The Case for Access to Data Monitoring Committee Charters.

AbstractClinical trials investigating novel or high-risk interventions often use data monitoring committees (DMCs) to ensure that the participants' best interests are safeguarded. The typical DMC charter describes procedures by which the DMC operates, including important details concerning organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, statistical monitoring guidelines, and contents of DMC reports for interim review. These charters, however, are not routinely publicly available; in some cases, their access could be important to the interpretation of trial results. We recommend including DMC charters for such trials in ClinicalTrials.gov at the time of trial completion; trial protocols, informed consent documents, and statistical analysis plans are already available in this repository.

Training the Next Generation of Data Monitoring Committee Members: An Initiative of the Heart Failure Collaboratory.

Clinical trials are vital for assessing therapeutic interventions. The associated data monitoring committees (DMCs) safeguard patient interests and enhance trial integrity, thus promoting timely, reliable evaluations of those interventions. We face an urgent need to recruit and train new DMC members. The HFC (Heart Failure Collaboratory), a multidisciplinary public-private consortium of academics, trialists, patients, industry representatives, and government agencies, is working to improve the clinical trial ecosystem. The HFC aims to improve clinical trial efficiency and quality by standardizing concepts, and to help meet the demand for experienced individuals on DMCs by creating a standardized approach to training new members. This paper discusses the HFC's training workshop, and an apprenticeship model for new DMC members. It describes opportunities and challenges DMCs face, along with common myths and best practices learned through previous experiences, with an emphasis on data confidentiality and need for quality independent statistical reporting groups.

Bringing data monitoring committee charters into the sunlight.

Clinical trials investigating novel or high risk interventions, or studying vulnerable participants, often use a data monitoring committee to oversee the progress of the trial. The data monitoring committee serves both an ethical and a scientific function, by protecting the interests of trial participants while ensuring the integrity of the trial results. A data monitoring committee charter, which typically describes the procedures by which data monitoring committees operate, contains details about the data monitoring committee's organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, sequential monitoring guidelines, and the overall contents of data monitoring committee reports for interim review. These charters, however, are generally not reviewed by outside entities and are rarely publicly available. The result is that a key component of trial oversight remains in the dark. We recommend that ClinicalTrials.gov modify its system to allow uploading of data monitoring committee charters, as is already possible for other important study documents and that clinical trialists take advantage of this opportunity to voluntarily upload the data monitoring committee charter for trials that have one. The resulting cache of publicly available data monitoring committee charters should provide important insights for those interested in a particular trial, as well as for meta-researchers who wish to understand and potentially improve how this important component of trial oversight is actually being applied.

The Data Monitoring Committee: A Collective or a Collection?

In this commentary, we urge that a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) should operate as a collective, that is, as a unitary whole. In so doing, its recommendations should emerge through a consensus development process, not through a vote of the members. The summary notes of its closed session, that is, its minutes, should report the recommendations of the DMC and, if necessary, the justification for those recommendations; it should not attribute opinions to individual members. Importantly, the proceedings of the DMC meetings should not be electronically recorded.

New statistical approach shows that hydroxy-methionine is noninferior to DL-Methionine in 35-day-old broiler chickens.

The efficacy of a new molecule is assessed in the pharmaceutical industry through noninferiority tests to establish that it is not unacceptably less efficient than the reference. This method was proposed to compare DL-Methionine (DL-Met) as reference and DL-Hydroxy-Methionine (OH-Met) as alternative, in broiler chickens. The research hypothesized that OH-Met is inferior to DL-Met. Noninferiority margins were determined using 7 datasets comparing broiler growth response between a sulfur amino acid deficient and adequate diet from 0 to 35 d. The datasets were selected from the literature and internal records of the company. The noninferiority margins were then fixed as the largest loss of effect (inferiority) acceptable when OH-Met is compared to DL-Met. Three corn/soybean meal-based experimental treatments were offered to 4,200 chicks (35 replicates of 40 birds). Birds received from 0 to 35 d 1) a negative control diet deficient in Met and Cys; the negative control treatment supplemented on equimolar basis with 2) DL-Met or 3) OH-Met in amounts allowing to reach Aviagen Met+Cys recommendations. The three treatments were adequate in all other nutrients. Growth performance, which was analysed with one-way ANOVA, showed no significant difference between DL-Met and OH-Met. The supplemented treatments improved (P < 0.0001) the performance parameters compared to the negative control. The lower limits of the confidence intervals of the difference between means for the feed intake [-1.34; 1.41], body weight [-57.3; 9.8] and daily growth [-1.64; 0.28], did not exceed the noninferiority margins. This demonstrates that OH-Met was non-inferior to DL-Met.

Analysis of on-treatment cancer safety events with daprodustat versus conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agents-post hoc analyses of the ASCEND-ND and ASCEND-D trials.

BACKGROUND: The prespecified on-treatment analysis of ASCEND-ND (NCT02876835) raised concerns about a higher relative risk of cancer-related adverse events (AEs) with daprodustat vs darbepoetin in patients with anaemia of CKD. This concern was not observed in dialysis patients in ASCEND-D (NCT02879305). METHODS: ASCEND-ND randomized 3872 patients to daprodustat or darbepoetin. ASCEND-D randomized 2964 patients to daprodustat or conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). In both studies ESA comparators used different dosing intervals (3/week, 1/week, every 2 or every 4 weeks). The prespecified on-treatment approach examined relative risks for cancer AEs up to the last dose date + 1 day. In these analyses, owing to different dosing intervals between arms, Cox models were used to estimate the daprodustat effect by various follow-up periods (censoring at last dose date, last dose date + dosing intervals, or end of study). RESULTS: In ASCEND-ND, the safety of daprodustat vs darbepoetin on cancer-related AEs depended on the duration of follow-up after last dose date: hazard ratio (HR) 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77, 1.40] at end of study [HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.81, 1.56) for last dose date + dosing interval; HR 1.50 (95% CI 1.04, 2.15) for last dose date + 1 day]. In ASCEND-D, no excess risk of cancer-related AEs was observed with any model examined. CONCLUSIONS: Prespecified on-treatment analyses for cancer-related AEs appeared to result in biased risk estimates in ASCEND-ND by preferentially under-counting events from patients assigned to darbepoetin. Analyses accounting for longer darbepoetin dosing intervals, or extending follow-up, resulted in attenuation of effect estimates towards neutrality, similar to ASCEND-D, where ESA comparator dosing intervals are closer to daprodustat. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ASCEND-ND trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02876835); the ASCEND-D trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02879305).

Functional and Symptomatic Clinical Trial Endpoints: The HFC-ARC Scientific Expert Panel.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations.

Experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee for the RECOVERY trial, a large-scale adaptive platform randomised trial of treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

AIM: To inform the oversight of future clinical trials during a pandemic, we summarise the experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) for the Randomised Evaluation of COVID therapy trial (RECOVERY), a large-scale randomised adaptive platform clinical trial of treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: During the first 24 months of the trial (March 2020 to February 2022), the DMC oversaw accumulating data for 14 treatments in adults (plus 10 in children) involving > 45,000 randomised patients. Five trial aspects key for the DMC in performing its role were: a large committee of members, including some with extensive DMC experience and others who had broad clinical expertise; clear strategic planning, communication, and responsiveness by the trial principal investigators; data collection and analysis systems able to cope with phases of very rapid recruitment and link to electronic health records; an ability to work constructively with regulators (and other DMCs) to address emerging concerns without the need to release unblinded mortality results; and the use of videoconferencing systems that enabled national and international members to meet at short notice and from home during the pandemic when physical meetings were impossible. Challenges included that the first four treatments introduced were effectively 'competing' for patients (increasing pressure to make rapid decisions on each one); balancing the global health imperative to report on findings with the need to maintain confidentiality until the results were sufficiently certain to appropriately inform treatment decisions; and reliably assessing safety, especially for newer agents introduced after the initial wave and in the small numbers of pregnant women and children included. We present a series of case vignettes to illustrate some of the issues and the DMC decision-making related to hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, casirivimab + imdevimab, and tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: RECOVERY's streamlined adaptive platform design, linked to hospital-level and population-level health data, enabled the rapid and reliable assessment of multiple treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. The later introduction of factorial assessments increased the trial's efficiency, without compromising the DMC's ability to assess safety and efficacy. Requests for the release of unblinded primary outcome data to regulators at points when data were not mature required significant efforts in communication with the regulators by the DMC to avoid inappropriate early trial termination.

Data monitoring committee interim reports: We must get there soon!

Currently, too many Data Monitoring Committee Reports for interim review of trial progress are quite inadequate for Data Monitoring Committees to make informed decisions about risks and benefits. Immediate serious improvement is necessary for Data Monitoring Committees to meet their ethical, clinical, and scientific responsibility to trial participants, investigators, sponsors, and participating institutions. To achieve this critical goal, all parties involved in the Data Monitoring Committee process including sponsors, investigators, Data Monitoring Committee members, and the independent statistical reporting group need to have a better understanding of the structure, function, and needs of a Data Monitoring Committee and the content of a Data Monitoring Committee Report. Training modules through the Society for Clinical Trials are now available on their website to facilitate this.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement.

Importance: Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective: As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence: A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings: The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Safety and Efficacy of Vadadustat for Anemia in Patients Undergoing Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Vadadustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor, a class of compounds that stimulate endogenous erythropoietin production. METHODS: We conducted two randomized, open-label, noninferiority phase 3 trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vadadustat, as compared with darbepoetin alfa, in patients with anemia and incident or prevalent dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (DD-CKD). The primary safety end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, a composite of death from any cause, a nonfatal myocardial infarction, or a nonfatal stroke), pooled across the trials (noninferiority margin, 1.25). A key secondary safety end point was the first occurrence of a MACE plus hospitalization for either heart failure or a thromboembolic event. The primary and key secondary efficacy end points were the mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to weeks 24 to 36 and from baseline to weeks 40 to 52, respectively, in each trial (noninferiority margin, -0.75 g per deciliter). RESULTS: A total of 3923 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive vadadustat or darbepoetin alfa: 369 in the incident DD-CKD trial and 3554 in the prevalent DD-CKD trial. In the pooled analysis, a first MACE occurred in 355 patients (18.2%) in the vadadustat group and in 377 patients (19.3%) in the darbepoetin alfa group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.11). The mean differences between the groups in the change in hemoglobin concentration were -0.31 g per deciliter (95% CI, -0.53 to -0.10) at weeks 24 to 36 and -0.07 g per deciliter (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.19) at weeks 40 to 52 in the incident DD-CKD trial and -0.17 g per deciliter (95% CI, -0.23 to -0.10) and -0.18 g per deciliter (95% CI, -0.25 to -0.12), respectively, in the prevalent DD-CKD trial. The incidence of serious adverse events in the vadadustat group was 49.7% in the incident DD-CKD trial and 55.0% in the prevalent DD-CKD trial, and the incidences in the darbepoetin alfa group were 56.5% and 58.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with anemia and CKD who were undergoing dialysis, vadadustat was noninferior to darbepoetin alfa with respect to cardiovascular safety and correction and maintenance of hemoglobin concentrations. (Funded by Akebia Therapeutics and Otsuka Pharmaceutical; INNO2VATE ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02865850 and NCT02892149.).

Vadadustat in Patients with Anemia and Non-Dialysis-Dependent CKD.

BACKGROUND: Vadadustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor, a class of drugs that stabilize HIF and stimulate erythropoietin and red-cell production. METHODS: In two phase 3, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, noninferiority trials, we compared vadadustat with the erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) darbepoetin alfa in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) not previously treated with an ESA who had a hemoglobin concentration of less than 10 g per deciliter and in patients with ESA-treated NDD-CKD and a hemoglobin concentration of 8 to 11 g per deciliter (in the United States) or 9 to 12 g per deciliter (in other countries). The primary safety end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was the first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke), pooled across the two trials. Secondary safety end points included expanded MACE (MACE plus hospitalization for either heart failure or a thromboembolic event). The primary and key secondary efficacy end points in each trial were the mean change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline during two evaluation periods: weeks 24 through 36 and weeks 40 through 52. RESULTS: A total of 1751 patients with ESA-untreated NDD-CKD and 1725 with ESA-treated NDD-CKD underwent randomization in the two trials. In the pooled analysis, in which 1739 patients received vadadustat and 1732 received darbepoetin alfa, the hazard ratio for MACE was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.36), which did not meet the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.25. The mean between-group differences in the change in the hemoglobin concentration at weeks 24 through 36 were 0.05 g per deciliter (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.15) in the trial involving ESA-untreated patients and -0.01 g per deciliter (95% CI, -0.09 to 0.07) in the trial involving ESA-treated patients, which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of -0.75 g per deciliter. CONCLUSIONS: Vadadustat, as compared with darbepoetin alfa, met the prespecified noninferiority criterion for hematologic efficacy but not the prespecified noninferiority criterion for cardiovascular safety in patients with NDD-CKD. (Funded by Akebia Therapeutics and Otsuka Pharmaceutical; PRO2TECT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02648347 and NCT02680574.).

Cardiovascular safety and efficacy of vadadustat for the treatment of anemia in non-dialysis-dependent CKD: Design and baseline characteristics.

Current clinical practice guidelines for anemia management in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) recommend the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) as standard of care. Vadadustat, an investigational oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl-hydroxylase inhibitor, stimulates endogenous erythropoietin production. The PRO2TECT program comprises 2 global, Phase 3, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, sponsor-blind clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy of vadadustat vs darbepoetin alfa in adult patients with anemia associated with NDD-CKD. Patients recruited into the ESA-untreated NDD-CKD trial (N = 1751) had hemoglobin <10 g/dL and had not received an ESA within 8 weeks prior to inclusion in the study. Patients recruited into the ESA-treated NDD-CKD trial (N = 1725) had hemoglobin between 8 and 11 g/dL (US) or 9 and 12 g/dL (non-US) and were actively treated with an ESA for anemia associated with CKD. Trial periods in both trials include (1) correction/conversion (weeks 0-23); (2) maintenance (weeks 24-52); (3) long-term treatment (week 53 to end of treatment); and (4) safety follow-up (end-of-treatment to 4 weeks later). The primary safety endpoint is time to first adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, pooled across both trials. The primary efficacy endpoint in each trial is change in hemoglobin from baseline to primary evaluation period (weeks 24-36), comparing vadadustat vs darbepoetin alfa treatment groups. Demographics and baseline characteristics are similar among patients in both trials and broadly representative of the NDD-CKD population. These trials will help to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vadadustat for management of anemia associated with NDD-CKD.

Treatment of HF in an Era of Multiple Therapies: Statement From the HF Collaboratory.

The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has changed considerably over time, particularly with the sequential development of therapies aimed at antagonism of maladaptive biologic pathways, including inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system. The sequential nature of earlier HFrEF trials allowed the integration of new therapies tested against the background therapy of the time. More recently, multiple heart failure therapies are being evaluated simultaneously, and the number of therapeutic choices for treating HFrEF has grown considerably. In addition, implementation science has lagged behind discovery science in heart failure. Furthermore, given there are currently >200 ongoing clinical trials in heart failure, further complexities are anticipated. In an effort to provide a decision-making framework in the current era of expanding therapeutic options in HFrEF, the Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multi-stakeholder group, including patients, clinicians, clinical investigators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, industry, and payers who met at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2020. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations.

Effect of High-Dose Trivalent vs Standard-Dose Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine on Mortality or Cardiopulmonary Hospitalization in Patients With High-risk Cardiovascular Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Influenza is temporally associated with cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality among those with cardiovascular disease who may mount a less vigorous immune response to vaccination. Higher influenza vaccine dose has been associated with reduced risk of influenza illness. Objective: To evaluate whether high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine compared with standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine would reduce all-cause death or cardiopulmonary hospitalization in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic multicenter, double-blind, active comparator randomized clinical trial conducted in 5260 participants vaccinated for up to 3 influenza seasons in 157 sites in the US and Canada between September 21, 2016, and January 31, 2019. Patients with a recent acute myocardial infarction or heart failure hospitalization and at least 1 additional risk factor were eligible. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive high-dose trivalent (n = 2630) or standard-dose quadrivalent (n = 2630) inactivated influenza vaccine and could be revaccinated for up to 3 seasons. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the time to the composite of all-cause death or cardiopulmonary hospitalization during each enrolling season. The final date of follow-up was July 31, 2019. Vaccine-related adverse events were also assessed. Results: Among 5260 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 65.5 [12.6] years; 3787 [72%] men; 3289 [63%] with heart failure) over 3 influenza seasons, there were 7154 total vaccinations administered and 5226 (99.4%) participants completed the trial. In the high-dose trivalent vaccine group, there were 975 primary outcome events (883 hospitalizations for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes and 92 deaths from any cause) among 884 participants during 3577 participant-seasons (event rate, 45 per 100 patient-years), whereas in the standard-dose quadrivalent vaccine group, there were 924 primary outcome events (846 hospitalizations for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes and 78 deaths from any cause) among 837 participants during 3577 participant-seasons (event rate, 42 per 100 patient-years) (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.97-1.17]; P = .21). In the high-dose vs standard-dose groups, vaccine-related adverse reactions occurred in 1449 (40.5%) vs 1229 (34.4%) participants and severe adverse reactions occurred in 55 (2.1%) vs 44 (1.7%) participants. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease, high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine, compared with standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine, did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality or cardiopulmonary hospitalizations. Influenza vaccination remains strongly recommended in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02787044.