The European Medicines Agency's approval of new medicines for type 2 diabetes.

Since 2005, more than 40 new medicines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been introduced on the market. These consist of 15 new active substances establishing three new classes of non-insulin products, and several new or modified insulin products and combinations. The approval of these products in Europe is regulated via the centralized procedure at the European Medicines Agency. Demonstration of benefit with regard to improved glucose control remains the principal outcome required from confirmatory studies to demonstrate efficacy. For the majority of these new medicines approved since 2005, cardiovascular outcome trials have now been completed, and have invariably supported the cardiovascular safety of these products. In some of these trials additional important benefits have been observed, for instance, a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and improvement of renal outcome. The existing regulatory framework and the continuous adaption of regulatory requirements to emerging developments will continue to guide the approval of new products in the future.

Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives.

AIMS: To compare the values regulators attach to different drug effects of oral antidiabetic drugs with those of doctors and patients. METHODS: We administered a 'discrete choice' survey to regulators, doctors and patients with type 2 diabetes in The Netherlands. Eighteen choice sets comparing two hypothetical oral antidiabetic drugs were constructed with varying drug effects on glycated haemoglobin, cardiovascular risk, bodyweight, duration of gastrointestinal complaints, frequency of hypoglycaemia and risk of bladder cancer. Responders were asked each time which drug they preferred. RESULTS: Fifty-two regulators, 175 doctors and 226 patients returned the survey. Multinomial conditional logit analyses showed that cardiovascular risk reduction was valued by regulators positively (odds ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.11-3.53), whereas drug choices were negatively affected by persistent gastrointestinal problems (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.41) and cardiovascular risk increase (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.87). Doctors and patients valued these effects in a similar manner to regulators. The values that doctors attached to large changes in glycated haemoglobin and that both doctors and patients attached to hypoglycaemia and weight gain also reached statistical significance. No group's drug choice was affected by a small absolute change in risk of bladder cancer when presented in the context of other drug effects. When comparing the groups, the value attached by regulators to less frequent hypoglycaemic episodes was significantly smaller than by patients (P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Regulators may value major benefits and risks of drugs for an individual diabetes patient mostly in the same way as doctors and patients, but differences may exist regarding the value of minor or short-term drug effects.

Moderation of dietary sodium potentiates the renal and cardiovascular protective effects of angiotensin receptor blockers.

Dietary sodium restriction has been shown to enhance the short-term response of blood pressure and albuminuria to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Whether this also enhances the long-term renal and cardiovascular protective effects of ARBs is unknown. Here we conducted a post-hoc analysis of the RENAAL and IDNT trials to test this in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy randomized to ARB or non-renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (non-RAASi)-based antihypertensive therapy. Treatment effects on renal and cardiovascular outcomes were compared in subgroups based on dietary sodium intake during treatment, measured as the 24-h urinary sodium/creatinine ratio of 1177 patients with available 24-h urinary sodium measurements. ARB compared to non-RAASi-based therapy produced the greatest long-term effects on renal and cardiovascular events in the lowest tertile of sodium intake. Compared to non-RAASi, the trend in risk for renal events was significantly reduced by 43%, not changed, or increased by 37% for each tertile of increased sodium intake, respectively. The trend for cardiovascular events was significantly reduced by 37%, increased by 2% and 25%, respectively. Thus, treatment effects of ARB compared with non-RAASi-based therapy on renal and cardiovascular outcomes were greater in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy with lower than higher dietary sodium intake. This underscores the avoidance of excessive sodium intake, particularly in type 2 diabetic patients receiving ARB therapy.

Albuminuria and blood pressure, independent targets for cardioprotective therapy in patients with diabetes and nephropathy: a post hoc analysis of the combined RENAAL and IDNT trials.

AIMS: The long-term cardioprotective effect of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is associated with the short-term lowering of its primary target blood pressure, but also with the lowering of albuminuria. Since the individual blood pressure and albuminuria response to an ARB varies between and within an individual, we tested whether the variability and discordance in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and albuminuria response to ARB therapy are associated with its long-term effect on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The combined data of the RENAAL and IDNT trials were used. We first investigated the extent of variability and discordance in SBP and albuminuria response (baseline to 6 months). Subsequently, we assessed the combined impact of residual Month 6 SBP and albuminuria level with cardiovascular outcome. In ARB-treated patients, 421 patients (34.5%) either had a reduction in SBP but no reduction in albuminuria, or vice versa, indicating substantial discordance in response in these parameters. The initial reduction in SBP and albuminuria independently correlated with cardiovascular protection: HR per 5 mmHg SBP reduction 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.99) and HR per decrement log albuminuria 0.87 (95% CI 0.76-0.99). Across all SBP categories at Month 6, a progressively lower cardiovascular risk was observed with a lower albuminuria level. This was particularly evident in patients who reached the guideline recommended SBP target of ≤130 mmHg. CONCLUSION: The SBP and albuminuria response to ARB therapy is variable and discordant. Therapies intervening in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the aim of improving cardiovascular outcomes may therefore require a dual approach targeting both blood pressure and albuminuria.

An acute fall in estimated glomerular filtration rate during treatment with losartan predicts a slower decrease in long-term renal function.

Intervention in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) is associated with slowing the progressive loss of renal function. During initiation of therapy, however, there may be an acute fall in glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We tested whether this initial fall in GFR reflects a renal hemodynamic effect and whether this might result in a slower decline in long-term renal function. We performed a post hoc analysis of the Reduction of Endpoints in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial. Patients assigned to losartan had a significantly greater acute fall in estimated (eGFR) during the first 3 months compared to patients assigned to placebo, but a significantly slower long-term mean decline of eGFR thereafter. A large interindividual difference, however, was noticed in the acute eGFR change. When patients were divided into tertiles of initial fall in eGFR, the long-term eGFR slope calculated from baseline was significantly higher in patients with an initial fall compared to those with an initial rise. When eGFR decline was calculated from 3 months to the final visit, excluding the initial effect, patients with a large initial fall in eGFR had a significant lower long-term eGFR slope compared to those with a moderate fall or rise. This relationship was independent of other risk markers or change in risk markers for progression of renal disease such as blood pressure and albuminuria. Thus, the greater the acute fall in eGFR, during losartan treatment, the slower the rate of long-term eGFR decline. Hence, interpretation of trial results relying on slope-based GFR outcomes should separate the initial drug-induced GFR change from the subsequent long-term effect on GFR.

Additional safety risk to exceptionally approved drugs in Europe?

AIMS: Regulatory requirements for new drugs have increased. Special approval procedures with priority assessment are possible for drugs with clear 'unmet medical need'. We question whether these Exceptional Circumstances (EC) or Conditional Approval (CA) procedures have led to a higher probability of serious safety issues. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of new drugs approved in Europe between 1999 and 2009. The determinant was EC/CA vs. standard procedure approval. Outcome variables were frequency and timing of a first Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC). An association between approval procedure and the time from market approval to DHPC was assessed using Kaplan-Meyer survival analysis and Cox-regression to correct for covariates. RESULTS: In total 289 new drugs were approved. Forty-six (16.4%) were approved under EC or CA, of which seven received a DHPC (15%). This was similar to the standard approval drugs (243), of which 33 received one or more DHPC (14%, P= 0.77). The probability of acquiring a DHPC for standard approval drugs vs. EC/CA drugs during 11-year follow-up is 22% (95% CI 14%, 29%) and 26% (95% CI 8%, 44%), respectively (log-rank P= 0.726). This difference remained not significant in the Cox-regression model: hazard ratio 0.94 (95% CI 0.40, 2.20). Only drug type was identified as a confounding covariate. CONCLUSION: The EC/CA procedure is not associated with a higher probability of DHPCs despite limited clinical development data. These data do not support the view that early drug approval increases the risk of serious safety issues emerging after market approval.

Regulatory pathways for development of antiarrhythmic drugs for management of atrial fibrillation/flutter.

New antiarrhythmic drugs are urgently required for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), an increasingly common sustained cardiac arrhythmia seen predominantly in the elderly population. Pharmaceutical companies are generally interested in this important group of patients and a relatively large number of antiarrhythmic agents are under development for several indications relating to AF, predominantly rhythm and rate management. Because of the significant clinical consequences of the arrhythmia, it has been recognized that controlled trials in patients with AF should assess the effect of therapy in several major outcome domains such as mortality, morbidity, and hospitalization, with an emphasis on stroke and heart failure. As part of a regular series of meetings, the European Society of Cardiology recently met with European regulators and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry to review the current status of medical therapies for AF. Special attention has been paid to the debate on the relevant clinical endpoints in future AF trials and their implications for drug indications. The need for large-scale major cardiovascular outcome and comparator studies for the approval of drugs designed to manage rhythm and/or control the rate has been discussed. The requirements for appropriate ancillary studies, including quality of life and left ventricular function assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis, have been identified. This article reports the discussions that were held.

Oral contraceptives and the absolute risk of venous thromboembolism in women with single or multiple thrombophilic defects: results from a retrospective family cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in women taking combined oral contraceptives (COCs) is attributed to changes in coagulation and fibrinolysis. Their impact may be greater in women with preexistent thrombophilic defects. METHODS: We assessed the effects of COCs on absolute VTE risk in women with single or multiple thrombophilic defects in a retrospective family cohort study. Female relatives of probands with VTE and hereditary deficiencies of protein S, protein C, or antithrombin were tested for known thrombophilic defects, including the index deficiency. Absolute incidences of VTE were compared in deficient vs nondeficient women, in deficient and nondeficient women who ever or never used COCs, and in deficient and nondeficient women with 0, 1, or more than 1 other thrombophilic defect during exposure to COCs. RESULTS: Of 222 women, 135 (61%) ever used COCs. Overall, annual incidences of VTE were 1.64% and 0.18% in deficient and nondeficient women, respectively; the adjusted relative risk was 11.9 (95% confidence interval, 3.9-36.2). The risk was comparable in deficient ever and never users (1.73% vs 1.54%). Annual incidences during actual COC use were 4.62% in deficient women and 0.48% in nondeficient women; the relative risk was 9.7 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-42.4). The incidence increased by concomitant thrombophilic defects, from 3.49% to 12.00% in deficient women and from 0% to 3.13% in nondeficient women. CONCLUSIONS: Women with hereditary deficiencies of protein S, protein C, or antithrombin are at high risk of VTE during use of COCs, particularly when other thrombophilic defects are present. They have VTE at a younger age, but the overall risk is not increased by COCs.

Effect of first myocardial ischemic event on renal function.

Effects of cardiovascular dysfunction on renal function have been poorly characterized. Therefore, we investigated the relation between a first ischemic cardiac event and long-term renal function changes in the general population from the PREVEND study. We studied 6,360 subjects with a total follow-up duration of 27.017 subject-years. The estimated mean proportional increase in serum creatinine after a first ischemic cardiac event was 3.1% compared with 0.4% per year of follow-up in subjects without such an event (p = 0.005). This represented a significantly larger decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate after the event in subjects with an event versus the decrease in subjects without a first ischemic cardiac event (2.2 vs 0.5 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/year of follow-up, p = 0.006). In multivariate analysis with adjustment for renal risk factors, this event showed an independent association with serum creatinine change. In conclusion, a first ischemic cardiac event appears to enhance the natural decrease in renal function. Because even mild renal dysfunction should be considered a major cardiovascular risk factor after myocardial infarction, increased renal function loss after an ischemic cardiac event could add to the risk for subsequent cardiovascular morbidity, thus closing a vicious circle.

An educational programme for peer review groups to improve treatment of chronic heart failure and diabetes mellitus type 2 in general practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Peer review groups are considered helpful for quality improvement in primary care. An interactive educational programme for small peer groups was developed, focusing on the implementation of newly developed treatment guidelines. The aim is to evaluate the effect of the programme on adherence to treatment guidelines in general practice. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial using a balanced incomplete block design was used; one arm received a programme on treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF), the other on hypertension treatment in diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM). A random sample of 10 CHF and 10 T2DM patients per GP was drawn, for whom data were extracted from electronic patient records 1 years before and 6 months after the intervention. The outcomes were prescribing of ACE inhibitors, and antihypertensive treatment in T2DM. The effect was analysed separately for both programmes using multilevel regression models. RESULTS: All 27 peer review groups in one region in the Netherlands were randomized, of which 16 participated. No significant effects were observed in the CHF group or in the T2DM group. The opportunity for change was limited, as only 53% of the CHF patients and 60% of the T2DM patients had a contact with their GP between the intervention and follow-up measurement. CONCLUSION: The peer review programme was not successful for changing the treatment of chronic patients, although the programme focused on dealing with barriers perceived by the participants. Not all problems perceived can be solved in a peer group discussion.

Implications of a clinical medication review and a pharmaceutical care plan of polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder.

Background A clinical medication review, including patient involvement, is expected to improve pharmaceutical care. Objective To determine whether a clinical medication review followed by a pharmaceutical care plan decreases the number of potential drug-related problems (DRPs) and pharmaceutical care issues (PCIs) and leads to a positive effect on relevant clinical and laboratory parameters for elderly cardiovascular patients with multiple drug use. Setting Randomized controlled trial in eight primary care settings in the Netherlands. Method Elderly polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder were randomized into two groups. Intervention patients received a clinical medication review, followed by a pharmaceutical care plan developed in cooperation between these patients' pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs), and agreed to by the patients. Control patients received care as usual. Patient data were collected at the start of the study (t = 0) and after 1-year follow-up (t = 1). Main outcome measure Decrease in potential DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs, improvement of clinical and laboratory parameters. Results 512 patients were included. An average of 2.2 potential DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs were defined per patient in the intervention group. After 1-year follow-up, 47.2 % of potential DRPs and PCIs were resolved. In total, 156 care interventions were proposed (0.9/patient), 108 of which were implemented after 1 year (69.2 %). For control-group patients, a total of 47 proposed care interventions were documented for 255 patients (0.2/patient); after 1 year, 43 had been implemented (91.5 %). The study intervention (p < 0.001) and the number of medicines used (p = 0.030) had a significant effect on the number of interventions proposed. Small biochemical changes in cardiovascular risk factors did occur, but the differences were small and not considered clinically relevant. Conclusion The integrated use of a clinical medication review with a pharmaceutical care plan in a primary care setting supports the detection of and decrease in DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs in almost half of the patients. Its benefit in terms of control of cardiovascular risk factors and safety parameters was relatively low. Risk stratification might be necessary to decide which patients might benefit most from this type of intervention.

Perceived barriers for treatment of chronic heart failure in general practice; are they affecting performance?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine to what extent barriers perceived by general practitioners (GPs) for prescribing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients are related to underuse and underdosing of these drugs in actual practice. METHODS: Barriers were assessed with a semi-structured questionnaire. Prescribing data were extracted from GPs' computerised medical records for a random sample of their CHF patients. Relations between barriers and prescribing behaviour were assessed by means of Spearman rank correlation and multivariate regression modelling. RESULTS: GPs prescribed ACE-I to 45% of their patients and had previously initiated such treatment in an additional 3.5%, in an average standardised dose of 13.5 mg. They perceived a median of four barriers in prescribing ACE-I or optimising ACE-I dose. Many GPs found it difficult to change treatment initiated by a cardiologist. Furthermore, initiating ACE-I in patients already using a diuretic or stable on their current medication was perceived as barrier. Titrating the ACE-I dose was seen as difficult by more than half of the GPs. No significant relationships could be found between the barriers perceived and actual ACE-I prescribing. Regarding ACE-I dosing, the few GPs who did not agree that the ACE-I should be as high as possible prescribed higher ACE-I doses. CONCLUSION: Variation between GPs in prescribing ACE-I for CHF cannot be explained by differences in the barriers they perceive. Tailor-made interventions targeting only those doctors that perceive a specific barrier will therefore not be an efficient approach to improve quality of care.

Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a survey among experts in the European regulatory network.

BACKGROUND: Experts are perceived to be veridical and to focus only on objective data when evaluating risk. Only a few research studies have attempted to characterize the subjectivity in risk evaluation among experts. OBJECTIVE: The hypothesis of this study is that expert evaluation of a pharmaceutical drug can be partly explained by dimensions that describe the drug and by individual characteristics. DESIGN: Seventy-five medical assessors in 9 EU countries evaluated a list of 28 pharmaceutical drugs using 4 scales: risk, benefit, seriousness of harm, and patients' knowledge of the risk. They were also given a mock "clinical dossier" and asked to rate it on 8 dimensions: risk, benefit, worry, magnitude of the exposure, scientific knowledge of the risk, familiarity of the risk, ethical concerns, and risk acceptability. RESULTS: Female assessors perceived significantly higher benefits than men for a large number of the 28 drugs. Principal component analysis of the ratings for the clinical dossiers revealed 2 underlying components: seriousness of harm and scientific evidence. A regression model predicting the risk perception of the drug showed that the variables seriousness of harm (benefit, worry, magnitude of exposure, ethical concerns, and risk acceptability), years of regulatory experience, gender, and type of drug explained 54% of the variability among assessors. CONCLUSION: Assessors' view of the risks associated with pharmaceutical drugs is influenced by worry for patient safety, magnitude of patient exposure, and ethical concerns. These dimensions may influence their perceptions of benefit and risk acceptability. Senior assessors are more risk averse than junior assessors, and female assessors seem to be sensitive to the promise of benefit from medicines and consequently may be less risk averse than male assessors.

The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness and the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs, or 'Dear Doctor letters') in changing the clinical behaviour of physicians have been debated. Changes in the current risk communication methods should preferably be based on the preferences of the healthcare professionals, to optimize the uptake of the message. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether safety issues are communicated more effectively with an additional e-mail sent by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than with the DHPC only. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted amongst ophthalmologists and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands, who were the target group of a DHPC that was issued for pegaptanib, a drug that is administered intra-ocularly in patients with macular degeneration. The intervention group (N = 110) received the pegaptanib DHPC, as well as the MEB e-mail. The control group (N = 105) received the traditional paper-based DHPC only. Two weeks later, the study population received an invitation to fill out an online questionnaire. Questions were asked about the respondents' knowledge and attitude regarding the pegaptanib issue, and any action they had consequently taken. Additional questions were asked about their satisfaction with the DHPC and the e-mail, and their preferred source of such information. RESULTS: Forty respondents (18.6%) completed the questionnaire. Eighty-one percent of the respondents in the intervention group (N = 21) and 47% of the control group (N = 19) correctly indicated that a serious increase in intra-ocular pressure could be caused by pegaptanib injections (Fishers' exact test, p = 0.046). Nine respondents in the intervention group versus none of the control group respondents indicated that they had taken action in response to the pegaptanib safety issue (Fishers' exact test, p = 0.01). The majority of both the intervention group and the control group confirmed that they would like to receive an MEB e-mail with safety information about drugs in the future (90 and 95 %, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that an additional e-mail might strengthen the uptake of the safety information provided to healthcare professionals, who prefer to receive an e-mail from the MEB as a source of such information, as well as the DHPC. This study may serve as a starting point for new strategies to improve risk communication regarding safety issues associated with drugs and its impact on prescribing.