RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Multi-Arm, Multi-Stage (MAMS) clinical trial designs allow for multiple therapies to be compared across a spectrum of clinical trial phases. MAMS designs fall under several overarching design groups, including adaptive designs (AD) and multi-arm (MA) designs. Factorial clinical trials designs represent a combination of factorial and MAMS trial designs and can provide increased efficiency relative to fixed, traditional designs. We explore design choices associated with Factorial Adaptive Multi-Arm Multi-Stage (FAST) designs, which represent the combination of factorial and MAMS designs. METHODS: Simulation studies were conducted to assess the impact of the type of analyses, the timing of analyses, and the effect size observed across multiple outcomes on trial operating characteristics for a FAST design. Given multiple outcomes types assessed within the hypothetical trial, the primary analysis approach for each assessment varied depending on data type. RESULTS: The simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed class of FAST trial designs can offer a framework to potentially provide improvements relative to other trial designs, such as a MAMS or factorial trial. Further, we note that the design implementation decisions, such as the timing and type of analyses conducted throughout trial, can have a great impact on trial operating characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Motivated by a trial currently under design, our work shows that the FAST category of trial can potentially offer benefits similar to both MAMS and factorial designs; however, the chosen design aspects which can be included in a FAST trial need to be thoroughly explored during the planning phase.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Secondary endpoints (SEP) provide crucial information in the interpretation of clinical trials, but their features are not yet well understood. Thus, we sought to empirically characterize the scope and publication rate of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. We assessed SEPs for each randomized, published phase III oncology trial across all publications and ClinicalTrials.gov, performing logistic regressions to evaluate associations between trial characteristics and SEP publication rates. After screening, a total of 280 trials enrolling 244,576 patients and containing 2,562 SEPs met the inclusion criteria. Only 22% of trials (62/280) listed all SEPs consistently between ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial protocol. The absolute number of SEPs per trial increased over time, and trials sponsored by industry had a greater number of SEPs (median 9 vs. 5 SEPs per trial; P < 0.0001). In total, 69% of SEPs (1,770/2,562) were published. The publication rate significantly varied by SEP category [X2 (5, N = 2,562) = 245.86; P < 0.001]. SEPs that place the most burden on patients, such as patient-reported outcomes and translational correlatives, were published at 63% (246/393) and 44% (39/88), respectively. Trials with more SEPs were associated with lower overall SEP publication rates. Overall, our findings are that SEP publication rates in late-phase oncology trials are highly variable based on the type of SEP. To avoid undue burden on patients and promote transparency of findings, trialists should weigh the biological and clinical relevance of each SEP together with its feasibility at the time of trial design. SIGNIFICANCE: In this investigation, we characterized the utilization and publication rates of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. Our results draw attention to the proliferation of SEPs in recent years. Although overall publication rates were high, underpublication was detected among endpoints that may increase patient burden (such as translational correlatives and patient-reported outcomes).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: A previous study demonstrated that power against the (unobserved) true effect for the primary end point (PEP) of most phase III oncology trials is low, suggesting an increased risk of false-negative findings in the field of late-phase oncology. Fitting models with prognostic covariates is a potential solution to improve power; however, the extent to which trials leverage this approach, and its impact on trial interpretation at scale, is unknown. To that end, we hypothesized that phase III trials using multivariable PEP analyses are more likely to demonstrate superiority versus trials with univariable analyses. METHODS: PEP analyses were reviewed from trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated by logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of the 535 trials enrolling 454,824 patients, 69% (n = 368) used a multivariable PEP analysis. Trials with multivariable PEP analyses were more likely to demonstrate PEP superiority (57% [209 of 368] v 42% [70 of 167]; aOR, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.18 to 2.72]; P = .007). Among trials with a multivariable PEP model, 16 conditioned on covariates and 352 stratified by covariates. However, 108 (35%) of 312 trials with stratified analyses lost power by categorizing a continuous variable, which was especially common among immunotherapy trials (aOR, 2.45 [95% CI, 1.23 to 4.92]; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Trials increasing power by fitting multivariable models were more likely to demonstrate PEP superiority than trials with unadjusted analysis. Underutilization of conditioning models and empirical power loss associated with covariate categorization required by stratification were identified as barriers to power gains. These findings underscore the opportunity to increase power in phase III trials with conventional methodology and improve patient access to effective novel therapies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Chen et al. (2022) recently proposed a set of estimating equations that incorporate data from secondary endpoints to improve precision in parameter estimates related to a primary endpoint. We were motivated to translate their methodology to the context of randomized controlled trials to gain precision in treatment effect estimation using data from secondary endpoints. Our results suggest that this estimator cannot gain efficiency in this context because of random treatment assignment, especially when there is a treatment effect on secondary endpoints, and that further methodological work in this area is needed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awards the breakthrough therapy designation to expedite development and review of therapeutics intended to treat serious conditions when preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates potential substantial improvement over existing therapies on clinically significant end points. Under the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, the FDA is required to publish and routinely update a list of surrogate markers to provide industry sponsors with indication-specific information about end points that were or may be considered for approval. Therapeutics that are granted breakthrough therapy designation can receive accelerated or traditional approval; however, little is known about those approved through the latter pathway, where postmarketing confirmatory studies are typically not required, regardless of the end point used. Objective: To evaluate the primary end points used in premarket pivotal trials supporting FDA breakthrough therapy-designated approvals and to determine whether postmarketing studies confirming efficacy were required for approvals based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Drugs@FDA database for all original breakthrough therapy-designated approvals from inception to December 31, 2023, in the US. The first designation was approved on November 1, 2013. Data analysis was performed in January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive analyses were used to characterize the breakthrough therapy-designated indication approval pathways, the primary end points of pivotal efficacy trials, and their postmarketing requirements or commitments. Results: From 2013 to 2023, the FDA approved 157 original indications with breakthrough therapy designation. Of these, 52 (33%) were granted accelerated approval and 105 (67%) were granted traditional approval. All accelerated approvals were based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points and had FDA-required postmarketing studies to confirm efficacy. Of these 52 indications, 51 (98%) were approved based on surrogate end points listed in the FDA table of surrogate end points for the same indication. Among traditional approvals, 61 (58%) were based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points, of which 4 (7%) had FDA-required postmarketing studies to confirm efficacy and 39 (64%) were approved based on surrogate end points listed in the FDA table for the same indication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of original FDA breakthrough therapy-designated approvals from 2013 to 2023, trials supporting these approvals often used surrogate markers as primary end points (even when not approved via accelerated approval) and lacked FDA-required postmarketing studies to verify clinical benefit. These findings suggest that requiring postmarketing studies for breakthrough therapy-designated indications approved based on surrogate markers, regardless of approval pathway, may increase patient and clinician certainty of the expected clinical benefit.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Digital technologies, such as wearable devices and smartphone applications (apps), can enable the decentralisation of clinical trials by measuring endpoints in people's chosen locations rather than in traditional clinical settings. Digital endpoints can allow high-frequency and sensitive measurements of health outcomes compared to visit-based endpoints which provide an episodic snapshot of a person's health. However, there are underexplored challenges in this emerging space that require interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaboration. A multi-stakeholder Knowledge Exchange event was organised to facilitate conversations across silos within this research ecosystem. METHODS: A survey was sent to an initial list of stakeholders to identify potential discussion topics. Additional stakeholders were identified through iterative discussions on perspectives that needed representation. Co-design meetings with attendees were held to discuss the scope, format and ethos of the event. The event itself featured a cross-disciplinary selection of talks, a panel discussion, small-group discussions facilitated via a rolling seating plan and audience participation via Slido. A transcript was generated from the day, which, together with the output from Slido, provided a record of the day's discussions. Finally, meetings were held following the event to identify the key challenges for digital endpoints which emerged and reflections and recommendations for dissemination. RESULTS: Several challenges for digital endpoints were identified in the following areas: patient adherence and acceptability; algorithms and software for devices; design, analysis and conduct of clinical trials with digital endpoints; the environmental impact of digital endpoints; and the need for ongoing ethical support. Learnings taken for next generation events include the need to include additional stakeholder perspectives, such as those of funders and regulators, and the need for additional resources and facilitation to allow patient and public contributors to engage meaningfully during the event. CONCLUSIONS: The event emphasised the importance of consortium building and highlighted the critical role that collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and cross-sector efforts play in driving innovation in research design and strategic partnership building moving forward. This necessitates enhanced recognition by funders to support multi-stakeholder projects with patient involvement, standardised terminology, and the utilisation of open-source software.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of using cheaper-but-noisier outcome measures, such as a short questionnaire, for large simple clinical trials. BACKGROUND: To detect associations reliably, trials must avoid bias and random error. To reduce random error, we can increase the size of the trial and increase the accuracy of the outcome measurement process. However, with fixed resources, there is a trade-off between the number of participants a trial can enrol and the amount of information that can be collected on each participant during data collection. METHODS: To consider the effect on measurement error of using outcome scales with varying numbers of categories, we define and calculate the variance from categorisation that would be expected from using a category midpoint; define the analytic conditions under which such a measure is cost-effective; use meta-regression to estimate the impact of participant burden, defined as questionnaire length, on response rates; and develop an interactive web-app to allow researchers to explore the cost-effectiveness of using such a measure under plausible assumptions. RESULTS: An outcome scale with only a few categories greatly reduced the variance of non-measurement. For example, a scale with five categories reduced the variance of non-measurement by 96% for a uniform distribution. We show that a simple measure will be more cost-effective than a gold-standard measure if the relative increase in variance due to using it is less than the relative increase in cost from the gold standard, assuming it does not introduce bias in the measurement. We found an inverse power law relationship between participant burden and response rates such that a doubling the burden on participants reduces the response rate by around one third. Finally, we created an interactive web-app ( https://benjiwoolf.shinyapps.io/cheapbutnoisymeasures/ ) to allow exploration of when using a cheap-but-noisy measure will be more cost-effective using realistic parameters. CONCLUSION: Cheaper-but-noisier questionnaires containing just a few questions can be a cost-effective way of maximising power. However, their use requires a judgement on the trade-off between the potential increase in risk of information bias and the reduction in the potential of selection bias due to the expected higher response rates.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The reliance on mortality endpoints in cancer screening trials is not always compatible with the need to accelerate progress in outcomes for patient and public benefit. Evaluation of novel cancer screening technologies, such as multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests, could be expedited by using alternative metrics that are measurable earlier than mortality. These include endpoints based on cancer stage at diagnosis, such as reduction in late-stage cancer incidence, and endpoints following cancer diagnosis, such as eligibility for curative therapy. Innovative trial designs with earlier measures that complement cancer mortality are needed to realise the potential benefits of novel screening technologies such as MCEDs more rapidly.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Despite progress in reducing the infant mortality in India, the neonatal mortality decline has been slower, necessitating concerted efforts to achieve Sustainable Development Goal-3. A promising strategy aiming to prevent neonatal sepsis in high-risk, vulnerable, low birth weight neonates through an innovative intervention includes probiotic supplementation. This article communicates the decision by the ProSPoNS trial investigators to establish a Central Endpoint Adjudication Committee (CEAC) as an addendum to the protocol published in Trials in 2021 for the purpose of clarifying the primary outcome. In the published protocol, the study hypothesis and primary objective are based on "sepsis," the primary outcome has been specified as sepsis/PSBI, whereas the sample size estimation was performed based on the "physician diagnosed sepsis." To align all the three above, the investigators meeting, held on 17th-18th August 2023, at MGIMS Sevagram, Wardha, deliberated and unanimously agreed that "physician diagnosed sepsis" is the primary study outcome which includes sepsis/PSBI. The CEAC, chaired by an external subject expert and members including trial statistician, a microbiologist, and all site principal investigators will employ four criteria to determine "physician diagnosed sepsis": (1) blood culture status, (2) sepsis screen status, (3) PSBI/non-PSBI signs and symptoms, and (4) the clinical course for each sickness event. Importantly, this clarification maintains consistency with the approved study protocol (Protocol No. 5/7/915/2012 version 3.1 dated 14 Feb 2020), emphasizing the commitment to methodological transparency and adherence to predefined standards. The decision to utilize the guidance of a CEAC is recommended as the gold standard in multicentric complex clinical trials to achieve consistency and accuracy in assessment of outcomes.Trial registrationClinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) CTRI/2019/05/019197. Registered on 16 May 2019.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The selection of the primary endpoint in a clinical trial plays a critical role in determining the trial's success. Ideally, the primary endpoint is the clinically most relevant outcome, also termed the true endpoint. However, practical considerations, like extended follow-up, may complicate this choice, prompting the proposal to replace the true endpoint with so-called surrogate endpoints. Evaluating the validity of these surrogate endpoints is crucial, and a popular evaluation framework is based on the proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE). While methodological advancements in this area have focused primarily on estimation methods, interpretation remains a challenge hindering the practical use of the PTE. We review various ways to interpret the PTE. These interpretations-two causal and one non-causal-reveal connections between the PTE principal surrogacy, causal mediation analysis, and the prediction of trial-level treatment effects. A common limitation across these interpretations is the reliance on unverifiable assumptions. As such, we argue that the PTE is only meaningful when researchers are willing to make very strong assumptions. These challenges are also illustrated in an analysis of three hypothetical vaccine trials.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In biomedical research, the simultaneous inference of multiple binary endpoints may be of interest. In such cases, an appropriate multiplicity adjustment is required that controls the family-wise error rate, which represents the probability of making incorrect test decisions. In this paper, we investigate two approaches that perform single-step p $p$ -value adjustments that also take into account the possible correlation between endpoints. A rather novel and flexible approach known as multiple marginal models is considered, which is based on stacking of the parameter estimates of the marginal models and deriving their joint asymptotic distribution. We also investigate a nonparametric vector-based resampling approach, and we compare both approaches with the Bonferroni method by examining the family-wise error rate and power for different parameter settings, including low proportions and small sample sizes. The results show that the resampling-based approach consistently outperforms the other methods in terms of power, while still controlling the family-wise error rate. The multiple marginal models approach, on the other hand, shows a more conservative behavior. However, it offers more versatility in application, allowing for more complex models or straightforward computation of simultaneous confidence intervals. The practical application of the methods is demonstrated using a toxicological dataset from the National Toxicology Program.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In the last few decades, developers of new drugs, biologics, and devices have increasingly leveraged digital health technologies (DHTs) to assess clinical trial digital endpoints. To our knowledge, a comprehensive assessment of the financial net benefits of digital endpoints in clinical trials has not been conducted. We obtained data from the Digital Medicine Society (DiMe) Library of Digital Endpoints and the US clinical trials registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. The benefit metrics are changes in trial phase duration and enrollment associated with the use of digital endpoints. The cost metric was obtained from an industry survey of the costs of including digital endpoints in clinical trials. We developed an expected net present value (eNPV) model of the cash flows for new drug development and commercialization to assess financial value. The value measure is the increment in eNPV that occurs when digital endpoints are employed. We also calculated a return on investment (ROI) as the ratio of the estimated increment in eNPV to the mean digital endpoint implementation cost. For phase II trials, the increase in eNPV varied from $2.2 million to $3.3 million, with ROIs between 32% and 48% per indication. The net benefits were substantially higher for phase III trials, with the increase in eNPV varying from $27 million to $40 million, with ROIs that were four to six times the investment. The use of digital endpoints in clinical trials can provide substantial extra value to sponsors developing new drugs, with high ROIs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a debilitating disorder, yet currently approved pharmacotherapies to treat AUD are under-utilized. The three medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the indication of AUD are disulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone. The current landscape of pharmacotherapies for AUD suggests opportunities for improvement. Clinical trials investigating novel pharmacotherapies for AUD traditionally use abstinence-based drinking outcomes or no heavy drinking days as trial endpoints to determine the efficacy of pharmacotherapies. These outcomes are typically measured through patient self-report endorsements of their drinking. Apart from these traditional outcomes, there have been recent developments in novel endpoints for AUD pharmacotherapies. These novel endpoints include utilizing the World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking level reductions to promote a harm-reduction endpoint rather than an abstinence-based endpoint. Additionally, in contrast to patient self-report measurements, biological markers of alcohol use may serve as objective endpoints in AUD pharmacotherapy trials. Lastly, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) definition of recovery from AUD and patient-oriented outcomes offer new frameworks to consider endpoints associated with more than alcohol consumption itself, such as the provider-patient experiences with novel pharmacotherapies. These recent developments in new endpoints for AUD pharmacotherapies offer promising future opportunities for pharmacotherapy development, so long as validity and reliability measures are demonstrated for the endpoints. A greater breadth of endpoint utilization may better capture the complexity of AUD symptomatology.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a progressive immune-mediated liver disease, for which no medical therapy has been shown to slow disease progression. However, the horizon for new therapies is encouraging, with several innovative clinical trials in progress. Despite these advancements, there is considerable heterogeneity in the outcomes studied, with lack of consensus as to what outcomes to measure, when to measure and how to measure. Furthermore, there has been a paradigm shift in PSC treatment targets over recent years, moving from biochemistry-based endpoints to histological assessment of liver fibrosis, imaging-based biomarkers and patient-reported outcome measures. The abundance of new interventional trials and evolving endpoints pose opportunities for all stakeholders involved in evaluating novel therapies. To this effect, there is a need to harmonise measures used in clinical trials through the development of a core outcome set (COS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Synthesis of a PSC-specific COS will be conducted in four stages. Initially, a systematic literature review will be performed to identify outcomes previously used in PSC trials, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews conducted with key stakeholders. The latter may include patients, clinicians, researchers, pharmaceutical industry representatives and healthcare payers and regulatory agencies, to identify additional outcomes of importance. Using the outcomes generated from the literature review and stakeholder interviews, an international two-round Delphi survey will be conducted to prioritise outcomes for inclusion in the COS. Finally, a consensus meeting will be convened to ratify the COS and disseminate findings for application in future PSC trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the East Midlands-Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 24/EM/0126) for this study. The COS from this study will be widely disseminated including publication in peer-reviewed journals, international conferences, promotion through patient-support groups and made available on the Core Outcomes Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 1239.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Robust time-to-event endpoint definitions are crucial for the assessment of treatment effect and the clinical value of trial interventions. Here, the Head and Neck Cancer International Group investigated endpoint use in phase 3 trials and trials considered potentially practice-changing published between 2008 and 2021 in the curative-intent setting for patients with mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Of the 92 trials reviewed, we show that all core components of endpoint reporting were heterogeneous, including definitions of common terms, such as overall survival and progression-free survival. Our report highlights the urgent need for harmonisation of fundamental components of clinical trial endpoints and the engagement of all stakeholders to ensure the transparent reporting of endpoint details.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Transparent and precise endpoint definitions are a crucial aspect of clinical trial conduct and reporting, and are used to communicate the benefit of an intervention. Previous studies have identified inconsistencies in endpoint definitions across oncological clinical trials. Here, the Head and Neck Cancer International Group assessed endpoint definitions from phase 3 trials or trials considered practice-changing for patients with recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, published between 2008 and 2021. We identify considerable and global heterogeneity in endpoint definitions, which undermines the interpretation of results and development of future studies. We show how fundamental components of even incontrovertible endpoints such as overall survival vary widely, highlighting an urgent need for increased rigour in reporting and harmonisation of endpoints.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Surgical handover is associated with a significant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deficiencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area. This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors. METHODS: This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to finalise the COS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015, 7th November 2023). Results will be presented at surgical scientific meetings and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the findings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies. DISCUSSION: This study will represent the first published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the first use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675.  http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675 .

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disabling condition that affects more than one-third of people older than 65 years. Currently, 80% of these patients report movement limitations, 20% are unable to perform major activities of daily living, and approximately 11% require personal care. In 2014, the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) recommended, as the first step in the pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis, a background therapy with chronic symptomatic slow-acting osteoarthritic drugs such as glucosamine sulfate, chondroitin sulfate, and hyaluronic acid. The latter has been extensively evaluated in clinical trials as intra-articular and oral administration. Recent reviews have shown that studies on oral hyaluronic acid generally measure symptoms using only subjective parameters, such as visual analog scales or quality of life questionnaires. As a result, objective measures are lacking, and data validity is generally impaired. OBJECTIVE: The main goal of this pilot study with oral hyaluronic acid is to evaluate the feasibility of using objective tools as outcomes to evaluate improvements in knee mobility. We propose ultrasound and range of motion measurements with a goniometer that could objectively correlate changes in joint mobility with pain reduction, as assessed by the visual analog scale. The secondary objective is to collect data to estimate the time and budget for the main double-blind study randomized trial. These data may be quantitative (such as enrollment rate per month, number of screening failures, and new potential outcomes) and qualitative (such as site logistical issues, patient reluctance to enroll, and interpersonal difficulties for investigators). METHODS: This open-label pilot and feasibility study is conducted in an orthopedic clinic (Timisoara, Romania). The study includes male and female participants, aged 50-70 years, who have been diagnosed with symptomatic knee OA and have experienced mild joint discomfort for at least 6 months. Eight patients must be enrolled and treated with Syalox 300 Plus (River Pharma) for 8 weeks. It is a dietary supplement containing high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, which has already been marketed in several European countries. Assessments are made at the baseline and final visits. RESULTS: Recruitment and treatment of the 8 patients began on February 15, 2018, and was completed on May 25, 2018. Data analysis was planned to be completed by the end of 2018. The study was funded in February 2019. We expect the results to be published in a peer-reviewed clinical journal in the last quarter of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this pilot study will be used to assess the feasibility of a future randomized clinical trial in OA. In particular, the planned outcomes (eg, ultrasound and range of motion), safety, and quantitative and qualitative data must be evaluated to estimate in advance the time and budget required for the future main study. Finally, the pilot study should provide preliminary information on the efficacy of the investigational product. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03421054; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03421054. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/13642.

Asunto(s)