Dataset Information

The AGILE trial of ivosidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone: How many limitations is too many?

ABSTRACT: The AGILE trial compared ivosidenib and azacitidine versus azacitidine for IDH1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in elderly patients who were ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. While the results of this trial appear encouraging, various concerns become evident from the study design and methodology. First, the AGILE trial did not use post-protocol therapy that met the current standard of care. Second, researchers continued patient enrollment despite knowledge of the survival benefit of azacitidine plus venetoclax shown in the VIALE-A trial, resulting in an inferior control arm. Third, the primary endpoint of AGILE was changed from overall survival (OS) to event-free survival (EFS), and the sample size was reduced to expedite the results. Finally, the trial was halted early based on a non-primary endpoint, which likely led to exaggerated effect size or misleading results. We discuss these limitations and continue to advocate for careful analysis of study design to ensure that appropriate and accurate outcomes are implemented in future studies.

SUBMITTER: Bhatt A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9460510 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The AGILE trial of ivosidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone: How many limitations is too many?

Bhatt Anjali A Powell Kerrington K Prasad Vinay V

Translational oncology 20220902

The AGILE trial compared ivosidenib and azacitidine versus azacitidine for IDH1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in elderly patients who were ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. While the results of this trial appear encouraging, various concerns become evident from the study design and methodology. First, the AGILE trial did not use post-protocol therapy that met the current standard of care. Second, researchers continued patient enrollment despite knowledge of the survival benefit ...[more]

PMID: 36063621

Similar Datasets

Project description:Treatment failure occurs in about 25% of patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia. We assessed whether cloxacillin plus fosfomycin achieves better treatment success than cloxacillin alone in hospitalized adults with MSSA bacteremia. We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase III-IV superiority randomized clinical trial. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive 2 g of intravenous cloxacillin alone every 4 h or with 3 g of intravenous fosfomycin every 6 h for the initial 7 days. The primary endpoint was treatment success at day 7, a composite endpoint with the following criteria: patient alive, stable or with improved quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, afebrile and with negative blood cultures for MSSA, adjudicated by an independent committee blinded to treatment allocation. We randomized 215 patients, of whom 105 received cloxacillin plus fosfomycin and 110 received cloxacillin alone. We analyzed the primary endpoint with the intention-to-treat approach in 214 patients who received at least 1 day of treatment. Treatment success at day 7 after randomization was achieved in 83 (79.8%) of 104 patients receiving combination treatment versus 82 (74.5%) of 110 patients receiving monotherapy (risk difference 5.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.95-16.48). Secondary endpoints, including mortality and adverse events, were similar in the two groups except for persistent bacteremia at day 3, which was less common in the combination arm. In a prespecified interim analysis, the independent committee recommended stopping recruitment for futility prior to meeting the planned randomization of 366 patients. Cloxacillin plus fosfomycin did not achieve better treatment success at day 7 of therapy than cloxacillin alone in MSSA bacteremia. Further trials should consider the intrinsic heterogeneity of the infection by using a more personalized approach. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03959345 .

Project description:Discontinuing antidepressant medication (ADM) can be challenging for patients and clinicians. In the current study we investigated if Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) added to supported protocolized discontinuation (SPD) is more effective than SPD alone to help patients discontinue ADM. This study describes a prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial (completed). From 151 invited primary care practices in the Netherlands, 36 (24%) were willing to participate and randomly allocated to SPD+MBCT (k = 20) or SPD (k = 16). Adults using ADM > 9 months were invited by GPs to discuss tapering, followed by either MBCT+SPD, or SPD alone. Exclusion criteria included current psychiatric treatment; substance use disorder; non-psychiatric indication for ADM; attended MBCT within past 5 years; cognitive barriers. From the approximately 3000 invited patients, 276 responded, 119 participated in the interventions and 92 completed all assessments. All patients were offered a decision aid and a personalized tapering schedule (with GP). MBCT consisted of eight group sessions of 2.5 hours and one full day of practice. SPD was optional and consisted of consultations with a mental health assistant. Patients were assessed at baseline and 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up, non-blinded. In line with our protocol, primary outcome was full discontinuation of ADM within 6 months. Secondary outcomes were depression, anxiety, withdrawal symptoms, rumination, well-being, mindfulness skills, and self-compassion. Patients allocated to SPD + MBCT (n = 73) were not significantly more successful in discontinuing (44%) than those allocated to SPD (n = 46; 33%), OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.49, p = .24, number needed to treat = 9. Only 20/73 allocated to MBCT (27%) completed MBCT. No serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, we were unable to demonstrate a significant benefit of adding MBCT to SPD to support discontinuation in general practice. Actual participation in patient-tailored interventions was low, both for practices and for patients. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov PRS ID: NCT03361514 registered December 2017).

Dataset Information

The AGILE trial of ivosidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone: How many limitations is too many?

Publications

The AGILE trial of ivosidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone: How many limitations is too many?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets