BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women, The standard treatment recommendation for women with early cervical cancer is radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection, however, articles published in recent years have concluded that the treatment outcome of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer is inferior to that of open surgery. Thus, we choose a surgically new approach; the laparoscopic cervical cancer surgery in the open state is compared with the traditional open cervical cancer surgery, and we hope that patients can still have a good tumor outcome and survival outcome. This trial will investigate the effectiveness of laparoscopic cervical cancer surgery in the open-state treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.
METHODS: This will be an open-label, 2-armed, randomized, phase-III single-center trial of comparing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy based on open state with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. A total of 740 participants will be randomly assigned into 2 treatment arms in a 1:1 ratio. Clinical, laboratory, ultrasound, and radiology data will be collected at baseline, and then at the study assessments and procedures performed at baseline and 1 week, 6 weeks, and 3 months, and follow-up visits begin at 3 months following surgery and continue every 3 months thereafter for the first 2 years and every 6 months until year 4.5. The primary aim is the rate of disease-free survival at 4.5 years. The secondary aims include treatment-related morbidity, costs and cost-effectiveness, patterns of recurrence, quality of life, pelvic floor function, and overall survival.
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective trial aims to show the equivalence of the laparoscopic cervical cancer surgery in the open state versus the transabdominal radical hysterectomy approach for patients with early-stage cervical cancer following a 2-phase protocol.
BACKGROUND: ChiCTR2300075118. Registered on August 25, 2023.

OBJECTIVE: Bulevirtide (BLV), a first-in-class entry inhibitor, is approved in Europe for the treatment of chronic hepatitis delta (CHD). BLV monotherapy was superior to delayed treatment at week (W) 48, the primary efficacy endpoint, in the MYR301 study (NCT03852719). Here, we assessed if continued BLV therapy until W96 would improve virologic and biochemical response rates, particularly among patients who did not achieve virologic response at W24.
METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, randomized phase III study, patients with CHD (N = 150) were randomized (1:1:1) to treatment with BLV 2 mg/day (n = 49) or 10 mg/day (n = 50), each for 144 weeks, or to delayed treatment for 48 weeks followed by BLV 10 mg/day for 96 weeks (n = 51). Combined response was defined as undetectable hepatitis delta virus (HDV) RNA or a decrease in HDV RNA by ≥2 log10 IU/ml from baseline and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization. Other endpoints included virologic response, ALT normalization, and change in HDV RNA.
RESULTS: Of 150 patients, 143 (95%) completed 96 weeks of the study. Efficacy responses were maintained and/or improved between W48 and W96, with similar combined, virologic, and biochemical response rates between BLV 2 and 10 mg. Of the patients with a suboptimal early virologic response at W24, 43% of non-responders and 82% of partial responders achieved virologic response at W96. Biochemical improvement often occurred independently of virologic response. Adverse events were mostly mild, with no serious adverse events related to BLV.
CONCLUSIONS: Virologic and biochemical responses were maintained and/or increased with longer term BLV therapy, including in those with suboptimal early virologic response. BLV monotherapy for CHD was safe and well tolerated through W96.
UNASSIGNED: In July 2023, bulevirtide was fully approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis delta (CHD) in Europe based on clinical study results from up to 48 weeks of treatment. Understanding the efficacy and safety of bulevirtide over the longer term is important for healthcare providers. In this analysis, we demonstrate that bulevirtide monotherapy for 96 weeks in patients with CHD was associated with continued improvements in combined, virologic, and biochemical responses as well as liver stiffness from week 48 at both the 2 mg and 10 mg doses. Patients with suboptimal virologic responses to bulevirtide at week 24 also benefited from continued therapy, with the majority achieving virologic response or biochemical improvement by week 96.
RESULTS:
UNASSIGNED: NCT03852719.

UNASSIGNED: We conducted a phase III, non-inferiority trial comparing safety and efficacy of RCP recombinant spike protein Covid-19 vaccine to BBIBP (Sinopharm).
UNASSIGNED: Adult Iranian population received RCP or BBIBP in a randomized, double blind and an additional non-randomized open labeled trial arms. Eligible participants signed a written informed consent and received two intramuscular injections three weeks apart. In the randomized arm, an intranasal dose of vaccine or adjuvant-only preparation were given to the RCP and BBIBP recipients at day 51 respectively. Participants were actively followed for up to 4 months for safety and efficacy outcomes. Primary outcome was PCR + symptomatic Covid-19 disease two weeks after the second dose. The non-inferiority margin was 10% of reported BBIBP vaccine efficacy (HR = 1.36).
UNASSIGNED: We recruited 23,110 participants (7224 in the randomized and 15,886 in the non-randomized arm). We observed 604 primary outcome events during 4 months of active follow-up including 121 and 133 in the randomized and 157 and 193 cases in the non-randomized arms among recipients of RCP and BBIBP respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome in those receiving RCP compared with BBIBP interval were 0.91 (0.71-1.16) and 0.62 (0.49-0.77) in the randomized and non-randomized arms respectively. The upper boundary of 99.1% confidence interval of HR = 0.91 (0.67-1.22) remained below the margin of non-inferiority in the randomized arm after observing the early stopping rules using O\'Brien Fleming method.
UNASSIGNED: Our study showed that the RCP efficacy is non-inferior and its safety profile is comparable to the BBIBP.

Typhoid fever is a significant public health concern with most of the sufferers between 15 and 25 y of age in Nepal. We undertook this study to demonstrate Vi polysaccharide conjugated with diphtheria toxoid (Vi-DT) conjugate vaccine which is non-inferior to Typbar typhoid conjugate vaccine, a Vi polysaccharide vaccine conjugated with tetanus toxoid (Vi-TT) with a focus on the adult population from Dhulikhel Hospital which was one of the total four sites in Nepal. In this study, we assigned the eligible participants in 1:1:1:1 ratio by block randomization, and stratified into three age groups (6 months to less than 2 y, 2 y to less than 18 y, and 18 y to 45 y), allotted to Group A, B, C, and D. Group A, B, and C received 25 μg (0.5 mL) of Vi-DT study vaccine and participants in Group D received 25 μg (0.5 mL) Vi-TT vaccine. We descriptively analyzed safety in all the participants receiving one dose of the investigational vaccine. The anti-Vi-IgG seroconversion rate in Vi-DT recipients was 99.71% (97.5% CI 98.04-99.96; 344 of 345 participants) and 99.13% (94.27-99.87; 114 of 115) in Vi-TT recipients which indicates that Vi-DT vaccine is non-inferior to Vi-TT vaccine. In safety aspect, 16.81% of total subject had at least one solicited adverse reaction and 22.61% of the Vi-TT participants experienced at least one solicited adverse reaction with most of them being local adverse reactions. None of the enrolled participants reported serious adverse events. Our study shows that a single dose of the Vi-DT vaccine is immunogenic, safe to administer and non-inferior to the Vi-TT vaccine four weeks after vaccination.

UNASSIGNED: The randomized clinical trial ESO-SPARE investigates if oesophagus-sparing radiotherapy (RT) can reduce dysphagia in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) is the only follow-up measure. Due to the fragile patient population, low respondent compliance was anticipated. We performed a planned interim analysis of dosimetry and respondent compliance, to ensure that the protocol requirements were met.
UNASSIGNED: Patients >18 years referred for cervical/thoracic MSCC radiotherapy in 1-10 fractions were included from two centres. Patients were randomized (1:1) to standard RT or oesophagus-sparing RT, where predefined oesophageal dose constraints were prioritized over target coverage. Patients completed a trial diary with daily reports of dysphagia for 5 weeks (PRO-CTC-AE) and weekly quality of life reports for 9 weeks (QLQ-C30, EQ-5D-5L). According to power calculation, 124 patients are needed for primary endpoint analysis. The sample size was inflated to 200 patients to account for the fragile patient population. The co-primary endpoints, peak patient-reported dysphagia, and preserved ability to walk (EQ-5D-5L), are analysed at 5 and 9 weeks, respectively. The interim analysis was conducted 90 days after the inclusion of patient no 100. Respondent compliance was assessed at 5 and 9 weeks. In all RT plans, oesophagus and target doses were evaluated regarding adherence to protocol constraints.
UNASSIGNED: From May 2021 to November 2022, 100 patients were included. Fifty-two were randomized to oesophagus-sparing RT. In 23% of these plans, oesophagus constraints were violated. Overall, the dose to both target and oesophagus was significantly lower in the oesophagus-sparing plans. Only 51% and 41% of the patients were evaluable for co-primary endpoint analysis at five and nine weeks, respectively. Mortality and hospitalization rates were significantly larger in patients who completed <4 days PRO questionnaires.
UNASSIGNED: Compliance was lower than anticipated and interventions to maintain study power are needed.

H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been used to treat gastritis by inhibiting gastric acid. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are more potent acid suppressants than H2RA. However, the efficacy and safety of low-dose PPI for treating gastritis remain unclear. The aim was to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose PPI for treating gastritis.
A double-blind, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial randomly assigned 476 patients with endoscopic erosive gastritis to a group using esomeprazole 10 mg (DW1903) daily and a group using famotidine 20 mg (DW1903R1) daily for 2 weeks. The full-analysis set included 319 patients (DW1903, n=159; DW1903R1, n=160) and the per-protocol set included 298 patients (DW1903, n=147; DW1903R1, n=151). The primary endpoint (erosion improvement rate) and secondary endpoint (erosion and edema cure rates, improvement rates of hemorrhage, erythema, and symptoms) were assessed after the treatment. Adverse events were compared.
According to the full-analysis set, the erosion improvement rates in the DW1903 and DW1903R1 groups were 59.8% and 58.8%, respectively. According to the per-protocol analysis, the erosion improvement rates in the DW1903 and DW1903R1 groups were 61.9% and 59.6%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were not significantly different between two groups except that the hemorrhagic improvement rate was higher in DW1903 with statistical tendency. The number of adverse events were not statistically different.
DW1903 of a low-dose PPI was not inferior to DW1903R1 of H2RA. Thus, lowdose PPI can be a novel option for treating gastritis (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05163756).

Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. CoronaVac®, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has demonstrated safety and immunogenicity, preventing severe COVID-19 cases. We investigate the safety and non-inferiority of two immunization schedules of CoronaVac® in a non-inferiority trial in healthy adults. A total of 2302 healthy adults were enrolled at 8 centers in Chile and randomly assigned to two vaccination schedules, receiving two doses with either 14 or 28 days between each. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days of each dose, and comparing the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection 14 days after the second dose between the schedules, respectively. The most frequent local AE was pain at the injection site, which was less frequent in participants aged ≥60 years. Other local AEs were reported in less than 5% of participants. The most frequent systemic AEs were headache, fatigue, and myalgia. Most AEs were mild and transient. There were no significant differences for local and systemic AEs between schedules. A total of 58 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, and all but 2 of them were mild. No differences were observed in the proportion of COVID-19 cases between schedules. CoronaVac® is safe, especially in ≥60-year-old participants. Both schedules protected against COVID-19 hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography targeting the prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA PET/CT) has demonstrated unparalleled performance as a staging examination for prostate cancer resulting in substantial changes in management. However, the impact of altered management on patient outcomes is largely unknown. This study aims to assess the impact of intensified radiotherapy or surgery guided by PSMA PET/CT in patients at risk of advanced prostate cancer.
METHODS: This pan-Canadian phase III randomized controlled trial will enroll 776 men with either untreated high risk prostate cancer (CAPRA score 6-10 or stage cN1) or biochemically recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy (PSA > 0.1 ng/mL). Patients will be randomized 1:1 to either receive conventional imaging or conventional plus PSMA PET imaging, with intensification of radiotherapy or surgery to newly identified disease sites. The primary endpoint is failure free survival at 5 years. Secondary endpoints include rates of adverse events, time to next-line therapy, as well as impact on health-related quality of life and cost effectiveness as measured by incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years gained.
CONCLUSIONS: This study will help create level 1 evidence needed to demonstrate whether or not intensification of radiotherapy or surgery based on PSMA PET findings improves outcomes of patients at risk of advanced prostate cancer in a manner that is cost-effective.
BACKGROUND: This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04557501 on September 21, 2020.

BACKGROUND: This study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia.
METHODS: Patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia aged 20-80 were enrolled from 36 tertiary hospitals in Korea from January 2017 to April 2018. Patients were randomized to three groups in a 1:1:0.5 ratio, olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin (olme/amlo/rosu) or olmesartan plus rosuvastatin (olme/rosu) or olmesartan/amlodipine single pill (olme/amlo) combination. The primary endpoints were change of sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/rosu groups and the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/amlo groups after 8 weeks of treatment.
RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were randomized, 106 to olme/amlo/rosu, 106 to olme/rosu and 53 to olme/amlo groups. Baseline characteristics among the three groups did not differ. The mean sitSBP change was significantly larger in the olme/amlo/rosu group with -24.30 ± 12.62 mmHg (from 153.58 ± 10.90 to 129.28 ± 13.58) as compared to the olme/rosu group, -9.72 ± 16.27 mmHg (from 153.71 ± 11.10 to 144.00 ± 18.44 mmHg). The difference in change of sitSBP between the two groups was -14.62± 1.98 mmHg with significance (95% CI -18.51 to -10.73, p < 0.0001). The mean LDL-C reduced significantly in the olme/amlo/rosu group, -52.31 ± 16.63% (from 154.52 ± 30.84 to 72.72 ± 26.08 mg/dL) as compared to the olme/amlo group with no change, -2.98 ± 16.16% (from 160.42 ± 32.05 to 153.81 ± 31.57 mg/dL). Significant difference in change was found in LDL-C between the two groups with -50.10 ± 2.73% (95% CI -55.49 to -44.71, p < 0.0001). Total adverse drug reaction rates were 10.48%, 5.66% and 3.7% in the olme/amlo/rosu, olme/rosu and olme/amlo groups, respectively with no statistical significance among the three groups. Serious adverse drug reactions did not occur.
CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia is effective and safe as compared to either olmesartan plus rosuvastatin or olmesartan plus amlodipine treatment.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus. Favipiravir is an orally administrable antiviral drug whose mechanism of action is to selectively inhibit RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. A preliminary trial in COVID-19 patients reported significant improvements across a multitude of clinical parameters, but these findings have not been confirmed in an adequate well-controlled trial. We conducted a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial assessing the efficacy and safety of favipiravir in patients with moderate pneumonia not requiring oxygen therapy.
METHODS: COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia (SpO2 ≥ 94%) within 10 days of onset of fever (temperature ≥ 37.5 °C) were assigned to receive either placebo or favipiravir (1800 mg twice a day on Day 1, followed by 800 mg twice a day for up to 13 days) in a ratio of 1:2. An adaptive design was used to re-estimate the sample size. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome defined as the time to improvement in temperature, oxygen saturation levels (SpO2), and findings on chest imaging, and recovery to SARS-CoV-2-negative. This endpoint was re-examined by the Central Committee under blinded conditions.
RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were randomized. The median time of the primary endpoint was 11.9 days in the favipiravir group and 14.7 days in the placebo group, with a significant difference (p = 0.0136). Favipiravir-treated patients with known risk factors such as obesity or coexisting conditions provided better effects. Furthermore, patients with early-onset in the favipiravir group showed higher odds ratio. No deaths were documented. Although adverse events in the favipiravir group were predominantly transient, the incidence was significantly higher.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested favipiravir may be one of options for moderate COVID-19 pneumonia treatment. However, the risk of adverse events, including hyperuricemia, should be carefully considered.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.jp number: JapicCTI-205238.