Impact of Regulatory Guidance on Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk of New Glucose-Lowering Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

Evaluation metrics for biostatistical and epidemiological collaborations.

Increasing demands for evidence-based medicine and for the translation of biomedical research into individual and public health benefit have been accompanied by the proliferation of special units that offer expertise in biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design (BERD) within academic health centers. Objective metrics that can be used to evaluate, track, and improve the performance of these BERD units are critical to their successful establishment and sustainable future. To develop a set of reliable but versatile metrics that can be adapted easily to different environments and evolving needs, we consulted with members of BERD units from the consortium of academic health centers funded by the Clinical and Translational Science Award Program of the National Institutes of Health. Through a systematic process of consensus building and document drafting, we formulated metrics that covered the three identified domains of BERD practices: the development and maintenance of collaborations with clinical and translational science investigators, the application of BERD-related methods to clinical and translational research, and the discovery of novel BERD-related methodologies. In this article, we describe the set of metrics and advocate their use for evaluating BERD practices. The routine application, comparison of findings across diverse BERD units, and ongoing refinement of the metrics will identify trends, facilitate meaningful changes, and ultimately enhance the contribution of BERD activities to biomedical research.