Gaining Efficiency in Clinical Trials With Cardiac Biomarkers: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The momentum of cardiovascular drug development has slowed dramatically. Use of validated cardiac biomarkers in clinical trials could accelerate development of much-needed therapies, but biomarkers have been used less for cardiovascular drug development than in therapeutic areas such as oncology. Moreover, there are inconsistences in biomarker use in clinical trials, such as sample type, collection times, analytical methods, and storage for future research. With these needs in mind, participants in a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium Think Tank proposed the development of international guidance in this area, together with improved quality assurance and analytical methods, to determine what biomarkers can reliably show. Participants recommended the development of systematic methods for sample collection, and the archiving of samples in all cardiovascular clinical trials (including creation of a biobank or repository). The academic and regulatory communities also agreed to work together to ensure that published information is fully and clearly expressed.

Global Regulatory Landscape for Aggregate Safety Assessments: Recent Developments and Future Directions.

Notwithstanding successful harmonization efforts, the global regulatory framework governing product safety is complex and continually evolving, as evidenced by additional regional guidance and regulations. In this regulatory review, we provide an overview from both global and regional perspectives. A historical perspective, with a focus on recent developments, enables identification of important long-term trends, such as a shift from single-case medical review of serious adverse events to an interdisciplinary evaluation of aggregate data for the purpose of judging product causality and informing benefit-risk assessments. We will show how these trends lead to opportunities for closer interdisciplinary collaboration, for bridging the gap between preand postmarketing surveillance, and for a more proactive determination of patient populations with a positive benefit-risk profile for product use. We will conclude by pointing to ongoing and future work that seeks to provide specific solutions for ongoing aggregate safety evaluation.

Critical Appraisal of Contemporary Clinical Endpoint Definitions in Coronary Intervention Trials: A Guidance Document.

The Academic Research Consortium (ARC) and the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative have recently published updated clinical and angiographic endpoint definitions for percutaneous coronary intervention trials. The aim of this document is to provide practical guidance to facilitate and harmonize the implementation of those definitions in randomized trials or registries, as well as to foster consistency among independent adjudication committees. The authors compared the ARC-2 and Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative definitions to identify areas of consistency, complex scenarios, and definitions in need of further standardization. Furthermore, the authors compared the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction with the ARC-2 definition of myocardial infarction. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition of periprocedural myocardial infarction was also compared with the ARC-2 definition and the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction. An in-depth assessment was done for each individual clinical endpoint to guide clinical investigators on reporting and classifying clinical adverse events. Finally, the authors propose standard streamlined data capture templates for reporting and adjudicating death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, stent or scaffold thrombosis, and bleeding.

Interdisciplinary Safety Evaluation and Quantitative Safety Monitoring: Introduction to a Series of Papers.

The American Statistical Association and DIA have created an interdisciplinary working group of drug safety experts from academia, industry and regulatory backgrounds to explore the future direction for safety monitoring. This introduction to the series explains the background and rationale for this special section.

A Path Forward for Regenerative Medicine.

Although clinical trials of cell-based approaches to cardiovascular disease have yielded some promising results, no cell-based therapy has achieved regulatory approval for a cardiovascular indication. To broadly assess the challenges to regulatory approval and identify strategies to facilitate this goal, the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium sponsored a session during the Texas Heart Institute International Symposium on Cardiovascular Regenerative Medicine in September 2017. This session convened leaders in cardiovascular regenerative medicine, including participants from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, with particular focus on treatments closest to regulatory approval. A goal of the session was to identify barriers to regulatory approval and potential pathways to overcome them. Barriers identified include manufacturing and therapeutic complexity, difficulties identifying an optimal comparator group, limited industry capacity for funding pivotal clinical trials, and challenges to demonstrating efficacy on clinical end points required for regulatory decisions. Strategies to overcome these barriers include precompetitive development of a cell therapy registry network to enable dual-purposing of clinical data as part of pragmatic clinical trial design, development of standardized terminology for product activity and end points to facilitate this registry, use of innovative statistical methods and quality of life or functional end points to supplement outcomes such as death or heart failure hospitalization and reduce sample size, involvement of patients in determining the research agenda, and use of the Food and Drug Administration's new Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation to facilitate early discussion with regulatory authorities when planning development pathways.

Is there a role for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic-guided dosing for novel oral anticoagulants?

The novel direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs) represent a major advance in oral anticoagulant therapy and are replacing vitamin K antagonists as the preferred options for many indications. Given in fixed doses without routine laboratory monitoring, they have been shown to be at least as effective in reducing thromboembolic stroke as dose-adjusted warfarin in phase 3 randomized trials and less likely to cause hemorrhagic stroke. Pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic subanalyses of the major NOAC trials in patients with atrial fibrillation have established relationships between clinical characteristics, and drug levels and/or pharmacodynamic responses with both efficacy and safety. Based on these analyses, pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulatory authorities have provided contraindications and dosing recommendations based on clinical characteristics that are associated with drug levels and/or pharmacodynamic responses, stroke reduction, and bleeding risk to optimize the risk-benefit profile of the NOACs in the real world. The current fixed-dosing strategy of NOACs has triggered discussions about the potential value of laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment in customizing drug exposure to further improve the safety and efficacy of the NOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation. As there is neither high-quality evidence nor consensus about the potential role of laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment for the NOACs, a Cardiac Research Safety Consortium "Think Tank" meeting was held at the American College of Cardiology Heart House in December 2015 to discussions these issues. This manuscript reports on the deliberations and the conclusions reached at that meeting.

Prevalent and Incident Heart Failure in Cardiovascular Outcome Trials of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Despite multiple examples of glucose-lowering therapies affecting heart failure (HF) risk, ascertainment of HF data in cardiovascular outcome trials of these medications has not been systematically characterized. In this review, large (n >1,000) published phase III and IV cardiovascular outcome trials evaluating glucose-lowering therapies through June 2017 were identified. Data were abstracted from publications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee records, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling documents. Overall, 21 trials including 152,737 patients were evaluated. Rates and definitions of baseline HF and incident HF were inconsistently provided. Baseline ejection fraction data were provided in 3 studies but not specific to patients with HF. No trial reported functional class, ejection fraction, or HF therapy at the time of incident HF diagnosis. HF hospitalization data were available in 15 trials, but only 2 included HF-related events within the primary composite endpoint. This systematic review highlights gaps in HF data capture within cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies and outlines rationale and strategies for improving HF characterization.

Use of endpoint adjudication to improve the quality and validity of endpoint assessment for medical device development and post marketing evaluation: Rationale and best practices. A report from the cardiac safety research consortium.

This white paper provides a summary of presentations, discussions and conclusions of a Thinktank entitled "The Role of Endpoint Adjudication in Medical Device Clinical Trials". The think tank was cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Committee, MDEpiNet and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and was convened at the FDA's White Oak headquarters on March 11, 2016. Attention was focused on tailoring best practices for evaluation of endpoints in medical device clinical trials, practical issues in endpoint adjudication of therapeutic, diagnostic, biomarker and drug-device combinations, and the role of adjudication in regulatory and reimbursement issues throughout the device lifecycle. Attendees included representatives from medical device companies, the FDA, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), end point adjudication specialist groups, clinical research organizations, and active, academically based adjudicators. The manuscript presents recommendations from the think tank regarding (1) rationale for when adjudication is appropriate, (2) best practices establishment and operation of a medical device adjudication committee and (3) the role of endpoint adjudication for post market evaluation in the emerging era of real world evidence.

Commentary: In the Rising Era of Big Data, Small Steps are Key.

Big Data may be useful to identify and perhaps ameliorate health disparities. However, over reliance on the power on Big Data can potentially cause harm. When assessing health disparities, the use of Big Data should be limited to hypothesis generation.

Novel oral anticoagulants and reversal agents: Considerations for clinical development.

This white paper provides a summary of presentations and discussions that were held at an Anticoagulant-Induced Bleeding and Reversal Agents Think Tank co-sponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the FDA's White Oak Headquarters on April 22, 2014. Attention focused on a development pathway for reversal agents for the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs). This is important because anticoagulation is still widely underused for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Undertreatment persists, although NOACs, in general, overcome some of the difficulties associated with anticoagulation provided by vitamin K antagonists. One reason for the lack of a wider uptake is the absence of NOAC reversal agents. As there are neither widely accepted academic and industry standards nor a definitive regulatory policy on the development of such reversal agents, this meeting provided a forum for leaders in the fields of cardiovascular clinical trials and cardiovascular safety to discuss the issues and develop recommendations. Attendees included representatives from pharmaceutical companies; regulatory agencies; end point adjudication specialist groups; contract research organizations; and active, academically based physicians. There was wide and solid consensus that NOACs overall offer improvements in convenience, efficacy, and safety compared with warfarin, even without reversal agents. Still, it was broadly accepted that it would be helpful to have reversal agents available for clinicians to use. Because it is not feasible to do definitive outcomes studies demonstrating a reversal agent's clinical benefits, it was felt that these agents could be approved for use in life-threatening bleeding situations if the molecules were well characterized preclinically, their pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles were well understood, and showed no harmful adverse events in early human testing. There was also consensus that after such approval, efforts should be made to augment the available clinical information until such time as there is a body of evidence to demonstrate real-world clinical outcomes with the reversal agents. No recommendations were made for more generalized use of these agents in the setting of non-life-threatening situations. This article reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent FDA's views or policies.

Centralized adjudication of cardiovascular end points in cardiovascular and noncardiovascular pharmacologic trials: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

This white paper provides a summary of presentations and discussions at a cardiovascular (CV) end point adjudication think tank cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Committee and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that was convened at the FDA's White Oak headquarters on November 6, 2013. Attention was focused on the lack of clarity concerning the need for end point adjudication in both CV and non-CV trials: there is currently an absence of widely accepted academic or industry standards and a definitive regulatory policy on how best to structure and use clinical end point committees (CECs). This meeting therefore provided a forum for leaders in the fields of CV clinical trials and CV safety to develop a foundation of initial best practice recommendations for use in future CEC charters. Attendees included representatives from pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, end point adjudication specialist groups, clinical research organizations, and active, academically based adjudicators. The manuscript presents recommendations from the think tank regarding when CV end point adjudication should be considered in trials conducted by cardiologists and by noncardiologists as well as detailing key issues in the composition of a CEC and its charter. In addition, it presents several recommended best practices for the establishment and operation of CECs. The science underlying CV event adjudication is evolving, and suggestions for additional areas of research will be needed to continue to advance this science. This manuscript does not constitute regulatory guidance.