Explore the vast range of titles available.

Stent retriever thrombectomy of large-vessel occlusion results in better outcomes than medical therapy alone. Alternative thrombectomy strategies, particularly a direct aspiration as first pass technique, while promising, have not been rigorously assessed for clinical efficacy in randomised trials. We designed COMPASS to assess whether patients treated with aspiration as first pass have non-inferior functional outcomes to those treated with a stent retriever as first line. We did a multicentre, randomised, open label, blinded outcome, core lab adjudicated non-inferiority trial at 15 sites (ten hospitals and four specialty clinics in the USA and one hospital in Canada). Eligible participants were patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke from anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion within 6 h of onset and an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of greater than 6. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) via a central web-based system without stratification to either direct aspiration first pass or stent retriever first line thrombectomy. Those assessing primary outcomes via clinical examinations were masked to group assignment as they were not involved in the procedures. Physicians were allowed to use adjunctive technology as was consistent with their standard of care. The null hypothesis for this study was that patients treated with aspiration as first pass achieve inferior outcomes compared with those treated with a stent retriever first line approach. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of clinical functional outcome at 90 days as measured by the percentage of patients achieving a modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2, analysed by intent to treat; non-inferiority was established with a margin of 0·15. All randomly assigned patients were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT02466893. Between June 1, 2015, and July 5, 2017, we assigned 270 patients to treatment: 134 to aspiration first pass and 136 to stent retriever first line. A modified Rankin score of 0–2 at 90 days was achieved by 69 patients (52%; 95% CI 43·8–60·3) in the aspiration group and 67 patients (50%; 41·6–57·4) in the stent retriever group, showing that aspiration as first pass was non-inferior to stent retriever first line (pnon-inferiority=0·0014). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 48 (36%) of 134 in the aspiration first pass group, and 46 (34%) of 135 in the stent retriever first line group. All-cause mortality at 3 months occurred in 30 patients (22%) in both groups. A direct aspiration as first pass thrombectomy conferred non-inferior functional outcome at 90 days compared with stent retriever first line thrombectomy. This study supports the use of direct aspiration as an alternative to stent retriever as first-line therapy for stroke thrombectomy. Penumbra.

Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Tirzepatide, a once-weekly GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, reduces blood glucose and body weight in people with type 2 diabetes. The cardiovascular (CV) safety and efficacy of tirzepatide have not been definitively assessed in a cardiovascular outcomes trial. Tirzepatide is being studied in a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled CV outcomes trial. People with type 2 diabetes aged ≥40 years, with established atherosclerotic CV disease, HbA1c ≥7% to ≤10.5%, and body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 were randomized 1:1 to once weekly subcutaneous injection of either tirzepatide up to 15 mg or dulaglutide 1.5 mg. The primary outcome is time to first occurrence of any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The trial is event-driven and planned to continue until ≥1,615 participants experience an adjudication-confirmed component of MACE. The primary analysis is noninferiority for time to first MACE of tirzepatide vs dulaglutide by demonstrating an upper confidence limit <1.05, which will also confirm superiority vs a putative placebo, and also to determine whether tirzepatide produces a greater CV benefit than dulaglutide (superiority analysis). Over 2 years, 13,299 people at 640 sites in 30 countries across all world regions were randomized. The mean age of randomized participants at baseline was 64.1 years, diabetes duration 14.7 years, HbA1c 8.4%, and BMI 32.6 kg/m2. Overall, 65.0% had coronary disease, of whom 47.3% reported prior myocardial infarction and 57.4% had prior coronary revascularization. 19.1% of participants had a prior stroke and 25.3% had peripheral artery disease. The trial is fully recruited and ongoing. SURPASS-CVOT will provide definitive evidence as to the CV safety and efficacy of tirzepatide as compared with dulaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with established CV benefit.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although it has been widely appreciated that obesity is a major risk factor for CVD, treatments that produce effective, durable weight loss and the impact of weight reduction in reducing cardiovascular risk have been elusive. Instead, progress in CVD risk reduction has been achieved through medications indicated for controlling lipids, hyperglycemia, blood pressure, heart failure, inflammation, and/or thrombosis. Obesity has been implicated as promoting all these issues, suggesting that sustained, effective weight loss may have independent cardiovascular benefit. GLP-1 receptor agonists (RAs) reduce weight, improve glycemia, decrease cardiovascular events in those with diabetes, and may have additional cardioprotective effects. The GLP-1 RA semaglutide is in phase 3 studies as a medication for obesity treatment at a dose of 2.4 mg subcutaneously (s.c.) once weekly. Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients with Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial testing if semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously once weekly is superior to placebo when added to standard of care for preventing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with established CVD and overweight or obesity but without diabetes. SELECT is the first cardiovascular outcomes trial to evaluate superiority in major adverse cardiovascular events reduction for an antiobesity medication in such a population. As such, SELECT has the potential for advancing new approaches to CVD risk reduction while targeting obesity.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used in revascularisation of patients with left main coronary artery disease in place of the standard treatment, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The NOBLE trial aimed to evaluate whether PCI was non-inferior to CABG in the treatment of left main coronary artery disease and reported outcomes after a median follow-up of 3·1 years. We now report updated 5-year outcomes of the trial. The prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority NOBLE trial was done at 36 hospitals in nine northern European countries. Patients with left main coronary artery disease requiring revascularisation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PCI or CABG. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG was defined as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) not exceeding 1·35 after 275 MACCE had occurred. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularisation. Outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01496651. Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were enrolled and allocated to PCI (n=598) or CABG (n=603), with 17 subsequently lost to early follow-up. 592 patients in each group were included in this analysis. At a median of 4·9 years of follow-up, the predefined number of events was reached for adequate power to assess the primary endpoint. Kaplan-Meier 5-year estimates of MACCE were 28% (165 events) for PCI and 19% (110 events) for CABG (HR 1·58 [95% CI 1·24–2·01]); the HR exceeded the limit for non-inferiority of PCI compared to CABG. CABG was found to be superior to PCI for the primary composite endpoint (p=0·0002). All-cause mortality was estimated in 9% after PCI versus 9% after CABG (HR 1·08 [95% CI 0·74–1·59]; p=0·68); non-procedural myocardial infarction was estimated in 8% after PCI versus 3% after CABG (HR 2·99 [95% CI 1·66–5·39]; p=0·0002); and repeat revascularisation was estimated in 17% after PCI versus 10% after CABG (HR 1·73 [95% CI 1·25–2·40]; p=0·0009). In revascularisation of left main coronary artery disease, PCI was associated with an inferior clinical outcome at 5 years compared with CABG. Mortality was similar after the two procedures but patients treated with PCI had higher rates of non-procedural myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation. Biosensors.

Non-adherence in non-inferiority trials can affect treatment effect estimates and often increases the chance of claiming non-inferiority under the standard intention-to-treat analysis. This article discusses the implications of different patterns of non-adherence in non-inferiority trials and offers practical recommendations for trial design, alternative analysis strategies, and outcome reporting to reduce bias in treatment estimates and improve transparency in reporting.

Opportunities to decrease the toxicity and cost of approved treatment regimens with lower dose, less frequent, or shorter duration alternative regimens have been limited by the perception that alternatives must be non-inferior to approved regimens. Non-inferiority trials are large and expensive to do, because they must show statistically that the alternative and approved therapies differ in a single outcome, by a margin far smaller than that required to demonstrate superiority. Non-inferiority's flaws are manifest: it ignores variability expected to occur with repeated evaluation of the approved therapy, fails to recognise that a trial of similar design will be labelled as superiority or non-inferiority depending on whether it is done prior to or after initial registration of the approved treatment, and relegates endpoints such as toxicity and cost. For example, while a less toxic and less costly regimen of 3 months duration would typically be required to demonstrate efficacy that is non-inferior to that of a standard regimen of 6 months to displace it, the longer duration therapy has no such obligation to prove its superiority. This situation is the tyranny of the non-inferiority trial: its statistics perpetuate less cost-effective regimens, which are not patient-centred, even when less intensive therapies confer survival benefits nearly identical to those of the standard, by placing a disproportionately large burden of proof on the alternative. This approach is illogical. We propose that the designation of trials as superiority or non-inferiority be abandoned, and that randomised, controlled trials should henceforth be described simply as “comparative”.

Primaquine is the only widely used drug that prevents Plasmodium vivax malaria relapses, but adherence to the standard 14-day regimen is poor. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a shorter course (7 days) of primaquine for radical cure of vivax malaria. We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight health-care clinics (two each in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Vietnam). Patients (aged ≥6 months) with normal glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) and presenting with uncomplicated vivax malaria were enrolled. Patients were given standard blood schizontocidal treatment and randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive 7 days of supervised primaquine (1·0 mg/kg per day), 14 days of supervised primaquine (0·5 mg/kg per day), or placebo. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of symptomatic P vivax parasitaemia during the 12-month follow-up period, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A margin of 0·07 recurrences per person-year was used to establish non-inferiority of the 7-day regimen compared with the 14-day regimen. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01814683). Between July 20, 2014, and Nov 25, 2017, 2336 patients were enrolled. The incidence rate of symptomatic recurrent P vivax malaria was 0·18 (95% CI 0·15 to 0·21) recurrences per person-year for 935 patients in the 7-day primaquine group and 0·16 (0·13 to 0·18) for 937 patients in the 14-day primaquine group, a difference of 0·02 (−0·02 to 0·05, p=0·3405). The incidence rate for 464 patients in the placebo group was 0·96 (95% CI 0·83 to 1·08) recurrences per person-year. Potentially drug-related serious adverse events within 42 days of starting treatment were reported in nine (1·0%) of 935 patients in the 7-day group, one (0·1%) of 937 in the 14-day group and none of 464 in the control arm. Four of the serious adverse events were significant haemolysis (three in the 7-day group and one in the 14-day group). In patients with normal G6PD, 7-day primaquine was well tolerated and non-inferior to 14-day primaquine. The short-course regimen might improve adherence and therefore the effectiveness of primaquine for radical cure of P vivax malaria. UK Department for International Development, UK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust through the Joint Global Health Trials Scheme (MR/K007424/1) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1054404).

The optimal radiotherapy dose for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma is uncertain. We aimed to compare 24 Gy in 12 fractions (representing the standard of care) with 4 Gy in two fractions (low-dose radiation). FoRT (Follicular Radiotherapy Trial) is a randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 43 study centres in the UK. We enrolled patients (aged >18 years) with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had histological confirmation of follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma requiring radical or palliative radiotherapy. No limit on performance status was stipulated, and previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy to another site was permitted. Radiotherapy target sites were randomly allocated (1:1) either 24 Gy in 12 fractions or 4 Gy in two fractions using minimisation and stratified by histology, treatment intent, and study centre. Randomisation was centralised through the Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre. Patients, treating clinicians, and investigators were not masked to random assignments. The primary endpoint was time to local progression in the irradiated volume based on clinical and radiological evaluation and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The non-inferiority threshold aimed to exclude the chance that 4 Gy was more than 10% inferior to 24 Gy in terms of local control at 2 years (HR 1·37). Safety (in terms of adverse events) was analysed in patients who received any radiotherapy and who returned an adverse event form. FoRT is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00310167, and the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN65687530, and this report represents the long-term follow-up. Between April 7, 2006, and June 8, 2011, 614 target sites in 548 patients were randomly assigned either 24 Gy in 12 fractions (n=299) or 4 Gy in two fractions (n=315). At a median follow-up of 73·8 months (IQR 61·9–88·0), 117 local progression events were recorded, 27 in the 24 Gy group and 90 in the 4 Gy group. The 2-year local progression-free rate was 94·1% (95% CI 90·6–96·4) after 24 Gy and 79·8% (74·8–83·9) after 4 Gy; corresponding rates at 5 years were 89·9% (85·5–93·1) after 24 Gy and 70·4% (64·7–75·4) after 4 Gy (hazard ratio 3·46, 95% CI 2·25–5·33; p<0·0001). The difference at 2 years remains outside the non-inferiority margin of 10% at −13·0% (95% CI −21·7 to −6·9). The most common events at week 12 were alopecia (19 [7%] of 287 sites with 24 Gy vs six [2%] of 301 sites with 4 Gy), dry mouth (11 [4%] vs five [2%]), fatigue (seven [2%] vs five [2%]), mucositis (seven [2%] vs three [1%]), and pain (seven [2%] vs two [1%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Our findings at 5 years show that the optimal radiotherapy dose for indolent lymphoma is 24 Gy in 12 fractions when durable local control is the aim of treatment. Cancer Research UK.

In adults with mild asthma, a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid with a fast-onset long-acting β-agonist (LABA) used as reliever monotherapy reduces severe exacerbations compared with short-acting β-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy. We investigated the efficacy of combination budesonide–formoterol reliever therapy compared with maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline. We did a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial at 15 primary care or hospital-based clinical trials units and primary care practices in New Zealand. Participants were adults aged 18–75 years with a self-reported doctor's diagnosis of asthma who were using SABA for symptom relief with or without maintenance low to moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids in the previous 12 weeks. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to either reliever therapy with budesonide 200 μg–formoterol 6 μg Turbuhaler (one inhalation as needed for relief of symptoms) or maintenance budesonide 200 μg Turbuhaler (one inhalation twice daily) plus terbutaline 250 μg Turbuhaler (two inhalations as needed). Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment; the statistician was masked for analysis of the primary outcome. Six study visits were scheduled: randomisation, and weeks 4, 16, 28, 40, and 52. The primary outcome was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year analysed by intention to treat (severe exacerbations defined as use of systemic corticosteroids for at least 3 days because of asthma, or admission to hospital or an emergency department visit because of asthma requiring systemic corticosteroids). Safety analyses included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12616000377437. Between May 4, 2016, and Dec 22, 2017, we assigned 890 participants to treatment and included 885 eligible participants in the analysis: 437 assigned to budesonide–formoterol as needed and 448 to budesonide maintenance plus terbutaline as needed. Severe exacerbations per patient per year were lower with as-needed budesonide–formoterol than with maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline as needed (absolute rate per patient per year 0·119 vs 0·172; relative rate 0·69, 95% CI 0·48–1·00; p=0·049). Nasopharyngitis was the most common adverse event in both groups, occurring in 154 (35%) of 440 patients receiving as-needed budesonide–formoterol and 144 (32%) of 448 receiving maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline as needed. In adults with mild to moderate asthma, budesonide–formoterol used as needed for symptom relief was more effective at preventing severe exacerbations than maintenance low-dose budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline. The findings support the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma recommendation that inhaled corticosteroid–formoterol reliever therapy is an alternative regimen to daily low-dose inhaled corticosteroid for patients with mild asthma. Health Research Council of New Zealand.