Search

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the FDA or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr Abraham has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Zoll Respicardia, speaker honoraria from Impulse Dynamics, salary support from V-Wave Medical, and research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr Filippatos has received consulting income from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor; and has received lecture fees from Merck. Dr Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Novartis, Abbott, ResMed, V-Wave, CVRx, and Cytokinetics. Dr Ahmad has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cytokinetics, Relypsa, and Novartis. Dr Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, Amgen, Merck, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Relypsa, V-Wave, Myokardia, Innolife, EBR Systems, Arena, Abbott, Sphingotec, Roche Diagnostics, Alnylam, LivaNova, Windtree Therapeutics, Rocket Pharma, and SC Pharma. Dr Kitzman has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, DCRI, and Corvia; has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has stock in Gilead. Dr Lewis has received consulting fees from Novartis; and has received institutional research grant support from Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Mentz has received consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has received research grants from Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, InnoLife, Luitpold/American Reagent, Novartis, Otsuka, ResMed, and the National Institutes of Health (grants U01HL125511-01A1 and R01AG045551-01A1). Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has received consulting fees from Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, and Cardiac Dimensions. Dr Teerlink has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Stealth Health; and has received research funding from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and scPharma. Dr Unger’s employer, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, has contracts with many companies, some of which are developing treatments for HF. Dr Whellan has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health (grant R01AG045551). Dr Wittes’s employer, Wittes LLC, has contracts with many companies, some of which are developing treatments for HF. Dr Anker has received fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiac Dimension, Cordio, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Occlutech, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and has received grant support from Abbott and Vifor Pharma. Dr O’Connor has received grant or research support from Roche Diagnostics and Merck; and has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiomed, and Windtree. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Since the approval of Retrovir, (zidovudine, AZT) in 1987 by the Food and Drug Administration, a number of regulatory initiatives were codified into regulation which contributed to the rapid development of new treatments for HIV-1 infection. These initiatives are a testament to the efforts of AIDS activists and regulators to improve access to drugs for serious and life-threatening diseases. Currently, 28 antiretroviral drugs and combinations of antiretrovirals are available to treat HIV-1 infection. The broadening armamentarium of approved antiretroviral drugs provides new options and more choices for physicians and HIV patients. Importantly, the introduction of these newly approved HIV drugs has shown that the majority of HIV-1-infected treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients can achieve maximal virologic suppression (less than 50copies/mL HIV-1 RNA). This article describes the past and current regulatory challenges in the development of new HIV treatments and provides an overview of the drug regulations that were required for the approval of HIV drugs. This article forms part of a special issue of Antiviral Research marking the 25th anniversary of antiretroviral drug discovery and development, Vol 85, issue 1, 2010. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article reviews surrogate endpoints and emerging biomarkers that were discussed at the annual “ Cardiovascular Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints” symposium cosponsored by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Montreal Heart Institute. The FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) uses surrogate endpoints in its scientific review of a substance/disease relationship for a health claim. CFSAN currently recognizes three validated surrogate endpoints: blood pressure, blood total cholesterol, and blood low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentration in its review of a health claim for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Numerous potential surrogate endpoints of CVD are being evaluated as the pathophysiology of heart disease is becoming better understood. However, these emerging biomarkers need to be validated as surrogate endpoints before they are used by CFSAN in the evaluation of a CVD health claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Phase 3 oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can lead to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals. In this study, we aim to identify trial-related factors associated with trials leading to subsequent FDA drug approvals., Methods: We performed a database query through the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to search for oncologic phase 3 RCTs on February 2020. We screened all trials for therapeutic, cancer-specific, phase 3, randomized, multi-arm trials. We then identified whether a trial was used for subsequent FDA drug approval through screening of FDA approval announcements., Results: In total, 790 trials were included in our study, with 225 trials (28.4%) generating data that were subsequently used for FDA approvals. Of the 225 FDA approvals identified, 65 (28.9%) were based on trials assessing overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint (PEP), two (0.9%) were based on trials with a quality of life (QoL) PEP, and 158 approvals (70.2%) were based on trials with other PEP (P = 0.01). FDA approvals were more common among industry funded-trials (219, 97.3%; P < 0.001), and less common among trials sponsored by national cooperative groups (21, 9.3%; P < 0.001). Finally, increased pre-hoc power and meeting patients' accrual target were associated with FDA approvals (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: The majority of FDA approvals are based on data generated from trials analyzing surrogate primary endpoints and trials receiving industry funding. Additional studies are required to understand the complexity of FDA approvals.

The article presents a study which assessed the hemoglobin levels of early onset scoliosis patients to determine the prevalence of the elevated levels and to measure the effect of vertical expandable prosthetic titanium rib (VEPTR) surgical intervention. This study analyzed medical records of 138 EOS patients from 5 U.S. institutions. It founds out that 23% of the EOS patients show signs of chronic hypoxia while the surgical intervention has significantly decreases hemoglobin levels.

Background: Chronic kidney disease progression is a risk factor for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A 57% decline in creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcr) is an established surrogate outcome for ESRD in clinical trials, and a 30% decrease recently has been proposed as a surrogate end point. However, it is unclear whether change in novel filtration marker levels provides additional information for ESRD risk to change in eGFRcr., Study Design: Cohort study., Setting & Participants: Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study participants from 4 US communities., Predictors: Percent change in levels of filtration markers (eGFRcr, cystatin C-based eGFR [eGFRcys], the inverse of β2-microglobulin concentration [1/B2M]) over a 6-year period., Outcome: Incident ESRD., Measurements: Cox proportional hazards regression with adjustment for demographics, kidney disease risk factors, and first measurement of eGFRcr., Results: During a median follow-up of 13 years, there were 142 incident ESRD cases. In adjusted analysis, declines > 30% in eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and 1/B2M were associated significantly with ESRD compared with stable concentrations of filtration markers (HRs of 19.96 [95% CI, 11.73-33.96], 16.67 [95% CI, 10.27-27.06], and 22.53 [95% CI, 13.20-38.43], respectively). Using the average of declines in the 3 markers, >30% decline conferred higher ESRD risk than that for eGFRcr alone (HR, 31.97 [95% CI, 19.40-52.70; P=0.03] vs eGFRcr)., Limitations: Measurement error could influence estimation of change in filtration marker levels., Conclusions: A >30% decline in kidney function assessed using novel filtration markers is associated strongly with ESRD, suggesting the potential utility of measuring change in cystatin C and B2M levels in settings in which improved outcome ascertainment is needed, such as clinical trials., (Copyright © 2015 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)