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.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary central nervous system tumor, whose prognosis remains poor under the sequential standard of care, such as neurosurgery followed by concurrent temozolomide radiochemotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy in the presence or absence of tumor treating fields. Accordingly, the advent of molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy has opened a new era of tumor management. A diverse range of targeted drugs have been tested in patients with GBM in phase III clinical trials. However, these drugs are ineffective for all patients, as evidenced by the fact that only a minority of patients in these trials showed prolonged survival. Furthermore, there are several published phase III clinical trials that involve immune checkpoint inhibitors, peptide vaccines, dendritic cell vaccines, and virotherapy. Accordingly, this review comprehensively overviews existing studies of targeted drugs and immunotherapy for glioma and discusses the challenge and perspective of targeted drugs and immunotherapy for glioma to clarify future directions.

CoronaVac is an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine approved by the World Health Organization (WHO). Previous studies reported increased levels of neutralizing antibodies and specific T cells 2 and 4 weeks after two doses of CoronaVac; these levels were significantly reduced at 6 to 8 months after the two doses. Here, we report the effect of a booster dose of CoronaVac on the anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response generated against the variants of concern (VOCs), Delta and Omicron, in adults participating in a phase III clinical trial in Chile. Volunteers immunized with two doses of CoronaVac in a 4-week interval received a booster dose of the same vaccine between 24 and 30 weeks after the second dose. Neutralization capacities and T cell activation against VOCs Delta and Omicron were assessed 4 weeks after the booster dose. We observed a significant increase in neutralizing antibodies 4 weeks after the booster dose. We also observed a rise in anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells over time, and these cells reached a peak 4 weeks after the booster dose. Furthermore, neutralizing antibodies and SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells induced by the booster showed activity against VOCs Delta and Omicron. Our results show that a booster dose of CoronaVac increases adults\' humoral and cellular anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses. In addition, immunity induced by a booster dose of CoronaVac is active against VOCs, suggesting adequate protection. IMPORTANCE CoronaVac is an inactivated vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 that has been approved by WHO for emergency use. Phase III clinical trials are in progress in several countries, including China, Brazil, Turkey, and Chile, and have shown safety and immunogenicity after two doses of the vaccine. This report characterizes immune responses induced by two doses of CoronaVac followed by a booster dose 5 months after the second dose in healthy Chilean adults. The data reported here show that a booster dose increased the immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, enhancing levels of neutralizing antibodies against the ancestral strain and VOCs. Similarly, anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD4+ T cell responses were increased following the booster dose. In contrast, levels of gamma interferon secretion and T cell activation against the VOCs Delta and Omicron were not significantly different from those for the ancestral strain. Therefore, a third dose of CoronaVac in a homologous vaccination schedule improves its immunogenicity in healthy volunteers.

Alzheimer\'s disease is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by progressive cognitive decline and dysfunction of independent living ability, with huge economic and healthy burden worldwide. However, there is still a lack of effective long-term drugs to improve cognitive function and reduce or halt disease progression. Phase III clinical trials of anti-AD drugs based on different hypotheses were in the pipeline, and this protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine what is the most effective direction for the development of drugs on cognitive improvement.
We will search the following literature databases for eligible studies from inception to December 2021: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov registration platform, and the AlzForum website will also be searched for additional studies. Studies will be included irrespective of publication status or language. Phase III clinical trials reporting on the effect of anti-AD drugs on participants with AD will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen the hit articles and identify phase III clinical trials, extract data, and assess the quality of each study individually. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 (RoB 2) will be used to assess the risk of bias. For each kind of drugs based on the corresponding hypothesis, we will compare the study design and demographic features of the clinical trials and include appropriate studies in the network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes will be the indicators of cognitive improvement. The secondary outcomes will be activities of daily living, neuroimaging changes, biomarkers, and safety. Through network meta-analysis, we will suggest the hypothesis that most likely to improve cognitive function and provide the ranks of all kinds of drugs. We will give recommendation grade of each comparison using the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMa) tool.
This study will provide helpful evidence for further drug development and clinical practice for treating Alzheimer\'s disease.
PROSPERO CRD42021251507.

Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as \"clinicaltrials.gov\". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for inoperable locoregionally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have led to a paradigm shift in advanced, metastatic ESCC treatment; however, the effect of incorporating checkpoint inhibitors in the definitive management of ESCC is unclear. Tislelizumab is an anti-PD-1 antibody specifically engineered to minimize FcɣR binding on macrophages to abrogate antibody-dependent phagocytosis, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. The RATIONALE 311 study described here (BGB-A317-311; NCT03957590) is a registrational multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, Phase III clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with inoperable localized ESCC.
Lay abstract Esophageal cancer is a challenging disease that seriously threatens patients’ health and life. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the most common type of esophageal cancer. Most patients who have inoperable stage II–IV ESCC are currently treated with a sequential combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy, with the hopes of increasing the positive effects seen from either therapy alone. Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have shown encouraging results in patients with ESCC, but it is not known if combining checkpoint inhibitors with simultaneous chemotherapy and radiation therapy will provide additional benefits. The safety and efficacy of tislelizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody specifically engineered to limit potential resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy, is being investigated in combination with simultaneous chemotherapy and radiation therapy in patients with inoperable stage II–IV ESCC in an actively enrolling clinical trial, RATIONALE 311 (NCT03957590). Our trial in progress article explains the reason RATIONALE 311 was started and provides important enrollment information for doctors. Clinical trial registration: NCT03957590 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Objectives: A phase III, 24-weeks Chinese clinical trial demonstrated that efficacy and safety outcomes of treatments with 40 mg/0.8 ml HS016 (n = 416) or adalimumab (n = 232) for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients was comparable. In the present study, a subanalysis of the clinical trial was conducted to determine whether also individual efficacy indicators were comparable between HS016 and adalimumab. Methods: The individual efficacy indicators total and nocturnal back pain, global assessment of disease activity, swollen joint count, Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score, Bath AS Disease Activity Index, Bath AS Functional Index, Bath AS Metrology Index and chest expansion, were assessed at baseline and every 2 weeks during the treatment period. Results: This subanalysis revealed no significant difference between the patient groups treated with HS016 or adalimumab for any individual efficacy indicator investigated at any time point (all p > 0.05) beside faster total back pain score improvements in the adalimumab group on week 10, 12 and 22, which became equal at week 24. Among these indicators, chest expansion showed a significant increase at each time point compared with baseline, whereas all other efficacy indicators showed significant decreases compared with baseline at each time point (all p < 0.05). All efficacy indicators had increased or decreased rapidly by week 2, and the values continued to increase/decrease up to week 12, with subsequent smaller changes thereafter up to week 24 of treatment. Conclusion: The response trajectory of most individual efficacy indicators was comparable between HS016 and adalimumab at each time point during the 24 weeks of the trial. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=37910, identifier [ChiCTR1900022520].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac in symptomatic individuals, with virological confirmation of COVID-19, two weeks after the completion of the two-dose vaccination regimen, aged 18 years or older who work as health professionals providing care to patients with possible or confirmed COVID-19. To describe the occurrence of adverse reactions associated with the administration of each of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac up to one week after vaccination in Adults (18-59 years of age) and Elderly (60 years of age or more).
METHODS: This is a Phase III, randomized, multicenter, endpoint driven, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac. The adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac (product under investigation) will be compared to placebo. Voluntary participants will be randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of the investigational product or the placebo, in a 1: 1 ratio, stratified by age group (18 to 59 years and 60 years or more) and will be monitored for one year by active surveillance of COVID-19. Two databases will be established according to the age groups: one for adults (18-59 years) and one for the elderly (60 years of age or older). The threshold to consider the vaccine efficacious will be to reach a protection level of at least 50%, as proposed by the World Health Organization and the FDA. Success in this criterion will be defined by sequential monitoring with adjustment of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval above 30% for the primary efficacy endpoint.
METHODS: Healthy participants and / or participants with clinically controlled disease, of both genders, 18 years of age or older, working as health professionals performing care in units specialized in direct contact with people with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19. Participation of pregnant women and those who are breastfeeding, as well as those intending to become pregnant within three months after vaccination will not be allowed. Participants will only be included after signing the voluntary Informed Consent Form and ensuring they undergo screening evaluation and conform to all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the clinical sites are located in Brazil.
UNASSIGNED: Experimental intervention: The vaccine was manufactured by Sinovac Life Sciences (Beijing, China) and contains 3 μg/0.5 mL (equivalent to 600 SU per dose) of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus, and aluminium hydroxide as adjuvant. Control comparator: The placebo contains aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 mL solution The schedule of both, experimental intervention and placebo is two 0.5 mL doses IM (deltoid) with a two week interval.
RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic cases of virologically confirmed COVID-19 two weeks after the second vaccination. The virological diagnosis will be confirmed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical sample. The primary safety endpoint is the frequency of solicited and unsolicited local and systemic adverse reactions during the period of one week after vaccination according to age group in adult (18-59 years old) and elder (60 years of age or older) subjects. Adverse reactions are defined as adverse events that have a reasonable causal relationship to vaccination.
UNASSIGNED: There will be two randomization lists, one for each age group, based on the investigational products to be administered, i.e., vaccine or placebo at a 1: 1 ratio. Each randomization list will be made to include up to 11,800 (18-59 year-old) adults, and 1,260 elderly (60 y-o and older) participants, the maximum number of participants needed per age group. An electronic central randomization system will be used to designate the investigational product that each participant must receive.
UNASSIGNED: This trial is designed as a double-blind study to avoid introducing bias in the evaluation of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. The clinical care team, the professionals responsible for the vaccination and the participants will not know which investigational product will be administered. Only pharmacists or nurses in the study who are responsible for the randomization, separation and blinding of the investigational product will have access to unblinded information. The sponsor\'s operational team will also remain blind.
UNASSIGNED: The total number of participants needed to evaluate efficacy, 13,060 participants, satisfies the needed sample size calculated to evaluate safety. Therefore, the total number obtained for efficacy will be the number retained for the study. Up to 13,060 participants are expected to enter the study, with up to 11,800 participants aged 18 to 59 years and 1,260 elderly participants aged 60 and over. Half of the participants of each group will receive the experimental vaccine and half of them will receive the placebo. The recruitment of participants may be modified as recommended by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee at time of the interim unblinded analysis or blind assessment of the COVID-19 attack rate during the study.
UNASSIGNED: Protocol version 2.0 - 24-Aug-2020. Recruitment started on July 21st, 2020. The recruitment is expected to conclude in October 2020.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0445659 . Registry on 2 July 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

The novel coronavirus infection that initially found at the end of 2019 has attracted great attention. So far, the number of infectious cases has increased globally to more than 100 thousand and the outbreak has been defined as a pandemic situation, but there are still no \"specific drug\" available. Relevant reports have pointed out the novel coronavirus has 80% homology with SARS. In the difficulty where new synthesized drug cannot be applied immediately to patients, \"conventional drug in new use\" becomes a feasible solution. The first medication experience of the recovered patients in the US has led remdesivir to be the \"specific drug\". China has also taken immediate action to put remdesivir into clinical trials with the purpose of applying it into clinical therapeutics for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). We started from the structure, immunogenicity, and pathogenesis of coronavirus infections of the novel coronavirus. Further, we analyzed the pharmacological actions and previous trials of remdesivir to identify the feasibility of conducting experiments on COVID-19.

Introduction: During the years, while treatment strategy for diabetes mellitus has improved, the incidence of diabetes worldwide increases continuously. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the major diabetic microvascular complications, and a primary cause leading to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The progression to ESRD, affected by hyperglycemia and hypertension, is characterized by microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. With advances in understanding the pathogenesis of CKD in diabetic patients, many novel therapeutic targets have been proposed, and the corresponding agents are being developed continually to prevent the progression of CKD. Areas covered: This review focuses on those tested in phase III clinical trials for the treatment of CKD in diabetic patients, including renin-angiotensin system blockers, aldosterone antagonists, calcium channel blockers, TGF-β inhibitors, protein kinase C inhibitors, advanced glycation end products inhibitors, GLP-1 analogues, DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, endothelin receptor antagonists, and so on. Expert commentary: The ideal control of glucose and blood pressure and healthy lifestyle are prerequisite for diabetic patients, despite the progression of CKD is inevitable. Over the last few years, several agents have been developed to delay and even reverse progression of CKD in diabetic patients.