Roadmap to 2030 for Drug Evaluation in Older Adults.

Changes that accompany older age can alter the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and likelihood of adverse effects (AEs) of a drug. However, older adults, especially the oldest or those with multiple chronic health conditions, polypharmacy, or frailty, are often under-represented in clinical trials of new drugs. Deficits in the current conduct of clinical evaluation of drugs for older adults and potential steps to fill those knowledge gaps are presented in this communication. The most important step is to increase clinical trial enrollment of older adults who are representative of the target treatment population. Unnecessary eligibility criteria should be eliminated. Physical and financial barriers to participation should be removed. Incentives could be created for inclusion of older adults. Enrollment goals should be established based on intended treatment indications, prevalence of the condition, and feasibility. Relevant clinical pharmacology data need to be obtained early enough to guide dosing and reduce risk for participation of older adults. Relevant PK and PD data as well as patient-centered outcomes should be measured during trials. Trial data should be analyzed for differences in PK, PD, effectiveness, and safety arising from differences in age or from the presence of conditions common in older adults. Postmarket evaluations with real-world evidence and drug labeling updates throughout the product lifecycle reflecting new knowledge are also needed. A comprehensive plan is needed to ensure adequate evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs in older adults.

Adequacy of Inclusion of Older Adults in NIH-Funded Phase III Clinical Trials.

In the United States, the population aged 65 and older is rapidly growing, and this group uses more healthcare resources and has unique healthcare needs that do not exist in younger populations. However, it was reported that older adults are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials for several diseases. We examined phase III clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health found in www.clinicaltrials.gov from 1965 to 2015 that addressed top causes for hospitalization and/or disability-adjusted life years in older adults: congestive heart failure (n = 45), cardiac dysrhythmias (n = 24), coronary atherosclerosis (n = 106), heart attack (n = 76), stroke (n = 113), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 14), pneumonia (n = 48), lung cancer (n = 117), prostate cancer (n = 65), and osteoarthritis (n = 15). We then analyzed the representation of older adults in these studies. We found that 33% of studies had arbitrary upper age limits, and 67% of studies reported mean and/or median ages that skewed younger than expected for the disease or condition of interest. Beyond explicit exclusion by age, older adults were often implicitly excluded based on various comorbid conditions such as polypharmacy/concomitant medication (37%) or cardiac issues (30%). We conclude that outcomes of these trials may not be fully generalizable to the general population of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:218-222, 2019.

Effect of Losartan and Fish Oil on Plasma IL-6 and Mobility in Older Persons. The ENRGISE Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-grade chronic inflammation, characterized by elevations in plasma Interleukin-6 (IL-6), is an independent risk factor of impaired mobility in older persons. Angiotensin receptor blockers and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (ω-3) may reduce IL-6 and may potentially improve physical function. To assess the main effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and ω-3 as fish oil on IL-6 and 400 m walking speed, we conducted the ENRGISE Pilot multicenter randomized clinical trial. METHODS: The ENRGISE Pilot enrolled participants between April 2016 and June 2017, who participated for 12 months. Participants were aged ≥70 years with mobility impairment, had IL-6 between 2.5 and 30 pg/mL, and were able to walk 400 m at baseline. Participants were randomized in three strata 2 × 2 factorial to: (i) losartan 50-100 mg/d or placebo (n = 43), (ii) fish oil 1,400-2,800 mg/d or placebo (n = 180), and (iii) with both (n = 66). RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-nine participants were randomized (mean age 78.3 years, 47.4% women, 17.0% black). There was no effect of losartan (difference of means = -0.065 ± 0.116 [SE], 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.293-0.163, p = .58) or fish oil (-0.020 ± 0.077, 95% CI: -0.171-0.132, p = .80) on the log of IL-6. Similarly, there was no effect of losartan (-0.025 ± 0.026, 95% CI: -0.076-0.026, p = .34) or fish oil (0.010 ± 0.017, 95% CI: -0.025-0.044, p = .58) on walking speed (m/s). CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the use of these interventions to prevent mobility loss in older adults at risk of disability with low-grade chronic inflammation. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02676466.

Statins for Primary Prevention in Older Adults-Moving Toward Evidence-Based Decision-Making.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in older adults, especially those aged 80 and older and with multimorbidity. METHODS: The National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute convened A multidisciplinary expert panel from July 31 to August 1, 2017, to review existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and consider whether statin safety and efficacy data in persons aged 75 and older without ASCVD are sufficient; whether existing data can inform the feasibility, design, and implementation of future statin trials in older adults; and clinical trial options and designs to address knowledge gaps. This article summarizes the presentations and discussions at that workshop. RESULTS: There is insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with concomitant frailty, polypharmacy, comorbidities, and cognitive impairment; a lack of tools to assess ASCVD risk in those aged 80 and older; and a paucity of evidence of the effect of statins on outcomes of importance to older adults, such as statin-associated muscle symptoms, cognitive function, and incident diabetes mellitus. Prospective, traditional, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and pragmatic RCTs seem to be suitable options to address these critical knowledge gaps. Future trials have to consider greater representation of very old adults, women, underrepresented minorities, and individuals of differing health, cognitive, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. Feasibility analyses from existing large healthcare networks confirm appropriate power for death and cardiovascular outcomes for future RCTs in this area. CONCLUSION: Existing data cannot address uncertainties about the benefits and harms of statins for primary ASCVD prevention in adults aged 75 and older, especially those with comorbidities, frailty, and cognitive impairment. Evidence from 1 or more RCTs could address these important knowledge gaps to inform person-centered decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2188-2196, 2018.

Effect of Aspirin on Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding in the Healthy Elderly.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is a well-established therapy for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. However, its role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is unclear, especially in older persons, who have an increased risk. METHODS: From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling men and women in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability; results for this end point are reported in another article in the Journal. Secondary end points included major hemorrhage and cardiovascular disease (defined as fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure). RESULTS: Of the 19,114 persons who were enrolled in the trial, 9525 were assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. After a median of 4.7 years of follow-up, the rate of cardiovascular disease was 10.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.3 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.08). The rate of major hemorrhage was 8.6 events per 1000 person-years and 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk of major hemorrhage and did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .).

Effect of Aspirin on All-Cause Mortality in the Healthy Elderly.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, now published in the Journal, we report that the daily use of aspirin did not provide a benefit with regard to the primary end point of disability-free survival among older adults. A numerically higher rate of the secondary end point of death from any cause was observed with aspirin than with placebo. METHODS: From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling persons in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Deaths were classified according to the underlying cause by adjudicators who were unaware of trial-group assignments. Hazard ratios were calculated to compare mortality between the aspirin group and the placebo group, and post hoc exploratory analyses of specific causes of death were performed. RESULTS: Of the 19,114 persons who were enrolled, 9525 were assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. A total of 1052 deaths occurred during a median of 4.7 years of follow-up. The risk of death from any cause was 12.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.1 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.29). Cancer was the major contributor to the higher mortality in the aspirin group, accounting for 1.6 excess deaths per 1000 person-years. Cancer-related death occurred in 3.1% of the participants in the aspirin group and in 2.3% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.56). CONCLUSIONS: Higher all-cause mortality was observed among apparently healthy older adults who received daily aspirin than among those who received placebo and was attributed primarily to cancer-related death. In the context of previous studies, this result was unexpected and should be interpreted with caution. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .).

Effect of Aspirin on Disability-free Survival in the Healthy Elderly.

BACKGROUND: Information on the use of aspirin to increase healthy independent life span in older persons is limited. Whether 5 years of daily low-dose aspirin therapy would extend disability-free life in healthy seniors is unclear. METHODS: From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling persons in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg per day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo orally. The primary end point was a composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability. Secondary end points reported in this article included the individual components of the primary end point and major hemorrhage. RESULTS: A total of 19,114 persons with a median age of 74 years were enrolled, of whom 9525 were randomly assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. A total of 56.4% of the participants were women, 8.7% were nonwhite, and 11.0% reported previous regular aspirin use. The trial was terminated at a median of 4.7 years of follow-up after a determination was made that there would be no benefit with continued aspirin use with regard to the primary end point. The rate of the composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability was 21.5 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 21.2 per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11; P=0.79). The rate of adherence to the assigned intervention was 62.1% in the aspirin group and 64.1% in the placebo group in the final year of trial participation. Differences between the aspirin group and the placebo group were not substantial with regard to the secondary individual end points of death from any cause (12.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.1 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group), dementia, or persistent physical disability. The rate of major hemorrhage was higher in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (3.8% vs. 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use in healthy elderly persons did not prolong disability-free survival over a period of 5 years but led to a higher rate of major hemorrhage than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .).

ENabling Reduction of Low-grade Inflammation in SEniors Pilot Study: Concept, Rationale, and Design.

OBJECTIVES: To test two interventions to reduce interleukin (IL)-6 levels, an indicator of low-grade chronic inflammation and an independent risk factor for impaired mobility and slow walking speed in older adults. DESIGN: The ENabling Reduction of low-Grade Inflammation in SEniors (ENRGISE) Pilot Study was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized pilot trial of two interventions to reduce IL-6 levels. SETTING: Five university-based research centers. PARTICIPANTS: Target enrollment was 300 men and women aged 70 and older with an average plasma IL-6 level between 2.5 and 30 pg/mL measured twice at least 1 week apart. Participants had low to moderate physical function, defined as self-reported difficulty walking one-quarter of a mile or climbing a flight of stairs and usual walk speed of less than 1 m/s on a 4-m usual-pace walk. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to losartan, omega-3 fish oil (ω-3), combined losartan and ω-3, or placebo. Randomization was stratified depending on eligibility for each group. A titration schedule was implemented to reach a dose that was safe and effective for IL-6 reduction. Maximal doses were 100 mg/d for losartan and 2.8 g/d for ω-3. MEASUREMENTS: IL-6, walking speed over 400 m, physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery), other inflammatory markers, safety, tolerability, frailty domains, and maximal leg strength were measured. RESULTS: Results from the ENRGISE Pilot Study will provide recruitment yields, feasibility, medication tolerance and adherence, and preliminary data to help justify a sample size for a more definitive randomized trial. CONCLUSION: The ENRGISE Pilot Study will inform a larger subsequent trial that is expected to have important clinical and public health implications for the growing population of older adults with low-grade chronic inflammation and mobility limitations.

Clinical research in primary stroke prevention: needs, opportunities, and challenges.

Most ( approximately 70%) of strokes are first-ever strokes, and hence to substantially reduce the neurological burden, primary prevention is crucial. Here, highlights of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke workshop "Stroke Risk Assessment and Future Stroke Primary Prevention Trials" held January 12-13, 2004 are summarized. The Workshop discussions focused on stroke risk assessment; the high-risk vs. population-based approaches to primary prevention; desirable characteristics of candidate treatments and potential novel treatments, such as the 'polypill'; subclinical disease as risk assessment tool and as surrogate outcome, and methodological issues in stroke primary prevention trials. The importance of assessing cognitive decline as an important consequence of covert and overt vascular injury of the brain was emphasized. The scientific or logistic barriers to stroke primary prevention trials are challenging, but are not insurmountable.