Relationship between atorvastatin dose and the harm caused by torcetrapib.

Development of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor, torcetrapib, was halted after the ILLUMINATE trial revealed an increase in both all-cause mortality (ACM) and major cardiovascular events (MCVEs) associated with its use. We now report that the harm caused by torcetrapib was confined to those in the 10 mg atorvastatin subgroup for both ACM [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.68, 95% CI (1.58, 4.54), P < 0.0001] and MCVEs [HR = 1.41, 95% CI (1.14, 1.74), P = 0.002], with no evidence of harm when torcetrapib was coadministered with higher doses of atorvastatin. In the atorvastatin 10 mg subgroup, age, prior heart failure and stroke were significantly associated with ACM, independent of torcetrapib treatment, whereas low apoA-I, smoking, hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke were independently associated with MCVEs. After adjusting for these factors, the HR associated with torcetrapib treatment in the 10 mg atorvastatin subgroup remained elevated for both ACM [HR = 2.67, 95% CI (1.57, 4.54), P < 0.001] and MCVE [HR = 1.36, 95% CI (1.10, 1.69), P = 0.005]. Thus, the harm caused by torcetrapib was confined to individuals taking atorvastatin 10 mg. The harm could not be explained by torcetrapib-induced changes in lipid levels, blood pressure, or electrolytes. It is conceivable that higher doses of atorvastatin protected against the harm caused by torcetrapib.

Reporting cumulative proportion of subjects with an adverse event based on data from multiple studies.

Experience has shown us that when data are pooled from multiple studies to create an integrated summary, an analysis based on naïvely-pooled data is vulnerable to the mischief of Simpson's Paradox. Using the proportions of patients with a target adverse event (AE) as an example, we demonstrate the Paradox's effect on both the comparison and the estimation of the proportions. While meta analytic approaches have been recommended and increasingly used for comparing safety data between treatments, reporting proportions of subjects experiencing a target AE based on data from multiple studies has received little attention. In this paper, we suggest two possible approaches to report these cumulative proportions. In addition, we urge that regulatory guidelines on reporting such proportions be established so that risks can be communicated in a scientifically defensible and balanced manner.

FDA draft guidance on adaptive design clinical trials: Pfizer's perspective.

The Food and Drug Administration of the United States issued a draft guidance on adaptive design clinical trials in February 2010. This draft guidance has attracted a lot of attention because of the increasing interest in adaptive trials by the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. In this paper, we report on highlights of comments collected within Pfizer on this draft guidance. In addition, we share Pfizer's internal journey to promote efficient trial designs since 2005. Adaptive designs have been part of that journey.