Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death among patients with chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Whether SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in patients with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction remains less certain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 6263 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (which was defined as either an unplanned hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit for heart failure) or cardiovascular death, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Over a median of 2.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 512 of 3131 patients (16.4%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 610 of 3132 patients (19.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.92; P<0.001). Worsening heart failure occurred in 368 patients (11.8%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 455 patients (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.91); cardiovascular death occurred in 231 patients (7.4%) and 261 patients (8.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05). Total events and symptom burden were lower in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group. Results were similar among patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or more and those with a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 60%, and results were similar in prespecified subgroups, including patients with or without diabetes. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure and a mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DELIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03619213.).

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.

Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036124.).

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction According to Age: Insights From DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: The DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure) showed that dapagliflozin added to other guideline-recommended therapies reduced the risk of mortality and heart failure hospitalization and improved symptoms in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined the effects of dapagliflozin according to age, given potential concerns about the efficacy and safety of therapies in the elderly. METHODS: Patients in New York Heart Association functional class II or greater with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and a modest elevation of NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) were eligible. Key exclusion criteria included systolic blood pressure <95 mm Hg and estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening heart failure (heart failure hospitalization or urgent heart failure visit) or cardiovascular death, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 4744 patients 22 to 94 years of age (mean age, 66.3 [SD 10.9] years) were randomized: 636 patients (13.4%) were <55 years of age, 1242 (26.2%) were 55 to 64 years of age, 1717 (36.2%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 1149 (24.2%) were ≥75 years of age. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years, placebo arm) in each age group was 13.6 (95% CI, 10.4-17.9), 15.7 (95% CI, 13.2-18.7), 15.1 (95% CI, 13.1-17.5), and 18.0 (95% CI, 15.2-21.4) with corresponding dapagliflozin/placebo hazard ratios of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.60-1.28), 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61-0.95), and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P for interaction=0.76). Consistent benefits were observed for the components of the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and symptoms. Although adverse events and study drug discontinuation increased with age, neither was significantly more common with dapagliflozin in any age group. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of death and worsening heart failure and improved symptoms across the broad spectrum of age studied in DAPA-HF. There was no significant imbalance in tolerability or safety events between dapagliflozin and placebo, even in elderly individuals. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Effects of Dapagliflozin on Symptoms, Function, and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results From the DAPA-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Goals of management in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction include reducing death and hospitalizations, and improving health status (symptoms, physical function, and quality of life). In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, reduced death and hospitalizations, and improved symptoms in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. In this analysis, we examine the effects of dapagliflozin on a broad range of health status outcomes, using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). METHODS: KCCQ was evaluated at randomization, 4 and 8 months. Patients were divided by baseline KCCQ total symptom score (TSS); Cox proportional hazards models examined the effects of dapagliflozin on clinical events across these subgroups. We also evaluated the effects of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-TSS, clinical summary score, and overall summary score. Responder analyses were performed to compare proportions of dapagliflozin versus placebo-treated patients with clinically meaningful changes in KCCQ at 8 months. RESULTS: A total of 4443 patients had available KCCQ at baseline (median KCCQ-TSS, 77.1 [interquartile range, 58.3-91.7]). The effects of dapagliflozin vs placebo on reducing cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure were consistent across the range of KCCQ-TSS (lowest to highest tertile: hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57-0.86]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.98]; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.46-0.83]; P for heterogeneity=0.52). Patients treated with dapagliflozin had greater improvement in mean KCCQ-TSS, clinical summary score, and overall summary score at 8 months (2.8, 2.5 and 2.3 points higher versus placebo; P<0.0001 for all). Fewer patients treated with dapagliflozin had a deterioration in KCCQ-TSS (odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]; P<0.0001); and more patients had at least small, moderate, and large improvements (odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08-1.23]; odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08-1.22]; odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.07-1.22]; number needed to treat=14, 15, and 18, respectively; P<0.0001 for all; results consistent for KCCQ clinical summary score and overall summary score). CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure across the range of baseline KCCQ, and improved symptoms, physical function, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Furthermore, dapagliflozin increased the proportion of patients experiencing at least small, moderate, and large improvements in health status; these effects were clinically important. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Dapagliflozin and Diuretic Use in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure), the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined the efficacy and tolerability of dapagliflozin in relation to background diuretic treatment and change in diuretic therapy after randomization to dapagliflozin or placebo. METHODS: We examined the effects of study treatment in the following subgroups: no diuretic and diuretic dose equivalent to furosemide <40, 40, and >40 mg daily at baseline. We examined the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or a worsening heart failure event and its components, all-cause death and symptoms. RESULTS: Of 4616 analyzable patients, 736 (15.9%) were on no diuretic, 1311 (28.4%) were on <40 mg, 1365 (29.6%) were on 40 mg, and 1204 (26.1%) were taking >40 mg. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary end point across each of these subgroups: hazard ratios were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.92), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.63-1.10), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.60-0.99), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.97), respectively (P for interaction=0.61). The hazard ratio in patients taking any diuretic was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90). Improvements in symptoms and treatment toleration were consistent across the diuretic subgroups. Diuretic dose did not change in most patients during follow-up, and mean diuretic dose did not differ between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were consistent across the diuretic subgroups examined in DAPA-HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Effect of Dapagliflozin on Outpatient Worsening of Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), dapagliflozin, added to guideline-recommended therapies, reduced the risk of mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. We examined the frequency and significance of episodes of outpatient HF worsening, requiring the augmentation of oral therapy, and the effects of dapagliflozin on these additional events. METHODS: Patients in New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and elevation of NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), were eligible. The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or an urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death, whichever occurred first. An additional prespecified exploratory outcome was the primary outcome plus worsening HF symptoms/signs leading to the initiation of new, or the augmentation of existing, oral treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 36% more patients experienced the expanded, in comparison with the primary, composite outcome. In the placebo group, 684 of 2371 (28.8%) patients and, in the dapagliflozin group, 527 of 2373 (22.2%) participants experienced the expanded outcome (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.65-0.82]; P<0.0001). Each component of the composite was reduced significantly by dapagliflozin. Over the median follow-up of 18.2 months, the number of patients needed to treat with dapagliflozin to prevent 1 experiencing an episode of fatal or nonfatal worsening was 16. Among the 4744 randomly assigned patients, the first episode of worsening was outpatient augmentation of treatment in 407 participants (8.6%), an urgent HF visit with intravenous therapy in 20 (0.4%), HF hospitalization in 489 (10.3%), and cardiovascular death in 295 (6.2%). The adjusted risk of death from any cause (in comparison with no event) after an outpatient worsening was hazard ratio, 2.67 (95% CI, 2.03-3.52); after an urgent HF visit, the adjusted risk of death was hazard ratio, 3.00 (95% CI, 1.39-6.48); and after a HF hospitalization, the adjusted risk of death was hazard ratio, 6.21 (95% CI, 5.07-7.62). CONCLUSION: In DAPA-HF, outpatient episodes of HF worsening were common, were of prognostic importance, and were reduced by dapagliflozin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03036124.

Effects of dapagliflozin in DAPA-HF according to background heart failure therapy.

AIMS: In the DAPA-HF trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) and death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent in relation to background HF therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effect of study treatment in the following yes/no subgroups: diuretic, digoxin, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, implanted cardioverter-defibrillating (ICD) device, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. We also examined the effect of study drug according to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker dose, beta-blocker (BB) dose, and MRA (≥50% and <50% of target dose). We analysed the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or a worsening HF event. Most randomized patients (n = 4744) were treated with a diuretic (84%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (94%), and BB (96%); 52% of those taking a BB and 38% taking a RAS blocker were treated with ≥50% of the recommended dose. Overall, the dapagliflozin vs. placebo hazard ratio (HR) was 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.85] for the primary composite endpoint (P < 0.0001). The effect of dapagliflozin was consistent across all subgroups examined: the HR ranged from 0.57 to 0.86 for primary endpoint, with no significant randomized treatment-by-subgroup interaction. For example, the HR in patients taking a RAS blocker, BB, and MRA at baseline was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.86) compared with 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.94) in those not on all three of these treatments (P-interaction 0.64). CONCLUSION: The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent regardless of background therapy for HF.

Effect of dapagliflozin according to baseline systolic blood pressure in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF).

AIMS: Concern about hypotension often leads to withholding of beneficial therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, which lowers systolic blood pressure (SBP),according to baseline SBP in Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Key inclusion criteria were: New York Heart Association Class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and SBP ≥95 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were examined using SBP as both a categorical and continuous variable. A total of 1205 patients had a baseline SBP <110 mmHg; 981 ≥ 110 < 120; 1149 ≥ 120 < 130; and 1409 ≥ 130 mmHg. The placebo-corrected reduction in SBP from baseline to 2 weeks with dapagliflozin was -2.54 (-3.33 to -1.76) mmHg (P < 0.001), with a smaller between-treatment difference in patients in the lowest compared to highest SBP category. Patients in the lowest SBP category had a much higher rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome [20.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.6-24.2] than those in the highest SBP category (13.8, 11.7-16.4). The benefit and safety of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of SBP; hazard ratio (95% CI) in each SBP group, lowest to highest: 0.76 (0.60-0.97), 0.76 (0.57-1.02), 0.81 (0.61-1.08), and 0.67 (0.51-0.87), P interaction = 0.78. Study drug discontinuation did not differ between dapagliflozin and placebo across the SBP categories examined. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin had a small effect on SBP in patients with HFrEF and was superior to placebo in improving outcomes, and well tolerated, across the range of SBP included in DAPA-HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03036124.

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.

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).

The independent statistician model: How well is it working?

With the initiation in the late 1960s of the data and safety monitoring board or equivalently the data monitoring committee in randomized clinical trials came the need for interim statistical reports for these committees to review for study conduct and early evidence of harm or overwhelming evidence of benefit, perhaps leading to early trial termination. Initially, the statistical team was part of the data coordinating center for the trial. Later, starting in the early 1990s in many industry-sponsored trials, this statistical unit was separated organizationally from the team that collected and managed the data. This unit, often referred to as the statistical data analysis center, prepares reports for the data monitoring committee, which cover study conduct, data quality and completeness, primary and secondary outcomes, and safety measures by study arm in an unblinded fashion. The role of the statistical data analysis center is critical to any well-functioning data monitoring committee. With the proliferation of data monitoring committees has grown the need for many more well-trained and experienced statistical data analysis centers. In my experience, some such units perform their tasks extremely well but many do not. There is a tremendous need and opportunity to provide training for statistical data analysis centers, and what sponsors and data monitoring committees should expect from statistical data analysis centers.

Data Monitoring Committees: Current issues.

Maintaining confidentiality of emerging data and ensuring the independence of Data Monitoring Committees are best practices of considerable importance to the ability of these committees to achieve their mission of safeguarding the interests of study participants and enhancing the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. Even with the wide recognition of these principles, there are circumstances where confidentiality issues remain challenging, controversial or inconsistently addressed. First, consider settings where a clinical trial's interim data could provide the evidence regulatory authorities require for decisions about marketing approval, yet where such a trial would be continued post-approval to provide more definitive evidence about principal safety and/or efficacy outcomes. In such settings, data informative about the longer term objectives of the trial should remain confidential until pre-specified criteria for trial completion have been met. Second, for those other than Data Monitoring Committee members, access to safety and efficacy outcomes during trial conduct, even when presented as data pooled across treatment arms, should be on a limited "need to know" basis relating to the ability to carry out ethical or scientific responsibilities in the conduct of the trial. Third, Data Monitoring Committee members should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable timely and informed judgments about risks and benefits. Fourth, it should be recognized that a mediator potentially could be useful in rare settings where the Data Monitoring Committee would have serious ethical or scientific concerns about the sponsor's dissemination or lack of dissemination of information. Data Monitoring Committee Contract Agreements, Indemnification Agreements and Charters should be developed in a manner to protect Data Monitoring Committee members and their independence, in order to enhance the Data Monitoring Committee's ability to effectively address their mission.

Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy.

This Review is intended to help clinicians, patients, and the public make informed decisions about statin therapy for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. It explains how the evidence that is available from randomised controlled trials yields reliable information about both the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. In addition, it discusses how claims that statins commonly cause adverse effects reflect a failure to recognise the limitations of other sources of evidence about the effects of treatment. Large-scale evidence from randomised trials shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (ie, coronary deaths or myocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for each mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken. The absolute benefits of statin therapy depend on an individual's absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol that is achieved. For example, lowering LDL cholesterol by 2 mmol/L (77 mg/dL) with an effective low-cost statin regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily, costing about £2 per month) for 5 years in 10 000 patients would typically prevent major vascular events from occurring in about 1000 patients (ie, 10% absolute benefit) with pre-existing occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and in 500 patients (ie, 5% absolute benefit) who are at increased risk but have not yet had a vascular event (primary prevention). Statin therapy has been shown to reduce vascular disease risk during each year it continues to be taken, so larger absolute benefits would accrue with more prolonged therapy, and these benefits persist long term. The only serious adverse events that have been shown to be caused by long-term statin therapy-ie, adverse effects of the statin-are myopathy (defined as muscle pain or weakness combined with large increases in blood concentrations of creatine kinase), new-onset diabetes mellitus, and, probably, haemorrhagic stroke. Typically, treatment of 10 000 patients for 5 years with an effective regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily) would cause about 5 cases of myopathy (one of which might progress, if the statin therapy is not stopped, to the more severe condition of rhabdomyolysis), 50-100 new cases of diabetes, and 5-10 haemorrhagic strokes. However, any adverse impact of these side-effects on major vascular events has already been taken into account in the estimates of the absolute benefits. Statin therapy may cause symptomatic adverse events (eg, muscle pain or weakness) in up to about 50-100 patients (ie, 0·5-1·0% absolute harm) per 10 000 treated for 5 years. However, placebo-controlled randomised trials have shown definitively that almost all of the symptomatic adverse events that are attributed to statin therapy in routine practice are not actually caused by it (ie, they represent misattribution). The large-scale evidence available from randomised trials also indicates that it is unlikely that large absolute excesses in other serious adverse events still await discovery. Consequently, any further findings that emerge about the effects of statin therapy would not be expected to alter materially the balance of benefits and harms. It is, therefore, of concern that exaggerated claims about side-effect rates with statin therapy may be responsible for its under-use among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular events. For, whereas the rare cases of myopathy and any muscle-related symptoms that are attributed to statin therapy generally resolve rapidly when treatment is stopped, the heart attacks or strokes that may occur if statin therapy is stopped unnecessarily can be devastating.

Understanding the functions and operations of data monitoring committees: Survey and focus group findings.

BACKGROUND: The use of data monitoring committees in the conduct of clinical trials has increased and evolved, but there is a lack of published information on when data monitoring committees are needed and utilized, the acceptable range of data monitoring committee practices, and appropriate qualifications of data monitoring committee members. METHODS: To gain a better understanding of data monitoring committee operations and areas for improvement, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative conducted a survey and set of focus groups. A total of 143 respondents completed the online survey: 76 data monitoring committee members, 52 sponsors involved with organization of data monitoring committees, and 15 statistical data analysis center representatives. There were 42 focus group participants, including data monitoring committee members; patients and/or patient advocate data monitoring committee members; institutional review board and US Food and Drug Administration representatives; industry, government, and non-profit sponsors; and statistical data analysis center representatives. RESULTS: Participants indicated that the primary responsibility of a data monitoring committee is to be an independent advisory body representing the interests of trial participants by assessing the risk and benefit ratio in ongoing trials. They noted that data monitoring committees must have access to unmasked data in order to perform this role. No clear consensus emerged regarding specific criteria for requiring a data monitoring committee for a given trial, and some participants felt data monitoring committees may be overused. Respondents offered suggestions for the data monitoring committee charter and communications with sponsors, institutional review boards, and regulators. Overall, data monitoring committee members reported that they are able to function independently and their recommendations are almost always accepted by the sponsor. Participants indicated that there are no standards or guidelines pertaining to qualifications of data monitoring committee members. Furthermore, only 8% (6/72) of data monitoring committee member survey respondents received any formal training, and 94% (68/72) were not aware of any training programs. CONCLUSION: Findings from the survey and focus groups provide a better understanding of contemporary data monitoring committee operations and insights regarding challenges and best practices. Overall, it was clear that increased training will be needed to prepare the next generation of qualified data monitoring committee members to meet the growing demand. These findings can be used by Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and others to develop recommendations and tools to improve data monitoring committee operations and the overall quality of trial oversight.

Recommendations for data monitoring committees from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.

Background/aims Use of data monitoring committees to oversee clinical trials was first proposed nearly 50 years ago. Since then, data monitoring committee use in clinical trials has increased and evolved. Nonetheless, there are no well-defined criteria for determining the need for a data monitoring committee, and considerable variability exists in data monitoring committee composition and conduct. To understand and describe the role and function of data monitoring committees, and establish best practices for data monitoring committee trial oversight, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative-a public-private partnership to improve clinical trials-launched a multi-stakeholder project. Methods The data monitoring committee project team included 16 individuals charged with (1) clarifying the purpose of data monitoring committees, (2) identifying best practices for independent data monitoring committee conduct, (3) describing effective communication practices, and (4) developing strategies for training data monitoring committee members. Evidence gathering included a survey, a series of focus group discussions, and a 2-day expert meeting aimed at achieving consensus opinions that form the foundation of our data monitoring committee recommendations. Results We define the role of the data monitoring committee as an advisor to the research sponsor on whether to continue, modify, or terminate a trial based on periodic assessment of trial data. Data monitoring committees should remain independent from the sponsor and be composed of members with no relevant conflicts of interest. Representation on a data monitoring committee generally should include at least one clinician with expertise in the therapeutic area being studied, a biostatistician, and a designated chairperson who has experience with clinical trials and data monitoring. Data monitoring committee meetings are held periodically to evaluate the unmasked data from ongoing trials, but the content and conduct of meetings may vary depending on specific goals or topics for deliberation. To guide data monitoring committee conduct and communication plans, a charter consistent with the protocol's research design and statistical analysis plan should be developed and agreed upon by the sponsor and the data monitoring committee prior to patient enrollment. We recommend concise and flexible charters that explain roles, responsibilities, operational issues, and how data monitoring committee recommendations are generated and communicated. The demand for data monitoring committee members appears to exceed the current pool of qualified individuals. To prepare a new generation of trained data monitoring committee members, we encourage a combination of didactic educational programs, practical experience, and skill development through apprenticeships and mentoring by experienced data monitoring committee members. Conclusion Our recommendations address data monitoring committee use, conduct, communication practices, and member preparation and training. Furthermore recommendations form the foundation for ongoing efforts to improve clinical trial oversight and enhance the safety and integrity of clinical research. These recommendations serve as a call to action for implementation of best practices that benefit study participants, study sponsors, and society.

Data monitoring committees: Promoting best practices to address emerging challenges.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Data monitoring committees are responsible for safeguarding the interests of study participants and assuring the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. The independence of data monitoring committees from sponsors and investigators is essential in achieving this mission. Creative approaches are needed to address ongoing and emerging challenges that potentially threaten data monitoring committees' independence and effectiveness. METHODS: An expert panel of representatives from academia, industry and government sponsors, and regulatory agencies discussed these challenges and proposed best practices and operating principles for effective functioning of contemporary data monitoring committees. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Prospective data monitoring committee members need better training. Options could include didactic instruction as well as apprenticeships to provide real-world experience. Data monitoring committee members should be protected against legal liability arising from their service. While avoiding breaches in confidentiality of interim data remains a high priority, data monitoring committees should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable informed judgments about risks and benefits. Because overly rigid procedures can compromise their independence, data monitoring committees should have the flexibility necessary to best fulfill their responsibilities. Data monitoring committee charters should articulate principles that guide the data monitoring committee process rather than list a rigid set of requirements. Data monitoring committees should develop their recommendations by consensus rather than through voting processes. The format for the meetings of the data monitoring committee should maintain the committee's independence and clearly establish the leadership of the data monitoring committee chair. The independent statistical group at the Statistical Data Analysis Center should have sufficient depth of knowledge about the study at hand and experience with trials in general to ensure that the data monitoring committee has access to timely, reliable, and readily interpretable insights about emerging evidence in the clinical trial. Contracts engaging data monitoring committee members for industry-sponsored trials should have language customized to the unique responsibilities of data monitoring committee members rather than use language appropriate to consultants for product development. Regulatory scientists would benefit from experiencing data monitoring committee service that does not conflict with their regulatory responsibilities.

Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability.

When there have been substantial failures by institutional leadership in their oversight responsibility to protect research integrity, the public should demand that these be recognized and addressed by the institution itself, or the funding bodies. This commentary discusses a case of research failures in developing genomic predictors for cancer risk assessment and treatment at a leading university. In its review of this case, the Office of Research Integrity, an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services, focused their report entirely on one individual faculty member and made no comment on the institution's responsibility and its failure to provide adequate oversight and investigation. These actions missed an important opportunity to emphasize the institution's critical responsibilities in oversight of research integrity and the importance of institutional transparency and accountability.