Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND The obesity paradox states that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) and cardiovascular disease may experience better prognosis. However, this is less clear in patients with coronary heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS The prospective STABILITY (Stabilization of Atherosclerotic Plaque by Initiation of Darapladib Therapy) trial included 15 828 patients with stable coronary heart disease with 3 to 5 years' follow-up on optimal secondary preventive treatment. BMI was measured at baseline (n=15 785). Associations between BMI and cardiovascular outcomes were evaluated by Cox regression analyses with multivariable adjustments. Mean age was 64±9 years and 19% women. Most risk markers (diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory biomarkers, triglycerides) showed a graded association with higher BMI. The frequency of smoking, levels of high-density lipoprotein, growth differentiation factor 15, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) were higher at lower BMI. Low BMI (<20 kg/m²; n=244 [1.5%]) was associated with doubled risk of total death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.27; 95% CI, 1.60-3.22), cardiovascular death (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.46-3.49), and heart failure (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.35-4.68) compared with BMI of 25 to <30 kg/m² (n=6752 [42.8%]) as reference. Similarly, high BMI of ≥35 kg/m² (n=1768 [11.2%]) was associated with increased risk of the same outcomes. A BMI between 20 and <25 kg/m² was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54) and total death (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.42). CONCLUSIONS Patients with stable coronary heart disease showed a graded increase in cardiometabolic and inflammatory risk factors with increasing BMI category >25 kg/m². All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were lowest at BMI of 25 to 35 kg/m². Underweight with BMI of <20 kg/m² and very high BMI of ≥35 kg/m² were strong risk markers for poor prognosis. REGISTRATION URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier NCT00799903.

Importance:Platelets represent a potential therapeutic target for improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective:To evaluate the benefits and risks of adding a P2Y12 inhibitor to anticoagulant therapy among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants:An open-label, bayesian, adaptive randomized clinical trial including 562 non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was conducted between February 2021 and June 2021 at 60 hospitals in Brazil, Italy, Spain, and the US. The date of final 90-day follow-up was September 15, 2021. Interventions:Patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of heparin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 293) or a therapeutic dose of heparin only (usual care) (n = 269) in a 1:1 ratio for 14 days or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Ticagrelor was the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures:The composite primary outcome was organ support-free days evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and, for those who survived to hospital discharge, the number of days free of respiratory or cardiovascular organ support up to day 21 of the index hospitalization (range, -1 to 21 days; higher scores indicate less organ support and better outcomes). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding by 28 days as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. Results:Enrollment of non-critically ill patients was discontinued when the prespecified criterion for futility was met. All 562 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52.7 [SD, 13.5] years; 41.5% women) completed the trial and 87% received a therapeutic dose of heparin by the end of study day 1. In the P2Y12 inhibitor group, ticagrelor was used in 63% of patients and clopidogrel in 37%. The median number of organ support-free days was 21 days (IQR, 20-21 days) among patients in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and was 21 days (IQR, 21-21 days) in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 [95% credible interval, 0.55-1.25]; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 96%). Major bleeding occurred in 6 patients (2.0%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and in 2 patients (0.7%) in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio, 3.31 [95% CI, 0.64-17.2]; P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance:Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of a P2Y12 inhibitor in addition to a therapeutic dose of heparin, compared with a therapeutic dose of heparin only, did not result in an increased odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days during hospitalization. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04505774.