scholarly journals Registration, Publication, and Outcome Reporting among Pivotal Clinical Trials that Supported FDA Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices Before and After FDAAA

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Swanson ◽  
James L. Johnston ◽  
Joseph S. Ross
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Cardiovascular Devices ◽  
Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Before And After

ABSTRACTBackgroundSelective registration, publication, and outcome reporting of clinical trials distorts the primary clinical evidence that is available to patients and clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of FDA-approved medical devices. The purpose of this study is to compare registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk (Class III) medical devices before and after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) was enacted in 2007.MethodsUsing publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA summaries, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all pivotal clinical studies supporting FDA approval of new high-risk cardiovascular devices between 2005 and 2020, before and after FDAAA. For published studies, we compared both the primary efficacy outcome with the PMA primary efficacy outcome and the published interpretation of findings with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation (positive, equivocal, or negative).ResultsBetween 2005 and 2020, the FDA approved 156 high-risk cardiovascular devices on the basis of 165 pivotal trials, 48 (29%) of which were categorized as pre-FDAAA and 117 (71%) as post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA, pivotal clinical trials were more likely to be registered (115 of 117 (98%) vs 24 of 48 (50%); p < 0.001), to report results (98 of 115 (85%) vs 7 of 24 (29%); p < 0.001) on ClinicalTrials.gov, and to be published (100 or 117 (85%) vs 28 of 48 (58%); p < 0.001) in peer-reviewed literature when compared to pre-FDAAA. Among published trials, rates of concordant primary efficacy outcome reporting were not significantly different between pre-FDAAA trials and post-FDAAA trials (24 of 28 (86%) vs 96 of 100 (96%); p = 0.07), nor were rates of concordant trial interpretation (27 of 28 (96%) vs 93 of 100 (93%); p = 0.44).ConclusionsFDAAA was associated with increased registration, results reporting, and publication for trials supporting FDA approval of high-risk medical devices. Among published trials, rates of accurate primary efficacy outcome reporting and trial interpretation were high and no different post-FDAAA.

scholarly journals Registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk cardiovascular devices before and after FDAAA

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Swanson ◽  
James L. Johnston ◽  
Joseph S. Ross
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Cardiovascular Devices ◽  
Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Before And After

Abstract Background Selective registration, publication, and outcome reporting of clinical trials distort the primary clinical evidence that is available to patients and clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medical devices. The purpose of this study is to compare registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk (class III) cardiovascular devices before and after the FDA Amendment Act (FDAAA) was enacted in 2007. Methods Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA summaries, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all pivotal clinical studies supporting FDA approval of new high-risk cardiovascular devices between 2005 and 2020, before and after FDAAA. For published studies, we compared both the primary efficacy outcome with the FDA’s Premarket Approval (PMA) primary efficacy outcome and the published interpretation of findings with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation (positive, equivocal, or negative). Results Between 2005 and 2020, the FDA approved 156 high-risk cardiovascular devices on the basis of 165 pivotal trials, 48 (29%) of which were categorized as pre-FDAAA and 117 (71%) as post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA, pivotal clinical trials were more likely to be registered (115 of 117 (98%) vs 24 of 48 (50%); p < 0.001), to report results (98 of 117 (87%) vs 7 of 48 (15%); p < 0.001) on ClinicalTrials.gov, and to be published (100 or 117 (85%) vs 28 of 48 (58%); p < 0.001) in peer-reviewed literature when compared to pre-FDAAA. Among published trials, rates of concordant primary efficacy outcome reporting were not significantly different between pre-FDAAA trials and post-FDAAA trials (24 of 28 (86%) vs 96 of 100 (96%); p = 0.07), nor were rates of concordant trial interpretation (27 of 28 (96%) vs 93 of 100 (93%); p = 0.44). Conclusions FDAAA was associated with increased registration, result reporting, and publication for trials supporting FDA approval of high-risk medical devices. Among published trials, rates of accurate primary efficacy outcome reporting and trial interpretation were high and no different post-FDAAA.

scholarly journals S246. THE EFFECT OF INCORRECT SCALE ADMINISTRATION ON DATA QUALITY IN SCHIZOPHRENIA CLINICAL TRIALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S132-S132
Author(s):  
Alan Kott ◽  
David Daniel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Global Impression ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Global Impression Scale ◽  
Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Time Stamps

Abstract Background The availability of date and time stamps of interview start times on eCOA systems permits monitoring and documentation of the order of administration of scales and instruments at each visit. The Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) is a holistic instrument that synthesizes all information available from the subject, caregivers, medical notes, etc. and is therefore typically required to be rated last at a particular visit. In the current retrospective analysis of double blind eCOA collected schizophrenia data pooled from multiple clinical trials we assessed the percent of visits where CGI was not administered last among other efficacy assessments. Additionally we assessed whether the inappropriate administration order of Clinical Global Impression Scale was associated with discrepancies in the data and change from baseline between the CGI and the primary efficacy outcome. Methods Available eCOA data were pooled from schizophrenia double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials. Within the data, we identified those visits where the CGI was not administered last among other efficacy assessments (inappropriate administration order). Within each trial we identified as discordant those data where the actual primary efficacy score or its change from baseline differed by at least two standard deviations from the expected score after linear regression. For this procedure the CGI- S score used as a predictor and the primary efficacy outcome as dependent variable. Logistic regression was then used on pooled data to explore whether the incorrect order of CGI administration increased the odds of discordant ratings between the CGI and primary outcome measure. Results The dataset consisted of 5,784 paired ratings of the CGI and the primary efficacy outcome. Among these, a total of 4,628 visits allowed to calculate change from baseline. Inappropriate order of CGI administration was identified in a total of 443 visits (7.7% of all visits). Discrepancies between CGI-S and the primary efficacy outcome were identified in 292 visits (5.1% of data) and discrepancies between change from baseline in CGI-S and in the primary efficacy outcome were observed in 249 cases (5.3% of data). The presence of incorrectly administered CGI increased the odds of raw score discrepancy 1.6x (95%CI 1.1–2.4), and the odds of discrepancy in change from baseline 1.8x (95%CI 1.2–2.7), both significant with p &lt;0.01. Discussion Our data indicate a relatively large percent of visits suffer from an incorrect scale administration order. We have previously explored a number of sources of possible noise in schizophrenia clinical trials. Current analyses identified a significant effect of incorrect scale administration on the presence of between scale discordances. Such findings indicate that order of CGI administration should be mandated in schizophrenia clinical trials and enforced by eCOA platforms. Additionally, violations to correct scale administration should be monitored through analytic programs and acted upon in case of repeated occurrences at the rater or site level.

scholarly journals Reduced-dose intravenous thrombolysis for acute intermediate high-risk pulmonary embolism: Rationale and design of the PEITHO-3 trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Sanchez ◽  
Anais Charles-Nelson ◽  
Walter Ageno ◽  
Stefano Barco ◽  
Harald Binder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Functional Limitation ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Reduced Dose ◽  
Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Life Threatening

Intermediate high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is characterised by right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and elevated circulating cardiac troponin levels despite apparent haemodynamic stability at presentation. In these patients, full-dose systemic thrombolysis reduced the risk of haemodynamic decompensation or death but increased the risk of life-threatening bleeding. Reduced-dose thrombolysis may be capable of improving safety while maintaining reperfusion efficacy. The Pulmonary Embolism International Trial (PEITHO)-3 study (EudraCT 2018-000816-96) is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, multinational trial with long-term follow-up. We will compare the efficacy and safety of a reduced-dose alteplase regimen with standard heparin anticoagulation. Patients with intermediate high-risk PE will also fulfil at least one clinical criterion of severity: systolic blood pressure ≤ 110 mmHg, respiratory rate >20 breaths/min, or history of heart failure. The primary efficacy outcome is the composite of all-cause death, haemodynamic decompensation or PE recurrence within 30 days of randomisation. Key secondary outcomes, to be included in hierarchical analysis, are fatal or GUSTO severe or life-threatening bleeding; net clinical benefit (primary efficacy outcome plus severe or life-threatening bleeding); and all-cause death, all within 30 days. All outcomes will be adjudicated by an independent committee. Further outcomes include PE-related death, haemodynamic decompensation, or stroke within 30 days; dyspnoea, functional limitation or RV dysfunction at 6 months and 2 years; and utilisation of healthcare resources within 30 days and 2 years. The study is planned to enrol 650 patients. The results are expected to have a major impact on risk-adjusted treatment of acute PE and inform guideline recommendations.

The MARINER trial of rivaroxaban after hospital discharge for medical patients at high risk of VTE

2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (06) ◽  
pp. 1240-1248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Spyropoulos ◽  
Julie Zrubek ◽  
Walter Ageno ◽  
Gregory Albers ◽  
C. Elliott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Efficacy Outcome ◽  
D Dimer

SummaryHospital-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of premature death and disability worldwide. Evidence-based guidelines recommend that anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis be given to hospitalised medical patients at risk of VTE, but suggest against routine use of thromboprophylaxis beyond the hospital stay. The MARINER study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis using rivaroxaban, begun at hospital discharge and continued for 45 days, for preventing symptomatic VTE in high-risk medical patients. Eligible patients are identified using the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE VTE) risk score, combined with a laboratory test, D-dimer. The rivaroxaban regimen is 10 mg once daily for patients with CrCl ≥ 50 ml/min, or 7.5 mg once daily for patients with CrCl ≥ 30 ml/min and < 50 ml/ min. The primary efficacy outcome is the composite of symptomatic VTE (lower extremity deep-vein thrombosis and non-fatal pulmonary embolism) and VTE-related death. The principal safety outcome is major bleeding. A blinded clinical events committee adjudicates all suspected outcome events. The sample size is event-driven with an estimated total of 8,000 patients to acquire 161 primary outcome events. Study design features that distinguish MARINER from previous and ongoing thromboprophylaxis trials in medically ill patients are: (i) use of a validated risk assessment model (IMPROVE VTE) and D-dimer determination for identifying eligible patients at high risk of VTE, (ii) randomisation at the time of hospital discharge, (iii) a 45-day treatment period and (iv) restriction of the primary efficacy outcome to symptomatic VTE events.

Rivaroxaban Versus Fondaparinux in the Treatment of Superficial Vein Thrombosis - the Surprise Trial

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 85-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Beyer-Westendorf ◽  
Sebastian Schellong ◽  
Horst Gerlach ◽  
Katja Jersemann ◽  
Eberhard Rabe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Superficial Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Full Analysis

Abstract Background The current standard of therapy in superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) comprises subcutaneous injections of the indirect factorXainhibitorfondaparinuxfor up to 45 days, which was highlyeffectivecompared to placebo in the CALISTO trial. However,fondaparinuxis expensive, requires daily injections and cost-effectiveness in SVT therapy has been questioned. Rivaroxaban is a direct oral factorXainhibitor which has been shown to be effective in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We hypothesizedthat SVT patientsat high risk for VTE complications may be treated as efficacious and safe with rivaroxaban as withfondaparinux. Methods The SURPRISE trial, a randomized, open-label blinded outcome event adjudication trial, compared rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily withfondaparinux2.5 mg once daily in patients with SVT at high risk of VTE complications (defined assupragenualSVT + age > 65 years, male sex, previous VTE, cancer, autoimmune disease or SVT of non-varicose veins). Treatment duration for both treatments was 45+5 days with an observational period until day 90+10. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite endpoint of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, SVT progression towards thesaphenofemoraljunction, SVT recurrence or all cause death in the per-protocol analysis at day 45. A predefined sensitivity analysis was performed in all randomized patients (full analysis set). The primary safety outcome was the rate of ISTH major bleeding during treatment. Further outcome measures included the composite efficacy outcome up to day 90, each component of the primary efficacy outcome, rates of surgical treatment of SVT and rates of major VTE (composite of symptomatic PE or symptomatic proximal DVT or VTE-related death) at days 45 and 90. The trial was designed to test for non-inferiority of rivaroxaban compared tofondaparinuxwith respect to the primary efficacy outcome and to the rates of ISTH major bleeding. Results A total of 472 patients were randomized (mean age 60.3 years; 60.4% female) and treated with rivaroxaban (n=236) orfondaparinux(n=236). Mean treatment duration was 44.0 days for rivaroxaban and 44.8 days forfondaparinux. Until day 45+5, the primary efficacy outcome (n=435 in per-protocol analysis set) occurred in 3.3% (95%-CI 0.90; 5.73) of patients treated with rivaroxaban and 1.8% (95%-CI 0.05; 3.52) of patients receivingfondaparinux(absolute difference between rivaroxaban andfondaparinuxwas 1.53%; one-sided upper CI limit 4.03%; p-value for non-inferiority 0.025; table 1 and figure 1). Until day 90+10, the respective rates were 7.1% for rivaroxaban and 6.7% forfondaparinux(absolute difference 0.41;one-sided upper CI limit 4.41%;p-value for non-inferiority 0.047). Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban vs.fondaparinuxwas preserved in the full analysis set. No major bleeding occurred and rates of non-major, clinically relevant bleeding were 2.5 vs. 0.4% for day 45+5 and 2.5 vs. 0.9% for day 90+10 in safety set for rivaroxaban andfondaparinux, respectively (table 1).Mean±SDadherence (pill/syringe count at day 45) was 98.9±13.4% for rivaroxaban and 99.3±6.2% forfondaparinux(full analysis set). Conclusions In high-risk SVT patients, rivaroxaban was non-inferior tofondaparinuxin preventing thromboembolic complications with comparable safety. VTE events were predominantly SVT recurrence. Few cases of DVT and PE occurred, which indicates that a 45 days course of rivaroxaban 10 mg orfondaparinux2.5 mg is sufficient to prevent serious complications in this specific subset of SVT patients. As to whether oral rivaroxaban offers a better quality of life compared to 45 days of injections, this has to be investigated in future studies. We found higher SVT complications rates in both treatment arms compared to thefondaparinuxarm in the CALISTO trial. Therefore, patients at higher VTE risk can be identified by use of a simple risk factor assessment, which may help to improve cost-effectiveness of SVT therapy. However, the concept of SVT risk stratification needs to be further investigated, since patients without additional risk factors may not need anticoagulant therapy at all. (Funded by Bayer Vital GmbH, Germany, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01499953) In response to a pre-submission enquiry, the New England Journal of Medicine indicated potential interest in the study results and a simultaneous publication/presentation is targeted. Disclosures Beyer-Westendorf: Daichii Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; LEO: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Schellong:Bayer: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria; Daichii Sankyo: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria. Gerlach:ASPEN: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria; LeoPharma.: Honoraria. Rabe:Bayer: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Daichii-Sankyo: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Bauersachs:Bayer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; ASPEN: Honoraria, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Using Cilostazol With Aspirin or Clopidogrel: Subanalysis of the CSPS.com Trial

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haruhiko Hoshino ◽  
Kazunori Toyoda ◽  
Katsuhiro Omae ◽  
Noriyuki Ishida ◽  
Shinichiro Uchiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Monotherapy Group ◽  
Unique Identifier ◽  
Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Safety Outcome ◽  
Efficacy Outcome

Background and Purpose: Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel reduces the recurrence of ischemic stroke while significantly increasing the bleeding events compared with monotherapy, the CSPS.com trial (Cilostazol Stroke Prevention Study combination) showed that DAPT using cilostazol was more effective without the bleeding risk. In the CSPS.com trial, aspirin or clopidogrel was used as the underlying antiplatelet drug. The effectiveness and safety of each combination were examined and clarified. Methods: In the CSPS.com trial, a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled study, patients with high-risk, noncardioembolic ischemic stroke 8 to 180 days after onset treated with aspirin or clopidogrel alone at the discretion of the physician in charge were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either monotherapy or DAPT using cilostazol and followed for 0.5 to 3.5 years. The primary efficacy outcome was first recurrence of ischemic stroke. The safety outcome was severe or life-threatening bleeding. The analysis was based on the underlying antiplatelet agents. Results: A total of 763 patients taking aspirin and 1116 taking clopidogrel were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Although the clopidogrel group had more risk factors than the aspirin group, the primary efficacy outcome and safety outcome did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. In the aspirin group, the primary efficacy outcome and safety outcome did not differ significantly between the DAPT group and the aspirin-monotherapy group. In the clopidogrel group, the primary end point occurred at a rate of 2.31 per 100 patient-years in the DAPT group and 5.19 per 100 patient-years in the clopidogrel-monotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.447 [95% CI, 0.258–0.774]). Safety outcome did not differ significantly between groups (0.51 per 100 patient-years versus 0.71 per 100 patient-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.730 [95% CI, 0.206–2.588]). Conclusions: The combination of cilostazol and clopidogrel significantly reduced the recurrence of ischemic stroke without increasing the bleeding risk in noncardioembolic, high-risk patients. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01995370. URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ; Unique identifier: UMIN000012180.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document