Regulatory Experience in Reviewing CV Safety for Diabetes Drugs kristina dunders.pdf · in Reviewing CV Safety for Diabetes Drugs Kristina Dunder MD, PhD, Alternate CHMP member MPA,

11/9/2011

1

Regulatory Experience in Reviewing CV Safety for Diabetes DrugsDrugs

Kristina DunderMD, PhD, Alternate CHMP memberMPA, Sweden

The views and opinions expressed in the following PowerPoint slidesare those of the individual presenter and should not be attributed to

Disclaimer

Drug Information Association, Inc. (“DIA”), its directors, officers,employees, volunteers, members, chapters, councils, Special InterestArea Communities or affiliates, or any organization with which thepresenter is employed or affiliated.

These PowerPoint slides are the intellectual property of the individualpresenter and are protected under the copyright laws of the UnitedStates of America and other countries. Used by permission. All rightsreserved. Drug Information Association, DIA and DIA logo areregistered trademarks or trademarks of Drug Information AssociationInc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

2www.diahome.orgDrug Information Association

11/9/2011

2

• Do diabetes drugs increase CV risk?

Disposition

• CHMP and FDA guidance– Interpretation of CHMP guideline

• Recent Experience

• Would we have asked for an outcome study pre approval for rosiglitazone today?

Drug Information Association www.diahome.org 3

• Diabetes drugs have different mechanism of action– Relevant with outcome studies for all drugs?

O l th ith ti f "d t i t l ff t"?

Do Diabetes Drugs Increase CV risk ??

– Only those with a suggestion of "detrimental effect"?

– Other potential serious events may be of more relevance• Pioglitazone – Urinary bladder cancer?• GLP-1 analogues – Medullary thyroid cancer?• Insulin analogues – Tumor promoting effect

C t b d fi di f ifi d l– Current concern based on findings for one specific drug class with potential negative cardiac effect due to mechanism of action


11/9/2011

3


• All diabetes drugs do not increase CV risk


• Diabetes drugs should not increase, but preferably reduce the risk of CV events– Type 2 diabetes = CV risk factor– HbA1c not surrogate for CV risk– How to assess CV safety included in CHMP and FDA

guidance– Lipid lowering and antihypertensive guidelines will be

updated


11/9/2011

4

CV Safety; FDA requirements

7

Current status of the CHMP Diabetes Guideline

• Current Guideline 2002• Concept Paper for update adopted 2008• Second consultation period (dead line 18/11)

11/9/2011

5

• More flexible approach; totality of the data

CHMP Guideline

– Type of Studies– Study Population– Cardiovascular Safety Outcomes– Evaluation of the Results


Type of studies for assessment of CV safety

• Non-clinical studies important– Athero-thrombotic findings, fluid retention, blood pressure, renal

function, electrolytes homeostasis, cardiac functionality, repolarisation and conduction abnormalitiesand conduction abnormalities

• Clinical studies; 2 approaches are possible;

– Metaanalytic approach. The size of database, as well as the mean duration of the studies is expected to be adequate to detect signals for serious and uncommon events

– As an alternative or when there is suspicion of an adverse CV signal

specific long-term controlled clinical safety study with at least 18 – 24 months follow-up would be expected at the time of submission of the

MAA.

11/9/2011

6

• Does every drug in the same class need an outcomes study?

Interpretation

study? – When there is suspicion of adverse CV signal, otherwise meta-

analytic approach– How do you define a signal?

• Safety concern is intrinsic in the molecule/ mechanism of action or has emerged from pre-clinical/ clinical registration studies.

• Increase in body weight, oedema/ fluid retention, occurrence of hypertension or arrhythmia

• How reliable are the meta-analysis results in studies not intended to assess CV outcomes?– Events adjudicated, study population , duration of studies– Other support needed


Study Population


11/9/2011

7

• Patients with high risk for CV events representing a relevant proportion of the diabetic population (according to validated

Interpretation

cardiovascular risk scoring systems), are strongly recommended to be included in phase III

• Majority of patients at high risk?– More events, shorter duration– Would not mirror the target population– Extrapolation to low risk population?p p p


Safety outcomes

• Emphasis on major CV events (MACE) (CV death, non fatal myocardial infarction and stroke)

• Hospitalisation for unstable angina could be included in a composite endpoint if the main objective is to exclude a safety signal

• Other safety outcomes, based on safety profile of the product class, the mechanism of action and/or the non-clinical findings.

• Prospective definition of CV safety outcomes common for all phaseProspective definition of CV safety outcomes, common for all phase II-III studies, facilitating pooled analysis strategies.

• Applicants should foresee a consistent central adjudication system for all predefined CV events during the phase II-III program.

11/9/2011

8

• Inclusion of unstable angina

Interpretation

• Inclusion of unstable angina– High percentage of the weaker part of the endpoint (i.e. unstable

angina), difficult to draw appropriate conclusions regarding the “hard” MACE endpoint


Evaluation of results

• Drugs belonging to a well-known class (and mechanism of action)– Careful evaluation of the available medical literature together with the absence

of pre-clinical and clinical signals of increased CV risk may lend some support to a meta-analytic approach

• Whenever a safety concern is intrinsic in the molecule/ mechanism of action or has emerged from pre-clinical/ clinical registration studies.

– Fully powered CV safety assessment, e.g. based on a dedicated CV outcome study, should be submitted before marketing authorization

11/9/2011

9

• Acceptability of the data presented will be decided based on its overall quality, the point and interval estimates obtained for the

Evaluation of results

calculation of specific risk and the reliability of these estimations. .• Indications of increased risk of certain adverse events or

unacceptable lack of precision are an important concern and may trigger the request for additional specific long-term outcome trials to exclude an unacceptable increase in CV or other identified risks associated with the new agent.


• In contrast to FDA guidance, CHMP draft guideline does not request specific limits to be met for the upper bound of the 95% CI of the

Interpretation

hazard ratio.

• Evaluate the overall data package including non-clinical and clinical data for a conclusion on CV safety.

• Knowledge on the whole substance class and how similar the mechanism of action and receptor specificity are compared tomechanism of action and receptor specificity are compared to available data for other drugs in the class

• Pay attention not only to the upper bound of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio for CV events but also to the point estimate


11/9/2011

10

• Pros and cons with " the flexible approach"

Cardiovascular Outcome Studies;Reflections

– Possibility for regulators to interpret the data based on

• Mechanism of action• Findings in preclinical/clinical studies• First in class or "me too"

– Any cut-off arbitrary

– Difficulties giving advice concerning design of studies


• No preclinical or mechanistic rationale• Meta-analysis of exenatide BID studies versus placebo

– HR CV events 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.38-1.31).

Recent Experience (from EPAR): Exenatide QW

• Available study data for the QW formulation do not indicate any adverse cardiac effects

– Duration of studies short, patients with CV disease and risk factors were to a large degree excluded

• Long term cardiovascular outcome study planned including patients at a higher CV risk

• No mechanistic rationale for an increased CV risk, ,no observed increased risk associated with exenatide BID

– CV outcome study not needed pre approval


11/9/2011

11

• 5239 patients with type 2 diabetes included in a CV meta-analysis (MACE and hospitalisation due to unstable angina) versus

Recent Experience (from EPAR): linagliptin

combined active and placebo comparators [Hazard ratio 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.17;0.70)].

• In total there were 11 primary events on linagliptin and 23 on comparators – Low risk population– Results reliable?

• Other DPP-4 inhibitors, no suspicion of a detrimental CV effect.• No mechanistic rationale for an increased CV risk

• CV outcome study not needed pre approvalDrug Information Association www.diahome.org 21

Rosiglitazone;Would FDA guidance lead to requirement of CV outcome study before approval?

• SAEs relating to the cardiovascular system (angina pectoris, MI, chest pain, CAD) were reported with a similar or lower frequency on RSG monotherapy (0.2-0.3%) than

l b f ion placebo, SU or metformin.

• Reports under the body system Cardiovascular General were the same for RSG and placebo (5.0 and 5.3% respectively)

• There were isolated cases of worsening of pre-existing CHF during RSG treatment, but no increased incidence of new-onset CHF, compared with placebo. RSG was not


, p passociated with aggravated hypertension or specific ECG changes

WOULD UPPER BOUND OF CI ≥ 1.8 ??

11/9/2011

12

DATA FROM MAA• 3.7 % oedema• 2.7 % hypercholesterolemia( LDL och HDL)• 0 5 % CHF (2 5% in combination with insulin)

Rosiglitazone;Would CHMP guidance lead to requirement of CV outcome study before approval?

0.5 % CHF (2.5% in combination with insulin)• Increase in body weight of 4-6%

PRODUCT INFORMATION• WARNING

– Fluid retention, possible heart failure. – Monitoring of signs of fluid retention, such as weight increase

• CONTRAINDICATIONS– CHF (NYHA stadium I - IV),– Combination with insulin

• Post approval outcome study requested (RECORD)Drug Information Association www.diahome.org 23

• WOULD WE HAVE REQUIRED A PREAPPROVAL STUDY?PREAPPROVAL STUDY?– YES !


11/9/2011

13

• Diabetes drugs should not increase CV riskRequirements to show lack of harm will depend on

CONCLUSION

• Requirements to show lack of harm will depend on– Mechanism of action, – Preclinical and clinical data, – Previous experience within the class

• CV outcomes studies not needed for all new drugs• Other safety issues may be more relevant

• Thank you for your attention!


Regulatory Experience in Reviewing CV Safety for Diabetes Drugs kristina dunders.pdf · in Reviewing CV Safety for Diabetes Drugs Kristina Dunder MD, PhD, Alternate CHMP member MPA,

Documents