EMA fi­nal­izes clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment guide­line for new gout treat­ments

The EMA on Thurs­day is­sued a guide­line set­ting its ex­pec­ta­tions for the clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment of new urate-low­er­ing ther­a­pies (ULT) and an­ti-in­flam­ma­to­ry drugs to treat gout.

The 14-page guide­line comes less than a year af­ter the EMA’s Com­mit­tee for Med­i­c­i­nal Prod­ucts for Hu­man Use (CHMP) re­leased the draft ver­sion for con­sul­ta­tion and sev­en years af­ter the agency pub­lished a con­cept pa­per high­light­ing the need for such guid­ance.

While there are a hand­ful of ULTs avail­able in Eu­rope, the EMA notes that there are some is­sues with ex­ist­ing treat­ments. “Al­lop­uri­nol, a xan­thine-ox­i­dase in­hibitor in­ter­fer­ing with the pro­duc­tion of uric acid, is con­sid­ered as a first-line ULT treat­ment op­tion … how­ev­er, al­lop­uri­nol hy­per­sen­si­tiv­i­ty syn­drome with skin re­ac­tions is quite com­mon,” the EMA writes, not­ing that dos­es must al­so be low­ered in re­nal­ly im­paired pa­tients.

Clin­i­cal De­vel­op­ment

With­in the guide­line, the EMA pro­vides rec­om­men­da­tions for pa­tient se­lec­tion, safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy as­sess­ments and clin­i­cal tri­al de­sign, as well as dis­cussing con­sid­er­a­tions for stud­ies in el­der­ly, pe­di­atric and re­nal­ly im­paired pa­tients.

How­ev­er, the EMA points out that “the study de­sign, in­clu­sion cri­te­ria, pri­ma­ry end­points and tri­al du­ra­tion large­ly de­pend on the treat­ment goal and mode of ac­tion of the new drug.”

The EMA notes that treat­ment guide­lines in both the US and EU do not en­dorse the treat­ment of asymp­to­matic hy­pe­r­uricemia and says that its clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment guide­line does not ad­dress the treat­ment or pro­phy­lax­is of acute hy­pe­r­uricemia caused by oth­er con­di­tions.

When se­lect­ing pa­tients for en­roll­ment in clin­i­cal tri­als, the EMA rec­om­mends that spon­sors use es­tab­lished di­ag­nos­tic cri­te­ria, such as those de­vel­oped by the Eu­ro­pean League Against Rheuma­tism (EU­LAR) and Amer­i­can Col­lege of Rheuma­tol­ogy (ACR).

The EMA says that spon­sors may dis­tin­guish “be­tween pa­tients with in­ter­mit­tent flar­ing dis­ease, with symp­tom free in­ter­vals, or ad­vanced pa­tients with chron­ic arthropa­thy man­i­fes­ta­tions,” and rec­om­mends that stud­ies for ULTs se­lect pa­tients with hy­pe­r­uricemia above 7mg/dl as a base­line.

The agency al­so en­cour­ages spon­sors to en­roll pa­tients with com­mon co­mor­bidi­ties, such as obe­si­ty, di­a­betes, hy­per­ten­sion and re­nal im­pair­ment … de­pend­ing on the safe­ty pro­file of the drug.”

The EMA points out that there are dif­fer­ent po­ten­tial treat­ment goals for gout which re­quire dif­fer­ent clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment plans and tri­al de­signs, such as the re­duc­tion of hy­pe­r­uricemia and urate crys­tal load or the symp­to­matic treat­ment of acute gouty arthri­tis flares.

The EMA rec­om­mends that for ULTs, spon­sors con­duct par­al­lel, ran­dom­ized dou­ble-blind place­bo-con­trolled tri­als for at least six months. For first line treat­ments, the EMA says that at least one study should use al­lop­uri­nol as an ac­tive con­trol, while the agency pro­vides dif­fer­ent op­tions for study de­sign for sec­ond line treat­ments de­pend­ing on whether the drug will be used as monother­a­py or in com­bi­na­tion with a xan­thine ox­i­dase in­hibitor (XOI).

The EMA rec­om­mends us­ing serum uric acid (SUA) as a sur­ro­gate end­point to eval­u­ate the ef­fi­ca­cy of ULTs. “As it takes time for the body to be cleared of uric acid crys­tals, and as uric acid lev­els fluc­tu­ate over time de­pend­ing on food and flu­id in­take, the pri­ma­ry end­point should not con­sist of SUA lev­els at a sin­gle time-point, but should re­flect a sus­tained SUA re­sponse be­low a crit­i­cal tar­get lev­el. SUA should, there­fore, be fre­quent­ly mon­i­tored in the tri­als (at least every 4 weeks),” the EMA writes.

The pri­ma­ry end­point for con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als for ULTs should be sus­tained SUA lev­els be­low 6mg/dl for three con­sec­u­tive months or < 5 mg/dl for pa­tients with topha­ceous gout.

For an­ti-in­flam­ma­to­ry drugs, the EMA al­so rec­om­mends par­al­lel, dou­ble-blind ran­dom­ized place­bo-con­trolled tri­als, though the agency says that “no place­bo-con­trol is need­ed if the study ob­jec­tive is demon­strat­ing su­pe­ri­or­i­ty to­wards an ac­tive con­trol.” For non-in­fe­ri­or­i­ty stud­ies, the EMA says a three-arm study in­clud­ing a place­bo is gen­er­al­ly nec­es­sary.

For an­ti-in­flam­ma­to­ry drugs, the EMA of­fers dif­fer­ent end­points de­pend­ing on the goal of treat­ment, such as acute treat­ment of flares or pro­phy­lax­is at the start of ULT.


RAPS: First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Jeff Albers, Blueprint CEO

Di­ag­nos­tic champ Roche buys its way in­to the RET ti­tle fight with Eli Lil­ly, pay­ing $775M in cash to Blue­print

When Roche spelled out its original $1 billion deal — $45 million of that upfront — with Blueprint to discover targeted therapies against immunokinases, the biotech partner’s RET program was still preclinical. Four years later, pralsetinib is on the cusp of potential approval and the Swiss pharma giant is putting in much more to get in on the commercial game.

Roche gains rights to co-develop and co-commercialize the drug, with sole marketing responsibility for places outside the US and China (where CStone has staked its claim).

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 85,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Trans­port Sim­u­la­tion Test­ing for Your Ther­a­py is the Best Way to As­sure FDA Ex­pe­dit­ed Pro­gram Ap­proval

Modality Solutions is an ISO:9001-registered biopharmaceutical cold chain engineering firm with unique transport simulation capabilities that support accelerated regulatory approval for biologics and advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMP). Our expertise combines traditional validation engineering approaches with regulatory knowledge into a methodology tailored for the life sciences industry. We provide insight and execution for the challenges faced in your cold chain logistics network.

Source: Shutterstock

Who are the women blaz­ing trails in bio­phar­ma R&D and lead­ing the fight against Covid-19? Nom­i­nate them for End­points' spe­cial re­port

One of the many inequalities the pandemic has laid bare is the gender imbalance in biomedical research. A paper examining Covid-19 research authorship wondered out loud: Where are the women?

It’s a question that echoes beyond our current times. In the biopharma world, not only are women under-represented in R&D roles (particularly at higher levels), their achievements and talents could also be undermined by stereotypes and norms of leadership styles. The problem is even more dire for women of color.

Tal Zaks, Moderna CMO (Moderna via YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: NI­AID and Mod­er­na spell out a 'ro­bust' im­mune re­sponse in PhI coro­n­avirus vac­cine test — but big ques­tions re­main to be an­swered

The NIAID and Moderna have spelled out positive Phase I safety and efficacy data for their Covid-19 vaccine mRNA-1273 — highlighting the first full, clear sketch of evidence that back-to-back jabs at the dose selected for Phase III routinely produced a swarm of antibodies to the virus that exceeded levels seen in convalescent patients — typically in multiples indicating a protective response.

Moderna execs say plainly that this first stage of research produced exactly the kind of efficacy they hoped to see in humans, with a manageable safety profile.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 85,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mene Pangalos, AstraZeneca R&D chief (AstraZeneca via YouTube)

A day af­ter Mod­er­na vac­cine re­sults, ru­mors swirl of pend­ing As­traZeneca da­ta

A day after Moderna and the NIH published much-anticipated data from their Phase I Covid-19 vaccine trial, attention is turning to AstraZeneca which, according to a UK report, is expected to publish its own early data tomorrow.

ITV’s Robert Peston reported that AstraZeneca will publish the Phase I data in The Lancet. 

AstraZeneca and Moderna represent the two most ambitious Covid-19 vaccine efforts, having set the quickest timelines for approval (though they were recently joined in that regard by the Pfizer-BioNTech partnership) and some of the loftiest goals in total doses. Yet there is even less known about AstraZeneca’s vaccine’s effect on humans than there was about Moderna’s before yesterday. Although, in a controversial move, Moderna released some statistics from its Phase I in May, AstraZeneca has yet to say anything about what it saw in its Phase I trial — a move consistent with the scientific convention to withhold data until it can be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Stéphane Bancel, Moderna CEO (Steven Ferdman/Getty Images)

‘Plan­ning to vac­ci­nate every­one in the US,’ Mod­er­na out­lines ef­forts to sup­ply their Covid-19 vac­cine as man­u­fac­tur­ing ramps up ahead of PhI­II

Twelve days from the planned start of their Phase III pivotal trial, the executive crew at Moderna has set up the manufacturing base needed to begin production of the first 500,000 doses of their Covid-19 vaccine with plans to feed it into a global supply chain. But the initial batches will likely be ready in the US first, where company CEO Stéphane Bancel plans to be able to vaccinate everyone.

“We have started making commercial product at-risk, and will continue to do so every day and every week of the month,” Bancel told analysts during their morning call on the Phase I data just published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 85,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA rais­es ques­tions about Mallinck­rodt's HRS-1 drug be­fore ad­vi­so­ry hear­ing

Last August, UK drugmaker Mallinckrodt presented positive topline findings for its embattled terlipressin, illustrating the candidate met its primary endpoint in treating a life-threatening form of liver disease that causes kidney failure.

But the FDA continues to have questions about terlipressin’s safety and efficacy. After determining from the outset of the trial that the primary endpoint would only classify as a surrogate endpoint, the agency is questioning whether or not patients “trended toward clinical improvements” while on terlipressin. Regulators will convene in a hearing today and have released a document outlining their thinking ahead of the meeting.

FDA Ad­Com rec­om­mends GSK’s an­ti-BC­MA drug for ap­proval 12-0 de­spite sear­ing in-house re­view — does it mat­ter?

The FDA may have ripped GlaxoSmithKline for the safety of its anti-BCMA drug, but that didn’t stop an advisory committee from voting 12-0 to recommend approval for the multiple myeloma treatment.

The decision is in line with the committee’s long-running preference to approve cancer drugs that show enough efficacy and not overwhelming safety concerns, with the goal of giving oncologists as many tools to work with as possible as they treat individual patients. Yet while it signaled a strong likelihood of FDA approval — and boosted GSK’s stock by a nifty 1.6% — the vote still leaves open the question of how useful the drug will ultimately be and, accordingly, how well it will sell for a company trying to claw back into the cancer therapeutics business.

Covid-19 roundup: Vac­cine by end of 2020? Ken Fra­zier warns hype do­ing 'grave dis­ser­vice'

When it comes to setting expectations about a Covid-19 vaccine, Ken Frazier does not mince words.

Over a month after first casting doubts on the aggressive 12- to 18-month timeframe championed by the US government and his biopharma peers, the Merck CEO again cautioned against any hype around a quick vaccine approval.

In a wide-ranging interview with Harvard Business School professor Tsedal Neeley that touched other big topics such as race, Frazier emphasized that vaccines take a long time to develop. He would know: Out of the seven new vaccines introduced around the world in the past 25 years, four came from Merck.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 85,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.