Assessment of North American Clinical Research Site Performance During the Start-up of Large Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are critical in advancing patient care, yet conducting such large-scale trials requires tremendous resources and coordination. Clinical site start-up performance metrics can provide insight into opportunities for improved trial efficiency but have not been well described. Objective: To measure the start-up time needed to reach prespecified milestones across sites in large cardiovascular RCTs in North America and to evaluate how these metrics vary by time and type of regulatory review process. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated cardiovascular RCTs conducted from July 13, 2004, to February 1, 2017. The RCTs were coordinated by a single academic research organization, the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Nine consecutive trials with completed enrollment and publication of results in their target journal were studied. Data were analyzed from December 4, 2019, to January 11, 2021. Exposures: Year of trial enrollment initiation (2004-2007 vs 2008-2012) and use of a central vs local institutional review board (IRB). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the median start-up time (from study protocol delivery to first participant enrollment) as compared by trial year and type of IRB used. The median start-up time for the top 10% of sites was also reported. Secondary outcomes included time to site regulatory approval, time to contract execution, and time to site activation. Results: For the 9 RCTs included, the median site start-up time shortened only slightly over time from 267 days (interquartile range [IQR], 185-358 days) for 2004-2007 trials to 237 days (IQR, 162-343 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 255 days [IQR, 177-350 days]; P < .001). For the top 10% of sites, median start-up time was 107 days (IQR, 95-121 days) for 2004-2007 trials vs 104 days (IQR, 84-118 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 106 days [IQR, 90-120 days]; P = .04). The median start-up time was shorter among sites using a central IRB (199 days [IQR, 140-292 days]) than those using a local IRB (287 days [IQR, 205-390 days]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of North American research sites in large cardiovascular RCTs found a duration of nearly 9 months from the time of study protocol delivery to the first participant enrollment; this metric was only slightly shortened during the study period but was reduced to less than 4 months for top-performing sites. These findings suggest that the use of central IRBs has the potential to improve RCT efficiency.

The use of electronic health records for recruitment in clinical trials: a mixed methods analysis of the Harmony Outcomes Electronic Health Record Ancillary Study.

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) contains a wealth of clinical data that may be used to streamline the identification of potential clinical trial participants. However, there is little empirical information on site-level facilitators of and barriers to optimal use of EHR systems with respect to trial recruitment. METHODS: We conducted qualitative focus groups and quantitative surveys as part of the EHR Ancillary Study, which is being conducted alongside the multicenter, global, Harmony Outcomes Trial comparing albiglutide to standard care for the prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes. Subject matter experts used findings from focus groups to draft a 20-question survey examining the use of the EHR for participant identification, common site recruitment strategies, and variation in perceived barriers to optimal use of the EHR. The final survey was fielded with 446 site investigators actively enrolling participants in the main trial. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of respondents were study coordinators (63.2%), 23.1% were principal investigators, and 13.7% held other research roles. Approximately half of the respondents reported using the EHR to find potential trial participants. Of these, 79.4% reported using EHR searches in conjunction with other recruitment methods, including reviewing of upcoming clinic schedules (75.3%) and contacting past trial participants (71.2%). Important barriers to optimal use of the EHR included the lack of availability of certain research-focused EHR modules and limitations on the ability to contact patients cared for by other providers. Of survey respondents who did not use the EHR to find potential participants, one-quarter reported that the EHR was not accessible in their country; this finding varied from 2.6% of respondents in North America to 50% of respondents in the Asia Pacific. CONCLUSIONS: While EHR screening was commonly used for recruitment in a cardiovascular outcomes trial, important technical, governance, and regulatory barriers persist. Multifaceted, scalable, and customizable strategies are needed to support the optimal use of the EHR for trial participant identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465515. Registered on 8 June 2015.

Good Clinical Practice Guidance and Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Balancing the Best of Both Worlds.

Randomized, clinical trials are commonly regarded as the highest level of evidence to support clinical decisions. Good Clinical Practice guidelines have been constructed to provide an ethical and scientific quality standard for trials that involve human subjects in a manner aligned with the Declaration of Helsinki. Originally designed to provide a unified standard of trial data to support submission to regulatory authorities, the principles may also be applied to other studies of human subjects. Although the application of Good Clinical Practice principles generally led to improvements in the quality and consistency of trial operations, these principles have also contributed to increasing trial complexity and costs. Alternatively, the growing availability of electronic health record data has facilitated the possibility for streamlined pragmatic clinical trials. The central tenets of Good Clinical Practice and pragmatic clinical trials represent potential tensions in trial design (stringent quality and highly efficient operations). In the present article, we highlight potential areas of discordance between Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the principles of pragmatic clinical trials and suggest strategies to streamline study conduct in an ethical manner to optimally perform clinical trials in the electronic age.

PAR1 antagonists inhibit thrombin-induced platelet activation whilst leaving the PAR4-mediated response intact.

Thrombin-induced platelet activation is initiated by PAR1 and PAR4 receptors. Vorapaxar, a PAR1 antagonist, has been assessed in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable atherosclerotic disease in addition to standard-of-care treatment. In clinical trials, vorapaxar has been observed to reduce the frequency of ischaemic events in some subgroups though in others has increased the frequency of bleeding events. Among patients undergoing CABG surgery, which is associated with excess thrombin generation, bleeding was not increased. The aim of these studies was to investigate the effects of selective PAR1 antagonism on thrombin-induced platelet activation in patients receiving vorapaxar or placebo in the TRACER trial and to explore the roles of PAR1 and PAR4 in thrombin-induced platelet activation in healthy volunteers. ACS patients receiving vorapaxar or placebo in the TRACER trial were studied at baseline and 4 hours, 1 and 4 months during drug administration. Thrombin-induced calcium mobilisation in platelet-rich plasma was assessed by flow cytometry. In vitro studies were performed in healthy volunteers using the PAR1 antagonist SCH79797 or PAR4 receptor desensitisation. Vorapaxar treatment significantly inhibited thrombin-induced calcium mobilisation, leaving a residual, delayed response. These findings were consistent with calcium mobilisation mediated via the PAR4 receptor and were reproduced in vitro using SCH79797. PAR4 receptor desensitization, in combination with SCH79797, completely inhibited thrombin-induced calcium mobilisation confirming that the residual calcium mobilisation was mediated via PAR4. In conclusion vorapaxar selectively antagonises the PAR1-mediated component of thrombin-induced platelet activation, leaving the PAR4-mediated response intact, which may explain why vorapaxar is well tolerated in patients undergoing CABG surgery since higher thrombin levels in this setting may override the effects of PAR1 antagonism through PAR4 activation, thus preserving haemostasis. Further assessment may be warranted.

Effect of alirocumab, a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, on long-term cardiovascular outcomes following acute coronary syndromes: rationale and design of the ODYSSEY outcomes trial.

BACKGROUND: Following acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the risk for future cardiovascular events is high and is related to levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) even within the setting of intensive statin treatment. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) regulates LDL receptor expression and circulating levels of LDL-C. Antibodies to PCSK9 can produce substantial and sustained reductions of LDL-C. The ODYSSEY Outcomes trial tests the hypothesis that treatment with alirocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, improves cardiovascular outcomes after ACS. DESIGN: This Phase 3 study will randomize approximately 18,000 patients to receive biweekly injections of alirocumab (75-150 mg) or matching placebo beginning 1 to 12 months after an index hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina. Qualifying patients are treated with atorvastatin 40 or 80 mg daily, rosuvastatin 20 or 40 mg daily, or the maximum tolerated and approved dose of one of these agents and fulfill one of the following criteria: LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 100 mg/dL, or apolipoprotein B ≥ 80 mg/dL. The primary efficacy measure is time to first occurrence of coronary heart disease death, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or ischemic stroke. The trial is expected to continue until 1613 primary end point events have occurred with minimum follow-up of at least 2 years, providing 90% power to detect a 15% hazard reduction. Adverse events of special interest include allergic events and injection site reactions. Interim analyses are planned when approximately 50% and 75% of the targeted number of primary end points have occurred. SUMMARY: ODYSSEY Outcomes will determine whether the addition of the PCSK9 antibody alirocumab to intensive statin therapy reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality after ACS.

Association of aspirin dose and vorapaxar safety and efficacy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (from the TRACER Trial).

Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial compared vorapaxar and placebo in 12,944 high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. We explored aspirin (ASA) use and its association with outcomes. Kaplan-Meier event rates were compared in groups defined by ASA dose (low, medium, and high). Landmark analyses with covariate adjustment were performed for 0 to 30, 31 to 180, and 181 to 365 days. Of 12,515 participants, 7,523, 1,049, and 3,943 participants were treated with low-, medium-, and high-dose ASA at baseline, respectively. Participants enrolled in North America versus elsewhere were more often treated with a high dose at baseline (66% vs 19%) and discharge (60% vs 3%). Unadjusted cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for ischemia, or urgent revascularization event rates tended to be higher with higher baseline ASA (18.45% low, 19.13% medium, and 20.27% high; p for trend = 0.15573). Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for effect of vorapaxar on cardiovascular (unadjusted p for interaction = 0.065; adjusted p for interaction = 0.140) and bleeding (unadjusted p for interaction = 0.915; adjusted p for interaction = 0.954) outcomes were similar across groups. Landmark analyses showed similar safety and efficacy outcomes with vorapaxar and placebo by ASA dose at each time point except for 0 to 30 days, when vorapaxar tended to be worse for efficacy (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.44, p for interaction = 0.0157). In conclusion, most TRACER participants were treated with low-dose ASA, although a high dose was common in North America. High-dose participants tended to have higher rates of ischemic and bleeding outcomes. Although formal statistical testing did not reveal heterogeneity in vorapaxar's effect across dose subgroups, consistent trends support use of low-dose ASA with other antiplatelet therapies.

Effects of vorapaxar on platelet reactivity and biomarker expression in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The TRACER Pharmacodynamic Substudy.

Vorapaxar is an antagonist of the protease activated receptor-1 (PAR-1), the principal platelet thrombin receptor. The Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction (TRACER) trial evaluated vorapaxar compared to placebo in non-ST-elevation (NSTE)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. It was the study's objective to assess the pharmacodynamic effects of vorapaxar versus placebo that included aspirin or a thienopyridine or, frequently, a combination of both agents in NSTE-ACS patients. In a substudy involving 249 patients, platelet aggregation was assessed by light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) in 85 subjects (41 placebo, 44 vorapaxar) using the agonists thrombin receptor activating peptide (TRAP, 15 µM), adenosine diphosphate (ADP, 20 µM), and the combination of collagen-related peptide (2.5 µg/ml) + ADP (5 µM) + TRAP (15 µM) (CAT). VerifyNow® IIb/IIIa and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) phosphorylation assays were performed, and platelet PAR-1 expression, plasma platelet/endothelial and inflammatory biomarkers were determined before and during treatment. LTA responses to TRAP and CAT and VerifyNow results were markedly inhibited by vorapaxar. Maximal LTA response to TRAP (median, interquartile range) 2 hours post loading dose: placebo 68% (53-75%) and vorapaxar 3% (2-6%), p<0.0001. ADP inhibition was greater in the vorapaxar group at 4 hours and one month (p<0.01). In contrast to the placebo group, PAR-1 receptor number in the vorapaxar group at one month was significantly lower than the baseline (179 vs 225; p=0.004). There were significant changes in selected biomarker levels between the two treatment groups. In conclusion, vorapaxar caused a potent inhibition of PAR-1-mediated platelet aggregation. Further studies are needed to explore vorapaxar effect on P2Y12 inhibition, PAR-1 expression and biomarkers and its contribution to clinical outcomes.

Effect of vorapaxar on myocardial infarction in the thrombin receptor antagonist for clinical event reduction in acute coronary syndrome (TRA·CER) trial.

AIMS: The TRA·CER trial compared vorapaxar, a novel platelet protease-activated receptor (PAR)-1 antagonist, with placebo in 12 944 patients with high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS). In this analysis, we explored the effect of vorapaxar on myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS: A blinded, independent central endpoint adjudication committee prospectively defined and classified MI according to the universal MI definition, including peak cardiac marker value (creatine kinase-MB [CK-MB] and/or troponin). Because the trial failed to meet its primary endpoint, these analyses are considered exploratory. During a median follow-up of 502 days, 1580 MIs occurred in 1319 patients. The majority (n = 1025, 64.9%) were type 1 (spontaneous) MI, followed by type 4a [percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related] MI (n = 352; 22.3%). Compared with placebo, vorapaxar reduced the hazard of a first MI of any type by 12% [hazard ratio (HR), 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-0.98; P = 0.021] and the hazard of total number of MIs (first and subsequent) by 14% (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; P = 0.014), an effect that was sustained over time. Vorapaxar reduced type 1 MI by 17% (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = 0.007). Type 4a MIs were not significantly reduced by vorapaxar (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73-1.12; P = 0.35). Vorapaxar effect was consistent across MI sizes defined by peak cardiac marker elevations and across key clinical subgroups; however, in patients not treated with thienopyridine at baseline (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92) compared with patients who received thienopyridine (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-1.02), there was a trend towards a higher effect (Pint = 0.077). CONCLUSION: The PAR-1 antagonist vorapaxar was associated with a reduction of MI, including total number of infarctions. This reduction was sustained over time and was mostly evident in type 1 MI, the most common type of MI observed.

Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).

Strategic lessons from the clinical event classification process for the Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction (APEX-AMI) trial.

BACKGROUND: Independent adjudication of clinical trial events is traditionally performed by physicians on a clinical event classification (CEC) committee. OBJECTIVES: The experience of the centralized CEC group of the APEX-AMI trial is described. This group adjudicated key secondary pre-specified outcome measures of congestive heart failure (CHF) and cardiogenic shock through 90 days using an algorithmic approach for some events. METHODS: Data were collected via an electronic data capture (EDC) tool on all subjects, and additional information was provided via EDC for patients identified by site investigators with CHF or shock. Two strategies were used to adjudicate potential events: 1) a computer algorithm (followed by physician confirmation) analyzed data to determine whether events met trial end point definitions; or 2) physician review was used if EDC data were inadequate to allow classification by algorithm. RESULTS: Of 5745 patients, 282 suspected cardiogenic shock and 465 suspected CHF events were identified. The computer algorithm or physicians confirmed 196/282 cardiogenic shock and 277/465 CHF end points. Overall, 242/742 (32.6%) of suspected events were classified by algorithm. Of the 500 events not resolved by computer algorithm, the CEC physicians agreed with site investigator assessments in 126/277 (45%) of CHF and 151/196 (77%) of cardiogenic shock events. The CEC committee completed adjudication of all suspected 30- and 90-day CHF and cardiogenic shock events within 7 days of the last patient 30-day follow-up visit and within 1 day of the last patient 90-day follow-up visit. Only 27% of patients required source document collection in addition to EDC-collected information. CONCLUSIONS: A complementary approach of a computerized assessment and physician review was used in the CEC effort of the APEX-AMI trial. The algorithm categorized approximately one third of suspected CHF/cardiogenic shock events. The APEX-AMI CEC experience shows that an algorithmic approach may be a useful strategy for end point evaluation but requires validation.