Meadow, New York

Product Surveillance Registry

Elucidating TAAR-1, Dopamine, and Norepinephrine in Binge Eating Disorder Using Solriamfetol

Eligible subjects must have a diagnosis of BED according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria. Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive solriamfetol (150 or 300 mg) or placebo, once daily for 12 weeks.

A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of AXS-05 Compared to Bupropion in Preventing the Relapse of Depressive Symptoms

Eligible subjects will receive open-label AXS-05 during the 10-week open-label treatment period, during which they will be monitored for response and remission. Subjects meeting the response and remission criteria during the open-label period will be randomized (1:1) to the double-blind period to continue treatment with AXS-05 or switch to treatment with bupropion (105 mg) tablets. Randomized subjects will receive double-blind treatment for 26 weeks or until they experience a relapse.

A Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Inhaled AP01 in Participants With Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis

This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of AP01 (pirfenidone solution for inhalation) versus placebo on top of standard of care in participants with PPF over 52 weeks. Up to 300 eligible participants will be randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: AP01 high dose, AP01 low dose, or placebo.

Testing the Addition of an Anti-Cancer Drug, Irinotecan, to the Standard Chemotherapy Treatment (FOLFOX) After Long-Course Radiation Therapy for Advanced-Stage Rectal Cancers to Improve the Rate of Complete Response and Long-Term Rates of Organ Preservation

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To evaluate and compare the clinical complete response (cCR) rates in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant long-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy (LCRT) followed by neoadjuvant modified fluorouracil, irinotecan, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) versus neoadjuvant LCRT followed by neoadjuvant modified leucovorin , fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate and compare organ-preservation-time (OPT) between two treatment arms. II. To evaluate and compare the disease-free survival (DFS) time between the two treatment arms. III. To evaluate and compare time to distant metastasis between two treatment arms. IV. To evaluate and compare overall survival (OS) between two treatment arms. V. To evaluate and compare toxicity profiles of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) between two treatment arms. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVE: I. Evaluation of circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid (ctDNA) kinetics during neoadjuvant therapy & surveillance and to correlate with radiographic, pathologic, and clinical outcomes. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. GROUP I: Patients receive long-course chemoradiation therapy on study and then receive either: FOLFOX regimen consisting of leucovorin intravenously (IV), fluorouracil IV, and oxaliplatin IV or CAPOX consisting of capecitabine orally (PO), and oxaliplatin IV on study. Patients undergo computed tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and biospecimen collection throughout the trial. Patients also undergo sigmoidoscopy throughout the trial and biopsy during screening. GROUP II: Patients receive long-course chemoradiation therapy on study and then receive FOLFIRINOX regimen consisting of leucovorin IV, fluorouracil IV, irinotecan IV, and oxaliplatin IV on study. Patients undergo CT scan, MRI scan, and blood specimen collection throughout the trial. Patients undergo sigmoidoscopy throughout the trial and biopsy during screening.

Testing the Addition of Total Ablative Therapy to Usual Systemic Therapy Treatment for Limited Metastatic Colorectal Cancer, the ERASur Study

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To evaluate and compare overall survival (OS) (measured from time of randomization) in patients with newly diagnosed oligometastatic colorectal cancer (oCRC) treated with total ablative therapy (TAT) in addition to standard of care (SOC) systemic therapy versus SOC systemic therapy. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate and compare event-free survival (EFS) (measured from time of randomization) between the two treatment arms. II. To assess the adverse events (AE) profile within each of the two treatment arms. III. To evaluate the time to local recurrence (TLR) (measured from completion of TAT) in patients with newly diagnosed oCRC treated with TAT + SOC systemic therapy. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM 1: Patients undergo TAT on study, consisting of SABR with or without surgical resection and/or microwave ablation. Patients also receive SOC chemotherapy on study. Patients also undergo computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans throughout the trial. ARM 2: Patients receive SOC chemotherapy on study. Patients also undergo Patients also undergo CT or MRI or PET/CT scans throughout the trial.

mFOLFIRINOX Versus mFOLFOX With or Without Nivolumab for the Treatment of Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic HER2 Negative Esophageal, Gastroesophageal Junction, and Gastric Adenocarcinoma

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To determine if overall survival (OS) is improved in patients who received mFOLFIRINOX +/- nivolumab in comparison to FOLFOX +/- nivolumab as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare other indices of efficacy, including progression-free survival, objective response rates and duration of response between both treatment arms. II. To evaluate safety and tolerability associated with treatment in each of the treatment arms. III. To evaluate the proportion of patients receiving second line of therapy in both arms. IV. To evaluate tolerability of the treatment in both arms using Patient Reported Outcomes-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. Exploratory correlative markers will also be measured and evaluated within and between arms to better assess mechanisms and prognostic impact of markers on impact. These will include baseline PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) and cell free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) before and after treatment. II. To evaluate and assess the feasibility and compliance associated with not centrally collecting perceived attribution of protocol treatment to reported adverse events. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive fluorouracil intravenously (IV), leucovorin calcium IV, oxaliplatin IV, and irinotecan IV on study and nivolumab IV as clinically indicated. Patients undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a computed tomography (CT) scan throughout the trial. Patients may also undergo blood sample collection on study. ARM II: Patients receive fluorouracil IV, leucovorin calcium IV, and oxaliplatin IV on study and nivolumab IV as clinically indicated. Patients undergo MRI and a CT scan throughout the trial. Patients may also undergo blood sample collection on study.

Testing Shorter Duration Radiation Therapy Versus the Usual Radiation Therapy in Patients With High Risk Prostate Cancer

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To compare metastasis-free survival, determined using conventional imaging, between men with high-risk prostate cancer randomized to ultrahypofractionation (stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT]) to those randomized to moderate hypofractionation and conventional fractionation. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare physician-reported toxicity as measured by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version (v)5 between treatment arms. II. To determine if ultrahypofractionation is non-inferior to moderate hypofractionation and conventional fractionation with respect to patient-reported urinary function (assessed by Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]-26 urinary domains). III. To determine if ultrahypofractionation is non-inferior to moderate hypofractionation and conventional fractionation with respect to patient-reported bowel function (assessed by EPIC-26 bowel domain). IV. To compare patient-reported fatigue (assessed by Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]-Fatigue) between treatment arms. V. To compare patient-reported treatment burden (assessed by COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity [COST]) between treatment arms. VI. To compare failure-free survival between treatment arms. VII. To compare metastasis-free survival based on molecular imaging between treatment arms. VIII. To compare overall survival between treatment arms. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare patient-reported sexual function (assessed by EPIC-26 sexual domain) between treatment arms. II. To compare patient-reported quality of life (assessed by European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level Scale Questionnaire [EQ-5D-5L]) between treatment arms. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients undergo SBRT for a total of 5 treatments over 2 weeks. Patients also undergo computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on study. ARM II: Patients undergo external beam radiation treatment (EBRT) for 20-45 treatments over 4 to 9 weeks. Patients also undergo CT and/or MRI on study. Patients are followed up every 6 months for 5 years.

A Study to Compare Two Surgical Procedures in Individuals With BRCA1 Mutations to Assess Reduced Risk of Ovarian Cancer

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To compare the non-inferiority of bilateral salpingectomy (BLS) with delayed oophorectomy to bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer among individuals with deleterious BRCA1 germline mutations. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To prospectively assess estrogen deprivation symptoms in pre-menopausal BLS patients as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Endocrine Symptom (FACT-ES) subscale compared to pre-menopausal patients in the BSO arm. II. To determine if health-related quality of life (QOL) (FACT) is negatively impacted by menopausal symptoms (menopausal symptom checklist-Menopausal Symptom Checklist [MSCL]) and sexual dysfunction (Female Sexual Function Index [FSFI]) in pre-menopausal patients who have undergone BLS, in comparison to normative data (MSCL/FACT-ES) and data from pre-menopausal BSO patients. III. To determine if health-related QOL (FACT) is negatively impacted by cancer distress (Impact of Event Scale [IES]) in individuals who have undergone BLS, in comparison to BSO patients. IV. To assess medical decision making, as measured by the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and determine factors associated with the risk of reducing surgical treatment choice. V. To assess adverse events, graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version (v)5.0. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. Sexual dysfunction, as measured by selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) screener and external sexual function items (pre-menopausal patients). II. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of BLS compared to BSO for ovarian cancer risk reduction. III. To assess medical decision making, as measured by the Risk-Reducing Medical Decision Making (RR-MDM) survey, a targeted set of questions on risk reducing surgical treatment choice. TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: I. To bank tissue and blood biospecimens for future research. OUTLINE: Patients choose between 1 of 2 groups. GROUP I: Patients undergo bilateral salpingectomy. Patients may then undergo oophorectomy after initial surgery. GROUP II: Patients undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Patients in both groups also undergo a pelvic or transvaginal ultrasound during screening and blood sample collection throughout the trial. After completion of study, patients are followed up at 10-60 days, 6, 12, and 24 months, and then annually for up to 20 years.

Colon Adjuvant Chemotherapy Based on Evaluation of Residual Disease

Currently, there are no biomarkers validated prospectively in randomized studies for resected colon cancer to determine need for adjuvant chemotherapy. However, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) shed into the bloodstream represents a highly specific and sensitive approach (especially with serial monitoring) for identifying microscopic or residual tumor cells in colon cancer patients and may outperform traditional clinical and pathological features in prognosticating risk for recurrence. Colon cancer patients who do not have detectable ctDNA (ctDNA-) are at a much lower risk of recurrence and may not need adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, for colon cancer pts with detectable ctDNA (ctDNA+) who are at a very high risk of recurrence, the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimen has not been established. We hypothesize that for pts whose colon cancer has been resected, ctDNA status may be used to risk stratify for making decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy.