CSL112 (Apolipoprotein A-I [Human]) Strongly Enhances Plasma Apoa-I and Cholesterol Efflux Capacity in Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients: A PK/PD Substudy of the AEGIS-I Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) is impaired following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CSL112 is an intravenous preparation of human plasma-derived apoA-I formulated with phosphatidylcholine (PC). CSL112 is intended to improve CEC and thereby prevent early recurrent cardiovascular events following AMI. AEGIS-I (ApoA-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes I) was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2b study, designed to evaluate the hepatic and renal safety of CSL112. Here, we report an analysis of a pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) substudy of AEGIS-I. METHODS: AMI patients were stratified by renal function and randomized 3:3:2 to 4, weekly, 2-hour infusions of low- and high-dose (2 g and 6 g) CSL112, or placebo. PK/PD assessments included plasma concentrations of apoA-I and PC, and measures of total and ABCA1-dependent CEC, as well as lipids/lipoproteins including high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), ApoB, and triglycerides. Inflammatory and cardio-metabolic biomarkers were also evaluated. RESULTS: The substudy included 63 subjects from AEGIS-I. CSL112 infusions resulted in rapid, dose-dependent increases in baseline corrected apoA-I and PC, which peaked at the end of the infusion (Tmax ≈ 2 hours). Similarly, there was a dose-dependent elevation in both total CEC and ABCA1-mediated CEC. Mild renal impairment did not affect the PK or PD of CSL112. CSL112 administration was also associated with an increase in plasma levels of HDL-C but not non-HDL-C, LDL-C, apoB, or triglycerides. No dose-effects on inflammatory or cardio-metabolic biomarkers were observed. CONCLUSION: Among patients with AMI, impaired CEC was rapidly elevated by CSL112 infusions in a dose-dependent fashion, along with an increase in apoA-I plasma concentrations. Findings from the current sub-study of the AEGIS-I support a potential atheroprotective benefit of CSL112 for AMI patients.

Rationale and design of ApoA-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes II (AEGIS-II): A phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSL112 in subjects after acute myocardial infarction.

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients remain at high risk for recurrent events. Cholesterol efflux, mediated by apolipoprotein A-I, removes excess cholesterol from atherosclerotic plaque and transports it to the liver for excretion. Impaired cholesterol efflux is associated with higher cardiovascular (CV) event rates among both patients with stable coronary artery disease and recent MI. CSL112, a novel intravenous formulation of apolipoprotein A-I (human) derived from human plasma, increases cholesterol efflux capacity. AEGIS-II is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial investigating the efficacy and safety of CSL112 compared to placebo among high-risk acute MI participants. Eligibility criteria include age ≥ 18 years with type 1 (spontaneous) MI, evidence of multivessel stable coronary artery disease, and presence of diabetes requiring pharmacotherapy, or ≥2 of the following: age ≥ 65 years, prior MI, or peripheral artery disease. A target sample of 17,400 participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive 4 weekly infusions of CSL112 6 g or placebo, initiated prior to or on the day of discharge and within 5 days of first medical contact. The primary outcome is the time to first occurrence of the composite of CV death, MI, or stroke through 90 days. Key secondary outcomes include the total number of hospitalizations for coronary, cerebral, or peripheral ischemia through 90 days and time to first occurrence of the composite primary outcome through 180 and 365 days. AEGIS-II will be the first trial to formally test whether enhancing cholesterol efflux can reduce the rate of recurrent major adverse CV events.

Legal and ethical framework for global health information and biospecimen exchange - an international perspective.

BACKGROUND: The progress of electronic health technologies and biobanks holds enormous promise for efficient research. Evidence shows that studies based on sharing and secondary use of data/samples have the potential to significantly advance medical knowledge. However, sharing of such resources for international collaboration is hampered by the lack of clarity about ethical and legal requirements for transfer of data and samples across international borders. MAIN TEXT: Here, the International Clinical Trial Center Network (ICN) reports the legal and ethical requirements governing data and sample exchange (DSE) across four continents. The most recurring requirement is ethical approval, whereas only in specific conditions approval of national health authorities is required. Informed consent is not required in all sharing situations. However, waiver of informed consent is only allowed in certain countries/regions and under certain circumstances. The current legal and ethical landscape appears to be very complex and under constant evolution. Regulations differ between countries/regions and are often incomplete, leading to uncertainty. CONCLUSION: With this work, ICN illuminates the unmet need for a single international collaborative framework to facilitate DSE. Harmonising requirements for global DSE will reduce inefficiency and waste in research. There are many challenges to realising this ambitious vision, including inconsistent terminology and definitions, and heterogeneous and dynamic legal constraints. Here, we identify areas of agreement and significant difference as a necessary first step towards facilitating international collaboration. We propose the establishment of a working group to continue the comparison across jurisdictions, create a standardised glossary and define a set of basic principles and fundamental requirements for DSE.

Registration, results reporting, and publication bias of clinical trials supporting FDA approval of neuropsychiatric drugs before and after FDAAA: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Mandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period. RESULTS: The FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p < 0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p < 0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-1.99; p = 0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 2.47; CI = 1.57-3.73; p < 0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR = 1; CI = 1-1, p = NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 1.20; CI = 0.84-1.72; p = 0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR = 1.52; CI = 1.16-1.99; p = 0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR = 2.06, CI = 1.17-3.61, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.

Association of the FDA Amendment Act with trial registration, publication, and outcome reporting.

BACKGROUND: Selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting has the potential to bias the medical literature. The 2007 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) mandated clinical trial registration and outcome reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov, a publicly accessible trial registry. METHODS: Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA documents, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all efficacy trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes between 2005 and 2014, before and after the FDAAA. For published trials, we compared the published interpretation of the findings (positive, equivocal, or negative) with the FDA reviewer's interpretation. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2014, the FDA approved 30 drugs for 32 indications of cardiovascular disease (n = 17) and diabetes (n = 15) on the basis of 183 trials (median per indication 5.7 (IQR, 3-8)). Compared with pre FDAAA, post-FDAAA studies were more likely to be registered (78 of 78 (100%) vs 73 of 105 (70%); p < 0.001), to be published (76 of 78 (97%) vs 93 of 105 (89%); p = 0.03), and to present findings concordant with the FDA reviewer's interpretation (74 of 76 (97%) vs 78 of 93 (84%); p = 0.004). Pre FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 80 (76%) trials as positive and 91 (98%) were published as positive. Post FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 71 (91%) trials as positive and 71 (93%) were published as positive. CONCLUSIONS: FDAAA was associated with increased registration, publication, and FDA-concordant outcome reporting for trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Propofol Use in the Elderly Population: Prevalence of Overdose and Association With 30-Day Mortality.

PURPOSE: Geriatric patients are more sensitive to the anesthetic effects of propofol and its adverse effects, such as hypotension, than is the general population; thus, a reduced dose (1-1.5 mg/kg) is recommended for the induction of anesthesia. The extent to which clinicians follow established dosing guidelines has not been well described. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence of propofol overdose in the elderly population to determine whether propofol overdose occurs and is associated with increased hypotension and 30-day mortality. METHODS: In this retrospective study in patients who received propofol for the induction of general anesthesia, data on demographic characteristics, preoperative medications, intraoperative management, and 30-day mortality were collected. The dose of propofol used for the induction of anesthesia and the median blood pressure in the pre- and immediate postinduction periods were determined. Hypotension was defined as either: (1) a decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) of >40% concurrent with a MAP of <70 mm Hg; or (2) a MAP of <60 mm Hg. FINDINGS: A total of 17,540 patients were included in the analysis; 4033 (23.0%) were aged >65 years. The median (interquartile range) propofol dose in the group aged >65 years was 1.8 (1.4-2.2) mg/kg, above the recommended dose, in comparison to 2.2 (1.9-2.5) mg/kg in younger patients. On multivariate analysis, increased propofol dose was associated with increased postinduction hypotension, especially in patients over 70 years of age, but not 30-day mortality. IMPLICATIONS: Older patients received greater-than-recommended doses of propofol for induction, which may have led to significant dose-dependent hypotension. Despite this finding, the dose of propofol for induction was not independently associated with a greater 30-day mortality rate. More education regarding geriatric concerns is needed for encouraging anesthesiologists to tailor the plan for anesthesia in geriatric patients. However, overall postsurgical mortality is a function of preoperative risk and type surgical procedure.