Training the Next Generation of Data Monitoring Committee Members: An Initiative of the Heart Failure Collaboratory.

Clinical trials are vital for assessing therapeutic interventions. The associated data monitoring committees (DMCs) safeguard patient interests and enhance trial integrity, thus promoting timely, reliable evaluations of those interventions. We face an urgent need to recruit and train new DMC members. The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC), a multidisciplinary public-private consortium of academics, trialists, patients, industry representatives, and government agencies, is working to improve the clinical trial ecosystem. The HFC aims to improve clinical trial efficiency and quality by standardizing concepts, and to help meet the demand for experienced individuals on DMCs by creating a standardized approach to training new members. This paper discusses the HFC's training workshop, and an apprenticeship model for new DMC members. It describes opportunities and challenges DMCs face, along with common myths and best practices learned through previous experiences, with an emphasis on data confidentiality and need for quality independent statistical reporting groups.

Guidance for Healthcare Providers on Newest Guidelines for Over-the-Counter Drug Treatment of Mild Symptoms of COVID-19.

On January 18, 2024, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued their most recent guidelines for over-the-counter drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Specifically, the organization stated that "Most people with COVID-19 have mild illness and can recover at home. You can treat symptoms with over-the-counter medicines, such as acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil), to help you feel better." In this review we consider the contributions of different types of evidence and conclude that healthcare providers should make individual clinical judgments for each of their patients in the selection of over-the-counter drugs to treat symptoms of COVID-19. This judgment should be based on the entire benefit to risk profile of the patient. It is our belief that the individual healthcare provider knows far more about each of his or her patients than anyone, including expert members of guideline committees. Their astute and judicious individual clinical decision-making for each individual patient based on all these considerations has the potential to do far more good than harm.

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.

The challenges of data safety monitoring for a pragmatic study: Lessons from the ADAPTABLE study.

Data monitoring committees (DMCs) play a critical role in protecting the safety of participants and integrity of clinical studies. While there are well-established DMC guidelines for traditional, randomized controlled trials, the clinical trial community is still in the search for best practices in data and safety monitoring in pragmatic clinical trials. ADAPTABLE was a large, open label, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial, harnessing real world data from multiple sources and studying the comparative effectiveness of the two most common dosages of aspirin in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Specific issues arose in ADAPTABLE such as data quality, information latency, and protocol adherence, and these issues were both expected and unexpected features of the pragmatic study design. These issues imposed great challenges to the DMC members who were tasked to make critical decisions during the study. This article summarizes the unique experience of the ADAPTABLE DMC, including the internal debates and concerns, the concerted efforts to accomplish its mission, and the special contribution of the patient representatives. We also offer recommendations on data and safety monitoring for future pragmatic trials.

Ivermectin in COVID-19: The Case for a Moratorium on Prescriptions.

In treatment or prevention of COVID-19, ivermectin is not approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nonetheless, in the US, prescriptions of ivermectin by healthcare providers have increased > tenfold from 3589 per week pre-COVID-19 to 39,102. Ivermectin is FDA approved for animals to treat parasites and for humans to treat intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis orally, and ectoparasites and skin conditions topically. It is not a benign drug, with reported side effects including cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms. The evidence to support ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 includes some basic research and inconsistent clinical observations that contribute to the formulation of a hypothesis of efficacy in COVID-19. At present, data from peer-reviewed published randomized trials of sufficient size, dose, and duration to reliably test the hypothesis of the most plausible small to moderate benefits on clinically relevant endpoints are sparse. In addition to the US FDA, the US National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and European Medicines Agency have all advised against ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of randomized trials. For ivermectin in treatment or prevention of COVID-19, healthcare providers should reassure all patients that if sufficient evidence were to emerge, then this drug could be considered a therapeutic innovation and regulatory authorities would approve the drug. In the meanwhile, we strongly recommend a moratorium on the prescription of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 except in randomized trials to provide the most reliable test of the hypothesis.

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.

Dapagliflozin and new-onset type 2 diabetes in patients with chronic kidney disease or heart failure: pooled analysis of the DAPA-CKD and DAPA-HF trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease and heart failure are insulin resistant states associated with a high incidence of diabetes. We assessed the effect of dapagliflozin on new-onset type 2 diabetes in a pooled analysis of patient-level data from the DAPA-CKD and DAPA-HF trials. METHODS: This study is a pooled analysis of individual participant data from two phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, clinical trials. Participants with no history of diabetes and HbA1c less than 6·5% (48 mmol/mol) at baseline were included in this pooled analysis. New-onset type 2 diabetes was a prespecified exploratory endpoint in both DAPA-CKD and DAPA-HF trials and is the focus of this analysis. New-onset type 2 diabetes was identified by serial trial measurements of HbA1c (two consecutive values ≥6·5% [≥48 mmol/mol]) or following a clinical diagnosis of diabetes between trial visits. Time to new-onset type 2 diabetes was analysed in a Cox proportional Hazards model from random assignment to end of treatment. FINDINGS: 4003 participants (1398 [34·9%] from the DADA-CKD trial and 2605 [65·1%] from the DAPA-HF trial) were included in our analysis: 1995 (49·8%) had received dapagliflozin and 2008 (50·2%) had received placebo. Over a median follow-up of 21·2 months (IQR 16·0 to 25·4), 126 (6·3%) of 2008 patients in the placebo group (event rate 3·9 per 100 patient-years) and 85 (4·3%) of 1995 patients in the dapagliflozin group (event rate 2·6 per 100 patient-years) developed type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio 0·67 [95% CI 0·51 to 0·88]; p=0·0040). There was no heterogeneity between studies (p interaction 0·77) and there was no clear evidence that the effect of dapagliflozin varied in prespecified subgroups including sex, age, glycaemic status, BMI, glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and baseline cardiovascular medication use. More than 90% of the participants who developed type 2 diabetes had prediabetes at baseline (HbA1c 5·7% to 6·4% [39 to 46 mmol/mol]). Mean HbA1c remained unchanged (placebo-adjusted change in the dapagliflozin group of -0·01% [95% CI -0·03 to 0·01], -0·1 mmol/mol [95% CI -0·3 to 0·1] at 12 months). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of new-onset type 2 diabetes in participants with chronic kidney disease and HF without a reduction in HbA1c. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Primary care providers should prescribe aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease based on benefit-risk ratio, not age.

Recent guidelines restricted aspirin (ASA) in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to patients <70 years old and more recent guidance to <60.In the most comprehensive prior meta-analysis, the Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration reported a significant 12% reduction in CVD with similar benefit-risk ratios at older ages. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, four trials were added to an updated meta-analysis.ASA produced a statistically significant 13% reduction in CVD with 95% confidence limits (0.83 to 0.92) with similar benefits at older ages in each of the trials.Primary care providers should make individual decisions whether to prescribe ASA based on benefit-risk ratio, not simply age. When the absolute risk of CVD is >10%, benefits of ASA will generally outweigh risks of significant bleeding. ASA should be considered only after implementation of therapeutic lifestyle changes and other drugs of proven benefit such as statins, which are, at the very least, additive to ASA. Our perspective is that individual clinical judgements by primary care providers about prescription of ASA in primary prevention of CVD should be based on our evidence-based solution of weighing all the absolute benefits and risks rather than age. This strategy would do far more good for far more patients as well as far more good than harm in both developed and developing countries. This new and novel strategy for primary care providers to consider in prescribing ASA in primary prevention of CVD is the same as the general approach suggested by Professor Geoffrey Rose decades ago.

Genomic surveillance to combat COVID-19: challenges and opportunities.

Although the development and increasingly widespread availability of effective and safe vaccines provides the greatest hope for the future recovery from the increasingly devastating COVID-19 pandemic, there are other preventive efforts that offer an immediate route to decreasing morbidity and mortality. Genomic surveillance is emerging as a vital necessity to achieve effective mitigation and containment. Since SARS-CoV-2 variants have already been detected, it is crucial to obtain reliable evidence about whether they are more contagious, virulent, or more resistant to the available COVID-19 vaccines well before they spread throughout the world. Genomic surveillance leverages applications of next-generation sequencing, creates the availability of whole genome data, and advances phylogenetic methods. These methods offer novel means to detect variants that are phenotypically or antigenically different. Genomic surveillance will facilitate greater early anticipation as well as initiation of effective strategies to mitigate and contain outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 variants and other novel viruses.

COVID-19 control in the United States: the case for masking.

As of May 2021, the United States remains the world leader with 33 million of 165 million cases worldwide (20%) and 590,000 of 3.4 million deaths worldwide (17%) from COVID-19. Achieving herd immunity by disease spread and vaccination may result in 2 million to 4 million total US deaths. The future perfect of the vaccine should not be the enemy of the present good, which is masking. Masking, especially when combined with social distancing, crowd avoidance, frequent hand and face washing, increased testing capabilities, and contact tracing, is likely to prevent at least as many premature deaths as the widespread utilization of an effective and safe vaccine. Worldwide, masking is the oldest and simplest engineered control to prevent transmission of respiratory pathogens. Masking has been a cornerstone of infection control in hospitals, operating rooms, and clinics for more than a century. Unfortunately, since the epidemic began in the United States, masking has become politicized. All countries, but especially the United States, must adopt masking as an urgent necessity and a component of coordinated public health strategies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Any economic advantages of pandemic politics are short-lived and shortsighted in comparison with public health strategies of proven benefit that can prevent needless and mostly avoidable premature deaths from COVID-19. During the worst epidemic in more than 100 years, most Americans (75%) trust their health care providers. As competent and compassionate health care professionals, we recommend that effective strategies, especially masking, and not pandemic politics, should inform all rational clinical and public health decision-making.

Effect of Dapagliflozin in DAPA-HF According to Background Glucose-Lowering Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the benefits of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and type 2 diabetes in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF) varied by background glucose-lowering therapy (GLT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We examined the effect of study treatment by the use or not of GLT and by GLT classes and combinations. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: In the 2,139 type 2 diabetes patients, the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent by GLT use or no use (hazard ratio 0.72 [95% CI 0.58-0.88] vs. 0.86 [0.60-1.23]; interaction P = 0.39) and across GLT classes. CONCLUSIONS: In DAPA-HF, dapagliflozin improved outcomes irrespective of use or no use of GLT or by GLT type used in patients with type 2 diabetes and HFrEF.

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.

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.

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.

Achieving effective informed oversight by DMCs in COVID clinical trials.

Best practices of data monitoring committees (DMCs) in randomized clinical trials are well established. Independent oversight provided by DMCs is particularly important in trials conducted in public health emergencies, such as in HIV/AIDS or coronavirus epidemics. Special considerations are needed to enable DMCs to effectively address novel circumstances they face in such settings. In the COVID-19 pandemic, these include the remarkable speed in which data regarding benefits and risks of interventions are accumulated. DMCs must hold frequent virtual meetings, using state-of-the-art communication software that protects against risk for security breaches. Data capture and DMC reports should be focused on the most informative measures about benefits and risks. Because numerous clinical trials are being concurrently conducted in the COVID-19 setting, often addressing closely related scientific questions, structures for DMC oversight should be efficient and adequately informative. When these concurrently conducted trials are evaluating related regimens in related clinical settings, often individually underpowered for safety and having separate DMCs, processes should be implemented enabling these DMCs to share with each other emerging confidential evidence to better assess risks and benefits. Ideally a single DMC would monitor a portfolio of clinical trials or a trial with multiple arms, such as a platform trial.

Efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition according to left ventricular ejection fraction in DAPA-HF.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) modified efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin 10 mg compared with placebo in the 4744 patients with LVEF ≤40% randomized in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined whether LVEF, analysed categorically or continuously, modified the effect of dapagliflozin. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of a worsening heart failure (HF) event (unplanned HF hospitalization/an urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. Mean LVEF was 31.1% and LVEF categories analysed were: <26% (n = 1143), 26-30% (n = 1018), 31-35% (n = 1187), and >35% (n = 1396). Each 5% decrease in LVEF was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.24]. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across the spectrum of LVEF: the dapagliflozin vs. placebo HR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.59-0.95) for LVEF <26%, 0.75 (0.57-0.98) for LVEF 26-30%, 0.67 (0.51-0.89) for LVEF 31-35%, and 0.83 (0.63-1.09) for LVEF >35% (P for interaction = 0.762). Similarly, the effect of dapagliflozin on the components of the primary endpoint was not modified by baseline LVEF (P for interaction for cardiovascular death = 0.974, and for worsening HF = 0.161). Safety of dapagliflozin was also consistent across the range of LVEF and neither efficacy nor safety were modified by diabetes status. CONCLUSION: Left ventricular ejection fraction was a significant predictor of hospitalization and mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction but did not modify the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin, overall or separately, in patients with and without diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03036124.