Ohio, Ohio

Implementing Contingency Management for Stimulant Use in Specialty Addiction Treatment Organizations

Stimulant use among persons with opioid use disorder is associated with an array of serious consequences. Among those with opioid use disorder, stimulant use has been associated with more persistent opioid use; higher risk of HIV infection; higher levels of family, medical, legal, and vocational problems; and increased risk of fatal overdose. Contingency management is an evidence-based intervention for stimulant use and an evidence-based adjunct to medication for opioid use disorders. Medication for opioid use disorder is the first-line, evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder, but does not specifically reduce stimulant use, and there are not yet efficacious medications for stimulant addiction. Moreover, individuals who continue to use stimulants while receiving medication for opioid use disorder have worse treatment response in terms of both retention and abstinence from opioids. Contingency management targets stimulant use via reinforcing incentives for attaining abstinence. Despite an abundance of research evidence, contingency management uptake in opioid treatment programs remains low due to barriers at both the provider- and organizational-levels. Effectively addressing the contingency management evidence-to-practice gap could advance both the field of implementation science and the quality of care in specialty addiction treatment settings. This project evaluates a multi-level implementation strategy, the Science to Service Laboratory, to install contingency management for stimulant use in opioid treatment programs. The Science of Service Laboratory employs three core components: didactic training; performance feedback; and external facilitation. Utilizing a fully powered type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial with a stepped wedge design, we will randomize a cohort of 10 public sector opioid treatment programs in New England to receive the Science of Service Laboratory at five time points. Data collection will leverage multiple sources. At six intervals, each of the 10 opioid treatment programs will extract de-identified electronic medical record data on contingency management implementation and patient outcomes. In addition, opioid treatment program staff will report on contextual determinants of implementation. Results will evaluate whether a multi-level implementation strategy initially developed by one of the longest-standing intermediary purveyor organizations (SAMHSA Technology Transfer Centers), will improve implementation and patient outcomes. In addition, the project will ensure equitable service provision to diverse, high-risk patients while advancing implementation science via specification and evaluation of contextual determinants. The Specific Aims and corresponding hypotheses are: Specific Aim 1: To test the effectiveness of the Science of Service Laboratory on implementation outcomes, including contingency management Reach, Adoption, and Implementation. Specific Aim 2: To test the effectiveness of the Science of Service Laboratory on patient outcomes, including: Stimulant Abstinence and Treatment Retention.

Crizotinib in Treating Patients With Stage IB-IIIA Non-small Cell Lung Cancer That Has Been Removed by Surgery and ALK Fusion Mutations (An ALCHEMIST Treatment Trial)

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate whether adjuvant therapy with crizotinib will result in improved overall survival (OS) for patients with stage IB >= 4 cm, II and IIIA, ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following surgical resection. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate and compare disease-free survival (DFS) associated with crizotinib. II. To evaluate the safety profile of crizotinib when given in the adjuvant therapy setting. III. To collect tumor tissue and blood specimens for future research. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms. ARM A: Patients receive crizotinib orally (PO) twice daily (BID) on days 1-21. Treatment repeats every 21 days for up to 2 years in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM B: Patients undergo observation. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 6 months if < 4 or 5 years from study entry, and every 12 months if 5-10 or 6-10 years from study entry.

Caris Biorepository Research Protocol

The Caris Biorepository is an effort toward defining the future of medicine incorporating the discoveries of the genomic era by providing physicians, researchers and scientists access to quality human specimens and data aimed at improving human health and fighting disease. This will be accomplished through acquiring and sharing valuable biospecimen information and clinical outcomes in a collaborative, secure environment. The Caris Biorepository will bridge the gap and correlate human specimens with clinical and specimen data valuable to multiple and varying entities interested in advancing science with precision medicine by targeting disease treatments. The objective of this project is to develop and implement a state-of-the-science Biorepository that ensures molecular integrity and clinical relevance of human biospecimens used in research and clinical medicine. The Caris Biorepository will also provide vital biospecimens and data to internal researchers and external research collaborators such as government, academia and industry collaborators for the use of drug development discoveries, clinically relevant research trials, publications and posters, and the implementation of future healthcare policies. This project may also impact characterization of trends in practice patterns and their relation to patient outcomes as well as the economic implications of differing evaluation, treatment and management paradigms.

A Study Investigating the Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal (IVT) Injections of ANX007 in Participants With Geographic Atrophy (GA)

Study to Evaluate the Safety of CG-P5 Peptide Eye Drops in Patients Diagnosed With Age-related Wet Macular Degeneration

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.

A Trial of Robotic Versus Open Hysterectomy Surgery in Cervix Cancer

This is a multi-center, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial with the hypothesis that robotically assisted hysterectomy with tumor containment prior to colpotomy is non-inferior to abdominal hysterectomy with respect to disease free survival. At the commencement of surgery, a thorough inspection of all peritoneal surfaces should be performed. The location of any suspected metastatic disease should be documented in the operative report and a biopsy should be performed to confirm the diagnosis. If intraperitoneal disease is detected, the radical hysterectomy should be abandoned. In patients with macroscopic evidence of metastatic disease to the lymph nodes, intraoperative frozen section should be performed to confirm the presence of metastatic disease. Intraoperative management will be left to the discretion of the surgeon. Patients who have confirmed macroscopic lymph node metastases intraoperatively will be excluded from final analysis and replaced due to the controversy surrounding the decision to perform a radical hysterectomy in this setting. Patients in whom the hysterectomy is abandoned will be deemed non-evaluable and excluded from final analysis and will be replaced. For all patients, the surgeon should document operative time from incision to close, detailed description of operative findings, intraoperative complications, and blood loss. For patients randomized to the robotic arm, the surgeon should document the use of and specify the type of vaginal manipulator and the reason for conversion to laparotomy (if applicable). Transcervical manipulators are not permitted. Standard arm: Radical or simple hysterectomy is performed as per standard technique (peon radical hysterectomy (Piver type 2 or 3 or Querleu & Morrow Type B or C) with salpingectomy +/- oophorectomy. Ovaries may be removed or preserved +/- transposition. Prior to colpotomy, the vagina must be closed over the tumor (ie, Wertheim clamps, contour stapling device). Study arm: Radical or simple hysterectomy is performed as per standard robotic technique (Querleu & Morrow Type B or C) with salpingectomy +/- oophorectomy. Ovaries may be removed or preserved +/- transposition. Colpotomy may be made intracorporally or vaginally. Vagina must be closed prior to intracorporeal colpotomy (see below, #10)

Evaluating the Addition of Adjuvant Chemotherapy to Ovarian Function Suppression Plus Endocrine Therapy in Premenopausal Patients With pN0-1, ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer and an Oncotype Recurrence Score Less Than or Equal to 25

Younger age at diagnosis is an adverse prognostic factor in early breast cancer: women who are less than 35 years of age at diagnosis are more likely to die from their disease than their older counterparts following standard treatments. There remains a pressing need for advancements in therapeutic options for this patient population. One increasingly utilized option is ovarian suppression, which was first reported as treatment for advanced breast cancer in 1896 and has been examined in a multitude of clinical trials over the past century. As chemotherapeutic options became more commonplace for breast cancer therapy, however, the role of ovarian suppression became uncertain. In the pre-genomic era, several studies evaluated the role of ovarian suppression compared to chemotherapy, with conflicting results. These studies either looked at ovarian suppression alone or at tamoxifen compared to chemotherapy. A meta-analysis examining LHRH-agonists (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone) in the Early Breast Cancer Overview group (LHRH-agonists in Early Breast Cancer Overview group 2007) showed that when LHRH-agonists were added to tamoxifen, chemotherapy, or both, there was a 12.7% reduction in the risk of recurrence and a 15.1% reduction in the risk of death. When compared to chemotherapy, LHRH-agonists appeared to be equally as effective, especially if patients were less than 40 years of age. These older studies, conducted in the pre-taxane/anthracycline era, typically used CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil) chemotherapy, and were designed prior to the use of genomic assays .

Home OCT-Guided Treatment Versus Treat and Extend for the Management of Neovascular AMD

Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (nAMD) with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is highly effective but is associated with considerable treatment burden and cost for patients and the healthcare system. One of the principal barriers to reducing burden and cost is that the optimal number of injections needed to achieve best visual acuity and disease control for any one person is unknown. At present, there are several algorithms that modestly reduce treatment burden, but at the expense of overtreatment in some patients and less optimal disease control in others. The lack of precision in disease management may be due in part to the low frequency of disease monitoring, which typically occurs every one to two months by standard optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging during an office visit. Home OCT imaging allows daily disease activity monitoring and the possibility of a tailored and more personalized approach to managing neovascular AMD. To understand the role of Home OCT in clinical practice, it is essential to perform a randomized clinical trial that compares visual acuity outcomes, and visit and injection frequencies, obtained using a Home OCT-guided treatment strategy versus outcomes obtained using "Treat and Extend," the treatment algorithm widely perceived to be the most common regimen in clinical practice today. The main objective of this study is to determine if Home OCT-guided treatment results in 1) better visual acuity outcomes and/or 2) fewer number of injections over 104 weeks compared with treat and extend (T&E) dosing for nAMD. Procedures at the baseline visit include eligibility assessment, vision testing, ocular examination, various imaging, and test session on the in-office Home OCT device. Eligible study eyes will enter the run-in phase and receive a baseline intravitreal faricimab injection. If the non-study eye also has nAMD and needs an injection, study faricimab must be used unless the protocol chair has approved of an alternative anti-VEGF. The Notal Vision Monitoring Center must confirm adequate scan quality from the study eye prior to randomization. The Reading Center must also confirm nAMD status based on a preliminary review of baseline images. One Notal Vision confirms the screening Home OCT scans are of good quality and the Reading Center confirms nAMD criteria Is met, the participant can be randomized. Randomization of eligible study eyes must occur within 14 days of the baseline visit. Prior to randomization, the site must call the participant to confirm they are still willing to participate and agree to follow the daily Home OCT scan requirement if randomized to the Home OCT group. Sites will also confirm the participant's understanding of the trial, willingness to accept the assigned treatment group, and commitment to the follow-up schedule, and compliance with device use. Eyes receiving an initial faricimab injection that are not eligible for the randomization phase will have a final closeout safety visit 1 month after injection. Eyes eligible for the randomization phase will be randomly assigned 1:1 into one of two groups to guide follow-up treatment: (1) Treat and Extend or (2) Home OCT-guided treatment. Follow-up for treatment group comparisons of vision and imaging outcomes will occur at 52- and 104-week visits. Additional visits will occur every 4-18 weeks in the T&E group. Participants assigned to the Home OCT group will self-scan daily using the Home OCT device and will only return for a visit if fluid passing the threshold for an office visit is seen on Home OCT. Follow-up visit procedures include vision testing, ocular exam, and various imaging. The primary outcomes are a comparison of mean change in visual acuity and number of injections from baseline to 104 weeks between the Home OCT vs. T&E groups (study eye only)

A Study of 2 Doses of EYE103 Compared With Ranibizumab (0.5 mg) in Participants With DME

EYE-RES-103 is a randomized, double masked pivotal study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dose levels of EYE103 in comparison with the active control, ranibizumab, in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Approximately 960 participants will be entered in the study. Participants will be randomized 1:1:1 to receive low dose EYE103, high dose EYE103, or 0.5 mg ranibizumab, administered via intravitreal injection. In the first year, all 3 treatment groups will be treated every 4 weeks with either EYE103 or ranibizumab. Beginning at Year 2, the frequency of treatment for participants will shift based on a personalized treatment interval (PTI) algorithm. Throughout the 2-year study, subjects will be evaluated every 4 weeks, including measurement of ETDRS BCVA, examination by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundoscopy, and SD-OCT. Among other parameters, SD-OCT will be used to measure central subfield thickness (CST) in microns.