Search

Abstract Rapid and robust strategies to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of novel and existing pharmacotherapeutic interventions (repurposed treatments) in future pandemics are required. Observational “real‐world studies” (RWS) can report more quickly than randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and would have value were they to yield reliable results. Both RCTs and RWS were deployed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Comparing results between them offers a unique opportunity to determine the potential value and contribution of each. A learning review of these parallel evidence channels in COVID‐19, based on quantitative modeling, can help improve speed and reliability in the evaluation of repurposed therapeutics in a future pandemic. Analysis of all‐cause mortality data from 249 observational RWS and RCTs across eight treatment regimens for COVID‐19 showed that RWS yield more heterogeneous results, and generally overestimate the effect size subsequently seen in RCTs. This is explained in part by a few study factors: the presence of RWS that are imbalanced for age, gender, and disease severity, and those reporting mortality at 2 weeks or less. Smaller studies of either type contributed negligibly. Analysis of evidence generated sequentially during the pandemic indicated that larger RCTs drive our ability to make conclusive decisions regarding clinical benefit of each treatment, with limited inference drawn from RWS. These results suggest that when evaluating therapies in future pandemics, (1) large RCTs, especially platform studies, be deployed early; (2) any RWS should be large and should have adequate matching of known confounders and long follow‐up; (3) reporting standards and data standards for primary endpoints, explanatory factors, and key subgroups should be improved; in addition, (4) appropriate incentives should be in place to enable access to patient‐level data; and (5) an overall aggregate view of all available results should be available at any given time.

Abstract The inotropic effects of glucagon have been recognized for many years, but it has remained unclear whether glucagon signaling is beneficial to cardiac function. We evaluated the effects of glucagon alone and in combination with the glucagon‐like peptide 1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonist exenatide in the isolated perfused rat heart. The isolated perfused rat heart was used to investigate the initial inotropic and chronotropic effects of glucagon and exenatide during aerobic perfusion, and recovery of contractile function following ischaemia/reperfusion. Glucagon, but not exenatide, elicited an acute chronotropic and inotropic response during aerobic perfusion of the rat heart. Compared with control, glucagon improved recovery of left ventricular developed pressure (LVDP) by 33% (p

Getting the dose right is a key challenge in drug development; model-informed drug development (MIDD) provides powerful tools to shape dose strategies and inform decision making. In this tutorial, the case study of the ZENITH trials showcases how a set of clinical pharmacology and MIDD approaches informed an impactful dose strategy. The endothelin A receptor antagonist zibotentan, combined with the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin, has yielded a robust and significant albuminuria reduction in the Phase IIb trial ZENITH-CKD and is being investigated for reduction of kidney function decline in a high-risk chronic kidney disease population in the Phase III trial ZENITH High Proteinuria. Endothelin antagonist treatment has, until now, been limited by the class effect fluid retention. ZENITH-CKD investigated a wide range of zibotentan doses based on pharmacokinetics in renal impairment, competitor-data exposure-response modeling, and clinical trial simulations. Recruitment delays reduced interim analysis data availability; here, supportive dose-response modeling recovered decision-making confidence. At trial completion, the low-dose arm enabled Phase III dose selection between Phase IIb doses. Dose-response modeling of efficacy and Kaplan-Meier analyses of tolerability identified a kidney-function-based low-dose strategy of 0.25 or 0.75 mg zibotentan (with 10 mg dapagliflozin) to balance benefit/risk in ZENITH High Proteinuria. The applied clinical pharmacology and MIDD principles enabled successful Phase IIb dose finding, rationalized and built confidence in the innovative Phase III dosing strategy and identified a potential therapeutic window for zibotentan/dapagliflozin, providing the opportunity for a significant improvement in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with high proteinuria., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background and Purpose: Endothelin-1 (ET-1) receptor A (ETA) antagonists reduce proteinuria and prevent renal outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, but their utility has been limited because of associated fluid retention, resulting in increased heart failure risk. Understanding the mechanisms responsible for fluid retention could result in solutions that preserve renoprotective effects while mitigating fluid retention, but the complexity of the endothelin system has made identification of the underlying mechanisms challenging., Approach: We utilized a previously developed mathematical model of ET-1 kinetics, ETA receptor antagonism, kidney function, haemodynamics, and sodium and water homeostasis to evaluate hypotheses for mechanisms of fluid retention with ETA antagonism. To do this, we simulated the RADAR clinical trial of atrasentan in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD and evaluated the ability of the model to predict the observed decreases in haematocrit, urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)., Background and Key Results: An effect of ETA antagonism on venodilation and increased venous capacitance was found to be the critical mechanism necessary to reproduce the simultaneous decrease in both MAP and haematocrit observed in RADAR., Conclusions and Impact: These findings indicate that fluid retention with ETA antagonism may not be caused by a direct antidiuretic effect within the kidney but is instead be an adaptive response to venodilation and increased venous capacity, which acutely tends to reduce cardiac filling pressure and cardiac output, and that fluid retention occurs in an attempt to maintain cardiac filling and cardiac output., (© 2024 The Author(s). British Journal of Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)