Quality and transparency of evidence for implantable cardiovascular medical devices assessed by the CORE-MD consortium

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE-marking) between 2000 and 2021.

METHODS

Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000-21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval.

RESULTS

At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non-randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre-registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non-randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P < .001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE-mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE-mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE-mark approval (P < .001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE-mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016-21.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity and quality of publicly available data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categories of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000-21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non-randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE-mark certification.

Impact of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin on urinary supersaturations in kidney stone formers (SWEETSTONE trial): protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial

INTRODUCTION

Kidney stones are a global healthcare problem. Given high recurrence rates and the morbidity associated with symptomatic stone disease, effective medical prophylaxis is clearly an unmet need. Explanatory analyses of randomised controlled trials with sodium/glucose cotransporter isoform 2 inhibitors indicated a 30%-50% reduced rate of stone events in patients with diabetes. Underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We aim to determine the effect of empagliflozin on urinary supersaturations in non-diabetic kidney stone formers to evaluate their therapeutic potential for recurrence prevention. We will provide first clinical trial evidence on whether urinary supersaturations are affected by empagliflozin in kidney stone formers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The SWEETSTONE trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over, exploratory study to assess the impact of empagliflozin on urinary supersaturations of calcium oxalate, calcium phosphate and uric acid in kidney stone formers. We plan to include 46 non-diabetic adults (18-74 years) with ≥1 past kidney stone event and stone composition with ≥80% of calcium or ≥80% of uric acid. Patients with secondary causes of kidney stones or chronic kidney disease will be excluded. Eligible individuals will be randomised in equal proportions to receive either a 14-day treatment with 25 mg empagliflozin followed after the 2-6 weeks wash out period by a 14-day treatment with a matching placebo or the reverse procedure. Secondary outcomes will include electrolyte concentrations, renal function, mineral metabolism and glycaemic parameters, urinary volume and safety.Results will be presented as effect measures (95% CIs) with p values and hypothesis testing for primary outcomes (significance level 0.02).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The SWEETSTONE trial was approved by the Swiss ethics committee and Swissmedic. First results are expected in the fourth quarter of 2022.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04911660; Pre-results.

Trajectories of humoral and cellular immunity and responses to a third dose of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with a history of anti-CD20 therapy

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with B-cell-depleting therapies show compromised vaccination-induced immune responses. Herein, we report on the trajectories of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in patients of the RituxiVac study compared with healthy volunteers and investigate the immunogenicity of a third vaccination in previously humoral non-responding patients.

METHODS

We investigated the humoral and cell-mediated immune response after SARS-CoV-2 messanger RNA vaccination in patients with a history with anti-CD20 therapies. Coprimary outcomes were antispike and SARS-CoV-2-stimulated interferon-γ concentrations in vaccine responders 4.3 months (median; IQR: 3.6-4.8 months) after first evaluation, and humoral and cell-mediated immunity (CMI) after a third vaccine dose in previous humoral non-responders. Immunity decay rates were compared using analysis of covariance in linear regression.

RESULTS

5.6 months (IQR: 5.1-6.7) after the second vaccination, we detected antispike IgG in 88% (29/33) and CMI in 44% (14/32) of patients with a humoral response after two-dose vaccination compared with 92% (24/26) healthy volunteers with antispike IgG and 69% (11/16) with CMI 6.8 months after the second vaccination (IQR: 6.0-7.1). Decay rates of antibody concentrations were comparable between patients and controls (p=0.70). In two-dose non-responders, a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine elicited humoral responses in 19% (6/32) and CMI in 32% (10/31) participants.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals comparable immunity decay rates between patients with anti-CD20 treatments and healthy volunteers, but inefficient humoral or CMI after a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in most two-dose humoral non-responders calling for individually tailored vaccination strategies in this population.Trial registration numberNCT04877496; ClinicalTrials.gov number.