No abstract

Overall, no differences in risk were observed in the main cohort analyses comparing Olm initiators with patients initiating therapy with other ARBs; however, HRs were marginally increased for all study endpoints which compared high-dose subgroups, suggesting potential increased risk may be associated with high-dose Olm. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Distributive shock is a subset of shock marked by decreased systemic vascular resistance, organ hypoperfusion and altered oxygen extraction. Despite the use of intravenous fluids and either higher dose of catecholamines or other additional exogenous vasopressors to maintain blood pressure in the target range, the rate of mortality remains higher in patients with septic shock. Therefore, there is clearly an unmet need for additional safe and effective treatments. The use of angiotensin II to raise the mean arterial pressure (MAP) could provide additional therapy and the opportunity to evaluate a catecholamine-sparing effect by decreasing the dose of concomitant catecholamines while maintaining a target MAP. ATHOS-3 (Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock phase 3; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843) was an adequate and well-controlled trial. The primary endpoint was the rate of MAP response at hour 3 of treatment with study drug, defined as either a 10-mmHg increase from baseline in MAP or a MAP of at least 75 mmHg. The secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (total and cardiovascular). Mortality was an exploratory endpoint. The trial provided substantial evidence of the effectiveness of angiotensin II in raising blood pressure over placebo in patients with distributive shock, while keeping catecholamine levels constant. There was no change in the secondary endpoint of total SOFA scores relative to placebo when catecholamine use was reduced in lieu of angiotensin II treatment. There was a slight decrease in the secondary endpoint of cardiovascular SOFA score relative to placebo during the catecholamine-sparing phase, reflecting the catecholamine-sparing effect. There was a consistent trend in decreased mortality relative to placebo over the 28-day study period. Based on the agreements emanating from the special protocol assessment to assess blood pressure effects, the data from this single study supported approval of angiotensin II by the Food and Drug Administration for marketing in the USA.

Abstract-Over the past decade, personalized medicine has received considerable attention from researchers, drug developers, and regulatory agencies. Personalized medicine includes identifying patients most likely to benefit and those most likely to experience adverse reactions in response to a drug, and tailoring therapy based on pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamic response, as well. Perhaps most exciting is finding ways to identify likely responders through genetic, proteomic, or other tests, so that only likely responders will be treated. However, less precise methods such as identifying historical, demographic, or other indicators of increased or reduced responsiveness are also important aspects of personalized medicine. The cardiovascular field has not used many genetic or proteomic markers, but has regularly used prognostic variables to identify likely responders. The development of biomarker-based approaches to personalized medicine in cardiovascular disease has been challenging, in part, because most cardiovascular therapies treat acquired syndromes, such as acute coronary syndrome and heart failure, which develop over many decades and represent the end result of several pathophysiological mechanisms. More precise disease classification and greater understanding of individual variations in disease pathology could drive the development of targeted therapeutics. Success in designing clinical trials for personalized medicine will require the selection of patient populations with attributes that can be targeted or that predict outcome, and the use of appropriate enrichment strategies once such attributes are identified. Here, we describe examples of personalized medicine in cardiovascular disease, discuss its impact on clinical trial design, and provide insight into the future of personalized cardiovascular medicine from a regulatory perspective.