Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS:In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS:Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS:In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

As the nation seeks to recruit and retain physician-scientists, gaps remain in understanding and addressing mitigatable challenges to the success of faculty from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program, implemented in 2015 at 10 academic medical centers in the United States, seeks to retain physician-scientists at risk of leaving science because of periods of extraordinary family caregiving needs, hardships that URM faculty-especially those who identify as female-are more likely to experience. At the annual Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program directors conference in 2018, program directors-21% of whom identify as URM individuals and 13% as male-addressed issues that affect URM physician-scientists in particular. Key issues that threaten the retention of URM physician-scientists were identified through focused literature reviews; institutional environmental scans; and structured small- and large-group discussions with program directors, staff, and participants. These issues include bias and discrimination, personal wealth differential, the minority tax (i.e., service burdens placed on URM faculty who represent URM perspectives on committees and at conferences), lack of mentorship training, intersectionality and isolation, concerns about confirming stereotypes, and institutional-level factors. The authors present recommendations for how to create an environment in which URM physician-scientists can expect equitable opportunities to thrive, as institutions demonstrate proactive allyship and remove structural barriers to success. Recommendations include providing universal training to reduce interpersonal bias and discrimination, addressing the consequences of the personal wealth gap through financial counseling and benefits, measuring the service faculty members provide to the institution as advocates for URM faculty issues and compensating them appropriately, supporting URM faculty who wish to engage in national leadership programs, and sustaining institutional policies that address structural and interpersonal barriers to inclusive excellence.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard to evaluate clinical interventions, producing the highest level of evidence while minimizing potential bias. Inadequate recruitment is a commonly encountered problem that undermines the completion and generalizability of RCTs-and is even more challenging when enrolling amidst a pandemic. Here, we reflect on our experiences with virtual recruitment of non-hospitalized patients in the United States for ColCorona, an international, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drug trial. Recruitment challenges during a pandemic include constraints created by shelter-in-place policies and targeting enrollment according to national and local fluctuations in infection rate. Presenting a study to potential participants who are sick with COVID-19 and may be frightened, overwhelmed, or mistrusting of clinical research remains a challenge. Strategies previously reported to improve recruitment include transparency, patient and site education, financial incentives, and person-to-person outreach. Active measures taken during ColCorona to optimize United States recruitment involved rapid expansion of sites, adjustment of recruitment scripts, assessing telephone calls versus text messages for initial contact with participants, institutional review board-approved financial compensation, creating an infrastructure to systematically identify potentially eligible patients, partnering with testing sites, appealing to both self-interest and altruism, and large-scale media efforts with varying degrees of success.

BACKGROUND:Patients with significant (≥50%) left main disease (LMD) have a high risk of cardiovascular events, and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (stenosis, 25%-49%) on outcomes is unclear. METHODS:Randomized ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline were categorized into those with (25%-49%) and without (<25%) intermediate LMD. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The primary quality of life outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score. RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS:In the ISCHEMIA trial, there was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment benefit from an invasive strategy regardless of intermediate LMD status except for a greater absolute risk reduction in nonprocedural MI with invasive management in those with intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI, reduced nonprocedural MI, and improved angina-related quality of life. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Background In participants with concomitant chronic coronary disease and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), the effect of treatment strategies on the timing of dialysis initiation is not well characterized. Methods and Results In ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease), 777 participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to either an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Herein, we compare the proportion of randomized participants with non-dialysis-requiring CKD at baseline (n=362) who initiated dialysis and compare the time to dialysis initiation between invasive versus conservative management arms. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we also sought to identify the effect of invasive versus conservative chronic coronary disease management strategies on dialysis initiation. At a median follow-up of 23 months (25th-75th interquartile range, 14-32 months), dialysis was initiated in 18.9% of participants (36/190) in the invasive strategy and 16.9% of participants (29/172) in the conservative strategy (P=0.22). The median time to dialysis initiation was 6.0 months (interquartile range, 3.0-16.0 months) in the invasive group and 18.2 months (interquartile range, 12.2-25.0 months) in the conservative group (P=0.004), with no difference in procedural acute kidney injury rates between the groups (7.8% versus 5.4%; P=0.26). Baseline clinical factors associated with earlier dialysis initiation were lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (hazard ratio [HR] associated with 5-unit decrease, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.72-2.56]; P<0.001), diabetes (HR, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.28-4.13]; P=0.005), hypertension (HR, 7.97 [95% CI, 1.09-58.21]; P=0.041), and Hispanic ethnicity (HR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.22-4.47]; P=0.010). Conclusions In participants with non-dialysis-requiring CKD in ISCHEMIA-CKD, randomization to an invasive chronic coronary disease management strategy (relative to a conservative chronic coronary disease management strategy) is associated with an accelerated time to initiation of maintenance dialysis for kidney failure. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

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.

BACKGROUND:Detection of ≥50% diameter stenosis left main coronary artery disease (LMD) has prognostic and therapeutic implications. Noninvasive stress imaging or an exercise tolerance test (ETT) are the most common methods to detect obstructive coronary artery disease, though stress test markers of LMD remain ill-defined. OBJECTIVES:The authors sought to identify markers of LMD as detected on coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), using clinical and stress testing parameters. METHODS:This was a post hoc analysis of ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), including randomized and nonrandomized participants who had locally determined moderate or severe ischemia on nonimaging ETT, stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging, or stress echocardiography followed by CTA to exclude LMD. Stress tests were read by core laboratories. Prior coronary artery bypass grafting was an exclusion. In a stepped multivariate model, the authors identified predictors of LMD, first without and then with stress testing parameters. RESULTS:Among 5,146 participants (mean age 63 years, 74% male), 414 (8%) had LMD. Predictors of LMD were older age (P < 0.001), male sex (P < 0.01), absence of prior myocardial infarction (P < 0.009), transient ischemic dilation of the left ventricle on stress echocardiography (P = 0.05), magnitude of ST-segment depression on ETT (P = 0.004), and peak metabolic equivalents achieved on ETT (P = 0.001). The models were weakly predictive of LMD (C-index 0.643 and 0.684). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with moderate or severe ischemia, clinical and stress testing parameters were weakly predictive of LMD on CTA. For most patients with moderate or severe ischemia, anatomical imaging is needed to rule out LMD. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS:We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as cardiovascular (CV), non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS:Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies [2.6% vs. 3.0%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% CI (0.70 - 1.38)], but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy [3.3% vs. 2.1%; HR 1.45 (1.00 - 2.09)]. Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths [0.6% vs. 1.3%; HR 0.48 (0.24 - 0.95)] and more malignancy deaths [2.0% vs. 0.8%; HR 2.11 (1.23 - 3.60)] occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.