Search

Randomized clinical trial is an important research tool in evaluating new therapeutic agents, devices and procedures. In order to obtain reliable and unbiased results, careful consideration must be given in the design and conduct of the trial. However, bias can be introduced in the analysis of the final data if certain principles are not followed. Several issues are described that make interpretation of analyses challenging. These include the intent-to-treat principle, the use of surrogate outcome measures, subgroup analyses, missing data and noninferiority trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomized clinical trial is an important research tool in evaluating new therapeutic agents, devices and procedures. In order to obtain reliable and unbiased results, careful consideration must be given in the design and conduct of the trial. However, bias can be introduced in the analysis of the final data if certain principles are not followed. Several issues are described that make interpretation of analyses challenging. These include the intent-to-treat principle, the use of surrogate outcome measures, subgroup analyses, missing data and noninferiority trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigations of calcium antagonists in patients with advanced heart failure have raised concern over an increased risk of worsening heart failure and heart failure deaths. We assessed the effect of amlodipine on cause-specific mortality in such patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In total, 1,153 patients in New York Heart Association class IIIb or IV heart failure were randomized to receive amlodipine or placebo, along with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and digitalis. Over a median 14.5 months of follow-up, 413 patients died. Cardiovascular deaths accounted for 89% of fatalities, 50% of which were sudden deaths and 45% of which were due to pump failure, with fewer attributed to myocardial infarction (3.3%) or other cardiovascular causes (1.6%). Amlodipine treatment resulted in a greater relative reduction in sudden deaths (21%) than in pump failure deaths (6.6%) overall. When patients were classified by etiology of heart failure (ischemic or nonischemic), cause-specific mortality did not differ significantly between treatment groups in the ischemic stratum. In the nonischemic stratum, however, sudden deaths and pump failure deaths were reduced by 38% and 45%, respectively, with amlodipine. Thus, when added to digitalis, diuretics, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with advanced heart failure, amlodipine appears to have no effect on cause-specific mortality in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but both pump failure and sudden deaths appear to be decreased in nonischemic heart failure patients treated with amlodipine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractClinical trials investigating novel or high-risk interventions often use data monitoring committees (DMCs) to ensure that the participants' best interests are safeguarded. The typical DMC charter describes procedures by which the DMC operates, including important details concerning organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, statistical monitoring guidelines, and contents of DMC reports for interim review. These charters, however, are not routinely publicly available; in some cases, their access could be important to the interpretation of trial results. We recommend including DMC charters for such trials in ClinicalTrials.gov at the time of trial completion; trial protocols, informed consent documents, and statistical analysis plans are already available in this repository.

Clinical trials are vital for assessing therapeutic interventions. The associated data monitoring committees (DMCs) safeguard patient interests and enhance trial integrity, thus promoting timely, reliable evaluations of those interventions. We face an urgent need to recruit and train new DMC members. The HFC (Heart Failure Collaboratory), a multidisciplinary public-private consortium of academics, trialists, patients, industry representatives, and government agencies, is working to improve the clinical trial ecosystem. The HFC aims to improve clinical trial efficiency and quality by standardizing concepts, and to help meet the demand for experienced individuals on DMCs by creating a standardized approach to training new members. This paper discusses the HFC's training workshop, and an apprenticeship model for new DMC members. It describes opportunities and challenges DMCs face, along with common myths and best practices learned through previous experiences, with an emphasis on data confidentiality and need for quality independent statistical reporting groups., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Fleming has received consulting fees from the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, and the pharmaceutical and biotech industry in the design, monitoring, and analysis of clinical trials; and he has received fees for serving on several industry-sponsored Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs). Dr Wittes has received compensation for her membership on several DMCs sponsored by industry, government, and not-for-profit organizations; and has received consulting fees from a variety of pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr Bristow is the President/CEO/Director at ARCA biopharma. Dr Rockhold has received consulting fees from Intercept, Clover, and Inventprise; has received compensation for serving on several industry-sponsored DMCs; and holds stock in Clover, GSK, Athira, Spence, Adaptic, and Doctor Evidence. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Alnylam, Axon, Cardior, Cardurion, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Intellia, and Rocket. Dr Abraham has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardionomic, Zoll Respicardia, scPharmaceuticals, Sensible Medical, and Vectorious; has received salary support from V-Wave Medical; and has served as a speaker for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Abbott, ADI, Alleviant, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Axon, Boston Scientific, Cordio, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Merck, VWave, Vascular Dynamics, Vectorious, and Whiteswell; and has received grants from Analog Devices Inc, AstraZeneca, and Volumetrix. Dr DeMets has received consulting fees from the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry on the design, monitoring, and analysis of clinical trials; and he has received compensation for serving on several recent industry-sponsored data and safety monitoring committees or steering committees including AstraZeneca, Bristol Meyers Squib, GSK, Merck, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, USONA, LivaNova, AnthosTherapy, ARCA biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and the Population Health Research Institute of Hamilton Ontario. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

On January 18, 2024, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued their most recent guidelines for over-the-counter drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Specifically, the organization stated that "Most people with COVID-19 have mild illness and can recover at home. You can treat symptoms with over-the-counter medicines, such as acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil), to help you feel better." In this review we consider the contributions of different types of evidence and conclude that healthcare providers should make individual clinical judgments for each of their patients in the selection of over-the-counter drugs to treat symptoms of COVID-19. This judgment should be based on the entire benefit to risk profile of the patient. It is our belief that the individual healthcare provider knows far more about each of his or her patients than anyone, including expert members of guideline committees. Their astute and judicious individual clinical decision-making for each individual patient based on all these considerations has the potential to do far more good than harm., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Clinical trials investigating novel or high risk interventions, or studying vulnerable participants, often use a data monitoring committee to oversee the progress of the trial. The data monitoring committee serves both an ethical and a scientific function, by protecting the interests of trial participants while ensuring the integrity of the trial results. A data monitoring committee charter, which typically describes the procedures by which data monitoring committees operate, contains details about the data monitoring committee's organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, sequential monitoring guidelines, and the overall contents of data monitoring committee reports for interim review. These charters, however, are generally not reviewed by outside entities and are rarely publicly available. The result is that a key component of trial oversight remains in the dark. We recommend that ClinicalTrials.gov modify its system to allow uploading of data monitoring committee charters, as is already possible for other important study documents and that clinical trialists take advantage of this opportunity to voluntarily upload the data monitoring committee charter for trials that have one. The resulting cache of publicly available data monitoring committee charters should provide important insights for those interested in a particular trial, as well as for meta-researchers who wish to understand and potentially improve how this important component of trial oversight is actually being applied.

In treatment or prevention of COVID-19, ivermectin is not approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nonetheless, in the US, prescriptions of ivermectin by healthcare providers have increased > tenfold from 3589 per week pre-COVID-19 to 39,102. Ivermectin is FDA approved for animals to treat parasites and for humans to treat intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis orally, and ectoparasites and skin conditions topically. It is not a benign drug, with reported side effects including cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms. The evidence to support ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 includes some basic research and inconsistent clinical observations that contribute to the formulation of a hypothesis of efficacy in COVID-19. At present, data from peer-reviewed published randomized trials of sufficient size, dose, and duration to reliably test the hypothesis of the most plausible small to moderate benefits on clinically relevant endpoints are sparse. In addition to the US FDA, the US National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and European Medicines Agency have all advised against ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of randomized trials. For ivermectin in treatment or prevention of COVID-19, healthcare providers should reassure all patients that if sufficient evidence were to emerge, then this drug could be considered a therapeutic innovation and regulatory authorities would approve the drug. In the meanwhile, we strongly recommend a moratorium on the prescription of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 except in randomized trials to provide the most reliable test of the hypothesis., (© 2022. The Drug Information Association, Inc.)

Data monitoring committees (DMCs) play a critical role in protecting the safety of participants and integrity of clinical studies. While there are well-established DMC guidelines for traditional, randomized controlled trials, the clinical trial community is still in the search for best practices in data and safety monitoring in pragmatic clinical trials. ADAPTABLE was a large, open label, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial, harnessing real world data from multiple sources and studying the comparative effectiveness of the two most common dosages of aspirin in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Specific issues arose in ADAPTABLE such as data quality, information latency, and protocol adherence, and these issues were both expected and unexpected features of the pragmatic study design. These issues imposed great challenges to the DMC members who were tasked to make critical decisions during the study. This article summarizes the unique experience of the ADAPTABLE DMC, including the internal debates and concerns, the concerted efforts to accomplish its mission, and the special contribution of the patient representatives. We also offer recommendations on data and safety monitoring for future pragmatic trials., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Currently, too many Data Monitoring Committee Reports for interim review of trial progress are quite inadequate for Data Monitoring Committees to make informed decisions about risks and benefits. Immediate serious improvement is necessary for Data Monitoring Committees to meet their ethical, clinical, and scientific responsibility to trial participants, investigators, sponsors, and participating institutions. To achieve this critical goal, all parties involved in the Data Monitoring Committee process including sponsors, investigators, Data Monitoring Committee members, and the independent statistical reporting group need to have a better understanding of the structure, function, and needs of a Data Monitoring Committee and the content of a Data Monitoring Committee Report. Training modules through the Society for Clinical Trials are now available on their website to facilitate this.

Background: Chronic kidney disease and heart failure are insulin resistant states associated with a high incidence of diabetes. We assessed the effect of dapagliflozin on new-onset type 2 diabetes in a pooled analysis of patient-level data from the DAPA-CKD and DAPA-HF trials., Methods: This study is a pooled analysis of individual participant data from two phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, clinical trials. Participants with no history of diabetes and HbA 1c less than 6·5% (48 mmol/mol) at baseline were included in this pooled analysis. New-onset type 2 diabetes was a prespecified exploratory endpoint in both DAPA-CKD and DAPA-HF trials and is the focus of this analysis. New-onset type 2 diabetes was identified by serial trial measurements of HbA 1c (two consecutive values ≥6·5% [≥48 mmol/mol]) or following a clinical diagnosis of diabetes between trial visits. Time to new-onset type 2 diabetes was analysed in a Cox proportional Hazards model from random assignment to end of treatment., Findings: 4003 participants (1398 [34·9%] from the DADA-CKD trial and 2605 [65·1%] from the DAPA-HF trial) were included in our analysis: 1995 (49·8%) had received dapagliflozin and 2008 (50·2%) had received placebo. Over a median follow-up of 21·2 months (IQR 16·0 to 25·4), 126 (6·3%) of 2008 patients in the placebo group (event rate 3·9 per 100 patient-years) and 85 (4·3%) of 1995 patients in the dapagliflozin group (event rate 2·6 per 100 patient-years) developed type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio 0·67 [95% CI 0·51 to 0·88]; p=0·0040). There was no heterogeneity between studies (p interaction 0·77) and there was no clear evidence that the effect of dapagliflozin varied in prespecified subgroups including sex, age, glycaemic status, BMI, glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and baseline cardiovascular medication use. More than 90% of the participants who developed type 2 diabetes had prediabetes at baseline (HbA 1c 5·7% to 6·4% [39 to 46 mmol/mol]). Mean HbA 1c remained unchanged (placebo-adjusted change in the dapagliflozin group of -0·01% [95% CI -0·03 to 0·01], -0·1 mmol/mol [95% CI -0·3 to 0·1] at 12 months)., Interpretation: Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of new-onset type 2 diabetes in participants with chronic kidney disease and HF without a reduction in HbA 1c ., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PR reports funding to his institution from AstraZeneca for participating in the steering committee for DAPA-CKD; has received funding to his institution for advisory boards from Sanofi Avensis and Boehringer Ingelheim; from Bayer, Gilead and Novo Nordisk for steering committees; from Novo Nordisk, Bayer and Eli Lilly for lectures; has received grants from Novo Nordisk; and has held stock in Novo Nordisk in the past 3 years. SEI received funding from AstraZeneca for participating in the steering committee for DAPA-HF; has received consultancy fees from Abbott, VTV Therapeutics, Esperion, Pfizer, and Merck; reports fees for clinical trial committee participation, advisory roles, and travel costs from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; and honoraria for lectures from Merck, and AstraZeneca. KFD received funding to the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, from AstraZeneca for DAPA-HF; and has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. PSJ reports payment to the University of Glasgow by AstraZeneca for his time working on the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, from Novartis for work on the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Novo Nordisk; reports Speakers and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; and reports Research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Analog Devices. LK reports speakers honoriaria from Novo Nordisk, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingleheim; support from AstraZeneca; and personal fees from Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb as a speaker. MNK reports payment to his institution for participation in DAPA-HF; has received grant payment to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim; has received personal fees or fees to his institution, or both, for consultancy from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma; has received personal honoraria and honoraria to his institution for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; has received personal honoraria and honoraria to his institution from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma for participation on DSMB for advisory boards; and has received study drug for a clinical trial from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. FAM reports personal fees from AstraZeneca. PP reports personal fees for consultancy and speakers bureau from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Servier, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Respocardia, Berlin-Chemie, Cibiem, Novartis and RenalGuard; other support for participation in clinical trials from Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Vifor Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cibiem, Novartis and RenalGuard; and research grants to his institution from Vifor Pharma. MSS reports grants from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Poxel, Quark Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; grants and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Janssen Research and Development, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, and Novartis; and personal fees from Anthos Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, DalCor, Dyrnamix, Esperion, IFM Therapeutics, and Ionis. MSS received an institutional research grant from AstraZeneca for DAPA-HF; received institutional research grants from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, IONIS, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Quark Pharmaceuticals; received consulting fees from Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, DalCor, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Fibrogen, IFM Therapeutics, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Moderna, and Novo Nordisk; MSS is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has also received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women's Hospital from Regeneron, Roche, and Zora Biosciences. SDS received payment to his institution for participation in DAPA-HF; received grants to his institution from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, IONIS, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; received fees for consultancy from Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta; and received honoraria for lectures from Novartis and AstraZeneca. DLD received funding from AstraZeneca for participating in the steering committee for DAPA-HF; reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Frontier Science − Madison Office, and 3D Communication; receives royalties or licenses for Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, Data Monitoring Committees: Practical Perspective, Data Monitoring Committees: A Case Studies Approach, and Statistical Methods for Clinical Trials; has received honoraria for lectures from Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA, and Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA: CME Course on Clinical Trials; and honoraria for participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute, Bristol Meiers Squibb, Sanifit, Tricidia, Boston Scientific, Actelion, Medtronic, Duke University, Lisa Nova, Mesoblast, GlaxoSmithKline, DalCor, and Cardiovascular Research Foundation. OB, ML, AML, MS, BVS, and CK are employees and stockholders of AstraZeneca. GMC received funding from AstraZeneca for participating in the steering committee for DAPA-CKD; has received research support from Amgen; data safety monitoring board participation for Bayer and ReCor; is on the board of directors for Satellite Healthcare; has participated on trial steering committees for Akebia, Gilead, Sanifit, Vertex; and holds stock in Ardelyx, loudCath, Durect, DxNow, Micromatrix, Outset, and Unicycive. FFH is a member of the DAPA-CKD study executive committee and is a study investigator and reports personal fees from Abbvie. RC-R received funding from AstraZeneca for participating in the steering committee for DAPA-CKD; received research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, and Novo Nordisk; has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingleheim and Chinook; and honoraria for advisory boards or lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk. RDT received funding from AstraZeneca for participating in the steering committee for DAPA-CKD; has received fees for consultancy from Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata Pharma, and Chinook Pharma. received honoraria for lectures from Medscape and Medical Education Resources; and participated in data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Bayer, Viofor, Akebia, and Otsuka. DCW provides ongoing consultancy services to AstraZeneca; has received fees for data safety monitoring board or advisory board activity from Zydus and Gilead; and received personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, GSK, Janssen, Napp, Mundipharma, Vifor, TRicida, Zydus, and Amgen. JJVM reports payment to Glasgow University by AstraZeneca for time spent as principal investigator of DAPA-HF and co-principal Investigator of DELIVER and DETERMINE in heart failure and meetings and other activities related to these trials; AstraZeneca has also paid travel and accommodation for these meetings. These payments were made through a consultancy with Glasgow University and he did not receive personal payments in relation to this trial or drug; has received personal lecture fees from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Eris Lifesciences, Hikma, Lupin, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier, and the Corpus; and reports steering committee and travel fees from Cytokinetics, advisor and travel fees from KBP Biosciences; steering committee and travel fees from Amgen, steering committee fees from Bayer, investigator and travel fees from Theracos, consultantcy and travel fees from IONIS, steering committee fees from DalCor, investigator, steering committee, and travel fees from Novartis, investigator, steering committee, and travel fees from GlaxoSmithKline, steering committee fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, consultantcy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, advisory board fees from Cardurion, and advisory board fees from Alnylam all paid to the University of Glasgow. HJLH reports grant funding and honoraria for consultancy as a member of the steering committee of the DAPA-CKD trial paid to their institution from AstraZeneca; research grants paid to his employer from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk for clinical trials; consulting fees, paid to his employer from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Travere Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk; fees for steering committee membership paid to his employer from Bayer, Chinook, CSL Pharma, Janssen, and Gilead; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca and Mitsubishi Tanabe; and has received honoraria for advisory board participation for Merck (paid to his employer), Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Mundipharma. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Recent guidelines restricted aspirin (ASA) in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to patients <70 years old and more recent guidance to <60.In the most comprehensive prior meta-analysis, the Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration reported a significant 12% reduction in CVD with similar benefit-risk ratios at older ages. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, four trials were added to an updated meta-analysis.ASA produced a statistically significant 13% reduction in CVD with 95% confidence limits (0.83 to 0.92) with similar benefits at older ages in each of the trials.Primary care providers should make individual decisions whether to prescribe ASA based on benefit-risk ratio, not simply age. When the absolute risk of CVD is >10%, benefits of ASA will generally outweigh risks of significant bleeding. ASA should be considered only after implementation of therapeutic lifestyle changes and other drugs of proven benefit such as statins, which are, at the very least, additive to ASA. Our perspective is that individual clinical judgements by primary care providers about prescription of ASA in primary prevention of CVD should be based on our evidence-based solution of weighing all the absolute benefits and risks rather than age. This strategy would do far more good for far more patients as well as far more good than harm in both developed and developing countries. This new and novel strategy for primary care providers to consider in prescribing ASA in primary prevention of CVD is the same as the general approach suggested by Professor Geoffrey Rose decades ago., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CHH reports that he serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of data monitoring committees for Amgen, British Heart Foundation, Cadila, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, DalCor, and Regeneron; to the US FDA and UpToDate; receives royalties for authorship or editorship of three textbooks and as co-inventor on patents for inflammatory markers and cardiovascular disease that are held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; has an investment management relationship with the West- Bacon Group within SunTrust Investment Services, which has discretionary investment authority; does not own any common or preferred stock in any pharmaceutical or medical device company. JMG reports that he serves as a consultant to Bayer. MAP reports that he receives research support from Novartis. He serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, NHLBI CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge and Sanofi; and has equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. DLDM reports that he serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to the National Institutes of Health, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry on the design, monitoring and analysis of trials. He serves on data monitoring committees for Astra Zeneca, Amgen, Action, DalCor, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva and AbbVie. He holds no stock in any pharmaceutical or device company. SKW reports that she serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as member of three data monitoring committees for Amgen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Although the development and increasingly widespread availability of effective and safe vaccines provides the greatest hope for the future recovery from the increasingly devastating COVID-19 pandemic, there are other preventive efforts that offer an immediate route to decreasing morbidity and mortality. Genomic surveillance is emerging as a vital necessity to achieve effective mitigation and containment. Since SARS-CoV-2 variants have already been detected, it is crucial to obtain reliable evidence about whether they are more contagious, virulent, or more resistant to the available COVID-19 vaccines well before they spread throughout the world. Genomic surveillance leverages applications of next-generation sequencing, creates the availability of whole genome data, and advances phylogenetic methods. These methods offer novel means to detect variants that are phenotypically or antigenically different. Genomic surveillance will facilitate greater early anticipation as well as initiation of effective strategies to mitigate and contain outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 variants and other novel viruses., Competing Interests: DLD reports that he is a consultant to the US National Institutes of Health, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry on the design, monitoring, and analysis of clinical trials. He receives compensation for serving on several industry sponsored data and safety monitoring committees including AstraZeneca, Amgen, Actelion, Bristol Myers Squibb, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Intercept, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Population Health Research Institute of Hamilton. He holds no stock in any pharmaceutical or device company. CHH reports that he serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as chair of data monitoring committees for Amgen, British Heart Foundation, Cadila, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, DalCor, and Regeneron; serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative; serves as legal counsel for Pfizer, the US Food and Drug Administration, and UpToDate; receives royalties for authorship or editorship of three textbooks and as co-inventor on patents for inflammatory markers and cardiovascular disease that are held by Brigham and Women's Hospital; has an investment management relationship with the West-Bacon Group within SunTrust Investment Services, which has discretionary investment authority; and does not own any common or preferred stock in any pharmaceutical or medical device company. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.)

As of May 2021, the United States remains the world leader with 33 million of 165 million cases worldwide (20%) and 590,000 of 3.4 million deaths worldwide (17%) from COVID-19. Achieving herd immunity by disease spread and vaccination may result in 2 million to 4 million total US deaths. The future perfect of the vaccine should not be the enemy of the present good, which is masking. Masking, especially when combined with social distancing, crowd avoidance, frequent hand and face washing, increased testing capabilities, and contact tracing, is likely to prevent at least as many premature deaths as the widespread utilization of an effective and safe vaccine. Worldwide, masking is the oldest and simplest engineered control to prevent transmission of respiratory pathogens. Masking has been a cornerstone of infection control in hospitals, operating rooms, and clinics for more than a century. Unfortunately, since the epidemic began in the United States, masking has become politicized. All countries, but especially the United States, must adopt masking as an urgent necessity and a component of coordinated public health strategies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Any economic advantages of pandemic politics are short-lived and shortsighted in comparison with public health strategies of proven benefit that can prevent needless and mostly avoidable premature deaths from COVID-19. During the worst epidemic in more than 100 years, most Americans (75%) trust their health care providers. As competent and compassionate health care professionals, we recommend that effective strategies, especially masking, and not pandemic politics, should inform all rational clinical and public health decision-making.

Objective: To determine whether the benefits of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and type 2 diabetes in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF) varied by background glucose-lowering therapy (GLT)., Research Design and Methods: We examined the effect of study treatment by the use or not of GLT and by GLT classes and combinations. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death., Results: In the 2,139 type 2 diabetes patients, the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent by GLT use or no use (hazard ratio 0.72 [95% CI 0.58-0.88] vs. 0.86 [0.60-1.23]; interaction P = 0.39) and across GLT classes., Conclusions: In DAPA-HF, dapagliflozin improved outcomes irrespective of use or no use of GLT or by GLT type used in patients with type 2 diabetes and HFrEF., (© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), dapagliflozin, added to guideline-recommended therapies, reduced the risk of mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. We examined the frequency and significance of episodes of outpatient HF worsening, requiring the augmentation of oral therapy, and the effects of dapagliflozin on these additional events., Methods: Patients in New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and elevation of NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), were eligible. The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or an urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death, whichever occurred first. An additional prespecified exploratory outcome was the primary outcome plus worsening HF symptoms/signs leading to the initiation of new, or the augmentation of existing, oral treatment., Results: Overall, 36% more patients experienced the expanded, in comparison with the primary, composite outcome. In the placebo group, 684 of 2371 (28.8%) patients and, in the dapagliflozin group, 527 of 2373 (22.2%) participants experienced the expanded outcome (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.65-0.82]; P <0.0001). Each component of the composite was reduced significantly by dapagliflozin. Over the median follow-up of 18.2 months, the number of patients needed to treat with dapagliflozin to prevent 1 experiencing an episode of fatal or nonfatal worsening was 16. Among the 4744 randomly assigned patients, the first episode of worsening was outpatient augmentation of treatment in 407 participants (8.6%), an urgent HF visit with intravenous therapy in 20 (0.4%), HF hospitalization in 489 (10.3%), and cardiovascular death in 295 (6.2%). The adjusted risk of death from any cause (in comparison with no event) after an outpatient worsening was hazard ratio, 2.67 (95% CI, 2.03-3.52); after an urgent HF visit, the adjusted risk of death was hazard ratio, 3.00 (95% CI, 1.39-6.48); and after a HF hospitalization, the adjusted risk of death was hazard ratio, 6.21 (95% CI, 5.07-7.62)., Conclusion: In DAPA-HF, outpatient episodes of HF worsening were common, were of prognostic importance, and were reduced by dapagliflozin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03036124.

Best practices of data monitoring committees (DMCs) in randomized clinical trials are well established. Independent oversight provided by DMCs is particularly important in trials conducted in public health emergencies, such as in HIV/AIDS or coronavirus epidemics. Special considerations are needed to enable DMCs to effectively address novel circumstances they face in such settings. In the COVID-19 pandemic, these include the remarkable speed in which data regarding benefits and risks of interventions are accumulated. DMCs must hold frequent virtual meetings, using state-of-the-art communication software that protects against risk for security breaches. Data capture and DMC reports should be focused on the most informative measures about benefits and risks. Because numerous clinical trials are being concurrently conducted in the COVID-19 setting, often addressing closely related scientific questions, structures for DMC oversight should be efficient and adequately informative. When these concurrently conducted trials are evaluating related regimens in related clinical settings, often individually underpowered for safety and having separate DMCs, processes should be implemented enabling these DMCs to share with each other emerging confidential evidence to better assess risks and benefits. Ideally a single DMC would monitor a portfolio of clinical trials or a trial with multiple arms, such as a platform trial., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Concern about hypotension often leads to withholding of beneficial therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, which lowers systolic blood pressure (SBP),according to baseline SBP in Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF)., Methods and Results: Key inclusion criteria were: New York Heart Association Class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and SBP ≥95 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were examined using SBP as both a categorical and continuous variable. A total of 1205 patients had a baseline SBP <110 mmHg; 981 ≥ 110 < 120; 1149 ≥ 120 < 130; and 1409 ≥ 130 mmHg. The placebo-corrected reduction in SBP from baseline to 2 weeks with dapagliflozin was -2.54 (-3.33 to -1.76) mmHg (P < 0.001), with a smaller between-treatment difference in patients in the lowest compared to highest SBP category. Patients in the lowest SBP category had a much higher rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome [20.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.6-24.2] than those in the highest SBP category (13.8, 11.7-16.4). The benefit and safety of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of SBP; hazard ratio (95% CI) in each SBP group, lowest to highest: 0.76 (0.60-0.97), 0.76 (0.57-1.02), 0.81 (0.61-1.08), and 0.67 (0.51-0.87), P interaction = 0.78. Study drug discontinuation did not differ between dapagliflozin and placebo across the SBP categories examined., Conclusion: Dapagliflozin had a small effect on SBP in patients with HFrEF and was superior to placebo in improving outcomes, and well tolerated, across the range of SBP included in DAPA-HF., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03036124., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure), the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined the efficacy and tolerability of dapagliflozin in relation to background diuretic treatment and change in diuretic therapy after randomization to dapagliflozin or placebo., Methods: We examined the effects of study treatment in the following subgroups: no diuretic and diuretic dose equivalent to furosemide <40, 40, and >40 mg daily at baseline. We examined the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or a worsening heart failure event and its components, all-cause death and symptoms., Results: Of 4616 analyzable patients, 736 (15.9%) were on no diuretic, 1311 (28.4%) were on <40 mg, 1365 (29.6%) were on 40 mg, and 1204 (26.1%) were taking >40 mg. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary end point across each of these subgroups: hazard ratios were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.92), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.63-1.10), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.60-0.99), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.97), respectively ( P for interaction=0.61). The hazard ratio in patients taking any diuretic was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90). Improvements in symptoms and treatment toleration were consistent across the diuretic subgroups. Diuretic dose did not change in most patients during follow-up, and mean diuretic dose did not differ between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups after randomization., Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were consistent across the diuretic subgroups examined in DAPA-HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is a major avoidable cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the United States (US) and worldwide, due primarily to increased risks of stroke as well as myocardial infarction. While there are therapeutic lifestyle changes and adjunctive pharmacologic medications of proven benefit, recent interest has increasingly focused on Complementary and Alternative Medicine, in particular, Mind-Body Interventions. With respect to BP, it is tempting to speculate that mindfulness with paced breathing will have beneficial effects in the short run that may translate into lowered risks of stroke in the long run. Paced breathing is deep diaphragmatic breathing with typical rates equal to or less than 5-7 breaths per minute compared with the usual rate of 12-14. One plausible mechanism of benefit is that paced breathing stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system which alters neuronal function in specific areas of the brain and reduces stress chemicals. The hypothesis that mindfulness with paced slow breathing reduces BP could be directly tested in randomized trials designed a priori to do so. Subsequently, a finding that mindfulness with paced breathing reduces BP would also lead to direct tests in randomized trials of reductions of carotid atherosclerosis and, if so, a larger scale trial to test whether there is a direct impact of mindfulness with paced breathing on reducing the risks of stroke and MI. If rigorous testing of this medical hypothesis led to positive results this would have large and important clinical and policy implications in the US and worldwide., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inflammation is intimately involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and is accurately measured by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), a sensitive marker for future risk of cardiovascular disease. The Correlation between Oral Health and Systemic Inflammation (COHESION) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that PlaqueHD, a plaque-identifying toothpaste, reduces hs-CRP., Methods: The trial was designed initially to include 132 subjects with hs-CRP between 2.0 and 10.0 mg/L but instead randomized 112 between 0.5 and 10.0, of which 103 had baseline and follow-up data and comprised the intention-to-treat sample. Of these, a prespecified subgroup analysis included 40 with baseline hs-CRP >2.0 and all hs-CRP <10. Because the distribution of hs-CRP was skewed toward higher values, to achieve normality assumptions, the significance of changes in hs-CRP between groups over time was tested on log-transformed data using a mixed effects analysis of variance., Results: The intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differences between the PlaqueHD and placebo group (P = .615). The prespecified subgroup analysis showed a significant difference between the PlaqueHD and placebo group (P = .047). Results of the analysis showed a reduction in hs-CRP at follow-up of 0.58 in the PlaqueHD and an increase of 0.55 in the placebo group., Conclusions: These findings are compatible with those of a prior pilot trial that also suggested benefits only in subjects with baseline elevations. Future trials targeting reductions of hs-CRP levels should randomize subjects with baseline hs-CRP between 2.0 and 10.0 mg/L., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to examine whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) modified efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin 10 mg compared with placebo in the 4744 patients with LVEF ≤40% randomized in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF)., Methods and Results: We examined whether LVEF, analysed categorically or continuously, modified the effect of dapagliflozin. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of a worsening heart failure (HF) event (unplanned HF hospitalization/an urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. Mean LVEF was 31.1% and LVEF categories analysed were: <26% (n = 1143), 26-30% (n = 1018), 31-35% (n = 1187), and >35% (n = 1396). Each 5% decrease in LVEF was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.24]. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across the spectrum of LVEF: the dapagliflozin vs. placebo HR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.59-0.95) for LVEF <26%, 0.75 (0.57-0.98) for LVEF 26-30%, 0.67 (0.51-0.89) for LVEF 31-35%, and 0.83 (0.63-1.09) for LVEF >35% (P for interaction = 0.762). Similarly, the effect of dapagliflozin on the components of the primary endpoint was not modified by baseline LVEF (P for interaction for cardiovascular death = 0.974, and for worsening HF = 0.161). Safety of dapagliflozin was also consistent across the range of LVEF and neither efficacy nor safety were modified by diabetes status., Conclusion: Left ventricular ejection fraction was a significant predictor of hospitalization and mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction but did not modify the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin, overall or separately, in patients with and without diabetes., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03036124., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In the DAPA-HF trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) and death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent in relation to background HF therapy., Methods and Results: In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effect of study treatment in the following yes/no subgroups: diuretic, digoxin, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, implanted cardioverter-defibrillating (ICD) device, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. We also examined the effect of study drug according to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker dose, beta-blocker (BB) dose, and MRA (≥50% and <50% of target dose). We analysed the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or a worsening HF event. Most randomized patients (n = 4744) were treated with a diuretic (84%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (94%), and BB (96%); 52% of those taking a BB and 38% taking a RAS blocker were treated with ≥50% of the recommended dose. Overall, the dapagliflozin vs. placebo hazard ratio (HR) was 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.85] for the primary composite endpoint (P < 0.0001). The effect of dapagliflozin was consistent across all subgroups examined: the HR ranged from 0.57 to 0.86 for primary endpoint, with no significant randomized treatment-by-subgroup interaction. For example, the HR in patients taking a RAS blocker, BB, and MRA at baseline was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.86) compared with 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.94) in those not on all three of these treatments (P-interaction 0.64)., Conclusion: The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent regardless of background therapy for HF., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Integrity and trust are essential attributes of medical researchers. Research misconduct represents clear and present dangers to academic institutions and their faculty, residents, students, and staff. To achieve and maintain public trust, medical researchers must achieve and maintain research integrity. To do so requires synchronicity and collaboration between and within academic institutions. Substantial failures to maintain research integrity by institutional leadership will lead to increasing demands to do so from the funding organizations and the general public. This, in turn, will lead to avoidable consequences of substantial penalties, financial and otherwise, adverse publicity, and reputational damage. Researchers must self-regulate to avoid pitfalls, including those created by changes in the medical care delivery system that have decreased the influence of health care providers and increased the influence of outside legal and business interests. Our common goal should be to return public trust in our research enterprise that has done so much good for so many, but requires the establishment and maintenance of vigilance to establish and maintain research integrity., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Goals of management in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction include reducing death and hospitalizations, and improving health status (symptoms, physical function, and quality of life). In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, reduced death and hospitalizations, and improved symptoms in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. In this analysis, we examine the effects of dapagliflozin on a broad range of health status outcomes, using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)., Methods: KCCQ was evaluated at randomization, 4 and 8 months. Patients were divided by baseline KCCQ total symptom score (TSS); Cox proportional hazards models examined the effects of dapagliflozin on clinical events across these subgroups. We also evaluated the effects of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-TSS, clinical summary score, and overall summary score. Responder analyses were performed to compare proportions of dapagliflozin versus placebo-treated patients with clinically meaningful changes in KCCQ at 8 months., Results: A total of 4443 patients had available KCCQ at baseline (median KCCQ-TSS, 77.1 [interquartile range, 58.3-91.7]). The effects of dapagliflozin vs placebo on reducing cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure were consistent across the range of KCCQ-TSS (lowest to highest tertile: hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57-0.86]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.98]; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.46-0.83]; P for heterogeneity=0.52). Patients treated with dapagliflozin had greater improvement in mean KCCQ-TSS, clinical summary score, and overall summary score at 8 months (2.8, 2.5 and 2.3 points higher versus placebo; P <0.0001 for all). Fewer patients treated with dapagliflozin had a deterioration in KCCQ-TSS (odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]; P <0.0001); and more patients had at least small, moderate, and large improvements (odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08-1.23]; odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08-1.22]; odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.07-1.22]; number needed to treat=14, 15, and 18, respectively; P <0.0001 for all; results consistent for KCCQ clinical summary score and overall summary score)., Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure across the range of baseline KCCQ, and improved symptoms, physical function, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Furthermore, dapagliflozin increased the proportion of patients experiencing at least small, moderate, and large improvements in health status; these effects were clinically important., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Background: The DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure) showed that dapagliflozin added to other guideline-recommended therapies reduced the risk of mortality and heart failure hospitalization and improved symptoms in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined the effects of dapagliflozin according to age, given potential concerns about the efficacy and safety of therapies in the elderly., Methods: Patients in New York Heart Association functional class II or greater with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and a modest elevation of NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) were eligible. Key exclusion criteria included systolic blood pressure <95 mm Hg and estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL·min -1 ·1.73 m -2 . The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening heart failure (heart failure hospitalization or urgent heart failure visit) or cardiovascular death, whichever occurred first., Results: A total of 4744 patients 22 to 94 years of age (mean age, 66.3 [SD 10.9] years) were randomized: 636 patients (13.4%) were <55 years of age, 1242 (26.2%) were 55 to 64 years of age, 1717 (36.2%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 1149 (24.2%) were ≥75 years of age. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years, placebo arm) in each age group was 13.6 (95% CI, 10.4-17.9), 15.7 (95% CI, 13.2-18.7), 15.1 (95% CI, 13.1-17.5), and 18.0 (95% CI, 15.2-21.4) with corresponding dapagliflozin/placebo hazard ratios of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.60-1.28), 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61-0.95), and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P for interaction=0.76). Consistent benefits were observed for the components of the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and symptoms. Although adverse events and study drug discontinuation increased with age, neither was significantly more common with dapagliflozin in any age group., Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of death and worsening heart failure and improved symptoms across the broad spectrum of age studied in DAPA-HF. There was no significant imbalance in tolerability or safety events between dapagliflozin and placebo, even in elderly individuals., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Background: In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes., Methods: In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death., Results: Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups., Conclusions: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036124.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The aims of this study were to: (i) report the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial, (ii) compare DAPA-HF patients to participants in contemporary heart failure (HF) registries and in other recent HF trials, and (iii) compare individuals with diabetes, pre-diabetes and a normal glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in DAPA-HF., Methods and Results: Adults with HF in New York Heart Association functional class ≥ II, a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, an elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration and receiving standard treatment were eligible for DAPA-HF, which is comparing dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily to matching placebo. In patients without a history of diabetes, previously undiagnosed diabetes was defined as a confirmed HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Among patients without known or undiagnosed diabetes, pre-diabetes was defined as a HbA1c ≥ 5.7% The remainder of patients, with a HbA1c < 5.7%, were defined as normoglycaemic. Of the 4744 patients (mean age 66 years; 23% women) randomized, 42% had known diabetes and 3% undiagnosed diabetes. Of the remainder, 67% had pre-diabetes and 33% normal HbA1c. Overall, DAPA-HF patients were generally similar to those in recent registries and in relevant trials and had high levels of background therapy: 94% angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, 96% beta-blocker, and 71% mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; 26% had a defibrillator. Patients with diabetes had worse HF status, more co-morbidity, and greater renal impairment but received similar HF therapy. Patients with diabetes received non-insulin hypoglycaemic therapy alone in 49%, insulin alone in 11%, both in 14%, and none in 26%., Conclusions: Patients randomized in DAPA-HF were similar to those in other contemporary HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) registries and trials. These patients were receiving recommended HFrEF therapy and those with diabetes were also treated with conventional glucose-lowering therapy. Consequently, DAPA-HF will test the incremental efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in HFrEF patients with and without diabetes., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03036124., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of incident heart failure hospitalization in individuals with type 2 diabetes who have, or are at high risk of, cardiovascular disease. Most patients in these trials did not have heart failure at baseline and the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on outcomes in individuals with established heart failure (with or without diabetes) is unknown., Design and Methods: The Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF) is an international, multicentre, parallel group, randomized, double-blind, study in patients with chronic heart failure, evaluating the effect of dapagliflozin 10 mg, compared with placebo, given once daily, in addition to standard care, on the primary composite outcome of a worsening heart failure event (hospitalization or equivalent event, i.e. an urgent heart failure visit) or cardiovascular death. Patients with and without diabetes are eligible and must have a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, a moderately elevated N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide level, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . The trial is event-driven, with a target of 844 primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include the composite of total heart failure hospitalizations (including repeat episodes), and cardiovascular death and patient-reported outcomes. A total of 4744 patients have been randomized., Conclusions: DAPA-HF will determine the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin, added to conventional therapy, in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Maintaining confidentiality of emerging data and ensuring the independence of Data Monitoring Committees are best practices of considerable importance to the ability of these committees to achieve their mission of safeguarding the interests of study participants and enhancing the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. Even with the wide recognition of these principles, there are circumstances where confidentiality issues remain challenging, controversial or inconsistently addressed. First, consider settings where a clinical trial's interim data could provide the evidence regulatory authorities require for decisions about marketing approval, yet where such a trial would be continued post-approval to provide more definitive evidence about principal safety and/or efficacy outcomes. In such settings, data informative about the longer term objectives of the trial should remain confidential until pre-specified criteria for trial completion have been met. Second, for those other than Data Monitoring Committee members, access to safety and efficacy outcomes during trial conduct, even when presented as data pooled across treatment arms, should be on a limited "need to know" basis relating to the ability to carry out ethical or scientific responsibilities in the conduct of the trial. Third, Data Monitoring Committee members should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable timely and informed judgments about risks and benefits. Fourth, it should be recognized that a mediator potentially could be useful in rare settings where the Data Monitoring Committee would have serious ethical or scientific concerns about the sponsor's dissemination or lack of dissemination of information. Data Monitoring Committee Contract Agreements, Indemnification Agreements and Charters should be developed in a manner to protect Data Monitoring Committee members and their independence, in order to enhance the Data Monitoring Committee's ability to effectively address their mission.