Search

Presently, acute pharmacological termination of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) unresponsive to patient-initiated vagal maneuvers requires in-hospital intervention. Etripamil, a fast-acting, nondihydropyridine, L-type calcium channel blocker, is formulated as an intranasal spray to rapidly terminate atrioventricular (AV) nodal-dependent PSVT in a medically unsupervised setting. The NODE-301 study did not meet its prespecified primary end point of PSVT conversion over 5 hours following a single dose of etripamil 70 mg. However, analysis at earlier time points demonstrated etripamil treatment effect during the first 30 minutes, consistent with its expected rapid onset and short duration of action. This led to the design of the RAPID study, which includes a new dosing regimen (up to 2 etripamil 70 mg doses separated by 10 minutes) to increase the exposure and pharmacodynamic effect of etripamil. The primary objective of RAPID (NCT03464019) is to determine if etripamil self-administered by patients is superior to placebo in terminating PSVT in an at-home setting. The secondary objective is to evaluate the safety of etripamil when self-administered by patients without medical supervision. Additional efficacy end points include the proportion of patients requiring additional medical intervention in an emergency department to terminate PSVT and patient-reported outcomes. After successfully completing a test dose to assess the safety of 2 70 mg doses of etripamil during sinus rhythm, approximately 500 patients will be randomized 1:1 to etripamil or placebo to accrue 180 positively adjudicated AV nodal-dependent PSVT events for treatment with the study drug. Etripamil may offer a new alternative to the current in-hospital treatment modality, providing for safe and effective at-home termination of PSVT., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The Cardiac Safety Research Consortium (CSRC), a transparent, public-private partnership established in 2005 as a Critical Path Program and formalized in 2006 under a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Food and Drug Administration and Duke University, is entering its second decade. Our continuing goal is to advance paradigms for more efficient regulatory science related to the cardiovascular safety of new therapeutics, both in the United States and globally, particularly where such safety questions add burden to innovative research and development. Operationally, CSRC brings together a broad base of stakeholders from academia, industry, and government agencies in a collaborative forum focused on identifying barriers and then creating novel solutions through shared data, expertise, and collaborative research. This white paper provides a brief overview of the Consortium's activities in its first decade and a context for some of our current activities and future directions. The growth and success of the CSRC have been primarily driven by members' active participation and the development of goodwill and trust throughout our membership, which have facilitated novel collaborations across traditionally competitive or contentious stakeholder boundaries. The continued expansion of our base of participating academicians, industry experts, and regulators will define the Consortium's success in our second decade. It is our hope that sharing our endeavors to date will stimulate additional participation in the CSRC and also provide a model for other groups starting to develop similar collaborative forums., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 Cardiology's 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., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Recent advances in electrocardiographic monitoring and waveform analysis have significantly improved the ability to detect drug-induced changes in cardiac repolarization manifested as changes in the QT/corrected QT interval. These advances have also improved the ability to detect drug-induced changes in cardiac conduction. This White Paper summarizes current opinion, reached by consensus among experts at the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, on the assessment of electrocardiogram-based safety measurements of the PR and QRS intervals, representing atrioventricular and ventricular conduction, respectively, during drug development., (Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The ability to make informed benefit-risk assessments for potentially cardiotoxic new compounds is of considerable interest and importance at the public health, drug development, and individual patient levels. Cardiac imaging approaches in the evaluation of drug-induced myocardial dysfunction will likely play an increasing role. However, the optimal choice of myocardial imaging modality and the recommended frequency of monitoring are undefined. These decisions are complicated by the array of imaging techniques, which have varying sensitivities, specificities, availabilities, local expertise, safety, and costs, and by the variable time-course of tissue damage, functional myocardial depression, or recovery of function. This White Paper summarizes scientific discussions of members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium on the main factors to consider when selecting nonclinical and clinical cardiac function imaging techniques in drug development. We focus on 3 commonly used imaging modalities in the evaluation of cardiac function: echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radionuclide (nuclear) imaging and highlight areas for future research., (Copyright © 2012 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Electrocardiographic monitoring is an integral component of the clinical assessment of cardiac safety of all compounds in development. The International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E14 guideline recommends a dedicated study to evaluate drug-induced effects on cardiac repolarization ("thorough QT/QTc study"). There has been limited published information on QT interval changes secondary to therapeutic proteins; however, in theory, biologic therapies may affect cardiac electrical activity either directly or indirectly. This article summarizes scientific discussions of members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium and includes possible approaches to consider for the clinical evaluation of drug-induced QT prolongation in development programs of therapeutic proteins., (Copyright © 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lipid lowering through statin therapy significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. The ENHANCE study is an international 2-year, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial designed to test the hypothesis that treatment of hypercholesterolemia by use of 2 complementary agents, ezetimibe (a specific cholesterol absorption inhibitor) and simvastatin (a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor), will result in larger beneficial effects on carotid artery intima-media thickness (CA IMT) than simvastatin monotherapy., Methods: The study will recruit 725 men and women with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. After a placebo washout period, participants are randomized to receive daily administration of either simvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg or simvastatin 80 mg and placebo. The ENHANCE trial uses novel state-of-the-art single-frame digital image acquisition and rigorous quality assurance and control., Results: The primary end point is mean change from baseline to 2 years in CA IMT, using composite measures from the right and left far wall common carotid artery, carotid bulb, and internal carotid artery. Secondary end points include (1) the proportion of participants who exhibit reductions in CA IMT, (2) the change in maximum far wall IMT, (3) the proportion of participants who develop new carotid artery plaques, and (4) the changes in carotid plus common femoral artery IMT., Conclusions: This study addresses the question of whether a regimen that uses drugs with different mechanisms of action will be of further benefit in terms of atherosclerosis reduction compared to statin monotherapy.