Jonathan Seltzer

The Diagnosis of Cardiac Arrhythmias: A Prospective Multi‐Center Randomized Study Comparing Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry Versus Standard Loop Event Monitoring

Introduction: Ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring systems are frequently used in the outpatient evaluation of symptoms suggestive of a cardiac arrhythmia; however, they have a low yield in the identification of clinically significant but infrequent, brief, and/or intermittently symptomatic arrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to compare the relative value of a mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry system (MCOT) with a patient‐activated external looping event monitor (LOOP) for symptoms thought to be due to an arrhythmia.

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 FDAs 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 agents 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 FDAs views or policies.

Cardiovascular Safety Outcome Trials: A meeting report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

This White Paper provides a summary of presentations and discussions at a Cardiovascular Safety Outcome Trials Think Tank cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the American College of Cardiology, held at American College of Cardiologys Heart House, Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014. Studies to assess cardiovascular (CV) risk of a new drug are sometimes requested by regulators to resolve ambiguous safety signals seen during its development or among other members of its class. Think Tank participants thought that important considerations in undertaking such studies were as follows: (1) plausibility-how likely it is that a possible signal indicating risk is real, based on strength of evidence, and/or whether a plausible mechanism of action for potential CV harm has been identified; (2) relevance-what relative and absolute CV risk would need to be excluded to determine that the drug had an acceptable benefit-to-risk balance for its use in the intended patient population; and (3) how plausibility and relevance influence the timing and approach to further safety assessment.

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 FDAs 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.

Moving from Compliance to Competency

Medicines development and clinical research are among the most heavily regulated activities on a global basis. As our understanding of pathophysiology and therapeutic intervention has increased, there has been a concomitant increase in the complexity of clinical trial protocol requirements[1][1] and

Responsibilities of Data Monitoring Committees Consensus Recommendations

Background: A data monitoring committee (DMC) has special responsibilities for protecting the safety of clinical trial participants. Few guidance documents are available that address the operations and mechanics of establishing, serving on, or reporting to a DMC. This article provides a practical guide to sponsors, institutions, and individuals responsible for, or serving on, a DMC. Methods: A workgroup of professionals from academia and not-for-profit and commercial organizations that included investigators, statisticians, patient advocates, and ethicists met to define the essential elements of planning, coordinating, and populating a DMC. All members of the group have formed, served on, advised, or worked with DMCs. Results: The group outlined the objectives and mechanics of running a DMC, including operational and practical considerations, membership characteristics, roles, members’ liability, and indemnification. Further, it delineated the roles and responsibilities of each DMC member. Conclusions: The group recommended practices for each phase of the DMC process from inception through execution of a clinical trial, with appropriate considerations for confidentiality. The group’s practical guidance should assist in comprehensive oversight of appropriate clinical trials and should help DMC members execute their obligations with greater assurance.

Future directions in antiarrhythmic drug therapy for atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly sustained cardiac arrhythmia. Drugs currently approved by the US FDA for the treatment of this arrhythmia are imperfect owing to either side effects or limited efficacy. Drug development strategies have focused on two areas: the modification of existing agents--such as Class III drugs aimed at improving their safety and efficacy profile--and targeting newly postulated mechanisms of atrial fibrillation. In this article, we review new drugs currently in development and promising drug strategies for atrial fibrillation prevention and treatment.

Cardiovascular outcome trials in patients with chronic kidney disease: challenges associated with selection of patients and endpoints

Although cardiovascular disease is a major health burden for patients with chronic kidney disease, most cardiovascular outcome trials have excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Moreover, the major cardiovascular outcome trials that have been conducted in patients with end-stage renal disease have not demonstrated a treatment benefit. Thus, clinicians have limited evidence to guide the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic kidney disease, particularly those on dialysis. Several factors contribute to both the paucity of trials and the apparent lack of observed treatment effect in completed studies. Challenges associated with conducting trials in this population include patient heterogeneity, complexity of renal pathophysiology and its interaction with cardiovascular disease, and competing risks for death. The Investigator Network Initiative Cardiovascular and Renal Clinical Trialists (INI-CRCT), an international organization of academic cardiovascular and renal clinical trialists, held a meeting of regulators and experts in nephrology, cardiology, and clinical trial methodology. The group identified several research priorities, summarized in this paper, that should be pursued to advance the field towards achieving improved cardiovascular outcomes for these patients. Cardiovascular and renal clinical trialists must partner to address the uncertainties in the field through collaborative research and design clinical trials that reflect the specific needs of the chronic and end-stage kidney disease populations, with the shared goal of generating robust evidence to guide the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with kidney disease.

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

&NA; 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 FDAs 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.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PREVALENT AND INCIDENT HEART FAILURE IN CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOME TRIALS OF PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES

Since the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an industry guidance in 2008, many cardiovascular outcome trials have studied important cardiovascular risks and benefits of novel glucose lowering therapies. The rigor and extent of ascertainment of heart failure (HF)-related data in