No abstract

The Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for evaluating the cardiovascular risk of new diabetes mellitus drugs in 2008. Accumulating evidence from several completed trials conducted within this framework raises questions as to whether requiring safety outcome studies for all new diabetes mellitus therapies remains justified. Given the burden of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes, the focus should shift towards cardiovascular outcome studies designed to evaluate efficacy (i.e. to determine the efficacy of a drug over placebo or standard care) rather than demonstrating that risk is not increased by a pre-specified safety margin. All stakeholders are responsible for ensuring that new drug approvals occur under conditions of appropriate safety and effectiveness. It is also a shared responsibility to avoid unnecessary hurdles that may compromise access to useful drugs and threaten the sustainability of health systems. It is critical to renew this debate so that stakeholders can collectively determine the optimal approach for developing new drugs to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Despite the availability of a number of different classes of therapeutic agents with proven efficacy in heart failure, the clinical course of heart failure patients is characterized by a reduction in life expectancy, a progressive decline in health-related quality of life and functional status, as well as a high risk of hospitalization. New approaches are needed to address the unmet medical needs of this patient population. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is undertaking a revision of its Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure. The draft version of the Guideline was released for public consultation in January 2016. The Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in partnership with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, convened a dedicated two-day workshop to discuss three main topic areas of major interest in the field and addressed in this draft EMA guideline: (i) assessment of efficacy (i.e. endpoint selection and statistical analysis); (ii) clinical trial design (i.e. issues pertaining to patient population, optimal medical therapy, run-in period); and (iii) research approaches for testing novel therapeutic principles (i.e. cell therapy). This paper summarizes the key outputs from the workshop, reviews areas of expert consensus, and identifies gaps that require further research or discussion. Collaboration between regulators, industry, clinical trialists, cardiologists, health technology assessment bodies, payers, and patient organizations is critical to address the ongoing challenge of heart failure and to ensure the development and market access of new therapeutics in a scientifically robust, practical and safe way.

Regulatory authorities interpret the results of randomized controlled trials according to published principles. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is planning a revision of the 2000 and 2003 guidance documents on clinical investigation of new medicinal products for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to achieve consistency with current knowledge in the field. This manuscript summarizes the key output from a collaborative workshop, organized by the Cardiovascular Round Table and the European Affairs Committee of the European Society of Cardiology, involving clinicians, academic researchers, trialists, European and US regulators, and pharmaceutical industry researchers. Specific questions in four key areas were selected as priorities for changes in regulatory guidance: patient selection, endpoints, methodologic issues and issues related to the research for novel agents. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) should be studied separately for therapies aimed at the specific pathophysiology of either condition, particularly for treatment of the acute phase, but can be studied together for other treatments, especially long-term therapy. Unstable angina patients should be excluded from acute phase ACS trials. In general, cardiovascular death and reinfarction are recommended for primary efficacy endpoints; other endpoints may be considered if specifically relevant for the therapy under study. New agents or interventions should be tested against a background of evidence-based therapy with expanded follow-up for safety assessment. In conclusion, new guidance documents for randomized controlled trials in ACS should consider changes regarding patient and endpoint selection and definitions, and trial designs. Specific requirements for the evaluation of novel pharmacological therapies need further clarification.