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.

Collaborative science in action: A 20 year perspective from the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Cardiac Safety Committee.

The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to resolving global health challenges through collaborative scientific efforts across academia, regulatory authorities and the private sector. Collaborative science across non-clinical disciplines offers an important keystone to accelerate the development of safer and more effective medicines. HESI works to address complex challenges by leveraging diverse subject-matter expertise across sectors offering access to resources, data and shared knowledge. In 2008, the HESI Cardiac Safety Committee (CSC) was established to improve public health by reducing unanticipated cardiovascular (CV)-related adverse effects from pharmaceuticals or chemicals. The committee continues to significantly impact the field of CV safety by bringing together experts from across sectors to address challenges of detecting and predicting adverse cardiac outcomes. Committee members have collaborated on the organization, management and publication of prospective studies, retrospective analyses, workshops, and symposia resulting in 38 peer reviewed manuscripts. Without this collaboration these manuscripts would not have been published. Through their work, the CSC is actively addressing challenges and opportunities in detecting potential cardiac failure modes using in vivo, in vitro and in silico models, with the aim of facilitating drug development and improving study design. By examining past successes and future prospects of the CSC, this manuscript sheds light on how the consortium's multifaceted approach not only addresses current challenges in detecting potential cardiac failure modes but also paves the way for enhanced drug development and study design methodologies. Further, exploring future opportunities and challenges will focus on improving the translational predictability of nonclinical evaluations and reducing reliance on animal research in CV safety assessments.

Challenging the status quo: a framework for mechanistic and human-relevant cardiovascular safety screening.

Traditional approaches to preclinical drug safety assessment have generally protected human patients from unintended adverse effects. However, these assessments typically occur too late to make changes in the formulation or in phase 1 and beyond, are highly dependent on animal studies and have the potential to lead to the termination of useful drugs due to liabilities in animals that are not applicable in patients. Collectively, these elements come at great detriment to both patients and the drug development sector. This phenomenon is particularly problematic in the area of cardiovascular safety assessment where preclinical attrition is high. We believe that a more efficient and translational approach can be defined. A multi-tiered assessment that leverages our understanding of human cardiovascular biology, applies human cell-based in vitro characterizations of cardiovascular responses to insult, and incorporates computational models of pharmacokinetic relationships would enable earlier and more translational identification of human-relevant liabilities. While this will take time to develop, the ultimate goal would be to implement such assays both in the lead selection phase as well as through regulatory phases.

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.

Ventricular Arrhythmias Associated With Over-the-Counter and Recreational Opioids.

BACKGROUND: Epidemic increases in opioid deaths prompted policies limiting access to prescription opioids in North America. Consequently, the over-the-counter opioids loperamide (Imodium A-D) and mitragynine, the herbal ingredient in kratom, are increasingly used to avert withdrawal or induce euphoria. Arrhythmia events related to these nonscheduled drugs have not been systematically studied. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to explore opioid-associated arrhythmia reporting in North America. METHODS: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS), and Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction (CVAR) databases were searched (2015-2021). Reports involving nonprescription drugs (loperamide, mitragynine) and diphenoxylate/atropine (Lomotil) were identified. Methadone, a prescription opioid (full agonist), served as a positive control owing to its established arrhythmia risk. Buprenorphine (partial agonist) and naltrexone (pure antagonist), served as negative controls. Reports were classified according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terminology. Significant disproportionate reporting required a proportional reporting ratio (PRR) of ≥2, ≥3 cases, and chi-square ≥4. Primary analysis used FAERS data, whereas CAERS and CVAR data were confirmatory. RESULTS: Methadone was disproportionately associated with ventricular arrhythmia reports (PRR: 6.6; 95% CI: 6.2-7.0; n = 1,163; chi-square = 5,456), including 852 (73%) fatalities. Loperamide was also significantly associated with arrhythmia (PRR: 3.2; 95% CI: 3.0-3.4; n = 1,008; chi-square = 1,537), including 371 (37%) deaths. Mitragynine demonstrated the highest signal (PRR: 8.9; 95% CI: 6.7-11.7; n = 46; chi-square = 315), with 42 (91%) deaths. Buprenorphine, diphenoxylate, and naltrexone were not associated with arrhythmia. Signals were similar in CVAR and CAERS. CONCLUSIONS: The nonprescription drugs loperamide and mitragynine are associated with disproportionate reports of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia in North America.

Patient-reported outcome measures and patient engagement in heart failure clinical trials: multi-stakeholder perspectives.

There are many consequences of heart failure (HF), including symptoms, impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physical and social limitations (functional status). These have a substantial impact on patients' lives, yet are not routinely captured in clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can quantify patients' experiences of their disease and its treatment. Steps can be taken to improve the use of PROs in HF trials, in regulatory and payer decisions, and in patient care. Importantly, PRO measures (PROMs) must be developed with involvement of patients, family members, and caregivers from diverse demographic groups and communities. PRO data collection should become more routine not only in clinical trials but also in clinical practice. This may be facilitated by the use of digital tools and interdisciplinary patient advocacy efforts. There is a need for standardization, not only of the PROM instruments, but also in procedures for analysis, interpretation and reporting PRO data. More work needs to be done to determine the degree of change that is important to patients and that is associated with increased risks of clinical events. This 'minimal clinically important difference' requires further research to determine thresholds for different PROMs, to assess consistency across trial populations, and to define standards for improvement that warrant regulatory and reimbursement approvals. PROs are a vital part of patient care and drug development, and more work should be done to ensure that these measures are both reflective of the patient experience and that they are more widely employed.

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.

Functional and Symptomatic Clinical Trial Endpoints: The HFC-ARC Scientific Expert Panel.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations.

Pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease: Clinical trial design and endpoints: A consensus statement from the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute's Innovative Drug Development Initiative-Group 3 Pulmonary Hypertension.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD) is an attractive target for clinical trials of PH medications. There are many factors that need to be considered to prime such studies for success. The patient phenotype most likely to respond to the intervention requires weighing the extent of the parenchymal lung disease against the severity of the hemodynamic impairment. The inclusion criteria should not be too restrictive, thus enabling recruitment. The trial should be of sufficient duration to meet the chosen endpoint which should reflect how the patient feels, functions, or survives. This paper summarizes prior studies in PH-ILD and provides a framework of the type of studies to be considered. Inclusion criteria, clinical trial endpoints, and pharmacovigilance in the context of PH-ILD trials are also addressed. Through lessons learnt from prior studies, suggestions and guidance for future clinical trials in PH-ILD are also provided.

Clinical significance of pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease: A consensus statement from the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute's innovative drug development initiative-Group 3 pulmonary hypertension.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) has been linked to worse outcomes in chronic lung diseases. The presence of PH in the setting of underlying Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) is strongly associated with decreased exercise and functional capacity, an increased risk of hospitalizations and death. Examining the scope of this issue and its impact on patients is the first step in trying to define a roadmap to facilitate and encourage future research in this area. The aim of our working group is to strengthen the communities understanding of PH due to lung diseases and to improve the care and quality of life of affected patients. This introductory statement provides a broad overview and lays the foundation for further in-depth papers on specific topics pertaining to PH-ILD.

Optimizing the Design and Analysis of Future AKI Trials.

AKI is a complex clinical syndrome associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, particularly in critically ill and perioperative patient populations. Most AKI clinical trials have been inconclusive, failing to detect clinically important treatment effects at predetermined statistical thresholds. Heterogeneity in the pathobiology, etiology, presentation, and clinical course of AKI remains a key challenge in successfully testing new approaches for AKI prevention and treatment. This article, derived from the "AKI" session of the "Kidney Disease Clinical Trialists" virtual workshop held in October 2021, reviews barriers to and strategies for improving the design and implementation of clinical trials in patients with, or at risk of, developing AKI. The novel approaches to trial design included in this review span adaptive trial designs that increase the knowledge gained from each trial participant; pragmatic trial designs that allow for the efficient enrollment of sufficiently large numbers of patients to detect small, but clinically significant, treatment effects; and platform trial designs that use one trial infrastructure to answer multiple clinical questions simultaneously. This review also covers novel approaches to clinical trial analysis, such as Bayesian analysis and assessing heterogeneity in the response to therapies among trial participants. We also propose a road map and actionable recommendations to facilitate the adoption of the reviewed approaches. We hope that the resulting road map will help guide future clinical trial planning, maximize learning from AKI trials, and reduce the risk of missing important signals of benefit (or harm) from trial interventions.

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.

What can heart failure trialists learn from oncology trialists?

Globally, there has been little change in mortality rates from cardiovascular (CV) diseases or cancers over the past two decades (1997-2018). This is especially true for heart failure (HF) where 5-year mortality rates remain as high as 45-55%. In the same timeframe, the proportion of drug revenue, and regulatory drug approvals for cancer drugs, far out paces those for CV drugs. In 2018, while cancer drugs made 27% of Food and Drug Administration drug approvals, only 1% of drug approvals was for a CV drug, and over this entire 20 year span, only four drugs were approved for HF in the USA. Cardiovascular trialists need to reassess the design, execution, and purpose of CV clinical trials. In the area of oncology research, trials are much smaller, follow-up is shorter, and targeted therapies are common. Cardiovascular diseases and cancer are the two most common causes of death globally, and although they differ substantially, this review evaluates whether some elements of oncology research may be applicable in the CV arena. As one of the most underserved CV diseases, the review focuses on aspects of cancer research that may be applicable to HF research with the aim of streamlining the clinical trial process and decreasing the time and cost required to bring safe, effective, treatments to patients who need them. The paper is based on discussions among clinical trialists, industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and patients, which took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Workshop in Washington, DC, on 8 December 2019 (https://www.globalcvctforum.com/2019 (14 September 2020)).

Days alive out of hospital in heart failure: Insights from the PARADIGM-HF and CHARM trials.

BACKGROUND: An endpoint that has received some attention in recent cardiovascular trials is 'days alive and out of hospital' (DAOH). Percent DAOH is a natural extension of DAOH that adjusts for differences in length of follow-up. This endpoint measure incorporates mortality and morbidity together in a way that has the potential to give more insight regarding treatment effects compared to conventional time-to-event endpoints. Other advantages of this measure include the relative ease of collection and interpretation. However, research on how to analyze this measure is still limited. METHODS: We propose using the one-inflated beta model to analyze percent DAOH. This model is appropriate for highly left-skewed data with a large proportion of boundary values. Data from the Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF) and Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) trials are used to illustrate this method. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in percent DAOH were observed for PARADIGM-HF and CHARM in favor of treatment. In PARADIGM-HF, treatment with sacubitril plus valsartan increased DAOH on average by 11 days (95% CI: 1.4-20.9 days) and increased percent DAOH by 1.64% at a fixed follow-up length of 1,000 days (95% CI: 0.61%- 2.67%). For the CHARM overall program, the candesartan group has 1.79% more DAOH (95% CI: 0.91%- 2.68%). CONCLUSION: DAOH, and especially percent DAOH, can enhance our understanding of treatment effects in future cardiovascular trials, and the one-inflated beta model is an appropriate choice for its analysis.

Challenges of Cardio-Kidney Composite Outcomes in Large-Scale Clinical Trials.

Patients with chronic cardiovascular or metabolic diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and heart failure, often have comorbid kidney disease. Long-term outcomes are worse in the setting of both cardiac and kidney disease compared with either disease in isolation. In addition, the clinical presentations of certain acute cardiovascular events (such as heart failure) and worsening kidney function overlap and may be challenging to distinguish. Recently, certain novel treatments have demonstrated beneficial effects on both cardiac and kidney outcomes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have exhibited concordant risk reduction and clinically important benefits in chronic kidney disease with and without diabetes, diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple atherosclerotic vascular disease risk factors, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with and without diabetes. Primary trial results have revealed that sacubitril-valsartan therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and post hoc analyses suggest favorable kidney effects. A concordant pattern of kidney benefit with sacubitril-valsartan has also been observed in chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the complex interplay between cardiac and kidney disease and the possibility that treatments may show concordant cardio-kidney benefits, there has been recent interest in formally acknowledging, defining, and using composite cardio-kidney outcomes in future cardiovascular trials. This review describes potential challenges in use of such outcomes that should be considered and addressed before their incorporation into such trials.

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.