Innovations in Clinical Trial Designs Ori BenYehuda MD

  • Slides: 27
Download presentation
Innovations in Clinical Trial Designs Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD Clinical Trials Center Cardiovascular Research Foundation

Innovations in Clinical Trial Designs Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD Clinical Trials Center Cardiovascular Research Foundation New York, NY

Disclosures • I, Ori Ben-Yehuda, do not have financial conflicts of interest in relation

Disclosures • I, Ori Ben-Yehuda, do not have financial conflicts of interest in relation to this presentation.

Topics to Be Covered in 10 minutes • Pragmatic Trials • Hierarchal Composite Endpoints

Topics to Be Covered in 10 minutes • Pragmatic Trials • Hierarchal Composite Endpoints • Adaptive Designs

Pragmatic vs. Explanatory Trials Terms coined by Schwartz & Lellough in 1967 Dialogues Clin

Pragmatic vs. Explanatory Trials Terms coined by Schwartz & Lellough in 1967 Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011 Jun; 13(2): 217– 224.

Explanatory vs. Pragmatic Trials • • Explanatory Highly controlled setting Strict I & E

Explanatory vs. Pragmatic Trials • • Explanatory Highly controlled setting Strict I & E If and how an intervention works? High internal validity • • • Pragmatic Broad range of patients Looser I & E Does intervention work in real life? External validity Patient centric outcomes

Limitations of Pragmatic Trials • Dilution of effect- may require very large sample size

Limitations of Pragmatic Trials • Dilution of effect- may require very large sample size to avoid type II error, especially for medium efficacy Rx • Long follow up may be required (ALLHAT took 8 yrs!) • Geographic variation • Less applicable to evaluation of devices/techniques that require high expertise • Who pays?

TAPAS: Thrombus Aspiration during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention • Single center • 1071 patients

TAPAS: Thrombus Aspiration during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention • Single center • 1071 patients enrolled • Primary end point: a myocardial blush grade of 0 (absent reperfusion) or 1 (minimal myocardial reperfusion) – 17. 1% in the thrombus-aspiration group – 26. 3% in the conventional-PCI group – risk ratio, 0. 65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0. 51 to 0. 83; P<0. 001) • Death in 11 of 529 (2. 1%) and 21 of 531 (4. 0%) (risk ratio, 0. 52; 95% CI, 0. 26 to 1. 07; P=0. 07) N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 557 -567

TAPAS: 1 year result All-cause mortality (p=0. 04) Cardiac death or non fatal MI

TAPAS: 1 year result All-cause mortality (p=0. 04) Cardiac death or non fatal MI (p=0. 008) Lancet. Volume 371, 9628, 7– 13 : 1915 -1920

Thrombus Aspiration in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE) • Randomized within the

Thrombus Aspiration in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE) • Randomized within the SCAAR/SWEDEHEART • Within the registry all patients with suspected STEMI and planned PCI after angiography • Recruitment: oral consent followed by written consent • 60% participation • 1: 1 randomization to thrombus aspiration followed by PCI or to PCI only • 7244 patients underwent randomization (Sweden, Iceland, Denmark)

TASTE: Main Results at 30 days Total Mortality: HR 0. 94; 95% CI, 0.

TASTE: Main Results at 30 days Total Mortality: HR 0. 94; 95% CI, 0. 72 to 1. 22; P=0. 63 Rehospitalization Due to Reinfarction: HR 0. 61; 95% CI, 0. 34 to 1. 07; P=0. 09 N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1587 -1597

TASTE: 1 year Results Death/MI/ST HR 0. 91; 95% CI, 0. 80 to 1.

TASTE: 1 year Results Death/MI/ST HR 0. 91; 95% CI, 0. 80 to 1. 04; P=0. 16 No Patient Lost to Follow Up! N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1111 -1120

Cost Typical Registration Device Trial • $20, 000 per patient Registry Trial such as

Cost Typical Registration Device Trial • $20, 000 per patient Registry Trial such as TASTE • $50 per patient 400 Fold Difference! >99% Discount

Integrating Surrogates into Composite Endpoints • Composite endpoints are problematic- even for hard endpoints

Integrating Surrogates into Composite Endpoints • Composite endpoints are problematic- even for hard endpoints – eg: Death, Stroke, MI; mortality and hospitalization • Even more challenging for surrogate endpoints, esp with hardpoints – e. g: hospitalization plus improvement in KCCQ! How does one combine into a single endpoint?

Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Methodology • Hierarchal Composite Endpoint • Clinically relevant • Allows for combination of

Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Methodology • Hierarchal Composite Endpoint • Clinically relevant • Allows for combination of hard endpoints (mortality, stroke, re-hospitalizations) and softer but clinically relevant endpoints such as Qo. L and Functional Status

Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Methodology: A solution to the Composite Endpoint Problem Hierarchy created for endpoints May

Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Methodology: A solution to the Composite Endpoint Problem Hierarchy created for endpoints May include disparate types- eg mortality and quality of life Each patient in Arm A is compared with each patient in Arm B For each patient comparison and endpoint in the hierarchy a win, loss, or tie is declared • If a win (and corresponding loss for the other patient) is declared no need to continue to lower tier in the hierarchy • If a tie is declared, one continues to a lower tier • Number of wins is counted in each group • •

TAVR UNLOAD Concept TAVR UNLOAD Trial International Multicenter Randomized LV-EF< 50% & Moderate AS

TAVR UNLOAD Concept TAVR UNLOAD Trial International Multicenter Randomized LV-EF< 50% & Moderate AS TAVR + OHFT R OHFT alone Spitzer et al. AHJ 2016; 182: 80 -88 Follow-up: 1, 6 months 1 & 2 years Clinical endpoints Symptoms Echo Qo. L

Comparison of each potential subject pair (1 from TAVR group and 1 from OHFT)

Comparison of each potential subject pair (1 from TAVR group and 1 from OHFT) How event is assessed TAVR- UNLOAD: FS Methodology Step 1 If 1 or both subjects die Subject in TAVR group dies first Subject in OHFT group dies first Both subjects die on the same day Step 2 If no ranking yet available Subject in TAVR group suffers a more severe disabling stroke (m. RS 2 to 5) Subject in OHFT group suffers a more severe disabling stroke (m. RS 2 to 5) Both subjects suffer a disabling stroke of the same severity Step 3 If no ranking yet available Subject in TAVR group suffers the stroke first Subject in OHFT group suffers the stroke first Both subjects suffer a disabling stroke of the same severity on the same day ----------------------------------------------------Step 6 If no ranking yet available Subject in TAVR group is in worse KCCQ category at one year** Subject in OHFT group is in worse KCCQ category at one year Both subjects are in same KCCQ category at one year Favors OHFT Favors TAVR Go to step 2 Favors OHFT Favors TAVR Go to step 3 Favors OHFT Favors TAVR Go to step 4 Favors OHFT Favors TAVR Tie

Surrogate Endpoints • Pros’s – Every patient contributes to endpoint – Important endpoints for

Surrogate Endpoints • Pros’s – Every patient contributes to endpoint – Important endpoints for patients (eg, Qo. L) – Shorter follow-up • Con’s – Associated but not necessarily causal with hard endpoints – Difficult to combine into a composite endpoint

 • • Type of Surrogate Endpoints Applicable to TAVR Imaging – Echo- Reduction

• • Type of Surrogate Endpoints Applicable to TAVR Imaging – Echo- Reduction in stenosis, valve regurgitation, etc. , EF – MRI- Reduction in LVH, Infarct Size Exercise endpoints – 6 MWT, ETT, CPET Quality of Life – Generic- SF-36/SF-12, EQ-5 – Disease specific- SAQ, MLWHFQ, KCCQ Biomarkers – NT-NBP

NT-pro. BNP in PARADIGM

NT-pro. BNP in PARADIGM

NT-pro. BNP in PARADIGM: Effect of Treatment

NT-pro. BNP in PARADIGM: Effect of Treatment

Heart Failure Hospitalization Equivalents Okumura et al. Circulation 2016; 133: 2254 -2262

Heart Failure Hospitalization Equivalents Okumura et al. Circulation 2016; 133: 2254 -2262

Heart failure event Symptoms New or Worsening Criterion for new or worsening symptoms due

Heart failure event Symptoms New or Worsening Criterion for new or worsening symptoms due to HF is to have at least 1 of the following on presentation: a) Dyspnea b) Decreased exercise tolerance c) Fatigue d) Worsened end-organ perfusion e) Volume overload Physical Examination New or Worsening Criterion for new or worsening objective findings due to HF includes at least 2 physical examination findings OR 1 physical examination finding and at least 1 laboratory criterion. Physical examination findings include new or worsened: a) Peripheral edema b) Increasing abdominal distention or ascites c) Pulmonary rales/crackles/crepitations d) Increased jugular venous pressure and/or hepatojugular reflux e) S 3 gallop f) Clinically significant or rapid weight gain thought to be related to fluid retention Laboratory Data New or Worsening Documentation of new or worsening laboratory evidence of HF obtained within 24 h of patient presentation. Criterion for new or worsening objective findings due to HF includes at least 2 physical examination findings OR 1 physical examination finding and at least 1 laboratory criterion. Laboratory criteria include new or worsened: a) Increased BNP/NT-pro. BNP b) Radiological evidence of pulmonary congestion c) Noninvasive diagnostic evidence of HF d) Invasive diagnostic evidence of HF Hicks et a. 2017 Cardiovascular and Stroke Endpoint Definitions for Clinical Trials. Circulation. 2018; 137: 961– 972. 24

Bhatt and Mehta. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 65 -74

Bhatt and Mehta. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 65 -74

Adaptive Design: Promising Zone Statist. Med. 2011, 30 3267– 3284

Adaptive Design: Promising Zone Statist. Med. 2011, 30 3267– 3284

Statist. Med. 2011, 30 3267– 3284

Statist. Med. 2011, 30 3267– 3284