Role of Payers in the Development of Cardiovascular Therapeutics: Misalignment Between Approval and Reimbursement.

Regulators and payers have contrasting priorities that can lead to divergent decisions and delays in patient access to new treatments. Those involved in coverage decisions have not routinely been integrated in the drug development process. Theoretically, inclusion of payer representatives early in development could help discern discordance among stakeholder priorities; facilitate cooperation to align objectives; foster agreement on the evidence required for approval and reimbursement; improve transparency, accountability, and consistency of payer decision making; and ideally, minimize delays in patient access to new therapies. However, early participation by payers may not provide these expected benefits if payers' decision-making processes are not evidence based or cannot be reliably predicted. This paper describes current interactions among regulatory agencies, payers, sponsors, and investigators and proposes collaboration among all stakeholders earlier in the development process. The premise that a priori discussions might facilitate the delivery of advances in cardiovascular care is a hypothesis worth testing.

New medicinal products for chronic heart failure: advances in clinical trial design and efficacy assessment.

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.

Assessment of cardiovascular risk of new drugs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus: risk assessment vs. risk aversion.

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.

New approaches to hyperkalemia in patients with indications for renin angiotensin aldosterone inhibitors: Considerations for trial design and regulatory approval.

Hyperkalemia is a common clinical problem, especially in patients with chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, or heart failure. Treatment with renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors exacerbates the risk of hyperkalemia in these patients. Concern about hyperkalemia can result in the failure to initiate, suboptimal dosing, or discontinuation of renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor therapy in patients; effective treatments for hyperkalemia might mitigate such undertreatment. New treatments for hyperkalemia in development may offer better efficacy, tolerability and safety profiles than do existing approved treatments. These compounds might enable more eligible patients to receive renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor therapy or to receive renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors at target doses. The evidence needed to support a treatment claim (reduction in serum potassium) differs from that needed to support a prevention claim (preventing hyperkalemia to allow renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor treatment). Thus, several issues related to clinical trial design and drug development need to be considered. This paper summarizes and expands upon a discussion at the Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists 2014 Forum and examines methodologic considerations for trials of new potassium binders for the prevention and management of hyperkalemia in patients with renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor indications.