwe. METHODS: We analysed the occurrence of anaemia at weeks 4 and 12, and then every 12 weeks. We also evaluated sex, age, WHO stage, body mass index (BMI), baseline laboratory measurements and first regimen as predictors of developing grade 4 anaemia (<6.5 mg/dl) by week 48 using logistic regression. RESULTS: To May 2005, 3,314 participants (65% women, 23% at WHO stage 4, median age=37 years, baseline CD4+ T-cell=86 cells/mm(3) and median baseline haemoglobin=11.4 g/dl) had a median 72 weeks follow-up. Prevalence of grade 4 anaemia was 0.70, 2.0%, 0.5% and <0.5% at weeks 4, 12, 24 and > or =36, respectively. Overall, 219 (6.6%) participants developed grade 4 anaemia by week 48; women and those with lower haemoglobin, CD4+ T-cell count and BMI at baseline were at significantly higher risk (P<0.05), but not those with lower neutrophils or receiving cotrimoxazole at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a higher incidence of grade 4 anaemia than in studies from industrialized countries, which is likely to be due in part to population characteristics and in part to a higher rate of concurrent HIV-related clinical events. Clinical vigilance and haemoglobin measurements 4, 8 and 12 weeks after starting zidovudine could help to manage serious anaemia.

Data monitoring in randomized controlled trials: surveys of recent practice and policies.

BACKGROUND: Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) are increasingly involved in the conduct of randomized controlled trials, but there is little documented evidence of what they do. Three interlinked surveys were carried out as part of the DAMOCLES project to explore recent and current DMC practice and policy. METHODS: 1) A questionnaire about DMC practice was sent to sample of 45 authors of trials published in selected journals in 2000. The sample was stratified by centre (single/multiple), disease area, and presence of DMC. 2) A sample of investigators in trials ongoing in the United Kingdom in 2001-02 was also sent a questionnaire about DMC practice. The sample was drawn from trials funded by the Medical Research Council, the United Kingdom Department of Health's Health Technology Assessment Programme, and a local and a multicentre research ethics committee. The sample was additionally stratified by funder (public/industry), centre (single/ multiple), and disease area. 3) A sample of major organisations involved in randomised controlled trials was sent a questionnaire about DMC policies. RESULTS: Information about DMC practice from the first survey was obtained from 31 trials (69%), of which four had a DMC. Information about DMC practice from the second survey was obtained about 36 trials (90%), of which 20 had a DMC. Information about DMC policy from the third survey was obtained from 25 out of 25 organisations. There was general agreement about the sorts of trials particularly needing independent DMCs, but there were few uniform approaches to their modes of functioning, and few of the organisations surveyed had developed formal policies. CONCLUSIONS: The roles of existing DMCs and policies governing DMC functioning vary widely across trials and organisations that sponsor or oversee trials, both within the UK and internationally. These findings reinforce previous calls for development of such policies across a wider range of organisations, better means to monitor their implementation within trials, and wider use of structured "charters", which set out DMC modus operandi in advance. Clinical Trials 2005; 2: 22-33. www.SCTjournal.com