Improving Cardiovascular Drug and Device Development and Evidence Through Patient-Centered Research and Clinical Trials

The Polypill: A New Alternative in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of death and disability worldwide. Although age-standardized CVD mortality rates decreased globally by 14.5% between 2006 and 2016, the burden of CVD remains disproportionately higher in low- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries. Even though proven, effective approaches based on multiple-drug intake aimed at the prevention and treatment of CVD are currently available, poor adherence, early discontinuation of treatment, and suboptimal daily execution of the prescribed therapeutic regimes give rise to shortfalls in drug exposure, leading to high variability in the responses to the prescribed medications. Wald and Law, in their landmark paper published in BMJ 2003, hypothesized that the use of a fixed-dose combination of statins, β-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and aspirin (classic Polypill composition) may increase adherence and decrease CVD by up to 80% when prescribed as primary prevention or in substitution of traditional protocols. Since then, many clinical trials have tested this hypothesis, with comparable results. This review aims to describe the available clinical trials performed to assess the impact of fixed-dose combinations on adherence, cost-effectiveness, and the risk factors critical to the onset of CVD.

Drug development for major chronic health conditions-aligning with growing public health needs: Proceedings from a multistakeholder think tank

The global pharmaceutical industry portfolio is skewed towards cancer and rare diseases due to more predictable development pathways and financial incentives. In contrast, drug development for major chronic health conditions that are responsible for a large part of mortality and disability worldwide is stalled. To examine the processes of novel drug development for common chronic health conditions, a multistakeholder Think Tank meeting, including thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, non-profit healthcare organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), payors as well as investors, was convened in July 2022. Herein, we summarize the proceedings of this meeting, including an overview of the current state of drug development for chronic health conditions and key barriers that were identified. Six major action items were formulated to accelerate drug development for chronic diseases, with a focus on improving the efficiency of clinical trials and rapid implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

A systematic review of models of patient engagement in the development and life cycle management of medicines

There is currently no universally agreed code of practice for patient engagement (PE), and existing guidelines do not fully cover the scope across medicine development and subsequent life cycle management. This review conceptualises the meaning and summarises the current models of PE. A systematic literature review was conducted and analysed by thematic synthesis. Eight themes were identified as components of how to achieve meaningful PE, and five were identified for where to engage with patients in drug development. This review provides summative guidance for stakeholders intending to introduce PE and establishes a starting point for the development of a universal code of practice.

Leveraging electronic health records to streamline the conduct of cardiovascular clinical trials

Conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be expensive, time intensive, and complex to conduct. Trial recruitment, participation, and data collection can burden participants and research personnel. In the past two decades, there have been rapid technological advances and an exponential growth in digitized healthcare data. Embedding RCTs, including cardiovascular outcome trials, into electronic health record systems or registries may streamline screening, consent, randomization, follow-up visits, and outcome adjudication. Moreover, wearable sensors (i.e. health and fitness trackers) provide an opportunity to collect data on cardiovascular health and risk factors in unprecedented detail and scale, while growing internet connectivity supports the collection of patient-reported outcomes. There is a pressing need to develop robust mechanisms that facilitate data capture from diverse databases and guidance to standardize data definitions. Importantly, the data collection infrastructure should be reusable to support multiple cardiovascular RCTs over time. Systems, processes, and policies will need to have sufficient flexibility to allow interoperability between different sources of data acquisition. Clinical research guidelines, ethics oversight, and regulatory requirements also need to evolve. This review highlights recent progress towards the use of routinely generated data to conduct RCTs and discusses potential solutions for ongoing barriers. There is a particular focus on methods to utilize routinely generated data for trials while complying with regional data protection laws. The discussion is supported with examples of cardiovascular outcome trials that have successfully leveraged the electronic health record, web-enabled devices or administrative databases to conduct randomized trials.

The effect of adding real-world evidence to regulatory submissions on the breadth of population indicated for rare disease medicine treatment by the European Medicines Agency

BACKGROUND

Despite calls for the use of additional real-world evidence (RWE) during drug development, rates of inclusion at the regulatory stage remain low. The medicine adoption model suggests that providing additional RWE to regulators would result in a wider indicated population than providing randomised-controlled trial evidence (RCTE) alone. Here, we tested this hypothesis.

METHODS

All engagements concerning the 88 orphan drugs approved between 2009 and 2019 on the European Medicines Agency Orphan Register were reviewed between September and December 2019. Engagements were grouped as containing either randomised-controlled trial evidence (RCTE) or RCTE with real-world evidence (RWE). The data on indicatable population (the therapeutic indication requested by an engagement) and indicated population (the therapeutic indication ultimately granted) as well as the median number of criteria limiting the indicated population in each study type (RCTE/RWE) was extracted. A chi-square test assessed the association between the indicated population (as a proportion of the indicatable population) and type of evidence (RCTE with or without RWE) and a Wilcoxon rank sum test assessed the difference between the median number of limiting criteria between RCTE and RWE studies. Prediction modelling extrapolated the results of a power analysis to a level expected to deliver significance and the time this would take.

RESULTS

The review identified 103 engagements, of which three were excluded (one contained only RWE; two contained only systematic literature reviews), leaving 100 engagements for 87 orphan medicines in the final analysis. Only 13% of engagements contained RWE. Although the difference was statistically insignificant, 76.92% of engagements containing RCTE and RWE resulted in a broader indicated population as compared to only 56.32% of those that contained RCTE alone. The median number of limiting criteria from RCTE (37 (28, 43)) and RWE (5 (2, 9)) studies varied significantly (p = 0.005). Modelling suggested that the analysis would achieve sufficient power by 2033-37 at the current RWE adoption rate.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of the disease population studied in RWE was greater than that in RCTE. The analysis testing the relationship between additional RWE and broader indicated population would achieve adequate power between 2032 and 2037 at the current RWE adoption rate.

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Sedation in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: Recommendations From Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research (SCEPTER) Recommendation III

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators.

DESIGN

A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.

Disparities in Cardiovascular Care and Outcomes for Women From Racial/Ethnic Minority Backgrounds

Purpose of review

Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in cardiovascular care are well-documented. This review aims to highlight the disparities and impact on a group particularly vulnerable to disparities, women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds.

Recent findings

Women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds remain underrepresented in major cardiovascular trials, limiting the generalizability of cardiovascular research to this population. Certain cardiovascular risk factors are more prevalent in women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, including traditional risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. Female-specific risk factors including gestational diabetes and preeclampsia as well as non-traditional psychosocial risk factors like depressive and anxiety disorders, increased child care, and familial and home care responsibility have been shown to increase risk for cardiovascular disease events in women more so than in men, and disproportionately affect women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds. Despite this, minimal interventions to address differential risk have been proposed. Furthermore, disparities in treatment and outcomes that disadvantage minority women persist. The limited improvement in outcomes over time, especially among non-Hispanic Black women, is an area that requires further research and active interventions.

Summary

Understanding the lack of representation in cardiovascular trials, differential cardiovascular risk, and disparities in treatment and outcomes among women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds highlights opportunities for improving cardiovascular care among this particularly vulnerable population.

Value in Healthcare Initiative: Summary and Key Recommendations

In spring 2018, the American Heart Association convened the Value in Healthcare Summit to begin an important conversation about the challenges patients with cardiovascular disease face in accessing and deriving quality and value from the healthcare system. Following the summit and recognizing the collective momentum it created, the American Heart Association, in collaboration with the Robert J. Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University, launched the Value in Healthcare Initiative-Transforming Cardiovascular Care. Four areas of focus were identified, and learning collaboratives were established and proceeded to conduct concrete, actionable problem solving in 4 high-impact areas in cardiovascular care: Value-Based Models, Partnering with Regulators, Predict and Prevent, and Prior Authorization. The deliverables from these groups are being disseminated in 4 stand-alone articles, and their publication will initiate further work to test and evaluate each of these promising areas of reform. This article provides an overview of the initiative's findings and highlights key cross-cutting themes for consideration as the initiative moves forward.