Update on New INTERMACS/NIH Initiatives PumpKIN(15 min)T. Baldwin Sixth Annual Meeting, March 12,...
-
Upload
violet-carr -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
3
Transcript of Update on New INTERMACS/NIH Initiatives PumpKIN(15 min)T. Baldwin Sixth Annual Meeting, March 12,...
Update on New INTERMACS/NIH Initiatives
•PumpKIN (15 min) T. Baldwin
Sixth Annual Meeting, March 12, 2012
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Tim Baldwin, Ph.D.
Deputy Chief, Advanced Technologies and Surgery BranchBasic and Early Translational Research Program
Division of Cardiovascular SciencesNHLBI
6th Annual INTERMACS Meeting
NHLBI Pumps for Kids, Infants, and Neonates (PumpKIN) Program
Update
March 12th, 2012Crown Plaza Washington Airport, Arlington, VA
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PumpKIN Pre-Clinical ProgramFour-year contracts. Began in January, 2010
Objective: To obtain IDEs for circulatory assist devices for infants and/or small children
Eligible Devices: Circulatory support devices appropriate for small children (<25 kg) with heart disease who experience cardiopulmonary failure and circulatory collapse.
Work includes:• Pre-clinical testing and analysis• Developing manufacturing documentation• Regulatory, technical, and clinical support• Submitting pre-IDE, request for HUD, & IDE application• Collaborating with DCCC and other contractors on Clinical Trial
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PumpKIN Program TimelinePumpKIN Program Timeline
2010 20122011 2013
Pre-IDE Submission
HUD Designation Requests
IDE Applications
IDE Approvals (Contingent on FDA Decision)
DCCC RFP
Pre-Clinical Awards
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
pCAS Ension, Inc.
PI: Mark Gartner, Ph.D.
PediPL Univ. Maryland-Baltimore Med. Ctr.Thoratec
PI: Barley Griffith, M.D.
ProgramProgram
PediaFlow U. PittsburghChildren’s Hosp. of PittsburghCMUWorldHeart, Inc.LaunchPoint
PI: Harvey Borovetz, Ph.D.
Jarvik Pediatric 2000 VADJarvik Heart, Inc.
PI: Robert Jarvik, M.D.
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
•Small•Low Priming Volume•Transportable •Integrated System•Modular•Improved Biocompatibility•No Plasma Breakthrough
Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Assist System (pCAS)
Advanced Compact ECMO (ACE) System
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Pediatric Pump-Lung (PediPL) DeviceAdvanced Compact ECMO (ACE) System
•Integrated System•Mag-Lev Impeller•Uniform Flow•Low Priming Volume•Simplified Circuit •Compact Design•Transportable •Modular•No Plasma Breakthrough
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PediPL Initial In-vivo Animal Study
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Explanted Devices
PPL09 after 32 days
PPL08 after 30 days
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Jarvik 2000 Pediatric VAD
•Implantable•No Pump Pocket•Versatile Positioning•Out-of-Hospital Use•Long-Term Support•Human-Engineered Controller
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PediaFlow PF4 Pump
•Implantable• No one way flow valves•Virtually infinite operating life•Exceptionally Small•Exceptional biocompatibility•Out-of-Hospital Use
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PediaFlow
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PumpKIN Data and Clinical Coordinating Center (DCCC)
• Work includes– Developing Clinical Protocol(s) & Related Forms– Developing Monitoring Procedures– Providing Safety Oversight– Coordinating Clinical Sites– Implementing and Conducting Clinical Study– Training & Supporting Sites– Analyzing and Disseminating Data– Providing FDA Documentation for HDE Applications
• Collaboration with contractors and industry sponsors• 66-month Contract• Targeted to start April, 2012
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PumpKINProtocol Development Committee
(Independent Members)• Pedro del Nido, MD (Chair) Boston Children’s Hospital
• Kurt Dasse, PhD Pharos, LLC
• Deirdre Epstein, RN Washington University in St. Louis
• Rebecca Ichord, MD Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
• Patricia Massicotte, MD University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital
• David Morales, MD Texas Children’s Hospital
• Robert Morrow, MD University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
• David Naftel, PhD University of Alabama-Birmingham
• Richard Ohye, MD University of Michigan
• David Rosenthal, MD Stanford University
• Robert Shaddy, MD Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PumpKINProtocol Development Committee
(Contract Team Members)• Harvey Borovetz, PhD University of Pittsburgh
• Peter Wearden, MD, PhD Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, U. of Pitt.
• Steven Webber, MD Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, U. of Pitt.
• Robert Jarvik, MD Jarvik Heart, Inc.
• Bartley Griffith, MD University of Maryland-Baltimore Medical Center
• Barry Gellman, MS Thoratec, Inc.
• Mark Gartner, PhD Ension, Inc.
• Greg Johnson, PhD Ension, Inc.
• Joseph Tamblyn, CCP Ension, Inc.
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Proposed PumpKIN Trials• Multi-Center Single-Arm Trials. One for each device• Similar patient sample size used in Berlin Heart Trial (N=30)• Follow-up
– VADs: 12 months
– ACE Systems: 6 months
• Endpoints– Primary: Survival to TX, Recovery, Death– Safety: Frequency of SAE’s, device-related AE’s, infections, and bleeding– Secondary Endpoints: Neuro-development and QOL
• Hypothesis: Survival and rates of SAE’s equal to or better than historical or concurrent controls.
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PumpKIN Program TimelinePumpKIN Program Timeline
2010 20122011 2013
Pre-IDE Submission
HUD Designation Requests
IDE Applications
IDE Approvals (Contingent on FDA Decision)
DCCC RFP
Pre-Clinical Awards
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
PumpKIN Program TimelinePumpKIN Program Timeline
Protocol DevelopmentClinical Site PrepTrainingIRB ApprovalsSite Subcontracts
Data AnalysesPublicationsHDE Applications
20162014 2015
2010 20122011 2013
Pre-IDE Submission
HUD Designation Requests
IDE Applications
IDE Approvals (Contingent on FDA Decision)
DCCC RFP 2017
DCCC Award
Clinical Trial
20132012
Pre-Clinical Awards
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
NHLBI PumpKIN Team
Jonathan Kaltman, MDVictoria Pemberton, RNC, MSEllen Rosenberg, MHA, BSN
Mario Stylianou, PhD
Roxane BurkettScott Bredow
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Update on New INTERMACS/NIH Initiatives
•Revive-IT (15 min) Pagani
Sixth Annual Meeting, March 12, 2012
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Pilot Trial
Francis D. Pagani MD PhD
Department of Cardiac Surgery
University of Michigan
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Overview of Current Device Use for Destination Therapy
• VAD therapy has been limited to late-stage heart failure (NYHA Class IV symptoms) because of the associated device risks.
• ≈ 70% of patients are on inotrope support at the time of VAD implantation.
• ≈ 10–20% of patients are supported with IABP.
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Rationale for Studying LVAD Therapy in Less Advanced Heart Failure
• We’re neglecting a much larger group of patients who may benefit from DT
• Substantial improvements in patient outcomes:– Improved device technology– Improved patient selection and management
• For MCS to have a real public health effect, we must determine how to preoperatively identify potential destination therapy patients who have:– poor prognosis with continued medical therapy alone– good end organ function – expected good survival with an implanted LVAD
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Hypotheses• A substantial fraction of the ambulatory heart failure
patients whom we’ve been thinking are “too well” for an LVAD for DT would likely experience a mortality benefit from an LVAD.
• We can identify these patients using existing heart failure and post-LVAD survival risk models.
• Risk modeling can provide the clinical equipoise needed to perform a randomized trial in “less sick” heart failure patients for destination therapy.
• The hypothesis proposed for the trial is that VAD therapy may improve both survival and quality of life in moderately advanced heart failure patients who are neither inotrope-dependent nor exercise-intolerant and have not yet developed serious consequences such as malnourishment, end-organ damage, and immobility.
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
• Objective: To explore the potential benefit of LVAD therapy in advanced HF patients who have significant functional impairment but have not yet developed serious consequences such as malnourishment, end-organ damage, and immobility.
• Hypothesis: VAD therapy will improve functional status at 12 months post-randomization and all-cause mortality will be no worse than that in the optimal medical management (OMM) arm of the trial.
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
• RFP announced July 2009• Contract Awarded Jan 15, 2011
• Timeline– 9 month planning – 18 month patient recruitment (May 2012)– 24 month patient follow-up – 9 months closeout
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
REVIVE-IT Study Organization
• PIs: Keith Aaronson, Francis Pagani (Univ Michigan), Robert Kormos (Univ Pittsburgh)
• NHLBI COTR: Timothy Baldwin• Steering Committee Chair: Douglas Mann (WUSL)• DCCC: Michigan Institute for Clinical Health Research
(MICHR)• Core Labs:
– Exercise: Donna Mancini; Columbia Univ– Biomarker: Dennis McNamara; Univ Pittsburgh– QoL: Kathleen Grady; Northwestern Univ– Neurocognition: Ralph Petrucci; Drexel Univ– Echocardiography: John Gorcsan; Univ Pittsburgh– Health Economics: Henry Glick; Univ Pennsylvania
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
REVIVE-IT Study Organization
• Steering Committee– Chair, PIs, DCCC, Clinical Sites, Study Cores,
INTERMACS• Gatekeepers (2)
– Donna Mancini; Columbia Univ– Allen Anderson; Univ Chicago
• Clinical Sites (14)– Abbott-Northwestern, U Alabama-Birmingham,
Cleveland Clinic, Duke, Montifiore (NY), U Louisville, U Michigan, Northwestern, U Pennsylvania, U Pittsburgh, Columbia Univ, Washington Hospital Center, U Chicago, WUStL
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
REVIVE-IT Study Design
• Pilot, open-label, RCT testing a strategy of earlier LVAD vs. OMM in pts not txp eligible– 1:1 randomization, 50 patients per group– OMM patients may receive LVAD if meet
standard contemporary DT criteria– Patients in either group may be
transplanted if contraindications resolve– Intention-to-treat analysis
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
The HeartWare®
Ventricular Assist System
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
REVIVE-IT Primary Study Endpoint
• The Primary Study Outcome for REVIVE-IT will be evaluated at 2 years and include the composite outcome of:– Survival– Freedom from severely disabling stroke (defined
as Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) ≥ 3)– Improvement of functional capacity from
prerandomization baseline (metric TBD)• 6 Minute Walk Test distance by ≥ 75 meters• Non-weight adjusted peak VO2 ≥ 15%
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
REVIVE-IT Secondary Endpoints• Functional capacity• Health-related Quality of Life and Health Utility• Neurocognition• Heart failure-related adverse events• Cost and cost-effectiveness• LVAD associated adverse events (as defined by
INTERMACS)• Cross-over rates to LVAD in the OMM arm• Cross-over rates to cardiac transplantation in the
OMM and LVAD arms
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
REVIVE-IT Screening Criteria
• Ambulatory, systolic heart failure ≥ 12 months• NYHA III ≥ 3 months• ≤ 1 hospitalization prior 6 months, none within prior 30
days• Maximally tolerated doses of beta blocker, ACE
inhibitor or ARB, spironolactone for ≥ 3 months with stable doses for ≥ 30 days
• No intravenous inotrope within the prior 3 months• Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% by any imaging
modality within the previous year
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
REVIVE-IT Study Design (Proposed)• Key Inclusion Criteria (all must be met)
– Peak VO2 35-55% of predicted (Wasserman)– Peak VO2 ≤ 14 (women), ≤ 16 (men)– 6 minute walk test distance ≤ 350 m– SHFM Score ≥ 1.5 (est. 1-year mortality ≥ 17%)
• Estimated 1-year cohort mortality ≈ 25%– RHC criteria (w/o any intravenous inotrope)
• CVP < 16 mmHg; CVP/ PCWP ratio < 0.65; RVSWI > 300 – Carotid duplex criteria
• Any carotid stenosis must be < 80%– Confirmed not a transplant candidate by transplant
committee at clinical siteIN
TERMACS Annual M
eeting
March 2012
Can We Find The Sweet Spot?
NYHA III
“Too Early” Profiles 1-3 “Too Late”
Death
Inotrope dependent? Hemodynamic criteria?
Non-inotrope dependent?
High mortality in control armHigh crossover to conventional DT“Not so early VAD vs. Conventional DT” or“Not so early VAD vs. Not so early VAD”Unlikely to show benefit!
Low crossover to conventional DTLow mortality in control arm“Too early VAD vs. Conventional DT”Unlikely to show benefit!
THE SWEET SPOT???
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012
Summary• Patient selection for VAD therapy has been limited to
patients with significantly advanced heart failure with significant comorbidities.
• Outcomes are dependent on patient selection and device technology.
• The minimum level of symptoms and degree of heart failure that is necessary to obtain benefit from VAD therapy is not well defined.
• Ongoing improvements in VAD technology have improved outcomes.– no trial to date investigating VAD therapy utilizing
advanced technology against medical therapy
• Indication creep – less advanced heart failure symptoms at implant.
INTERMACS A
nnual Meetin
g
March 2012