| 1. |
- Fanaroff, Alexander C., et al.
(author)
-
Frequency, Regional Variation, and Predictors of Undetermined Cause of Death in Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials : A Pooled Analysis of 9259 Deaths in 9 Trials
- 2019
-
In: Circulation. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 139:7, s. 863-873
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Modern cardiometabolic clinical trials often include cardiovascular death as a component of a composite primary outcome, requiring central adjudication by a clinical events committee to classify cause of death. However, sometimes the cause of death cannot be determined from available data. The US Food and Drug Administration has indicated that this circumstance should occur only rarely, but its prevalence has not been formally assessed. METHODS: Data from 9 global clinical trials (2009-2017) with long-term follow-up and blinded, centrally adjudicated cause of death were used to calculate the proportion of deaths attributed to cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, or undetermined causes by therapeutic area (diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus, stable atherosclerosis, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome), region of patient enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. Patient-and trial-level variables associated with undetermined cause of death were identified using a logistic model. RESULTS: Across 127 049 enrolled participants from 9 trials, there were 9259 centrally adjudicated deaths: 5012 (54.1%) attributable to cardiovascular causes, 2800 (30.2%) attributable to noncardiovascular causes, and 1447 (15.6%) attributable to undetermined causes. There was variability in the proportion of deaths ascribed to undetermined causes by trial therapeutic area, region of enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. On multivariable analysis, acute coronary syndrome or atrial fibrillation trial (versus atherosclerotic vascular disease or diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus), longer time from enrollment to death, more recent trial manuscript publication year, enrollment in North America (versus Western Europe), female sex, and older age were associated with greater likelihood of death of undetermined cause. CONCLUSIONS: In 9 cardiometabolic clinical trials with long-term followup, approximately 16% of deaths had undetermined causes. This provides a baseline for quality assessment of clinical trials and informs operational efforts to potentially reduce the frequency of undetermined deaths in future clinical research.
|
|
| 2. |
- Fanaroff, Alexander C., et al.
(author)
-
Antithrombotic agents for secondary prevention after acute coronary syndromes : A systematic review and network meta-analysis
- 2017
-
In: International Journal of Cardiology. - : ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD. - 0167-5273 .- 1874-1754. ; 241, s. 87-96
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Nine oral antithrombotic medications currently available in the United States and Europe have been studied in clinical trials for secondary prevention of cardiac events following acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Few combinations of these medications have been directly compared, and studies have used multiple different comparator regimens.Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating one or more available oral antithrombotic therapies in patients with ACS or prior myocardial infarction (MI). Co-primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared with imputed placebo and aspirin monotherapy.Results: Forty-seven studies (196,057 subjects) met inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Almost all studies tested either aspirin monotherapy compared with placebo or a combination of antithrombotic agents that included aspirin. Nearly all regimens reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared with imputed placebo. However, compared with imputed aspirin monotherapy, only combination therapy with aspirin plus ticagrelor was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.93), and triple therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and very low dose rivaroxaban was associated with lower all-cause mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.90). Major bleeding was increased 45-95% with dual antithrombotic therapy, and 2-6-fold with triple therapy.Conclusion: Few combinations of antithrombotic therapy were associated with a reduction inmortality compared with aspirin monotherapy, highlighting the difficulty in clinical interpretation of composite ischemic endpoints. Future studies may need to focus on limiting the number of antithrombotic therapies tested in combination to best balance ischemic event reduction and bleeding.
|
|
| 3. |
- Fanaroff, Alexander C., et al.
(author)
-
Ranolazine After Incomplete Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus : RIVER-PCI Trial
- 2017
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 69:18, s. 2304-2313
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND Chronic angina is more common in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) with poor glucose control. Ranolazine both treats chronic angina and improves glucose control.OBJECTIVES This study sought to examine ranolazine's antianginal effect in relation to glucose control.METHODS The authors performed a secondary analysis of the RIVER-PCI (Ranolazine in Patients with Incomplete Revascularization after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, a clinical trial in which 2,604 patients with chronic angina and incomplete revascularization following percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to ranolazine versus placebo. Mixed-effects models were used to compare the effects of ranolazine versus placebo on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Interaction between baseline HbA(1c) and ranolazine's effect on Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency at 6 and 12 months was tested.RESULTS Overall, 961 patients (36.9%) had DM at baseline. Compared with placebo, ranolazine significantly decreased HbA(1c) by 0.42 +/- 0.08% (adjusted mean difference +/- SE) and 0.44 +/- 0.08% from baseline to 6 and 12 months, respectively, in DM patients, and by 0.19 +/- 0.02% and 0.20 +/- 0.02% at 6 and 12 months, respectively, in non-DM patients. Compared with placebo, ranolazine significantly reduced Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency at 6 months among DM patients but not at 12 months. The reductions in angina frequency were numerically greater among patients with baseline HbA(1c) >= 7.5% than those with HbA(1c) <7.5% (interaction p = 0.07).CONCLUSIONS In patients with DM and chronic angina with incomplete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention, ranolazine's effect on glucose control and angina at 6 months was proportionate to baseline HbA(1c), but the effect on angina dissipated by 12 months.
|
|
| 4. |
- Spitzer, Ernest, et al.
(author)
-
Independence of clinical events committees : A consensus statement from clinical research organizations
- 2022
-
In: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 248, s. 120-129
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging.Methods This consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance.Results An independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial.Conclusions This consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.
|
|
