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.

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.

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).

Fexuprazan is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker that could be of benefit to patients with gastric mucosal injury. The aim of this study was to assess the 2-week efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with acute or chronic gastritis.
In this study, 327 patients with acute or chronic gastritis who had one or more gastric erosions on endoscopy and subjective symptoms were randomized into three groups receiving fexuprazan 20 mg once a day (q.d.), fexuprazan 10 mg twice a day (b.i.d.), or placebo for 2 weeks. The posttreatment assessments were the primary endpoint (erosion improvement rate), secondary endpoints (cure rates of erosion and edema and improvement rates of redness, hemorrhage, and subjective symptoms), and drug-related adverse events.
Among the patients, 57.8% (59/102), 65.7% (67/102), and 40.6% (39/96) showed erosion improvement 2 weeks after receiving fexuprazan 20 mg q.d., fexuprazan 10 mg b.i.d., and placebo, respectively. Both fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. showed superior efficacy to the placebo (p=0.017 and p<0.001, respectively). Likewise, both fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. also showed higher erosion healing rates than the placebo (p=0.033 and p=0.010, respectively). No difference was noted in the edema healing rate and the improvement rates for redness, hemorrhage, and subjective symptoms between the fexuprazan and placebo groups. No significant difference was noted in the incidence of adverse drug reactions.
Fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. for 2 weeks showed therapeutic efficacy superior to that of placebo in patients with acute or chronic gastritis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04341454).

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) are among the most common community-acquired infections for women worldwide. Treatment options are increasingly limited by antibiotic resistance; novel oral antibiotics are urgently needed. Gepotidacin is a novel, bactericidal, first-in-class triazaacenaphthylene antibiotic that inhibits bacterial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) replication by a distinct mechanism of action, which confers activity against most strains of target pathogens, such as Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus saprophyticus, including those resistant to current antibiotics. Here, we describe the designs of two near-identical phase III clinical trials (EAGLE-2 and EAGLE-3) evaluating gepotidacin for the treatment of uUTI.
METHODS: These are phase III, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, comparator-controlled, noninferiority studies, comparing the efficacy and safety of gepotidacin to nitrofurantoin in the treatment of uUTI. Eligible participants are women aged ≥ 12 years with ≥ 2 uUTI symptoms, randomized (1:1) to receive oral gepotidacin (1500 mg) plus placebo or nitrofurantoin (100 mg) plus placebo, twice daily for 5 days. The primary therapeutic endpoint is composite clinical and microbiological efficacy, with noninferiority comparisons made in individuals with a qualifying (≥ 105 colony-forming units/mL urine) nitrofurantoin-susceptible uropathogen.
RESULTS: These trials were designed in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration (2019) and European Medicines Agency (2018) guidance, particularly the composite endpoint and microbiological evaluability requirements. Across the trials ~ 5000 participants are planned to be enrolled from > 200 centers globally.
CONCLUSIONS: Gepotidacin represents an important potential treatment option being evaluated to address the need for novel oral antibiotics to treat uUTI. These trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ) where the full protocols can be accessed under trial IDs: NCT04020341 (EAGLE-2) and NCT04187144 (EAGLE-3).

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) is an important prognostic and predictive factor in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report the association of CRP levels at baseline and early after treatment with efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib from the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.
METHODS: Patients were categorized into normal (baseline CRP <10 mg/l), normalized (baseline CRP ≥10 mg/l and ≥1 CRP value decreased to <10 mg/l during 6-week treatment), and non-normalized (CRP ≥10 mg/l at baseline and during 6-week treatment) CRP groups. Progression-free survival and best overall response from the second interim analysis and overall survival (OS) from the third interim analysis were assessed.
RESULTS: In the avelumab plus axitinib and sunitinib arms, respectively, 234, 51, and 108 patients and 232, 36, and 128 patients were categorized into normal, normalized, and non-normalized CRP groups. In respective CRP groups, objective response rates [95% confidence interval (CI)] were 56.0% (49.4% to 62.4%), 66.7% (52.1% to 79.2%), and 45.4% (35.8% to 55.2%) with avelumab plus axitinib and 30.6% (24.7% to 37.0%), 41.7% (25.5% to 59.2%), and 19.5% (13.1% to 27.5%) with sunitinib; complete response rates were 3.8%, 11.8%, and 0.9% and 3.0%, 0%, and 1.6%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 15.2 months (12.5-21.0 months), not reached (NR) [11.1 months-not estimable (NE)], and 7.0 months (5.6-9.9 months) with avelumab plus axitinib and 11.2 months (8.4-13.9 months), 11.2 months (6.7-13.8 months), and 4.2 months (2.8-5.6 months) with sunitinib; median OS (95% CI) was NR (42.2 months-NE), NR (30.4 months-NE), and 23.0 months (18.4-33.1 months) and NR (39.0 months-NE), 39.8 months (21.7-NE), and 19.1 months (16.3-25.3 months), respectively. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that normalized or non-normalized CRP levels were independent factors for the prediction of objective response rate or OS, respectively, with avelumab plus axitinib.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with aRCC, CRP levels at baseline and early after treatment may predict efficacy with avelumab plus axitinib.