Search

Purpose: To present the 6-month results of the Stromal Cell–Derived Factor-1 Plasmid Treatment for Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease (STOP-PAD) trial. The trial was an attempt to alter the course of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) with a biological agent vs placebo after successful arterial revascularization at or below the knee. Materials and Methods: The multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2B STOP-PAD trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02544204) randomized 109 patients (mean age 71 years; 68 men) with Rutherford category 5 or 6 CLTI and evidence of persistent impaired forefoot perfusion following recent successful revascularization to 8- (n=34) or 16-mg (n=36) intramuscular injections of a non-viral DNA plasmid–based treatment vs placebo (n=34). The primary efficacy outcome was the 6-month wound healing score evaluated by an independent wound core laboratory; the primary safety endpoint was major adverse limb events (MALE), a composite of major amputation plus clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 6 months. Results: Only one-third of the patients had complete wound healing at 6 months in the placebo (31%), 8-mg injection (33%), and 16-mg injection (33%) groups. In addition, the observed increase in the toe-brachial index from baseline to 6 months was statistically significant in each group; however, this did not result in lower rates of MALE at 6 months (24% in the placebo, 29% in the 8-mg injection, and 11% in the 16-mg injection groups). During the 6-month period, 6 patients (6%) died, and 24 patients (23%) had an amputation [only 4 (4%) major]. Conclusion: Combining revascularization and biological therapy failed to improve outcomes in CLTI at 6 months. STOP-PAD has provided insights for future trials to evaluate biological therapy.

The efficacy of biologic therapies in critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains elusive, in part, due to limitations in trial design and patient selection. Using a novel design, we examined the impact of complementing revascularization therapy with intramuscular JVS-100 – a non-viral gene therapy that activates endogenous regenerative repair pathways. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2B trial, we randomized 109 patients with CLI (Rutherford class V or VI) to 8 mg or 16 mg intramuscular injections of placebo versus JVS-100. Patients were eligible if they persistently had reduced forefoot perfusion, by toe–brachial index (TBI) or skin perfusion pressure (SPP), following successful revascularization with angiographic demonstration of tibial arterial flow to the ankle. The primary efficacy end point was a 3-month wound healing score assessed by an independent wound core laboratory. The primary safety end point was major adverse limb events (MALE). Patients’ mean age was 71 years, 33% were women, 79% had diabetes, and 8% had end-stage renal disease. TBI after revascularization was 0.26, 0.27, and 0.26 among the three groups (placebo, 8 mg, and 16 mg injections, respectively). Only 26% of wounds completely healed at 3 months, without any differences between the three groups (26.5%, 26.5%, and 25%, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant changes in TBI at 3 months. Three (2.8%) patients died and two (1.8%) had major amputations. Rates of MALE at 3 months were 8.8%, 20%, and 8.3%, respectively. While safe, JVS-100 failed to improve wound healing or hemodynamic measures at 3 months. Only one-quarter of CLI wounds healed at 3 months despite successful revascularization, highlighting the need for additional research in therapies that can improve microcirculation in these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02544204

Background Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are often positioned at the top of evidence hierarchies. Meta-analyses of RCTs aim to integrate the state of knowledge on a given scientific question, particularly for rare drug-related outcomes. However, although RCTs are valuable tools in our armamentarium, they are rarely designed to evaluate drug safety and are thus susceptible to limitations that may hamper the ability of both RCTs and meta-analyses to fully characterize the safety profiles of drugs. Their potential limitations might be exacerbated in the study of rare outcomes, often encountered in drug safety assessment, when even minor deviations from the intended randomization could impact the stability of the risk estimates. Purpose This article considers the methodological caveats of both RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs pertinent to the study of drug-related harms. It is intended to stimulate discussion about the impact of these caveats on interpreting findings of RCTs and meta-analyses for drug safety, which would foster more robust, critical evaluations, and thus enhance clinical and regulatory decision-making. Methods Pertinent issues that can influence the interpretation of drug-related harms discussed in this article were based on authors’ expertise and review of the literature. Results Investigators and clinicians should be cognizant of the potential limitations of the secondary use of RCTs and meta-analyses in the assessment of drug-related harms and, when applicable, should consider potential remedies to overcome these limitations. Limitations Only few practical examples are included in the article due to the fact that many of the discussed caveats are not examined and/or reported in many publications. In addition, the confidential nature of data reviewed at a regulatory agency forestalls an in depth discussion of examples pertaining to specific drugs. Furthermore, our ability to quantify the extent of encountering, or the actual impact of, the caveats addressed in this review on the RCTs findings is limited. It is worth noting that the mere encounter of a given caveat does not mean that it will obviate the utility of drug safety information from a given trial. The extent of its impact is expected to vary based on the specifics of the trial, the drugs studied, the indications, and the nature of the adverse events. Conclusions Although some of the limitations described are inherent in RCTs, some of the sources of bias highlighted in this article could be minimized by careful RCT design, planned follow-up, and improved collection of information on adverse events. As future research sheds more light on pertinent knowledge gaps and issues, the ability to maximize the use of RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs to address drug safety questions of interest will be greatly enhanced.