Leveraging electronic health records for clinical research

Electronic health records (EHRs) can be a major tool in the quest to decrease costs and timelines of clinical trial research, generate better evidence for clinical decision making, and advance health care. Over the past decade, EHRs have increasingly offered opportunities to speed up, streamline, and enhance clinical research. EHRs offer a wide range of possible uses in clinical trials, including assisting with prestudy feasibility assessment, patient recruitment, and data capture in care delivery. To fully appreciate these opportunities, health care stakeholders must come together to face critical challenges in leveraging EHR data, including data quality/completeness, information security, stakeholder engagement, and increasing the scale of research infrastructure and related governance. Leaders from academia, government, industry, and professional societies representing patient, provider, researcher, industry, and regulator perspectives convened the Leveraging EHR for Clinical Research Now! Think Tank in Washington, DC (February 18-19, 2016), to identify barriers to using EHRs in clinical research and to generate potential solutions. Think tank members identified a broad range of issues surrounding the use of EHRs in research and proposed a variety of solutions. Recognizing the challenges, the participants identified the urgent need to look more deeply at previous efforts to use these data, share lessons learned, and develop a multidisciplinary agenda for best practices for using EHRs in clinical research. We report the proceedings from this think tank meeting in the following paper

Conduct of clinical trials in the era of COVID-19: JACC scientific expert panel

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations

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

Cardiovascular Safety Outcome Trials: A meeting report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

This White Paper provides a summary of presentations and discussions at a Cardiovascular Safety Outcome Trials Think Tank cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the American College of Cardiology, held at American College of Cardiology's Heart House, Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014. Studies to assess cardiovascular (CV) risk of a new drug are sometimes requested by regulators to resolve ambiguous safety signals seen during its development or among other members of its class. Think Tank participants thought that important considerations in undertaking such studies were as follows: (1) plausibility-how likely it is that a possible signal indicating risk is real, based on strength of evidence, and/or whether a plausible mechanism of action for potential CV harm has been identified; (2) relevance-what relative and absolute CV risk would need to be excluded to determine that the drug had an acceptable benefit-to-risk balance for its use in the intended patient population; and (3) how plausibility and relevance influence the timing and approach to further safety assessment

Prevalent and incident heart failure in cardiovascular outcome trials of patients with type 2 diabetes

Despite multiple examples of glucose-lowering therapies affecting heart failure (HF) risk, ascertainment of HF data in cardiovascular outcome trials of these medications has not been systematically characterized. In this review, large (n >1,000) published phase III and IV cardiovascular outcome trials evaluating glucose-lowering therapies through June 2017 were identified. Data were abstracted from publications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee records, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling documents. Overall, 21 trials including 152,737 patients were evaluated. Rates and definitions of baseline HF and incident HF were inconsistently provided. Baseline ejection fraction data were provided in 3 studies but not specific to patients with HF. No trial reported functional class, ejection fraction, or HF therapy at the time of incident HF diagnosis. HF hospitalization data were available in 15 trials, but only 2 included HF-related events within the primary composite endpoint. This systematic review highlights gaps in HF data capture within cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies and outlines rationale and strategies for improving HF characterization

Efficacy and Effectiveness Too Trials: Clinical Trial Designs to Generate Evidence on Efficacy and on Effectiveness in Wide Practice

Efficacy trials, designed to gain regulatory marketing approval, evaluate drugs in optimally selected patients under advantageous conditions for relatively short time periods. Effectiveness trials, designed to evaluate use in usual practice, assess treatments among more typical patients in real-world conditions with longer follow-up periods. In “efficacy-to-effectiveness (E2E) trials,” if the initial efficacy trial component is positive, the trial seamlessly transitions to an effectiveness trial component to efficiently yield both types of evidence. Yet more time could be saved by simultaneously addressing efficacy and effectiveness in an “efficacy and effectiveness too (EE2) trial.” Additionally, hybrids of the E2E and EE2 approaches with differing degrees of overlap of the two components could allow flexibility for specific drug development needs. In planning EE2 trials, each stakeholder's current and future needs, incentives, and perspective must be considered. Although challenging, the ultimate benefits to stakeholders, the health system, and the public should justify this effort.National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (Grant U24TR001609

Assessment of drug-induced increases in blood pressure during drug development: Report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium

This White Paper, prepared by members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, discusses several important issues regarding the evaluation of blood pressure (BP) responses to drugs being developed for indications not of a direct cardiovascular (CV) nature. A wide range of drugs are associated with off-target BP increases, and both scientific attention and regulatory attention to this topic are increasing. The article provides a detailed summary of scientific discussions at a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium-sponsored Think Tank held on July 18, 2012, with the intention of moving toward consensus on how to most informatively collect and analyze BP data throughout clinical drug development to prospectively identify unacceptable CV risk and evaluate the benefit-risk relationship. The overall focus in on non-CV drugs, although many of the points also pertain to CV drugs. Brief consideration of how clinical assessment can be informed by nonclinical investigation is also outlined. These discussions present current thinking and suggestions for furthering our knowledge and understanding of off-target drug-induced BP increases and do not represent regulatory guidance. (Am Heart J 2013;165:477-88.

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: an expert panel report

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert “Think Tank” panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry

Localization and propagation of analytic singularities for operators with constant coeffizients

SIGLETIB: RN 4020 (794) / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekDEGerman