User login
FDA OKs Injectafer for iron deficiency anemia in heart failure
“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.
Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.
The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.
In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.
No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.
According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.
Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.
The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.
In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.
No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.
According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.
Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.
The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.
In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.
No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.
According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA warns people to avoid compounded semaglutide medicines
Compounded medicines are not FDA approved but are allowed to be made during an official drug shortage. Ozempic and Wegovy are currently on the FDA’s shortage list, but the federal agency warned that it has received reports of people experiencing “adverse events” after using compounded versions of the drugs. (The FDA did not provide details of those events or where the drugs involved were compounded.)
Agency officials are concerned that the compounded versions may contain ingredients that sound like the brand name drugs’ active ingredient, semaglutide, but are different because the ingredients are in salt form.
“Patients should be aware that some products sold as ‘semaglutide’ may not contain the same active ingredient as FDA-approved semaglutide products and may be the salt formulations,” the FDA warning stated. “Products containing these salts, such as semaglutide sodium and semaglutide acetate, have not been shown to be safe and effective.”
The agency said salt forms don’t meet the criteria for compounding during a shortage and sent a letter to the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy expressing “concerns with use of the salt forms in compounded products.”
Patients and health care providers should be aware that “compounded drugs are not FDA approved, and the agency does not verify the safety or effectiveness of compounded drugs,” the FDA explained in its statement.
The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding’s board of directors said in a statement that some compounders’ arguments for the suitability of semaglutide sodium are “worthy of discussion,” but the board did not endorse those arguments.
For people who use an online pharmacy, the FDA recommends checking the FDA’s website BeSafeRx to check its credentials.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Compounded medicines are not FDA approved but are allowed to be made during an official drug shortage. Ozempic and Wegovy are currently on the FDA’s shortage list, but the federal agency warned that it has received reports of people experiencing “adverse events” after using compounded versions of the drugs. (The FDA did not provide details of those events or where the drugs involved were compounded.)
Agency officials are concerned that the compounded versions may contain ingredients that sound like the brand name drugs’ active ingredient, semaglutide, but are different because the ingredients are in salt form.
“Patients should be aware that some products sold as ‘semaglutide’ may not contain the same active ingredient as FDA-approved semaglutide products and may be the salt formulations,” the FDA warning stated. “Products containing these salts, such as semaglutide sodium and semaglutide acetate, have not been shown to be safe and effective.”
The agency said salt forms don’t meet the criteria for compounding during a shortage and sent a letter to the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy expressing “concerns with use of the salt forms in compounded products.”
Patients and health care providers should be aware that “compounded drugs are not FDA approved, and the agency does not verify the safety or effectiveness of compounded drugs,” the FDA explained in its statement.
The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding’s board of directors said in a statement that some compounders’ arguments for the suitability of semaglutide sodium are “worthy of discussion,” but the board did not endorse those arguments.
For people who use an online pharmacy, the FDA recommends checking the FDA’s website BeSafeRx to check its credentials.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Compounded medicines are not FDA approved but are allowed to be made during an official drug shortage. Ozempic and Wegovy are currently on the FDA’s shortage list, but the federal agency warned that it has received reports of people experiencing “adverse events” after using compounded versions of the drugs. (The FDA did not provide details of those events or where the drugs involved were compounded.)
Agency officials are concerned that the compounded versions may contain ingredients that sound like the brand name drugs’ active ingredient, semaglutide, but are different because the ingredients are in salt form.
“Patients should be aware that some products sold as ‘semaglutide’ may not contain the same active ingredient as FDA-approved semaglutide products and may be the salt formulations,” the FDA warning stated. “Products containing these salts, such as semaglutide sodium and semaglutide acetate, have not been shown to be safe and effective.”
The agency said salt forms don’t meet the criteria for compounding during a shortage and sent a letter to the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy expressing “concerns with use of the salt forms in compounded products.”
Patients and health care providers should be aware that “compounded drugs are not FDA approved, and the agency does not verify the safety or effectiveness of compounded drugs,” the FDA explained in its statement.
The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding’s board of directors said in a statement that some compounders’ arguments for the suitability of semaglutide sodium are “worthy of discussion,” but the board did not endorse those arguments.
For people who use an online pharmacy, the FDA recommends checking the FDA’s website BeSafeRx to check its credentials.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Posluma approved for PET imaging in prostate cancer
The product is approved for use in men with suspected metastasis who are candidates for definitive therapy and for men with suspected recurrence, as evidenced by elevations in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, according to a press release from marketer Blue Earth Diagnostics.
Posluma binds prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which is usually overexpressed on prostate cancer cells, and tags the cells with fluorine-18 (F18), a positron emitter. Because of the radiolabeling, PET imaging can be used to gauge the extent of disease.
Posluma will be available in the United States in June 2023 from Blue Earth’s U.S. manufacturer and distributor, PETNET Solutions.
Blue Earth says that its new agent, which was known as 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET during trials, “is the first and only FDA-approved, PSMA-targeted imaging agent developed with proprietary radiohybrid technology.”
However, a similar product is currently on the U.S. market – the PSMA PET imaging radiopharmaceutical gallium-68 gozetotide (Illuccix, Locometz), which has the same two indications. Gozetotide is also indicated for metastatic prostate cancer amenable to lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan PSMA-directed therapy.
Approval based on two single-arm trials
Posluma’s approval was based on two single-arm trials from Blue Earth.
In the LIGHTHOUSE trial, 296 men underwent Posluma PET imaging before radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. About a quarter turned out to have positive nodes on pathology.
Posluma’s sensitivity for predicting positive nodes was low, ranging from 23% to 30% among three readers who were blinded to clinical information, but its specificity was high, ranging from 93% to 97%, according to the product labeling.
“The study showed that Posluma PET provided clinically valuable information prior to surgery that would likely result in management changes for these patients,” said investigator Brian Chapin, MD, a urologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in the company press release.
The second trial, SPOTLIGHT, included 389 men suspected of experiencing recurrence on the basis of elevations in PSA.
Posluma PET’s ability to detect true recurrence was compared with use of histology or other imaging techniques, including CT, MRI, technetium-99m bone scan, and fluciclovine F18 PET. In regions deemed positive for recurrence on Posluma PET by three readers, 46%-60% were positive by the other techniques, the labeling says.
Overall, the “results demonstrated high detection rates ... even at low PSA levels,” Blue Earth said.
Adverse events were minimal in the trials. The most frequent were diarrhea (0.7%), increases in blood pressure (0.5%), and injection-site pain (0.4%).
The product labeling warns that Posluma PET contributes to patients’ overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure and that interpretation with respect to recurrence may differ among readers.
The labeling also cautions that “a negative image does not rule out the presence of prostate cancer and a positive image does not confirm the presence of prostate cancer. ... Uptake is not specific for prostate cancer and may occur in other types of cancer, in nonmalignant processes, and in normal tissues.”
In addition, it notes that androgen deprivation therapy “and other therapies targeting the androgen pathway, such as androgen receptor antagonists, may result in changes in uptake of flotufolastat F18 in prostate cancer.”
The labeling for gozetotide carries the same warnings and precautions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The product is approved for use in men with suspected metastasis who are candidates for definitive therapy and for men with suspected recurrence, as evidenced by elevations in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, according to a press release from marketer Blue Earth Diagnostics.
Posluma binds prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which is usually overexpressed on prostate cancer cells, and tags the cells with fluorine-18 (F18), a positron emitter. Because of the radiolabeling, PET imaging can be used to gauge the extent of disease.
Posluma will be available in the United States in June 2023 from Blue Earth’s U.S. manufacturer and distributor, PETNET Solutions.
Blue Earth says that its new agent, which was known as 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET during trials, “is the first and only FDA-approved, PSMA-targeted imaging agent developed with proprietary radiohybrid technology.”
However, a similar product is currently on the U.S. market – the PSMA PET imaging radiopharmaceutical gallium-68 gozetotide (Illuccix, Locometz), which has the same two indications. Gozetotide is also indicated for metastatic prostate cancer amenable to lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan PSMA-directed therapy.
Approval based on two single-arm trials
Posluma’s approval was based on two single-arm trials from Blue Earth.
In the LIGHTHOUSE trial, 296 men underwent Posluma PET imaging before radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. About a quarter turned out to have positive nodes on pathology.
Posluma’s sensitivity for predicting positive nodes was low, ranging from 23% to 30% among three readers who were blinded to clinical information, but its specificity was high, ranging from 93% to 97%, according to the product labeling.
“The study showed that Posluma PET provided clinically valuable information prior to surgery that would likely result in management changes for these patients,” said investigator Brian Chapin, MD, a urologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in the company press release.
The second trial, SPOTLIGHT, included 389 men suspected of experiencing recurrence on the basis of elevations in PSA.
Posluma PET’s ability to detect true recurrence was compared with use of histology or other imaging techniques, including CT, MRI, technetium-99m bone scan, and fluciclovine F18 PET. In regions deemed positive for recurrence on Posluma PET by three readers, 46%-60% were positive by the other techniques, the labeling says.
Overall, the “results demonstrated high detection rates ... even at low PSA levels,” Blue Earth said.
Adverse events were minimal in the trials. The most frequent were diarrhea (0.7%), increases in blood pressure (0.5%), and injection-site pain (0.4%).
The product labeling warns that Posluma PET contributes to patients’ overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure and that interpretation with respect to recurrence may differ among readers.
The labeling also cautions that “a negative image does not rule out the presence of prostate cancer and a positive image does not confirm the presence of prostate cancer. ... Uptake is not specific for prostate cancer and may occur in other types of cancer, in nonmalignant processes, and in normal tissues.”
In addition, it notes that androgen deprivation therapy “and other therapies targeting the androgen pathway, such as androgen receptor antagonists, may result in changes in uptake of flotufolastat F18 in prostate cancer.”
The labeling for gozetotide carries the same warnings and precautions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The product is approved for use in men with suspected metastasis who are candidates for definitive therapy and for men with suspected recurrence, as evidenced by elevations in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, according to a press release from marketer Blue Earth Diagnostics.
Posluma binds prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which is usually overexpressed on prostate cancer cells, and tags the cells with fluorine-18 (F18), a positron emitter. Because of the radiolabeling, PET imaging can be used to gauge the extent of disease.
Posluma will be available in the United States in June 2023 from Blue Earth’s U.S. manufacturer and distributor, PETNET Solutions.
Blue Earth says that its new agent, which was known as 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET during trials, “is the first and only FDA-approved, PSMA-targeted imaging agent developed with proprietary radiohybrid technology.”
However, a similar product is currently on the U.S. market – the PSMA PET imaging radiopharmaceutical gallium-68 gozetotide (Illuccix, Locometz), which has the same two indications. Gozetotide is also indicated for metastatic prostate cancer amenable to lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan PSMA-directed therapy.
Approval based on two single-arm trials
Posluma’s approval was based on two single-arm trials from Blue Earth.
In the LIGHTHOUSE trial, 296 men underwent Posluma PET imaging before radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. About a quarter turned out to have positive nodes on pathology.
Posluma’s sensitivity for predicting positive nodes was low, ranging from 23% to 30% among three readers who were blinded to clinical information, but its specificity was high, ranging from 93% to 97%, according to the product labeling.
“The study showed that Posluma PET provided clinically valuable information prior to surgery that would likely result in management changes for these patients,” said investigator Brian Chapin, MD, a urologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in the company press release.
The second trial, SPOTLIGHT, included 389 men suspected of experiencing recurrence on the basis of elevations in PSA.
Posluma PET’s ability to detect true recurrence was compared with use of histology or other imaging techniques, including CT, MRI, technetium-99m bone scan, and fluciclovine F18 PET. In regions deemed positive for recurrence on Posluma PET by three readers, 46%-60% were positive by the other techniques, the labeling says.
Overall, the “results demonstrated high detection rates ... even at low PSA levels,” Blue Earth said.
Adverse events were minimal in the trials. The most frequent were diarrhea (0.7%), increases in blood pressure (0.5%), and injection-site pain (0.4%).
The product labeling warns that Posluma PET contributes to patients’ overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure and that interpretation with respect to recurrence may differ among readers.
The labeling also cautions that “a negative image does not rule out the presence of prostate cancer and a positive image does not confirm the presence of prostate cancer. ... Uptake is not specific for prostate cancer and may occur in other types of cancer, in nonmalignant processes, and in normal tissues.”
In addition, it notes that androgen deprivation therapy “and other therapies targeting the androgen pathway, such as androgen receptor antagonists, may result in changes in uptake of flotufolastat F18 in prostate cancer.”
The labeling for gozetotide carries the same warnings and precautions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves new drug, sotagliflozin, for heart failure
Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.
This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.
Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.
They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half
An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.
In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.
Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)
Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’
“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.
Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.
“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”
At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.
Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.
In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
A clear MACE benefit
“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.
“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.
In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.
And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.
But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.
Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes
That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.
Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.
Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”
The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”
The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.
“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”
Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”
SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.
This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.
Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.
They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half
An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.
In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.
Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)
Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’
“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.
Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.
“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”
At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.
Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.
In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
A clear MACE benefit
“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.
“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.
In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.
And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.
But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.
Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes
That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.
Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.
Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”
The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”
The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.
“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”
Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”
SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.
This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.
Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.
They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half
An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.
In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.
Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)
Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’
“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.
Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.
“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”
At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.
Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.
In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
A clear MACE benefit
“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.
“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.
In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.
And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.
But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.
Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes
That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.
Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.
Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”
The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”
The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.
“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”
Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”
SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves buprenorphine injection for opioid use disorder
The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.
“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.
In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.
Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.
The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.
The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.
“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.
In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.
Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.
The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.
The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.
“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.
In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.
Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.
The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.
The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves Yuflyma as ninth adalimumab biosimilar
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar adalimumab-aaty (Yuflyma) in a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation, the manufacturer, Celltrion USA, announced today. It is the ninth biosimilar of adalimumab (Humira) to be approved in the United States.
Yuflyma is approved for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. It is also approved for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis for patients aged 2 years or older, as well as for Crohn’s disease in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.
The formulation was approved on the basis of a comprehensive data package of analytic, preclinical, and clinical studies, according to Celltrion USA, “demonstrating that Yuflyma is comparable to the reference product Humira in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity up to 24 weeks and 1 year following treatment.”
The company conducted a double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial that compared switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma with continuing either reference adalimumab or Yuflyma for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In that trial, the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of Yuflyma and reference adalimumab were comparable after 1 year of treatment, including after switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma.
“Currently, more than 80% of patients treated with Humira in the United States rely on a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation of this medication. The availability of a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation adalimumab biosimilar provides an important treatment option for patients with inflammatory diseases who benefit from this effective therapy,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in the press release.
The citrate-free formulation is thought to lead to less pain on injection.
Yuflyma will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector administration options.
Celltrion USA plans to market the drug in the United States in July 2023. Following the initial launch of 40 mg/0.4 mL, the company plans to launch dose forms of 80 mg/0.8 mL and 20 mg/0.2 mL.
Celltrion USA is also seeking an interchangeability designation from the FDA following the completion of an interchangeability trial of 366 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. The interchangeability designation would mean that patients successfully switched from Humira to Yuflyma multiple times in the trial. The interchangeability designation would allow pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Yuflyma. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.
If interchangeability is approved for Yuflyma, which the company tentatively expects in the fourth quarter of 2024, it would be just the third interchangeable biosimilar approved by the FDA overall and the second adalimumab biosimilar to be designated as such, after adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo) in October 2021.
Yuflyma was approved in Canada in December 2021 for 10 indications: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, adult ulcerative colitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, plaque psoriasis, adult uveitis, and pediatric uveitis.
In February 2022, the European Commission granted marketing authorization for Yuflyma across those 10 indications, as well as for nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, pediatric plaque psoriasis, and pediatric Crohn’s disease.
In April 2022, Celltrion USA signed a licensing agreement with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira. Under that agreement, Celltrion will pay royalties to AbbVie on sales of their individual biosimilars, and AbbVie agreed to drop all patent litigation.
The full prescribing information for Yuflyma is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar adalimumab-aaty (Yuflyma) in a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation, the manufacturer, Celltrion USA, announced today. It is the ninth biosimilar of adalimumab (Humira) to be approved in the United States.
Yuflyma is approved for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. It is also approved for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis for patients aged 2 years or older, as well as for Crohn’s disease in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.
The formulation was approved on the basis of a comprehensive data package of analytic, preclinical, and clinical studies, according to Celltrion USA, “demonstrating that Yuflyma is comparable to the reference product Humira in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity up to 24 weeks and 1 year following treatment.”
The company conducted a double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial that compared switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma with continuing either reference adalimumab or Yuflyma for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In that trial, the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of Yuflyma and reference adalimumab were comparable after 1 year of treatment, including after switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma.
“Currently, more than 80% of patients treated with Humira in the United States rely on a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation of this medication. The availability of a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation adalimumab biosimilar provides an important treatment option for patients with inflammatory diseases who benefit from this effective therapy,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in the press release.
The citrate-free formulation is thought to lead to less pain on injection.
Yuflyma will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector administration options.
Celltrion USA plans to market the drug in the United States in July 2023. Following the initial launch of 40 mg/0.4 mL, the company plans to launch dose forms of 80 mg/0.8 mL and 20 mg/0.2 mL.
Celltrion USA is also seeking an interchangeability designation from the FDA following the completion of an interchangeability trial of 366 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. The interchangeability designation would mean that patients successfully switched from Humira to Yuflyma multiple times in the trial. The interchangeability designation would allow pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Yuflyma. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.
If interchangeability is approved for Yuflyma, which the company tentatively expects in the fourth quarter of 2024, it would be just the third interchangeable biosimilar approved by the FDA overall and the second adalimumab biosimilar to be designated as such, after adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo) in October 2021.
Yuflyma was approved in Canada in December 2021 for 10 indications: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, adult ulcerative colitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, plaque psoriasis, adult uveitis, and pediatric uveitis.
In February 2022, the European Commission granted marketing authorization for Yuflyma across those 10 indications, as well as for nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, pediatric plaque psoriasis, and pediatric Crohn’s disease.
In April 2022, Celltrion USA signed a licensing agreement with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira. Under that agreement, Celltrion will pay royalties to AbbVie on sales of their individual biosimilars, and AbbVie agreed to drop all patent litigation.
The full prescribing information for Yuflyma is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar adalimumab-aaty (Yuflyma) in a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation, the manufacturer, Celltrion USA, announced today. It is the ninth biosimilar of adalimumab (Humira) to be approved in the United States.
Yuflyma is approved for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. It is also approved for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis for patients aged 2 years or older, as well as for Crohn’s disease in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.
The formulation was approved on the basis of a comprehensive data package of analytic, preclinical, and clinical studies, according to Celltrion USA, “demonstrating that Yuflyma is comparable to the reference product Humira in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity up to 24 weeks and 1 year following treatment.”
The company conducted a double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial that compared switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma with continuing either reference adalimumab or Yuflyma for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In that trial, the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of Yuflyma and reference adalimumab were comparable after 1 year of treatment, including after switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma.
“Currently, more than 80% of patients treated with Humira in the United States rely on a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation of this medication. The availability of a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation adalimumab biosimilar provides an important treatment option for patients with inflammatory diseases who benefit from this effective therapy,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in the press release.
The citrate-free formulation is thought to lead to less pain on injection.
Yuflyma will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector administration options.
Celltrion USA plans to market the drug in the United States in July 2023. Following the initial launch of 40 mg/0.4 mL, the company plans to launch dose forms of 80 mg/0.8 mL and 20 mg/0.2 mL.
Celltrion USA is also seeking an interchangeability designation from the FDA following the completion of an interchangeability trial of 366 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. The interchangeability designation would mean that patients successfully switched from Humira to Yuflyma multiple times in the trial. The interchangeability designation would allow pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Yuflyma. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.
If interchangeability is approved for Yuflyma, which the company tentatively expects in the fourth quarter of 2024, it would be just the third interchangeable biosimilar approved by the FDA overall and the second adalimumab biosimilar to be designated as such, after adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo) in October 2021.
Yuflyma was approved in Canada in December 2021 for 10 indications: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, adult ulcerative colitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, plaque psoriasis, adult uveitis, and pediatric uveitis.
In February 2022, the European Commission granted marketing authorization for Yuflyma across those 10 indications, as well as for nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, pediatric plaque psoriasis, and pediatric Crohn’s disease.
In April 2022, Celltrion USA signed a licensing agreement with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira. Under that agreement, Celltrion will pay royalties to AbbVie on sales of their individual biosimilars, and AbbVie agreed to drop all patent litigation.
The full prescribing information for Yuflyma is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves autoinjector pen for Humira biosimilar, Cyltezo
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.
Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.
“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.
Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.
“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.
Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.
“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA advisory committee votes against approval for NASH drug
The Food and Drug Administration’s Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee has voted against the accelerated approval of Intercept Pharmaceuticals’ obeticholic acid (OCA) for treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis.
This is the second time that Intercept has sought FDA approval for OCA in treating NASH.
The committee voted 12 to 2 (with 2 abstentions) that the benefits of OCA did not outweigh the risks to this patient population. While OCA showed a modest benefit of improving fibrosis in NASH patients, safety concerns included increased risk for drug-induced liver injury (DILI), cholelithiasis, pruritus, dyslipidemia, and dysglycemia.
Committee members were most concerned with the increased risk for DILI in patients taking OCA. Intercept said that frequent monitoring for DILI in such a large eligible population – an estimated 6-8 million individuals taking the drug to treat the condition – would be difficult.
“Typically, in clinical practice, NASH patients are followed every 6-12 months, so more frequent monitoring would be a substantial change and may not be achievable outside of the clinical trial setting,” according to a briefing document released before the committee meeting.
The FDA estimates that 16.8 million U.S. adults have NASH, with 5.7 million having NASH with advanced fibrosis, according to briefing documents. NASH is the second leading cause of liver transplants in the United States and is the leading cause in women. There are currently no FDA-approved therapies to treat NASH.
OCA, sold under the commercial name Ocaliva, was first approved in 2016 to treat primary biliary cholangitis, and is prescribed at up to 10 mg per day. Intercept proposed that OCA be given in daily 25-mg doses in the treatment of precirrhotic fibrosis attributable to NASH.
In 2019, Intercept initially filed for a new drug application (NDA) for OCA for the treatment of precirrhotic fibrosis attributable to NASH but were issued a Complete Response Letter after the FDA determined that the medication had an “unfavorable risk benefit-risk assessment.” Intercept resubmitted an NDA for OCA in December 2022, including two 18-month analyses from a phase 3 study, REGENERATE (Randomized Global Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Impact on NASH with Fibrosis of Obeticholic Acid Treatment). In the study, which included data from 931 patients, OCA 25 mg outperformed placebo in improving fibrosis with no worsening of NASH over 18 months, one of two primary endpoints of the clinical trial. The estimated risk difference ranged from 8.6 to 12.8 across different analyses, which the FDA categorized as a “modest treatment effect.”
There was no significant difference between OCA 25 mg and placebo in NASH resolution with no worsening fibrosis. Both endpoints were surrogate endpoints, meaning that they were “reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.” The FDA noted that it is not known if a decrease in fibrosis stage would lead to clinically meaningful outcomes, such as reduction in liver-related events.
The committee members voted 15-1 to defer approval until clinical outcome data is submitted and reviewed. The FDA has set a target decision date regarding the accelerated approval of OCA for NASH for June 22, 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration’s Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee has voted against the accelerated approval of Intercept Pharmaceuticals’ obeticholic acid (OCA) for treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis.
This is the second time that Intercept has sought FDA approval for OCA in treating NASH.
The committee voted 12 to 2 (with 2 abstentions) that the benefits of OCA did not outweigh the risks to this patient population. While OCA showed a modest benefit of improving fibrosis in NASH patients, safety concerns included increased risk for drug-induced liver injury (DILI), cholelithiasis, pruritus, dyslipidemia, and dysglycemia.
Committee members were most concerned with the increased risk for DILI in patients taking OCA. Intercept said that frequent monitoring for DILI in such a large eligible population – an estimated 6-8 million individuals taking the drug to treat the condition – would be difficult.
“Typically, in clinical practice, NASH patients are followed every 6-12 months, so more frequent monitoring would be a substantial change and may not be achievable outside of the clinical trial setting,” according to a briefing document released before the committee meeting.
The FDA estimates that 16.8 million U.S. adults have NASH, with 5.7 million having NASH with advanced fibrosis, according to briefing documents. NASH is the second leading cause of liver transplants in the United States and is the leading cause in women. There are currently no FDA-approved therapies to treat NASH.
OCA, sold under the commercial name Ocaliva, was first approved in 2016 to treat primary biliary cholangitis, and is prescribed at up to 10 mg per day. Intercept proposed that OCA be given in daily 25-mg doses in the treatment of precirrhotic fibrosis attributable to NASH.
In 2019, Intercept initially filed for a new drug application (NDA) for OCA for the treatment of precirrhotic fibrosis attributable to NASH but were issued a Complete Response Letter after the FDA determined that the medication had an “unfavorable risk benefit-risk assessment.” Intercept resubmitted an NDA for OCA in December 2022, including two 18-month analyses from a phase 3 study, REGENERATE (Randomized Global Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Impact on NASH with Fibrosis of Obeticholic Acid Treatment). In the study, which included data from 931 patients, OCA 25 mg outperformed placebo in improving fibrosis with no worsening of NASH over 18 months, one of two primary endpoints of the clinical trial. The estimated risk difference ranged from 8.6 to 12.8 across different analyses, which the FDA categorized as a “modest treatment effect.”
There was no significant difference between OCA 25 mg and placebo in NASH resolution with no worsening fibrosis. Both endpoints were surrogate endpoints, meaning that they were “reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.” The FDA noted that it is not known if a decrease in fibrosis stage would lead to clinically meaningful outcomes, such as reduction in liver-related events.
The committee members voted 15-1 to defer approval until clinical outcome data is submitted and reviewed. The FDA has set a target decision date regarding the accelerated approval of OCA for NASH for June 22, 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration’s Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee has voted against the accelerated approval of Intercept Pharmaceuticals’ obeticholic acid (OCA) for treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis.
This is the second time that Intercept has sought FDA approval for OCA in treating NASH.
The committee voted 12 to 2 (with 2 abstentions) that the benefits of OCA did not outweigh the risks to this patient population. While OCA showed a modest benefit of improving fibrosis in NASH patients, safety concerns included increased risk for drug-induced liver injury (DILI), cholelithiasis, pruritus, dyslipidemia, and dysglycemia.
Committee members were most concerned with the increased risk for DILI in patients taking OCA. Intercept said that frequent monitoring for DILI in such a large eligible population – an estimated 6-8 million individuals taking the drug to treat the condition – would be difficult.
“Typically, in clinical practice, NASH patients are followed every 6-12 months, so more frequent monitoring would be a substantial change and may not be achievable outside of the clinical trial setting,” according to a briefing document released before the committee meeting.
The FDA estimates that 16.8 million U.S. adults have NASH, with 5.7 million having NASH with advanced fibrosis, according to briefing documents. NASH is the second leading cause of liver transplants in the United States and is the leading cause in women. There are currently no FDA-approved therapies to treat NASH.
OCA, sold under the commercial name Ocaliva, was first approved in 2016 to treat primary biliary cholangitis, and is prescribed at up to 10 mg per day. Intercept proposed that OCA be given in daily 25-mg doses in the treatment of precirrhotic fibrosis attributable to NASH.
In 2019, Intercept initially filed for a new drug application (NDA) for OCA for the treatment of precirrhotic fibrosis attributable to NASH but were issued a Complete Response Letter after the FDA determined that the medication had an “unfavorable risk benefit-risk assessment.” Intercept resubmitted an NDA for OCA in December 2022, including two 18-month analyses from a phase 3 study, REGENERATE (Randomized Global Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Impact on NASH with Fibrosis of Obeticholic Acid Treatment). In the study, which included data from 931 patients, OCA 25 mg outperformed placebo in improving fibrosis with no worsening of NASH over 18 months, one of two primary endpoints of the clinical trial. The estimated risk difference ranged from 8.6 to 12.8 across different analyses, which the FDA categorized as a “modest treatment effect.”
There was no significant difference between OCA 25 mg and placebo in NASH resolution with no worsening fibrosis. Both endpoints were surrogate endpoints, meaning that they were “reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.” The FDA noted that it is not known if a decrease in fibrosis stage would lead to clinically meaningful outcomes, such as reduction in liver-related events.
The committee members voted 15-1 to defer approval until clinical outcome data is submitted and reviewed. The FDA has set a target decision date regarding the accelerated approval of OCA for NASH for June 22, 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs first-ever topical gene therapy, for rare skin disease
(DEB), a rare skin disease.
The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.
Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.
The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.
“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement announcing the approval.
“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.
“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.
“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.
Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.
Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.
Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”
Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.
Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.
DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.
People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.
Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.
The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:
- Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
- Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
- Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.
FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).
Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.
Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.
Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(DEB), a rare skin disease.
The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.
Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.
The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.
“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement announcing the approval.
“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.
“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.
“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.
Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.
Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.
Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”
Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.
Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.
DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.
People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.
Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.
The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:
- Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
- Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
- Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.
FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).
Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.
Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.
Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(DEB), a rare skin disease.
The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.
Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.
The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.
“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement announcing the approval.
“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.
“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.
“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.
Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.
Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.
Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”
Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.
Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.
DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.
People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.
Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.
The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:
- Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
- Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
- Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.
FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).
Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.
Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.
Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA clears iLet bionic pancreas insulin delivery system
Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.
Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).
The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.
Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.
Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”
That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”
On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”
The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.
Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).
The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.
Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.
Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”
That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”
On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”
The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.
Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).
The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.
Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.
Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”
That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”
On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”
The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.