Centralized adjudication of cardiovascular end points in cardiovascular and noncardiovascular pharmacologic trials: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

This white paper provides a summary of presentations and discussions at a cardiovascular (CV) end point adjudication think tank cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Committee and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that was convened at the FDA's White Oak headquarters on November 6, 2013. Attention was focused on the lack of clarity concerning the need for end point adjudication in both CV and non-CV trials: there is currently an absence of widely accepted academic or industry standards and a definitive regulatory policy on how best to structure and use clinical end point committees (CECs). This meeting therefore provided a forum for leaders in the fields of CV clinical trials and CV safety to develop a foundation of initial best practice recommendations for use in future CEC charters. Attendees included representatives from pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, end point adjudication specialist groups, clinical research organizations, and active, academically based adjudicators. The manuscript presents recommendations from the think tank regarding when CV end point adjudication should be considered in trials conducted by cardiologists and by noncardiologists as well as detailing key issues in the composition of a CEC and its charter. In addition, it presents several recommended best practices for the establishment and operation of CECs. The science underlying CV event adjudication is evolving, and suggestions for additional areas of research will be needed to continue to advance this science. This manuscript does not constitute regulatory guidance.

Phase 3 study comparing tigecycline and ertapenem in patients with diabetic foot infections with and without osteomyelitis.

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted in subjects with diabetic foot infections without osteomyelitis (primary study) or with osteomyelitis (substudy) to determine the efficacy and safety of parenteral (intravenous [iv]) tigecycline (150 mg once-daily) versus 1 g once-daily iv ertapenem ± vancomycin. Among 944 subjects in the primary study who received ≥1 dose of study drug, >85% had type 2 diabetes; ~90% had Perfusion, Extent, Depth/tissue loss, Infection, and Sensation infection grade 2 or 3; and ~20% reported prior antibiotic failure. For the clinically evaluable population at test-of-cure, 77.5% of tigecycline- and 82.5% of ertapenem ± vancomycin-treated subjects were cured. Corresponding rates for the clinical modified intent-to-treat population were 71.4% and 77.9%, respectively. Clinical cure rates in the substudy were low (<36%) for a subset of tigecycline-treated subjects with osteomyelitis. Nausea and vomiting occurred significantly more often after tigecycline treatment (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively), resulting in significantly higher discontinuation rates in the primary study (nausea P = 0.007, vomiting P < 0.001). In the primary study, tigecycline did not meet criteria for noninferiority compared with ertapenem ± vancomycin in the treatment of subjects with diabetic foot infections.