Efficacy and Safety of Acoramidis in Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy is characterized by the deposition of misfolded monomeric transthyretin (TTR) in the heart. Acoramidis is a high-affinity TTR stabilizer that acts to inhibit dissociation of tetrameric TTR and leads to more than 90% stabilization across the dosing interval as measured ex vivo. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy in a 2:1 ratio to receive acoramidis hydrochloride at a dose of 800 mg twice daily or matching placebo for 30 months. Efficacy was assessed in the patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area. The four-step primary hierarchical analysis included death from any cause, cardiovascular-related hospitalization, the change from baseline in the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, and the change from baseline in the 6-minute walk distance. We used the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method to compare all potential pairs of patients within strata to generate a P value. Key secondary outcomes were death from any cause, the 6-minute walk distance, the score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary, and the serum TTR level. RESULTS: A total of 632 patients underwent randomization. The primary analysis favored acoramidis over placebo (P<0.001); the corresponding win ratio was 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 2.2), with 63.7% of pairwise comparisons favoring acoramidis and 35.9% favoring placebo. Together, death from any cause and cardiovascular-related hospitalization contributed more than half the wins and losses to the win ratio (58% of all pairwise comparisons); NT-proBNP pairwise comparisons yielded the highest ratio of wins to losses (23.3% vs. 7.0%). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in the acoramidis group and the placebo group (98.1% and 97.6%, respectively); serious adverse events were reported in 54.6% and 64.9% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy, the receipt of acoramidis resulted in a significantly better four-step primary hierarchical outcome containing components of mortality, morbidity, and function than placebo. Adverse events were similar in the two groups. (Funded by BridgeBio Pharma; ATTRibute-CM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03860935.).

Asundexian versus Apixaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke prevention with direct-acting oral anticoagulant agents in patients with atrial fibrillation confers a risk of bleeding and limits their use. Asundexian, an activated factor XI (XIa) inhibitor, is an oral anticoagulant that may prevent strokes with less bleeding. METHODS: In a phase 3, international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to receive asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily or standard-dose apixaban. The primary efficacy objective was to determine whether asundexian is at least noninferior to apixaban for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety objective was to determine whether asundexian is superior to apixaban with respect to major bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 14,810 randomly assigned patients were included in the intention-to-treat population. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 73.9±7.7 years, 35.2% were women, 18.6% had chronic kidney disease, 18.2% had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, 16.8% had received oral anticoagulants for no more than 6 weeks, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (range, 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke) was 4.3±1.3. The trial was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 98 patients (1.3%) assigned to receive asundexian and in 26 (0.4%) assigned to receive apixaban (hazard ratio, 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46 to 5.83). Major bleeding occurred in 17 patients (0.2%) who received asundexian and in 53 (0.7%) who received apixaban (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.55). The incidence of any adverse event appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke, treatment with asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily was associated with a higher incidence of stroke or systemic embolism than treatment with apixaban in the period before the trial was stopped prematurely. There were fewer major bleeding events with asundexian than with apixaban during this time. (Funded by Bayer; OCEANIC-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05643573; EudraCT number, 2022-000758-28.).

Ferric Carboxymaltose in Heart Failure with Iron Deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Ferric carboxymaltose therapy reduces symptoms and improves quality of life in patients who have heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction and iron deficiency. Additional evidence about the effects of ferric carboxymaltose on clinical events is needed. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned ambulatory patients with heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, and iron deficiency, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo, in addition to standard therapy for heart failure. Ferric carboxymaltose or placebo was given every 6 months as needed on the basis of iron indexes and hemoglobin levels. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of death within 12 months after randomization, hospitalizations for heart failure within 12 months after randomization, or change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance. The significance level was set at 0.01. RESULTS: We enrolled 3065 patients, of whom 1532 were randomly assigned to the ferric carboxymaltose group and 1533 to the placebo group. Death by month 12 occurred in 131 patients (8.6%) in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 158 (10.3%) in the placebo group; a total of 297 and 332 hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively, occurred by month 12; and the mean (±SD) change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance was 8±60 and 4±59 m, respectively (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney P = 0.02; unmatched win ratio, 1.10; 99% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.23). Repeated dosing of ferric carboxymaltose appeared to be safe with an acceptable adverse-event profile in the majority of patients. The number of patients with serious adverse events occurring during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (413 patients [27.0%] in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 401 [26.2%] in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: Among ambulatory patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction and iron deficiency, there was no apparent difference between ferric carboxymaltose and placebo with respect to the hierarchical composite of death, hospitalizations for heart failure, or 6-minute walk distance. (Funded by American Regent, a Daiichi Sankyo Group company; HEART-FID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03037931.).

Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Glucocorticoid in Black and Latinx Adults with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latinx patients bear a disproportionate burden of asthma. Efforts to reduce the disproportionate morbidity have been mostly unsuccessful, and guideline recommendations have not been based on studies in these populations. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label trial, we randomly assigned Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma to use a patient-activated, reliever-triggered inhaled glucocorticoid strategy (beclomethasone dipropionate, 80 µg) plus usual care (intervention) or to continue usual care. Participants had one instructional visit followed by 15 monthly questionnaires. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included monthly asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Test (ACT; range, 5 [poor] to 25 [complete control]), quality of life as measured with the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI; range, 0 to 1, with lower scores indicating greater impairment), and participant-reported missed days of work, school, or usual activities. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1201 adults (603 Black and 598 Latinx), 600 were assigned to the intervention group and 601 to the usual-care group. The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.78) in the intervention group and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.999; P = 0.048). ACT scores increased by 3.4 points (95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) in the intervention group and by 2.5 points (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.8) in the usual-care group (difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2); ASUI scores increased by 0.12 points (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.13) and 0.08 points (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.09), respectively (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.05). The annualized rate of missed days was 13.4 in the intervention group and 16.8 in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.2% of the participants, with an even distribution between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, provision of an inhaled glucocorticoid and one-time instruction on its use, added to usual care, led to a lower rate of severe asthma exacerbations. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02995733.).

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Impact of Vaccination With the SCB-2019 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine on Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection: A Household Contact Study in the Philippines.

BACKGROUND: An exploratory household transmission study was nested in SPECTRA, the phase 2/3 efficacy study of the adjuvanted recombinant protein-based COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019. We compared the occurrence of confirmed COVID-19 infections between households and household contacts of infected SPECTRA placebo or SCB-2019 recipients. METHODS: SPECTRA participants at 8 study sites in the Philippines who developed real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 were contacted by a study team blinded to assignment of index cases to vaccine or placebo groups to enroll in this household transmission study. Enrolled households and household contacts were monitored for 3 weeks using rRT-PCR and anti-SARS-CoV-2 N-antigen IgG/IgM testing to detect new COVID-19 infections. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four eligible COVID-19 index cases (51 vaccinees, 103 placebo) were included. The secondary attack rate per household for symptomatic COVID-19 infection was 0.76% (90% CI: .15-3.90%) if the index case was an SCB-2019 vaccinee compared with 5.88% (90% CI: 3.20-10.8%) for placebo index cases, a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 79% (90% CI: -28% to 97%). The RRR of symptomatic COVID-19 per household member was similar: 84% (90% CI: 28-97%). The impact on attack rates in household members if index cases were symptomatic (n = 130; RRR = 80%; 90% CI: 7-96%) or asymptomatic (n = 24; RRR = 100%; 90% CI: -76% to 100%) was measurable but the low numbers undermine the clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective household contact study vaccination with SCB-2019 reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission compared with placebo in households and in household members independently of whether or not index cases were symptomatic.

Efficacy of the adjuvanted subunit protein COVID-19 vaccine, SCB-2019: a phase 2 and 3 multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A range of safe and effective vaccines against SARS CoV 2 are needed to address the COVID 19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019. METHODS: This ongoing phase 2 and 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done in adults aged 18 years and older who were in good health or with a stable chronic health condition, at 31 sites in five countries (Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Philippines, and South Africa). The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 using a centralised internet randomisation system to receive two 0·5 mL intramuscular doses of SCB-2019 (30 µg, adjuvanted with 1·50 mg CpG-1018 and 0·75 mg alum) or placebo (0·9% sodium chloride for injection supplied in 10 mL ampoules) 21 days apart. All study staff and participants were masked, but vaccine administrators were not. Primary endpoints were vaccine efficacy, measured by RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 of any severity with onset from 14 days after the second dose in baseline SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants (the per-protocol population), and the safety and solicited local and systemic adverse events in the phase 2 subset. This study is registered on EudraCT (2020-004272-17) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04672395). FINDINGS: 30 174 participants were enrolled from March 24, 2021, until the cutoff date of Aug 10, 2021, of whom 30 128 received their first assigned vaccine (n=15 064) or a placebo injection (n=15 064). The per-protocol population consisted of 12 355 baseline SARS-CoV-2-naive participants (6251 vaccinees and 6104 placebo recipients). Most exclusions (13 389 [44·4%]) were because of seropositivity at baseline. There were 207 confirmed per-protocol cases of COVID-19 at 14 days after the second dose, 52 vaccinees versus 155 placebo recipients, and an overall vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 of 67·2% (95·72% CI 54·3-76·8), 83·7% (97·86% CI 55·9-95·4) against moderate-to-severe COVID-19, and 100% (97·86% CI 25·3-100·0) against severe COVID-19. All COVID-19 cases were due to virus variants; vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 due to the three predominant variants was 78·7% (95% CI 57·3-90·4) for delta, 91·8% (44·9-99·8) for gamma, and 58·6% (13·3-81·5) for mu. No safety issues emerged in the follow-up period for the efficacy analysis (median of 82 days [IQR 63-103]). The vaccine elicited higher rates of mainly mild-to-moderate injection site pain than the placebo after the first (35·7% [287 of 803] vs 10·3% [81 of 786]) and second (26·9% [189 of 702] vs 7·4% [52 of 699]) doses, but the rates of other solicited local and systemic adverse events were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Two doses of SCB-2019 vaccine plus CpG and alum provides notable protection against the entire severity spectrum of COVID-19 caused by circulating SAR-CoV-2 viruses, including the predominating delta variant. FUNDING: Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Baseline characteristics of patients in the randomized study to investigate the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose as treatment for heart failure with iron deficiency: HEART-FID trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior clinical trials have investigated intravenous iron in patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency, but the safety and efficacy of this therapy remains unclear. METHODS: We report the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of patients enrolled in the HEART-FID study and compare HEART-FID participants with patients within other contemporary clinical trials of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including other intravenous iron trials. RESULTS: In the 3,065 participants randomized in HEART-FID, median (IQR) age was 69.7 (62.0-76.5) years, 1,037 (33.8%) were female, 322 (10.5%) were Black, median ejection fraction was 32% (25%-37%), 1,837 (60.0%) had ischemic etiology, and baseline median NT-proBNP was 1,462 (721-2,966) pg/mL. Median baseline hemoglobin was 12.6 (11.6-13.6) g/dL, and median 6-minute walk test distance was 272 (196-350) m, similar to prior intravenous iron HFrEF trials. Common comorbidities included atrial fibrillation/flutter (43.7%), and type 2 diabetes (45.2%). Compared with several recent HFrEF trials, patients enrolled in HEART-FID had similar baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, though a greater proportion of women and Black participants were recruited in HEART-FID. In HEART-FID, HFrEF therapy included a beta-blocker in 92.5%, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in 86.1% (with 29.7% ARNI), and a mineralocorticoid antagonist (MRA) in 55.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients enrolled in HEART-FID were similar to those enrolled in other contemporary HFrEF trials and registries, including trials of intravenous iron in HFrEF. However, the HEART-FID cohort is substantially larger and more racially diverse than prior trials of intravenous iron in HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03037931).

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.

Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA Trial: Impact of Different Definitions on Incidence, Prognosis, and Treatment Comparisons.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions. RESULTS: Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Clinical events classification (CEC) in clinical trials: Report on the current landscape and future directions - proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation. OBSERVATIONS: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: (1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; (2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; (3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and (4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.

Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS: We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS: Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

World regional differences in outcomes for patients with peripheral artery disease: Insights from the EUCLID trial.

Regional variations exist in the epidemiology of peripheral artery disease (PAD), in comorbidities, use of secondary prevention, and outcomes. Large studies of these variations in worldwide populations are rare. The EUCLID (Examining Use of tiCagreLor In peripheral artery Disease) trial included 13,885 patients with PAD from four geographical regions (Central/South America, Europe, Asia, North America) and compared monotherapy with ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Inclusion criteria were either an ankle-brachial index < 0.80 or a prior revascularization. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of any event in the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke and did not differ between the study arms. This post hoc analysis of EUCLID confirmed that regional differences occurred in the inclusion criteria with more prior revascularization in North America (73.9%) and Asia (72.5%) compared with Central/South America (34.0%) and Europe (51.6%). The characteristics of patients also differed. Prior amputation at baseline was most frequent in Central/South America (6.3%) compared with other regions (1.6-2.8%). A history of stroke was most common in Asia, coronary heart disease in North America, and diabetes in Central/South America compared with other regions. The incidence of outcomes in patients with PAD varied by region. North America had the highest rate of the primary combined endpoint (5.97 events/100 patient-years). Corresponding rates were 4.80, 3.95, and 3.87 for Asia, Europe, and Central/South America, respectively. Hospitalization for acute limb ischemia (events/100 patient-years) was most frequent in Europe (0.75) and North America (0.74) compared with Asia (0.60) and Central/South America (0.33). Adjustment for inclusion criteria and relevant PAD characteristics did not have a major impact on these regional differences. Further adjustment for concomitant disease, risk factors, and preventive medication modified the regional differences only marginally. In conclusion, substantial regional differences were found in cardiovascular and limb outcomes in patients with PAD and were not explained by variation in the category of included patients, concomitant disease, risk factors, and prevention. Such differences, which may be due to variation in other factors such as background population rates or clinical care, need to be considered when designing and interpreting large international studies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01732822).

COVID-19 Trials: Who Participates and Who Benefits?

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately afflicted vulnerable populations. Older adults, particularly residents of nursing facilities, represent a small percentage of the population but account for 40% of mortality from COVID-19 in the United States. Racial and ethnic minority individuals, particularly Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous Americans have experienced higher rates of infection and death than the White population. Although there has been an unprecedented explosion of clinical trials to examine potential therapies, participation by members of these vulnerable communities is crucial to obtaining data generalizable to those communities. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, factorial randomized clinical trial examining hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin for hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Of 53 screened patients, 11 (21%) were enrolled. Ten percent (3/31) of Black patients were enrolled, 33% (7/21) of White patients, and 50% (6/12) of Hispanic patients. Forty-seven percent (25/53) of patients declined participation despite eligibility; 58%(18/31) of Black patients declined participation. Forty percent (21/53) of screened patients were from a nursing facility and 10% (2/21) were enrolled. Enrolled patients had fewer comorbidities than nonenrolled patients: median modified Charlson comorbidity score 2.0 (interquartile range 0-2.5), versus 4.0 (interquartile range 2-6) for nonenrolled patients (P = 0.006). The limitations of the study were the low participation rate and the multiple treatment trials concurrently recruiting at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of nonparticipation in our trial of nursing facility residents and Black people emphasizes the concern that clinical trials for therapeutics may not target key populations with high mortality rates.

What can heart failure trialists learn from oncology trialists?

Globally, there has been little change in mortality rates from cardiovascular (CV) diseases or cancers over the past two decades (1997-2018). This is especially true for heart failure (HF) where 5-year mortality rates remain as high as 45-55%. In the same timeframe, the proportion of drug revenue, and regulatory drug approvals for cancer drugs, far out paces those for CV drugs. In 2018, while cancer drugs made 27% of Food and Drug Administration drug approvals, only 1% of drug approvals was for a CV drug, and over this entire 20 year span, only four drugs were approved for HF in the USA. Cardiovascular trialists need to reassess the design, execution, and purpose of CV clinical trials. In the area of oncology research, trials are much smaller, follow-up is shorter, and targeted therapies are common. Cardiovascular diseases and cancer are the two most common causes of death globally, and although they differ substantially, this review evaluates whether some elements of oncology research may be applicable in the CV arena. As one of the most underserved CV diseases, the review focuses on aspects of cancer research that may be applicable to HF research with the aim of streamlining the clinical trial process and decreasing the time and cost required to bring safe, effective, treatments to patients who need them. The paper is based on discussions among clinical trialists, industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and patients, which took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Workshop in Washington, DC, on 8 December 2019 (https://www.globalcvctforum.com/2019 (14 September 2020)).

Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown. METHODS: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. RESULTS: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Impact of chronic kidney disease on hemoglobin among patients with peripheral artery disease treated with P2Y12 inhibitors: Insights from the EUCLID trial.

Patients with chronic kidney disease may develop new or more severe anemia when treated with antiplatelet agents due to blood loss in conjunction with impaired erythropoiesis. Because anemia independently predicts limb amputation and mortality among patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD), we evaluated the relationship between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and hemoglobin (Hb) levels in the EUCLID trial in which patients with symptomatic PAD were randomized to ticagrelor or clopidogrel. At baseline, 9025, 1870, and 1000 patients had eGFR ⩾ 60, 45-59, and < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. The mean fall in Hb during the trial was 0.46 ± 1.68 g/dL and did not differ by baseline eGFR category, although Hb fall ⩾ 10% was more frequent among patients with lower eGFR (p for trend < 0.0001). On-study treatment with iron, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and/or red blood cell transfusion was reported for 479 (5.3%), 165 (8.8%), and 129 (12.9%) patients in the three eGFR categories, respectively (p for trend < 0.0001). After adjustment for baseline and post-randomization effects, those not receiving anemia treatment had a smaller reduction in Hb from baseline than those receiving anemia treatment (p < 0.0001). Other determinants of Hb reduction included absence of on-study myocardial infarction, coronary or peripheral revascularization, residence outside North America, male sex, and baseline eGFR. We conclude that among patients with PAD treated with P2Y12 inhibitors, lower baseline eGFR was associated with a greater reduction in Hb. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01732822.

Presenting Risks and Benefits: Helping the Data Monitoring Committee Do Its Job.

Data monitoring committees (DMCs), or data and safety monitoring boards, protect clinical trial participants by conducting benefit-risk assessments during the course of a clinical trial. These evaluations may be improved by broader access to data and more effective analyses and presentation. Data monitoring committees should have access to all data, including efficacy data, at each interim review. The DMC reports should include graphical presentations that summarize benefits and harms in efficient ways. Benefit-risk assessments should include summaries that are consistent with the intention-to-treat principle and have a pragmatic focus. This article provides examples of graphical summaries that integrate benefits and harms, and proposes that such summaries become standard in DMC reports.

Acute Limb Ischemia in Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) is an important clinical event and an emerging cardiovascular clinical trial outcome. Risk factors for and outcomes after ALI have not been fully evaluated. METHODS: EUCLID (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) randomized patients with peripheral artery disease to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. Enrollment criteria included an ankle-brachial index ≤0.80 or previous lower extremity revascularization. Patients were grouped according to the primary outcome, postrandomization ALI hospitalization. Baseline factors associated with ALI were identified using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Models with ALI hospitalization as a time-dependent covariate were developed for secondary outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke), all-cause mortality, and major amputation. RESULTS: Among 13 885 patients, 1.7% (n=232) had 293 ALI hospitalizations (0.8 per 100 patient-years). Patients with versus without ALI were younger and more often had previous peripheral revascularization and lower baseline ankle-brachial index. Treatment during ALI hospitalization included endovascular revascularization (39.2%, n=115), surgical bypass (24.6%, n=72), and major amputation (13.0%, n=38). After multivariable adjustment, any previous peripheral revascularization (Hazard Ratio [HR] 4.7, 95% CI 3.3-6.8, P<0.01), baseline atrial fibrillation (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.2, P=0.03), and baseline ankle-brachial index ≤0.60 (HR 1.3 per 0.10 decrease, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, P<0.01) were associated with higher ALI risk. Older age (HR 0.8 per 10-year increase, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, P=0.02) and baseline statin use (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9, P<0.01) were associated with lower risk for ALI. There was no relationship between randomized treatment to ticagrelor or clopidogrel and ALI. Among patients with previous revascularization, surgical versus endovascular procedures performed more than 6 months prior were associated with ALI (adjusted HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.75-3.96). In the overall population, ALI hospitalization was associated with subsequent MACE (adjusted HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.1, P=0.04), all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 3.3, 95% CI 2.4-4.6, P<0.01), and major amputation (adjusted HR 34.2, 95% CI 9.7-20.8, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Previous peripheral revascularization, baseline atrial fibrillation, and lower ankle-brachial index identify peripheral artery disease patients at heightened risk for ALI, an event associated with subsequent cardiovascular and limb-related morbidity and mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01732822.