Methodology of a reevaluation of cardiovascular outcomes in the RECORD trial: study design and conduct

Background In 2010, after regulatory review of rosiglitazone licensing, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested a reevaluation of cardiovascular end points in the RECORD trial.<p></p> Methods Automated screening of the original clinical trial database and manual case report form review were performed to identify all potential cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths, and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke events. Search techniques were used to find participants lost to follow-up, and sites were queried for additional source documents. Suspected events underwent blinded adjudication using both original RECORD end point definitions and new FDA end point definitions, before analysis by the Duke Clinical Research Institute.<p></p> Results The reevaluation effort included an additional 328 person-years of follow-up. Automated screening identified 396 suspected deaths, 2,052 suspected MIs, and 468 suspected strokes. Manual review of documents by Duke Clinical Research Institute clinical events classification (CEC) coordinators identified an additional 31 suspected deaths, 49 suspected MIs, and 28 suspected strokes. There were 127 CEC queries issued requesting additional information on suspected deaths; 43 were closed with no site response, 61 were closed with a response that no additional data were available, and additional data were received for 23. Seventy CEC queries were issued requesting additional information for suspected MI and stroke events; 31 were closed with no site response, 20 were closed with a response that no additional data were available, and 19 resulted in additional data.<p></p> Conclusions Comprehensive procedures were used for rigorous event reascertainment and readjudication in a previously completed open-label, global clinical trial. These procedures used in this unique situation were consistent with other common approaches in the field, were enhanced to address the FDA concerns about the original RECORD trial results, and could be considered by clinical trialists designing event readjudication protocols for drug development programs that have been completed.<p></p&gt

Results of a reevaluation of cardiovascular outcomes in the RECORD trial

Background The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required a reevaluation of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in the RECORD trial. This provided an opportunity to assess the implications of event adjudication by 2 groups and quantify the differences as well as to use new FDA end point definitions in development.<p></p> Methods Original data were used to systematically identify all potential deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and strokes. Site investigators were approached for additional source documents and information about participants lost to follow-up. Suspected events were adjudicated using standard procedures, and the results were compared with the original trial outcomes.<p></p> Results Follow-up for mortality was 25,833 person-years, including an additional 328 person-years identified during the reevaluation effort. A total of 184 CV or unknown-cause deaths (88 rosiglitazone, 96 metformin/sulfonylurea), 128 participants with an MI (68 rosiglitazone, 60 metformin/sulfonylurea), and 113 participants with a stroke (50 rosiglitazone, 63 metformin/sulfonylurea) were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for rosiglitazone versus metformin/sulfonylurea for the end point of CV (or unknown cause) death, MI, or stroke was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78-1.17) compared with 0.93 (95% CI 0.74-1.15) for the original RECORD results. Treatment comparisons for MI (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80-1.59) and mortality (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) were also the same compared with the original RECORD results. Sensitivity analyses were also consistent with the original RECORD results. Analyses using the FDA definitions showed similar results.<p></p> Conclusions Only a modest number of additional person-years of follow-up were ascertained from this reevaluation of CV end points in RECORD. Observed HRs and CIs from these analyses using the original RECORD or new FDA end point definitions showed similar treatment effects of rosiglitazone compared with the original RECORD results.<p></p&gt

Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Study Drug Discontinuation: Post-Hoc Analysis of Findings from ROCKET AF.

IntroductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction endpoints are increasingly important in clinical trials and may be associated with treatment adherence. In this post hoc substudy from ROCKET AF, we examined whether patient-reported satisfaction was associated with study drug discontinuation.MethodsROCKET AF (n = 14,264) compared rivaroxaban with warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. We analyzed treatment satisfaction scores: the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II (TSQM II). We compared satisfaction with study drug between the two treatment arms, and examined the association between satisfaction and patient-driven study drug discontinuation (stopping study drug due to withdrawal of consent, noncompliance, or loss to follow-up).ResultsA total of 1577 (11%) patients participated in the Patient Satisfaction substudy; 1181 (8.3%) completed both the ACTS and TSQM II 4 weeks after starting study drug. Patients receiving rivaroxaban did not experience significant differences in satisfaction compared with those receiving warfarin. During a median follow-up of 1.6 years, 448 premature study drug discontinuations occurred (213 rivaroxaban group; 235 warfarin group), of which 116 (26%) were patient-driven (52 [24%] rivaroxaban group; 64 [27%] warfarin group). No significant differences were observed between satisfaction level and rates of patient-driven study drug discontinuation.ConclusionsStudy drug satisfaction did not predict rate of study drug discontinuation. No significant difference was observed between satisfaction with warfarin and rivaroxaban, as expected given the double-blind trial design. Although these results are negative, the importance of PRO data will only increase, and these analyses may inform future studies that explore the relationship between drug-satisfaction PROs, adherence, and clinical outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT00403767.FundingThe ROCKET AF trial was funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer

Effects of canagliflozin on initiation of insulin and other antihyperglycaemic agents in the CANVAS program

This study compared initiation of insulin and other AHAs with canagliflozin versus placebo for participants with type 2 diabetes and a history/high risk of cardiovascular disease in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program. After 1 year fewer participants treated with canagliflozin versus placebo initiated any AHA (7% vs 16%), insulin (3% vs 9%;) or any non-insulin AHA (5% vs 12%; p<0.001 for all); overall AHA initiation rates increased over time but were consistently lower with canagliflozin compared with placebo. During the study, the likelihood of initiating insulin was 2.7 times lower for participants treated with canagliflozin compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.31,0.43; p<0.001). The time difference between 10% of patients in the canagliflozin and placebo groups being initiated on insulin from the beginning of the trial was about two years. Time to initiation of other AHAs, including metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulphonylureas, was also delayed for canagliflozin versus placebo (p<0.001 for each). Compared with placebo, canagliflozin delayed the need for initiation of other AHAs and delayed time to insulin therapy, an outcome that is important to many people with diabetes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT01032629, NCT01989754. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Mediators of the effects of canagliflozin on kidney protection in patients with type 2 diabetes

Canagliflozin reduced kidney disease progression in participants with type 2 diabetes in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program that explored potential mediators of the effects of canagliflozin on kidney outcomes. The percent mediating effect of 18 biomarkers indicative of disease was determined by comparing the hazard ratios for the effect of randomized treatment from an unadjusted model and from a model adjusting for the average post-randomization level of each biomarker. Multivariable analyses assessed the joint effects of biomarkers that mediated most strongly in univariable analyses. The kidney outcome was defined as a composite of 40% estimated glomerular filtration rate decline, end-stage kidney disease, or death due to kidney disease. Nine biomarkers (systolic blood pressure [8.9% of effect explained], urinary albumin:creatinine ratio [UACR; 23.9%], gamma glutamyltransferase [4.1%], hematocrit [51.1%], hemoglobin [41.3%], serum albumin [19.5%], erythrocytes [56.7%], serum urate [35.4%], and urine pH [7.5%]) individually mediated the effect of canagliflozin on the kidney outcome. In a parsimonious multivariable model, erythrocyte concentration, serum urate, and systolic blood pressure maximized cumulative mediation (115%). Mediating effects of UACR, but not other mediators, were highly dependent upon the baseline level of UACR: UACR mediated 42% and 7% of the effect in those with baseline UACR 30 mg/g or more and under 30 mg/g, respectively. The identified mediators support existing hypothesized mechanisms for the prevention of kidney outcomes with sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Thus, the disparity in mediating effects across baseline UACR subgroups suggests that the mechanism for kidney protection with canagliflozin may vary across patient subgroups

Reduction in Overall Occurrences of Ischemic Events with Vorapaxar: Results from TRACER

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials traditionally use time-to-first-event analysis embedded within the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. However, many patients have \u3e1 event, and this approach may not reflect overall experience. We addressed this by analyzing all cardiovascular events in TRACER. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRACER randomized 12 944 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes to placebo or to protease-activated receptor 1 antagonist vorapaxar with a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667). Analysis of vorapaxar\u27s effect on recurrent CVD, MI, or stroke was prespecified using the Wei, Lin, and Weissfeld approach. Vorapaxar did not reduce the first occurrence of the primary endpoint of CVD, MI, stroke, revascularization, or rehospitalization for recurrent ischemia, but reduced the secondary composite endpoint of CVD, MI, or stroke (14.7% vorapaxar vs. 16.4% placebo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02; number needed to treat [NNT], 81). Recurrent secondary events occurred in 2.7% of patients. Vorapaxar reduced overall occurrences of ischemic events, first and subsequent (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.98; P=0.02; NNT, 51). Also, there was a trend indicating that vorapaxar reduced the expanded endpoint, including revascularization and rehospitalization for recurrent ischemia (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.01; P=0.09). Vorapaxar increased overall occurrences of moderate and severe Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries bleeding (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.66; PP\u3c0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Vorapaxar reduced overall occurrences of ischemic events, but increased bleeding. These exploratory findings broaden our understanding of vorapaxar\u27s potential and expand our understanding of the value of capturing recurrent events

Reasons for hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the CANVAS Program:a secondary analysis

AIMS: To determine the reasons for hospitalizations in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program and the effects of the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin on hospitalization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed on the CANVAS Program that included 10,142 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus randomized to canagliflozin or placebo. The primary outcome was total (first plus all recurrent) all-cause hospitalization (ACH). Secondary outcomes were total hospitalizations categorized by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities hierarchy at the system organ class level, reported by investigators at each center. Outcomes were assessed using negative binomial models. RESULTS: Of the 7115 hospitalizations reported, the most common reasons were cardiac disorders (23.7%), infections and infestations (15.0%), and nervous system disorders (9.0%). The rate of total ACH was lower in the canagliflozin group (n=5795) compared to the placebo group (n=4347): 197.9 versus 215.8 participants per 1000 patient-years, respectively (rate ratio [RR] 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86, 0.98). Canagliflozin reduced the rate of total hospitalizations due to cardiac disorders (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.75, 0.88). There was no significant difference between the canagliflozin and placebo groups in the rates of total hospitalizations due to infections and infestations (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.86, 1.02) or nervous system disorders (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.88, 1.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the CANVAS Program, the most common reasons for hospitalization were cardiac disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders. Canagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the rate of total ACH. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved