From: PLOS Neglected Tropical DiseaseJanuary 2014 Presented by Pavitra Charoensrisakkul and Peeraya Permkarnjaroen 3 rd year medical cadet Phramongkutklao.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MSF H (Um el Kher site) DNDi, IEnD (Sudan), KEMRI (Kenya), MoH (Ethiopia) A MULTICENTRE COMPARATIVE TRIAL OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF SODIUM STIBOGLUCONATE.
Advertisements

Design & Interpretation of Randomized Trials: A Clinician’s Perspective Francis KL Chan Department of Medicine & Therapeutics CUHK.
天 津 医 科 大 学天 津 医 科 大 学 Clinical trail. 天 津 医 科 大 学天 津 医 科 大 学 1.Historical Background 1537: Treatment of battle wounds: 1741: Treatment of Scurvy 1948:
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI  QDMRK  SPRING-2. Raffi F. Lancet 2013;381:  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of DTG at W48: % HIV RNA < 50 c/mL.
The Definitive Thrombosis Update
Efficacy and Safety outcomes: Liposomal Amphotericin B (Ambisome) treatment for Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) under routine programme conditions in Bihar,
Persisting long term benefit of genotypic guided treatment in HIV infected patients failing HAART and Importance of Protease Inhibitor plasma levels. Viradapt.
Effect of Hepatic Impairment on Sorafenib Pharmacokinetics: Results of a Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Dose, Phase I Trial J Lettieri, A Mazzu,
Clinical Trial Results. org The ERASE Trial: Effect of rHDL on Atherosclerosis-Safety and Efficacy Presented at American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific.
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r  EFV vs LPV/r vs EFV + LPV/r –A5142 –Mexican Study  NVP vs ATV/r –ARTEN  EFV vs ATV/r –A5202.
CIBIS III Ronnie Willenheimer University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden, on behalf of the CIBIS III investigators Results of the randomized Cardiac Insufficiency.
Lecture 16 (Oct 28, 2004)1 Lecture 16: Introduction to the randomized trial Introduction to intervention studies The research question: Efficacy vs effectiveness.
Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis. Brief Background Typically follows viral infection Dx is by clinical manifestations Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus.
LOGO Sequential versus triple therapy for the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori: a multicentre, open-lable, randomised trial 杨 天 Epidemiology.
Comparison of RTV vs Cobi  GS-US Gallant JE. JID 2013;208:32-9 GS-US  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of COBI compared with RTV.
Study design P.Olliaro Nov04. Study designs: observational vs. experimental studies What happened?  Case-control study What’s happening?  Cross-sectional.
Phase 2 of new ARVs  Fostemsavir, prodrug of temsavir (attachment inhibitor) –AI Study  TAF (TFV prodrug) –Study –Study  Doravirine.
Duality of interests B.M. Mayosi has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Cadila Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Servier.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through COMbination Therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension The First Outcomes Trial of Initial Therapy With.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
Comparison of NRTI combinations  ZDV/3TC vs TDF + FTC –Study 934  ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC –HEAT Study –ACTG A5202 Study –ASSERT Study  FTC/TDF vs FTC/TAF.
Randomized Trial of Ea rly S urgery Versus Conventional Treatment for Infective E ndocarditis (EASE) Duk-Hyun Kang, MD, PhD on behalf of The EASE Trial.
Critical Appraisal Did the study address a clearly focused question? Did the study address a clearly focused question? Was the assignment of patients.
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV  STARTMRK  GS-US  SINGLE.
Oral Rivaroxaban for Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism.
The COMBINE Study: Design and Methodology Stephanie S. O’Malley, Ph.D. for The COMBINE Study Research Group JAMA Vol. 295, , 2006 (May 3 rd.
CE-1 IRESSA ® Clinical Efficacy Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive.
. A Randomized Clinical Trial of Immunization With Combined Hepatitis A and B Versus Hepatitis B Alone for Hepatitis B Seroprotection in Hemodialysis Patients.
CR-1 Everolimus Benefit/Risk Assessment Howard J. Eisen, MD Thomas J. Vischer Professor of Medicine Chief, Division of Cardiology Drexel University College.
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r  EFV vs LPV/r vs EFV + LPV/r –A5142 –Mexican Study  NVP vs ATV/r –ARTEN  EFV vs ATV/r –A5202.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم جامعة أم درمان الإسلامية كلية الطب و العلوم الصحية - قسم طب المجتمع مساق البحث العلمي / الدفعة 21 Basics of Clinical Trials.
Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemo-bevacizumab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized.
APRIL AYERS JEFF GIBBERMAN MELISSA HSU EL-KAMARYA SS, SHARDELLA MD, ABDEL-HAMID M, ET AL. A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL TO ASSESS THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY.
AVADO TRIAL David Miles Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Middlesex, United Kingdom A randomized, double-blind study of bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel.
INPULSIS® trial design and baseline characteristics
Indiaclen Short course of Amoxicillin in treatment of Pneumonia (ISCAP) 3 versus 5 days amoxicillin for treatment of non-severe pneumonia in young children:
1 EFFICACY OF SHORT COURSE AMOXICILLIN FOR NON-SEVERE PNEUMONIA IN CHILDREN (Hazir T*, Latif E*, Qazi S** AND MASCOT Study Group) *Children’s Hospital,
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r  EFV vs LPV/r vs EFV + LPV/r –A5142 –Mexican Study  NVP vs ATV/r –ARTEN  EFV vs ATV/r –A5202.
Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the influence of KRAS and BRAF biomarkers on outcome: updated data from the CRYSTAL.
SOF/VEL 400/100 mg qd N = 75 W24 SOF/VEL > 18 years Chronic HCV infection Genotype 1 to 6 Naïve or treatment-experienced No prior treatment with NS5A or.
Acute Otitis Media: Lessons Learned Thomas Smith, M.D. Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products.
Angelo L Gaffo Kenneth G Saag Core Evidence 2009:4 25–36
Oxypurinol for Symptomatic Gout in Allopurinol Intolerant Patients Lourdes Villalba, M.D. DAAODP, CDER, FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee Meeting June 2,
Comparison of PI vs PI  ATV vs ATV/r BMS 089  LPV/r mono vs LPV/r + ZDV/3TCMONARK  LPV/r QD vs BIDM M A5073  LPV/r + 3TC vs LPV/r + 2 NRTIGARDEL.
1 Recent Advances in Provision of Primary Care in the Public Sector: Is 3 Days of Oral Antibiotic Therapy Enough for Treatment of Ambulatory Pneumonia?
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم.
Chemoimmunotherapy with Fludarabine (F), Cyclophosphamide (C), and Rituximab (R) (FCR) versus Bendamustine and Rituximab (BR) in Previously Untreated and.
Early Eplerenone Treatment in Patients with Acute ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction without Heart Failure REMINDER* Gilles Montalescot, Bertram Pitt,
C-1 Safety Results S. aureus Bacteremia and Endocarditis Study Gloria Vigliani, M.D. Vice President, Medical Strategy Cubist Pharmaceuticals.
1 NDA Clofarabine Cl-F-Ara-A Presented by Martin Cohen, M.D. at the December 01, 2004 meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting.
Randomized Controlled CTN Trial of OROS-MPH + CBT in Adolescents with ADHD and Substance Use Disorders Paula Riggs, M.D., Theresa Winhusen, PhD., Jeff.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
Hot Topics in Infectious Diseases Giuseppe Nunnari.
Critical Appraisal Course for Emergency Medicine Trainees Module 3 Evaluation of a therapy.
Risk Factors for Linezolid-Associated Thrombocytopenia in Adult Patients Cristina Gervasoni Ospedale Luigi Sacco, Milano.
Tipranavir/Ritonavir Superior to Comparator PI/Ritonavir at Week 48 in Multiclass-Experienced Patients Slideset on: Hicks CB, Cahn P, Cooper DA, et al.
Telbivudine Versus Lamivudine in Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: Results at 1 Year of a Randomized, Double-Blind Trial HEPATOLOGY 2008;47:
Early Hepatitis B Virus DNA Reduction in Hepatitis B e Antigen–Positive Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B : A Randomized International Study of Entecavir.
Treatment-Naïve Adults
Nitroxoline does not result in microbiological eradication in geriatric patients with lower urinary tract infection: a prospective cohort study C. Forstner1,2*,,
> 18 years Chronic HCV infection Compensated cirrhosis **
From ESH 2016 | POS 7D: Jan Rosa, MD
Safety and Effectiveness of new treatment regimens for visceral leishmaniasis in Bangladesh and India RMRIMS - Patna State Health Society Bihar.
No cirrhosis or compensated cirrhosis** No HBV or HIV co-infection
Glecaprevir-Pibrentasvir in Non-Cirrhotic Genotype 2 ENDURANCE-2
MK-0954 PN948 NOT APPROVED FOR USE (date)
LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Preliminary results of a randomized phase III trial (FFCD.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Glecaprevir-Pibrentasvir in Non-Cirrhotic Genotype 2 ENDURANCE-2
Presentation transcript:

From: PLOS Neglected Tropical DiseaseJanuary 2014 Presented by Pavitra Charoensrisakkul and Peeraya Permkarnjaroen 3 rd year medical cadet Phramongkutklao college of medicine

Fatal Disease M people/year Sodium stibogluconate + Paromomycin = First-line 2

AmBisome® Easy managementSafest ↓Renal toxicity High efficacy in India & Kenya Background 3

Study design Objectives Determine the minimum efficacious and safe single dose of AmBisome® Evaluate the efficacy and safety of a single dose compared to the multiple dose regimen 4

Multi-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, Randomized controlled trial Study design 5

Figure 1. Patient flow chart. Consort Patient flow chart: AmBisome® multi dose vs. single dose, ITT Intention to treat, PP per protocol, LTFU Lost to Follow-up. Inclusion criteria age > 4 years HIV-negative non-severe VL Inclusion criteria age > 4 years HIV-negative non-severe VL 6

Figure 1. Patient flow chart. Consort Patient flow chart: AmBisome® multi dose vs. single dose, ITT Intention to treat, PP per protocol, LTFU Lost to Follow-up. Exclusion criteria Severe VL Anti-leishmanial within six months Chronic disease Abnormal serum creatinine Liver function tests > 3 times the normal range Platelet < 40,000/mm3 Alcohol abuse Pregnancy or lactation Concomitant acute drug usage for malaria and bacterial infection Pneumonia within last 7 days Known hypersensitivity to AmBisome® or Amphotericin B Exclusion criteria Severe VL Anti-leishmanial within six months Chronic disease Abnormal serum creatinine Liver function tests > 3 times the normal range Platelet < 40,000/mm3 Alcohol abuse Pregnancy or lactation Concomitant acute drug usage for malaria and bacterial infection Pneumonia within last 7 days Known hypersensitivity to AmBisome® or Amphotericin B 7

Figure 1. Patient flow chart. Consort Patient flow chart: AmBisome® multi dose vs. single dose, ITT Intention to treat, PP per protocol, LTFU Lost to Follow-up. 1 st Multiple Doses Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg 8

Figure 1. Patient flow chart. Consort Patient flow chart: AmBisome® multi dose vs. single dose, ITT Intention to treat, PP per protocol, LTFU Lost to Follow-up. 2 nd Multiple Doses Single Dose 10mg/kg 9

Figure 1. Patient flow chart. Consort Patient flow chart: AmBisome® multi dose vs. single dose, ITT Intention to treat, PP per protocol, LTFU Lost to Follow-up. 2 interim analysis: Early detection of inefficacious single doses Worsening clinical conditions 1 st Multiple Doses Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg 2 nd Multiple Doses Single Dose 10mg/kg 10

= Single Dose 10.0 mg/kg (2 nd interim) = Multiple Doses 3.0 mg/kg (Both interims) Parasite clearance was measured by quantitative reverse transcriptase (qRT) PCR targeting Leishmania 18S ribosomal RNA Method Primary (definitive / final cure) efficacy endpoint Secondary (initial cure) efficacy endpoint SD 10 mg/kg SD 7.5 mg/kg MD 3.0 mg/kg = Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg (1 st interim) 11

Figure 1. Patient flow chart. Consort Patient flow chart: AmBisome® multi dose vs. single dose, ITT Intention to treat, PP per protocol, LTFU Lost to Follow-up. Multiple Doses n = 63 Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg n = 21 Single Dose 10 mg/kg n = 40 12

Statistical Analysis If the single dose arm showed significantly poorer efficacy (P<0.05) The single dose was increased Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population Difference between the parasite clearance rate 13

Table 1. Baseline data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Age in years Mean(SD) 16(9.0)21(9.2) 14(7.4) Sex Female, n(%) 16(9.0)21(9.2) 14(7.4) Male, n(%) 53(84)19(91) 30(75) Spleen Size Mean(SD) 9.5(5.3)12.0(6.0) 9.1(5.3) Nutritional Status Weight(kg), Mean (SD) 36(14.5)44(12.2) 33(14.4) Multiple Doses n = 63 Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg n = 21 Single Dose 10 mg/kg n = 40 Baseline characteristics 14

Table 1. Baseline data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Hemoglobin (g/dl) Mean(SD) 7.9(1.7)7.7(1.6) 7.7(1.4) AST Mean(SD) 52(27.1)48(28.5) 54(29.0) ALT Mean(SD) 32(20.7)35(21.3) 33(20.0) Multiple Doses n = 63 Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg n = 21 Single Dose 10 mg/kg n = 40 15

Table 2. Interim analyses and non-comparative efficacy analysis for primary (day 210) and secondary (day 30) end points. Overall 62 53(85) (50) (73) Overall 54 46(85) (40) (58) Cure at Day 30 Cure at Day 210 (6 months follow-up) Multiple Doses n = 63 Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg n = 21 Single Dose 10 mg/kg n = 40 16

95%CI 73-93% 95%CI 27-73% 95%CI 19-64% 95%CI 56-85% 95%CI 46-83% ≈ India & Kenya 17

Table 3. Infusion-related and drug-related treatment emergent AEs. Pyrexia 17(27) 0(0) 14(35) Multiple Doses n = 63 Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg n = 21 Single Dose 10 mg/kg n = 40 Safety 18

Table 3. Infusion-related and drug-related treatment emergent AEs. Alanine aminotransferase increased 17(27) 13(62) 11(28) Aspartate aminotransferase increased 22(35) 14(67) 13(33) Hypokalaemia 30(48) 4(19) 16(40) Multiple Doses n = 63 Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg n = 21 Single Dose 10 mg/kg n = 40 19

Discussion Prematurely terminated because low efficacy in both arm Patient characteristics leading to variation in treatment response  Geographical variation  Severely underweight  Hemoglobin  Immunity Results were not conclusive On day 3  peripheral parasite clearance were significantly decreased 20

Figure 3. Parasite clearance from peripheral blood. Comparison of parasite clearance rates from peripheral blood in single (10 mg/kg) and multiple dose (763 mg/kg) regimens of AmBisome®. Data are from 5 consenting patients in each of the 10 mg/kg single-dose and multiple-dose arms. doi: /journal.pntd g003 21

Conclusion Optimal single dose  Not identified Efficacy of multiple dose > single dose AmBisome® regimens not be suitable for Eastern Africa Efficacy of AmBisome® in Eastern Africa < India 22

Clearly focused question Clinical Appraisal 23

Randomized assignment of subjects  Computer-generated randomization list Clinical Appraisal 24

Adequate concealment method  Seal and opaque envelopes of treatment allocations  Opened after patient entered the trial Clinical Appraisal 25

Blinding  Not possible because nature of intervention Clinical Appraisal 26

Similar treatment and control groups  Randomization  No differences between groups Clinical Appraisal 27

Outcomes  Absence of parasite in tissue aspirates Clinical Appraisal 28

Percentage of dropped out individuals before the study completed Clinical Appraisal Multiple Doses n = 63 Single Dose 7.5 mg/kg n = 21 Single Dose 10 mg/kg n = %4.8% 0% 29

Intention to treat analysis Clinical Appraisal 30

Not comparable results for all sites (Multi-centre) Clinical Appraisal 31

Thank you for your attention