clinical development of marketed drugs for new uses
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
• Studies intended to support a new indication or change in advertising must be done under an IND
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
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
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
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
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
PRE-CLINICAL/CMC
• 505(b)(2) applications– Alternatively, if new indication is for markedly
different population, considerable pre-clinical work may be required
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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
EFECTIVENESS
• “Subsets” of approved claims– Effect on progression– AD, PD, ALS, MS
• Probably will require two trials, but…
• Difficult design issues
EFFECTIVENESS
• “Subsets” of approved indications– Comparative claims– Superior efficacy– Superior safety
• Will require replication
• Very difficult design issues
EFFECTIVENESS
• Particular problems with new claims– New claim never previously granted– Pseudospecific claim– “Questionable” new claims– New brand name
EFFECTIVENESS
• New claim never previously granted• Example: MCI; compulsive gambling; treatment
of ADRs • Multiple questions raised
– Diagnostic criteria– Outcome measures– Duration
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
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
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
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)
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
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
SAFETY
• New populations– May require extensive additional safety data
because:• New doses
• Longer durations
• Different concomitant meds (DDs)
• Previous safety data not relevant
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
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
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
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