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.).

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).

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.

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.

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.

Conducting clinical trials in heart failure during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic: an Expert Consensus Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.

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.

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.

Effect of Ularitide on Cardiovascular Mortality in Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute heart failure, early intervention with an intravenous vasodilator has been proposed as a therapeutic goal to reduce cardiac-wall stress and, potentially, myocardial injury, thereby favorably affecting patients' long-term prognosis. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 2157 patients with acute heart failure to receive a continuous intravenous infusion of either ularitide at a dose of 15 ng per kilogram of body weight per minute or matching placebo for 48 hours, in addition to accepted therapy. Treatment was initiated a median of 6 hours after the initial clinical evaluation. The coprimary outcomes were death from cardiovascular causes during a median follow-up of 15 months and a hierarchical composite end point that evaluated the initial 48-hour clinical course. RESULTS: Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 236 patients in the ularitide group and 225 patients in the placebo group (21.7% vs. 21.0%; hazard ratio, 1.03; 96% confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.25; P=0.75). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant between-group difference with respect to the hierarchical composite outcome. The ularitide group had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and in levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide than the placebo group. However, changes in cardiac troponin T levels during the infusion did not differ between the two groups in the 55% of patients with paired data. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute heart failure, ularitide exerted favorable physiological effects (without affecting cardiac troponin levels), but short-term treatment did not affect a clinical composite end point or reduce long-term cardiovascular mortality. (Funded by Cardiorentis; TRUE-AHF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01661634 .).

Digoxin-mortality: randomized vs. observational comparison in the DIG trial.

AIMS: The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial, the only large randomized trial of digoxin in heart failure, reported a neutral effect on mortality and a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. Recent observational studies reported increased mortality with digoxin treatment. We present further analyses of the DIG trial displaying the inability to control bias in observational treatment comparisons despite extensive statistical adjustments. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-four percent of the 6800 patients in the DIG trial had been treated with digoxin before randomization, and half of them were randomly withdrawn from digoxin treatment. We contrast the main randomization-based result of the DIG trial with the observational non-randomized comparison of patients pre-treated or not pre-treated with digoxin. Mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.34; P < 0.001] and heart failure hospitalizations (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.33-1.61; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients pre-treated with digoxin even after adjustment for baseline population differences. The higher risks for both outcomes in those who had previously received digoxin persisted even if they received placebo during the trial (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10-1.40; P < 0.001). This sharply contradicts the neutral effect on mortality and the significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations observed in the randomized comparison. CONCLUSION: Prescription of digoxin is an indicator of disease severity and worse prognosis, which cannot be fully accounted for by covariate adjustments in the DIG trial where patients were well-characterized. It is unlikely that weaker research approaches (observational studies of administrative data or registries) can provide more reliable estimates of the effects of cardiac glycosides.

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.

Efficacy, Safety, and Durability of Voretigene Neparvovec-rzyl in RPE65 Mutation-Associated Inherited Retinal Dystrophy: Results of Phase 1 and 3 Trials.

PURPOSE: To report the durability of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (VN) adeno-associated viral vector-based gene therapy for RPE65 mutation-associated inherited retinal dystrophy (IRD), including results of a phase 1 follow-on study at year 4 and phase 3 study at year 2. DESIGN: Open-label phase 1 follow-on clinical trial and open-label, randomized, controlled phase 3 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Forty subjects who received 1.5×1011 vector genomes (vg) of VN per eye in at least 1 eye during the trials, including 11 phase 1 follow-on subjects and 29 phase 3 subjects (20 original intervention [OI] and 9 control/intervention [CI]). METHODS: Subretinal injection of VN in the second eye of phase 1 follow-on subjects and in both eyes of phase 3 subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: End points common to the phase 1 and phase 3 studies included change in performance on the Multi-Luminance Mobility Test (MLMT) within the illuminance range evaluated, full-field light sensitivity threshold (FST) testing, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Safety end points included adverse event reporting, ophthalmic examination, physical examination, and laboratory testing. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) MLMT lux score change was 2.4 (1.3) at 4 years compared with 2.6 (1.6) at 1 year after administration in phase 1 follow-on subjects (n = 8), 1.9 (1.1) at 2 years, and 1.9 (1.0) at 1 year post-administration in OI subjects (n = 20), and 2.1 (1.6) at 1 year post-administration in CI subjects (n = 9). All 3 groups maintained an average improvement in FST, reflecting more than a 2 log10(cd.s/m2) improvement in light sensitivity at 1 year and subsequent available follow-up visits. The safety profile was consistent with vitrectomy and the subretinal injection procedure, and no deleterious immune responses occurred. CONCLUSIONS: After VN gene augmentation therapy, there was a favorable benefit-to-risk profile with similar improvement demonstrated in navigational ability and light sensitivity among 3 groups of subjects with RPE65 mutation-associated IRD, a degenerative disease that progresses to complete blindness. The safety profile is consistent with the administration procedure. These data suggest that this effect, which is nearly maximal by 30 days after VN administration, is durable for 4 years, with observation ongoing.

Beware of on-treatment safety analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing safety is important to evaluating new medications. In many randomized clinical trials, assessment of safety relies on so-called on-treatment analysis, where data on adverse events are collected only while the participant is taking study medication and perhaps for a few (7, 14, or 30) days after stopping. This article discusses the consequence of such failure to use intent-to-treat analyses in assessing safety. METHODS: This article discusses two approaches to analysis of safety data: intention-to-treat and on-treatment analysis with reference to principles of the design of randomized clinical trial. RESULTS: On-treatment analysis violates randomization and is often not well defined. Moreover, because the typical on-treatment analysis ignores the reason participants in clinical trials stop treatment, on-treatment analyses can lead to biased estimates of risk. Examples show biases that can result from failure to count all adverse events. An example from a study of rofecoxib shows an on-treatment analysis that led to likely underestimation of harm; an example from a study of saxagliptin shows an on-treatment analysis that led to a likely overestimate of harms. CONCLUSION: For major safety outcomes in long-term clinical trials, intention-to-treat analysis should be performed in the framework of benefit-risk evaluation. More generally, analyses of safety should be tailored to the specific question being asked with the specific study design under consideration. On-treatment analyses are subject to bias; however, the direction of that bias is not necessarily clear.

Efficacy and safety of voretigene neparvovec (AAV2-hRPE65v2) in patients with RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 studies have shown potential benefit of gene replacement in RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy. This phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of voretigene neparvovec in participants whose inherited retinal dystrophy would otherwise progress to complete blindness. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial done at two sites in the USA, individuals aged 3 years or older with, in each eye, best corrected visual acuity of 20/60 or worse, or visual field less than 20 degrees in any meridian, or both, with confirmed genetic diagnosis of biallelic RPE65 mutations, sufficient viable retina, and ability to perform standardised multi-luminance mobility testing (MLMT) within the luminance range evaluated, were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention or control using a permuted block design, stratified by age (<10 years and ≥10 years) and baseline mobility testing passing level (pass at ≥125 lux vs <125 lux). Graders assessing primary outcome were masked to treatment group. Intervention was bilateral, subretinal injection of 1·5 × 1011 vector genomes of voretigene neparvovec in 0·3 mL total volume. The primary efficacy endpoint was 1-year change in MLMT performance, measuring functional vision at specified light levels. The intention-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations were included in primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00999609, and enrolment is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2012, and Nov 21, 2013, 31 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to intervention (n=21) or control (n=10). One participant from each group withdrew after consent, before intervention, leaving an mITT population of 20 intervention and nine control participants. At 1 year, mean bilateral MLMT change score was 1·8 (SD 1·1) light levels in the intervention group versus 0·2 (1·0) in the control group (difference of 1·6, 95% CI 0·72-2·41, p=0·0013). 13 (65%) of 20 intervention participants, but no control participants, passed MLMT at the lowest luminance level tested (1 lux), demonstrating maximum possible improvement. No product-related serious adverse events or deleterious immune responses occurred. Two intervention participants, one with a pre-existing complex seizure disorder and another who experienced oral surgery complications, had serious adverse events unrelated to study participation. Most ocular events were mild in severity. INTERPRETATION: Voretigene neparvovec gene replacement improved functional vision in RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy previously medically untreatable. FUNDING: Spark Therapeutics.

Patiromer in patients with kidney disease and hyperkalemia receiving RAAS inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia increases the risk of death and limits the use of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in high-risk patients. We assessed the safety and efficacy of patiromer, a nonabsorbed potassium binder, in a multicenter, prospective trial. METHODS: Patients with chronic kidney disease who were receiving RAAS inhibitors and who had serum potassium levels of 5.1 to less than 6.5 mmol per liter received patiromer (at an initial dose of 4.2 g or 8.4 g twice a day) for 4 weeks (initial treatment phase); the primary efficacy end point was the mean change in the serum potassium level from baseline to week 4. Eligible patients at the end of week 4 (those with a baseline potassium level of 5.5 to <6.5 mmol per liter in whom the level decreased to 3.8 to <5.1 mmol per liter) entered an 8-week randomized withdrawal phase in which they were randomly assigned to continue patiromer or switch to placebo; the primary efficacy end point was the between-group difference in the median change in the serum potassium level over the first 4 weeks of that phase. RESULTS: In the initial treatment phase, among 237 patients receiving patiromer who had at least one potassium measurement at a scheduled visit after day 3, the mean (±SE) change in the serum potassium level was -1.01±0.03 mmol per liter (P<0.001). At week 4, 76% (95% confidence interval, 70 to 81) of the patients had reached the target potassium level (3.8 to <5.1 mmol per liter). Subsequently, 107 patients were randomly assigned to patiromer (55 patients) or placebo (52 patients) for the randomized withdrawal phase. The median increase in the potassium level from baseline of that phase was greater with placebo than with patiromer (P<0.001); a recurrence of hyperkalemia (potassium level, ≥5.5 mmol per liter) occurred in 60% of the patients in the placebo group as compared with 15% in the patiromer group through week 8 (P<0.001). Mild-to-moderate constipation was the most common adverse event (in 11% of the patients); hypokalemia occurred in 3%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic kidney disease who were receiving RAAS inhibitors and who had hyperkalemia, patiromer treatment was associated with a decrease in serum potassium levels and, as compared with placebo, a reduction in the recurrence of hyperkalemia. (Funded by Relypsa; OPAL-HK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01810939.).

High-dose influenza vaccine to reduce clinical outcomes in high-risk cardiovascular patients: Rationale and design of the INVESTED trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza leads to significant cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality-particularly in patients with cardiovascular disease-that may be prevented with a standard influenza vaccine. However, patients with cardiovascular conditions have a reduced immune response to influenza vaccine, potentially resulting in reduced effectiveness for preventing clinical events. High-dose vaccine augments immune response in cardiac patients, suggesting that a high-dose influenza vaccination strategy may further reduce morbidity and mortality. Alternatively, broader coverage with an influenza vaccine containing an increased number of viral strains is an alternative strategy without direct evaluation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: INfluenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated heart failure (INVESTED) is a pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of an annual vaccination strategy of high-dose trivalent versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine in patients with a history of recent heart failure or myocardial infarction hospitalization. The trial will enroll approximately 9,300 patients over 4 influenza seasons. The primary hypothesis is that high-dose influenza vaccine will reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and hospitalization from a cardiovascular or pulmonary cause compared with standard-dose influenza vaccine within each enrolling season. Approximately 1,300 primary outcome events will provide >90% power to detect an 18% relative risk reduction at a 2-sided α level of .05. CONCLUSION: INVESTED is the largest and longest study to assess whether high-dose influenza vaccine is superior to standard-dose influenza vaccine in reducing cardiopulmonary events in a high-risk cardiovascular population (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02787044).