1 / 31

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MARKETED DRUGS FOR NEW USES

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MARKETED DRUGS FOR NEW USES. RUSSELL KATZ, M.D. DIRECTOR DIVISION OF NEUROLOGY PRODUCTS/CDER. DOMAINS OF INTEREST. Regulatory considerations Pre-clinical/CMC Effectiveness Safety New safety concerns Pediatrics. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS.

pisces
Download Presentation

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MARKETED DRUGS FOR NEW USES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MARKETED DRUGS FOR NEW USES RUSSELL KATZ, M.D. DIRECTOR DIVISION OF NEUROLOGY PRODUCTS/CDER

  2. DOMAINS OF INTEREST • Regulatory considerations • Pre-clinical/CMC • Effectiveness • Safety • New safety concerns • Pediatrics

  3. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • Studies intended to support a new indication or change in advertising must be done under an IND

  4. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • What constitutes a new claim? • Addition of description of new results in clinical trials section or elsewhere is tantamount to granting a “claim” • Example: imaging results imply an effect on progression; unless we have concluded this is, indeed, true, it won’t be permitted in labeling

  5. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • Jurisdiction • IND/NDA for new indication is held in the division with clinical expertise • Old records may not be readily available to new division; consultation with new division is recommended

  6. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • New indication may qualify for fast track/priority review status • May give rise to difficult timing issues (need for PCNS meeting, etc.) • May permit rolling review

  7. PRE-CLINICAL/CMC • 505(b)(2) applications • For old drugs, pre-clinical data may not meet current standards (e.g., Ca, repro studies) • This has led to many difficult decisions about what to require

  8. PRE-CLINICAL/CMC • 505(b)(2) applications • Where pre-clinical data are inadequate, current policy is to not require new data if new use does not materially increase the number/type of patients exposed

  9. PRE-CLINICAL/CMC • 505(b)(2) applications • Alternatively, if new indication is for markedly different population, considerable pre-clinical work may be required

  10. PRE-CLINICAL/CMC • New indication may require new formulation (ODT, patch, CR, oral suspension, etc.) • Example: oral AED developed for status epilepticus • Entirely new CMC; impurities?; New metabolite pattern? • May require new toxicity studies

  11. PRE-CLINICAL/CMC • New indication may require new formulation • Example: once a day dosing with CR (ADHD) • Markedly different exposures (shape of concentration/time curve) may necessitate new pre-clinical toxicity studies

  12. PRE-CLINICAL/CMC • Current use may be for short term or for an orphan indication • Toxicity studies may be of short duration or non-existent • New use may require extensive additional pre-clinical work

  13. PRE-CLINICAL/CMC • New indication may require new formulation • May give rise to different “names” (e.g., CR, XL) for once a day dosing but for different dosing regimens • This is likely to result in medication errors

  14. EFFECTIVENESS • Entirely new claim • Typically, a new claim will require at least two adequate and well-controlled trials • AED developed for depression • DOSE FINDING MAY BE NECESSARY!

  15. EFFECTIVENESS • “Subsets” of approved claims • New formulations for same indication (CR) • Unless there is clear PK/PD relationship (almost never), we will require one controlled trial

  16. EFFECTIVENESS • “Subsets” of approved claims • New seizure type for AED • Disease severity (severe AD) • Long-term maintenance (MDD) • Monotherapy for PD • Typically, a single controlled trial will be required

  17. EFECTIVENESS • “Subsets” of approved claims • Effect on progression • AD, PD, ALS, MS • Probably will require two trials, but… • Difficult design issues

  18. EFFECTIVENESS • “Subsets” of approved indications • Comparative claims • Superior efficacy • Superior safety • Will require replication • Very difficult design issues

  19. EFFECTIVENESS • Particular problems with new claims • New claim never previously granted • Pseudospecific claim • “Questionable” new claims • New brand name

  20. EFFECTIVENESS • New claim never previously granted • Example: MCI; compulsive gambling; treatment of ADRs • Multiple questions raised • Diagnostic criteria • Outcome measures • Duration

  21. EFFECTIVENESS • New claim never previously granted • We may not be in the position to offer definitive advice • Convening outside experts not feasible in all cases • Was done with MCI, Vascular Dementia

  22. EFFECTIVENESS • Pseudospecific claim • Example: “increased vitality” for an antidepressant • As a general rule, we will not allow a separate claim for one symptom of a diagnostic category

  23. EFFECTIVENESS • “Questionable” new claims • Example: pediatric conduct disorder; aggression • Not clear if these entities “qualify” for drug treatment • Larger “societal” issues need to be addressed

  24. EFFECTIVENESS • New brand names • Increasing interest in having new names for new indication • Strong agency bias against granting new name • Increase chance for medication errors (double prescribing, confusion with other names)

  25. EFFECTIVENESS • For any different claim for a marketed drug, it may be very difficult to get studies done if the drug: • Is already being used (e.g., AED in pediatrics) • Belief exists that the drug is already effective

  26. SAFETY • New formulations • Intravenous • May require new monitoring in trials related to kinetics • EKG, vital signs at new, higher, Cmax • Different metabolite pattern • Requirement for assessment of increased rate of infusion

  27. SAFETY • New populations • May require extensive additional safety data because: • New doses • Longer durations • Different concomitant meds (DDs) • Previous safety data not relevant

  28. SAFETY • “Slightly” new indication • Prevent menstrual migraine with an acute treatment • For acute treatments with acute ADRs, Even a few more doses may require extensive new safety data

  29. NEW SAFETY CONCERNS • New toxicities in new populations • Usually unpredictable • May raise questions about approved population • Reminyl-deaths in patients with MCI • Anti-psychotics-CVAs in patients with psychosis in AD • Gabitril-seizures in non-epilepsy pts

  30. PEDIATRICS • Pediatric studies required under PREA • Most studies done in response to written requests issued by agency • In the past, pediatric studies were “tacked on” to adult development

  31. PEDIATRICS • Current requirements • At least one controlled trial almost always required • “Full development” plan requested • Kinetics prior to controlled trial • Attempt to identify tolerated doses • More exensive safety • Juvenile animal studies

More Related