Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial. INTERPRETATION: We found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive. FUNDING: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.

Overall Survival Update for Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Capivasertib and Docetaxel in the Phase 2 ProCAID Clinical Trial.

The PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway is frequently deregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). ProCAID was a phase 2 trial assessing addition of the AKT1/2/3 inhibitor capivasertib to docetaxel for patients with mCRPC. We previously reported that capivasertib did not extend a composite progression-free survival primary endpoint but did significantly improve the secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS). Here we present OS data after 66% of events had occurred in the intent-to-treat population (n = 150). Median OS was 25.3 mo for capivasertib plus docetaxel versus 20.3 mo for placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.05; nominal p = 0.09). Receipt of subsequent life-extending treatments was balanced between the treatment arms. The OS benefit associated with capivasertib was maintained in a subset of patients previously treated with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide (median OS 25.0 vs 17.6 mo; HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91; nominal p = 0.02) but not in abiraterone/enzalutamide-naïve patients (median OS 31.1 mo vs not reached; HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.63-3.23). We conclude that OS may be extended by addition of capivasertib to docetaxel. Exploratory analysis revealed that the OS benefit was maintained in a subset of patients previously exposed to androgen receptor-targeted agents, which should be evaluated in prospective trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The ProCAID study examined whether adding the AKT inhibitor drug capivasertib to docetaxel chemotherapy improves outcomes for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Initial analysis of the ProCAID results suggested that capivasertib improved overall survival benefit. This follow-up analysis suggests that capivasertib addition may be particularly beneficial for patients whose cancer was previously treated with drugs that target the androgen receptor.

Optimal dose and safety of molnupiravir in patients with early SARS-CoV-2: a Phase I, open-label, dose-escalating, randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: AGILE is a Phase Ib/IIa platform for rapidly evaluating COVID-19 treatments. In this trial (NCT04746183) we evaluated the safety and optimal dose of molnupiravir in participants with early symptomatic infection. METHODS: We undertook a dose-escalating, open-label, randomized-controlled (standard-of-care) Bayesian adaptive Phase I trial at the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Clinical Research Facility. Participants (adult outpatients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days of symptom onset) were randomized 2:1 in groups of 6 participants to 300, 600 and 800 mg doses of molnupiravir orally, twice daily for 5 days or control. A dose was judged unsafe if the probability of 30% or greater dose-limiting toxicity (the primary outcome) over controls was 25% or greater. Secondary outcomes included safety, clinical progression, pharmacokinetics and virological responses. RESULTS: Of 103 participants screened, 18 participants were enrolled between 17 July and 30 October 2020. Molnupiravir was well tolerated at 300, 600 and 800 mg doses with no serious or severe adverse events. Overall, 4 of 4 (100%), 4 of 4 (100%) and 1 of 4 (25%) of the participants receiving 300, 600 and 800 mg molnupiravir, respectively, and 5 of 6 (83%) controls, had at least one adverse event, all of which were mild (≤grade 2). The probability of ≥30% excess toxicity over controls at 800 mg was estimated at 0.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir was safe and well tolerated; a dose of 800 mg twice daily for 5 days was recommended for Phase II evaluation.

AGILE: a seamless phase I/IIa platform for the rapid evaluation of candidates for COVID-19 treatment: an update to the structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised platform trial letter.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent unmet clinical need for the identification of novel therapeutics for the treatment of COVID-19. A number of COVID-19 late phase trial platforms have been developed to investigate (often repurposed) drugs both in the UK and globally (e.g. RECOVERY led by the University of Oxford and SOLIDARITY led by WHO). There is a pressing need to investigate novel candidates within early phase trial platforms, from which promising candidates can feed into established later phase platforms. AGILE grew from a UK-wide collaboration to undertake early stage clinical evaluation of candidates for SARS-CoV-2 infection to accelerate national and global healthcare interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: AGILE is a seamless phase I/IIa platform study to establish the optimum dose, determine the activity and safety of each candidate and recommend whether it should be evaluated further. Each candidate is evaluated in its own trial, either as an open label single arm healthy volunteer study or in patients, randomising between candidate and control usually in a 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate. Each dose is assessed sequentially for safety usually in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified, efficacy is assessed by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. AGILE is completely flexible in that the core design in the master protocol can be adapted for each candidate based on prior knowledge of the candidate (i.e. population, primary endpoint and sample size can be amended). This information is detailed in each candidate specific trial protocol of the master protocol. DISCUSSION: Few approved treatments for COVID-19 are available such as dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab in hospitalised patients. The AGILE platform aims to rapidly identify new efficacious and safe treatments to help end the current global COVID-19 pandemic. We currently have three candidate specific trials within this platform study that are open to recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-001860-27 14 March 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746183  19 February 2021 ISRCTN reference: 27106947.

Phase I Trial of DNA Methyltransferase Inhibitor Guadecitabine Combined with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine for Solid Malignancies Including Urothelial Carcinoma (SPIRE).

PURPOSE: Preclinical data indicate that DNA methyltransferase inhibition will circumvent cisplatin resistance in various cancers. PATIENT AND METHODS: SPIRE comprised a dose-escalation phase for incurable metastatic solid cancers, followed by a randomized dose expansion phase for neoadjuvant treatment of T2-4a N0 M0 bladder urothelial carcinoma. The primary objective was a recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for guadecitabine combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Treatment comprised 21-day gemcitabine and cisplatin cycles (cisplatin 70 mg/m2, i.v., day 8 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2, i.v., days 8 + 15). Guadecitabine was injected subcutaneously on days 1-5, within escalation phase cohorts, and to half of 20 patients in the expansion phase. Registration ID: ISRCTN 16332228. RESULTS: Within the escalation phase, dose-limiting toxicities related predominantly to myelosuppression requiring G-CSF prophylaxis from cohort 2 (guadecitabine 20 mg/m2, days 1-5). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in 17 patients in the dose-escalation phase were neutropenia (76.5%), thrombocytopenia (64.7%), leukopenia (29.4%), and anemia (29.4%). Addition of guadecitabine to gemcitabine and cisplatin in the expansion phase resulted in similar rates of severe hematologic adverse events, similar cisplatin dose intensity, but modestly reduced gemcitabine dose intensity. Radical treatment options after chemotherapy were not compromised. Pharmacodynamics evaluations indicated guadecitabine maximal target effect at the point of cisplatin administration. Pharmacokinetics were consistent with prior data. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The guadecitabine RP2D was 20 mg/m2, days 1-5, in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin and required GCSF prophylaxis. Gene promoter methylation pharmacodynamics are optimal with this schedule. Addition of guadecitabine to gemcitabine and cisplatin was tolerable, despite some additional myelosuppression, and warrants further investigation to assess efficacy.

Pan-AKT Inhibitor Capivasertib With Docetaxel and Prednisolone in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial (ProCAID).

PURPOSE: Capivasertib is a pan-AKT inhibitor. Preclinical data indicate activity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and synergism with docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ProCAID was a placebo controlled randomized phase II trial in mCRPC. Patients received up to ten 21-day cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenous, day 1) and prednisolone (5 mg twice daily, oral, day 1-21) and were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral capivasertib (320 mg twice daily, 4 days on/3 days off, from day 2 each cycle), or placebo, until disease progression. Treatment allocation used minimization factors: bone metastases; visceral metastases; investigational site; and prior abiraterone or enzalutamide. The primary objective, by intention to treat, determined if the addition of capivasertib prolonged a composite progression-free survival (cPFS) end point that included prostate-specific antigen progression events. cPFS and overall survival (OS) were also assessed by composite biomarker subgroup for PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway activation status. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients were enrolled. Median cPFS was 7.03 (95% CI, 6.28 to 8.25) and 6.70 months (95% CI, 5.52 to 7.36) with capivasertib and placebo respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 80% CI, 0.73 to 1.16; one-sided P = .32). Median OS was 31.15 (95% CI, 20.07 to not reached) and 20.27 months (95% CI, 17.51 to 24.18), respectively (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.88; two-sided P = .01). cPFS and OS results were consistent irrespective of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway activation status. Grade III-IV adverse events were equivalent between arms (62.2%). The most common adverse events of any grade deemed related to capivasertib were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and rash. CONCLUSION: The addition of capivasertib to chemotherapy did not extend cPFS in mCRPC irrespective of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway activation status. The observed OS result (a secondary end point) will require prospective validation in future studies to address potential for bias.

ProCAID: a phase I clinical trial to combine the AKT inhibitor AZD5363 with docetaxel and prednisolone chemotherapy for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Background Docetaxel and prednisolone chemotherapy (DP) extends survival in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, emergent clinical resistance is almost inevitable. AKT pathway activation is highly prevalent in mCRPC contributing to disease progression and DP resistance. AZD5363 is a potent oral pan-AKT inhibitor with pre-clinical data indicating activity in mCRPC and synergy with docetaxel. Methods This phase I trial was to determine an AZD5363 recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for combination with DP. Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy naive mCRPC, PSA or radiographic disease progression and ECOG performance status 0 or 1. Treatment comprised DP (75 mg/m2, IV, day 1 and 5 mg BID, PO, day 1-21 respectively for ten cycles) and AZD5363 to disease progression for all patients. We utilised a 3 + 3 dose escalation design to determine a maximum tolerated dose according to defined dose limiting toxicity criteria assessed using CTCAE version 4.03. Planned AZD5363 dose levels were 320 mg (DL1), 400 mg (DL2) and 480 mg (DL3), BID, PO, 4 days on/3 days off, from day 2 of each cycle. Results 10 patients were treated. Dose limiting toxicities affected 2 patients (grade 3 rash ≥5 days; grade 3 diarrhoea) in DL2. The commonest grade 3 or 4, AZD5363 related, symptomatic adverse events were rash and diarrhoea. Hyperglycaemia affected all patients but was self-limiting. PSA reduction to <50% at 12 weeks occurred in 7 patients. Conclusions The RP2D for AZD5363 is 320 mg BID, 4 days on/3 days off, in combination with full dose DP for mCRPC.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of STeroids Or Pentoxifylline for Alcoholic Hepatitis (STOPAH): a 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is a distinct presentation of alcoholic liver disease arising in patients who have been drinking to excess for prolonged periods, which is characterised by jaundice and liver failure. Severe disease is associated with high short-term mortality. Prednisolone and pentoxifylline (PTX) are recommended in guidelines for treatment of severe AH, but trials supporting their use have given heterogeneous results and controversy persists about their benefit. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of STeroids Or Pentoxifylline for Alcoholic Hepatitis trial was to resolve the clinical dilemma on the use of prednisolone or PTX. DESIGN: The trial was a randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial, multicentre design. SETTING: Sixty-five gastroenterology and hepatology inpatient units across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a clinical diagnosis of AH who had a Maddrey's discriminant function value of ≥ 32 were randomised into four arms: A, placebo/placebo; B, placebo/prednisolone; C, PTX/placebo; and D, PTX/prednisolone. Of the 5234 patients screened for the trial, 1103 were randomised and after withdrawals, 1053 were available for primary end-point analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Those allocated to prednisolone were given 40 mg daily for 28 days and those allocated to PTX were given 400 mg three times per day for 28 days. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure was mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcome measures included mortality or liver transplant at 90 days and at 1 year. Rates of recidivism among survivors and the impact of recidivism on mortality were assessed. RESULTS: At 28 days, in arm A, 45 of 269 (16.7%) patients died; in arm B, 38 of 266 (14.3%) died; in arm C, 50 of 258 (19.4%) died; and in arm D, 35 of 260 (13.5%) died. For PTX, the odds ratio for 28-day mortality was 1.07 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.40; p = 0.686)] and for prednisolone the odds ratio was 0.72 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; p = 0.056). In the logistic regression analysis, accounting for indices of disease severity and prognosis, the odds ratio for 28-day mortality in the prednisolone-treated group was 0.61 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; p = 0.015). At 90 days and 1 year there were no significant differences in mortality rates between the treatment groups. Serious infections occurred in 13% of patients treated with prednisolone compared with 7% of controls (p = 0.002). At the 90-day follow-up, 45% of patients reported being completely abstinent, 9% reported drinking within safety limits and 33% had an unknown level of alcohol consumption. At 1 year, 37% of patients reported being completely abstinent, 10% reported drinking within safety limits and 39% had an unknown level of alcohol consumption. Only 22% of patients had attended alcohol rehabilitation treatment at 90 days and 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that prednisolone reduces the risk of mortality at 28 days, but this benefit is not sustained beyond 28 days. PTX had no impact on survival. Future research should focus on interventions to promote abstinence and on treatments that suppress the hepatic inflammation without increasing susceptibility to infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as EudraCT 2009-013897-42 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88782125. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 102. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The NIHR Clinical Research Network provided research nurse support and the Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre also provided funding.

Prednisolone or pentoxifylline for alcoholic hepatitis.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic hepatitis is a clinical syndrome characterized by jaundice and liver impairment that occurs in patients with a history of heavy and prolonged alcohol use. The short-term mortality among patients with severe disease exceeds 30%. Prednisolone and pentoxifylline are both recommended for the treatment of severe alcoholic hepatitis, but uncertainty about their benefit persists. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design to evaluate the effect of treatment with prednisolone or pentoxifylline. The primary end point was mortality at 28 days. Secondary end points included death or liver transplantation at 90 days and at 1 year. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis and severe disease were randomly assigned to one of four groups: a group that received a pentoxifylline-matched placebo and a prednisolone-matched placebo, a group that received prednisolone and a pentoxifylline-matched placebo, a group that received pentoxifylline and a prednisolone-matched placebo, or a group that received both prednisolone and pentoxifylline. RESULTS: A total of 1103 patients underwent randomization, and data from 1053 were available for the primary end-point analysis. Mortality at 28 days was 17% (45 of 269 patients) in the placebo-placebo group, 14% (38 of 266 patients) in the prednisolone-placebo group, 19% (50 of 258 patients) in the pentoxifylline-placebo group, and 13% (35 of 260 patients) in the prednisolone-pentoxifylline group. The odds ratio for 28-day mortality with pentoxifylline was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.49; P=0.69), and that with prednisolone was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.01; P=0.06). At 90 days and at 1 year, there were no significant between-group differences. Serious infections occurred in 13% of the patients treated with prednisolone versus 7% of those who did not receive prednisolone (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Pentoxifylline did not improve survival in patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Prednisolone was associated with a reduction in 28-day mortality that did not reach significance and with no improvement in outcomes at 90 days or 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; STOPAH EudraCT number, 2009-013897-42 , and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN88782125 ).