Bad Urach, Germany

A Study of NVL-520 in Patients With Advanced NSCLC and Other Solid Tumors Harboring ROS1 Rearrangement (ARROS-1)

In Phase 2, study patients will be enrolled into 5 distinct expansion cohorts: - Cohort 2a: ROS1-positive NSCLC naïve to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) therapy and up to 1 prior chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. - Cohort 2b: ROS1-positive NSCLC treated with 1 prior ROS1 TKI and no prior chemotherapy or immunotherapy. - Cohort 2c: ROS1-positive NSCLC treated with 1 prior ROS1 TKI and 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy. - Cohort 2d: ROS1-positive NSCLC treated with ≥2 prior ROS1 TKIs and up to 1 prior chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. - Cohort 2e: ROS1-positive solid tumor and progressed on any prior therapy.

VItamin C in Thermal injuRY: The VICToRY Trial

In certain disease states, such as those associated with severe burns and other critical illnesses, the relationship between nutrient deficiencies, altered immune status, and acquired infection has been recognized for many years. More than in any other injury, the inflammation and catabolism associated with severe burns can exacerbate nutrient deficiencies, thereby predisposing patients to impaired immune function and increased risk of developing infectious complications, organ dysfunction, and death. We aim to conduct a large-scale, multi-center randomized trial to evaluate the effect of high-dose (50mg/kg every 6 hours for 96 hours) intravenous vitamin C in addition to standard of care (SOC) on 28-days composite outcome of Persistent Organ Dysfunction (POD) and all-cause mortality compared to add-on placebo and SOC. Patients will be allocated to 2 groups, active or control: patients in the active group will receive intravenous vitamin C at 50mg/kg every 6 hrs for 96 hrs. Patients in the control group will receive a similar amount of placebo (either D5W or saline) delivered in the same manner as the vitamin C. This study will be the first large international multi-centre trial examining the effects of high dose intravenous vitamin C in burn patients. It represents a unique collaboration of burn units worldwide that is coordinated by the Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, based in Kingston Ontario Canada, a coordinating center that has demonstrated the ability to run multi-center trials and translate findings into practice.

Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study on Primary Biliary Cholangitis

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic autoimmune cholestatic liver disease. The course of the disease is characterized by a slow destruction of bile ducts, and progressive cholestasis. Prognosis depends on the development of cirrhosis and its complications. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has been established as standard therapy for PBC and improves patients' long-term outcome. However, UDCA is not a uniformly effective drug, and the prognosis of PBC patients insufficiently responding to treatment is markedly worse. For patients with suboptimal treatment response to UDCA obeticholic acid (OCA) as newly approved medication (OCALIVA®) is available as second line treatment. Due to the low prevalence and the slowly progressive course of the disease it is very difficult to investigate the prognosis of subgroups of PBC patients or to evaluate the effectivness of therapeutic interventions on clinical outcomes. Therefore, several national or international registries (UK-PBC Consortium or the Global PBC Study Group) were founded to better characterize the clinical course of PBC patients. Since in Germany a registry for PBC does not exist, the German PBC Cohort is being implemented as observational study to collect data on treatment progress and success in clinical routine that reflects real world conditions in Germany as closely as possible. The effectiveness and safety/tolerability of PBC treatment options (UDCA as standard therapy and second-line treatment options like OCALIVA in case of inadequate UDCA treatment response) will be evaluated. In approximatly 40 sites in Germany routine data is collected. There are no specifications for the diagnosis, therapy and monitoring of the PBC patients. The documentation of the routine data is carried out alongside with guideline recommended treatment intervals of the patients. Furthermore, a critical criterion for the German PBC Cohort study is the involvement of a sufficient number of gastroenterology specialized practices and outpatient clinics that have consciously not been selected based on the strict specifications of a clinical trial and which provide routine treatment for PBC patients. In addition, patient access is designed to be open. Data will be collected on patient groups that represent a majority of the PBC patients in Germany, but who are not being investigated in clinical trials.

The RESPOND Outcomes Study

The specific objectives, falling into three main categories, are as follows: 1. Monitor the uptake of newer antiretroviral treatment (ART) drugs and drugs for treatment of co-infections and co-morbidities; 2. To evaluate the safety profiles of the newer individual ART drugs when used in routine clinical practice as part of either first-line or subsequent treatment regimens. 3. Investigate long term outcomes and clinical disease progression overall and in specific sub-groups The Outcomes study is a collaboration between investigators from clinics and cohorts across Europe, Australia and South America with a willingness to share data and to use a common follow-up schedule and assessment. Participating sites have a commitment to continue to follow this large cohort that is heterogeneous in both its demographic profile and in ART prescribing patterns thus resulting in enough power to answer many key clinical questions. The Outcomes study is a study in the RESPOND International Cohort Consortium of Infectious Diseases. RESPOND is an innovative, flexible and dynamic cohort consortium for the study of infectious diseases, including HIV, built as a generic structure for facilitating multi stakeholder involvement. In RESPOND all collected data is part of a common data repository or 'data lake', which is stored in a database located at CHIP, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Data collection in RESPOND is modular with a core data collection module onto which additional modules/studies can be added. Pseudonymised patient data can be entered manually via an online secure platform or be electronically transferred from existing local, regional or national data structures to the data lake. In the Outcomes study data will be collected at enrolment and at annual follow-up (FU) visits. For patients living with HIV-1 enrolled and under FU, demographic, laboratory, therapeutic and clinical data on HIV and viral hepatitis will be collected once a year. Clinical event data (except AIDS other than AIDS defining malignancies) will be collected in real-time on RESPOND event forms.

Model for PK/PD of Antimicrobials in Blood Stream Infection: Feasibility

Patients with a high probability of a blood stream infection and an indication for antimicrobial treatment will be included. The study comprises the identification of patients as potential study participants, obtaining informed consent, documentation of available potential covariates from patient file, withdrawal of pre-study blood samples (PK, PD, microbiology) including documentation of exact time of sampling and processing of the samples, first drug administration including exact documentation (as part of patient care; not as a study intervention), withdrawal of subsequent blood samples (PK, PD, microbiology) during the next 3 days including documentation of exact time of sampling and processing of the samples, storage of processed samples for further analysis, and, if possible, documentation of patient outcome after 7 days. The following steps are carried out after completion of the clinical part of the study in the individual patient or, when possible, in all patients together or in a subset: Bioanalytics, DNA Counts, assessing primary and secondary study endpoints, pharmacometric analyses including PK parameter estimation, PD parameter estimation and assessment of covariate effects with regard to DNA count, CRP, IL-6 and procalcitonin.

STABILITY 2: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction +/- Lateral Tenodesis With Patellar vs Quad Tendon

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is complicated by high failure rates in young, active individuals, which is associated with worse outcomes and higher rates of osteoarthritis (OA). ACLR failure reduces quality of life (QOL) and has substantial socioeconomic costs. Therefore, strategies to reduce ACLR failure are imperative. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) may provide greater stability; however, its effect on the rate of graft failure remains unclear, and surgically-induced lateral compartment OA is a concern given the potential for over-constraint of the joint. Many surgeons believe that autograft choice for ACLR, with or without LET, does not affect graft failure. Specifically, bone patella tendon bone (BPTB) autograft has been perceived to be just as good as a hamstring tendon (HT) graft. However, recent meta-analyses suggest that BPTB grafts provide better stability, albeit with greater donor site morbidity. Increasingly, quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft is being used for ACLR with claims of comparable stability to the BPTB graft without the donor site morbidity. However, the effects of a QT on graft failure are unknown. Despite its importance, there has not been an adequately powered study to evaluate if BPTB or QT is superior to the other in terms of graft failure rates, return to sports, donor site morbidity, lateral compartment OA and healthcare costs. Objectives: Determine if graft type (QT, BPTB, HT) with or without a LET affects: - Rate of ACL clinical failure 2 years after ACLR; - Patient-reported outcomes, muscle function, performance-based measures of function (hop tests, drop vertical jump) and return to sports; - Intervention-related donor site morbidity, complications and adverse outcomes; - Cost-effectiveness of ACLR and LET. Approach: This is a multicenter, international, randomized clinical trial that will randomly assign 1236 ACL deficient patients at high risk of re-injury, to an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a BPTB or QT autograft with or without a LET in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Data from this study will be combined with data from a recently completed randomized clinical trial comparing ACLR with a hamstring tendon (HT) graft with or without LET. Randomization will be stratified by surgeon, sex, and meniscal status (normal/repaired v meniscectomy) in permuted block sizes to ensure that any differences in outcome attributable to these factors are equally dispersed between treatment groups. Each site will either use traditional or expertise-based randomization. All randomization will use the web-based application available through the data management center. Methods to Reduce Biases: Selection Bias between STABILITY 2 Intervention Groups: We will partially determine eligibility prior to surgery. Once in surgery, all patients will undergo an examination under anesthesia and diagnostic arthroscopy to confirm final eligibility. The surgeon will document evidence of the participant's ineligibility in the surgical report that is discovered during surgery (e.g. partial ACL rupture where an ACLR is not performed, multiple ligament reconstruction, chondral lesion requiring more than debridement). The operative notes for all participants that were consented will be included in the study database. The study quality control monitors will review the evidence provided by the operating surgeon (arthroscopic pictures/video of ACL integrity and chondral status) and recommend that either the participant remain in the study or be withdrawn since they were never eligible. At the traditional randomization sites, full randomization occurs during surgery following arthroscopic evaluation of eligibility, which already serves to reduce the risk of selection bias. The action of requiring evidence of ineligibility at time of surgery therefore, reduces the risk of sampling bias (applicability) in traditional randomization sites. At the expertise-based randomization sites, where randomization to graft type occurs prior to surgery, this action will prevent unsubstantiated post-randomization withdrawals prior to randomization to LET or no LET, which reduces sampling bias (applicability) and selection bias by avoiding unequal exclusions between the LET/no LET assignment since randomization to LET/no LET occurs after the arthroscopic examination. In summary, having to provide evidence of eligibility at surgery will serve as a deterrent for surgeons declaring eligible consenting patients ineligible during surgery, which serves to reduce the likelihood of sampling and selection bias. Selection Bias between STABILITY 1 (NCT02018354) and STABILITY 2 Comparisons: STABILITY 1 followed the exact same protocols as are proposed for STABILITY 2 and the two studies will be performed immediately in series; thus, changes in ancillary care and surgeon expertise are unlikely. Consequently, analyses that combine data from STABILITY 1 and STABILITY 2 are unlikely to suffer significant between-study selection biases that are usually a concern for non-randomized comparisons. Further, to evaluate selection bias between the STABILITY 1 and STABILITY 2 samples, the baseline characteristics of the samples will be evaluated to identify any systematic differences between the samples. Performance Bias, Fidelity & Adherence: Surgeons have agreed upon standardization of aspects of the surgical interventions that could potentially influence outcomes. All other aspects of the surgical interventions are meant to be pragmatic and may vary by surgeon. Aspects allowed to vary are not expected to influence outcome. Further, randomization is stratified by surgeon so that nuance differences by surgeon are balanced between groups. In terms of fidelity, all participating surgeons have the necessary expertise to conduct both surgical procedures (BPTB, QT) if they have elected to participate in traditional randomization. Surgeons who have a preference for or greater skill performing one graft type over the other, will participate in expertise-based randomization and have identified another surgeon with similar expertise/preference performing the opposite graft type. In terms of performing a LET, all surgeons who have not completed at least 10 LETs will participate in a cadaver training lab and be required to complete at least 10 LET procedures prior to randomizing their first patient. The investigators have agreed upon a protocol for ACL rehabilitation following ACLR. All patients will receive a copy of the protocol with a standardized referral from their surgeon for their physical therapist. Deviations from the protocol are not expected to be different from usual practice and as such patient adherence with rehabilitation protocols is expected to vary. Given the large sample size, we expect that adherence to rehabilitation will be balanced between groups and we will adjust the analyses for length of time in rehabilitation. This study will track the number of rehabilitation sessions attended, milestones and timing of rehabilitation-specific activities to collect some adherence and fidelity data. Detection Bias: An independent surgeon, primary care sports medicine physician, physical therapist or athletic trainer who is unaware of group allocation will conduct all assessments of graft stability (primary outcome). Although incisions are unique for each procedure, patients will wear a tubigrip sleeve over both knees to conceal the incisions and reduce bias in assessments that require side-to-side comparisons, including the primary outcome. Data assessors for other outcomes will also be kept unaware of group allocation using this method. Intention-to-Treat Principle: Patients will be analyzed within the group to which they were randomized regardless of graft type received or adherence to protocols. Attrition Bias: From STABILITY 1, we have complete data on 95% of the 618 patients who are at least 2 years postoperative demonstrating that we are capable of successful recruitment and retention in a study of this magnitude. We will use the same measures to maximize completeness of follow-up Statistical Methods: Sample Size: We estimate that the absolute risk of graft failure (as defined above) in the ACLR will range from 25-35%. STABILITY 1 supports this estimate. We consider a relative reduction in graft failure rate of at least 40% to merit a change in practice (i.e. of sufficient magnitude to warrant the additional costs of adding a LET). With 255 patients per group and a type I error rate of 1% we would have 80% power to detect a relative risk reduction in rate of failure of 40% or greater in those with LET assuming the graft failure rate in ACLR is 33%. We have used a small type I error rate of 1% to reduce the risk of multiple comparisons error. To reduce the risk of losing precision from withdrawal and lost-to-follow-ups, we will over recruit by 15%, for a total of 309 per group or 1853 participants in total (combined STABILITY 1 and STABILITY 2 data). While not all sites have the infrastructure to conduct the isokinetic quadriceps and hamstring tests (13 sites) and in vivo kinematics during the DVJ (one site), these outcomes are reported using a continuous metric and therefore do not require as large a sample size as the proportional primary outcome. Statistical Analyses: The data collected through this study will be pooled with the data from STABILITY 1 for analysis (n=1800). To determine whether graft type (QT, BPTB, HT) with or without a LET offers a greater reduction in rate of failure following ACLR (primary research question), we will use a random-effects logistic regression with failure following ACLR at each visit (yes/no) as the outcome where fixed effects include intervention group, meniscal repair status, sex and time (as a categorical variable) and random effects include patient and surgeon. We will conduct a similar analysis for secondary outcomes like return-to-activity and donor site adverse events, as both are binary outcomes. For each continuous secondary outcome including patient-reported outcomes (PRO) scores, measures of impaired range of motion (ROM) and muscle strength, performance-based measures of physical function, and lateral compartment joint space narrowing, we will conduct a linear mixed-effects model where the fixed effects include ACLR group, meniscal repair status, sex and time (as a categorical variable) and random effects including patient and surgeon. For missing data, we will evaluate whether data are missing completely at random by comparing the available data (especially at baseline) for those with and without missing data at follow-up. We will use multiple imputation techniques to handle missing data. Sex-based analysis: To compare failure between HT+LET and other graft options (BPTB or QT) for males and females separately, we will conduct a random-effects logistic regression with the same fixed and random effects as in the primary analysis. Health services analyses: We will assign the average procedure cost for an ACLR surgery at each participating institution with the additional cost of the lateral extra-articular tenodesis for those patients randomized to the LET group. Patients who undergo a revision ACLR will complete a healthcare resource diary to capture additional direct and indirect costs. We will conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare payer and societal perspective using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) as our effectiveness outcome at two years postoperative. We will estimate the incremental net benefit (INB) of ACLR + LET using a random effects multilevel model. To characterize the statistical uncertainty around our estimate of INB, we will use an extension of the standard net benefit regression framework using the hierarchical data to generate location-specific net benefit curves, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Laparoscopic Ischemic Conditioning Prior to Esophagectomy

Rationale: Anastomotic leakage is the most important surgical complication following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. A major cause of leakage is impaired healing due to ischemia of the gastric tube that is used for reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract. Calcifications of the aorta or stenosis of the celiac trunk on pre-operative CT scan have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage. So far, no individualized treatment has been initiated for this selected group of patients. Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning (ISCON) of the gastric tube aims to increase perfusion at the anastomotic site by redistribution of the gastric blood flow and/or induction of angiogenesis. This is achieved by occlusion of the supplying gastric arteries except for the right gastroepiploic artery during a separate intervention prior to esophagectomy. Of note, these arteries would also be occluded during conventional esophagectomy, but with laparoscopic ISCON they are occluded at an earlier moment in time during a separate intervention. Retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety of this technique. Prospective studies have not yet been performed. Primary objective: Assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic ISCON 12-18 days prior to esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in patients with arterial calcifications. Study design: Two center phase II prospective single-arm safety and feasibility trial. Study population: Patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) with "major calcifications" of the thoracic aorta (UCS) and any additional calcification or stenosis of the celiac axis (modified NASCET score) on preoperative CT scan, who are planned to undergo esophagectomy. Intervention: Laparoscopic ISCON followed by esophagectomy after an interval of 12-18 days. Primary outcome: all complications grade 2 and higher (Clavien-Dindo classification) occurring during or after operation 1 (laparoscopic ISCON) and before operation 2 (esophagectomy). Secondary outcomes: secondary outcomes with regard to operation 1 (laparoscopic ISCON) are the duration of the procedure, blood loss, day of discharge postoperatively and grade 1 complications. Secondary outcomes with regard to operation 2 (esophagectomy) are anastomotic leakage rate, all other grade 3b or higher complications and 30 day mortality. Further secondary endpoints are the induction of angiogenesis by biomarkers of microcirculation and redistribution of blood flow by measurement of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiography. Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: the additional burden for the patient consists of an extra operation of approximately 40 minutes during which laparoscopic ISCON will be performed, prior to the planned esophagectomy. We would classify the current study as medium risk. Potential benefits in comparison to current standard treatment are a reduced risk of anastomotic leakage and severity of anastomotic leakage. Potential risks are complications following operation 1 (laparoscopic ISCON). Mainly, based upon prior experience, we expect gastroparesis to occur in 25% of patients. Patients with gastroparesis have an increased risk of aspiration and will require a stomach emptying by nasogastric tube and nasojejunal tube feeding till the performance of operating 2 (esophagectomy).

DKN-01 Inhibition in Advanced Liver Cancer

Part A is a phase I study investigating the safety of DKN-01 administered as mono- as well as combination therapy with sorafenib in a 2 step dose escalation. Up to 20 patients with advanced HCC will be included in Part A. Tumor assessment will be performed every 8 weeks.The first 10 patients (cohort 1) will start with IV infusion of 300 mg DKN-01 on day 1 and 15 (monotherapy for 28 days). DLTs will be determined. After cycle 2 of monotherapy patients of cohort 1 will continue with combination of 300 mg DKN-01 IV on day 1 and 15 and sorafenib (recommended dose 800 mg per day or at discretion of the investigator) until disease progression. After 2 cycles of combination therapy and prior to the start of the next cohort DLTs will be determined. Part B is a phase II study to investigate the anti-tumor activity and safety of DKN-01 in patients with advanced HCC. DKN-01 is administered at the recommend phase II dose (RP2D) for monotherapy and at the recommend phase II dose for combination therapy established in Part A. Depending on the tolerability, the doses may be different for monotherapy and for combination therapy. Up to 50 additional patients with advanced HCC may be enrolled in Part B. Every 8 weeks tumor assessment will be performed. If progression of disease (PD1) is observed with DKN-01 monotherapy, patients will continue on study receiving DKN-01 at the recommend phase II dose for combination therapy.

Consolidation Therapy With Brentuximab Vedotin After Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation for Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma