This Viewpoint highlights several considerations important for stakeholders and reviewers to understand regarding the design, evaluation, and interpretation of trials using bayesian analyses.

Importance:The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimburses remote monitoring to reduce hospital readmissions, yet its effectiveness remains uncertain. Objective:To evaluate effectiveness of remote monitoring in reducing readmissions following hospitalizations for serious infections overall and across prespecified subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants:This randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 25, 2021, to December 9, 2024, using response adaptive randomization among postdischarge patients with sepsis or lower respiratory tract infection across 19 hospitals. Eligible patients were 21 years or older, lived in western Pennsylvania, were insured through the UPMC Health Plan or traditional fee-for-service Medicare, had a smartphone or other internet-connected device, had no cognitive impairment, and were at moderate or high risk for readmission at index hospitalization admission based on an internal predictive model. Analyses were based on intention to treat; data were analyzed from April to June 2025. Intervention:Four remote monitoring strategies combining questionnaire intensity (low vs high) and clinical response teams (standard vs enhanced) compared with usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point consisted of days at home at 90 days after discharge, assessed by posterior probability distribution for the cumulative odds ratios (CORs) in each study arm compared with usual care. Secondary end points included mortality, readmission, functional status, quality of life, and use of emergency department and hospice services. Results:Among the 1286 patients included in the analysis, the median age was 63 (IQR, 54-71) years; 665 patients (51.7%) were female. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6 (IQR, 3-9), and 386 patients (32.6%) received intensive care. Patients were randomized to usual care (n = 399) or remote patient monitoring (RPM) with low- or high-intensity questionnaires and standard or enhanced clinical response team combinations: RPM-low standard response (n = 204), RPM-high standard response (n = 129), RPM-low enhanced response (n = 383), and RPM-high enhanced response (n = 171). Of 887 patients assigned to remote monitoring arms, 529 (59.6%) enrolled in the remote monitoring program. The median home days were similar across all study arms: 90 (IQR, 83-90) for usual care, 90 (IQR, 84-90) for RPM-low standard response, 90 (IQR, 85-90) for RPM-high standard response, 90 (IQR, 83-90) for RPM-low enhanced response, and 90 (IQR, 84-90) for RPM-high enhanced response. Compared with usual care, the CORs were 0.96 (credible interval [CrI], 0.70-1.32) for RPM-low standard response, 0.86 (95% CrI, 0.60-1.23) for RPM-high standard response, 1.01 (95% CrI, 0.76-1.33) for RPM-low enhanced response, and 0.96 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.36) for RPM-high enhanced response, and superiority probability was less than 55% for all comparisons. At least 1 readmission occurred in 151 of 399 patients (37.8%) in the usual care arm, 81 of 204 (39.7%) in the RPM-low standard response arm, 57 of 129 (44.2%) in the RPM-high standard response arm, 143 of 383 (37.3%) in the RPM-low enhanced response arm, and 62 of 171 (36.3%) in the RPM-high enhanced response arm. Among patients 65 years and older, standard and enhanced response arms had fewer home days compared with usual care (COR, 0.56 [95% CrI, 0.36-0.85] and 0.67 [95% CrI, 0.45-0.98], respectively; inferiority probability, 99.6% and 97.9%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance:Among trial patients discharged after hospitalization for serious infections, remote monitoring did not increase time spent alive at home but reduced it in those 65 years and older. These findings support reevaluating and tailoring remote monitoring after acute care for sepsis and lower respiratory tract infection to support further alignment with patients' needs and desire for personalized monitoring. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04829188.

Objective: To determine whether ivermectin improves outcomes for critically and noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Design: An ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial.Setting: Hospitals in Pakistan, India, and Ireland between June 11, 2021, and September 9, 2022.Patients: Critically and noncritically ill patients.Interventions: Randomized to ivermectin or no ivermectin (control).Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model. Enrollment was closed for operational futility, following external evidence suggesting no benefit with ivermectin in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19. Among 61 critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was -1, indicating death was the most common vital outcome (interquartile range [IQR], -1 to 17), for the ivermectin group and -1 (IQR, -1 to 17.25) for the control group (adjusted proportional odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.40-2.07) and the posterior probability of superiority to control was 44.2%. Among 89 noncritically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18.5-22) for ivermectin and 22 (IQR, 16-22) for control (adjusted proportional OR, 1.04; 95% CrI, 0.48-2.34) and the posterior probability of superiority was 53.7%. Among critically ill patients, hospital survival was 35.1% (13/37) for ivermectin and 37.5% (9/24) for control (adjusted OR, 1.00; 95% CrI, 0.39-2.32), posterior probability of superiority was 50.0%. Among noncritically ill patients, hospital survival was 84.1% (37/44) for ivermectin and 77.8% (35/45) for control (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CrI, 0.5-3.07), posterior probability of superiority was 63.3%.Conclusions: For critically and noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19, ivermectin was unlikely to improve the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival.

Importance:Patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass often require platelet transfusions for bleeding. Platelets are routinely stored at room temperature (20-24 °C) for up to 5 to 7 days; however, cold storage (1-6 °C) may allow for increased storage duration without loss of hemostatic function. Objective:To determine the maximum cold-storage duration, up to 21 days, for which cold-stored platelets (CSPs) are noninferior or superior in hemostatic efficacy to room-temperature platelets (RTPs) when transfused in actively bleeding patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Design, Setting, and Participants:A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, partially blinded, adaptive, noninferiority, storage duration-ranging trial conducted in pediatric and adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with planned cardiopulmonary bypass at 27 sites in the US and Australia from December 2021 to March 2025. Statistical analysis was conducted from September 9 to October 3, 2025. Intervention:Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CSPs with a maximum of 21 days of storage vs RTPs with a maximum of 7 days of storage. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was a hemostatic efficacy score with values ranging from 1 to 5 and higher values indicating greater bleeding. The noninferiority margin was 1 point. The success criterion was met if at least 1 cold-storage duration of 7 days or more had a posterior probability of noninferiority of at least 97.5%. The secondary outcome was 24-hour chest tube output. Results:Of the 1000 patients who underwent platelet transfusion, 989 were included in the primary analysis (650 CSPs and 339 RTPs). The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 42.1 (30.1) years and 67.8% were male. CSPs were noninferior to RTPs for the primary outcome, with a probability of greater than 99.9% for all cold-storage durations. Pooled across storage durations, CSPs had a mean difference from RTPs of 0.09 (95% credible interval, -0.06 to 0.23). Median (IQR) chest tube output at 24 hours (8.9 mL/kg [5.2-15.4] for CSPs vs 8.4 mL/kg [5.5-15.9] for RTPs; difference in medians, 0.4 [95% CI, -1.0 to 1.5]) was not statistically different between study groups. In a post hoc analysis, as all storage durations were noninferior, considering the CSPs as a single group, the hemostatic efficacy score was similar between both groups: mean (SD) of 3.08 (1.15) CSPs vs 2.99 (1.10) RTPs. There were no differences in venous or arterial thrombotic events, transfusion-associated adverse events, acute respiratory distress syndrome, kidney failure, septic shock, and mortality between the study groups, except for increased reexploration rates in the CSP group. Conclusions and Relevance:For patients undergoing cardiac surgery, CSPs stored up to 21 days are noninferior to RTPs for the control of active surgical bleeding. Use of CSPs may allow for increased availability of platelets by reducing wastage and shortages and may allow for incorporation of platelets into inventory at locations where platelets cannot be maintained due to the 5- to 7-day shelf life of RTPs. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04834414.

Importance Patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass often require platelet transfusions for bleeding. Platelets are routinely stored at room temperature (20-24 °C) for up to 5 to 7 days; however, cold storage (1-6 °C) may allow for increased storage duration without loss of hemostatic function. Objective To determine the maximum cold-storage duration, up to 21 days, for which cold-stored platelets (CSPs) are noninferior or superior in hemostatic efficacy to room-temperature platelets (RTPs) when transfused in actively bleeding patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Design, Setting, and Participants A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, partially blinded, adaptive, noninferiority, storage duration–ranging trial conducted in pediatric and adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with planned cardiopulmonary bypass at 27 sites in the US and Australia from December 2021 to March 2025. Statistical analysis was conducted from September 9 to October 3, 2025. Intervention Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CSPs with a maximum of 21 days of storage vs RTPs with a maximum of 7 days of storage. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a hemostatic efficacy score with values ranging from 1 to 5 and higher values indicating greater bleeding. The noninferiority margin was 1 point. The success criterion was met if at least 1 cold-storage duration of 7 days or more had a posterior probability of noninferiority of at least 97.5%. The secondary outcome was 24-hour chest tube output. Results Of the 1000 patients who underwent platelet transfusion, 989 were included in the primary analysis (650 CSPs and 339 RTPs). The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 42.1 (30.1) years and 67.8% were male. CSPs were noninferior to RTPs for the primary outcome, with a probability of greater than 99.9% for all cold-storage durations. Pooled across storage durations, CSPs had a mean difference from RTPs of 0.09 (95% credible interval, −0.06 to 0.23). Median (IQR) chest tube output at 24 hours (8.9 mL/kg [5.2-15.4] for CSPs vs 8.4 mL/kg [5.5-15.9] for RTPs; difference in medians, 0.4 [95% CI, −1.0 to 1.5]) was not statistically different between study groups. In a post hoc analysis, as all storage durations were noninferior, considering the CSPs as a single group, the hemostatic efficacy score was similar between both groups: mean (SD) of 3.08 (1.15) CSPs vs 2.99 (1.10) RTPs. There were no differences in venous or arterial thrombotic events, transfusion-associated adverse events, acute respiratory distress syndrome, kidney failure, septic shock, and mortality between the study groups, except for increased reexploration rates in the CSP group. Conclusions and Relevance For patients undergoing cardiac surgery, CSPs stored up to 21 days are noninferior to RTPs for the control of active surgical bleeding. Use of CSPs may allow for increased availability of platelets by reducing wastage and shortages and may allow for incorporation of platelets into inventory at locations where platelets cannot be maintained due to the 5- to 7-day shelf life of RTPs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04834414

BACKGROUND:Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is associated with high mortality. Whether cefazolin or an antistaphylococcal penicillin should be preferred for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus bacteremia is unclear. METHODS:In an ongoing international Bayesian adaptive platform trial, we conducted an open-label, randomized comparison of cefazolin with an antistaphylococcal penicillin (flucloxacillin or cloxacillin) in adult patients with penicillin-resistant, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus bacteremia. The primary outcome, which was evaluated with a hierarchical Bayesian logistic-regression model, was death from any cause within 90 days after enrollment in the platform. We assessed the posterior probability of the noninferiority of cefazolin to flucloxacillin or cloxacillin (with the criterion for noninferiority prespecified as an adjusted odds ratio of <1.2, which approximates an absolute difference in mortality of <2.5 percentage points if mortality in the antistaphylococcal-penicillin group is 15%), as well as the posterior probability of superiority (with the criterion of an adjusted odds ratio of <1.0). Secondary safety outcomes included the development of acute kidney injury within 14 days. RESULTS:This domain of the ongoing trial was conducted between February 17, 2022, and August 7, 2024, by which time the criterion for noninferiority had been met. Mortality at 90 days among adults who could be evaluated was 15.0% (97 deaths among 645 patients) in the cefazolin group and 17.0% (109 deaths among 642 patients) in the antistaphylococcal-penicillin group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% credible interval, 0.59 to 1.12; probability of noninferiority, 99.2%; probability of superiority, 89.8%). Acute kidney injury occurred in 92 of 660 patients (13.9%) in the cefazolin group, as compared with 127 of 648 (19.6%) in the antistaphylococcal-penicillin group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% credible interval, 0.50 to 0.89; probability of superiority, 99.7%). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus bacteremia, cefazolin was noninferior to flucloxacillin or cloxacillin with respect to 90-day mortality and was associated with a lower incidence of acute kidney injury. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and others; SNAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05137119.).

QuestionDoes remote monitoring help individuals remain at home following hospitalization for serious infections?FindingsIn this randomized clinical trial of 1286 adults recovering at home after hospitalization for sepsis or lower respiratory tract infection, remote monitoring programs with high- or low-intensity question sets combined with a nurse response team or a nurse practitioner-led response team did not increase time spent at home. Conversely, the remote monitoring programs led to a reduction in time spent at home among Medicare-eligible patients 65 years or older.MeaningRemote monitoring, as implemented in this study, did not support Medicare's goals of reducing readmissions, particularly among older adults. This randomized clinical trial evaluates the effectiveness of remote monitoring programs led by nurses or nurse practitioners to reduce readmissions among patients after hospitalization for sepsis or lower respiratory tract infections. ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimburses remote monitoring to reduce hospital readmissions, yet its effectiveness remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate effectiveness of remote monitoring in reducing readmissions following hospitalizations for serious infections overall and across prespecified subgroups.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 25, 2021, to December 9, 2024, using response adaptive randomization among postdischarge patients with sepsis or lower respiratory tract infection across 19 hospitals. Eligible patients were 21 years or older, lived in western Pennsylvania, were insured through the UPMC Health Plan or traditional fee-for-service Medicare, had a smartphone or other internet-connected device, had no cognitive impairment, and were at moderate or high risk for readmission at index hospitalization admission based on an internal predictive model. Analyses were based on intention to treat; data were analyzed from April to June 2025.InterventionFour remote monitoring strategies combining questionnaire intensity (low vs high) and clinical response teams (standard vs enhanced) compared with usual care.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point consisted of days at home at 90 days after discharge, assessed by posterior probability distribution for the cumulative odds ratios (CORs) in each study arm compared with usual care. Secondary end points included mortality, readmission, functional status, quality of life, and use of emergency department and hospice services.ResultsAmong the 1286 patients included in the analysis, the median age was 63 (IQR, 54-71) years; 665 patients (51.7%) were female. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6 (IQR, 3-9), and 386 patients (32.6%) received intensive care. Patients were randomized to usual care (n = 399) or remote patient monitoring (RPM) with low- or high-intensity questionnaires and standard or enhanced clinical response team combinations: RPM-low standard response (n = 204), RPM-high standard response (n = 129), RPM-low enhanced response (n = 383), and RPM-high enhanced response (n = 171). Of 887 patients assigned to remote monitoring arms, 529 (59.6%) enrolled in the remote monitoring program. The median home days were similar across all study arms: 90 (IQR, 83-90) for usual care, 90 (IQR, 84-90) for RPM-low standard response, 90 (IQR, 85-90) for RPM-high standard response, 90 (IQR, 83-90) for RPM-low enhanced response, and 90 (IQR, 84-90) for RPM-high enhanced response. Compared with usual care, the CORs were 0.96 (credible interval [CrI], 0.70-1.32) for RPM-low standard response, 0.86 (95% CrI, 0.60-1.23) for RPM-high standard response, 1.01 (95% CrI, 0.76-1.33) for RPM-low enhanced response, and 0.96 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.36) for RPM-high enhanced response, and superiority probability was less than 55% for all comparisons. At least 1 readmission occurred in 151 of 399 patients (37.8%) in the usual care arm, 81 of 204 (39.7%) in the RPM-low standard response arm, 57 of 129 (44.2%) in the RPM-high standard response arm, 143 of 383 (37.3%) in the RPM-low enhanced response arm, and 62 of 171 (36.3%) in the RPM-high enhanced response arm. Among patients 65 years and older, standard and enhanced response arms had fewer home days compared with usual care (COR, 0.56 [95% CrI, 0.36-0.85] and 0.67 [95% CrI, 0.45-0.98], respectively; inferiority probability, 99.6% and 97.9%, respectively). Conclusions and RelevanceAmong trial patients discharged after hospitalization for serious infections, remote monitoring did not increase time spent alive at home but reduced it in those 65 years and older. These findings support reevaluating and tailoring remote monitoring after acute care for sepsis and lower respiratory tract infection to support further alignment with patients' needs and desire for personalized monitoring.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04829188

BACKGROUND:The optimal thromboprophylaxis among critically ill adults with COVID-19 is uncertain. OBJECTIVES:To determine the effectiveness and safety of intermediate-dose heparin compared with standard low-dose thromboprophylaxis. METHODS:In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform for community-acquired pneumonia), critically ill patients with COVID-19 were randomized to intermediate-dose heparin or standard low-dose thromboprophylaxis. Interventions were continued in hospital for up to 14 days. The primary endpoint was organ support-free days (OSFDs), an ordinal outcome combining in-hospital survival and the number of days free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was an adjusted Bayesian hierarchical cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) > 1.0 represents an improved outcome with intermediate-dose heparin. RESULTS:Between April 27, 2021 and November 25, 2023, 1255 critically ill adults with COVID-19 were enrolled from 78 sites in 15 countries, of whom 1254 completed follow-up (n = 572 intermediate-dose, n = 682 low-dose). Enrollment was terminated prior to reaching a prespecified statistical trigger due to declining case numbers and slow recruitment. Median age was 59 years, and 36.7% were female (n = 461/1255). The probability that intermediate-dose heparin improved OSFDs was 73.5% (OR, 1.06; 95% credible interval, 0.87, 1.30), which did not meet the prespecified superiority threshold of 99%. Hospital survival was 77.1% (441/572) and 76.7% (523/682) in the intermediate- and low-dose heparin groups, respectively (median adjusted OR, 1.14; 95% credible interval, 0.86, 1.52). Major bleeding occurred in 10 of 572 (1.7%) and 14 of 682 (2.1%) patients receiving intermediate and standard low doses, respectively. CONCLUSION:Intermediate-dose heparin did not improve OSFDs or survival compared with standard thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: CT02735707).

673 Background: Pamrevlumab (Pam) is a fully human recombinant monoclonal antibody against connective tissue growth factor. Early clinical data with Pam plus chemotherapy showed a favorable safety profile and potential efficacy in PDAC. In PrP, Pam + GA was tested as first line (Line 1) and second line (Line 2) therapy for mPDAC vs GA. PrP is a phase 2/3, innovative Bayesian adaptive platform trial sponsored by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network testing multiple experimental arms efficiently against common controls (1). Methods: Randomization is 70% (adaptive amongst experimental arms in stage 1) and 15%:15% amongst two control arms (GA, mFOLFIRINOX). Pam + GA graduates from stage 1 to 2 if the Bayesian predictive power (PP) of eventual success is ≥ 35% for one of the arm’s signatures [Line 1, Line 2 or Line 1 & 2 (All)]. All participants (pts) are followed for 12 months (mos) after last pt randomized and treated in Pam + GA. Stages 1 and 2 are combined for final analysis. Efficacy is defined by overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR, experimental vs control), by a Bayesian statistical model. Superiority (HR < 1) is claimed at final analysis if the Bayesian probability of superiority is ≥ 98%. Results: Pam + GA entered PrP in Jun 2021. Between 6/2021 - 1/2023, at 23 US sites, 317 pts were treated and are included in the mITT analysis. 213 pts were treated in the Pam + GA arm (102 Line 1; 111 Line 2), 45 in the GA arm (23 Line 1; 22 Line 2), 31 in the mFOLFIRINOX arm and 28 in other experimental arms. All treated pts before and during Pam + GA enrollment were in the Bayesian model, with outcomes adjusted via a time machine to increase the trial’s statistical power. Baseline characteristics were balanced across the arms. Pam + GA met criteria to graduate to stage 2 in Sep 2022 in the All signature (Line 1 & 2). At final analysis, Pam + GA did not meet the OS primary endpoint [model estimated HR: 1.18 (95% credible interval, 0.88, 1.56), posterior Pr(HR < 1) = 0.14, below specified ≥ 0.98]. No benefit was seen in PFS nor ORR (Table). No new safety signals were seen. Conclusions: PrP, the first Bayesian platform trial in mPDAC, performed as designed; Pam + GA did not improve OS versus GA in Line 1 and Line 2 mPDAC. The novel Bayesian design warrants further study in mPDAC to enhance efficiency of drug development. Future designs should explore different strategies to allocate patients to control arm(s) vs experimental arms and accommodate novel agents intended to benefit subsets of mPDAC. 1. Picozzi, ASCO TPS 4188, 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT04229004 . Line 1 Line 2 GA Pam + GA Hazard Ratio GA Pam + GA Hazard Ratio Model Estimated mOS (mos) 11.3 9.7 1.18(95% CI* 0.88, 1.56) 7.8 6.6 1.18(95% CI* 0.88, 1.56) mPFS (mos) 5.3 5.9 0.64(95% CI^ 0.36, 1.14) 7.0 3.9 1.35(95% CI^ 0.78, 2.33) ORR (%) 26.1 35.3 4.5 9.0 *Credible Interval. ^Confidence Interval.

Importance:Myeloperoxidase is one of the most abundant peroxidase enzymes in activated myeloid cells. Myeloperoxidase inhibitors may have a clinical benefit in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by slowing neurodegeneration via reduced neuroinflammation and oxidative stress. Objective:To determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of verdiperstat, a selective myeloperoxidase inhibitor, in ALS. Design Settings and Participants:Verdiperstat was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a multicenter, double-blind, perpetual platform design, randomized clinical trial, with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. The study was conducted at 54 ALS referral centers across the US from July 2020 to April 2022. Adult participants with a diagnosis of clinically possible, probable, laboratory-supported probable, or definite ALS defined by the revised El Escorial criteria were randomized to verdiperstat or regimen-specific placebo. An additional group of participants concurrently randomized to placebo from other regimens was included in the analyses. Interventions:Eligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive oral verdiperstat, 600 mg, twice daily or matching placebo for a planned placebo-controlled duration of 24 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in disease severity, as measured by a joint model of ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised and survival, with the treatment effect quantified by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression of verdiperstat relative to placebo. Results:A total of 167 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.4] years; 59 [35.3%] female; 108 [64.6%] male) were randomized to either verdiperstat (126 [75.4%]) or to placebo (41 [25.6%]). Among the participants randomized to the verdiperstat regimen, 130 (78%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR was 0.98 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.24; posterior probability = 0.57 for slowing of disease progression [DRR <1]). Verdiperstat was estimated to slow progression by 2% vs placebo (95% credible interval, -23% to 24%; posterior probability 0.57). Verdiperstat was overall safe and well tolerated. Common adverse events in the verdiperstat group were nausea, insomnia, and elevated thyrotropin levels. Conclusions and Relevance:Results demonstrate that treatment with verdiperstat was unlikely to alter disease progression in ALS. Trial Registration:Clinical Trial Identifiers: NCT04297683 and NCT04436510.

Importance The etiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a fatal neurodegenerative disease, is unknown. However, neuroinflammation and complement activation may play a role in disease progression. Objective To determine the effects of zilucoplan, an inhibitor of complement C5, in individuals with ALS. Design, Setting, and Participants Zilucoplan was tested as regimen A of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2 to 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled perpetual platform clinical trial with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. Regimen A was conducted from August 17, 2020, to May 4, 2022. A total of 162 participants were randomized to receive zilucoplan (122 [75.3%]) or regimen-specific placebo (40 [24.7%]). An additional 124 concurrently randomized participants were randomized to receive placebo in other regimens. Interventions Eligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive zilucoplan or matching placebo within strata of edaravone and/or riluzole use for a planned duration of 24 weeks. Active drug (zilucoplan, 0.3 mg/kg) and placebo were provided for daily subcutaneous dosing. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was change in disease severity from baseline through 24 weeks as measured by the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score and survival, analyzed using a bayesian shared-parameter model and reported as disease rate ratio (DRR; <1 indicating treatment benefit). The study included prespecified rules for early stopping for futility. Outcome analyses were performed in the full analysis set comparing the zilucoplan group with the total shared placebo group (n = 164). Results Among the 162 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 59.6 [11.3]; 99 [61.1%] male), 115 (71.0%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR common to ALSFRS-R and survival was 1.08 (95% credible interval, 0.87-1.31; posterior probability of superiority, 0.24). The trial was stopped early for futility. No unexpected treatment-related risks were identified. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of zilucoplan in ALS, treatment did not alter disease progression. The adaptive platform design of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial made it possible to test a new investigational product with efficient use of time and resources. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04297683

Importance:Bioenergetic failure has been proposed as a driver of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). CNM-Au8 is a suspension of gold nanocrystals that catalyzes the conversion of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide hydride into NAD+, resulting in an increase of cellular adenosine triphosphate production. Objective:To determine the effects of CNM-Au8 on ALS disease progression. Design, Setting, and Participants:CNM-Au8 was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind platform trial. The study was conducted at 54 sites in the US from July 2020 to March 2022 (final follow-up, March 17, 2022). A total of 161 participants with ALS were randomized to receive CNM-Au8 (n = 120) or regimen-specific placebo (n = 41). Data from 123 concurrently randomized placebo participants in other regimens were combined for analyses. Interventions:Eligible participants were randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio to receive CNM-Au8 60 mg daily (n = 61), CNM-Au8 30 mg daily (n = 59), or matching placebo (n = 41) for 24 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in ALS disease severity measured by a bayesian shared parameter model of function (based on the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale) and survival, which provided an estimate of the rate of disease progression measured by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with a DRR of less than 1 indicating treatment benefit. Secondary end points included a Combined Assessment of Function and Survival using a joint-rank test, rate of decline in slow vital capacity (percent predicted), and survival free of permanent assisted ventilation. Results:Among 161 participants who were randomized within the CNM-Au8 regimen (mean age, 58.4 years; 61 [37.9%] female), 145 (90%) completed the trial. In the primary analysis comparing the combined CNM-Au8 dosage groups vs the combined placebo groups, the primary end point (DRR, 0.97 [95% credible interval, 0.783-1.175]; posterior probability of DRR <1, 0.65) and the 3 secondary end points suggested no benefit or harm of CNM-Au8. In the active (n = 120) vs placebo (n = 163) groups, the most common adverse events were diarrhea (23 [19%] vs 12 [7%]), nausea (17 [14.2%] vs 14 [8.6%]), fatigue (12 [10.8%] vs 30 [18.4%]), and muscular weakness (24 [20%] vs 45 [27.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance:No benefit of CNM-Au8 on ALS disease progression was observed at 24 weeks. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04297683, NCT04414345.

Platform trials have become widely adopted across multiple disease areas over recent years, however, guidelines for operationalising these trials have not kept pace. We outline a series of documents that summarise the statistical components, and implicit processes, of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial to provide an informal template for other researchers and reviewers of platform trials. We briefly summarise the content and role of the core protocol, statistical appendix, domain-specific appendices, simulation report, statistical implementation guides, data safety and monitoring committee (DSMC) reports, and domain-specific statistical analysis plans and final reports, and a transparent governance structure that ensures separate blinded and unblinded statistical teams. In the absence of guidelines or checklists for platform trial statistical documents, we hope to provide useful guidance to others in terms of what has worked so far for the SNAP trial, stimulate discussion, and inform a future consensus.Trial registration NCT05137119 . Registered on 30 November 2021.

Importance Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal disease. The sigma-1 (sigma 1) receptor emerged as a target for intervention. Objective To determine the effects of pridopidine, a sigma 1-receptor agonist, in ALS. Design, Settings, and Participants Pridopidine was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, platform trial. The study was conducted at 54 sites in the US from January 2021 to July 2022 (final follow-up, July 14, 2022). A total of 163 participants with ALS were randomized to receive pridopidine or placebo. An additional 122 concurrently randomized participants were assigned to receive placebo in other regimens and included in the analyses. Interventions Eligible participants were randomized 3:1 to receive oral pridopidine 45 mg twice daily (n = 121) or matching oral placebo (n = 42) for a planned duration of 24 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in ALS disease severity, analyzed using a bayesian shared parameter model, which has components for function (Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale [ALSFRS-R]) and survival that were linked through an integrated estimate of treatment-dependent disease slowing across these 2 components. This was denoted as the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression on pridopidine relative to placebo. There were 5 key secondary end points: time to 2-point or greater reduction in ALSFRS-R total score among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, rate of decline in slow vital capacity among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, percentage of participants with no worsening in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, time to 1-point or greater change in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, and time to death or permanent assisted ventilation. Results Among 162 patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 35% female) who were randomized to receive the pridopidine regimen and included in the primary efficacy analysis, 136 (84%) completed the trial. In the primary analysis comparing pridopidine vs the combined placebo groups, there was no significant difference between pridopidine and placebo in the primary end point (DRR, 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.80-1.21]; probability of DRR <1, 0.55) and no differences were seen in the components of ALSFRS-R or survival. There was no benefit of pridopidine on the secondary end points. In the safety dataset (pridopidine, n = 121; placebo, n = 163), the most common adverse events were falls (28.1% vs 29.3%, respectively) and muscular weakness (24.0% vs 31.7%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance In this 24-week study, pridopidine did not impact the progression of ALS.

Background No treatments exist for apathy in people with frontotemporal dementia. Previously, in a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study, intranasal oxytocin administration in people with frontotemporal dementia improved apathy ratings on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory over 1 week and, in a randomised, doubleblind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, a single dose of 72 IU oxytocin increased blood-oxygen-level-dependent signal in limbic brain regions. We aimed to determine whether longer treatment with oxytocin improves apathy in people with frontotemporal dementia. Methods We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive, crossover, phase 2a/2b trial, enrolling participants from 11 expert frontotemporal dementia outpatient clinics across Canada and the USA. People aged 30-80 years with a diagnosis of probable frontotemporal dementia, a Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy score of 2 or higher, a study partner who interacted with them for at least 3 h per day, and stable cognitive and behavioural medications for 30 days were eligible for inclusion. In stage 1, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1) to one of three dose schedules (every day, every other day, and every third day) of 72 IU intranasal oxytocin or placebo and to the order they would received the intervention in the crossover; intranasal oxytocin or placebo were administered twice daily for 6 weeks, with a 6-week washout and then crossover to the other intervention. In stage 2, new participants were randomised (1:1) to the dose that had been determined as optimal in stage 1 or to placebo, with crossover as in stage 1. Randomisation used variable block sizes and was stratified by participant sex and Clinical Dementia Rating severity score. All kits of investigational product were identical and produced centrally, and all local teams, study staff, and participants were masked to treatment allocation and order. The primary outcome was difference in the change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy scores for oxytocin versus placebo periods in the per- protocol population after 6 weeks of treatment. Safety was assessed at each visit via electrocardiogram, blood work, and collection of data on adverse events. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03260920). Findings Between Jan 31, 2018, and Dec 11, 2020, 70 patients were screened for stage 1 and 60 (86%) were enrolled. 45 (75%) completed both treatment periods of stage 1. 72 IU oxytocin every third day was the optimal dose schedule from stage 1 based on its Bayesian posterior probability (Pr(Best)=0478). Between June 28, 2021, and Jan 31, 2023, 42 patients were screened for stage 2, and 34 (81%) were enrolled. 28 (82%) completed both treatment periods in stage 2. 38 (40%) of 94 participants were female and 56 (60%) were male (mean age 659 years, SD 82) Treatment with oxytocin every third day resulted in an improved Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy score, with an estimated -132 points (95% CI -243 to -021) relative to placebo (one sided p=0010). Two adverse events were reported in at least 5% of participants: upper respiratory tract infection (five [6%] of 78 participants on placebo and three [5%] on every third day at all doses of oxytocin) and headache (two [3%] participants on placebo, one [7%] of 15 participants on oxytocin every day, and two [4%] of 55 participants on oxytocin every third day). No adverse events were attributed to oxytocin treatment. Interpretation Intranasal oxytocin given every third day was well tolerated and was associated with a small reduction in apathy in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Future trials might investigate intermittent dosing of more potent formulations than in this study, to establish whether larger effects are possible. Copyright (c) 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

INTRODUCTION:Tocilizumab improves outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Whether other immune-modulator strategies are equally effective or better is unknown. METHODS:We investigated treatment with tocilizumab, sarilumab, anakinra and no immune modulator in these patients. In this ongoing, adaptive platform trial in 133 sites in 9 countries, we randomly assigned patients with allocation ratios dependent on the number of interventions available at each site. The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned -1) and days free of organ support to day 21 in survivors. The trial used a Bayesian statistical model with predefined triggers for superiority, inferiority, efficacy, equivalence or futility. RESULTS:Of 2274 critically ill participants enrolled between 25 March 2020 and 10 April 2021, 972 were assigned to tocilizumab, 485 to sarilumab, 378 to anakinra and 418 to control. Median organ support-free days were 7 (IQR -1, 16), 9 (IQR -1, 17), 0 (IQR -1, 15) and 0 (IQR -1, 15) for tocilizumab, sarilumab, anakinra and control, respectively. Median adjusted ORs were 1.46 (95% credible intervals (CrI) 1.13, 1.87), 1.50 (95% CrI 1.13, 2.00) and 0.99 (95% CrI 0.74, 1.35) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and anakinra relative to control, yielding 99.8%, 99.8% and 46.6% posterior probabilities of superiority, respectively, compared with control. All treatments appeared safe. CONCLUSIONS:In critically ill patients with COVID-19, tocilizumab and sarilumab have equivalent effectiveness at reducing duration of organ support and death. Anakinra is not effective in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02735707.

Background The use of adjunctive antibiotics directed against exotoxin production in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is widespread, and it is recommended in many guidelines, but this is based on limited evidence. Existing guidelines are based on the theoretical premise of toxin suppression, as many strains of S. aureus produce toxins such as leukocidins (eg, Panton-Valentine leukocidin, toxic shock syndrome toxin 1, exfoliative toxins, and various enterotoxins). Many clinicians therefore believe that limiting exotoxin production release by S. aureus could reduce its virulence and improve clinical outcomes. Clindamycin, a protein synthesis inhibitor antibiotic, is commonly used for this purpose. We report the domain-specific protocol, embedded in a large adaptive, platform trial, seeking to definitively answer this question.Methods and Analysis The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter adaptive platform trial that aims to compare different SAB therapies, simultaneously, for 90-day mortality rates. The adjunctive treatment domain aims to test the effectiveness of adjunctive antibiotics, initially comparing clindamycin to no adjunctive antibiotic, but future adaptations may include other agents. Individuals will be randomized to receive either 5 days of adjunctive clindamycin (or lincomycin) or no adjunctive antibiotic therapy alongside standard-of-care antibiotics. Most participants with SAB (within 72 hours of index blood culture and with no contraindications) will be eligible to participate in this domain. Prespecified analyses are defined in the statistical appendix to the core protocol, and domain-specific secondary analyses will be adjusted for resistance to clindamycin, disease phenotype (complicated or uncomplicated SAB) and Panton-Valentine leukocidin-positive isolate. This article reports the protocol for the adjunctive treatment domain of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial. The adjunctive treatment domain aims to test the effectiveness of adjunctive clindamycin in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

Abstract BACKGROUND GBM AGILE (Glioblastoma Adaptive, Global, Innovative Learning Environment) is a biomarker based, multi-arm, international, seamless Phase 2/3 platform trial designed to rapidly identify and confirm experimental therapies that improve overall survival for approval along with their associated biomarker signatures. GBM AGILE is a collaboration between academic investigators, patient organizations, and industry to support new drug applications for newly diagnosed (ND) and recurrent glioblastoma. METHODS The primary objective of GBM AGILE is to identify therapies that improve the overall survival in patients with ND or recurrent glioblastoma. Bayesian response adaptive randomization is used within subtypes of the disease to assign participants to investigational arms based on their performance. GBM AGILE operates under a Master Protocol allowing multiple drugs to be evaluated simultaneously and over time against a common control. New experimental therapies are added as information about promising new drugs is identified, while therapies are removed as they complete evaluation. Six investigational arms have been included to date. Along with an adaptive trial design, shared control arm and operational processes, GBM AGILE continues to incorporate new design and operational elements. One recent design element added to the Master Protocol for consideration for future arms is an extended evaluation period, of up to 11 months, for arms that reach maximum sample size in Stage 1 (Stage 1: learn most responsive signature) without having reached a decision for futility or graduation. Allowing data to mature and additional events to accumulate may increase the ability of the trial to detect efficacy, and if appropriate, for an arm to graduate to Stage 2 (Stage 2: confirm activity in graduating signature). Using improved and flexible processes, GBM AGILE continues to serve as a global trial that supports the efficient and rapid incorporation and evaluation of new experimental therapies for patients with glioblastoma. NCT number: NCT03970447.

675 Background: PrP is a phase 3 Bayesian adaptive platform trial for efficiently testing multiple arms against a common control. Its design is what FDA calls a Complex Innovative Design (www.fda.gov/media/130897/download). Experimental arms in stage 1 are adaptively randomized against other arms. The maximum size of an arm’s stage 1 is 100 subjects. Strong efficacy in stage 1 leads to a fixed randomization stage 2. Stages 1 and 2 are combined for the arm’s final analysis and, if positive, would be submitted for drug registration. SM-88 (D,L-alpha-metyrosine) is a dysfunctional, racemic tyrosine mixture designed to interrupt PDAC cellular metabolism and induce oxidative stress. Methoxsalen, phenytoin and sirolimus are added to SM-88 to potentially enhance oxidative stress, and form a 4-drug oral regimen. SM-88 was selected for testing in 2nd line mPDAC using the PrP platform. Methods: Primary endpoint overall survival (OS) is analyzed based on modified intention to treat (mITT). Randomization is 7:3 to experimental and control arms. Efficacy is defined by OS hazard ratio (HR, experimental vs control). All statistical measures in PrP are Bayesian. Superiority (HR < 1) is assessed monthly and is claimed should the Bayesian probability of benefit be ≥ 98%. Futility analyses occur monthly once 50 subjects have accrued to the arm. Accrual ends for futility if Bayesian predictive power (PP) of eventual success in PrP is < 20% for all the arm’s signatures. Follow-up continues for 12 months after arm accrual stops. PrP experimental arm designs are flexible: an arm’s protocol appendix can supersede the master protocol. However, type I error is controlled at < 0.025, as shown by simulation. Results: SM-88 entered PrP in Apr 2020. As the first experimental arm in PrP, it was randomized 7:3 against control arms. Pooled controls for SM-88 were gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel and mFOLFIRINOX at standard doses, since neither therapy was a backbone for SM-88. Between 4/2020 - 10/2021, 142 subjects were screened, 73 subjects started therapy and are included in the mITT cohort. 55 subjects were enrolled in the SM-88 arm and 18 in control arms. Median age was 65, 41% were female and 67% had ECOG-1. As per protocol, accrual stopped at its first futility analysis in Nov 2021 based on Predictive power (PP) 0.0001 (see table), which is less than the protocol bound 0.20. SM-88 toxicity was mild. Interim results at accrual stop and final results (12 month follow up) shown below. mOS was 4.1m for SM-88 vs 8.1m for control. Conclusions: Leveraging small sample sizes of SM-88 and controls, PrP efficiently and compellingly concluded SM-88 futility in 2nd line mPDAC. PrP continues to assess other therapies, utilizing time-adjusted, as well as concurrently randomized, controls. Clinical trial information: NCT04229004 . [Table: see text]

Abstract GBM AGILE(NCT03970447) is a phase 2/3 Bayesian adaptive registration platform trial testing multiple therapies against a common control. Paxalisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, is the 3rd arm in the trial to conclude evaluation. METHODS Paxalisib was open to patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and recurrent (RD) glioblastoma, with three possible signatures: NDU, RD, and All(NDU+RD). Arm enrollment occurred Dec2020 through May2022. Control patients were enrolled from study initiation (July2019) and were treated with temozolomide(NDU) or lomustine(RD). GBM AGILE investigational arms have 1 or 2 stages, with adaptive randomization in stage 1 and fixed randomization if arms continue to stage 2. Efficacy is based on OS hazard ratio(HR) of Arm/Control. Efficacy goal is final Bayesian probability ≥ 98% for HR<1.00 in combined Stages. An Arm continues to Stage 2 if Bayesian predictive power (PP) ≥ 0.8. An Arm stops accruing in Stage 1 if it reaches maximal sample size(N) or does not meet a minimum efficacy threshold (PP<0.25 for all signatures when N>50). Clinical cut-off is 12 months after accrual stops. The maximum N for paxalisib was approximately 150(Stage 1) and 50(Stage 2). RESULTS After paxalisib reached >150 patients in Stage 1, accrual stopped [Paxalisib/control N 54/75(NDU), 100/188(RD)]. Neither PP thresholds for moving to Stage 2 nor stopping for minimum efficacy were met. Following an unplanned public disclosure that the arm did not continue to stage 2, clinical cut-off for final analysis (planned May2023) was updated to public disclosure date (August2022). At final analysis mean HRs were 0.89(NDU), 1.25(RD), 1.05(All), probabilities of HR<1.00 of 0.72(NDU), 0.076(RD), 0.398(All). Model estimated median OS paxalisib/control (months) were 14.77/13.84(NDU) and 8.58/10.06(RD). CONCLUSION Paxalisib did not show survival benefit over cumulative control in final primary analysis; additional secondary analyses are being considered. GBM AGILE continues to rapidly and efficiently assess therapies in ND and RD glioblastoma.