General Principles for the Validation of Proarrhythmia Risk Prediction Models: An Extension of the CiPA In Silico Strategy

This white paper presents principles for validating proarrhythmia risk prediction models for regulatory use as discussed at the In Silico Breakout Session of a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium/Health and Environmental Sciences Institute/US Food and Drug Administration–sponsored Think Tank Meeting on May 22, 2018. The meeting was convened to evaluate the progress in the development of a new cardiac safety paradigm, the Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA). The opinions regarding these principles reflect the collective views of those who participated in the discussion of this topic both at and after the breakout session. Although primarily discussed in the context of in silico models, these principles describe the interface between experimental input and model‐based interpretation and are intended to be general enough to be applied to other types of nonclinical models for proarrhythmia assessment. This document was developed with the intention of providing a foundation for more consistency and harmonization in developing and validating different models for proarrhythmia risk prediction using the example of the CiPA paradigm

Performance of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Lateral Flow Test in the Liverpool Asymptomatic Testing Pilot

Background: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) offers fast detection of COVID-19 cases. This study assesses the performance of LFT in the general population attending asymptomatic testing centres.Methods: Observational cohort study to compare LFT with reverse-transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) results based on two self-administrated swab samples per participant taken within minutes among individuals declaring no classic symptoms, attending asymptomatic testing sites in Liverpool, UK, between 6th and 29th of November 2020.Findings: 5869 individuals attended 48 testing sites in Liverpool. The relative sensitivity of LFT versus RT-qPCR, excluding void tests, was 40∙0% (95% CI: 28∙5 to 52∙4; 28/70). The specificity was 99∙9% (99∙8 to 99∙99; 5431/5434), positive predictive value was 90∙3% (74∙2 to 98∙0; 28/31) and negative predictive value was 99∙2% (99∙0 to 99∙4; 5431/5473). For cases with RT-qPCR cycle threshold CT 10 6 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 90∙9% (58∙7 to 99∙8; 10/11), for CT 10 4 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 69∙4% (51∙9 to 83∙7; 25/36), and for CT >24∙4 (viral load Interpretation: Innova LFT is a helpful tool for identifying infections among people who declare no symptoms of COVID-19, particularly those with high viral load and so more likely to infect others. The number of cases with lower CT (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered, with due caution over using single LFT in high-consequence settings. Clear and accurate communication with the public about how to interpret test results is important. Further research is needed to understand how infectiousness is reflected in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.Funding: This evaluation was commissioned by the UK Department of Health and Social Care.Declaration of Interests: This evaluation was commissioned by the UK Department of Health and Social Care. IEB, MGF, MGS, DMH, GB and CPC received grant funding from the UK Department of Health and Social Care to evaluate LFT in the Liverpool pilot discussed in this article. IEB reports fees from AstraZeneca as chief data scientist adviser via Liverpool University and a senior investigator grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) outside the submitted work. MGS is Chair of the Infectious Disease Scientific Advisory Board and a minority shareholder in Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA, a company that has interests in COVID-19 testing but not with lateral flow technology, and reports grants from the NIHR, the Medical Research Council, and the Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool.Ethics Approval Statement: The University of Liverpool provided secondary data analysis as part of a UK national service evaluation with data collection by the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC; Sponsor) As per the National Health Service (NHS) Research Authority guidelines, this work did not require ethical approval

Agents with vasodilator properties in acute heart failure: how to design successful trials

17siAgents with vasodilator properties (AVDs) are frequently used in the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF). AVDs rapidly reduce preload and afterload, improve left ventricle to aorta and right ventricle to pulmonary artery coupling, and may improve symptoms. Early biomarker changes after AVD administration have suggested potentially beneficial effects on cardiac stretch, vascular tone, and renal function. AVDs that reduce haemodynamic congestion without causing hypoperfusion might be effective in preventing worsening organ dysfunction. Existing AVDs have been associated with different results on outcomes in randomized clinical trials, and observational studies have suggested that AVDs may be associated with a clinical outcome benefit. Lessons have been learned from past AVD trials in AHF regarding preventing hypotension, selecting the optimal endpoint, refining dyspnoea measurements, and achieving early randomization and treatment initiation. These lessons have been applied to the design of ongoing pivotal clinical trials, which aim to ascertain if AVDs improve clinical outcomes. The developing body of evidence suggests that AVDs may be a clinically effective therapy to reduce symptoms, but more importantly to prevent end-organ damage and improve clinical outcomes for specific patients with AHF. The results of ongoing trials will provide more clarity on the role of AVDs in the treatment of AHF.nonenoneMebazaa, Alexandre; Longrois, Dan; Metra, Marco; Mueller, Christian; Richards, Arthur Mark; Roessig, Lothar; Seronde, Marie France; Sato, Naoki; Stockbridge, Norman L; Gattis Stough, Wendy; Alonso, Angeles; Cody, Robert J; Cook Bruns, Nancy; Gheorghiade, Mihai; Holzmeister, Johannes; Laribi, Said; Zannad, FaiezMebazaa, Alexandre; Longrois, Dan; Metra, Marco; Mueller, Christian; Richards, Arthur Mark; Roessig, Lothar; Seronde, Marie France; Sato, Naoki; Stockbridge, Norman L; Gattis Stough, Wendy; Alonso, Angeles; Cody, Robert J; Cook Bruns, Nancy; Gheorghiade, Mihai; Holzmeister, Johannes; Laribi, Said; Zannad, Faie

Reassessing Phase II Heart Failure Clinical Trials: Consensus Recommendations

The increasing burden and the continued suboptimal outcomes for patients with heart failure underlines the importance of continued research to develop novel therapeutics for this disorder. This can only be accomplished with successful translation of basic science discoveries into direct human application through effective clinical trial design and execution that results in a substantially improved clinical course and outcomes. In this respect, phase II clinical trials play a pivotal role in determining which of the multitude of potential basic science discoveries should move to the large and expansive registration trials in humans. A critical examination of the phase II trials in heart failure reveals multiple shortcomings in their concept, design, execution, and interpretation. To further a dialogue on the challenges and potential for improvement and the role of phase II trials in patients with heart failure, the Food and Drug Administration facilitated a meeting on October 17, 2016, represented by clinicians, researchers, industry members, and regulators. This document summarizes the discussion from this meeting and provides key recommendations for future directions

Reassessing Phase II Heart Failure Clinical Trials

The increasing burden and the continued suboptimal outcomes for patients with heart failure underlines the importance of continued research to develop novel therapeutics for this disorder. This can only be accomplished with successful translation of basic science discoveries into direct human application through effective clinical trial design and execution that results in a substantially improved clinical course and outcomes. In this respect, phase II clinical trials play a pivotal role in determining which of the multitude of potential basic science discoveries should move to the large and expansive registration trials in humans. A critical examination of the phase II trials in heart failure reveals multiple shortcomings in their concept, design, execution, and interpretation. To further a dialogue on the challenges and potential for improvement and the role of phase II trials in patients with heart failure, the Food and Drug Administration facilitated a meeting on October 17, 2016, represented by clinicians, researchers, industry members, and regulators. This document summarizes the discussion from this meeting and provides key recommendations for future directions

Reassessing Phase II Heart Failure Clinical Trials

The increasing burden and the continued suboptimal outcomes for patients with heart failure underlines the importance of continued research to develop novel therapeutics for this disorder. This can only be accomplished with successful translation of basic science discoveries into direct human application through effective clinical trial design and execution that results in a substantially improved clinical course and outcomes. In this respect, phase II clinical trials play a pivotal role in determining which of the multitude of potential basic science discoveries should move to the large and expansive registration trials in humans. A critical examination of the phase II trials in heart failure reveals multiple shortcomings in their concept, design, execution, and interpretation. To further a dialogue on the challenges and potential for improvement and the role of phase II trials in patients with heart failure, the Food and Drug Administration facilitated a meeting on October 17, 2016, represented by clinicians, researchers, industry members, and regulators. This document summarizes the discussion from this meeting and provides key recommendations for future directions

Reassessing Phase II Heart Failure Clinical Trials: Consensus Recommendations

The increasing burden and the continued suboptimal outcomes for patients with heart failure underlines the importance of continued research to develop novel therapeutics for this disorder. This can only be accomplished with successful translation of basic science discoveries into direct human application through effective clinical trial design and execution that results in a substantially improved clinical course and outcomes. In this respect, phase II clinical trials play a pivotal role in determining which of the multitude of potential basic science discoveries should move to the large and expansive registration trials in humans. A critical examination of the phase II trials in heart failure reveals multiple shortcomings in their concept, design, execution, and interpretation. To further a dialogue on the challenges and potential for improvement and the role of phase II trials in patients with heart failure, the Food and Drug Administration facilitated a meeting on October 17, 2016, represented by clinicians, researchers, industry members, and regulators. This document summarizes the discussion from this meeting and provides key recommendations for future directions