We told you to pay attention to the case of Vanda Pharmaceuticals.
To read our story, click here.
We haven’t changed our minds on the importance of FDA’s decision to reject the company’s atypical antipsychotic iloperidone and some of the regulatory and policy issues it brings to the fore.
We quoted comments from FDA’s Bob Temple at a July 30 Institute of Medicine meeting on evidence-based medicine. Temple heads up the office which regulates psychopharmacologic drugs and also serves as director of FDA’s Office of Medical Policy.
At the meeting, Temple said this:
“We have taken a couple of steps that I think are interesting. We’ve turned down new antipsychotic drugs because they didn’t seem as effective as the available therapy. I can’t remember if that ever happened before or whether we didn’t have the [courage] but we did. We decided that it wasn’t good if you’re an acute schizophrenic in the middle of an episode to be treated poorly.”
Our story has generated a number of comments, but we thought you’d be most interested in this one from Temple himself, who says we didn’t get it exactly right when analyzing his remarks at the meeting.
“Some of what I said is misinterpreted,” Temple said in an email. “At the IOM, I was explaining what I perceive drug companies to be perceiving and doing, not describing an FDA standard. That is what I was referring to when I said that ‘It’s getting harder to develop the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth member of a class of drugs because when there’s a generic available [within a class], people are inclined to use the cheap one.”
Our mistake. We thought we communicated that but after re-reading our story, it was confusing. Here’s the rest of Temple’s comments in their entirety. When Temple speaks, we always pay attention.
Temple: “Your next sentence said that comparative randomized studies ‘are the best, and maybe only, way to get drugs through FDA.’ That interpretation and conclusion are incorrect, and surprising, as your next sentence seems to recognize the commercial aspect of what I was saying: ‘To get anyone interested in the next member, you almost need to have some sort of advantage.’
It seems apparent that in my statement I was referring to my impression of what companies are doing to have a commercially viable product when there is a generic available for the drug class, and was not referring to any FDA requirement. In most settings, especially for symptomatic treatments, we do not get or ask for comparative data and are perfectly willing to approve a drug that is shown effective.
I did then go on to say that for antipsychotics (not naming a particular drug) we have rejected drugs that seemed clearly inferior to standard treatment because leaving someone with schizophrenia inadequately treated (which can take weeks to recognize) represents a risk. This is not so novel a position. We ask that new antibiotics, new anti-cancer drugs, new drugs intended to save lives or prevent bad outcomes (stroke, heart attack) have effects close to standard treatment for the same reason - importantly decreased effectiveness is not safe. We had not seen examples of anti-psychotic drugs that were markedly less effective than standard therapy; so I’m not sure you can really say that there's a new higher threshold.”
When looking at Vanda’s iloperidone, we still think there’s little room for negotiation on whether the company will have to do a head-to-head study against Risperdal. The company will have to decide whether it’s worth the money—and risk.
We haven’t changed our minds on the importance of FDA’s decision to reject the company’s atypical antipsychotic iloperidone and some of the regulatory and policy issues it brings to the fore.
We quoted comments from FDA’s Bob Temple at a July 30 Institute of Medicine meeting on evidence-based medicine. Temple heads up the office which regulates psychopharmacologic drugs and also serves as director of FDA’s Office of Medical Policy.
At the meeting, Temple said this:
“We have taken a couple of steps that I think are interesting. We’ve turned down new antipsychotic drugs because they didn’t seem as effective as the available therapy. I can’t remember if that ever happened before or whether we didn’t have the [courage] but we did. We decided that it wasn’t good if you’re an acute schizophrenic in the middle of an episode to be treated poorly.”
Our story has generated a number of comments, but we thought you’d be most interested in this one from Temple himself, who says we didn’t get it exactly right when analyzing his remarks at the meeting.
“Some of what I said is misinterpreted,” Temple said in an email. “At the IOM, I was explaining what I perceive drug companies to be perceiving and doing, not describing an FDA standard. That is what I was referring to when I said that ‘It’s getting harder to develop the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth member of a class of drugs because when there’s a generic available [within a class], people are inclined to use the cheap one.”
Our mistake. We thought we communicated that but after re-reading our story, it was confusing. Here’s the rest of Temple’s comments in their entirety. When Temple speaks, we always pay attention.
Temple: “Your next sentence said that comparative randomized studies ‘are the best, and maybe only, way to get drugs through FDA.’ That interpretation and conclusion are incorrect, and surprising, as your next sentence seems to recognize the commercial aspect of what I was saying: ‘To get anyone interested in the next member, you almost need to have some sort of advantage.’
It seems apparent that in my statement I was referring to my impression of what companies are doing to have a commercially viable product when there is a generic available for the drug class, and was not referring to any FDA requirement. In most settings, especially for symptomatic treatments, we do not get or ask for comparative data and are perfectly willing to approve a drug that is shown effective.
I did then go on to say that for antipsychotics (not naming a particular drug) we have rejected drugs that seemed clearly inferior to standard treatment because leaving someone with schizophrenia inadequately treated (which can take weeks to recognize) represents a risk. This is not so novel a position. We ask that new antibiotics, new anti-cancer drugs, new drugs intended to save lives or prevent bad outcomes (stroke, heart attack) have effects close to standard treatment for the same reason - importantly decreased effectiveness is not safe. We had not seen examples of anti-psychotic drugs that were markedly less effective than standard therapy; so I’m not sure you can really say that there's a new higher threshold.”
When looking at Vanda’s iloperidone, we still think there’s little room for negotiation on whether the company will have to do a head-to-head study against Risperdal. The company will have to decide whether it’s worth the money—and risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.