User login
FDA approves new drug for ulcerative colitis
Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.
Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.
Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.
The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.
Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.
In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).
In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).
Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.
The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.
Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.
“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.
Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.
Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.
The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.
Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.
In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).
In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).
Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.
The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.
Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.
“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.
Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.
Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.
The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.
Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.
In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).
In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).
Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.
The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.
Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.
“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA denies approval for patisiran in ATTR cardiomyopathy, despite panel nod
ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.
In September, the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy on the basis of the results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study.
However, many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful – a view shared by the FDA in a complete response letter (CRL) the FDA sent to Alnylam.
According to the company, the FDA indicated in the letter that the clinical meaningfulness of patisiran’s treatment effects for the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis have “not been established,” and therefore, the supplemental new drug application for patisiran “could not be approved in its present form.”
The FDA did not identify any issues with respect to clinical safety, study conduct, drug quality, or manufacturing.
Nonetheless, as a result of the CRL, the company said it will no longer pursue an expanded indication for patisiran in cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis in the United States.
The company said it will continue to make patisiran available for patients with cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis who are enrolled in the open-label extension period of the APOLLO-B study and the patisiran expanded access protocol.
The company also said it will continue to focus on the HELIOS-B phase 3 study of vutrisiran, an investigational RNAi therapeutic in development for the treatment of cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis.
“We remain confident in the HELIOS-B phase 3 study of vutrisiran and look forward to sharing topline results in early 2024. If successful, we believe vutrisiran will offer convenient, quarterly subcutaneous dosing with a therapeutic profile that may potentially include cardiovascular outcome benefits,” Alnylam CEO Yvonne Greenstreet, MBChB, said in the statement.
Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.
In September, the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy on the basis of the results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study.
However, many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful – a view shared by the FDA in a complete response letter (CRL) the FDA sent to Alnylam.
According to the company, the FDA indicated in the letter that the clinical meaningfulness of patisiran’s treatment effects for the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis have “not been established,” and therefore, the supplemental new drug application for patisiran “could not be approved in its present form.”
The FDA did not identify any issues with respect to clinical safety, study conduct, drug quality, or manufacturing.
Nonetheless, as a result of the CRL, the company said it will no longer pursue an expanded indication for patisiran in cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis in the United States.
The company said it will continue to make patisiran available for patients with cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis who are enrolled in the open-label extension period of the APOLLO-B study and the patisiran expanded access protocol.
The company also said it will continue to focus on the HELIOS-B phase 3 study of vutrisiran, an investigational RNAi therapeutic in development for the treatment of cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis.
“We remain confident in the HELIOS-B phase 3 study of vutrisiran and look forward to sharing topline results in early 2024. If successful, we believe vutrisiran will offer convenient, quarterly subcutaneous dosing with a therapeutic profile that may potentially include cardiovascular outcome benefits,” Alnylam CEO Yvonne Greenstreet, MBChB, said in the statement.
Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.
In September, the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy on the basis of the results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study.
However, many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful – a view shared by the FDA in a complete response letter (CRL) the FDA sent to Alnylam.
According to the company, the FDA indicated in the letter that the clinical meaningfulness of patisiran’s treatment effects for the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis have “not been established,” and therefore, the supplemental new drug application for patisiran “could not be approved in its present form.”
The FDA did not identify any issues with respect to clinical safety, study conduct, drug quality, or manufacturing.
Nonetheless, as a result of the CRL, the company said it will no longer pursue an expanded indication for patisiran in cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis in the United States.
The company said it will continue to make patisiran available for patients with cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis who are enrolled in the open-label extension period of the APOLLO-B study and the patisiran expanded access protocol.
The company also said it will continue to focus on the HELIOS-B phase 3 study of vutrisiran, an investigational RNAi therapeutic in development for the treatment of cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis.
“We remain confident in the HELIOS-B phase 3 study of vutrisiran and look forward to sharing topline results in early 2024. If successful, we believe vutrisiran will offer convenient, quarterly subcutaneous dosing with a therapeutic profile that may potentially include cardiovascular outcome benefits,” Alnylam CEO Yvonne Greenstreet, MBChB, said in the statement.
Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Intravenous formulation of secukinumab gets FDA approval
The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).
Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.
The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.
The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.
“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”
This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.
“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).
Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.
The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.
The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.
“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”
This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.
“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).
Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.
The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.
The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.
“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”
This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.
“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves ninth Humira biosimilar, with interchangeability
The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.
This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.
Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.
Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:
- Adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
- Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
- Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
- Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
- Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
- Adults with ulcerative colitis.
- Adults with plaque psoriasis.
- Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
- Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.
“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.
An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product.
Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.
Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.
This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.
Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.
Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:
- Adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
- Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
- Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
- Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
- Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
- Adults with ulcerative colitis.
- Adults with plaque psoriasis.
- Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
- Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.
“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.
An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product.
Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.
Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.
This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.
Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.
Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:
- Adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
- Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
- Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
- Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
- Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
- Adults with ulcerative colitis.
- Adults with plaque psoriasis.
- Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
- Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.
“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.
An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product.
Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.
Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves first tocilizumab biosimilar
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-bavi (Tofidence), Biogen, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on Sept. 29.
It is the first tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The reference product, Actemra (Genentech), was first approved by the agency in 2010.
“The approval of Tofidence in the U.S. marks another positive step toward helping more people with chronic autoimmune conditions gain access to leading therapies,” Ian Henshaw, global head of biosimilars at Biogen, said in a statement. “With the increasing numbers of approved biosimilars, we expect increased savings and sustainability for health care systems and an increase in physician choice and patient access to biologics.”
Biogen’s pricing for tocilizumab-bavi will be available closer to the product’s launch date, which has yet to be determined, a company spokesman said. The U.S. average monthly cost of Actemra for rheumatoid arthritis, administered intravenously, is $2,134-$4,268 depending on dosage, according to a Genentech spokesperson.
Tocilizumab-bavi is an intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) indicated for treatment of moderately to severely active RA, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA), and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA). The medication is administered every 4 weeks in RA and PJIA and every 8 weeks in SJIA as a single intravenous drip infusion over 1 hour.
The European Commission approved its first tocilizumab biosimilar, Tyenne (Fresenius Kabi), earlier in 2023 in both subcutaneous and intravenous formulations. Biogen did not comment on whether the company is working on a subcutaneous formulation for tocilizumab-bavi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-bavi (Tofidence), Biogen, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on Sept. 29.
It is the first tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The reference product, Actemra (Genentech), was first approved by the agency in 2010.
“The approval of Tofidence in the U.S. marks another positive step toward helping more people with chronic autoimmune conditions gain access to leading therapies,” Ian Henshaw, global head of biosimilars at Biogen, said in a statement. “With the increasing numbers of approved biosimilars, we expect increased savings and sustainability for health care systems and an increase in physician choice and patient access to biologics.”
Biogen’s pricing for tocilizumab-bavi will be available closer to the product’s launch date, which has yet to be determined, a company spokesman said. The U.S. average monthly cost of Actemra for rheumatoid arthritis, administered intravenously, is $2,134-$4,268 depending on dosage, according to a Genentech spokesperson.
Tocilizumab-bavi is an intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) indicated for treatment of moderately to severely active RA, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA), and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA). The medication is administered every 4 weeks in RA and PJIA and every 8 weeks in SJIA as a single intravenous drip infusion over 1 hour.
The European Commission approved its first tocilizumab biosimilar, Tyenne (Fresenius Kabi), earlier in 2023 in both subcutaneous and intravenous formulations. Biogen did not comment on whether the company is working on a subcutaneous formulation for tocilizumab-bavi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-bavi (Tofidence), Biogen, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on Sept. 29.
It is the first tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The reference product, Actemra (Genentech), was first approved by the agency in 2010.
“The approval of Tofidence in the U.S. marks another positive step toward helping more people with chronic autoimmune conditions gain access to leading therapies,” Ian Henshaw, global head of biosimilars at Biogen, said in a statement. “With the increasing numbers of approved biosimilars, we expect increased savings and sustainability for health care systems and an increase in physician choice and patient access to biologics.”
Biogen’s pricing for tocilizumab-bavi will be available closer to the product’s launch date, which has yet to be determined, a company spokesman said. The U.S. average monthly cost of Actemra for rheumatoid arthritis, administered intravenously, is $2,134-$4,268 depending on dosage, according to a Genentech spokesperson.
Tocilizumab-bavi is an intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) indicated for treatment of moderately to severely active RA, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA), and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA). The medication is administered every 4 weeks in RA and PJIA and every 8 weeks in SJIA as a single intravenous drip infusion over 1 hour.
The European Commission approved its first tocilizumab biosimilar, Tyenne (Fresenius Kabi), earlier in 2023 in both subcutaneous and intravenous formulations. Biogen did not comment on whether the company is working on a subcutaneous formulation for tocilizumab-bavi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs subcutaneous vedolizumab for UC maintenance therapy
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the subcutaneous administration of vedolizumab (Entyvio SC, Takeda) for maintenance therapy in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) following induction therapy with intravenous administration of vedolizumab.
The FDA approved the intravenous formulation of the biologic in 2014 for patients with moderate to severe UC and Crohn’s disease who failed or cannot tolerate other therapies.
The approval of subcutaneous (SC) vedolizumab was based on results from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled VISIBLE 1 trial.
The trial assessed the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with SC vedolizumab in adult patients with moderately to severely active UC who achieved clinical response at week 6 following two doses of intravenous vedolizumab.
At week 6, 162 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to vedolizumab or placebo by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined as a total Mayo score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.
At week 52, nearly half (46%) of patients who received vedolizumab SC maintenance therapy achieved clinical remission, compared with 14% of those who received placebo SC (P < .001).
The safety profile of SC vedolizumab was “generally consistent” with that of intravenous vedolizumab, with the addition of injection-site reactions, the drugmaker, Takeda, said in a news release.
The most common adverse reactions with intravenous vedolizumab are nasopharyngitis, headache, arthralgia, nausea, pyrexia (fever), upper respiratory tract infection, fatigue, cough, bronchitis, influenza, back pain, rash, pruritus, sinusitis, oropharyngeal pain, and pain in the extremities.
SC vedolizumab “can provide physicians with an additional administration option for achieving remission in their moderate to severe ulcerative colitis patients,” according to Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He provided a statement in the Takeda news release.
“I appreciate now having a subcutaneous administration option that provides a clinical profile consistent with Entyvio intravenous while also giving me and my appropriate UC patients a choice of how they receive their maintenance therapy,” Dr. Sands said.
The FDA is currently reviewing Takeda’s biologics license application for subcutaneous administration of vedolizumab in the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.
Dr. Sands is a paid consultant of Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the subcutaneous administration of vedolizumab (Entyvio SC, Takeda) for maintenance therapy in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) following induction therapy with intravenous administration of vedolizumab.
The FDA approved the intravenous formulation of the biologic in 2014 for patients with moderate to severe UC and Crohn’s disease who failed or cannot tolerate other therapies.
The approval of subcutaneous (SC) vedolizumab was based on results from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled VISIBLE 1 trial.
The trial assessed the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with SC vedolizumab in adult patients with moderately to severely active UC who achieved clinical response at week 6 following two doses of intravenous vedolizumab.
At week 6, 162 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to vedolizumab or placebo by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined as a total Mayo score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.
At week 52, nearly half (46%) of patients who received vedolizumab SC maintenance therapy achieved clinical remission, compared with 14% of those who received placebo SC (P < .001).
The safety profile of SC vedolizumab was “generally consistent” with that of intravenous vedolizumab, with the addition of injection-site reactions, the drugmaker, Takeda, said in a news release.
The most common adverse reactions with intravenous vedolizumab are nasopharyngitis, headache, arthralgia, nausea, pyrexia (fever), upper respiratory tract infection, fatigue, cough, bronchitis, influenza, back pain, rash, pruritus, sinusitis, oropharyngeal pain, and pain in the extremities.
SC vedolizumab “can provide physicians with an additional administration option for achieving remission in their moderate to severe ulcerative colitis patients,” according to Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He provided a statement in the Takeda news release.
“I appreciate now having a subcutaneous administration option that provides a clinical profile consistent with Entyvio intravenous while also giving me and my appropriate UC patients a choice of how they receive their maintenance therapy,” Dr. Sands said.
The FDA is currently reviewing Takeda’s biologics license application for subcutaneous administration of vedolizumab in the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.
Dr. Sands is a paid consultant of Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the subcutaneous administration of vedolizumab (Entyvio SC, Takeda) for maintenance therapy in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) following induction therapy with intravenous administration of vedolizumab.
The FDA approved the intravenous formulation of the biologic in 2014 for patients with moderate to severe UC and Crohn’s disease who failed or cannot tolerate other therapies.
The approval of subcutaneous (SC) vedolizumab was based on results from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled VISIBLE 1 trial.
The trial assessed the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with SC vedolizumab in adult patients with moderately to severely active UC who achieved clinical response at week 6 following two doses of intravenous vedolizumab.
At week 6, 162 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to vedolizumab or placebo by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined as a total Mayo score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.
At week 52, nearly half (46%) of patients who received vedolizumab SC maintenance therapy achieved clinical remission, compared with 14% of those who received placebo SC (P < .001).
The safety profile of SC vedolizumab was “generally consistent” with that of intravenous vedolizumab, with the addition of injection-site reactions, the drugmaker, Takeda, said in a news release.
The most common adverse reactions with intravenous vedolizumab are nasopharyngitis, headache, arthralgia, nausea, pyrexia (fever), upper respiratory tract infection, fatigue, cough, bronchitis, influenza, back pain, rash, pruritus, sinusitis, oropharyngeal pain, and pain in the extremities.
SC vedolizumab “can provide physicians with an additional administration option for achieving remission in their moderate to severe ulcerative colitis patients,” according to Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He provided a statement in the Takeda news release.
“I appreciate now having a subcutaneous administration option that provides a clinical profile consistent with Entyvio intravenous while also giving me and my appropriate UC patients a choice of how they receive their maintenance therapy,” Dr. Sands said.
The FDA is currently reviewing Takeda’s biologics license application for subcutaneous administration of vedolizumab in the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.
Dr. Sands is a paid consultant of Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA gives semaglutide two drug safety–related label changes
The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic
The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”
This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”
Reports of ileus episodes after approval
The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.
The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.
“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.
The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).
The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.
*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic
The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”
This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”
Reports of ileus episodes after approval
The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.
The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.
“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.
The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).
The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.
*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic
The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”
This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”
Reports of ileus episodes after approval
The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.
The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.
“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.
The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).
The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.
*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel rejects implanted GLP1-RA dosing device for T2D
advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.
Sept. 21 from anThe 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.
“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.
The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
“No evidence of improved adherence”
Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.
However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
Seven years of FDA review
This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.
Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week.
But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”
All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.
Sept. 21 from anThe 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.
“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.
The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
“No evidence of improved adherence”
Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.
However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
Seven years of FDA review
This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.
Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week.
But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”
All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.
Sept. 21 from anThe 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.
“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.
The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
“No evidence of improved adherence”
Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.
However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
Seven years of FDA review
This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.
Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week.
But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”
All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Patisiran (Onpattro) for ATTR cardiomyopathy gets FDA panel thumbs up
The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration has voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy – although many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful.
ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, and fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.
Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.
In the APOLLO-B trial, patisiran showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test, compared with placebo, in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.
The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.
But in explaining her “no” vote, committee member C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she “did not feel like there was benefit” using existing clinically relevant thresholds typically used in cardiology.
Committee chair Javed Butler, MD, MPH, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, who also voted no, said he “struggled” with this vote and emphasized that it “absolutely does not reflect that there is not a potential with the therapy.”
Dr. Butler said he voted no largely because he wasn’t sure whether the benefits are clinically meaningful in the context of the study design and how it was conducted. He did not have any safety concerns, which was the general feeling of the committee.
Edward Kasper, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who voted in favor of patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, said there is a “light wind for benefit and no wind for risk. So, if you’re asking do benefits outweigh the risks, the answer is yes.”
But Dr. Kasper also noted: “It would have been a more difficult question to answer: Is there clinically meaningful benefit versus risk? But that’s not what the question asked.”
In explaining his “yes” vote, Ravi Thadhani, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta, said: “We’re dealing with a rare disease with few options and devastating consequences. We heard from clinicians loud and clear, and from patients for that matter, that options and alternatives are critical, and that there is a continuous decline of cardiac function and worsening of disease in a number of patients that have received the current standard of care. For me, the benefits outweigh the risks.”
Dr. Thadhani also noted that from the data provided, no benefit was shown – ”disappointingly” he lamented – for women, for Black persons, and among individuals who were receiving tafamidis, and he urged the FDA and sponsor to consider this.
The FDA has set a target action date for patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy of Oct. 8.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration has voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy – although many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful.
ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, and fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.
Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.
In the APOLLO-B trial, patisiran showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test, compared with placebo, in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.
The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.
But in explaining her “no” vote, committee member C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she “did not feel like there was benefit” using existing clinically relevant thresholds typically used in cardiology.
Committee chair Javed Butler, MD, MPH, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, who also voted no, said he “struggled” with this vote and emphasized that it “absolutely does not reflect that there is not a potential with the therapy.”
Dr. Butler said he voted no largely because he wasn’t sure whether the benefits are clinically meaningful in the context of the study design and how it was conducted. He did not have any safety concerns, which was the general feeling of the committee.
Edward Kasper, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who voted in favor of patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, said there is a “light wind for benefit and no wind for risk. So, if you’re asking do benefits outweigh the risks, the answer is yes.”
But Dr. Kasper also noted: “It would have been a more difficult question to answer: Is there clinically meaningful benefit versus risk? But that’s not what the question asked.”
In explaining his “yes” vote, Ravi Thadhani, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta, said: “We’re dealing with a rare disease with few options and devastating consequences. We heard from clinicians loud and clear, and from patients for that matter, that options and alternatives are critical, and that there is a continuous decline of cardiac function and worsening of disease in a number of patients that have received the current standard of care. For me, the benefits outweigh the risks.”
Dr. Thadhani also noted that from the data provided, no benefit was shown – ”disappointingly” he lamented – for women, for Black persons, and among individuals who were receiving tafamidis, and he urged the FDA and sponsor to consider this.
The FDA has set a target action date for patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy of Oct. 8.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration has voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy – although many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful.
ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, and fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.
Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.
In the APOLLO-B trial, patisiran showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test, compared with placebo, in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.
The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.
But in explaining her “no” vote, committee member C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she “did not feel like there was benefit” using existing clinically relevant thresholds typically used in cardiology.
Committee chair Javed Butler, MD, MPH, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, who also voted no, said he “struggled” with this vote and emphasized that it “absolutely does not reflect that there is not a potential with the therapy.”
Dr. Butler said he voted no largely because he wasn’t sure whether the benefits are clinically meaningful in the context of the study design and how it was conducted. He did not have any safety concerns, which was the general feeling of the committee.
Edward Kasper, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who voted in favor of patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, said there is a “light wind for benefit and no wind for risk. So, if you’re asking do benefits outweigh the risks, the answer is yes.”
But Dr. Kasper also noted: “It would have been a more difficult question to answer: Is there clinically meaningful benefit versus risk? But that’s not what the question asked.”
In explaining his “yes” vote, Ravi Thadhani, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta, said: “We’re dealing with a rare disease with few options and devastating consequences. We heard from clinicians loud and clear, and from patients for that matter, that options and alternatives are critical, and that there is a continuous decline of cardiac function and worsening of disease in a number of patients that have received the current standard of care. For me, the benefits outweigh the risks.”
Dr. Thadhani also noted that from the data provided, no benefit was shown – ”disappointingly” he lamented – for women, for Black persons, and among individuals who were receiving tafamidis, and he urged the FDA and sponsor to consider this.
The FDA has set a target action date for patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy of Oct. 8.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel deems phenylephrine ineffective
The Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee discussed the efficacy and pharmacokinetic data for phenylephrine. The committee’s next move is to determine if the drug’s status as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective should be revoked. This would mean manufacturers would have to come up with new formulations, or products containing the drug would be removed from store shelves. NDAC did not disclose a timeline for assessing GRASE status.
The vote that formally declared phenylephrine ineffective was in line with a review of pharmacology and clinical data presented by the FDA on Sept. 11, which found that the oral bioavailability of the drug is less than 1%, compared with 38%, a number often cited in the literature and based on outdated technology.
A mechanism potentially responsible for inefficacy may be the half-life of phenylephrine.
“The half-life of the parent phenylephrine is much shorter than that of total phenylephrine, suggesting that the duration of action for active parent phenylephrine is far shorter than the monographed dosing interval of every 4 hours and is therefore open to question,” the review states.
The side effects of phenylephrine include headaches, insomnia, and nervousness. At higher doses, it can increase blood pressure.
The review also found that original studies used to support the efficacy of phenylephrine were inconclusive at best and contained potential methodological, statistical, and data integrity issues.
Pseudoephedrine is the only other nonprescription oral nasal decongestant on the retail market but is only available behind the counter due to its use as a potential narcotic.
Manufacturers have used phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine in many products due to this limitation.
Revoking the GRASE status of phenylephrine would leave patients without an over-the-counter option.
According to the FDA review, 242 million packages or bottles of phenylephrine products were sold in 2022, resulting in $1.76 billion in sales. A little over 50 million packages of pseudoephedrine were sold that same year, resulting in $542 million in sales.
“I think there’s a huge potential for consumer concern,” Diane B. Ginsburg, PhD, MS, RPh, the pharmacy practice division associate dean for Healthcare Partnerships at The University of Texas at Austin, said during the panel.
She said patients may be confused and concerned about the panel vote, especially those who feel they have benefitted from phenylephrine products. In the event of GRASE removal, she advised reassuring patients that phenylephrine is being pulled from shelves due to inefficacy rather than immediate health risks.
“The real positive here to me is the opportunity from an educational perspective to show consumers the fact that there are a lot more ways to treat” conditions that present with the symptom of congestion, such as rhinitis.
According to the FDA review, “most consumers may simply need instruction on the alternatives, including how to obtain ‘behind-the-counter’ pseudoephedrine or to use alternative treatments, including intranasal decongestants (including intranasal phenylephrine), intranasal steroids, intranasal antihistamines, or intranasal saline products.”
Despite these complications, “there are a number of potential benefits that would be derived by changing the GRASE status of oral phenylephrine.”
These include avoiding unnecessary costs of taking an ineffective drug, potential allergic reactions and side effects, and the risks of patients taking a higher dosage.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee discussed the efficacy and pharmacokinetic data for phenylephrine. The committee’s next move is to determine if the drug’s status as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective should be revoked. This would mean manufacturers would have to come up with new formulations, or products containing the drug would be removed from store shelves. NDAC did not disclose a timeline for assessing GRASE status.
The vote that formally declared phenylephrine ineffective was in line with a review of pharmacology and clinical data presented by the FDA on Sept. 11, which found that the oral bioavailability of the drug is less than 1%, compared with 38%, a number often cited in the literature and based on outdated technology.
A mechanism potentially responsible for inefficacy may be the half-life of phenylephrine.
“The half-life of the parent phenylephrine is much shorter than that of total phenylephrine, suggesting that the duration of action for active parent phenylephrine is far shorter than the monographed dosing interval of every 4 hours and is therefore open to question,” the review states.
The side effects of phenylephrine include headaches, insomnia, and nervousness. At higher doses, it can increase blood pressure.
The review also found that original studies used to support the efficacy of phenylephrine were inconclusive at best and contained potential methodological, statistical, and data integrity issues.
Pseudoephedrine is the only other nonprescription oral nasal decongestant on the retail market but is only available behind the counter due to its use as a potential narcotic.
Manufacturers have used phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine in many products due to this limitation.
Revoking the GRASE status of phenylephrine would leave patients without an over-the-counter option.
According to the FDA review, 242 million packages or bottles of phenylephrine products were sold in 2022, resulting in $1.76 billion in sales. A little over 50 million packages of pseudoephedrine were sold that same year, resulting in $542 million in sales.
“I think there’s a huge potential for consumer concern,” Diane B. Ginsburg, PhD, MS, RPh, the pharmacy practice division associate dean for Healthcare Partnerships at The University of Texas at Austin, said during the panel.
She said patients may be confused and concerned about the panel vote, especially those who feel they have benefitted from phenylephrine products. In the event of GRASE removal, she advised reassuring patients that phenylephrine is being pulled from shelves due to inefficacy rather than immediate health risks.
“The real positive here to me is the opportunity from an educational perspective to show consumers the fact that there are a lot more ways to treat” conditions that present with the symptom of congestion, such as rhinitis.
According to the FDA review, “most consumers may simply need instruction on the alternatives, including how to obtain ‘behind-the-counter’ pseudoephedrine or to use alternative treatments, including intranasal decongestants (including intranasal phenylephrine), intranasal steroids, intranasal antihistamines, or intranasal saline products.”
Despite these complications, “there are a number of potential benefits that would be derived by changing the GRASE status of oral phenylephrine.”
These include avoiding unnecessary costs of taking an ineffective drug, potential allergic reactions and side effects, and the risks of patients taking a higher dosage.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee discussed the efficacy and pharmacokinetic data for phenylephrine. The committee’s next move is to determine if the drug’s status as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective should be revoked. This would mean manufacturers would have to come up with new formulations, or products containing the drug would be removed from store shelves. NDAC did not disclose a timeline for assessing GRASE status.
The vote that formally declared phenylephrine ineffective was in line with a review of pharmacology and clinical data presented by the FDA on Sept. 11, which found that the oral bioavailability of the drug is less than 1%, compared with 38%, a number often cited in the literature and based on outdated technology.
A mechanism potentially responsible for inefficacy may be the half-life of phenylephrine.
“The half-life of the parent phenylephrine is much shorter than that of total phenylephrine, suggesting that the duration of action for active parent phenylephrine is far shorter than the monographed dosing interval of every 4 hours and is therefore open to question,” the review states.
The side effects of phenylephrine include headaches, insomnia, and nervousness. At higher doses, it can increase blood pressure.
The review also found that original studies used to support the efficacy of phenylephrine were inconclusive at best and contained potential methodological, statistical, and data integrity issues.
Pseudoephedrine is the only other nonprescription oral nasal decongestant on the retail market but is only available behind the counter due to its use as a potential narcotic.
Manufacturers have used phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine in many products due to this limitation.
Revoking the GRASE status of phenylephrine would leave patients without an over-the-counter option.
According to the FDA review, 242 million packages or bottles of phenylephrine products were sold in 2022, resulting in $1.76 billion in sales. A little over 50 million packages of pseudoephedrine were sold that same year, resulting in $542 million in sales.
“I think there’s a huge potential for consumer concern,” Diane B. Ginsburg, PhD, MS, RPh, the pharmacy practice division associate dean for Healthcare Partnerships at The University of Texas at Austin, said during the panel.
She said patients may be confused and concerned about the panel vote, especially those who feel they have benefitted from phenylephrine products. In the event of GRASE removal, she advised reassuring patients that phenylephrine is being pulled from shelves due to inefficacy rather than immediate health risks.
“The real positive here to me is the opportunity from an educational perspective to show consumers the fact that there are a lot more ways to treat” conditions that present with the symptom of congestion, such as rhinitis.
According to the FDA review, “most consumers may simply need instruction on the alternatives, including how to obtain ‘behind-the-counter’ pseudoephedrine or to use alternative treatments, including intranasal decongestants (including intranasal phenylephrine), intranasal steroids, intranasal antihistamines, or intranasal saline products.”
Despite these complications, “there are a number of potential benefits that would be derived by changing the GRASE status of oral phenylephrine.”
These include avoiding unnecessary costs of taking an ineffective drug, potential allergic reactions and side effects, and the risks of patients taking a higher dosage.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.