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.

Lessons From COVID-19 for Pandemic Preparedness: Proceedings From a Multistakeholder Think Tank.

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to present global challenges, sufficient time has passed to reflect on lessons learned and use those insights to inform policy and approaches to prepare for the next pandemic. In May 2022, the Duke Clinical Research Institute convened a think tank with thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy, the National Institutes of Health, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to share, firsthand, expert knowledge of the insights gained from the COVID-19 pandemic and how this acquired knowledge can help inform the next pandemic response. The think tank focused on pandemic preparedness, therapeutics, vaccines, and challenges related to clinical trial design and scale-up during the early phase of a pandemic. Based on the multi-faceted discussions, we outline 10 key steps to an improved and equitable pandemic response.

Optimizing the Design and Analysis of Future AKI Trials.

AKI is a complex clinical syndrome associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, particularly in critically ill and perioperative patient populations. Most AKI clinical trials have been inconclusive, failing to detect clinically important treatment effects at predetermined statistical thresholds. Heterogeneity in the pathobiology, etiology, presentation, and clinical course of AKI remains a key challenge in successfully testing new approaches for AKI prevention and treatment. This article, derived from the "AKI" session of the "Kidney Disease Clinical Trialists" virtual workshop held in October 2021, reviews barriers to and strategies for improving the design and implementation of clinical trials in patients with, or at risk of, developing AKI. The novel approaches to trial design included in this review span adaptive trial designs that increase the knowledge gained from each trial participant; pragmatic trial designs that allow for the efficient enrollment of sufficiently large numbers of patients to detect small, but clinically significant, treatment effects; and platform trial designs that use one trial infrastructure to answer multiple clinical questions simultaneously. This review also covers novel approaches to clinical trial analysis, such as Bayesian analysis and assessing heterogeneity in the response to therapies among trial participants. We also propose a road map and actionable recommendations to facilitate the adoption of the reviewed approaches. We hope that the resulting road map will help guide future clinical trial planning, maximize learning from AKI trials, and reduce the risk of missing important signals of benefit (or harm) from trial interventions.

Challenges of Cardio-Kidney Composite Outcomes in Large-Scale Clinical Trials.

Patients with chronic cardiovascular or metabolic diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and heart failure, often have comorbid kidney disease. Long-term outcomes are worse in the setting of both cardiac and kidney disease compared with either disease in isolation. In addition, the clinical presentations of certain acute cardiovascular events (such as heart failure) and worsening kidney function overlap and may be challenging to distinguish. Recently, certain novel treatments have demonstrated beneficial effects on both cardiac and kidney outcomes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have exhibited concordant risk reduction and clinically important benefits in chronic kidney disease with and without diabetes, diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple atherosclerotic vascular disease risk factors, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with and without diabetes. Primary trial results have revealed that sacubitril-valsartan therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and post hoc analyses suggest favorable kidney effects. A concordant pattern of kidney benefit with sacubitril-valsartan has also been observed in chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the complex interplay between cardiac and kidney disease and the possibility that treatments may show concordant cardio-kidney benefits, there has been recent interest in formally acknowledging, defining, and using composite cardio-kidney outcomes in future cardiovascular trials. This review describes potential challenges in use of such outcomes that should be considered and addressed before their incorporation into such trials.

Enrichment Benefits of Risk Algorithms for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Clinical Trials.

Rationale: Event-driven primary endpoints are increasingly used in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials, substantially increasing required sample sizes and trial lengths. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration advocates the use of prognostic enrichment of clinical trials by preselecting a patient population with increased likelihood of experiencing the trial's primary endpoint.Objectives: This study compares validated clinical scales of risk (Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension, the French score, and Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-Term Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Disease Management [REVEAL] 2.0) to identify patients who are likely to experience a clinical worsening event for trial enrichment.Methods: Baseline data from three pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials (AMBITION [a Study of First-Line Ambrisentan and Tadalafil Combination Therapy in Subjects with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension], SERAPHIN [Study of Macitentan on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with Symptomatic Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension], and GRIPHON [Selexipag in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension]) were pooled and standardized. Receiver operating curves were used to measure each algorithm's performance in predicting clinical worsening within the pooled placebo cohort. Power simulations were conducted to determine sample size and treatment time reductions for multiple enrichment strategies. A cost analysis was performed to illustrate potential financial savings by applying enrichment to GRIPHON.Measurements and Main Results: All risk algorithms were compared using area under the receiver operating curve and substantially outperformed prediction per New York Heart Association Functional Class. The REVEAL 2.0's risk grouping provided the greatest time and sample size savings in AMBITION and GRIPHON for all enrichment strategies but lacked appropriate inputs (i.e., N-terminal-proB-type natriuretic peptide) to perform as well in SERAPHIN. Cost analysis applied to GRIPHON demonstrated the greatest financial benefit by enrolling patients with a REVEAL score ≥8.Conclusions: This preliminary study demonstrates the feasibility of risk algorithms for pulmonary arterial hypertension trial enrichment and a need for further investigation.

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)).

Benefit-Risk Tradeoffs in Assessment of New Drugs and Devices.

Balancing benefits and risks is a complex task that poses a major challenge, both to the approval of new medicines and devices by regulatory authorities and in therapeutic decision-making in practice. Several analysis methods and visualization tools have been developed to help evaluate and communicate whether the benefit-risk profile is favorable or unfavorable. In this White Paper, we describe approaches to benefit-risk assessment using qualitative approaches such as the Benefit Risk Action Team framework developed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Benefit-Risk Framework developed by the United States Food and Drug Administration; and quantitative approaches such as the numbers needed to treat for benefit and harm, the benefit-risk ratio, and Incremental Net Benefit. We give illustrative examples of benefit-risk evaluations using 4 treatment interventions including sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes; a direct antithrombin agent, dabigatran, for reducing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis; and antiplatelet agents vorapaxar and prasugrel for reducing cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Regular applications of structured benefit-risk assessment, whether qualitative, quantitative, or both, enabled by easy-to-understand graphical presentations that capture uncertainties around the benefit-risk metric, may aid shared decision-making and enhance transparency of those decisions.

Days alive out of hospital in heart failure: Insights from the PARADIGM-HF and CHARM trials.

BACKGROUND: An endpoint that has received some attention in recent cardiovascular trials is 'days alive and out of hospital' (DAOH). Percent DAOH is a natural extension of DAOH that adjusts for differences in length of follow-up. This endpoint measure incorporates mortality and morbidity together in a way that has the potential to give more insight regarding treatment effects compared to conventional time-to-event endpoints. Other advantages of this measure include the relative ease of collection and interpretation. However, research on how to analyze this measure is still limited. METHODS: We propose using the one-inflated beta model to analyze percent DAOH. This model is appropriate for highly left-skewed data with a large proportion of boundary values. Data from the Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF) and Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) trials are used to illustrate this method. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in percent DAOH were observed for PARADIGM-HF and CHARM in favor of treatment. In PARADIGM-HF, treatment with sacubitril plus valsartan increased DAOH on average by 11 days (95% CI: 1.4-20.9 days) and increased percent DAOH by 1.64% at a fixed follow-up length of 1,000 days (95% CI: 0.61%- 2.67%). For the CHARM overall program, the candesartan group has 1.79% more DAOH (95% CI: 0.91%- 2.68%). CONCLUSION: DAOH, and especially percent DAOH, can enhance our understanding of treatment effects in future cardiovascular trials, and the one-inflated beta model is an appropriate choice for its analysis.

Workshop Report: FDA Workshop on Improving Cardiotoxicity Assessment With Human-Relevant Platforms.

Given that cardiovascular safety concerns remain the leading cause of drug attrition at the preclinical drug development stage, the National Center for Toxicological Research of the US Food and Drug Administration hosted a workshop to discuss current gaps and challenges in translating preclinical cardiovascular safety data to humans. This white paper summarizes the topics presented by speakers from academia, industry, and government intended to address the theme of improving cardiotoxicity assessment in drug development. The main conclusion is that to reduce cardiovascular safety liabilities of new therapeutic agents, there is an urgent need to integrate human-relevant platforms/approaches into drug development. Potential regulatory applications of human-derived cardiomyocytes and future directions in employing human-relevant platforms to fill the gaps and overcome barriers and challenges in preclinical cardiovascular safety assessment were discussed. This paper is intended to serve as an initial step in a public-private collaborative development program for human-relevant cardiotoxicity tools, particularly for cardiotoxicities characterized by contractile dysfunction or structural injury.

Heart Failure End Points in Cardiovascular Outcome Trials of Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Critical Evaluation of Clinical and Regulatory Issues.

Following regulatory guidance set forth in 2008 by the US Food and Drug Administration for new drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus, many large randomized, controlled trials have been conducted with the primary goal of assessing the safety of antihyperglycemic medications on the primary end point of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Heart failure (HF) was not specifically mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration guidance and therefore it was not a focus of these studies when planned. Several trials subsequently showed the impact of antihyperglycemic drugs on HF outcomes, which were not originally specified as the primary end point of the trials. The most impressive finding has been the substantial and consistent risk reduction in HF hospitalization seen across 4 trials of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. However, to date, these results have not led to regulatory approval of any of these drugs for a HF indication or a recommendation for use by US HF guidelines. It is therefore important to explore to what extent persuasive treatment effects on nonprimary end points can be used to support regulatory claims and guideline recommendations. This topic was discussed by researchers, clinicians, industry sponsors, regulators, and representatives from professional societies, who convened on the US Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2019. This report summarizes these discussions and the key takeaway messages from this meeting.

Technology-Enabled Clinical Trials: Transforming Medical Evidence Generation.

The complexity and costs associated with traditional randomized, controlled trials have increased exponentially over time, and now threaten to stifle the development of new drugs and devices. Nevertheless, the growing use of electronic health records, mobile applications, and wearable devices offers significant promise for transforming clinical trials, making them more pragmatic and efficient. However, many challenges must be overcome before these innovations can be implemented routinely in randomized, controlled trial operations. In October of 2018, a diverse stakeholder group convened in Washington, DC, to examine how electronic health record, mobile, and wearable technologies could be applied to clinical trials. The group specifically examined how these technologies might streamline the execution of clinical trial components, delineated innovative trial designs facilitated by technological developments, identified barriers to implementation, and determined the optimal frameworks needed for regulatory oversight. The group concluded that the application of novel technologies to clinical trials provided enormous potential, yet these changes needed to be iterative and facilitated by continuous learning and pilot studies.

Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Cardiovascular outcome trials in patients with chronic kidney disease: challenges associated with selection of patients and endpoints.

Although cardiovascular disease is a major health burden for patients with chronic kidney disease, most cardiovascular outcome trials have excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Moreover, the major cardiovascular outcome trials that have been conducted in patients with end-stage renal disease have not demonstrated a treatment benefit. Thus, clinicians have limited evidence to guide the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic kidney disease, particularly those on dialysis. Several factors contribute to both the paucity of trials and the apparent lack of observed treatment effect in completed studies. Challenges associated with conducting trials in this population include patient heterogeneity, complexity of renal pathophysiology and its interaction with cardiovascular disease, and competing risks for death. The Investigator Network Initiative Cardiovascular and Renal Clinical Trialists (INI-CRCT), an international organization of academic cardiovascular and renal clinical trialists, held a meeting of regulators and experts in nephrology, cardiology, and clinical trial methodology. The group identified several research priorities, summarized in this paper, that should be pursued to advance the field towards achieving improved cardiovascular outcomes for these patients. Cardiovascular and renal clinical trialists must partner to address the uncertainties in the field through collaborative research and design clinical trials that reflect the specific needs of the chronic and end-stage kidney disease populations, with the shared goal of generating robust evidence to guide the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with kidney disease.

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk.

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

2017 Cardiovascular and Stroke Endpoint Definitions for Clinical Trials.

This publication describes uniform definitions for cardiovascular and stroke outcomes developed by the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA established the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative in 2009 to simplify the design and conduct of clinical trials intended to support marketing applications. The writing committee recognizes that these definitions may be used in other types of clinical trials and clinical care processes where appropriate. Use of these definitions at the FDA has enhanced the ability to aggregate data within and across medical product development programs, conduct meta-analyses to evaluate cardiovascular safety, integrate data from multiple trials, and compare effectiveness of drugs and devices. Further study is needed to determine whether prospective data collection using these common definitions improves the design, conduct, and interpretability of the results of clinical trials.

Clinical trial design and new therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Until 20 years ago the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) was based on case reports and small series, and was largely ineffectual. As a deeper understanding of the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of PAH evolved over the subsequent two decades, coupled with epidemiological studies defining the clinical and demographic characteristics of the condition, a renewed interest in treatment development emerged through collaborations between international experts, industry and regulatory agencies. These efforts led to the performance of robust, high-quality clinical trials of novel therapies that targeted putative pathogenic pathways, leading to the approval of more than 10 novel therapies that have beneficially impacted both the quality and duration of life. However, our understanding of PAH remains incomplete and there is no cure. Accordingly, efforts are now focused on identifying novel pathogenic pathways that may be targeted, and applying more rigorous clinical trial designs to better define the efficacy of these new potential treatments and their role in the management scheme. This article, prepared by a Task Force comprised of expert clinicians, trialists and regulators, summarises the current state of the art, and provides insight into the opportunities and challenges for identifying and assessing the efficacy and safety of new treatments for this challenging condition.

Is there a role for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic-guided dosing for novel oral anticoagulants?

The novel direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs) represent a major advance in oral anticoagulant therapy and are replacing vitamin K antagonists as the preferred options for many indications. Given in fixed doses without routine laboratory monitoring, they have been shown to be at least as effective in reducing thromboembolic stroke as dose-adjusted warfarin in phase 3 randomized trials and less likely to cause hemorrhagic stroke. Pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic subanalyses of the major NOAC trials in patients with atrial fibrillation have established relationships between clinical characteristics, and drug levels and/or pharmacodynamic responses with both efficacy and safety. Based on these analyses, pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulatory authorities have provided contraindications and dosing recommendations based on clinical characteristics that are associated with drug levels and/or pharmacodynamic responses, stroke reduction, and bleeding risk to optimize the risk-benefit profile of the NOACs in the real world. The current fixed-dosing strategy of NOACs has triggered discussions about the potential value of laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment in customizing drug exposure to further improve the safety and efficacy of the NOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation. As there is neither high-quality evidence nor consensus about the potential role of laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment for the NOACs, a Cardiac Research Safety Consortium "Think Tank" meeting was held at the American College of Cardiology Heart House in December 2015 to discussions these issues. This manuscript reports on the deliberations and the conclusions reached at that meeting.

Leveraging electronic health records for clinical research.

Electronic health records (EHRs) can be a major tool in the quest to decrease costs and timelines of clinical trial research, generate better evidence for clinical decision making, and advance health care. Over the past decade, EHRs have increasingly offered opportunities to speed up, streamline, and enhance clinical research. EHRs offer a wide range of possible uses in clinical trials, including assisting with prestudy feasibility assessment, patient recruitment, and data capture in care delivery. To fully appreciate these opportunities, health care stakeholders must come together to face critical challenges in leveraging EHR data, including data quality/completeness, information security, stakeholder engagement, and increasing the scale of research infrastructure and related governance. Leaders from academia, government, industry, and professional societies representing patient, provider, researcher, industry, and regulator perspectives convened the Leveraging EHR for Clinical Research Now! Think Tank in Washington, DC (February 18-19, 2016), to identify barriers to using EHRs in clinical research and to generate potential solutions. Think tank members identified a broad range of issues surrounding the use of EHRs in research and proposed a variety of solutions. Recognizing the challenges, the participants identified the urgent need to look more deeply at previous efforts to use these data, share lessons learned, and develop a multidisciplinary agenda for best practices for using EHRs in clinical research. We report the proceedings from this think tank meeting in the following paper.

Enhancing Insights into Pulmonary Vascular Disease through a Precision Medicine Approach. A Joint NHLBI-Cardiovascular Medical Research and Education Fund Workshop Report.

The Division of Lung Diseases of the NHLBI and the Cardiovascular Medical Education and Research Fund held a workshop to discuss how to leverage the anticipated scientific output from the recently launched "Redefining Pulmonary Hypertension through Pulmonary Vascular Disease Phenomics" (PVDOMICS) program to develop newer approaches to pulmonary vascular disease. PVDOMICS is a collaborative, protocol-driven network to analyze all patient populations with pulmonary hypertension to define novel pulmonary vascular disease (PVD) phenotypes. Stakeholders, including basic, translational, and clinical investigators; clinicians; patient advocacy organizations; regulatory agencies; and pharmaceutical industry experts, joined to discuss the application of precision medicine to PVD clinical trials. Recommendations were generated for discussion of research priorities in line with NHLBI Strategic Vision Goals that include: (1) A national effort, involving all the stakeholders, should seek to coordinate biosamples and biodata from all funded programs to a web-based repository so that information can be shared and correlated with other research projects. Example programs sponsored by NHLBI include PVDOMICS, Pulmonary Hypertension Breakthrough Initiative, the National Biological Sample and Data Repository for PAH, and the National Precision Medicine Initiative. (2) A task force to develop a master clinical trials protocol for PVD to apply precision medicine principles to future clinical trials. Specific features include: (a) adoption of smaller clinical trials that incorporate biomarker-guided enrichment strategies, using adaptive and innovative statistical designs; and (b) development of newer endpoints that reflect well-defined and clinically meaningful changes. (3) Development of updated and systematic variables in imaging, hemodynamic, cellular, genomic, and metabolic tests that will help precisely identify individual and shared features of PVD and serve as the basis of novel phenotypes for therapeutic interventions.