ICH S7B In Vitro Assays Do Not Address Mechanisms of QTC Prolongation for Peptides and Proteins - Data in Support of Not Needing Dedicated QTC Studies.

Current cardiac safety testing focuses on detecting drug-induced QTC prolongation as a surrogate for risk of Torsade de Pointes. The nonclinical strategy, described in International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) S7B, includes in vitro assessment of hERG block or ventricular repolarization delay and in vivo QT prolongation. Several studies have reported predictive values of ICH S7B results for clinical QTC outcomes for small molecules; none has examined peptides and proteins other than monoclonal antibodies. To address this knowledge gap, information for peptides and proteins submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was collected. Results of hERG assays, ventricular repolarization assays, and in vivo QT assessment were compared with clinical QTC study outcomes. The results show that 14% clinical QTC studies for approved and investigational products failed to exclude 10-ms QTC prolongation. Clinical QTC prolongation for these molecules lacked concentration-dependence which is expected for hERG block-mediated mechanism or QTC prolongation could not be excluded due to characterization in the clinical study. The hERG and ventricular repolarization assays do not identify clinical QTC prolongation potential for peptides and proteins. Lack of alignment between hERG and ventricular repolarization assay results and clinical QTC outcomes suggests that the mechanisms of QTC prolongation by some peptides and proteins are unrelated to direct cardiac ion channel block. Similar to large targeted proteins and monoclonal antibodies, peptides and proteins regardless of size have a low likelihood of direct cardiac ion channel interactions. This characteristic supports waiving the requirement for thorough QT assessment for products comprised of naturally occurring amino acids unless proarrhythmia potential is suggested by nonclinical or clinical data.

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.

Innovations in Pediatric Therapeutics Development: Principles for the Use of Bridging Biomarkers in Pediatric Extrapolation.

Even with recent substantive improvements in health care in pediatric populations, considerable need remains for additional safe and effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of diseases in children. The approval of prescription drugs and biological products for use in pediatric settings, as in adults, requires demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness and favorable benefit-to-risk. For diseases primarily affecting children, such evidence predominantly would be obtained in the pediatric setting. However, for conditions affecting both adults and children, pediatric extrapolation uses scientific evidence in adults to enable more efficiently obtaining a reliable evaluation of an intervention's effects in pediatric populations. Bridging biomarkers potentially have an integral role in pediatric extrapolation. In a setting where an intervention reliably has been established to be safe and effective in adults, and where there is substantive evidence that disease processes in pediatric and adult settings are biologically similar, a 'bridging biomarker' should satisfy three additional criteria: effects on the bridging biomarker should capture effects on the principal causal pathway through which the disease process meaningfully influences 'feels, functions, survives' measures; secondly, the experimental intervention should not have important unintended effects on 'feels, functions, survives' measures not captured by the bridging biomarker; and thirdly, in statistical analyses in adults, the intervention's net effect on 'feels, functions, survives' measures should be consistent with what would be predicted by its level of effect on the bridging biomarker. A validated bridging biomarker has considerable potential utility, since an intervention's efficacy could be extrapolated from adult to pediatric populations if evidence in children establishes the intervention not only to be safe but also to have substantive effects on that bridging biomarker. Proper use of bridging biomarkers could increase availability of reliably evaluated therapies approved for use in pediatric settings, enabling children and their caregivers to make informed choices about health care.

Heart Failure Population with Therapeutic Response to Sacubitril/Valsartan, Spironolactone and Candesartan: FDA Perspective.

Sacubitril/valsartan was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%. This approval was based on PARADIGM-HF trial. Subsequently, PARAGON-HF was conducted to support a claim for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), defined as LVEF ≥ 45%. PARAGON-HF failed to meet the pre-defined threshold for statistical significance for the primary composite endpoint. However, analysis of the primary endpoint by LVEF as a continuous variable demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan was efficacious in patients with mildly abnormal LVEF similar to patients with LVEF ≤ 40% evaluated in PARADIGM-HF. This led to a broader indication for sacubitril/valsartan-"to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal. LVEF is a variable measure, so use clinical judgment in deciding whom to treat." This article describes the rationale for a revised indication for sacubitril/valsartan, emphasizes the need to go beyond a dichotomous classification of HF based on a traditional LVEF cut-off and clarifies that the product label for sacubitril/valsartan does not refer to HFpEF.

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.

General Principles for the Validation of Proarrhythmia Risk Prediction Models: An Extension of the CiPA In Silico Strategy.

This white paper presents principles for validating proarrhythmia risk prediction models for regulatory use as discussed at the In Silico Breakout Session of a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium/Health and Environmental Sciences Institute/US Food and Drug Administration-sponsored Think Tank Meeting on May 22, 2018. The meeting was convened to evaluate the progress in the development of a new cardiac safety paradigm, the Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA). The opinions regarding these principles reflect the collective views of those who participated in the discussion of this topic both at and after the breakout session. Although primarily discussed in the context of in silico models, these principles describe the interface between experimental input and model-based interpretation and are intended to be general enough to be applied to other types of nonclinical models for proarrhythmia assessment. This document was developed with the intention of providing a foundation for more consistency and harmonization in developing and validating different models for proarrhythmia risk prediction using the example of the CiPA paradigm.

Efficacy and Effectiveness Too Trials: Clinical Trial Designs to Generate Evidence on Efficacy and on Effectiveness in Wide Practice.

Efficacy trials, designed to gain regulatory marketing approval, evaluate drugs in optimally selected patients under advantageous conditions for relatively short time periods. Effectiveness trials, designed to evaluate use in usual practice, assess treatments among more typical patients in real-world conditions with longer follow-up periods. In "efficacy-to-effectiveness (E2E) trials," if the initial efficacy trial component is positive, the trial seamlessly transitions to an effectiveness trial component to efficiently yield both types of evidence. Yet more time could be saved by simultaneously addressing efficacy and effectiveness in an "efficacy and effectiveness too (EE2) trial." Additionally, hybrids of the E2E and EE2 approaches with differing degrees of overlap of the two components could allow flexibility for specific drug development needs. In planning EE2 trials, each stakeholder's current and future needs, incentives, and perspective must be considered. Although challenging, the ultimate benefits to stakeholders, the health system, and the public should justify this effort.

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.

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 U.S. 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.

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.

Agents with vasodilator properties in acute heart failure: how to design successful trials.

Agents with vasodilator properties (AVDs) are frequently used in the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF). AVDs rapidly reduce preload and afterload, improve left ventricle to aorta and right ventricle to pulmonary artery coupling, and may improve symptoms. Early biomarker changes after AVD administration have suggested potentially beneficial effects on cardiac stretch, vascular tone, and renal function. AVDs that reduce haemodynamic congestion without causing hypoperfusion might be effective in preventing worsening organ dysfunction. Existing AVDs have been associated with different results on outcomes in randomized clinical trials, and observational studies have suggested that AVDs may be associated with a clinical outcome benefit. Lessons have been learned from past AVD trials in AHF regarding preventing hypotension, selecting the optimal endpoint, refining dyspnoea measurements, and achieving early randomization and treatment initiation. These lessons have been applied to the design of ongoing pivotal clinical trials, which aim to ascertain if AVDs improve clinical outcomes. The developing body of evidence suggests that AVDs may be a clinically effective therapy to reduce symptoms, but more importantly to prevent end-organ damage and improve clinical outcomes for specific patients with AHF. The results of ongoing trials will provide more clarity on the role of AVDs in the treatment of AHF.

Site selection for heart failure clinical trials in the USA.

There are more than 1 million primary hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) annually in the USA alone, and post-discharge outcomes remain persistently poor despite available therapies and quality improvement initiatives. Recent international randomized clinical trials in hospitalized HF have repeatedly failed to improve this post-discharge event rate. A potential reason for this persistent lack of clinical trial success that has not previously received significant attention relates to site selection and the generally low level of patient enrollment from the USA. Only ~5 % of US hospitals participate in clinical trials, and in four recent randomized trials of hospitalized HF, only one-third of patients were enrolled in North America. This poor participation among US centers has necessitated disproportionate enrollment from non-US sites. Regional variations in HF patient characteristics and clinical outcomes are well documented, and a lack of US patient representation in clinical trials limits the generalizability of results and presents obstacles for US regulatory agency approval. There are multiple impediments to successful US enrollment including a lack of incentive for investigators and institutions, the relative value unit-based compensation system, poor institutional framework for identification of appropriate patients, and increasing liability to conduct trials. In this manuscript, we specifically identify barriers to successful hospitalized HF clinical trial participation in the USA and suggest possible solutions.

Site selection in global clinical trials in patients hospitalized for heart failure: perceived problems and potential solutions.

There are over 1 million hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) annually in the United States alone, and a similar number has been reported in Europe. Recent clinical trials investigating novel therapies in patients with hospitalized HF (HHF) have been negative, and the post-discharge event rate remains unacceptably high. The lack of success with HHF trials stem from problems with understanding the study drug, matching the drug to the appropriate HF subgroup, and study execution. Related to the concept of study execution is the importance of including appropriate study sites in HHF trials. Often overlooked issues include consideration of the geographic region and the number of patients enrolled at each study center. Marked differences in baseline patient co-morbidities, serum biomarkers, treatment utilization and outcomes have been demonstrated across geographic regions. Furthermore, patients from sites with low recruitment may have worse outcomes compared to sites with higher enrollment patterns. Consequently, sites with poor trial enrollment may influence key patient end points and likely do not justify the costs of site training and maintenance. Accordingly, there is an unmet need to develop strategies to identify the right study sites that have acceptable patient quantity and quality. Potential approaches include, but are not limited to, establishing a pre-trial registry, developing site performance metrics, identifying a local regionally involved leader and bolstering recruitment incentives. This manuscript summarizes the roundtable discussion hosted by the Food and Drug Administration between members of academia, the National Institutes of Health, industry partners, contract research organizations and academic research organizations on the importance of selecting optimal sites for successful trials in HHF.

Clinical outcome endpoints in heart failure trials: a European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association consensus document.

Endpoint selection is a critically important step in clinical trial design. It poses major challenges for investigators, regulators, and study sponsors, and it also has important clinical and practical implications for physicians and patients. Clinical outcomes of interest in heart failure trials include all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, relevant non-fatal morbidity (e.g., all-cause and cause-specific hospitalization), composites capturing both morbidity and mortality, safety, symptoms, functional capacity, and patient-reported outcomes. Each of these endpoints has strengths and weaknesses that create controversies regarding which is most appropriate in terms of clinical importance, sensitivity, reliability, and consistency. Not surprisingly, a lack of consensus exists within the scientific community regarding the optimal endpoint(s) for both acute and chronic heart failure trials. In an effort to address these issues, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) convened a group of expert heart failure clinical investigators, biostatisticians, regulators, and pharmaceutical industry scientists (Nice, France, 12-13 February 2012) to evaluate the challenges of defining heart failure endpoints in clinical trials and to develop a consensus framework. This report summarizes the group's recommendations for achieving common views on heart failure endpoints in clinical trials.

Pediatric cardiovascular safety: challenges in drug and device development and clinical application.

Development of pediatric medications and devices is complicated by differences in pediatric physiology and pathophysiology (both compared with adults and within the pediatric age range), small patient populations, and practical and ethical challenges to designing clinical trials. This article summarizes the discussions that occurred at a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium-sponsored Think Tank convened on December 10, 2010, where members from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies discussed important issues regarding pediatric cardiovascular safety of medications and cardiovascular devices. Pediatric drug and device development may use adult data but often requires additional preclinical and clinical testing to characterize effects on cardiac function and development. Challenges in preclinical trials include identifying appropriate animal models, clinically relevant efficacy end points, and methods to monitor cardiovascular safety. Pediatric clinical trials have different ethical concerns from adult trials, including consideration of the subjects' families. Clinical trial design in pediatrics should assess risks and benefits as well as incorporate input from families. Postmarketing surveillance, mandated by federal law, plays an important role in both drug and device safety assessment and becomes crucial in the pediatric population because of the limitations of premarketing pediatric studies. Solutions for this wide array of issues will require collaboration between academia, industry, and government as well as creativity in pediatric study design. Formation of various epidemiologic tools including registries to describe outcomes of pediatric cardiac disease and its treatment as well as cardiac effects of noncardiovascular medications, should inform preclinical and clinical development and improve benefit-risk assessments for the patients. The discussions in this article summarize areas of emerging consensus and other areas in which consensus remains elusive and provide suggestions for additional research to further our knowledge and understanding of this topic.

Central blood pressure measurements-an opportunity for efficacy and safety in drug development?

Over a century of experience with brachial blood pressure has produced a substantial amount of information on the role of blood pressure as a factor in heart disease, stroke and kidney failure. Successful interventions lowering blood pressure and reducing damage to vital organs testify further to the importance of this vital sign. In recent years attempts to probe deeper into the value of knowledge of blood pressure levels closer to the heart (central blood pressures) suggest that noninvasive measurement of central aortic blood pressure may improve further efforts directed at both understanding drug benefit and uncovering potential drug safety issues. This commentary is a summary of a one-day meeting with the FDA in which the role of central blood pressure measurements as an adjunct to drug efficacy and safety were addressed.

Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events?

PURPOSE: The use of centralized systems to adjudicate clinical events is common in large clinical trials, in spite of relatively little published literature concerning the rationale and justification. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the reasons for central adjudication and to discuss whether trials could be simplified by limiting or streamlining the adjudication process. METHODS: We reviewed the literature concerning central adjudication and documented the experience of adjudication in several clinical trials. Since definitions for nonfatal events are generally heterogeneous and subjective, one reason for a central process of adjudication is to assist in assuring systematic application of the definition used in the trial. In open-label trials, assuring that the adjudication is done blinded to treatment assignment may provide protection against differential misclassification. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, derive confidence in the validity of results when central adjudication is performed. The clinical community has become accustomed to a certain amount of adjudication and may criticize trials that lack adjudication. LIMITATIONS: It is difficult to document the value of adjudication in trials that have reported adjudicated and nonadjudicated event rates and related treatment effects. Making rationale decisions about when and how to adjudicate is hampered by the lack of published study of when and how central adjudication is helpful to improve the quality and validity of trials and at what cost. CONCLUSIONS: Adjudication has not been shown to improve the ability to determine treatment effects. Thus, adjudication may be overly complex and overused in many large simple trials. The appropriate role of central adjudication - which trials, which outcomes, what methods - deserves scrutiny and further study.