Tag: drug approval

Categories : Diseases, Syndromes and Conditions New Compounds and TreatmentsTags :

FDA Approves First Drug Designed to Treat Indolent Systemic Mastocytosis

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Rodion Kutsaiev on Unsplash

Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a rare haematologic disorder that can lead to a range of debilitating symptoms across multiple organ systems and a significant impact on patients’ quality of life, and now the first medicine has been approved to specifically treat the most common form of the disease. On Monday 22 May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved AYVAKIT® (avapritinib) to treat indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM) in adults.

ISM represents the vast majority of SM cases, and AYVAKIT is now available for adults with ISM at the recommended dose of 25mg once daily. AYVAKIT was designed to potently and selectively inhibit KIT D816V, the primary underlying driver of the disease. AYVAKIT has been FDA approved for the treatment of advanced SM since June 2021.

“After decades of caring for people with indolent systemic mastocytosis, I have seen firsthand its profound impact on patients’ underlying mast cell burden, symptoms, physical and mental health, and ability to work and participate in daily activities,” said investigator Cem Akin, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Michigan. “Despite the use of multiple supportive care treatments, a considerable number of patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis continue to experience a substantial disease burden. AYVAKIT advances the treatment of indolent systemic mastocytosis by targeting KIT D816V, the primary underlying cause of the disease, and establishes a new standard of care for a broad population of patients with this disorder. AYVAKIT delivered statistically significant and consistent clinical improvements in the PIONEER trial, and based on these practice-changing data, I feel a tremendous sense of hope for the future for all those affected by the disease.”

The approval of AYVAKIT in ISM is based on data from the double-blind, placebo-controlled PIONEER trial – the largest study ever conducted for this disease – in which patients received AYVAKIT 25mg once daily plus best supportive care (AYVAKIT) or placebo plus best supportive care (placebo). AYVAKIT demonstrated significant improvements versus placebo in the primary and all key secondary endpoints, including overall symptoms and measures of mast cell burden.

AYVAKIT was well-tolerated with a favourable safety profile compared to placebo, and most adverse reactions were mild to moderate in severity. The most common adverse reactions for AYVAKIT (≥10%) were eye oedema, dizziness, peripheral oedema and flushing. Serious adverse reactions and discontinuations due to adverse reactions occurred in less than 1% of patients.

Detailed results from the PIONEER trial, including open-label extension study data showing the clinical benefits of AYVAKIT through 48 weeks of treatment, were presented in February 2023 at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Source: Blueprint Medicines

Categories : Ethics and Law Medical IndustryTags :

Did the FDA Break its Own Rules in Approving New Antibiotic?

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Rodion Kutsaiev on Unsplash

In the US, drug approval needs “substantial evidence” of effectiveness – but an investigation by The BMJ into the recent approval of the antibiotic Recarbrio from Merck suggests that these standards are being bypassed.

Recarbrio is a combination therapy made up of a new beta-lactamase inhibitor (relebactam) and a decades old Merck antibiotic (imipenem-cilastatin) to treat complicated infections. It costs $4000–$15 000 for a course, compared with a couple of hundred dollars for the generic version of Merck’s old antibiotic.

Peter Doshi, senior editor at The BMJ, describes how US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists had serious doubts about its highly expensive Recarbrio but the agency approved it anyway.

Did the FDA break its own rules in approving this antibiotic, and what does this case tell us about problems within the agency, he asks? 

In its FDA application, Merck submitted results from two clinical trials comparing Recarbrio with imipenem in adults with complicated urinary tract infections and in patients with complex intra-abdominal infections.

But FDA reviewers noted that Merck had studied the wrong patient population to evaluate the added benefits of the new drug, and said the trial for urinary tract infections showed that Recarbrio was as much as 21% less effective than the older, cheaper imipenem.

The FDA concluded that “these studies are not considered adequate and well-controlled.” And of a third clinical study, the FDA called it a “very small,” “difficult to interpret” “descriptive trial with no pre-specified plans for hypothesis testing.”

Yet despite all three clinical studies not providing substantial evidence of effectiveness, FDA approved Recarbrio.

“Instead of basing its decision on the clinical trials in Merck’s application, FDA’s determination of Recarbrio’s efficacy was justified on past evidence that imipenem was effective, plus – to justify the new relebactam component – in vitro (lab) studies and animal models of infection rather than evidence from human trials as required by law,” writes Doshi.

Others are concerned that Recarbrio’s approval essentially amounts to a return to a way of regulating medicines that the FDA abandoned a half century ago prior to the agency’s “substantial evidence” standard.

Doshi explains that, under specific circumstances, the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) can waive in whole or in part the FDA’s “adequate and well-controlled studies” approval criteria. But the FDA told The BMJ ”there was no center director memo in the file” for Recarbrio.

And when The BMJ contacted Janet Woodcock, CDER Director at the time, and now the FDA’s Principal Deputy Commissioner, she said she was not aware that clinical studies showed Recarbrio did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness.

Woodcock was also unable to confirm that approvals of new drugs require at least one clinical study of the drug itself that demonstrates substantial evidence – evidence lacking in the case of Recarbrio.

A spokesperson for CDER told The BMJ that FDA “applied regulatory flexibility” in approving Recarbrio. 

It is unclear whether this regulatory flexibility enabled FDA to conclude Recarbrio had met the legal “substantial evidence” standard without “adequate and well-controlled investigations” of Recarbrio, says Doshi. FDA declined to answer the question, saying “We have no additional information to provide.”

The decline of science at the FDA has become unmanageable, argues David Ross, associate clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and former FDA medical reviewer, in a linked commentary.

He describes Recarbrio’s approval as “shocking” and says while much of the blame must go to the FDA’s reliance on industry paid user fees for around two-thirds of its annual drugs budget, “the corruption of the FDA’s scientific culture remains the primary culprit driving the deterioration of safety and effectiveness standards.”

To address this “dismal situation” he suggests tapering the FDA’s dependence on user fees and improving public access to the information received by the FDA, its reasoning, and its decisions.

“The Recarbrio approval is a sentinel event, warning of a return to an era when drug effectiveness was an afterthought,” argues Ross. “Although the FDA crowed about this approval, it would have been better advised to remember that “for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled,” he concludes.

Source: EurekAlert!

Categories : Ethics and Law Medical IndustryTags :

Systematic Bias in Industry-sponsored Cost-effectiveness Studies

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

Industry-sponsored studies on a new drug or health technology are more likely to be found ‘cost-effective’ than independent studies, across a range of diseases, according to findings from a study published in The BMJ.

In a linked editorial, experts make a call for better reporting of results, more transparency, open-source cost-effectiveness models, and more independent studies, to reduce decision makers’ reliance on potentially biased cost-effectiveness analyses.

A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) provided the manufacturer is required by some countries to weigh up a product’s costs and effects.

This cost analysis evidence can be used to set the price for a drug or health technology or decide whether insurance policies will cover them. New drugs covered by insurance plans can be much more profitable than those not covered, which could lead to bias in CEAs funded by the drug and technology manufacturing industry.

While previous studies have consistently shown sponsorship bias in CEAs, most studies were limited to specific diseases, and are out of date. To fill in the gaps, Feng Xie and Ting Zhou from McMaster University, Canada, analysed data from all eligible CEAs published between 1976 and March 2021. 

They selected CEAs that reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years or QALYs – a ‘value for money’ metric of years lived in good health.

The authors used data from the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. In total, 8192 CEAs were included in the study, of which nearly 30% were sponsored by industry. 

The study defined CEA industry sponsorship as an analysis funded by drug, medical device, or biotechnology companies, either wholly or in part. 

The results show that the industry-sponsored CEAs were significantly more likely to conclude that the new medicine or health technology was cost-effective than those not sponsored by industry.

For example, industry-sponsored studies were more likely to report the intervention being studied as cost-effective below the commonly used threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained than non-industry sponsored studies.

Among 5877 CEAs that reported the intervention was more effective but more expensive than the comparator, the ICERs from industry sponsored studies were one third (33%) lower than those from non-industry sponsored studies.

While only having the registry information to work with was a limitation, the authors said their analysis provides a basis for comparison with previous investigations.

As such, they suggested that “sponsorship bias in CEAs is significant, systemic, and present across a range of diseases and study designs.”

In lower and middle-income countries, industry bias can increase drug prices, where fewer resources mean decision-makers often need to rely on published, rather than independent CEAs. 

In a linked editorial, Adam Raymakers at Cancer Control Research, Canada, and Aaron Kesselheim at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, USA, argue that decision-makers “should exercise caution when using published cost-effectiveness analysis in coverage decisions.”

They say finding solutions to tackle bias is more important than ever, and make the case for open-source analysis models, increased transparency, and increased funding for independent analyses, to help minimise reliance on industry-sponsored cost analyses.

Source: The BMJ

Categories : Pain ManagementTags :

New Migraine Prevention Drug Gets The Green Light from FDA

On By ModernMedia
Source: Usman Yousaf on Unsplash

Atogepant (Qulipta) has become the first oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist (gepant) specifically developed for migraine prevention to win FDA approval, manufacturer AbbVie announced on Monday.

Following on after rimegepant, which is also indicated by the FDA for acute migraine treatment, atogepant became the second gepant approved for prevention of episodic migraine in adults.

The atogepant decision “reflects a broader shift in the treatment and management paradigm for the migraine community,” noted Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, DSc, of the University of California Los Angeles and King’s College London.

“Qulipta provides a simple oral treatment option specifically developed to prevent migraine attacks and target CGRP, which is believed to be crucially involved in migraine in many patients,” said Dr Goadsby in a statement.
Atogepant has a high affinity at the CGRP receptor, and being a small-molecule drug it can be taken orally, unlike injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies approved for migraine prevention.
An oral CGRP-receptor antagonist is easier for patients, Goadsby noted when he presented data from atogepant’s pivotal phase IIb/III trial at the 2019 American Academy of Neurology annual meeting. “It could facilitate, with time, the greater use of this mechanism in primary care,” he told MedPage Today. “Primary care doctors will more easily use a medicine that’s relatively simple to use and well-tolerated, and that means more migraine patients can get treated.”

In the phase III ADVANCE trial, 873 participants were randomised to receive a once-daily dose of oral atogepant (10mg, 30mg, or 60mg) or placebo. After 12 weeks, average days with migraine per month dropped from baseline by 3.7 days with atogepant 10mg, 3.9 days with atogepant 30mg, 4.2 days with atogepant 60mg, and 2.5 days with placebo. The most common adverse events with atogepant were constipation and nausea, along with fatigue. 
Patients should notify their healthcare provider if they have kidney problems or are on dialysis, have liver problems, are pregnant or plan to become pregnant, or are breastfeeding or plan to breastfeed, AbbVie said.

Source: MedPage Today