Utilizing data consortia to monitor safety and effectiveness of biosimilars and their innovator products.

BACKGROUND: The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, introduced as part of the Affordable Care Act, directed the FDA to create an approval pathway for biologic products shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved innovator drug. These biosimilars will not be chemically identical to the reference agent. Investigational studies conducted with biosimilar agents will likely provide limited real-world evidence of their effectiveness and safety. How do we best monitor effectiveness and safety of biosimilar products once approved by the FDA and used more extensively by patients? OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of developing a distributed research network that will use health insurance plan and health delivery system data to detect biosimilar safety and effectiveness signals early and be able to answer important managed care pharmacy questions from both the government and managed care organizations. METHODS: Twenty-one members of the AMCP Task Force on Biosimilar Collective Intelligence Systems met November 12, 2013, to discuss issues involved in designing this consortium and to explore next steps. RESULTS: The task force concluded that a managed care biosimilars research consortium would be of significant value. Task force members agreed that it is best to use a distributed research network structurally similar to existing DARTNet, HMO Research Network, and Mini-Sentinel consortia. However, for some surveillance projects that it undertakes, the task force recognizes it may need supplemental data from managed care and other sources (i.e., a "hybrid" structure model). CONCLUSIONS: The task force believes that AMCP is well positioned to lead the biosimilar-monitoring effort and that the next step to developing a biosimilar-innovator collective intelligence system is to convene an advisory council to address organizational governance.

Glucose intolerance and diabetes as risk factors for cognitive impairment in people at high cardiovascular risk: results from the ONTARGET/TRANSCEND research programme.

AIMS: To assess the cross-sectional associations of the measures of glycemia and cognitive function in subjects at high cardiovascular risk. SETTING AND PATIENTS: The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) and concurrent Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) are multi-center, randomized, controlled investigations of different approaches to angiotensin receptor blockade in over 30,000 high CV risk subjects. Baseline data in both trials was used to analyze relationships between measures of glycemic control and cognition. OUTCOMES: The univariate and multivariate relationships between diabetes status, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were assessed. RESULTS: In subjects with diabetes, the mean MMSE score was 0.4 units lower than in those without diabetes (P<0.0001). In all subjects, a 1 mmol/L higher FPG value was associated with a MMSE score that was 0.06 units lower (P<0.0001). The association persisted after adjustment for several cardiovascular risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Dysglycemia is a risk factor for impaired cognitive function in this broadly representative, high-risk study population. Prospective studies can more reliably discern temporal associations, including the effects of glucose lowering in this clinical group.

Effects of aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel and telmisartan on disability and cognitive function after recurrent stroke in patients with ischaemic stroke in the Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes (PRoFESS) trial: a double-blind, active and placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of ischaemic stroke with neuroprotective drugs has been unsuccessful, and whether these compounds can be used to reduce disability after recurrent stroke is unknown. The putative neuroprotective effects of antiplatelet compounds and the angiotensin II receptor antagonist telmisartan were investigated in the Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes (PRoFESS) trial. METHODS: Patients who had had an ischaemic stroke were randomly assigned in a two by two factorial design to receive either 25 mg aspirin (ASA) and 200 mg extended-release dipyridamole (ER-DP) twice a day or 75 mg clopidogrel once a day, and either 80 mg telmisartan or placebo once per day. The predefined endpoints for this substudy were disability after a recurrent stroke, assessed with the modified Rankin scale (mRS) and Barthel index at 3 months, and cognitive function, assessed with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score at 4 weeks after randomisation and at the penultimate visit. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153062. FINDINGS: 20,332 patients (mean age 66 years) were randomised and followed-up for a median of 2.4 years. Recurrent strokes occurred in 916 (9%) patients randomly assigned to ASA with ER-DP and 898 (9%) patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel; 880 (9%) patients randomly assigned to telmisartan and 934 (9%) patients given placebo had recurrent strokes. mRS scores were not statistically different in patients with recurrent stroke who were treated with ASA and ER-DP versus clopidogrel (p=0.38), or with telmisartan versus placebo (p=0.61). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with recurrent stroke with a good outcome, as measured with the Barthel index, across all treatment groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the median MMSE scores, the percentage of patients with an MMSE score of 24 points or less, the percentage of patients with a drop in MMSE score of 3 points or more between 1 month and the penultimate visit, and the number of patients with dementia among the treatment groups. There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with cognitive impairment or dementia among the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Disability due to recurrent stroke and cognitive decline in patients with ischaemic stroke were not different between the two antiplatelet regimens and were not affected by the preventive use of telmisartan.

Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent stroke is a frequent, disabling event after ischemic stroke. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two antiplatelet regimens--aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) versus clopidogrel. METHODS: In this double-blind, 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive 25 mg of aspirin plus 200 mg of extended-release dipyridamole twice daily or to receive 75 mg of clopidogrel daily. The primary outcome was first recurrence of stroke. The secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. Sequential statistical testing of noninferiority (margin of 1.075), followed by superiority testing, was planned. RESULTS: A total of 20,332 patients were followed for a mean of 2.5 years. Recurrent stroke occurred in 916 patients (9.0%) receiving ASA-ERDP and in 898 patients (8.8%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11). The secondary outcome occurred in 1333 patients (13.1%) in each group (hazard ratio for ASA-ERDP, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07). There were more major hemorrhagic events among ASA-ERDP recipients (419 [4.1%]) than among clopidogrel recipients (365 [3.6%]) (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32), including intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.83). The net risk of recurrent stroke or major hemorrhagic event was similar in the two groups (1194 ASA-ERDP recipients [11.7%], vs. 1156 clopidogrel recipients [11.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for noninferiority but showed similar rates of recurrent stroke with ASA-ERDP and with clopidogrel. There is no evidence that either of the two treatments was superior to the other in the prevention of recurrent stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.)

Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged lowering of blood pressure after a stroke reduces the risk of recurrent stroke. In addition, inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system in high-risk patients reduces the rate of subsequent cardiovascular events, including stroke. However, the effect of lowering of blood pressure with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor soon after a stroke has not been clearly established. We evaluated the effects of therapy with an angiotensin-receptor blocker, telmisartan, initiated early after a stroke. METHODS: In a multicenter trial involving 20,332 patients who recently had an ischemic stroke, we randomly assigned 10,146 to receive telmisartan (80 mg daily) and 10,186 to receive placebo. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. Secondary outcomes were major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, or new or worsening heart failure) and new-onset diabetes. RESULTS: The median interval from stroke to randomization was 15 days. During a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, the mean blood pressure was 3.8/2.0 mm Hg lower in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group. A total of 880 patients (8.7%) in the telmisartan group and 934 patients (9.2%) in the placebo group had a subsequent stroke (hazard ratio in the telmisartan group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.04; P=0.23). Major cardiovascular events occurred in 1367 patients (13.5%) in the telmisartan group and 1463 patients (14.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.01; P=0.11). New-onset diabetes occurred in 1.7% of the telmisartan group and 2.1% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.04; P=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with telmisartan initiated soon after an ischemic stroke and continued for 2.5 years did not significantly lower the rate of recurrent stroke, major cardiovascular events, or diabetes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.)

The impact of privacy and confidentiality laws on the conduct of clinical trials.

Justifiable concerns about the use of personal data in many aspects of daily life have led to the recent introduction in many countries of laws intended to regulate data use. Although participation in randomized clinical trials is generally with informed consent, recruitment procedures, complete follow-up, and the efficient conduct of trials may be substantially affected by such national or local privacy legislation. The relevant laws often have exceptions that allow the use of patient information in the public interest - including the use of data collected to improve or monitor public health or as part of medical research. However, regulatory bodies often give conflicting interpretations of the law, and this affects the conduct of large-scale trials. In particular, unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the law may be a serious impediment to identification of potential participants for a trial, access to records to confirm events, continued follow-up of patients after the trial has been concluded, and secondary use of the trial data for purposes not directly related to the original purpose of the study. These obstacles could be overcome by better informing patients of the uses of records for medical research purposes, by using informed consent procedures that explain the nature of the research and the uses of the data, and by the use of identifiers, such as social security numbers that allow central follow-up. The clinical trial research community needs to ensure that the substantial benefits of large-scale randomized trials are explained both to the public and to those responsible for introducing legislation. The negative impact of privacy legislation on the use of personal health information and on conducting large studies needs to be understood and minimized.

Stroke and cardiovascular diseases: the need for a global approach for prevention and drug development.

BACKGROUND: Research into the prevention and treatment of stroke and cardiovascular disease has focused primarily on the needs of high-income countries (HIC). However, the majority of all stroke and cardiovascular deaths occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with further rises in these countries predicted. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: In HIC, proven strategies for the treatment of stroke and cardiovascular disease are well established and cost-effective. Developing strategies to include LMIC is therefore crucial to curb the global epidemic of stroke and cardiovascular disease. For example, pharmaceutical companies are being encouraged to make certain drugs more affordable in low- and middle-income companies, and the same principle could be applied to drugs for the prevention of stroke. Furthermore, centers from LMIC are now often included in clinical trials, resulting in trials that are more globally relevant and affordable and that enhance the participation of healthcare professionals from a broad range of countries. CONCLUSIONS: More cost-effective drug development processes and affordable prices, while protecting intellectual property rights, will prevent the ever-increasing burden of stroke becoming unmanageable in LMIC.

Progress and problems for randomized clinical trials: from streptomycin to the era of megatrials.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the definitive contributors to evidence-based medicine. RCTs assessing serious outcomes in cardiovascular disease have grown, with 'megatrials' becoming more common with the realization that wrong conclusions resulted from random error in inadequately sized trials. Simple design and a heterogeneous patient population were early features, but multinational trials have increased in scientific, logistical, bureaucratic, regulatory, and legal complexity. These studies now exceed the financial means of academia or medical charities. Governments have left the bill with the pharmaceutical industry, encouraging a symbiosis with academics, who contribute medical and scientific expertise, and access to patients. Industry provides pharmacological, pharmaceutical, technical and regulatory know-how, good clinical practice expertise, and legal assistance during the trial. Study supervision is then in the hands of an independent steering committee and associated subcommittees, until appropriate dissemination of results. Prospectively defined interaction with the sponsor facilitates unbiased design and conduct, but arrangements need careful implementation to avoid conflicts of interest. The patient is protected by a strong data safety monitoring board that is wholly independent. Megatrials are under threat from over-regulation, increasing costs, and difficulties in execution. These issues merit urgent public and political education and debate.

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of 2 large, simple, randomized trials evaluating telmisartan, ramipril, and their combination in high-risk patients: the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial/Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND) trials.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, need for revascularization, nephropathy, and diabetes and its complications. Although angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been less extensively evaluated, theoretically they may have "protective" effects similar to those of ACE inhibitors, but with better tolerability. Currently, there is uncertainty about the role of ARBs when used alone or in combination with an ACE inhibitor in high-risk populations with controlled hypertension. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives of the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) are to determine if the combination of the ARB telmisartan and the ACE inhibitor ramipril is more effective than ramipril alone, and if telmisartan is at least as effective as ramipril. The Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNt Study in aCE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) will determine if telmisartan is superior to placebo in patients who are intolerant of ACE inhibitors. The primary outcome for both trials is the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. METHOD: High-risk patients with coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage are being recruited and followed for 3.5 to 5.5 years in 2 parallel, randomized, double-blind clinical trials. PROGRESS: Recruitment from 730 centers in 40 countries for ONTARGET (n = 25,620) was completed in July 2003. For TRANSCEND, 5776 patients (out of a projected total of 6000) have been recruited (by May 10, 2004). Baseline patient characteristics are comparable to the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial, the basis of the design of the current study, confirming that patients are at high-risk.