Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

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

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

Switching to fingolimod in PREFERMS: Effect of treatment history and naïvety on clinical, MRI and treatment satisfaction outcomes✰.

BACKGROUND: Injectable disease-modifying therapies (iDMTs) are often used as first-line treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Fingolimod is frequently used following treatment with iDMTs. Whether prior iDMT treatment impacts the effectiveness of subsequent fingolimod therapy is unclear. Here, we assessed switching from iDMTs to fingolimod, and the impact of treatment history on fingolimod escalation using data from the 12-month 'Prospective, Randomized, active-controlled, open-label study to Evaluate patient retention on Fingolimod versus approved first-line disease-modifying thErapies in adults with Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis' (PREFERMS). The study design and results at the end of randomized treatment (EoRT) in PREFERMS have been published. METHODS: Both treatment-naïve patients and those who had previously received an iDMT were eligible for enrolment in PREFERMS, and one treatment switch was permitted on study. Pre-specified exploratory analyses compared outcomes in those randomized to fingolimod or to an iDMT at end of study (EoS), which included time spent on randomized and on switch treatment. Post hoc exploratory analyses (unadjusted for multiplicity owing to the large number of comparisons) among patients randomized to an iDMT who switched to fingolimod, compared outcomes longitudinally before (EoRT) and after (EoS) switching, and compared outcomes at EoRT and EoS among subgroups stratified by iDMT-treatment history. Outcomes included brain volume, various measures of gadolinium-enhancing [Gd+] lesion counts, annualized relapse rate (ARR), Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) score, patient-reported treatment satisfaction using the Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and adverse event (AE) rates. RESULTS: At EoS, 255 of 439 patients randomized to an iDMT had switched to fingolimod and 27 of 436 patients randomized to fingolimod had switched to an iDMT. By EoS, 44.2% of total treatment exposure in the iDMT group was to fingolimod and the mean time spent on fingolimod in this group was 220 days (approximately 7 months). Outcomes in the fingolimod group at EoS (brain volume, changes in Gd+ lesion counts, ARR, oral SDMT score and MSQ score) were similar to those seen at EoRT, but in the iDMT group these outcomes were more favorable at EoS than at EoRT and were similar to rates seen in the fingolimod group. Among patients who switched from iDMT to fingolimod, there were longitudinal improvements in ARR (EoRT, 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.2-0.4]; EoS, 0.2 [0.1-0.3]; odds ratio, 0.5 [0.3-0.9]) and in treatment satisfaction (proportion of patients with MSQ > 5; EoRT, 67.4%; EoS, 90.4%; odds ratio, 5.7 [95% CI, 3.4-9.4]) after fingolimod treatment, and changes in brain volume, Gd+ lesion count, and AEs or AEs causing discontinuation were also more favorable at EoS than at EoRT. In all patient groups stratified by iDMT-treatment history, differences in outcomes narrowed or disappeared after fingolimod treatment. CONCLUSION: These analyses indicate that patients in PREFERMS had improved outcomes within months of switching to fingolimod from an iDMT and that improvements occurred irrespective of the number of iDMTs previously administered. These data provide a unique opportunity to explore clinical, radiological and safety outcomes associated with a range of clinically relevant treatment pathways.

Treatment retention on fingolimod compared with injectable multiple sclerosis therapies in African-American patients: A subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal persistence with injectable disease-modifying therapies (iDMTs; interferon beta-1a/b, glatiramer acetate) is common in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), reducing the effectiveness of these agents. Adherence to, and persistence with, an effective therapy is important for patient populations at increased risk of rapid disease progression. African-American individuals with multiple sclerosis may experience a more aggressive disease course than Caucasian patients, with a greater risk of developing ambulatory difficulties and other disabilities, and may also have a diminished response to some disease-modifying therapies compared with patients of other ethnicities. Retention on oral fingolimod and on iDMTs was evaluated in a post hoc analysis of data from African-American patients in the parallel-group, 48-week 'Prospective, Randomized, active-controlled, open-label study to Evaluate patient retention on Fingolimod versus approved first-line disease modifying thErapies in adults with Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis' (PREFERMS). METHODS: In PREFERMS, patients with relapsing-remitting MS aged 18-65 years with an Expanded Disability Status Scale score ≤6 enrolled at 117 US study sites were treatment-naïve or had received only one iDMT class. Patients were randomized 1:1 (fingolimod 0.5 mg/day:preselected iDMT) using an interactive voice-and-web-response system without blinding, followed up quarterly, and allowed one study-approved treatment switch after 12 weeks, or earlier, for efficacy or safety reasons only. The primary outcome was patient retention on randomized treatment over 48 weeks. In this post hoc analysis of African-American patients in PREFERMS, outcome variables included rate of patient retention on randomized treatment, reasons for discontinuing randomized treatment, patient-reported treatment satisfaction, and safety. Clinical and radiographic outcomes such as annualized relapse rate, brain volume loss, and lesion count changes were also investigated. RESULTS: In PREFERMS, 141 of 875 patients (16.1%) randomized to a study drug were African-American. Analysis of data for the full analysis set of 67 patients receiving fingolimod and 69 receiving iDMTs showed that the retention rate over 48 weeks was significantly higher with fingolimod than with iDMTs (80.6% [n = 54] vs 30.4% [n = 21]; between-group difference: 50.2%; 95% confidence interval 35.8-64.6%; p < 0.0001). The most common treatment switch was from an iDMT to fingolimod for injection-related reasons, and patient satisfaction was greater with fingolimod than with iDMTs. Adverse events were consistent with the respective prescribing information for each treatment. CONCLUSION: In PREFERMS, fingolimod was associated with better treatment retention than iDMTs in African-American patients. Optimal outcomes in the management of multiple sclerosis depend on good persistence with treatment, and this is particularly important in patient populations at increased risk of a rapidly progressing disease course.

Phase IV study of retention on fingolimod versus injectable multiple sclerosis therapies: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), suboptimal adherence to injectable disease-modifying therapies (iDMTs; interferon ß-1a/b, glatiramer acetate) is common, reducing their effectiveness. Patient retention on oral fingolimod and iDMTs was evaluated in PREFERMS, a randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled, open-label, 48-week study. METHODS: Patients were included if they had RRMS, were aged 18-65 years and had Expanded Disability Status Scale score up to 6, enrolled at 117 US study sites, were treatment naïve or had received only one iDMT class. Patients were randomized 1:1 (fingolimod 0.5 mg/day; preselected iDMT) by interactive voice-and-web-response system without blinding, followed up quarterly, and allowed one study-approved treatment switch after 12 weeks, or earlier for efficacy or safety reasons. The primary outcome was patient retention on randomized treatment over 48 weeks. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes, brain volume loss (BVL), and cognitive function. RESULTS: Analysis of 433/436 patients receiving fingolimod and 428/439 receiving iDMTs showed that patient retention rate was significantly higher with fingolimod than with iDMTs [352 (81.3%) versus 125 (29.2%); 95% confidence interval 46.4-57.8%; p < 0.0001]. The most common treatment switch was from iDMT to fingolimod for injection-related reasons. Patient satisfaction was greater and BVL less with fingolimod than with iDMTs, with no difference in cognitive function. Adverse events were consistent with established tolerability profiles for each treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In RRMS, fingolimod was associated with better treatment retention, patient satisfaction and BVL outcomes than iDMTs. Patients may persist with iDMTs, but many may switch treatment if permitted. Treatment satisfaction fosters adherence, a prerequisite for optimal outcomes.

First-dose effects of fingolimod after switching from injectable therapies in the randomized, open-label, multicenter, Evaluate Patient OutComes (EPOC) study in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: In pivotal phase 3 studies, fingolimod treatment initiation was associated with a transient reduction in heart rate (HR). Atrioventricular (AV) conduction delays, which were typically asymptomatic, were detected in a small minority of patients. OBJECTIVE: We report the first-dose effects of fingolimod in patients who switched from injectable therapies during the Evaluate Patient OutComes (EPOC) study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01216072). METHODS: This was a phase 4, 6-month, randomized, active-comparator, open-label, multicenter study. It included over 900 fingolimod-treated patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis, with subgroups of individuals who were receiving common concomitant HR-lowering medications or had pre-existing cardiac conditions (PCCs). Vital signs were recorded hourly for 6h post-dose. A 12-lead electrocardiogram was obtained at baseline and at 6h post-dose. RESULTS: A transient decrease in mean HR and blood pressure occurred within 6h of the first fingolimod dose. The incidence of symptomatic bradycardia was low (1%); eight patients reported dizziness and there was one case each of fatigue, palpitations, dyspnea, cardiac discomfort, and gait disturbance. These symptomatic events were typically mild or moderate in severity and all resolved spontaneously, without intervention or fingolimod discontinuation. CONCLUSION: First-dose effects in patients with PCCs and in those receiving concomitant HR-lowering medications were consistent with effects observed in the overall study population and with results from previous clinical trials. The EPOC study provides additional data demonstrating the transient and generally benign nature of fingolimod first-dose effects on HR and AV conduction in a large population that is more representative of patients encountered in routine clinical practice than in the pivotal trials.

Randomized, open-label study to evaluate patient-reported outcomes with fingolimod after changing from prior disease-modifying therapy for relapsing multiple sclerosis: EPOC study rationale and design.

OBJECTIVE: The study to Evaluate Patient OutComes, Safety, and Tolerability of Fingolimod (EPOC; NCT01216072) aimed to test the hypothesis that therapy change to oral Gilenya (Novartis AG, Stein, Switzerland) (fingolimod) improves patient-reported outcomes compared with standard-of-care disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis; safety and tolerability were also assessed. This communication describes the study rationale and design. METHODS: EPOC is a phase 4, open-label, multi-center study conducted in the US and Canada of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis who are candidates for therapy change. Therapy change eligibility was determined by the treating physician (US patients) or required an inadequate response to or poor tolerance for at least 1 MS therapy (Canadian patients). Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to 6 months of treatment with once-daily oral fingolimod 0.5 mg or standard-of-care DMTs. The primary study end-point was the change from baseline in treatment satisfaction as determined by the global satisfaction sub-scale of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication. Secondary end-points included changes from baseline in perceived effectiveness and side-effects, and measures of activities of daily living, fatigue, depression, and quality-of-life. A 3-month open-label fingolimod extension was available for patients randomly assigned to the DMT group who successfully completed all study visits. RESULTS: Enrollment has been completed with 1053 patients; the patient population is generally older and has a longer duration of disease compared with populations from phase 3 studies of fingolimod. LIMITATIONS: Inclusion criteria selected for patients with a sub-optimal experience with a previous DMT, limiting the collection of data on therapy change in patients who were satisfied with their previous DMT. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the EPOC study are anticipated in early 2013 and will inform treatment selection by providing patient-centered data on therapy switch to fingolimod or standard-of-care DMTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01216072.

Efficacy of combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride for lowering systolic blood pressure in stage 2 hypertension.

The Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study compared daily treatment with combination amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride 5/20 mg, amlodipine besylate 5 mg, and benazepril hydrochloride 20 mg in 505 patients aged 55 years of age or older with stage 2 hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] > or =160 and < or =200 mm Hg and diastolic BP > or =60 and < or =100 mm Hg). BP and pulse pressure were assessed by conventional office BP measurements and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. In this analysis, combination therapy was associated with significantly greater reductions in mean 24-hour BP, pulse pressure, and mean ambulatory BP during various time intervals compared with either monotherapy in the intent-to-treat population, in those with isolated and predominantly systolic hypertension, and in dippers and nondippers. Adverse event rates were low and similar in all treatment groups. This study demonstrated that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and is well tolerated.

Efficacy of combination therapy for systolic blood pressure in patients with severe systolic hypertension: the Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study.

Systolic hypertension is predominant among patients over 50 years of age, is a more important cardiovascular risk factor than diastolic blood pressure, and is more difficult to control than diastolic blood pressure. Consequently, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommends combination therapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage 2 hypertension. In the Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to identify patients with systolic hypertension and to determine the impact of 8 weeks of treatment with either amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl 5/20 mg combination therapy (n=149), amlodipine besylate 5 mg (n=146), or benazepril HCl 20 mg (n=148). Combination therapy was significantly more effective in reducing systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure than either monotherapy (p<0.0001). Significantly greater percentages of patients in the combination group compared with either monotherapy achieved blood pressure control (p<0.0001). Adverse events were low in all three treatment arms, with less peripheral edema in the combination group than in the amlodipine-treated group. The combination of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl given to patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension resulted in significantly greater reductions in blood pressure and pulse pressure than those seen with monotherapy and was at least as well tolerated as the separate components. This data supports the recommendation of the JNC 7 for the use of combination therapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Initial angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/calcium channel blocker combination therapy achieves superior blood pressure control compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends initial combination therapy for patients whose blood pressure (BP) is >20/10 mm Hg above goal. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy versus that of monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension, who by definition meet the JNC 7 recommendation for initial combination antihypertensive therapy. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 364 patients with stage 2 hypertension to fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d titrated to 10/20 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d titrated to 10 mg/d). RESULTS: Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy (74.2%) compared with those randomized to monotherapy (53.9%; P <.0001) achieved the primary end point (reductions in systolic BP > or =25 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was <180 mm Hg, or > or =32 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was > or =180 mm Hg). Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy compared with monotherapy attained BP goals of <140/90 mm Hg (61.0% v 43.3%; P =.0007) and < or =130/85 mm Hg (35.7% v 19.1%; P =.0004). Among patients with baseline systolic BP > or =180 mm Hg, combination therapy resulted in significantly greater reductions in systolic BP compared with monotherapy (-42.3 v -30.4 mm Hg; P =.001). More than 90% of patients in each group were titrated to the higher dose. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater BP reductions and attainment of BP goals compared with monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension. This evidence supports the recommendation of combination therapy as first-line treatment in stage 2 hypertension.