1
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION
CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND
RESEARCH
JOINT MEETING OF THE
DERMATOLOGIC AND OPHTHALMIC
DRUGS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
and
DRUG SAFETY AND RISK MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, July 12, 2004
8:00 a.m.
ACS Conference Room
5630 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland
2
P A R T I C I P A N T S
DERMATOLOGIC AND OPHTHALMIC DRUGS
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Robert S. Stern, M.D. - CHAIRMAN
Roselyn E. Epps, M.D.
Robert Katz, M.D.
Paula Knudson [Consumer Representative]
Sharon S. Raimer M.D.
Eileen W. Ringel, M.D.
Jimmy D. Schmidt, M.D.
Kimberly Littleton Topper, M.S.,
Executive
Secretary
DRUG SAFETY AND RISK MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Ruth S. Day, Ph.D.
Curt D. Furberg, M.D., Ph.D.
Jacqueline S. Garner, Ph.D., MPH
Eric S. Holmboe, M.D.
Arthur A. Levin, MPH [Consumer
Representative]
Robyn S. Shapiro, J.D.
CONSULTANTS (VOTING)
Margaret Honein, Ph.D., MPH
Sarah Sellers, Pharm.D.
FDA PARTICIPANTS
Jonica Bull, M.D.
Denise Cook, M.D.
Tapash Ghosh, Ph.D.
Shiowjen Lee, Ph.D.
Jill Lindstrom, M.D.
Marilyn Pitts, Pharm.D.
Anne Trontell, M.D., MPH
Jonathan Wilkin, M.D.
Jiaqin Yao, Ph.D.
3
C O N T E N T S
Call to Order and Introductions
Robert Stern, M.D., Chairman,
DODAC 5
Conflict of Interest Statement
Kimberly Littleton Topper, Executive
Secretary, DODAC 8
Welcome and Introduction
Jonica Bull, M.D. 11
Introduction and Overview of the Topic
Jonathan Wilkin, M.D. 13
Introduction to Psoriasis and the State
of the
Armamentarium
Denise Cook, M.D. 14
Allergan NDA Presentation - Introduction:
Patricia Walker, M.D., Ph.D., Vice
President,
Skin Care Pharmaceuticals,
Allergan 38
Psoriasis: Disease Overview and Treatment
Options
Alan Menter, M.D., Clinical Professor
of
Dermatology, University of Texas,
Southwestern 41
Tazarotene Pharmacology, Overview of
Clinical
Development Program, Overview of
Proposed
Risk-Management Program
Patricia Walker, M.D., Ph.D. 50
Risk Benefit Assessment
Alan Menter, M.D. 94
Discussion of Allergan Presentation 105
FDA Presentation 125
Toxicology Studies of Tazarotene
Jiaqin Yao, Ph.D. 131
Clinical Pharmacology and
Biopharmaceutics 127
Tapash Ghosh, Ph.D. 139
4
C O N T E N T S
(Continued)
Efficacy--Biostatistical Analysis of
Pivotal
Studies
Shiowjen Lee, Ph.D. 156
Clinical Wrap-up
Denise Cook, M.D. 168
Evolution of Risk Management for Systemic
Retinoids
Jill Lindstrom, M.D. 173
Risk Management Tools for Oral
Tazarotene:
Context, Considerations and Experience
Ann Trontell, M.D., MPH 190
Open Public Hearing
Discussion and Questions
5
P R O C E E D I N G S
Call to Order and
Introductions
DR. STERN: Good morning,
everyone. I'm
Robert Stern, the Chairman of the
Dermatologic and
Ophthalmologic Drugs Advisory Committee
meeting.
And
today we're here to consider the application of
oral tazarotene capsules for the
treatment of
moderate to severe psoriasis, including
risk-management options to prevent fetal
exposure.
I'd like to start the meeting
by welcoming
everyone, and then beginning directly
across with
me--if everyone would introduce
themselves in terms
of their role at this meeting.
DR. HONEIN: I'm Peggy
Honein. I'm an
epidemiologist with the CDC's Birth
Defects group.
And I'm here as part of Drug Safety
Committee.
DR. FURBERG: I'm Curt Furberg
at Wake
Forest University. I'm a member of the Drug Safety
and Risk Management Advisory Committee.
DR. KATZ: Robert Katz. I'm a
dermatologist in private practice. Im a member of
the Drug Advisory Committee.
6
DR. KNUDSON: I'm Paul
Knudson. I'm the
Consumer Representative on the
Dermatology Advisory
Committee.
DR. SELLERS: I'm Sarah
Sellers. I'm a
pharmacist and a drug-safety expert.
DR. SCHMIDT: I'm Jimmy Schmidt,
private
practice in Houston, and I'm on the
committee.
DR. RAIMER: Sharon Raimer,
University of
Texas, Galveston. I'm on the Dermatology
Committee.
DR. EPPS: Roselyn Epps, Chief
of
dermatology, Children's National Medical
Center,
and member of the Dermatology Advisory
Committee.
MS. SHAPIRO: Robyn Shapiro,
Director of
the Bioethics Center at the Medical
College of
Wisconsin, and I'm on the Drug Safety
Committee.
DR. RINGEL: Eileen Ringel. I'm on the
Dermatological Advisory Committee. I'm a
dermatologist in private practice in
Waterville,
Maine.
DR. STERN: And, again, I'm Rob
Stern. I'm
a dermatologist from Boston.
7
MS. TOPPER: I'm Kimberly
Topper. I'm the
Executive Secretary for this committee.
DR. GARDNER: Jacqueline
Gardner,
University of Washington School of Pharmacy,
on the
Drug Safety Committee.
DR. WILKERSON: Michael
Wilkerson,
dermatologist and member of the DODAC
committee.
DR. DAY: Ruth Day, Duke
University. I
direct the medical cognition lab there,
and a
member of the Drug Safety Committee.
DR. TRONTELL: Anne Trontell,
Deputy
Director of the Office of Drug Safety in
the Center
of Drugs at FDA.
DR. COOK: Denise Cook, I'm a
Medical
Office in the Division of Dermatologic
and Dental
Drug Products.
DR. WILKIN: Jonathan Wilkin,
Director,
Division of Dermatologic and Dental Drug
Products,
Center for Drugs.
DR. BULL: Good morning--Jonica
Bull, the
Director of the Office of Drug Evaluation
V.
DR. STERN: Thank you very much.
8
We'll now begin with Dr. Bull
giving some
introductory--oh, we'll, now begin with
conflict of
interest, from the person at my right,
Ms. Topper.
Conflict of Interest
Statement
MS. TOPPER: Thank you.
The following announcement
addresses the
issue of conflict of interest with regard
to this
meeting, and is made as part of the
record to
preclude even the appearance of such at
this
meeting.
Based on the submitted agenda
for the
meeting, all financial interests reported
by the
committee participants, it has been
determined that
all interest in firms regulated by the
Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research present no
potential
for an appearance of a conflict of
interest at this
meeting, with the following exceptions.
In accordance with 18 U.S.C.
208(b)(3),
full waivers have bee granted to the
following
participants: Dr. Michael Wilkerson, for
his
speakers bureau activities for a competing
firm,
which he receives less than $5,001 per
year; Dr.
9
Curt Furberg, for his unrelated
consulting for a
competing firm, which he receives less
than $10,001
per year; Dr. Stern, for his unrelated
consulting
for three competing firms, for which he
receives
less than $10,001 per year, and from one
firm, and
between $10,001 and $50,000 per year from
the other
two firms; Dr. Ruth Day, for her
unrelated
consulting for a competing firm, for
which she has
greater than $50,000 pending.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C.
355(n)(4), an
amendment of the section of 505 of the
Food and
Drug Modernization Act, waivers have been
granted
for the following participants: Dr.
Sharon Raimer
owns stock in two competing firms, worth
between
$5,001 and $25,000 each; Dr. Sarah
Sellers owns
stock in a competing firm worth between
$5,001 and
$25,000. Because these stock
interests fall below
the de minimis exemption allowed under 5
C.F.R.
2640.202(a)(2), a waiver under 18 U.S.C.
208 is not
required.
A copy of the waiver statements
may be
obtained by submitting a written request
to the
10
agency's freedom of information office,
Room 12A-30
of the Parklawn Building.
There will be no industry
representative
at today's meeting. As you may be aware, the FDA
has appointed industry representatives
who
currently serve on each of these
committees, but
both appointed industry representatives
work with
the sponsors that are directly affected
by the
matter before the joint committee.
In the event that the
discussions involve
any other products or firms not already
on the
agenda, for which an FDA participant has
financial
interest, the participants are aware of
the need to
exclude themselves from such involvement,
and their
exclusion will be noted for the record.
With respect to all other
participants, we
ask, in the interest of fairness, that
they address
any current or previous financial
involvement with
any firms they may wish to comment upon.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: Thank you very much.
Dr. Bull?
11
Welcome and
Introduction
DR. BULL: Welcome. Our thanks to all of
you present who have taken time to be
with us this
morning.
Our thanks must include an acknowledgment
of the time the Advisory Committee
members have
spent reviewing the background materials
provided.
I would also like to extend my
thanks to
an extraordinary group of scientists in
the Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research, from
the Division
of Dermatologic Drugs, the Office of
Biostatistics,
the Office of Biopharmaceutics, who will
be
presenting to you this morning. As well, I would
also like to acknowledge the work of the
project
manager in the Division of Dermatologic
Drugs,
Khalyani Bhatt, as well as a standing
team from the
Executive Operations Office of Advisors
and
Consultants, Ms. Kimberly Topper and Ms.
Shalini
Jain.
The purpose of an advisory
committee
meeting is to provide expert scientific
advice and
recommendations to the agency regarding
clinical
investigations and proposed marketing
approval for
12
a drug product. Our focus for today's deliberation
is an application for oral tazarotene for
the
treatment of moderate to severe
psoriasis,
including risk management options to
prevent fetal
exposure.
The mission of the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research is to assure that
safe and
effective drugs are available to the
American
people.
This means that we thoroughly assess the
adequacy of the clinical trial design and
endpoints
for a proposed treatment--in this
instance that of
psoriasis, as well as the adequacy of the
trial
outcomes in support of the product's
efficacy,
safety, and its overall risk-to-benefit.
This committee deliberated
earlier this
year on another drug in this class of
products, and
the continuing challenges faced in risk
management
to ensure safe use and the optimal
minimization of
adverse events, especially those related
to fetal
exposure during a course of
treatment. Our hope is
that the background materials and
presentations
provided by the FDA and by Allergan will
assist you
13
in
responding to the agency questions, and provide
for a thorough and independent
deliberation of the
important issues at hand.
We look forward to a productive
and
informative day.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
Now, Dr. Wilkin will speak to
us.
Introduction and Overview of
the Topic
DR. WILKIN: Psoriasis is a very
common
disorder.
It's a chronic disorder, and it's a very
costly disorder, in terms of both
monetary
expenses, and also in terms of the
quality of life
of those patients who have psoriasis.
We'll have two speakers this
morning: one
representing industry--Dr. Menter--and
one from
FDA, Dr. Cook--who will describe the
current
landscape available to
dermatologists--the current
products in the armamentarium for
psoriasis.
I think one of the pieces that
will become
apparent is that there is no perfect
drug. There
are products which have definite side
effects;
14
other products which are very new, and
we're still
going to be learning about their side
effects. No
product has perfect efficacy.
And so this is the background
against
which, I think, the committee needs to
deliberate
in their recommendations for the
particular product
today.
We do have a major focus on the
risk-management program to prevent fetal
exposure,
but we must not lose sight that we're
also thinking
about the overall balance between benefit
and risk
for this product.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: Thank you very much.
And now Dr. Cook will talk to
us a bit
about psoriasis.
Introduction to Psoriasis and
the State
of the Armamentarium
DR. COOK:[Off mike.]
[Inaudible.]
Sorry--can you hear me now?
We thought it appropriate,
since people
were from varying backgrounds, to give a
review on
15
psoriasis. I apologize for those who are
well-versed in the disease process.
[Slide.]
Psoriasis is a polygenic
disease, and
varying triggering factors--for example,
trauma,
infections or medications may elicit a
psoriatic
phenotype in predisposed individuals.
Today, I'm going to speak on
the
prevalence of psoriasis, the genetics and
pathogenesis; the clinical variants of
psoriasis,
and the state of the armamentarium as it
exists
today.
[Slide.]
Psoriasis occurs in
approximately 2
percent of the world's population. The prevalence
in the United States may be as high as
4.6 percent.
Its highest incidence occurs in
Caucasians. In
Africans, African Americans and Asians,
the
incidence of psoriasis is somewhere
between 0.4 and
0.7 percent.
[Slide.]
There is an equal frequency in
males and
16
females.
It occurs in a one-to-one ratio.
It may
occur at any age from infancy to the
10
th decade of
life.
The first signs of psoriasis
occurs in
females at a mean age of about 27 years,
and in
males at 29 years.
[Slide.]
There are two general peaks of
occurrence:
one at age 20 to 30 years, and one
between 50 and
60 years.
Psoriasis in children is very
low. The
incidence is between 0.5 and 1.1 percent
in
children 16 years and younger, and the
man age of
onset--when it does occur in children--is
between 8
and 12.5 years.
[Slide.]
Two-thirds of patients who have
the
disease have mild disease. One-third of patients
have moderate to severe disease.
Early onset--which is usually prior
to age
15--is associated with more severe
disease, and
these patients are more likely to have a
positive
17
family history.
As mentioned earlier, this is a
life-long
disease.
The remitting and relapsing of the
disease entity is unpredictable. There have been
spontaneous remissions of up to five
years reported
in approximately 5 percent of patients
who suffer
from psoriasis.
[Slide.]
The genetics and pathogenesis
of
psoriasis: there's a lot of information
that
psoriasis is linked to the immune system,
and that
the major histocompatibility complex
where
psoriasis has been shown is on the short
arm of
chromosome 6. It's also linked to many
histocompatibility antigens; the most
common, and
the one with the highest risk of family
history, is
HLA-Cw6.
Other HLA antigens associated with
psoriasis include HLA-B13, -B17, -B37 and
B216.
It's also felt that psoriasis
may have a
t-lymphocyte-mediated mechanism
associated with its
pathogenesis.
[Slide.]
18
Psoriasis is not just confined
to the
skin, and there is evidence that this is
a system
disease, and that it's from the Koebner
Phenomenon,
which happens on normal skin, where patients
may
have trauma, and then the lesions of
psoriasis
appear. Patients also have been show to
have an
elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate;
increased
uric acid levels may lead to gout;
patients may
have mild anemia; elevated à
2-macroglobulin;
they
may have elevated IgA levels; and they
may also
have increased quantities of immune
complexes.
[Slide.]
Psoriasis also may be
associated with
arthropathy, and there is also an
aggravation of
psoriasis by systemic facts--as I
mentioned at the
beginning of the talk--and that could
include
medications, focal infections, stress.
Psoriasis also comes in the
form of
life-threatening disease. And there are two
variants of that that I'm going to speak
about
later: erythrodermic psoriasis, and
pustular
psoriasis.
19
Now I'm going to speak about
the clinical
variants of psoriasis.
[Slide.]
The characteristic lesion of
psoriasis is
a sharply demarcated erythematous plaque
with
micaceous silvery white scale. This is supported
histopathologically by a thickening of
the
epidermis; tortuous and dilated blood
vessels; and
an inflammatory infiltrate, primarily of
lymphocytes.
[Slide.]
And here, from Bolognia--where
all the
pictures that you're going to
see--clinical
pictures that you're going to see--is
from this
textbook of dermatology by Bolognia--and
here we
have an erythematous plaque. You can see the
outline of the erythema; the elevation of
the
plaque above the skin surface, and the
thick
micaceous, silvery scale.
[Slide.]
The severity of the disease is
usually
characterized by three cardinal signs of
psoriasis:
20
plaque elevation, erythema and
scale. Body surface
area also plays a part. Patients are very
concerned about how much of their skin
surface is
covered by the disease. But in determining
severity, it could be very complex,
because
different people see body surface area
differently.
[Slide.]
The most common variant of
psoriasis is
the chronic plaque psoriasis. The plaques may be
as large as 20 cm; psoriasis is usually a
symmetrical disease. The sites of predilection can
include the elbows, the knees, the
presacrum,
scalp, the hands and the feet.
[Slide.]
I'm going to show you some
pictures now of
chronic plaque psoriasis. Here you can see that
the disease is very symmetrical, and can
involve a
decent part of the body surface area.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of psoriasis
of the
feet.
[Slide.]
21
Now, chronic plaque psoriasis may be
widespread. It can cover up to 90 percent of the
body surface area. The genitalia can be involved
in up to 30 percent of patients. Most patients
also have nail changes which include nail
pitting
and "oil spots." And sometimes the involvement of
the nail bed is very severe, with
onychodystrophy
and loss of the nail plate.
[Slide.]
Here is a picture of widespread
chronic
psoriasis. And I think all of us would agree that
this is probably a severe case of
psoriasis.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the
genitalia with
psoriasis.
[Slide.]
Here is a picture of psoriasis
of the
nail, with nail pitting and oil spot,
where the
nail is--the nail plate is being
separated from the
nail bed.
[Slide.]
And some more severe form of
nail
22
psoriasis, with, again, oil spots,
onychodystrophy,
and loss of the nail plate.
[Slide.]
Symptoms of psoriasis include
pruritus,
pain.
Patients who have widespread psoriasis
sometimes complain of excessive heat
loss. Also,
patients hate the way the disease looks;
sometimes
have low self-esteem, have feelings of
being
socially outcast and really dislike the
excessive
scaling.
[Slide.]
The next variant of psoriasis
that I'm
going to speak about is guttate
psoriasis. It's
characterized by numerous 0.5 to 1.5 cm
papules and
plaques; usually has an early age of
onset. It's
the
most common form in children, often triggered
by streptococcal throat infection.
In children, the remissions may
be
spontaneous. In adults it's often chronic.
[Slide.]
Here is a clinical presentation
of guttate
psoriasis, with the small papules, and
plaque here.
23
And this is a picture of
someone who had
an eruption of guttate psoriasis after a
sunburn.
[Slide.]
The life-threatening forms of
psoriasis
are generalized pustular psoriasis and
erythrodermic psoriasis.
[Slide.]
Generalized pustular psoriasis
is an
unusual manifestation of the
disease. It can have
a gradual or an acute onset. It is characterized
by waves of pustules on erythematous skin
after
short episodes of fever, from 39 to 40
degrees
centigrade. Patients may have weight loss, muscle
weakness, hypocalcemia, leukocytosis and
an
elevated ESR.
[Slide.]
The cause is obscure, but we do
know that
there are several triggering factors, and
they
include: infection, pregnancy, lithium,
hypocalcemia secondary to
hypoalbuminemia; irritant
contact dermatitis, and withdrawal of
gluccocorticosteroids, primarily
systemic.
24
[Slide.]
And here is a clinical
presentation of
pustular psoriasis. And you can see the erythema,
with the pustules scattered about.
[Slide.]
Erythrodermic psoriasis--in
this disease,
which is also a life-threatening form of
psoriasis,
the classic lesion of psoriasis is
lost. The
entire skin surface becomes markedly
erythematous,
with desquamative scaling. Often the only clues to
the underlying psoriasis are the nail
changes, and
usually there's facial sparing in
erythrodermic
psoriasis.
[Slide.]
Triggering factors may include
systemic
infection, withdrawal of high potency
topical or
oral steroids; withdrawal of methotrexate;
phototoxicity, and irritant contact
dermatitis.
[Slide.]
Here is the clinical
presentation of
erythrodermic psoriasis in a patient
after
withdrawal of methotrexate.
25
[Slide.]
Now, I'm going to speak of the
state of
the armamentarium of psoriasis. We're mainly going
to focus on moderate to severe psoriasis,
since
that's the topic of the drug product
under
consideration for today.
There is a wide range of
therapies for
moderate to severe psoriasis. None induce a
permanent remission, and all have side effect
that
can place limit on their use, and usually
require
that patients are treated in a cyclical
fashion.
[Slide.]
These therapies include topical
corticosteroids, topical vitamin D3
analogues,
topical retinoids, photochemotherapy, and
systemic
therapies which may be oral or
parenteral.
[Slide.]
Topical corticosteroids that
are usually
used in moderate to severe psoriasis are
those of
the high potency and super potent topical
steroids.
These include the fluocinonide family,
betamethasone dipropionate cream, the
clobetasol
26
priopionate family, diflorasone diacetate
ointment,
and betamethasone dipropionate ointment.
[Slide.]
The side effects associated
with use of
these drugs include skin atophy, burning
and
stinging; and, systemically, suppression
of the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. This may
occur after two weeks use with certain
topical
corticosteroids. Usually those are the super
potent type.
[Slide.]
Topical vitamin D
3 analogues--the
prototype
for this group is calcipotriene. There are three
formulations: cream, ointment and scalp
solution.
The former two are approved for plaque
psoriasis,
the latter for moderate to severe
psoriasis of the
scalp.
[Slide.]
Side effects for topical
vitamin D3
analogues are primarily cutaneous, and
include
burning, stinging, pruritus, skin irritation
and
tingling of the skin.
27
[Slide.]
The topical retinoids that are
approved
for the treatment of plaque psoriasis are
tazarotene gel and cream. They are available in
two strengths: 0.05 percent, and 0.1
percent.
The side effects include
pruritus,
burning/stinging, erythema, worsening of
psoriasis,
irritation, skin pain. And there have been cases
of hypertriglyceridemia.
[Slide.]
Additional indicatiosn for
topical
tazarotene in the 0.1 percent gel is
approved for
the treatment of facial acne vulgaris of
mild to
moderate severity. And the 0.1 percent cream is
also approved as an adjunctive agent for
use in the
migitation of facial fine wrinkling,
facial mottled
hyper-and hypopigmentation, and benign
facial
lentigines in patients who use
comprehensive skin
care and sunlight avoidance programs.
[Slide.]
Topical tazarotene--both
products are
pregnancy category X. They are contraindicated in
28
women who are or may become
pregnant. And there
are some requirements before and during
therapy.
These include a negative pregnancy test
two weeks
prior to initiation of therapy. Therapy must be
initiated during a normal menses. And women of
childbearing potential should us adequate
birth
control.
[Slide.]
Now I'm going to speak on
photogemotherapy. There are two types of
phototherapy for the treatment of moderate
to
severe psoriasisThese include ultraviolet
B, or
UVB; and ultraviolet A plus psoralen,
more commonly
known as PUVA.
[Slide.]
There are two types of UVB:
broadband UBV
and narrowband UVB. The treatment is time
consuming. Patients usually must come two to three
visits per week for several months. And the side
effect is possibility of experiencing an
acute
sunburn reaction.
[Slide.]
29
PUVA consists of ingestion of
or topical
treatment with a psoralen followed by
UVA. It is
usually reserved for severe,
recalcitrant,
disabling psoriasis. This form of treatment for
psoriasis is also time-consuming. It usually
requires two to three visits per wekk,
and at least
six weeks of treatment to get clerance.
There are several precautions
that must be
taken for patients who are treated with
PUVA.
Patients must be protected from further
UV light
for 24 hours post treatment. And with oral
psoralen, they must have wrap-around
UV-blocking
glasses for 24 hours post treatment.
[Slide.]
Side effects with oral psoralen
include
nausea, dizziness and headache. Early side effects
with PUVA are pruritus, but late side
effects
include skin damage, and the increased
risk for
skin cancer, particularly squamous cell
skin
cancer; and after maybe 200 to 250
treatments--which is really a long
time--patients
may be at increased risk for melanoma.
30
[Slide.]
Contraindications to PUVA
include patients
less than 12 years of age; patients with
a history
of light sensitive disease states;
patients with,
or with a history of melanoma; patients
with
invasive squamous cell carcinoma; and
patients with
aphakia.
[Slide.]
Now, the system
therapies--these come in
two types: oral and parenteral. The oral therapies
are methotrexate, Neoral--or cyclosporine--and
Soriatane--acetretin. The parenteral therapy
includes, most recently approved
biologics which
are Amevive, Raptiva and Enbrel. And I will
speak--as a prototype--on Amevive, which
was first
approved.
Methotrexate is a folic acid antagonist,
usually reserved for severe,
recalcitrant,
disabling psoriasis. Maximum improvement can be
expected after eight to 12 weeks.
[Slide.]
The contraindications for
methotrexate
31
include nursing mothers, patients with
alcoholism,
alcoholic liver disease, patients with
other
chronic liver disease; patients with
overt or
laboratory evidence of immunodeficiency
syndromes,
and patients who have preexisting blood
dyscrasias.
[Slide.]
This drug product is also a
Category X.
It's contraindicated in pregnant women
with
psoriasis, and pregnancy must be excluded
in women
of childbearing potential, and pregnancy
should be
avoided if either partner is receiving
methotrexate
during and for a minimum of three months
after
therapy for male patients and for at
least one
ovulatory cycle after therapy for female
patients.
[Slide.]
Side effects of methotrexate
are numerous.
They include acute or chronic
hepatotoxicity,
hepatic cirrhosis, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia,
anemia, stomatitis, nausea/volmitting,
alopecia,
photosensitivity, burning of skin lesoins
and,
rarely, interstitial pneumonitis.
[Slide.]
32
Multiple screening tests are
necessary
before using methotrexate. There are also
recommendations for hepatic monitoring,
which
include period liver function tests,
including
serum albumin--although, I must say,
liver function
tests are not a good screen with
methotrexate for
hepatic damage. Therefore, there are
recommendations for liver biopsy which
include
doing it pretherapy or shortly
thereafter, also
after a cumulative dose of 1.5 grams, and
after
each additional 1 to 1.5 grams of use.
[Slide.]
Neoral, or cyclosporine, is a
potent
immunosuppressive. It is approved for adults that
are non-immunocompromised, with severe,
recalcitrant plaque psoriasis. Maximum efficacy is
achieved after about 16 weeks of therapy.
There are contraindications for
use of
this drug, which include concomitant PUVA
or UVB
therapy; using methotrexate or other
immunosuppressive agents; using coal tar
or
radiation therapy. Patients with abnormal renal
33
function; patients with uncontrolled
hypertension;
patients with malignancies and nursing
mothers
cannot use this drug.
[Slide.]
There are many side effects for
Neoral.
The highest ones are the possibility of
irreversible renal and onset of
hypertension; then
headache, hypertriglyceridemia,
hirsutism,
pareshesias, incluenza-like symptoms,
nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, lethary and
arthralgia.
[Slide.]
Multiple screening
tests--prescreening
tests--are needed for use of Neoral. And the tests
must continue throughout treatment, with
dosage
adjustment as necessary to prevent
end-organ
damage.
[Slide.]
Soriatane is the only oral
retinoid that's
approved for psoriasis, and it's approved for the
treatment of severe psoriasis in
adults. One can
see significant improvement with therapy
after
eight weeks.
34
[Slide.]
Contraindications for use of
Soriatane
include patients with severely impaired
liver or
kidney function; patients with chronic
abnormally
elevated blood lipid values; patients who
are
taking methotrexate; and patients who use
ethanol
when on therapy and for two months
following
therapy in female patients.
[Slide.]
Soriatane is also a pregnancy
Category X
drug product as it is a human teratogen. It's
contraindicated in pregnant females or
those who
intend to become pregnant during therapy
or anytime
up to three years post therapy.
[Slide.]
Side effects with Soriatane are
those that
are usually associated with oral retinoid
therapy,
and include chelitis, alopecia, skin
peeling, dry
skin, pruritus, rhinitis, xeropthlamia,
and
arthralgia.
[Slide.]
There are many laboratory abnormalities
35
also, and those include
hypertriglyceridemia,
decreased HDL, hypercholesterolemia,
elevat3d liver
function tests, elevated alkaline
phosphatase,
hyperglycemia and elevated CPK. However hepatitis
and jaundice occurred in less that 1
percent of
patients in the clnical trials on
Soriatane.
[Slide.]
Multiple prescreening tests
also must be
used for Soriatane, and you must have
continued
monitoring throughout therapy, with
possible dosage
adjustment.
[Slide.]
The parenteral therapy, as I
mentioned
before, are lately on the scene. And the one I'm
going to speak on is Amevive. It is an
immunosuppressive dimeric fusion
protein. It's
made up of an extracellular CD2-binding
portion of
the human leukocyte function antigen-3,
which is
linked to the Fc portion of the human
IgG1
molecule.
[Slide.]
Amevive is indicated for the
treatment of
36
adult patients with moderate to severe
chronic
plaque psoriasis. With 12 weeks of therapy, a
disease state of clear or almost clear
was achieved
by 11 percent of patients via the
intravenous
route, and 14 percent of patients via the
intramuscular route.
[Slide.]
The side effects with Amevive include
a
dose-dependent reduction in circulating
CD4 and CD8
T lymphocytes. Therefore this drug should not be
administered to patients with low CD4
counts. CD4
counts must be monitored before and
weekly
throughout therapy.
[Slide.]
Side effects that have been
associated
thus far with Amevive have been
lymphopenia.
There's also been an increased risk of
malignancies, particularly skin
cancer--or basal
cell carcinoma and squamous cell
carcinoma--and an
increased risk for lymphoma.
There have been serious
infections
requiring hospitalization. There is also a risk of
37
reactivation of chronic, latent
infections, and of
hypersensitivity reactions.
[Slide.]
hopefully this has given you a
good
background on the disease of psoriasis,
and also
the state of the armamentarium for
treating this
disease.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: Thank you very much
for a very
nice presentation.
Could I ask two quick
questions?
The first is: topical tazarotene,
the
package labeling says that there should
be a
pre-treatment pregnancy test in women who
might be
or become pregnant. Is that the labeling for
topical tazarotene?
DR. COOK: Yes, what I had up
there, it's
directly out of the label.
DR. STERN: Okay. And the second is: you
had, for acitretin that the indication is
severe
psoriasis, not moderate to severe
psoriasis.
DR. COOK: Yes, severe--
38
DR. STERN: It's severe.
DR. COOK: It's severe
psoriasis.
DR. STERN: Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you for a great presentation. It was very
clear.
And I enjoyed it.
And now we will go on to the
Allergan
presentation, with Dr. Patricia Walker,
Vice
President of the Skin Care
Pharmaceuticals
Division, giving the introduction for the
sponsor's
application.
Allergan NDA
Presentation
Introduction
DR. WALKER: Good morning.
Allergan is here today to seek
approval
for our oral tazarotene gel
formulation--gel
capsule formulation--for the treatment of
moderate
to very severe psoriasis.
What I'd like to show you today
is that
tazarotene is a retinoid, and as a
retinoid, it
does have some unique pharmacology and
receptor
activity.
We've demonstrated efficacy in the
treatment of moderate to very severe
psoriasis. We
39
feel our drug is differentiated from
other
retinoids--and actually has an improved
safety
profile relative to other drugs in this
class.
Tazarotene is a teratogen--or a probable
teratogen--and we've developed a Risk
Minimization
Action Plan around this.
[Slide.]
It is available in a topical
formulation,
as you heard this morning from Dr.
Cook. The gel
formulation was approved in 1997 for the
treatment
of psoriasis, and for acne at that time. A cream
formulation was approved in 2000 for the
treatment
of psoriasis; 2001 for the treatment of
acne; and
then, later for the treatment of
photodamage, or
signs and symptoms of photoaging.
At the time of the psoriasis
cream
approval, we developed and worked with
the
Derma-Dental Division to develop a new
scoring
system, which we refer to as the
"overall lesional
assessment. Later in the morning, in my talk, I'll
go over that assessment.
We started the oral tazarotene
formulation
40
development in 1998, with Phase 2
studies. We
initiated the Phase 3 studies in 2001,
and we filed
the NDA last November, in 2003.
Just to set the stage, we've
studied many
patients with this drug. WE have nearly 1,700
patients studied with oral tazarotene,
901 of which
have been treated with at least 4.5 mg or
higher.
[Slide.]
The introduction is from me,
then you're
going to hear from Dr. Alan Menter, who's
going to
give you a brief overview of the disease,
and what
the unmet need is, and the treatment
options.
I'll come back and share with
you some of
the pharmacology of tazarotene; what the
clinical
development's been; and our proposed risk
minimization action program.
And then Dr. Menter will wrap
up with a
risk benefit assessment.
[Slide.]
Available to answer questions
today are
several of my colleagues from Allergan in
various
disciplines--
41
[Slide.]
--as well as some consultants
who have
worked with us extensively on analyzing
and looking
at our data.
At this time, I'd like to turn
the podium
over to Dr. Menter to give you the
disease overview
and treatment options.
Psoriasis: Disease Overview and
Treatment Options
DR. MENTER: Thank you, Dr.
Walker--Mr.
Chairman, colleagues, patients, ladies
and
gentlemen.
My name is Alan Menter, and I'm
a
clinician, practicing dermatologist in
Dallas,
Texas.
From a conflict of interest conflict of
interest point of view, I have consulted
with
Allergan, and have been involved in
clinical
research with Allergan, with oral
tazarotene, as
well as with multiple other drugs related
to
psoriasis. I do not own any stock in Allergan
corporation.
[Slide.]
As we've so eloquently heard
this morning
42
from Dr. Cook, psoriasis is a common
disease. It
is probably one of what we consider the
autoimmune
diseases in all medical conditions. And I'm not
going to reiterate some of the things
that Dr. Cook
mentioned in her excellent review, but
just merely
highlight a few issues that I believe are
important
when considering systemic therapy for
psoriasis
patients.
[Slide.]
The prevalence, as she has
mentioned, is
equal in male and females. And I think this is an
important issue when we come to talk
about patients
who are candidates for systemic therapy,
because I
believe at this stage, a number of
patients--particularly young females of
child-bearing potential--are currently
excluded
from systemic therapy because of
pregnancy issues.
And, as she mentioned, there
are multiple
genes associated with psoriasis. And I think also
of importance is the fact that psoriasis
is linked,
as a systemic disease, with other
immune-mediated,
or autoimmune disease such as diabetes,
lupus,
43
Crohn's--and there have been many genetic
linkages
found in which psoriasis patients have
other
diseases like diabetes, lupus and Crohn's
disease.
We all recognize that psoriasis
is a
condition that patients struggle
with. And, as Dr.
Wilkins said, quality of life--that I'd
like to
stress--is a major issue. This is not just a
physical problem that patients have to
put up with,
they have to bear the emotional struggle
that comes
with facing themselves on a day-to-day
basis, their
loved ones, their peers, on a day-to-day
basis with
this condition we call psoriasis; and
itching, and
pain, and disfigurement are common. And patients
will tell you about the problems they
have relating
to dealing with the day-to-day
manifestations of
psoriasis.
[Slide.]
From a point of view of
pathogenesis, I
think we don't recognize--as Dr. Wilkin
also said,
and Dr. Cook mentioned--that psoriasis
has to be
considered not a skin disease. This is a systemic
disease.
And I think for too long we, as
44
clinicians, have really overlooked the
systemic
nature of psoriasis. It is certainly a disease
that is driven by the immune system, by T
cell
proliferations, the release of various
cytokines--chemicals that then induced
this
hyperproliferation and the scale that we
see
inherent in patients with psoriasis.
So I do believe that we must no
longer
look at psoriasis as a pure skin disease;
look at
it as a systemic disease like we do other
immune-mediated systemic diseases, like I
mentioned.
[Slide.]
It's a diverse disease. Eery patient with
psoriasis looks different. For those of us in
clinical practice who see psoriasis on a
day-to-day
basis, psoriasis patients may, at first
glance,
look similar. But there are nuances, there are
differences in expression of the
disease. And even
within one individual patient, their
disease may
change from discoid psoriasis, as Dr.
Cook showed,
to pustular psoriasis, to erythrodermic
psoriasis,
45
and back again to ordinary psoriasis.
[Slide.]
She showed pictures of genital
involvement. This leads to massive issues in
interpersonal relationships. And no longer can we
consider genital involvement, scalp
involvement, as
mere nuisance issues. These are issues that really
do involve patients' interpersonal
relationships,
at work and at home, on a day-to-day
basis. And we
have to take cognizance of the fact that
psoriasis
has a major burden on the quality of
life. And for
those patients in the audience today, Im
sure they
could tell you the issues that they deal
with on a
day-to-day basis related to quality of
life. It's
not just physical functioning, but the
mental
functioning as well.
And I think when we consider
retinoids,
it's interesting to note that there are
retinoids
for non-dermatologic conditions, like
leukemia and
cutaneous lymphoma. And psoriasis rarely has been
shown, in all aspects of quality of life,
to impact
negatively, equally, if not worse, the
mental and
46
physical aspects of a patient's life,
with cancer
patients, arthritis patients, and diabetes
patients.
So, again, stressing the quality of life
issues that are inherent in this.
And I've mentioned
interpersonal
relationships, and I've mentioned work
disability
as well.
And, as Dr. Wilkin says, this
is a costly
disease, and it's not getting any cheaper
as new
drugs become available to us. But I do not believe
we need to take a backseat to colleagues
in other
areas of medicine who have expensive
drugs
available to them to treat diseases like
arthritis
and Crohn's disease.
[Slide.]
If one takes patients with
various areas
of psoriasis--palmar/plantar psoriasis--a
patient
who's--which is a fairly common area of
involvement--patients struggle with
locations on
the palms, even though this may only
affect a small
proportion of the body. Patients--who you can see
here--with palms and soles do not get by
with
47
creams and ointments. They frequently need
systemic therapy to control their
disease. So,
body surface area by itself should not be
used as a
pure parameter for indication of systemic
disease.
And the treatment has to be
considered asa
life-long treatment. Psoriasis patients--as has
been mentioned by Dr. Cook and
myself--patients
start early in life with psoriasis. The vast
majority of patients present before the
age of 36.
So, for those of them who life a long
life,
basically, they have to deal with this
for the next
50, 60 years of their life. And treatment has to
be tailored accordingly. You cannot treat
psoriasis for three weeks, for three
months, for
six months or for one year. Treatment is a
life-long treatment. And no cures are currently
present at the current time.
[Slide.]
So where are we with psoriasis
therapies?
It's probably true to say that psoriasis
is a very
under-treated disease, and there are
various
reasons for this.
48
If we look at the figures--that has been
mentioned by Dr. Cook and myself--of
approximately
10 to 25 percent of patients; in the
United States,
that means a minimum of 450,000 patients
have
moderate to severe disease. Currently, only about
125,000 of those patients are being
treated with
systemic therapy. So, hence, there are two-thirds
of the patients with moderate to severe
psoriasis
are not being treated. And the question is: why?
And I think the reasons are shown here.
There are safety concerns with the
drugs. It's
time-consuming to put up with the
day-to-day issues
relating to these drugs. There's monitoring
involved in psoriasis; and, obviously the
cost
issue, as well.
[Slide.]
So, I'm not going to review the
side-effect profile. All these drugs work well.
And I think we have to recognize that
we're not
here to knock any individual product. We have
great drugs. We've had methotrexate available for
30 years.
We've had retinoids available for nearly
49
20 years. The biologic drugs are
new. But all of
these drugs have issues relating to them
that make
for monitoring and make for difficulty in
day-to-day management of these patients.
[Slide.]
So, basically, in summary:
psoriasis is
not a single disease. It is a very diverse
disease.
It is a disease that has major problems
and quality of life issues.
And the other aspect we have to
recognize
is that as patients age, they develop
co-morbid
conditions. They develop liver problems which
precludes them from certain therapies
such as
methotrexate. They may have compromised renal
function which precludes
cyclosporine. And all
day--and my colleagues--my dermatology
colleagues
in the audience--are faced with making
choices of
drug therapies for patients who have
co-morbid
conditions that will preclude certain
drugs. So we
definitely need a full range of
treatment.
And I do believe that it is
important for
our psoriasis population that we have--as
we do
50
have in other systemic diseases--a full
range, and
comprehensive range of medications so that
we can
choose, in conjunction with our patients,
the
correct therapy for our patients.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: Thank you very much.
Oral Tazarotene - Pharmacology,
Clinical
Development, Risk Minimization Plan
DR. WALKER: I'm now going to
share with
you the pharmacology of tazarotene, and
what we
think makes it unique; the clinical
development
program; and the risk minimization plan
that we are
proposing.
[Slide.]
Just to summarize the data that
we have
for tazarotene as a molecule, it is a
prodrug. It
actually has only one active metabolite,
and that's
tazarotenic acid. It's what's known as a
third-generation retinoid, or acetylenic
retinoid.
It's a locked molecule, which prevents
isomerization and non-specific binding,
and it's a
receptor-selective molecule.
51
[Slide.]
As already mentioned, retinoids
have been
on the market for a long time--both
natural and
synthetic forms--for over 20 years. These are very
well known to dermatologists, but they're
also used
outside of dermatology. There's isotretinoin,
altrans retinoic acid, etretinate--which
has now
been replaced by acitretin-- and
bexarotene.
Retinoids are known to be
essential for
normal epithelial proliferation,
differentiation,
and embryo-fetal development.
There are two types of retinoid
receptors
that retinoids act through: the RAR
receptors and
the RXR receptors. These receptors always occur as
a dimer.
They can occur as either a hetero-dimer,
with the RAR binding with an RXR, or as a
homo-dimer, RXR-RXR receptors.
[Slide.]
There are also subtypes of
these
receptors. The receptor combinations and subtypes
are important because there are different
side
effects noted--and different biological
effects
52
noted--with each subtype. And there's also
tissue-specific receptor expression.
[Slide.]
The current retinoid therapies
used in
dermatology--primarily acitretin and
isotretinoin--are what are known as
pan-agonists.
Acitretin is a pan-agonist for all three
subtypes
of the RAR receptor. Isotretinoin and its
metabolites are pan-agonists for the
three subtypes
of the RAR receptor, as well as the RXR
receptor.
This is important because
activation of
these subtypes are related to many of the
side
effects that we heard about this morning
from Dr.
Cook, such as hyperlipidemia,
hepatotoxicity,
epistaxis, eye irritation and
dryness--those side
effects are specifically associated with
the RARà
subtype, as well as the RXR-receptor
subtypes.
[Slide.]
This is a distinction for
tazarotene.
Tazarotene is not a pan-agonist. Tazarotene has
specific receptor activation at á, to a much
higher level than at the RARà. There is no
53
activity at the RXR receptor.
This is important for treating
skin
disease because skin disease specifically
has a
receptor RAR in karotinocytes.
[Slide.]
It's a locked molecule. And the locked
molecule--if I can try to use the pointer
here--the
locked molecule here is due to the triple
bond
there.
That prevents this molecule from flopping
around and giving non-specific binding.
This receptor selectivity that
I've
described here we feel can enhance the
therapeutic
effect--can enhance that effect by really
minimizing side effects that are
unwanted, and thus
improve the safety profile.
[Slide.]
I'm now going to go on and
share with you
the clinical development program.
We've done 12 Phase 1 studies
in normal
healthy volunteers; one Phase 2 study in
patients
with moderate to very severe plaque
psoriasis, and
four Phase 3 studies, patients with
moderate to
54
very severe plaque psoriasis.
[Slide.]
Our clinical Phase 1 studies in
normal
healthy volunteers demonstrated that
tazarotene
could be given as a single daily dose for
all
patients.
The dosing is not affected by the
patient's body weight, and not affected
by whether
it's taken with or without food.
In in vitro studies, and some
clinical
studies, we've demonstrated that there
are no
expected drug-drug interactions. Tazarotene is
metabolized by the P450 enzyme system,
specifically
CYP2C8 and the FMO.
The metabolism is not altered
by alcohol
ingestion. And tazarotene has a very short
half-life of 7 to 12 hours.
[Slide.]
The efficacy data I'm going to
share with
you now is based on the Phase 2
dose-ranging trial,
which is known as an 026P study; two
Phase 3
pivotal trials, the 048P study, and the
049P. I'll
try to remind you whether it's a pivotal
trial, and
55
what the number is; or two Phase 3
open-label
trials, which are the 050P and 052P.
[Slide.]
Tazarotene in the dose-ranging
study--we
determined that tazarotene 4.5 mg per day
as a
single dose would be an appropriate dose
to take
into our Phase 3 trial. These results were based
on two stages of a dose escalation
trial. The
first stage went from zero--or
placebo--up to 1.1
mg per day. Then we did dosing escalation cohorts;
a 2.8 mg cohort together; a 4.2 mg
cohort; and 6.3
mg.
We showed--and saw in the data,
which I'm
going to show you in just a moment--that
there was
really no clear dose response in doses
ranging from
.4 mg up to 2.8 mg. We did see a nice clinical
response in the 4.2 and 6.3 mg dose
groups.
[Slide.]
This is looking at the overal
lesional
assessment; looking at patients who
achieved a
"mild or less." I think you can see, with the kind
of orange colored bar, or peach colored
bar, that
56
mild disease really--there was not a
clear dose
response up to 2.8 mg, but you did see in
the 4.2
and the 6.3 dosing groups that there was
a nice
response, with at least 80 percent of the
patients
achieving that "mild" disease.
Based upon these results, we
chose the 4.5
mg dose to go into our Phase 3 trials.
[Slide.]
The Phase 3 trials looked at
adult
patients, 21 years of age or older, with
stable
plaque psoriasis on at last 10 percent of
the their
body surace area in an overall lesional
assessment
of at least 2, which was graded as a
"moderate."
[Slide.]
So what is an "overall lesional
assessment?" I did mention in our introduction
that this measure was developed by
Allergan, in
collaboration with the FDA, back in 1997,
for a
cream development program. At that timethe
FDA--the Division asked us to work on
developing a
scoring system which was clinically
meaningful; a
scoring system which was static--didn't
require
57
physician memory; and one which didn't
require
physician's memory, was static,
clinically
meaningful, and used all the signs and
symptoms of
psoriasis.
So we worked and developed a
scoring
system that took all the major signs--plaque
elevation, scaling, and erythema--they
were on a
six-point scale, from none to very severe
disease.
We used this in our cream development,
and then
have used this trial subsequently in our
oral
development. Physicians were trained on this
scoring system using a photo-numeric
guideline.
[Slide.]
An example of some of the
photos from that
guideline are shown on this slide. You can see,
it's a "0"--again--to
"5" scoring system, which is
a six-point scale. "None" is no disease;
"minimal"
is disease with a little bit of
erythema. It
allowed a slight bit of scaling. A little more
scaling and erythema with
"mild" disease. You have
a
definite plaque at "moderate" disease, and then
the plaque and scaling really increased
to "very
58
severe disease."
[Slide.]
The primary efficacy variable
in these
trials were: patients had to enter with
at least a
moderate disease; moderate, severe or
very severe
disease.
And to be considered a clinical success,
those patients had to reach a score of
"none" or
"minimal." And that was the primary variable that
we looked at. This is a very stringent criteria.
So patients had to come in with moderate
to very
severe, and they needed to be a
"none" or "minimal"
to be a clinical success.
[Slide.]
We looked at other measures
also. We had
a second co-primary variable, which was
looking at
patients who had at least a two-grade
change in
their overall lesional assessment. We looked at a
physician global response to
treatment. We looked
at body surface area. And then we looked at each
individual sign of psoriasis--erythema,
plaque and
scaling--and those were scored on a
five-point
scale.
59
We looked at target lesions to
see if
there were different lesions that
responded or not
to psoriasis [sic]. We looked at elbows, knees,
scalp and trunk. And,again, we looked at hose in
terms of the specific signs of plaque,
erythema and
scaling.
We looked at overall
pruritus. We looked
specifically at scalp psoriasis; quality
of life
indexes, as well as photographs.
[Slide.]
743 patients were evaluated in
these
efficacy trials. 743 got the drug at least 12
weeks.
We also did longer-term studies; the 52 and
50P trial. There were 261 patients who got oral
tazarotene at least 24 weeks; 153 for 48 weeks; and
101 patients for 52 weeks.
[Slide.]
In the Phase 3 pivotal
trials--this is the
48 and 49P trials--the patients were
randomized to
received 4.5 mg of tazarotene per day,
versus
placebo, for 12 weeks. The visits were at weeks 1,
2, 4, 8 and 12. There was a post-treatment period
60
build into this trial--and, actually, all
the
trials I'm going to talk about--which was
also 12
weeks, and the patients were evaluated at
weeks 16,
20 and 24.
[Slide.]
The demographics of the pivotal
trials--this is the 48, 49P trials--were
that the
average was around 47 years of age; there
were 60
to 80 percent males in the trial. This is
different than what the demographics of
the disease
are, but is actually very consistent with
a
systemic psoriasis trials.
The mean body surface area was
quite high:
approximately 30 percent across all
groups. And
the overall lesional assessment was
3.4--so
somewhere between a moderate and severe
disease.
[Slide.]
Now, this is showing you the
results of
the two pivotal studies, looking at the
primary
efficacy variable of "none" or
"minimal disease."
So this is this is that very stringent
criteria.
The light blue bars on the
bottom are the
61
placebo.
The orange bars are the patients treated
with tazarotene. They're the orange lines.
What I think you can note,
first off, by
just looking at this, the quick look is
that the
two trials--same exact trial, different
sites,
different patients--they very closely
mimicked each
other.
And I think you'll appreciate, as I go
through this data, that all the trials
closely
mimicked each other. It makes my job a lot easier
when you don't have one trial that
doesn't fit with
the others. All the trials mimicked each other.
So now looking at the orange
lines as they
go up, you can see that at week 12, which
is the
primary time point, between 15 to 20
percent of the
patients reached this efficacy level of
"none" or
"minimal disease."
What's also interesting is that
you look
at 16 weeks--which is the post-treatment
period--that's the darker side of the
graph--you
can see that more patients in one
trial--almost 25
percent of the patients--reached that
criteria, and
the other group stayed about the same.
62
If you look through the
post-treatment
period, you can see that the effect was
relatively
sustained throughout the 12-week post-treatment
period.
These results were statistically
significant as early as eight weeks.
As I've mentioned many times,
the criteria
of "none" or "minimal
disease" is a very stringent
criteria for success. Does that mean that only 20
percent of the patients improved with the
disease?
What I want to show you here
is: no,
that's 20 percent of the patients
achieved that
stringent criteria, but more patients
actually did
respond.
If you look at the two sides of
the graph,
there's the tazarotene treated side, and
there's
the placebo side. So it's tazarotene, placebo.
Patients entered the
trial--predominantly
moderate overall lesional
assessment. The yellow
bar are patients with severe
psoriasis. The little
red bar at the top are patients with very
severe
psoriasis. So this is the tazarotene group, at
baseline.
63
After 12 weeks of therapy, you
can see
that the moderates are certainly
decrease. The
"severes" are decreased, and
the "very severe"
patients--although not many patients all
improved--and that this response was maintained in
the post-treatment period.
So where did these moderates
and severes
go?
Well, they go into the mild, none or minimal
caregories. And, again, this graph shows that that
response is somewhat sustained through
the
treatment period.
If you look at placebo--well,
your purple
and yellow bars, at the quick glance,
don't change
much.
And, certainly, your "very severe"--is the
little skinny red bar at the top--don't
change at
all.
Body surface area--we did
measure body
surface area. This is--the overall lesional
assessment is different than the POSI
score. The
POSI score is a derived score, which
includes body
surface area a part of the derivation of
that
score.
With our scoring system, the overall
64
lesional assessment is separate from the
body
surface area.
[Slide.]
So here we show body surface
area, and the
number of patients who actually had at
least a 10
percent decrease. You can see, at week 12, between
30 to 40 percent of the patients had a 10
percent
decrease in their psoriasis. It peaks at weak
16--or four weeks off of treatment--and
that effect
is relatively sustained throughout the
treatment
period.
And, again, is statistically significant
compared to placebo.
[Slide.]
We also looked at the measure
of physician
global--response to global
improvement. So this is
the physician saying, "How much
better did this
patient get?"
What I have here is the dta divided
by how
many patients the physicians felt got at
least 50
percent better, and 75. The hash marks are the
total height of the bar; shows how many
patients
got at least 50 percent better. And you can see at
65
week 12, at leaste 54 percent of the
patients got
at least 50 percent better.
That was relatively sustained
in the
post-treatment period, with 43 percent of
the
patients getting better. I think you can see it is
statistically significant compared to
placebo.
If you use a little more
stringent
criteria of how many patients got at
least 75
percent better--that's the solid bar--you
can see
that at week 12, 30 percent of the
patients got at
least 75 percent better, and that was
sustained in
the post-treatment phase of 30 percent
maintaining
that.
So, again, there's a very stringent
criteria of "none" or
"minimal disease," which is a
very high bar--which we had approximately
20
percent of the patients achieve. But the majority
of patients do achieve some response of
at least 50
percent or more improvement.
[Slide.]
These are just some clinical
photographs
that show how the patients did in this
trial. The
66
patient on the left is at baseline, and
then his
response at week 12.
[Slide.]
These are some target
lesions--the elbow,
on the top, and the knees on the
bottom--at
baseline, and then the response at week
12.
[Slide.]
Another target plaque and elbow
at
baseline, and then a really nice
response, again,
at week 12.
[Slide.]
We had two long-term studies:
the 052P
study and the 050P study. Although these were
primarily safety studies, I think toshow
you just
one efficacy graph I think is helpful.
The 052P study was an extension
study from
the privotal trial. So the 048, 049P
trial--patients who at 12 weeks either
had
worsening disease or stayed the same were
allowed
to enroll in an open-label trial.
Ninety-two patients enrolled
that had
already been treated with 12 weeks of tazarotene,
67
versus 220 that had been treated the
first 12 weeks
with placebo. They went into the six month trial:
12 weeks treatment with tazarotene for
all
patients, and then another 12 week follow
up.
So what we see in this group is
that you
have a subset of patients who got 24
weeks of
therapy with tazarotene.
In contrast, the open-label
study--the 50P
study--was a pure safety study. All patients got
tazarotene, 4.5 mg. They were dose for 52 weeks,
and then had a second 12 weeks
post-treatment
response.
[Slide.]
The demographics of this trial
were very
similar to the demographics I showed you
for the
two pivotal trials. The mean age was, again,
around 47 years of age. The body surface area was
close to 30 percent, and the overall
lesional
assessment score was close to 3.4.
[Slide.]
Now, this is a graph showing
the primary
efficacy variable of "none" or
"minimal" disease.
68
If you look at the yellow line first, the
yellow
line are patients who were treated with
placebo and
then enrolled into this open-label
trial. So they
should respond like what we showed in the
pivotal
trial.
And they do.
At week 12, approximatley 20
percent of
those patients had reached the stringent
criteria
of none or minimal disease, and that was
relatively
maintained across the 12-week
post-treatment
period.
What's interesting here--and
the reason I
like to show this data--is that the
orange line are
patients who didn't respond to the first
12 weeks
of therapy. And they didn't respond, and they had
to enter this trial with moderate or
worse disease.
So they could not have improved. Some of those
patients went on to improve and to meet
the
stringent criteria of an OLA of
"none" or
"minimal;" in fact, apprxoiamtely 15 percent of
those patients did rech that criteria,
and then
those patients had a sustaining of the effect
in
the post-treatment phase.
69
So, it does suggest that 12
weeks may not
reach--all the patients may not have their
maximal
response in 12 weeks.
[Slide.]
This is looking at the
open-lablel study.
And, again, I think these results are
very
consistent with what I've already shown
you. These
are patients who all got 4.5 mg per
day. If you
look at week 24 here, you have really
pretty much
the peak efficacy effect. Approximately 20--a
little over 20 percent of the patients
reach the
stringent criteria of "none" or
"minimal" disease.
And it remains relatively stable
throughout the
next 24 weeks of therapy. And the effect, again,
is somewhat sustained and maintained 12
weeks off
of therapy.
[Slide.]
We looked at many secondary
measures.
Because of time constraints, I can't
share all this
data with you. But we did show at weeks 12 and 24
that the results were statistically
significant in
reducation of scaling, erythema and
plaque. The
70
results were statistically significant
even in
difficult-to-treat lesions, such as
scalp, knees
and elbows. And the results were sustained t
hroughout the post-treatment period in
all trials.
[Slide.]
At week 12, nearly 80 percent
of the
patients were satisfied with their
treatment, and
there wre statistically significant
changes in
their quality of life scores. The improvement in
the quality of life using a specific
psoriasis
index called a PQOL correlated with
improvement of
OLA, and it correlated whether the
improvement was
only one grade in OLA or higher.
[Slide.]
Just to summarize the efficacy:
aprpoxiamtely 20 percent of the patients
achieved
"none" or "minimal"
disease. Approximately 50
percent--or a little over 50 percent--had
at least
moderate--or 50 percent or more clearing
of their
disease.
There was a significant improvement in
plaque elevation, erythema, scaling, and
pruritus,
as well as a reducting in BSA.
71
[Slide.]
There was a maintenance of
effect observed
follwoing discontinuation of drug. There was no
tachyphylaxis, and really, the majority
of patients
did not have rebound.
A large percentage of the patients
were
satisfied with the treatment and had an
improvement
in their quality of life.
[Slide.]
Now, I'm going to spend some
time going
over the safety data.
I'd first like to emphasize
that we have
neaerly 1,700 patients who have been
exposed to
tazarotene What I'm focusing on in the
safety
presentation this morning, however, are
patients
who got at least 4.5 mg, and really
focusing on
patients who got 4.5 mg for at least 12
weeks;
that's 690 patients.
There are also patients who got
the drug
at least 24 weeks--285; 48 weeks--153;
and greater
than 52 weeks--101--greater than or equal
to 52
weeks, 101.
72
[Slide.]
We looked at many measures for
safety. We
looked at adverse efents; physical
examinations,
vital signs, body weight. We di therapeutic drug
monitoring at selected sites. We did x-rays on the
spinal and ankle ligaments, looking
forcalcifciation or osteophyte
formation. That was
done on all patients in all studies.
We did DEXZ scans, looking at
bone
densitometry--again, all patients, all
studies. We
did ophthalmologic evaluations, and
specifically,
we did ERGs, only in the long-term study.
We did audiology evaluations,
but focused
only on the long-term, one-year safety
study. And
we did neuropsychiatric evaluations on
all
patients, all studies.
[Slide.]
Oral tazarotene in the clnical
trials was
very well tolerated. WE had a very low drop-out
rate due to adverse events. Less than 5 percent of
patients dropped out due to
treatment-related
adverse events in the pivotal trials, or
the 048,
73
049P trials.
More dropped out in the
long-term
trials--the six-month trials--6.5
percent. And
almost 15 percent of the patients did
drop out in
the open-label one-year study.
[Slide.]
We had very few serious adverse
events in
the trial. The adverse events--there were only two
which were deemed to be
treatment-related. And I'd
also like to point out that we did have
one death
in this trial. The death was secondary to a
mechanical failure of a small aircraft,
and not
thought to be related to the drug.
The two serious adverse events
thought by
the investigators to be possible due to
drug was,
one, for a patient who was hospitalized
during the
post-treatment period for pain secondary
to severe
ampullary stenosis. The other patient was
hospitalized due to hypertension, and
it's
noteworthy that this patient did have a
history of
hypertension. Both serious adverse events were
resolved.
74
[Slide.]
There were four pregnancies--or
had been
four pregnancies with oral
tazarotene. Only one of
those pregnancies was in the psoriasis
trial--this
is the 050P, that's the one-year
trial. That
pregnancy occurred eight weeks after the
patient
had discontinued drug. And it's notable, because
that pregnancy was a result of
non-consensual sex,
and the patient did choose an elective
termination
following that.
The other three pregnancies
were in the
acne Phase 2 trial, which is the 040P
trial. One
of those resulted in elective termination
by the
patient; one in a spontaneous termination
or
miscarriage; and one was a healthy baby
born. That
baby was exposed in utero to
approximately 15 days
of drug, and was without any
malformations. The
child is now 26 months old.
[Slide.]
Adverse events--we measured
adverse events
in all the trials. I'm going to focus first on the
pivotal trial, because it has the placebo
control
75
group.
There were adverse events. These
were
predominantly mild. The most common was
cheilitis--or chapped lips. It occurred in 65
percent of the patients. The next most common was
headache, and then dry skin; and, less
commonly,
arthralgia, myalgia and back pain.
Note here, 2 percent of the
patients had
hyperglycemia, versus placebo, but here
were no
differences in laboratory values of
hyperglycemia
relative to placebo. So these are ones that
investigators said were adverse events.
[Slide.]
What happens when we
discontinue
treatment? So, here you have the same data from
the previous slide. And what I've shown you here
are only those which were statistically
significant
between placebo and active.
If you see what happens post
treatment,
you see that they actually all go
down. The
cheilitis went from 65 to 48. It should be noted:
these are all adverse events that
occurred at any
time during the post-treatment
period. Headache
76
reduced in the post-treatment period to
4.7; dry
skin reduced' arthralgias,
myalgias--showing that
all of these side effects that occurred
during the
treatment period were reversing with
discontinuation of drug.
[Slide.]
What is important, I think, in this case
to show you what occurred with adverse
events, it's
important with what we know about this
class of
compounds, to say what didn't occur with
our drug;
what didn't we observe.
We did not observe a difference
between
tazarotene and placebo in alopecia. Alopecia is a
very common problem and a common reason
for
discontinuing acitretin therapy. We didn't see any
endocrine abnormalities. Endocrine abnormalities
are common with bexarotene. We didn't see
depression, or differences in depression
or
psychiatric evaluations between the
tazarotene and
placebo groups, in terms of emotional
lability or
depression.
We didn't see a difference in
elevation of
77
liver function tests, and we didn't see
any changes
in visual or auditory.
[Slide.]
So what happened in the long-term
studies.
Here I'm showing you just the open-label
data, so
there's no placebo. But you first have those
patients who were in the 052P extension
study who
got placebo the first 12 weeks. So they should be
essentially--have the same AE profile as
our
pivotal trials. Those who got it at least 24
weeks, and patients who got drug at least
52
weeks--or 52 weeks.
Again, cheilitis--very similar. It's the
most common side effect with this drug,
but it is
notably mild. Dry skin--the second; arthralgia,
myalgia, headache--very similar to what
we showed
in the previous slide. So what we also wanted to
look for is is there anything new that
showed up,
and did they change over time?
I think, if you look here, you
see that
arthralgia does appear to incrase with
longer
duration of treatment, as does myalgia,
and
78
possibly headache.
[Slide.]
Oh, let me go back one.
[Slide.]
Also, notably, we did see some
alopecia
out a year; less than 8 percent--still
significantly less than observed with the
other
retinoids, but higher than what I showed
you in the
placebo trials.
[Slide.]
Liver function tests--this is
an importnt
one to look at, especially considering
this class
of drugs.
I think these results are very
interesting.
First the
ALT--transaminases--they were
higher--now we're looking at 12 weeks, 24
weeks,
and 52 weeks of therapy. They were higher in the
placebo group than any of the treatment
groups.
AST--the other
transaminase--was
relatively stable between the
placebo-control trial
at 12 weeks, but does look possibly like
it goes up
at 52 weeks--excuse me, at 24 weeks or 52
weeks.
79
But I think when you look at that you
have to
remember there's no placebo group, and
over a year,
at any one time, an individual laboratory
value may
spike.
Similar, GGT; LDH we didn't see
much;
bilirubin--direct, indirect, total. The only one
that we do see a really change was
alkaline
phosphatase, which was elevated relative
to the
placebo in the treatment groups at 12
weeks in the
52-week study--up as high as 14 percent.
[Slide.]
We looked at all laboratory
values. I
showed you the ones that were
statistically
significant. Looking now at all laboratory values,
in the tazarotene versus placebo trial,
what else
do we see?
Well, creatinine
phophokinase--higher in
the placebo group relative to the
tazarotene group
This is also unique. I think if you think about
isotretinoin and elevations in creatinine
phosphokinase are a known problem.
Triglycerides--22.8 percent
versus 16
80
percent.
What does that mean? I'm going to
go
into that a little more detailed in the
next slide.
ALT--worse in the placebo versus
tazarotene;
bilirubin worse in the placebo group
versus
tazarotene.
So let's look at that
triglyceride
elevation, which was statistically
significant.
[Slide.]
We looked at the triglycerides
in many
different ways. But I think that looking at it up
here, the way I presented it, is
instructive. We
looked at patients who were elevated
above
250mg/dL, and those who were elevated at
greater
than 500mg/dL, assuming that around 500
would at
least be a definite trigger for a patient
to either
leave the trial or to go on a second
drug.
What you can see is that 30
percent of the
patients in the tazarotene-treated group
were at
least--were above 250, versus 23 in the
placebo
group.
And that was statistically significant.
But if you look at the higher
elevations,
you see that they were actually equal
between the
81
two treatment groups, suggesting that
there is some
elevation of triglycerides, but those
elevations
are modest.
[Slide.]
We looked at the effects on
bone. As I
mentioned earlier, we did DEXA scanning,
to look at
bone mineral density in the lumbar spine,
total
him, and htefemoral neck. And we did x-rays of the
spinal and ankle ligaments for
calcification, and
looked for osteophyte formation.
[Slide.]
Focusing first on bone mineral
density,
the data demonstrated that after 12 weeks
of
treatment there were no differences in
the median
percent change in bone mineral density in
the spine
or the femur. In the hip, there appeared to be in
increase in bone mineral density, but
that increase
was very small, and not--it was
statistically
significant, but very unlikely not
clinically
meaningful.
In longer-term studies, at 24
weeks and 52
weeks of therapy, we did show that there
was a
82
change in the median percent of the bone
mineral
density.
But those changes were very small, and
they occurred only in the femoral neck
and total
hip, and not in the spine.
We did see gains or losses--and
there are
many ways to look at this data, and we
can explore
this later this morning--many ways to
look at the
data.
But if you look at patients who had gains or
losses greater than 5 percent, we saw
that in all
three areas. We did see that there were
more
individual losses rather than gains in
the total
hip and the femoral neck, and that there
were no
differences for the spine. So the hip and the
femoral neck seem to be the key areas
where there
were any changes at all.
[Slide.]
In this slide I'm showing you
the mean
percent change in the bone mineral
density, and
that these mean percent changes were very
small.
The scoring system is a g/cm
2 And you can see
where the baseline screening visits were
on average
there, and then what athey changed.
83
First of all, note the lumbar
spine.
There were no statistically significant
changes,
and they were very small. If you look at the total
hip, there were statistically significant
changes
at week 24 and 52, but they were changes
of .45
percent.
If you look at the femoral
neck, there was
a change at 233k 24 of close to 1
percent--.92--and
at week 64, 1.27. But at week 52, nothing. So
these are decreases--small percentage
decreases in
the bone mineral density.
[Slide.]
So, to summarize those
findings, there
were median percent changse, but they
were very
small.
They occurred only in the femoral neck and
the total hip, but not the lumbar
spine. We think
that these changes really are--could
easily be
explained by differences and variance
that you
would expect in the normal population.
There are individual gains and
losses of
greater than 5 percent, but they are
probably also
within the normal variation.
84
We also have data--our data
demonstrates
that these changes are not associated
with the
incidence of fractures. They're not associated
with the incidence of osteoporosis. They
don't--there doesn't seem to be an age
association,
a gender association, or an association
with
medications such as a history of systemic
corticosteroids.
[Slide.]
Now, let's look at the data for
hyperostosis. These were the x-rays. What we've
shown here--we looked a couple
things. We looked
at what was the existing hyperostosis;
so, really,
the prevalence, and how did that change
through
time, as well as looking for changes in
increases
in
individuals.
Looking here first at the 050P
study--this
is the one-year study--and we show that
at
baseline--you know, between 50 to 58
percent of
there sites looked at--so, the cervical
vertebrae,
the plantar ankle or the dorsal ankle had
pre-existing either ligament
calcification or
85
osteophyte formations. That number seems high,
but it's probaly indicative of both
psoriasis
patients, as well as age. AN dit is within the
reported numbers for that population.
But look at what happens at
weeks 24 and
52, the numbers really don't change. The cervical
vertebrae go up slightly to 63. The plantar ankle
goes up and down at 54. The dorsal ankle stays
relatively the same.
So we didn't show that when you
look
across at what you consider the
prevalence for this
population, over one year they did not
change.
[Slide.]
So did they actually
worson? So they
didn't get more, but did the disease
worsen? Here,
I've made a cut-off to show you the dta
at greater
than a one-grade change, which would be
more
significant than less than or equal to
one.
You can see that at weeks 12
and 24, we
didn't see anything. At week 52, there were some
modest increases: the cervical spine,
there was a
5.2 percent of the patients had an
increase in
86
calcification or osteophyte
formation. In the
plantar ankle there was a 1 percent. So there were
a fwe significant changes---- statistically
significant.
[Slide.]
I'm showing you--reviewed a lot
of the
adverse events here. And I think what we feel that
this shows that there were some adverse
events that
you would expect to see with a retinoid,
but there
were other adverse events that you would
expect to
see that we did not see, which points to,
really,
our specificity ata the RAR á, .
What we dind't see was
hepatotoxicity,
hypercholesterolemia, or changes in
thyroid
function, which are RXR or RARà-mediated
adverse
events.
What we did see are RAR á
and adverse
events.
We saw cheilits. We saw some
arthralia,
some myalgia, some statistically
significant
changes in hyperostosis and bone mineral
density,
which may or may not be just due to
normal
variation in this population.
87
[Slide.]
So what are we recommending for
monitoring, based on what I've shown you
today?
Allergan is recommending that
patients on
oral tazarotene do not need routine
laboratory
evaluations, unless they are an at-risk
population.
If thte patient has a pre-existing
condition which
would result in elevated
hypertriglyceridemia, they
would need to be monitored, such as
patients with
diabetes or they start the drug with
hyperlipidemia.
We don't recommend routine bone
mineral
density or x-rays for our patients. Again, unless
they have a pre-existing condition which
put them
at risk, such as arthritis or
osteoporosis, or a
propensity for osteoporosis.
We do recommend period
monitoring for
patients who have a significant change in
symptoms,
or are on this therapy long-term.
[Slide.]
And now I'd like to just turn
my talk
towards the Risk Minimization Action Plan
for oral
88
tazarotene.
[Slide.]
Oral tazarotene is a probable
human
teratogen, and I'd use that qualifier
because
technically speaking, until you see a
teratogen, or
you see a malformed fetus, it is
"probable." We
feel it's probable due to the class of
drugs and
what we know.
Because we're looking at psoriasis__AND
I
think this is something that was
mentioned in the
introduction--you need to frame this
ddrug and this
risk in the frame of what physicians
already use
for treatment of psoriasis, and we
commonly use two
other drugs which are teratogenic;
specially,
methotrexate and acetretin.
Allergan feels that oral
tazarotene is a
very viable and important treatment
option for
women of childbearing potential. We feel that
because it has a short half life and
would be
washed out of the body quickly, that it
would be a
useful medication for this
population. And because
of that, we are in support of having a
Risk
89
Minimization Action Plan to protect the
vulnerable
patients.
[Slide.]
The goals of our program are
that no woman
who is pregnant shall be prescribed or
dispensed
tazarotene. Women who are taking oral tazarotene
shall not become pregnant.
[Slide.]
Now, there's, I think, a little
bit of
possibly confusion in what I'm going to
show you
now, and what was proposed originally in
our NDA.
And I've got some slight changes to what
was in
your briefing package. I apologize for having
changes, but as many of you know, sitting
around
this table, this has been an evolving
process. And
I think this is a great opportunity for
me to thank
Khalyani Bhatt, because she has arranged
many, many
discussions between the Derm and Dental
division,
the Drug Safety Group and Allergan as
we've evolved
with this process. And she's been really terrific
at doing that.
We based our NDA,
originally--which was
90
filed in November of 2003--we based that
NDA on the
current isotretinoin program at the time,
which was
the SMART program. We updated--and we've been
evolving--since the February 2004
meeting. We
wrote our briefing package with
modifications of
the program that was in our NDA to
account for the
changes in February. Since even submitting the
briefing package, we've had
teleconferences and
actual meetings with the Division, and
we've
actually modified it a little bit
more. They are
slowly getting us to where they want us
to be--is
what I like to say. We've had lots of discussions
with Dr. Wilkin.
So I'm going to highlight where
the
differences are in the program.
[Slide.]
First of all, we're now recommending
a
mandatory registry for all patients. And this is
something that we're interested in
certainly
discussing with the committee. Our original
proposal was just for women of
childbearing
potential; a targeted education program
for all
91
patients; a mandatory registration and
certification for physicians and
pharmacies; a
verification of all patients
qualification at the
pharmacist through an interactive
technology-based
system.
This is the other difference--they're in
italics.
Prior to this, the proposal, I believe,
in your briefing package was only for
women of
childbearing potential. A laboratory-based
pregnancy test, which is hard linked
between the
pregnancy testing and the drug
dispensing.
[Slide.]
Managed access--this is really
our main
difference between the recommendations
that were
presented by the isotretinoin--for
isotretinoin at
the February meeting--and that is a drug
supply.
We're recommending for women of
childbearing
potential that they get a one-month
supply with no
refills.
However, for patients who are males, or
women not of childbearing potential,
we're
recommending that those patients be
allowed up to
two refills. And this really is--the difference
between, say, an acne population and
psoriasis.
92
We're also proposing a
pregnancy exposure
registry, which is designed according to
the FDA
guidance.
It's a proactive study that will follow
up each pregnancy throughout its
duration. We will
also look at program effectiveness
metrics. We'll
look at pregnancy rate; knowledge,
attitude and
behavioral assessments; process
compliance
measures; and we'll do root cause
analysis.
[Slide.]
As I've mentioned, our program
really has
all the essential features of the
isotretinoin
program, based on the recommendations of
the
committee in February of 2004. But there are, I
think, important things that we need to
consider,
and that is that that program is designed
for an
acne population. Isotretinoin is prescribed for 20
weeks--you know, give or take some time,
depending
on a clinician or a particular patient. And
monthly office visits for six months,
while
burdensome, are not overly burdensome.
With psoriasis, which is a
chronic
lifelong disease, requiring a patient to
come in
93
every month is burdensome. It's burdensome to the
patient, to the physician, to the health
care--you
know, health economics.
The majority of our patients
are over 40
years of age--or that's the average age
is above 40
for patients on systemic
medications. So I think
we really need to consider this, because
you could
have the unintended consequence of a
physician not
prescribing tazarotene, or a patient not
willing to
come in once a month for oral tazarotene
and, in
turn, getting a drug which could possibly
be less
safe for them, or not having any systemic
therapy
when they need it.
[Slide.]
So we have a slightly
customized program,
and we'd like to have discussion with
this. And we
want to work with the agency to have a
program that
protects a vulnerable population. We've very
behind that. But we'd also like a program that is
practical; one that could be implemented
by
patients, by health care providers and
pharmacists.
And we'd also like to propose,
and discuss
94
today, whether a program for all oral
systemic
retinoids--or even all teratogens used in
diseases--should have the same program to
avoid
confusion in the marketplace.
Thank you.
I'm now going to turn the
podium over to
Dr. Alan Menter to discuss the
risk-benefit
assessment of oral tazarotene.
Oral Tazarotene Risk Benefit
Assessment
DR. MENTER: Thank you, Dr.
Walker.
[Slide.]
It's obvious, when confronted with
clinical research studies safety data
that we as
clinicians, and you as a panel, have to
make an
assessment as to whether the drug in
question--i.e., oral tazarotene--is
worthy of usage
in
our psoriasis armamentarium for patients with
moderate to severe psoriasis.
What I'd like to now do in the
next six to
seven minutes is review the data and
discuss this
issue relating to risk-benefit assessment. And I
really would like to wear my psoriasis
advocacy
95
hat.
I am--part of the work I do with the National
Psoriasis Foundation, who is represented
here
today, is direct the advocacy group for
the medical
advisory board. And my two colleagues, who are
here as consultants today, Dr. Krueger is
immediate
past president of the medical advisory
board for
the National Psoriasis Foundation, and
Dr. Lebwohl
is currently the medical director. And we are
very, very involved in advocacy issues
relating to
psoriasis patients and safe treatment for
our
psoriasis patients.
So I think we've heard--both
from Dr. Cook
and myself, and from Dr. Walker--that we
are
dealing with a disease that has physical
and
psycho-social implications; that is
lifelong; and
we currently have good therapies for
psoriasis but
we do have some limitations, and we
certainly have
an underserved population of patients who
have
moderate to severe psoriasis, as has been
discussed.
[Slide.]
Dermatologists have used
retinoids for
96
many, many years--for decades. And, as I'll
discuss shortly, we are relatively
comfortable with
the use of systemic retinoids for the
diseases that
they are currently available for. However, I do
believe we now have a unique
retinoid. And as has
been discussed by Dr. Walker, because of
its unique
receptor selectivity, we believe that
some of the
side effect profile that we've come to
expect with
retinoids have been minimized, as has
been
discussed in the clinical data shown by
Dr. Walker.
We know that this drug has
significant
improvement, both short-term and
long-term, on the
clinical signs and symptoms of
psoriasis. And the
vast majority of patients respond. Certainly--as
has been discussed--very few drugs clear
patients,
short-term, long-term, on a long-term
basis. And
we have a drug here that has a
significant in the
vast majority of patients with
psoriasis--dealing
with patients with monotherapy, with
systemic
retinoids.
It is also important that
dealing with a
lifelong disease that we do have a drug
that does
97
not lose efficacy over time. And we now have
one-year data that shows that; that we do
not lose
efficacy.
And also, when the drugs are stopped for
whatever reason, that there's no risk of
the
disease rebounding or producing the
erythrodermic
form of psoriasis that Dr. Cook showed,
which we
sometimes see with some of our other
systemic
medications.
[Slide.]
you've seen multiple clinical
slides of
the clinical effect of psoriasis, both
from a
physical point of view as well as from an
emotional
point of view.
[Slide.]
So, as I've mentioned, we've
had retinoids
available for the past 20 years. And the current
retinoids that are available--etretinate
is no
longer available. It's superseded by
acitretin--altrans retinoic
acid--ARTRA--is a drug
that has recently been made available for
the
treatment of promylocytic leukemia. And, of
interest for us dermatologists, that this
is used
98
in conjunction with an old drug that
dermatologists
have used for a long time--arsenic--to
maintain
patients in control with a rare form of
leukemia.
Bexarotene is available for
cutaneous T
cell lymphoma. And isotretinoin, as we all know,
for acne.
However, the only drug in this
group that
is approved for psoriasis is
acitretin. And
because of the concerns of some of the
safety
issues to retinoids and other drugs, we
do believe
that the improved safety profile of oral
tazarotene
does warrant consideration as a new
systemic form
of therapy for psoriasis.
[Slide.]
So, what I'd like to do now is
just
contrast the oral tazarotene--bring up a
few key
points related to oral tazarotene, and
how it does
compare with some of the other retinoids
that I've
mentioned here now, particularly
acitretin, a drug
that we all enjoy using and have used, as
I said,
for many, many years, and very
comfortable using
acitretin, as we will do in the future,
as well.
99
However, the distinguishing
features
relating to oral tazarotene I think are
shown here
on the table. I think one of the most significant
features which opens up this drug to
females of
childbearing potential is the short
half-life of
the drug.
The drug, as you can see, has a short
life of seven to 12 hours, and the
majority of the
drug is eliminated within five days,
contrasting
with the longer half-life of the other
retinoids,
particularly, as is shown here,
acitretin.
Ethanol--this may not be
considered a big
issue, but when confronting patients in
the clinic
on a day-to-day basis, and making choices
for
therapy with out psoriasis patients, the
question
of "can I drink socially?"
"Can I have a
drink?"--they cannot with
methotrexate. This is
not allowed with methotrexate. The label
specifically precludes social alcohol of
any kind
with methotrexate therapy. And because of the
conversion of acitretin to atrentinate,
and the fat
storage of this drug, alcohol is also precluded
in
females of childbearing potential who
utilize this
100
drug.
And this may take two to three years for
elimination--hence, the three-year
exclusion when
using acitretin, which will not be an issue at
all
with oral tazarotene.
I mentioned earlier that as
patients age
lipids becomce an issue with patients,
and we're
frequently confronted with patients on
lipid-lowering agents as the population
ages. And
I think the fact that we do not have this
concern,
to a major degree, with acitretin [sic],
again, is
I think, a significant improvement over
other
retinoids that we currently have available
to us.
[Slide.]
Liver toxicity--patients
develop hepatitis
C, and we are frequently faced with
issues relating
to patients with abnormal liver function
tests.
Patients certainly have been shown, in
the clinical
studies that Dr. Walker has discussed, to
show
minimal changes--short-term or
long-term--in liver
function tests between placebo and oral
tazarotene--as compared to one-third of
patients
with acitretin.
101
The alopecia issue, I think, is
a big
concern for us. Probably, if one had to ask me,
"What is the single most common
cause for
discontinuing retinoids?"--other
retinoids,
particular acitretin, in psoriasis
patients--it's
alopecia, particular females, who
certainly do not
enjoy losing their hair. And this has become a big
issue, and we have to tailor--drop the
dose of
acitretin to minimize this concern, a
mucocutaneous
side-effect concern. And the very fact that we
have minimal alopecia with oral
tazarotene, I
belive, again, is a significant
distinguishing
feature.
And, finally, the other
mucocutaneous side
effects--outside of the cheilitis, the
dry skin,
the pruritus and--certainly for the
ophthalmologists in the audience--in the
panel--the
dry-eye syndromes and the problems we
have with dry
eyes, in consultation with our colleagues in
ophthalmology, is of some concern with
most of the
retinoids, but does not appear to be a
significant
issue with tazarotene.
102
[Slide.]
And I think the most critical
issue that's
obviously facing the panel today, and
that has been
discussed in the risk minimization and
risk
management plan as outlined by Dr. Walker
and her
colleagues from Allergan, is the
comprehensive
nature of the plan that has to be brought
into
being, in order for us to be able to
utilize
retinoid therapy in the future.
So, basically, females
currently are
excluded from both methotrexate therapy,
and all
females of childbearing potential--and,
as I
mentioned earlier--are also excluded from
acitretin
therapy.
And I do believe this is a significant
proportion of the patient population:
young females
of childbearing potential, who no longer
have to be
excluded from retinoid therapy because of
the
selective nature of this drug.
[Slide.]
In my final few slides, I do
strongly
believe, again, as a patient
advociate--which is
what i believ we all should be thinking
of--is that
103
this drug has shown sustained clinical
benefit of a
course of one year. And it's likely to be
continued, as clinical studies continue;
that
ongoing therapy with this drug does show
further
response.
There has been a very high patient
acceptance for this drug, both because of
its
clinical responsiveness, and because of its lack,
particularly, of mucocutaneous side
effects and
alopecia.
And I think the low ddrop-out rate--less
than 15 percent over a one-year period--I
believe
is a very strong guide to the patient
acceptance of
this drug, and is a very low rate as
compared to
many other systemic agents.
[Slide.]
Discussing, again, the female
issue
relating to it, we do believe--and I do
believe, I
believe Allergan believes, my colleague
believes--that this is a drug that should
be made
available for that population group who
have
hitherto excluded from therapy; i.e.,
females of
childbearing potential. And with the risk
minimization action plan proposed, I do
believe we
104
as clinicians, and the dermatologists in
the
audience, will feel comfortable
prescribing a
retinoid drug, bearing in mind that we
have a great
deal of experience with the use of
retinoids
previously, in psoriasis and other
conditions.
And, finally, the point
relating to
alcohol consumption, I believe I've
touched on
previously.
[Slide.]
So, in summary, oral tazarotene
does have
an improved clinical and adverse event
profile over
other systemic retinoids.
The issues that concern
us--namely, lipid
metabolism, hepatotoxicity, mucocutaneous toxicity,
alopecia--appear to be extremely low, and
a
significant improvement over what we
currently
have.
And some of the other issues
that we need
to consider, obviously, are the bone
mineral
density.
And I think Dr. Walker has outlined these
issues to us.
[Slide.]
105
So, my final concluding slide,
is that
based on what we've heard today, based on
the
efficacy data and the safety data, and
the risk
minimization action plan that has been
proposed,
tazarotene capsules, I do believe--and I
believe my
colleagues who are with me today
believe--should be
made available, not just to a small
select group of
patients, but to all patients who have
moderate to
severe psoriasis; that a group of
patients who I
believe currently is vastly underserved.
Thank you for your attention.
Discussion of Allergan
Presentation
DR. STERN: I'd like to thank
the sponsor,
and open to the panel for questions that
are
directly relating to information presented
by the
sponsor.
We'll have lots of time in the afternoon
to discuss the global issues. But points of
clarification, additional data that might
be
helpful.
So--Dr. Honein?
DR. HONEIN: Yes, I'd like to
know the
denominator for the three pregnancies
that occurred
106
in the Phase 2 acne trials, and the one
pregnancy
that occurred in the psoriasis trials;
and,
specifically, the denominator of
reproductive-age
women.
DR. WALKER: Well, I'll be
answering
questions from back here, if you'll give
me one
minute.
The psoriasis trial, there were
263
patients who were enrolled in that trial,
but how
many of those were women--80 percent of
them were
males.
So, roughly 20 percent. And I can
get you
that exact number in a moment.
In the acne trial--that doesn't
break down
the gender. We need the gender.
In the acne trial, that was the
049P, that
was a dose-ranging Phase 3 trial, and
that was also
fewer women than men. Yes--I'm sorry--I don't have
the exact numbers for that trial, but
there were, I
think, 183 subjects in the trial total,
and fewer
than half were females, roughly 40
percent. But I
don't have that exact number.
I will point out that there was
a
107
risk-management program piloted in the
psoriasis
trials, but not in the acne trial.
DR. STERN: Dr. Ringel?
DR. RINGEL: I actually have
three
questions.
The first has to do with the makeup
of the
target groups for P 048 and 049. On page 31 of
the Allergan handout, we are told that
certain--that patients were on certain
concomitant
medications, and certain concomitant
medications
were excluded. Likewise, certain conditions were
excluded.
The first question is: I'd like
to know
what were those conditions? What medications were
excluded?
And what medications were specifically
allowed?
DR. WALKER: Patients could not
be on
systemic medications which would affect
their
psoriasis. And there were--could you bring up what
the--the full list of exclusion criteria
in a
moment--but patients couldn't be on
systemic
medications which would affect their
psoriasis, and
108
they could not be--which would be,
really,
primarily, corticosteroids or methotrexate,
acitretin. So any drug that would affect their
psoriasis, there was a washout period for
systemic
retinoids which was longer--there was a
washout
period for cyclosporine and for
methotrexate in the
trials.
And you asked me another question?
DR. RINGEL: Umm--
DR. WALKER: Oh, and conditions.
DR. RINGEL: Conditions.
DR. WALKER: Their psoriasis
could not be
rapidly increasing or decreasing--which
does
somewhat eliminate, say, a guttate
psoriasis,
because that often is rapidly
changing. They
couldn't have a condition which would
interfere
with their ability to do x-rays. So if they had,
say, a plate in their hip or their ankle
which
would inhibit the ability to read the
x-rays for
calcification, they were excluded.
If they had unstable
psychiatric disease,
they would be excluded--or any condition
that the
109
physician felt would make them unreliable
or unable
to participate in the trial, they were
excluded.
But that's it.
It was somewhat open-ended that
the
physician could exclude people.
DR. RINGEL: How about
alcohol-increased
liver function tests at baseline, or
triglycerides
at baseline--alcohol abuse?
DR. WALKER: They could use
alcohol in the
trial.
That wasn't exclusion--
DR. RINGEL: How about if they
overused
alcohol?
DR. WALKER: We didn't ask, one
way or
another, about overuse. That--you know, what is
"overuse" can also be a little
bit of a nebulous
thing.
But, no, they were not excluded for alcohol
use, and we didn't take a definite
history of
alcohol use.
Slide up, please.
The exclusions will be on the
screen
there.
I went over most of them.
Umm--I'm sorry, I'm going to
have you--I
110
got off track on the alcohol use. You asked me
another question. Specifically, alcohol use
and--oh, triglycerides.
There was an exclusion for
triglycerides
greater than 500 mg at baseline. They could have
elevated liver function tests or
triglycerides if
the physician felt that they were
stable. So, they
were either within normal limits, or the
physician
felt that patient was stable to go on
drug.
Patients were allowed to have
hepatitis C
in the trial. They were allowed to have elevated
triglycerides below 500 and other labs.
For anyone here who's done
extensive
psoriasis trials, if you don't allow some
wiggle
room around labs, you'll never be able to
recruit
patients, because they do have many
co-morbid
conditions. They have, often, diabetes and other
things.
So, yes, we did allow that if
they were
stable.
DR. RINGEL: And how about
topicals? Were
all topicals allowed?
111
DR. WALKER: No. No topicals were allowed
except emollients. So there was no topical
tazarotene, dovinex or corticosteroids
allowed.
On an occasional basis--and we
do have
that data--some patients used emergency
topical
steroids for, say, poison ivy or
something like
that, for very short periods of
time. And those
protocol deviations were all noted.
DR. RINGEL: The other major
question I had
was that I don't understand how you
applied OLA to
systemic medication. It makes a lot of sense to me
for a topical medication, because you can
take a
target lesion and follow that
lesion. But, as any
dermatologist on the panel will confirm,
psoriasis
in the different body parts doesn't
necessarily
resolve at the same rate. So you could
have
wonderful clearing on the body, whereas
no clearing
at all on the sacral area.
So I was wondering how--in other words,
when you described how the OLA was
applied, which
only takes into account an individual
plaque, it
seems to me, did you follow the worst
plaque? Did
112
you take an average? Did you--how did you do it?
DR. WALKER: It's a clinical
assessment,
and it's a clinical integration. And so,
essentially, the physician looks at the
patient and
does--you know, not a numeric average,
but an
average--you know, overall average based
upon,
really, the worst lesion.
That can work, of course, for
and against
you.
If you take the worst lesion, it's certainly
harder to have a clinical success. But it is
driven by plaque, and it is an
integration of the
entire body.
We did learn in the topicals
that actually
there were patients in the topical trials
who had
80 percent body surface area, where they
applied
their tazarotene. Those were the higher patients.
But the scoring system worked there. We piloted it
in the Phase 2 trial and showed that it
did work.
When we separated out plaque,
erythema,
scaling, we separated out the target
plaques, the
results were essentially the same for all
groups,
which demonstrated to us that it did work
that way.
113
It is a new measure, but it
does have some
clinical relevance, and it did work in
the trials.
DR. RINGEL: So if there's
someone who had
complete clearing on the trunk, and no
clearing at
all on the knees--which isn't
unreasonable--someone
would kind of just have a gestalt of what
it was
and--
DR. WALKER: No, they would not
have
achieved clinical success as we set of
"none" or
"minimal" disease. If they had complete clearing
everywhere, but then had severe plaque on
the
elbows, they still would have an OLA of
"severe."
They had to bring all of the plaques
down.
DR. STERN: Could you just tell
us what the
"intra" and "inter"
rate of reliability was of the
score so we can get some idea, you know,
really
what you mean by "gestalt," and
how well tested
this is as a metric.
DR. WALKER: We did not do a
specific test
to validate the scoring system
separately, where we
looked specifically at inter-intra
related
reliability. We do divide the scoring system out
114
in the trials by investigative site, and
saw no
difference from site to site. But we formally did
not do that.
DR. STERN: And the rationale
for not
looking at the test characteristics of
this, in
terms of reliability, both inter and
intra rate of
reliability for a non-conventional
measure, where--
DR. WALKER: When we adopted
that measure
for the oral systemic development of
tazarotene,
the measure was no longer
non-conventional to us,
because we had used it in the topical.
The scoring system has been
used for other
systemic drugs. It was used in the Raptiva Phase 3
pivotal trials. It wasn't called an "overall
lesional assessment," but--yes.
VOICE: What did they call it?
DR. WALKER: An OLS--an
"overall
lesional--"--I don't remember what
the
"s"--"severity"
score. So it was used--and
actually the results were very similar in
their
trial to using the PASI score, in the
sense that it
was effective for their drug also. And I think,
115
Dr. Lebwohl--do you have another
question--
DR. LEBWOHL: To address Dr.
Ringel's
comment: when we have looked, in previous
studies,
at elbows and knees, which you'd expect
to respond
more slowly compared to trunk, we didn't
find a a
big difference. However, there are certainly areas
that clear more quickly, such as the face
or
intratrcianous areas, that routinely
clear more
quickly than other body sites. And I think the
word "integrated" was key here.
The assessment tool that was
used here was
in response to, basically,
dissatisfaction that was
expressed even at the FDA. In fact, I think, Dr.
Stern, the quote from you is: "PASI
is passe," was
a quote I believe you said.
A difficulty with assessment
tools--and
this one did seem to work. And I have seen a slide
of inter-investigator variation, or
within one
investigator, variation. But to address directly
your comment, I can't recall a single
patient who
had severe knees and mild trunk after
treatment,
unless they started out that way.
116
DR. STERN: Dr. Wilkerson is
next.
DR. WALKER: I'm sorry--can I
answer Dr.
Honien--I hope I said your name
right--her
question.
I have the numbers. I'm sorry to
interrupt you.
In the 050P study, there were
83 females
out of 263 total patients. And in the 040P acne
trial, there were 81 femals out of 181
total
patients.
I'm ssorry for interrupting
you.
DR. HONEIN: Those were
reproductive age,
or all women?
DR. WALKER: All women. In the acne trial,
they were prdominantly of reproductive
age. The
breakdown for reproductive age in 050P
will be a
smaller subset.
DR. STERN: I'm sorry--Dr.
Wilkerson,
please?
DR. WILKERSON: In regards to
the alkaline
phosphatase, what was the fractionation
of the
abnormal values?
DR. WALKER: We did not
fractionate the
117
alkaline phosphatase for patients in this
trial.
We did do fractionation in our 040P--our
acne
trial--for bone and liver, and saw no
differences.
But we did not specifically fractionate
the
alkaline phosphatase in the 050P
open-label trial.
DR. WILKERSON: So we're making
an
assumtion that since liver function tests
were not
abnormal, that the abnormal alkaline
phosphatase
fraction is bounded?
DR. WALKER: That is the
conservative
assumption that we have made.
DR. WILKERSON: I mean, I'm
assuming that
you have serum placed aside that's been
frozen,
or--
DR. WALKER: We have serum not
sepcifically
saved aside for these patients. And I don't know
right now whether we could go back and
sub-fractionate those alkaline
phosphatases for all
patients.
DR. WILKERSON: I mean, this is
obviously--
outside of the pregnancy--you know, one
of the big
concerns about this drug long-term. I mean, you
118
know, you're talking about a fairly
inexpensive
laboratory test. I mean, the fact that your GDTs
also rose is sort of suggestive of a
hepatic--I saw
those GDTs were up at one point also,
which is
somewhat of a crossover.
So I think you have an
ambiguous
laboratory situation that needs to be
clarififed
for the long term.
DR. WALKER: Slide up, please?
DR. STERN: Dr. Levin?
DR. LEVIN: My questions relate
to the
RiskMAP proposal, and I might--if you'd
rather
follow this line and I'll come back later
on.
DR. STERN: I think in the
afternoon we'll
probably be spending a fair amount of
time on that,
and we'd like to talk more about data
presented in
the presentation.
Dr. Furberg?
DR. FURBERG: I had a similar
question. I
was interested in the experience of
the--you
piloted the risk management program, and
would be
interested in knowing the experience; how
was the
119
adherence with mandatory registration of
patients,
registration of physicians, pregnancy
testing and
so on.
But--if you want to answer now,
later--
DR. STERN: I think probably
more in the
afternoon for that.
Dr. Katz?
DR. KATZ: I have two questions: one, in
the mechanics of evaluating patients, did
the same
investigator evaluate the improvement as
evaluated
the side effects? Or was there--
DR. WALKER: It was the same
investigator
who did that. They were not required to be
separate.
DR. KATZ: So this would not be put out as
a double-blind evaluation. It was--
DR. WALKER: Well, it was
double--
DR. KATZ: --placebo controlled.
DR. WALKER: --yues, placebo controlled,
blinded in the sense that the
investigator didn't
know what the patient was on--tazarotene
or
placebo.
120
What your saying is would they
know
because a patient had chapped lips, say,
that they
were on active. And I don't know if you'd want
that now or in the afternoon, but we--
DR. KATZ: No, I just wanted to
make sure
that that was made clear, that the
investigator
evaluating the side effects also was
evaluating the
improvement, negating any double-blind
assertion.
DR. WALKER: The same
investigator--
DR. KATZ: The other question is:
did the
company have any expert in bone
metabolism consult
regarding the concern that will come out
in the
further discussion.
DR. WALKER: We've had several
experts look
at the bone data with us, from
statisticians who've
looked at the data normalized across
populations.
We've got some experts with us here--
DR. KATZ: So will we be
informed of their
considerations? At this meeting today?
DR. WALKER: Umm--well, we have
a lot of
the data--I'm not exactly sure--do you
mean, will
you be hearing--
121
DR. KATZ: My question is--
DR. WALKER: --from an expert that will--
DR. KATZ: Yes, will we be
informed of what
their evaluation of--
DR. WALKER: Yes.
DR. KATZ: Thank you.
DR. STERN: I'd like to close
this section
with a few questions of my own, in spite
of Ms.
Topper says to me.
[Laughter.]
The first is: you talked about
79 percent
or 80 percent of people
indicating--patients
indicating satisfaction. I don't think you
presented the--as I recall from the
briefing
document--in fact 53 percent of the
placebo people
had similar ones. So it was a 27 percent
difference, not some larger difference.
The second is: you talked about a
correlation between quality of life and
the OLA
score, but I didn't hear how much the
quality of
life instrument shifts were, and what, in
fact,
that correlation was; whether it's an
r-square, or
122
whatever measure you used. So I'd be very
intrersted in that.
And I guess the third is one
that has to
do--aside from half-life comparisons
between
tazarotene and acitretin which were
featured in the
final presenter is--we have to remember
that,
except for the half-life considerations,
that
retinoid side effects are very much
dose-related.
And we've only heard about one dose of
tazarotene,
tazarotene in terms of efficacy and
safety. And
the information on acitretin, I believe,
comes from
the literature that deals with doses that
are
literally more than an order of magnitude
different--some doses being as low as 10
mg in use,
and other doses being well in excess--up
to 150 mg
in use.
So I think making comparisons
other than
things related to half-life and the
accumulation of
drug in pregnancy for all the other
endpoints, it's
very hazardous to do without head-to-head
comparisons--and particularly, in the
absence of
knowledge of where is this dose in
efficacy or in
123
any other way relative to the safety data
from the
competitive drugs.
So if you could--that's a
comment, but if
you could answer my other questions.
DR. WALKER: I certainly--slide
please--satisfaction rates--you're
correct, there
was a high placebo satisfaction
rate. If we look
at patients who were extremely satisfied,
very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied, the
placebo is the
light blue bar, and the
tazarotene-treated group is
the dark blue bar. And the difference
is--although, you know, and you clearly
described
what the data was if you take all
patients who were
satisfied. This is actually just breaking us down.
You can see they are
statistically
significantly different from placebo for
"very
satisfied," "somewhat
satisfied," and "extremely
satisfied." However the differences aren't 80 or
90 percent--as you mentioned.
If you would put up the
PQOl--put that
slide up, please?
[Slide.]
124
This is looking at the PQOL,
and
correlating it to improvement--which I
did mention,
as you rightly mentioned. If you look at the
placebo--this is looking at the
score--and the
placebo group compared to patients whose
PQOLs--this is looking at change--all
right?--or
reduction in PQOL score which is an
improvement in
the quality of life--placebo had less
than a
minus-1 improvement--.84. Patients who had a
one-grade improvement were 1.87; a
two-grade
improvement, 2.43; a grade of
"none" or "minimal,"
2.96.
So you can see that the
patients had an
improvement of their PQOL score with any
improvement, and it was certainly greater
as they
went to "none" or
"minimal" disease.
DR. STERN: That wasn't quite my
question.
My question is: what's the correlation
between a
PQOL and an OLA score, rather than does
PQOL go in
the same direction. And I think those are--you
know, essentially, a patient who gets an
improvement in their OLA score, are they
going to
125
also say life is better in terms of
impact of
psoriasis at an inter-individual.
So I'm really looking for some
non-parametric equivalent of an r-square.
DR. WALKER: We did not do that.
DR. STERN: I'd like to
then--we're only
five minutes behind--[laughs]--which is
pretty
good-
[Laughter.]
--and have us have a 15-minute break,
and
we'll start very promptly at 10:20.
[Off the
record.]
DR. STERN: We'll now be hearing
from the
FDA, with Dr. Yao presenting the FDA's
presentation
concerning toxicology studies of
tazarotene.
FDA Presentation
Toxicology Studies of
Tazarotene
DR. YAO: Good morning. I'm Jiaqin Yao
from FDA.
Today, I would like to talk
about
toxicology study of tazarotene.
Tazarotene was previously
developed for
126
topical use. This NDA submission is for oral
administration. So the sponsor has tested the
tazarotene by oral administration in
rats, dogs and
monkeys for up to one year.
[Slide.]
The study showed that oral
tazarotene has
a typical toxicity of other retinoids. The maximum
system exposure (AUC) to tazarotenic
acid, which is
the major metabolite of tazarotene is
almost as
similar of weight of small or the human
systemic
exposure, which is in single dose 4.5 mg.
The primary target organ or system
included bone, liver, kidney, heart,
thymus and
skin.
Tazarotene was tested to show
that no
genotoxic effect, and in carcinogenic
studies in
rates and mice showed that there's no
significant
increase in tumor frequencies.
In the next couple slides I
will focus on
the reproductive toxicity induced by
tazarotene.
[Slide.]
Study has been done in male and
female
127
rates at the dose 1mg/kg by oral. So AUC--that
means system exposure is three times over
human
exposure AUC which is 4.5 mg/day. So that means
the step exposure is only about 30
percent of
human.
They show that the mating
performance and
fertility is no change at this dose.
[Slide.]
As the dose incrases to 3 mg/kg
per day,
the AUC is 0.7 times our human AUC by
oral
tazarotene at 4.5 mg, it shows that there
is a
sperm count and density decrease.
Studying the female rates at a
dose of
2mg/kg per day by oral, AUC is 0.6 times
human AUC,
the mating performance and fertility does
not
change.
But we see some development toxicity.
[Slide.]
Studiies have also been done in
toxicity
in embryonic development--developmental
toxicity.
The study has been show in female rats at
0.25mg/kg
by oral.
The AUC is 0.2 times human AUC.
We saw
some development delays, teratogenic
effects, and
128
post-implantation loss.
[Slide.]
Another study in female rabbit,
at 0.2
mg/kg per day by oral, the AUC is 4.7
times human
AUC, we see similar factor in those
studies, just
using female rabbits.
Since this drug has been developed
for
topoical studies, the sponsor has also
done some
topical studies in the femal rats and
female
rabbits, at a dose 0.25 mg/kg, theAUC is
0.2. We
saw that some fetal body weight decrease
and
skeletal ossification decreased.
In the studies by topical, in
female
rabbines, the dose is 0.25 mg/kg, AUC is
2.3 times
human, malformations are found in those
studies.
[Slide.]
Another study is on the
toxicology studies
in prenatal and postnatal development. In
female
rabbis, they have done two studies. The first
study is 1mg/kg by oral, but the AUC is
1.1 human
AUC.
We saw developmental bahavior delays.
Another sutdy used the same
dose--1 mg/kg
129
by oral, the AUC is 0.4 times human AUC,
we see
developmental delays.
[Slide.]
Another thing I would emphasize
a little
bit about is this drug on the male
reperoductive
system.
As I mentioned before, at the dose of 1
mg/kg per day in male rats, AUC is 0.3,
the mating
performance and the fertility does not
change.
However, at a dose of 3mg/kg per day, the
AUC is
0.7, we see some sperm count and density
decrease
in male rates.
In general toxicology studies,
the sponsor
has done one study on male dog, which is
for nine
months.
At 1mg/kg per day, by oral, the AUC is 1.9
times human AUC, we see testicular
changes. As the
dose increases to 3 mg/kg per day by
oral, AUC is
4.1 times human, the change is more than
1 mg/kg
dose.
[Slide.]
Based on the sponsosr proposal, the
maximum recommended human dose for
tazarotene by
oral is 0.075/kg/day. For other drugs, such as
130
acitretin, it's 0.83mg/kg, and
isotretinoin is
2.0mg/kg.
So the daily dose is less than other
drugs.
However, when I checked the
literature, we
find that compared with animal studies in
rabbits
and rats, the lowest teratogenic dose
unit is
mg/kg/day, is 0.2mg/kg/day in the
rabbits. In
rats, it's 0.25 or 1, because the sponsor
did two
studies.
One is 0.25, one is 1.
Compared with acitretin, the
lowest
teratogenic dose in rabbits is 10mg/kg, and
for
rats is 150mg/kg. And I also compare with other
retinoids, we find that this drug product
is--seems
is more important as teratogenic in
rabbits, and
the rats.
Another thing we see those
data, we can
see
that the human is like most sensitive species
in teratogenic effect induced by those
retinoids.
[Slide.]
So the conclusions from those
data, we can
see hman may be the most sensitive
species for
teratogenicity of the retinoids. So when we
131
consider about the drug dose, tazarotene
is more
potent teratogen than other retinoids in
rats and
rabbits, based on the mg/kg/day
basis. And
tazarotene is a probably human
tazarotene.
The next speaker will be
clinical
pharmacology review by Dr. Ghosh.
Thank you.
Clinical Pharmacology and
Biopharmaceutics
DR. GHOSH: Good morning. This is Tapash
Ghosh, from the Office of Clinical
Pharmacology and
Biopharmaceutics, FDA.
My presentation will be to
describe the
clinical pharmacology and
biopharmaceutics aspects
of oral tazarotene.
[Slide.]
The focus of my presentation
will be
pharmacokinetics of tazarotene and
tazarotenic acid
in plasm; potential for drug-drug
interaction; and
tazarotenic acid in semen.
[Slide.]
Tazarotene or tazarotenic acid
have
multiple effects on keratinocyte
differentiation
132
and proliferation, as well as on inflammatory
processes, which may conttribute to the
pathogenesis of psoriasis. Some of them include:
blocking of induction of epidermal
ornithine
decarboxylase activity; suppression of
expression
of MRP8, which is a marker of inflammation
present
in the epidermis of subjects with
psoriasis; and
inhibition of cornified envelope
formation, whose
build-up is an element of the psoriatic
scale
expression.
[Slide.]
This is a schematic of how
tazarotene
works in our body. Once tazarotene is in
the
systemic circulation, it undergoes fairly
rapid
conversion to its active metabolite,
which is the
tazarotenic acid, with the help of
abundance of
acerisus enzyme present in our biological
system.
Then the tazarotenic acid undergoes
further
oxidation to tazarotenic acid sulfoxide,
which,
maybe with the presence of the CYPS and
FMO enzymes
present in the system. And then tazarotenic acid
sulfoxide may undergo further oxidation
to
133
tazarotenic acid sulfonates.
Some portion of the tazarotene
also
undergoes oxidation to tazarotene
sulfoxide.
[Slide.]
Tazarotene is orally absorbed,
as
approximately 90 percent of the oral
level
tazarotene was recovered in pheresis and
in urine
as primarily tazarotenic acid and its
metabolites.
Tazarotene exposure increases
fairly in a
dose-proportional manner, following oral
tazarotene
from 3 mg to 6.3 mg.
[Slide.]
Tazarotenic acid is highly
bound to plasma
proteins, with an unbound fraction of
less than 1
percent.
Following intravenous dose, the
apparent
volume of distribution of tazarotene and
tazarotenic acid was 3.55L/kg, and
0.75L/kg,
respectively.
[Slide.]
As I already described, in
humans,
tazarotene is hydrolyzed quickly and
extensively to
134
tazarotenic acid, which the primary
active moiety
in the systemic circulation.
In vitro human metabolism
studies
demonstrated that tazarotenic acid is
metabloized
to inactive sulfoxide metabolite via CYP
and/or FMO
enzymes in the liver.
[Slide.]
Fecal elimination is the predominant
elimination pathway, with 46.9 percent of
the
administered oral dose eliminated in the
feces as
tazarotenic acid. Approximately 19.2 percent of
the dose was excreted in the urine as
inactive
sulfoxide metabolites of tazarotenic
acid.
[Slide.]
Following IV administration,
tazarotene
was measurable in plasma, and was
eliminated from
the body with a mean terminal half-life
of 6.2
hours.
Following IV administration,
plalsma
tazarotenic acid concentration declined
bi-exponentially, with a mean terminal
half-life of
13.8 hours.
135
[Slide.]
Following IV administration,
the systemic
clearance of tazarotene was
2.23L/hour/kg.
Systemic exposure of the active
metabolite, tazarotenic acid, was 21.4
times that
of the parent compound.
[Slide.]
This is a profile of how
tazarotenic acid
gets excreted from the system. An as I have
mentioned, this is a normal plot and this
is the
semi-log plot, just to show the bi-exponential
decline of the tazarotenic acid.
The profiles are from day seven
and day
13, which shows the profiles on those two
days are
superimposable.
[Slide.]
As the previous speakers have
already
mentioned, that tazarotene right now is
already
approved in topical dosage forms. This table shows
the comparison of systemic exposure of
tazarotenic
acid from different topical formulations.
Without going through each and
every
136
formulation, I want you to concentrate on
the last
two rows, where .1 percent gel was
compared with
the 4.5 mg proposed capsule formulation. Here, if
we compare the systemic exposure in terms
of AUC,
it is about one-fourth, and in terms of
exposure of
Cmax, the topical exposure is about
one-eighth,
compared to the oral exposure.
[Slide.]
However, the data obtained from
topiocal
gel was during maximal usage condition,
which may
not reflect the usual usage condition.
[Slide.]
In terms of drug-drug
interaction, there
was no interaction found between
tazarotenic acid
and Ortho-Novum 1/35, and between
tazarotenic acid
and Ortho-Tri-Cyclen when given as oral
tazarotene
dose of 6 mg.
However, based on the data, the
potential
of drug-drug interactions involving
CYP450s,
especially 2C8 and 2B6, may need to be
further
explored.
[Slide.]
137
Now I'll be discussing the
tazarotenic
acid in semen. Following once-dailing dosing of
tazarotene 4.5 capsules for two weeks in
healthy
male subjects, more than 79 percent of
semen
samples had tazarotenic acid
concentration above
lower limit of quantitation, which is .1
ng/ml.
Median semen to plasma
tazarotenic acid
concentration ratio at each predefined
time point
from semen samples over the 72-hour
period was
approximately 1 or less, except at six
and nine
hours, where the ratio was greater than
1, as
dscribed in this following figure--
[Slide.]
--where the ratio, semen to
plasma
tazarotenic acid concentration was
profiled--again,
these are the sampling points. And, as we see, for
most of the time points, this is the body
presence--1--ratio 1. Most of the time points had
either 1 or less than 1, but at six and
nine hours,
the ratio semen to plasma was greater
than 1.
[Slide.]
The highest individual semen to
plasma
138
tazarotenic acid concentration ratio 2as
2.8, and
occurred between 9 and 12 hours post
dose.
The highest plus-or-minus
standard
deviation, tazarotenic acid concentration
observed
in semen was 44.4, + 22.2, observed in 16
subjects,
occurred at three hours post dose.
The highest individual
tazarotenic acid
concentration observed in semen was
83.1ng/ml,
occured at three hours post dose, in
comparison to
1.61ng/ml pleak plasma level from the
same study.
[Slide.]
So, therefore, under worst case
scenario,
assuming an ejaculate volume of 10 ml,
the amoung
of drug transferred in semen would be 831
ng, which
is about 1/5,000th of a single 4.5 mg
capsule dose.
The no-effect limit for
teratogenicity of
tazarotene or tazarotenic acid is unknown
in
humans.
[Slide.]
Fertilized egg may remain
exposed to
tazarotenic acid in the semen following
repeated
sexual encounters.
139
Finally, the risk to a fetus,
if any,
while a male patient is taking the drug,
or after
it is discontinued, cannot be ruled out.
This is the end of my
presentation.
Thank you.
So now Dr. Cook is coming for the next
presentation
Clinical Safety
DR. COOK: Good morning again.
I've come to you this time to
speak on the
clinical safety, from the FDA
perspective, of oral
tazarotene as presented in NDA
21701. Some of the
presentation will be a repeat of Dr.
Walker's
presentation earlier this monrning, but
some of it
might be a little bit different.
[Slide.]
The safety data base, as you
know, is
derived from the following four trials:
two Phase 3
double-blind placebo controlled trials;
and two
open-label Phase 3 trials.
[Slide.]
The duration of the trials were
12 weeks
140
of treatment in the double-blind placebo
controlled
trial, with a 12-week follow-up; and
there were two
open-label trials--as described
earlier--one 12
weeks treatment with 12-week follow-up,
and a
52-week trial with a 12-week follow-up.
[Slide.]
There wre 987 patients treated
with
tazarotene, and 383 treated with placebo.
Tazarotene patients were treated with 4.5 mg
once
daily numbered 831. There wre 640 patients, or 77
percent, treated for greater than or
equal to 12
weeks; 31.4 percent wree treated for
greater than
or equal to 24 weeks; 18.4 percent for
grater than
or equal to 48 weeks; and 12.2 percent
were treated
for 52 weeks.
[Slide.]
Discontinuations accounted for
about 54
percent of the patients who discontinued
from the
trials, either because of lack of
efficacy or
adverse events. This is in the placebo-controlled
trials.
And the discontinuations secondary to
adverse events in the placebo-controlled
trials, it
141
was 3.4 percent.
In the short-term open-label
trial, where
patients were taking a second course,
versus those
patients who were only taking their first
course of
tazarotene, discontinuations were 6.5
percent for
the second-course patients, and 3.2
percent for the
first-course patients. So there was a slightly
discontinuation rate for those patients
who were
taking their second course of
tazarotene. And, as
Dr. Walker mentioned earlier, there was a
higher
incidence of discontinuation in the
long-term,
open-label trial.
[Slide.]
Adverse events that led to
discontinuations in the long-term trial
that
occurred for more than one patient
included
arthralgia, myalgia, arthritis, back
pain,
alopecia, dermatitis, joint
disorder. There were
three patients who discontinued for
abnormal liver
function tests; two for cheilitis,
asthenia; two
for depression; and two for emotional
lability.
[Slide.]
142
In the pivotal trials, overall,
tazarotene
group had more adverse events than in the
placebo
group: 90.2 percent versus 74.6 percent,
and this
was statistically significant--although I
must
mention that the trials were not actually
powered
for safety.
And the significant adverse
events that
are common to oral retinoids--mentioned
earlier--included cheilitis, dry skin,
headache,
arthralgia. And this shows you the percentage of
patients who are on
tazarotene--first--experienced
the event, versus those on placebo.
[Slide.]
Other significant adverse
events in the
pivotal trial were myalgia, joint
disorder, back
pain, nasal dryness, foot pain, rash and
dermatitis.
[Slide.]
Metabolic and Endocrine adverse
events
that occurred in the trials:
hypertriglyceridemia
did occur, and there was a significant
difference
between tazarotene and placebo. And I will show
143
you a slide concerning that.
There was also one incident of
hypertriglyceridemia leading to
pancreatitis, and
this occurred in one patient in the
placebo-controlled trials. The patient did come
into the trial with severe
hypertriglyceridemia,
having a baseline value of about 6
mmol/L. The
data was presented in millimoles per
liter. And
I'll talk about the conversion later--and
then his
triglycerides continued to rise to about
13 mmol/L,
and then the patient was taken off the
drug. And
about a week later, his triglycerides
about 33
mmol/L and 62 mmol/L, and he was worked
up--had
ERCP, and was found to have pancreatitis,
probably
due to drug product.
The applicant found
hyperglycemia, a
statistical difference.
There were also four cases of
hypothyroidism diagnosed; three in the
placebo-controlled trials, one in the
long-term
trial, and all the patients were on
tazarotene.
And I must say that even though when you
looked at
144
TSH values in the placebo-controlled
trials, you
really didn't see a difference between
tazarotene
and placebo, as there were 2.9 percent of
patients
who had elevated TSH on tazarotene, and
there were
2.5 percent of patients who had elevated
TSH on
placebo, yet the investigators did
diagnose three
patients with hypothyroidism.
When I went back and looked at
the case
report forms to see was there some other
criterion
that had been used to diagnose these
patients
outside of an elevated TSH, there had not
been.
Elevated LFTs leading to
discontinuation--there was one patient in
the
placebo-controlled trials, and this was a
patient
who also had an elevated TSH and had been
diagnosed
with hypothyroidism.
[Slide.]
Now, here is a table on
elevated serum
triglycerides, and these are all patients
in the
placebo-controlled trials--all
comers. And what I
did was look through the line listings,
and took
any patient who had a serum triglyceride
that was
145
2.3mmol/L or greater, and 2.3 millimoles
is about
200 mg/dL. And I base that on the fact that most
physicians would have some type of
therapeutic
intervention once your triglycerides
start to rise
about 200--even though we all know that
even as
high as 130 would be considered mildly
elevated,
but not necessitate treatment. And moderate--2.8
to 5.6 millimoles which--it's about 250
to 500
mg/dL, and greater than 5.61 is anything
higher
than that.
And just for your information,
if you're
greater than 11 mmol/L, then that's about
greater
than 1,000 mg/dL. And there were maybe a couple of
patients who got up as high as 750 mg/dL.
And, at any rate, there are
about 45.2
percent of patients in the 048 trial, and
42.3
percent in the 050--049--trial, that had
elevated
serum triglycerides on at least two
occasions
during treatment. And compared to placebo, this
was found to be statistically
significant.
[Slide.]
In the post-treatment period
for the
146
placebo-controlled trials, only cheilitis
remained
a statistically significant event. Skin
and
appendages as a whole was also considered
statistically significant, but that was
driven
primarily by dry skin, which is not
something
unexpected from an oral retinoid. And I will say
that the serum triglycerides returned to
acceptable
range in about 55 percent of patients
followed in
the post-treatment period; that is, those
patients
who I just previously talked about who
had elevated
triglycerides, if they were followed in
the
post-treatment period, 55 percent of them
did
return to an acceptable range.
[Slide.]
In the short-term open-label
trial, there
were a few significant adverse events in
patients
who were taking their second course of
oral
tazarotene, compared to those taking
their first
course; and that included arthralgias,
back pain
and alopecia. And, again, the first
percentage--like 33.7 percent--is for the
patients
taking their second course of tazarotene,
147
versus--for example, in the
arthralgias--the 14.1
percent of patients who had arthralgia
taking their
first course of tazarotene. And alopecia again
emerged as a new adverse event.
And significant laboratory
abnormalities
in the short-term trial for patients who
were
taking the second course of tazarotene
included
elevated serum triglycerides, as in the
placebo-controlled trial, and also now
elevated
alkaline phosphatase levels.
[Slide.]
In the long-term open safety
trial, one or
more adverse events were reported for
98.9 percent
of the patients. And adverse events that occurred
for greater than 5 percent of the
patients, again,
are cheilitis, arthralgia, myalgia,
infection dry
skin--
[Slide.]
--back pain, headache,
asthenia, pruritus,
foot pain, alopecia, leg pain and
arthritis--
[Slide.]
along with paresthesia, flu
syndrome,
148
nausea, joint disorder, insomnia,
rhinitis and
bronchitis. And most of these events were reported
as mild in severity.
[Slide.]
Laboratory adverse events that
occurred in
the long-term safety trial--which, again,
is the
52-week trial--included
hypertriglyceridemia,
again, at 41.1 percent, which sort of
paralleled
the placebo-controlled trial. And, again, these
are patients who had elevation at least
on two time
points during treatment, and their
elevations were
greater than 200mg/dL; abnormal liver
function
tests in 22.9 percent; elevated CPK in
16.3
percent; elevated alk-phos, 13.7 percent;
and
isolated elevated SGPT and SGOT--because
some
patients just had one or the other;
abnormalities
in white blood cell counts, 5.7; and
elevated GSH,
5.3 percent.
[Slide.]
And out of all of that, the
higher
elevation--the alkaline phosphatase is
something to
focus on a little bit. There was a higher
elevation
149
compared to placebo-controlled trials in
the
long-term study: 13.7 percent of patients
versus
3.4 percent of patients in the
placebo-controlled
trials, suggesting that the longer you're
on the
drug, that there's some effect there to
alkaline
phosphatase.
And, again, it remained
elevated at the
end of the post-treatment period, which
was a
12-week post treatment period, in 69.4
percent of
those patients who were abnormal.
Only 3.7 percent--or 2 out of
54 patients
who had elevated LFTs had abnormalities
in their
liver function tests at the end of the
post-treatment period, suggesting that
there may be
a bone origin for the elevation of the
alkaline
phosphatase values.
[Slide.]
And this kind of takes us to
the effects
that were found on bone metabolism in the
clinical
trials.
And I should preface this by saying we had
a consultant at the agency look at the
data. And
there is a high drop-out rate, and
missing data, in
150
the long-term trials. And so it's hard to make a
definitive conclusion. And more
studies and a more
long-term look at its effect--at
tazarotene's
effect over long term might really be
necessary.
But what was found was that
there was a
mean bone mineral density decrease over
time for
the entire set of patients, with some
having
decreases close to 30 percent. And over 10 percent
had significant decreases of greater than
5
percent.
And four patients on tazarotene, and one
on placebo, had bone marrow density
decreases
greater than 5 percent in the
placebo-controlled
trials.
And this occurred in men--all of them were
men, in the range of 40 years old to 69
years of
age.
And one patient also had a decrease of 50
percent in bone marrow density, and
that's still
being investigated.
But we feel that this might be
significant because
men, who composed the bulk of the
study--and there
were 68 percent of men in the long-term trial,
and
over two-thirds of men in the
placebo-controlled
trials--those patients usually lose bone
mineral
151
density at about 0.5 to 0.75 percent per
year, and
women usually lose about 1.5 to 2 percent per
year.
That's a lose of either 1 to 3 percent
over a 36
weeks supplies a greater than normal bone
loss over
a year.
And so, over a period of five to 10 years
of treatment, this really could be
significant.
[Slide.]
In the long-term study, 5.3
percent of
patients had significant changes in
calcification
and/or osteophyte scores of the cervical
spine; 26
percent had worsening changes in
hyperostosis and
ligament calcification with each
vertebrae of the
cervical spine; and there was a
significant
increase in ankle ligament osteophyte
formation at
weeks 52 and 64.
[Slide.]
And this correlates to the
musculoskeletal
adverse events that also increased in the
long term
trial.
And in the post-treatment period these
adverse events remained significant;
arthralgia, at
19.7 percent; back pain, 17.8 percent;
myalgia,
15.8 percent; and arthritis at 6.6
percent.
152
There were also six moderate
fractures
occurring during the trials in patients
on
tazarotene that were reported as
"without known
cause," and we're still having that
investigated.
[Slide.]
And other adverse events that
occurred in
the post-treatment period of the oral
tazarotene
trial are as expected with oral
retinoids:
cheilitis, dry skin, asthenia and
pruritus.
[Slide.]
Discontinuations due to
neuropsychiatric
events--in the placebo-controlled trials,
due to
emotional lability, there were three
patients on
tazarotene and three patients on placebo
who
discontinued. For depression, there was one
patient on tazarotene and none on
placebo.
And in the open-label trials,
two patients
discontinued for depression, five
patients for
emotional lability, and one patient
discontinued
secondary to a paranoid reaction.
[Slide.]
The conclusions that we can
make from this
153
for neuropsychiatric events is that there
is no
difference between tazarotene and placebo
in the
controlled trials, for neuropsychiatric
events.
However, due to the limitations of the
metrics
employed and the statistical power, an
association
cannot be ruled out, given the existing
concerns
about such effects from other retinoids.
[Slide.]
And ophthalmology--we looked
at--used
several metrics to looked for
ophthalmologic
effects secondary to tazarotene. And those
employed were visual acuity,
biomicroscopy and
opthalmoscopy, and no signal was
detected.
[Slide.]
As stated earlier by Dr. Walker,
there
were four pregnancies in the trials for
oral
tazarotene; one in the psoriasis trial,
and three
in the acne trials. There were two elective
abortions, one spontaneous abortion, and
one term
delivery at 38 weeks. And, as she said, they have
later follow-up that, so far, this child
appears
normal.
154
[Slide.]
Now I'm just going to switch
over to the
efficacy portion, and just give you a
brief
description of the trials--you've already
heard
about this earlier today.
There were two Phase 3 efficacy
trials,
which were identical in design. They were
multicentered, randomized, evidence-based
and
placebo-controlled. The patients took either
tazarotene as a 4.5 capsule or its
placebo once a
day for 12 weeks. And there was a 12-week
post-treatment follow-up.
[Slide.]
The key inclusion criteria
included that
the patients had to be age 21 years or
older. They
had to have a severity score of greater
than or
equal to 3, which was
"moderate" on the Overall
Lesional Scale.
They also had to a minimum
surface area
involvement of 10 percent.
[Slide.]
Key exclusion criteria
included:
155
spontaneously improving or rapidly
deteriorating
plaque psoriasis; any patient with a
previous
fracture, anomaly, or artifact of the
ankles or
cervical spine; use of systemic retinoids
within
eight weeks prior to study entry; use of
systemic
medications known to affect bone within
12 months
prior to study entry.
[Slide.]
Also, patients with suicidal
ideation were
excluded; females of childbearing
potential who
were unable or unwilling to use two birth
control
methods at the same time during the 28
days prior
to the week-zero visit and during the
treatment and
post-treatment periods of the study; and
also any
male who was unwilling to wear a condom
when having
sexual intercourse with a female of
childbearing
potential during the study was also
excluded.
[Slide.]
The efficacy variables, as
determined by
the FDA--and what we based our efficacy
assessment
on--included: one primary efficacy
variable, and
that was the Overall Lesional Assessment
Score, and
156
this varied from "0" with no
disease, to "5" with
very severe disease.
The secondary efficacy
variables, which
were supportive of the primary, included
the
clinical signs of psoriatic lesions, the
erythema,
scale and plaque elevation, and overall
global
response.
[Slide.]
Treatment success for the
efficacy in
pivotal trials was defined as success
being a score
of 0 or 1--meaning "none" or
"minimal disease" on
the OLA scale at week 12--at end of
treatment.
And now Dr. Shiowjen Lee is going to
speak
to you about the efficacy results.
Efficacy-Biostatistical Analysis of
Pivotal Studies
DR. LEE: Good morning. In the next 30
minutes I will be presenting you the
biostatistical
analysis of pivotal studies.
[Slide.]
The efficacy evaluation of the
two pivotal
studies included the following efficacy
endpoints:
primary efficacy endpoint--treatment
success--which
157
is defined as percentage of patients with
Overall
Lesional Assessment--abbreviated as
OLA--score of 0
or 1 at week 12, which has the disease of
"none" or
"minimal."
The secondary efficacy endpoint
included
clinical signs and symptoms, and overall
global
response.
The overall global response measures the
overall improvement from baseline about
the disease
status.
And Dr. Denise Cook will have comments
about this efficacy endpoint later.
And other efficacy end point,
we are
particularly interested in the scalp and
nail
psoriasis.
In this presentation, I will
focus on the
primary efficacy endpoint and the scalp
and nail
psoriasis end point.
[Slide.]
Presentation of the efficacy
findings in
two pivotal studies are organized by the
following.
First, I will present you the overall
efficacy
findings of oral tazarotene versus
placebo, and
next I will present to you the subgroup
efficacy
158
results, in particular, by gender and by
baseline
OLA severity score. Next, I will show you the
short-term efficacy of oral tazarotene in
treating
the scalp and the nail psoriasis. And, next, I
will give you the relapse rate--it's
referred to
the short-term relapse rate for the two
pivotal
studies.
[Slide.]
This table gives you the
baseline
demographics for the two studies; in
particular, I
listed gender and OLA score.
For patients treated with
tazarotene in
the first study, we enrolled 166
patents. And
among those 166 patients, 80 percent of
them male,
and 20 percent female.
In the first study, enrolled
171 patients
in placebo group. And in the placebo group the
patients were 72 percent male and 28
percent
female.
For the second studies, the
study
enrollment enrolled 182 patients in
tazarotene, and
187 patients in placebo. For patients assigned
159
with tazarotene treatment, 65 percent
male, and 35
percent female; and for placebo groups,
74 percent
male, and 26 percent female.
And I want to point out here,
in the two
pivotal studies, the male patients
accounted for
over two-thirds of study enrollment.
With respect to the baseline
OLA score,
most patients had a moderate disease
severity,
where they can enter the study. For example, in
the first study, patients with tazarotene
group, we
have 60 percent patients had a moderate
disease
severity.
And for the second studies, there was 66
percent patients had a moderate disease
severity.
And I want to point out here,
in the first
study there were total of five patients
in the very
sever OLA score at baseline. And two of them
treated with tazarotene. And in the second study
we have total 10 patients in the second
study, and
four of them treated with
tazarotene. And the
total patients with very severe disease
severity at
baseline was 15 patients, and accounted
for about
only 2 percent of patient enrollment.
160
[Slide.]
This table gives you the
efficacy results
about the OLA score and the treatment
success at
week 12.
For the first study, the
treatment success
rate were 15.7 percent for tazarotene
group, and
3.5 percent for placebo group. And for the second
study, the success rates were 18.7
percent for
tazarotene group, and 4.8 percent for
placebo
group.
There are two--I would like to
make a
point here. The first point is the treatment
success for both studies, they are under
20
percent.
And, also, the most patients with
treatment success, they had a score,
primary would
be 1.
For example, in the first study, patients
treated with tazarotene, we have 22 out
of 26
patients had a score of 1. For the second study,
we have 27 out of 34 patients had a score
of 1.
[Slide.]
This slide gives you the
subgroup results
of treatment success for the first study,
primarily
161
by gender and by baseline OLA score. Recall, the
overall success rates were 15.7 percent for
tazarotene, and 3.5 percent for placebo.
For gender, female patients
generally had
higher success rate than males. And here we have,
in tazarotene group, female success rate
was 26
percent, and the male success rate was 13
percent.
With respect to the baseline
OLA score,
generally the success rate decreases as
the
baseline disease severity increases. For example
in tazarotene group we have 19 percent
success rate
for patients with moderate disease
severity, to 11
percent with severe disease severity at
baseline,
and to 0 percent for patients with very
severe
disease status at baseline.
[Slide.]
And this slide gives you the
subgroup
results of treatment study. The overall success
rate for the second studies were 18.7
percent for
tazarotene, and 4.8 percent for
placebo. And here,
again, are listed by gender and by
baseline OLA
score.
For female subjects, again, higher success
162
rate than male subjects. And here, I want to point
out, the treatment difference for female
patients
in this study is about 9 percent. This is 24
percent minus 15 percent in 9
percent. And for
male subjects we had 16 percent in
tazarotene
group--success rate--and the placebo
group 1
percent.
The treatment difference here was 15
percent.
And one might question about
the efficacy
results driven by male subjects, because
it has
larger size of treatment difference. Because,
again, over two-thirds of patient
enrollment will
be males.
We've done some sensitivity analysis for
this, and it's shown the tazarotene group
still
superior to placebo, however, the bigger
size
difference does have an impact of the
significance
level of superiority.
With respect to the baseline
OLA score,
disease severity increases then the
success rate
decreases; from 20 percent for patients
with
moderate disease, to the last
category--very severe
disease--and with 0 percent success rate.
163
And I want to point out here,
even
patients from the previous study, and for
this
second study, none of the patients in tazarotene
group achieved treatment success for
patients with
very severe disease status.
[Slide.]
The next I'm going to discuss
with you
about the scalp and nail psoriasis. The evaluation
of scalp and nail psoriasis is based on
short-term
efficacy of tazarotene treatment. And the severity
of each scalp, fingernail, toenail
psoriasis was
evaluated based on a 5-point scale; 0 was
"no
disease," and score of 4 was
"very severe" disease.
[Slide.]
The efficacy results presents
you--the
next slide--is based on the percentage of
patients
having severity score of 0 at week 12.
This table gives you the
results about the
scalp and nail psoriasis, with respect to
the
patients with severity score of 0 at week
12.
As you can see, for the two
studies, with
respect to the scalp psoriasis, there was
27
164
percent patients in tazarotene group had
a severity
score of 0 at week 12. And for the placebo, there
was 7 percent in the first study, and 12
percent in
the second study. So, tazarotene shows some
efficacy in treating scalp psoriasis.
However, if you take a look at
the
fingernail and the toenail, no patient in
tazarotene group had a severity score of
0 at week
12.
However, you take a look at the toenail in
placebo group, there was one patient
achieved
severity score of 0 at week 12, and there
were two
patients in the second study achieved a
severity
score of 0 at week 12 for fingernail
psoriasis.
And I want to point out here is
12 weeks
might be too short for evaluating nail
psoriasis,
as nail growth requires longer period of
time to
grow.
[Slide.]
The results going to present
you here is
baseline of patients who were treatment
success at
week 22, and had a relapse during the 12
week
post-treatment.
165
Two definitions of relapse are
considered
in
this presentation. The first definition
is
based on patients who fell back to
baseline OLA
score or worse during the 12-week
post-treatment
period.
The second definition is based
on patients
whose achieved maximal improvement from
baseline
was reduced by more than 40 percent
during the 12
weeks post treatment.
[Slide.]
This slide gives you the
results about the
relapse rate for the two pivotal studies. As you
recall, there were 26 patients in
tazarotene group,
and six patients in placebo group had
treatment
success at week 12 for the first study,
and 34
patients in tazarotene group and nine
patients in
placebo group achieved treatment success
in the
second study.
Based on the first
definition--"a"--which
includes the patients who fell back to
the
overall--the "OLA score at baseline
or worse, the
relapse rate for tazarotene group in the
first
166
study was 23 percent, and it was 9
percent for the
second study.
Based on the definition
"b," which
includes patients whose maximal
improvement was
reduced by more than 50 percent, in
tazarotene
group we have 35 percent relapse rate for
the first
study, and 26 percent relapse rate for
the second
study.
The next several slides, I'm
going to give
you the summary of the statistical
analysis in the
two pivotal studies--basically, just
summarize the
results I just presented you.
[Slide.]
Oral tazarotene is
statistically superior
to placebo regarding treatment success,
however
success rates are below 20 percent for
both
studies; one was 15.7 percent, the other
one is
18.7 percent.
Female patients generally had
higher
success rates than males. The male patients in the
two pivotal studies accounted for over
two-thirds
of study enrollments.
167
Treatment success decreases as
baseline
disease severity increases. It should be noted a
total of 15 patients, which accounted for
about 2
percent of study enrollment, had a
"very severe"
OLA score at baseline. None in oral tazarotene
group achieved treatment success at week
12.
Consequently, there is insufficient data
to
evaluate the efficacy claim of "very
severe" plaque
psoriasis.
[Slide.]
Oral tazarotene demonstrates
short-term
efficacy in treating scalp psoriasis, but
not nail
psoriasis. Two and one patients in placebo group
achieved severity score of 0 at week 12
in
fingernail and toenail psoriasis,
respectively.
However, none was in oral tazarotene
group.
[Slide.]
Based on definition (a) of
relapse, which
is the patients who fell back to OLA
score at
baseline or worse, the relapse rate was
approximately 15 percent for both
studies. And
based on definition (b), which includes
patients
168
whose maximal improvement from baseline
was reduced
by more than 50 percent, the relapse rate
was 30
percent for the two pivotal studies. And, again,
the
relapse rate was measured based on patients who
had a treatment success at week 12, and
they had
relapsed at the 12-week post-treatment
period.
This is the end of my
presentation.
Thank you.
Clinical Wrap Up
DR. COOK: Okay, I'm back
[laughs]--I'm
back for, hopefully, the last time. And I'm just
going to try to give a clinical
wrap-up. And,
basically, this is to give you other
information on
the safety and efficacy of the chemical
moiety
tazarotene.
[Slide.]
I'm going to speak about
drug-use trends
of topical tazarotene, adverse events
with topical
tazarotene, and we'll take a look at the
efficacy
of topical tazarotene and, again, of oral
tazarotene.
[Slide.]
169
Drug-use trends for topical
tazarotene--the total number of
tazarotene
prescriptions have been increasing. In 1999, there
were 226,000 prescriptions written, and
in 2003,
there were 937,000 prescriptions written.
In 2003, most of the
prescriptions were
prescribed by dermatologists--67
percent--with
family practitioners coming in at 7
percent. And
the most common diagnoses associated with
the use
of topical tazarotene was 75 percent for
acne, and
13 percent for psoriasis.
[Slide.]
58 percent of all of the
prescriptions
were dispense to women. And we arbitrarily chose
12 to 44 years as the most common range
for women
of childbearing potential, and 46.5
percent of all
claims are for women of childbearing
potential.
[Slide.]
There have been 125 errors
reports
associated with topical
tazarotene--adverse event
reports.
And the most common adverse events are
cutaneous: pruritus, rash, dermatitis
exfoliative,
170
burning sensation, and erythema.
There are also some systemic
adverse
events reported with the use of topical
tazarotene.
There are three reports of elevated LFTs,
gastrointestinal problems; hot flashes
and
perspiration; and one report of elevated
triglycerides.
The indications for which the
prescription
had been written included 91 for
psoriasis, eight
for acne, other skin 10, and for the
others we
don't have the diagnosis.
There were more females--69
females and 52
males--for which these adverse events
were
reported, and there were two
hospitalizations, and
one congenital anomaly.
[Slide.]
The association with pregnancy
exposures--there have been 113 worldwide
pregnancy
exposures-- and this data was actually
obtained
from the sponsor.
There are 107 reports in the
United
States, compared with six foreign
reports. The age
171
range was 17 to 38 years, the median
being 29
years.
The indications for which these
prescriptions in these exposures had been
written
were primarily acne--60; 20 for
psoriasis; two for
facial wrinkling; and the others, we
don't know.
And the outcomes for pregnancy,
and fetal
outcomes: there were four spontaneous
abortions,
two chromosomal abnormalities--trisomy 18
and
Cornelia de Lange--not associated with
retinoid
malformations. And the others--107--there was
either no adverse outcome or
unknown. And we don't
know how many of which of those two
categories
compose the 107.
[Slide.]
And finally we're going to take
a look at
the efficacy of the chemical moiety in
the
treatment of plaque psoriasis.
In topical tazarotene, in the
clinical
trials, the success was based on a
greater than 75
percent improvement. And I have to preface this by
saying that we know that these are different
trials, these are different sets of
patients. They
172
all had moderate to severe psoriasis.
With the 0.05 percent gel, the
success
rate was 30 percent and 18 percent in the
two
clinical trials. The 0.1 percent gel, the success
rate was 38 percent and 25 percent,
compared with a
placebo effect of 13 percent and 10
percent.
If you look at oral tazarotene,
which
we've been speaking on today, in the
clinical
trials the success was "no" or
"minimal disease,"
which is a more stringent criterion, and
the
success rate was 15.2 percent, and 18.7
percent,
respectively, with a lower placebo
effect.
Also, in the clinical trials on
oral
tazarotene, a secondary efficacy
parameter was the
global response. And a success of greater than or
equal to 75 percent improvement, or
marked
improvement or better--which Dr. Walker
showed you
earlier--showed that this success rate
was 30.1
percent, and 30.8 percent, with a placebo
effect of
8.2 percent and 9.1 percent.
So, in summary, in pre-clinical
animal
studies, oral tazarotene, when compared
milligram
173
for milligram to other systemic retinoids
turns out
to be the most potent teratogen. Thus, as the
other retinoids are human teratogens,
oral
tazarotene is most likely a potent human
teratogen.
While it is true that oral
tazarotene
showed efficacy as compared to placebo in
the
treatment of moderate to severe
psoriasis, given
the safety signals discussed today, in
presence in
semen, its effects on lipid metabolism,
bone
metabolism and thyroid and glucose
metabolism, oral
tazarotene presents a complex
risk-benefit
calculus.
We at the agency look forward
to the
guidance of this advisory committee in
analyzing
this complex drug product.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: I'd like to thank
the FDA for
its very nice and lucid presentations,
and we'll
now
go on to Dr. Lindstrom, who will talk about the
evaluation of risk management for
systemic
retinoids in a more generic way.
Evolution of Risk Management for
Systemic Retinoids
174
DR. LINDSTROM: Good
morning. I'd like to
discuss with you today the evolution of
agency
thought regarding pregnancy prevention
risk
management for systemic retinoids for
skin
conditions.
[Slide.]
To accomplish this, I'll first
describe
the current landscape in terms of
retinoids on the
market for cutaneous conditions; the
risks that
they present; and the risk-management
tools
available to us. I'll then move on to describe the
historical development of risk management
for
systemic retinoids for cutaneous
conditions. And,
finally, I'll make a few summary remarks.
[Slide.]
There are four systemic
retinoids approved
for the treatment of cutaneous
conditions.
Isotretinoin is indicated for the
treatment of
severe, recalcitrant nodular acne. The innovative
product was approved in 1982, and three
generic
products were more recently introduced.
Etretinate, indicated for the
treatment of
175
severe recalcitrant psoriasis was
approved in 1986,
and this product was voluntarily removed
from the
market in 2002.
Acitretin, with a similar
indication, was
approved in 1996, and bexarotine,
indicated for the
treatment of refractory cutaneous T cell
lymphoma
was approved in 1999.
[Slide.]
Now, all of the approved
systemic
retinoids are either recognized, or
highly suspect
human teratogens, and all produce fetal
abnormalities in animals that are exposed
in utero.
We have the most human data for
isotretinoin, which is recognized as a
potent human
teratogen. It has a high frequency of adverse
outcomes in exposed pregnancies, with
perhaps a
third of exposed pregnancies
affected. The effects
are severe, including fetal wastage,
structural
malformations in major organ systems, and
impaired
function, such as neuropsychiatric delay.
Additionally, the window of
vulnerability
is large.
There's no recognized time period during
176
gestation when administration of systemic
retinoids
would be considered safe.
[Slide.]
Considering that risk, what
risk-management tools are available to
us? Well,
we broadly categorize our risk-management
tools
into four groups: product labeling, such
as the
package insert; targeted education--an
example
would be patient brochures, reminder
systems, such
as stickers or patient informed-consent
forms; and
controlled distribution.
[Slide.]
I want to move now to describe
the history
of pregnancy prevention risk-management efforts.
I'm going to use isotretinoin as a
prototype, and
use three other oral retinoids as
supplementary
examples.
Before I do so, I want to acknowledge a
caveat that Dr. Walker has already
discussed, and
that is that isotretinoin is indicated
for the
treatment of severe acne. This is different than
the indication that oral tazarotene is
pursuing.
And when isotretinoin is prescribed for
severe
177
acne, it's prescribed as a circumscribed
20-week
course, and the majority of patients will
experience prolonged or permanent disease
remission--not all, but the majority--and
will
likely require a single course of
therapy.
However, the other retinoids
that I will
use as supplementary
examples--etretinate,
acitretin, and bexarotine--are prescribed
in a
chronic, or chronic-intermittent fashion,
and would
not be considered--or the use would be
more similar
to that which might be expected for oral
tazarotene
[Slide.]
Isotretinoin was approved--as
I've
mentioned--for the treatment of severe
recalcitrant
nodular acne in the early '80s. It was recognized
as a highly suspect teratogen, based on
abnormalities seen in animal
studies. It received
a pregnancy category rating of X, and
when it was
released to the market, risk management
included
labeling, information regarding the
potential risk
for teratogenicity was included in the
contraindications, warnings and
precautions section
178
of the label.
[Slide.]
Despite this, the agency
received the
first report of a human malformation
following in
utero exposure to isotretinoin in 1983,
and other
reports followed soon after.
In response, the labeling was
strengthened. First, the teratogenicity risk
information already included in the
package insert
was highlighted by boldface type, and a
boxed
warning was added at the beginning of the
label.
In addition, targeted education tools
included
"Dear Doctor" and "Dear
Pharmacist letters, which
were sent out to health care providers to
update
them on the human data as it accrued.
[Slide.]
But, again, additional
exposures--in utero
exposures--occurred, and in 1988, the
agency and
the sponsor both determined that
strengthening of
the risk-management program--pregnancy
prevention
risk-management program for acitretin was
needed.
And
after consultation and input from the advisory
179
committee, the Accutane Pregnancy
Prevention
Program was introduced. It included tools from
three of the four categories of
risk-management
tools.
The labeling was updated. The boxed
warning was updated to include additional
information regarding the timing and
frequency of
pregnancy testing; the number and types
of
contraception recommended; and the
recommended
duration for their use.
Additionally, the package
itself was
changed.
The blister pack was introduced.
The
"Avoid pregnancy" icon--the
familiar red-circle
with the slash was introduced, and the
boxed
warning, which had previously been just
on the
package insert was now printed on the
package
itself.
[Slide.]
Other components of the
Accutane Pregnancy
Prevention Program included educational
materials
for physicians--excuse me, for
prescribers and
patients, as well as the introduction of
a referral
180
and reimbursement program for
contraceptive
counseling, as well as an informed
consent form for
female patients.
Two other components of the
Accutane
Pregnancy Prevention Program, not formal
risk-management tools in themselves, are
the
patient survey and the prescriber survey,
both of
which were introduced to assess the
impact of the
program.
And what was the impact?
[Slide.]
In the first year after
implementation, we
saw an initial rise in the number of
reported
pregnancies--reported exposed
pregnancies. This
was not surprising, as a new tool for
reporting--the voluntary patient
survey--had been
introduced. However, in the subsequent decade,
this number--the number of reported
exposed
pregnancies--leveled off and stayed
relatively
constant.
Also during this time, the
number of
patients treated with isotretinoin
doubled. Now,
181
it might be tempting to conclude, having
said that
the number of reported exposed
pregnancies was
relatively constant, and the number of
prescriptions and the number of patients
treated
was rising, it might be tempting to
conclude that
the pregnancy rate was dropping.
This would be an erroneous
conclusion
because the number of reported
pregnancies--pregnancy reporting is
voluntary, and
the number of reported exposed
pregnancies does not
necessarily represent all exposed
pregnancies. And
we do know that adverse event reporting
falls off
over time.
However, we can safely say--I think
we can
safely conclude that the known total
public health
burden of exposed pregnancies was not
decreasing,
and the number of women at risk for
exposure during
pregnancy was increasing.
[Slide.]
Because of these two issues, the
Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drug Advisory
Committee
was convened in 2000, and this advisory
committee
182
recommended that the isotretinoin
risk-management
plan at the time--the Accutane Pregnancy
Prevention
Plan--be strengthened to include
registration--mandatory registration and
controlled
distribution.
Now, there was a precedent for
the
committee's recommendation, in that
Thalidomide,
which was reintroduced to the U.S. market
in 1999,
was introduced with a risk-management
plan that
contained these elements of registration
and
controlled distribution.
After the advisory committee, the agency
and the sponsor entered into intense
negotiations,
and in 2002 the current risk-management
plan was
implemented.
Now, the innovator sponsor
entitled that
program the SMART program--the System to
Management
Accutane-Related Teratogenicity. The generic
manufacturers which entered the market
soon after
that, gave their risk-management
plan--which was
identical in all of the essential
elements--different acronyms: SPIRIT,
ALERT,
183
IMPART.
In order to avoid confusion, I'm going to
refer to all of them as the "current
risk-management plan." Although it is being
revised, it is the risk-management
program that is
in place at the present.
[Slide.]
Its components included
elements for all
four categories of risk-management
tools. The
labeling was updated, and a medication
guide was
added.
There were instruction guides for
prescribers and pharmacists; brochures
for
patients.
[Slide.]
The patient informed-consent
forms were
updated.
There was a prescriber checklist to
assist prescribers in implementation of
this
risk-management plan. Perhaps the hub of the plan
was the yellow qualification
stickers. These
yellow stickers are applied by prescribers
to
prescriptions when they write them for
isotretinoin. There's a place to write the date on
which the patient has been qualified.
184
Qualification entails ensuring that the
patient has
had a recent negative pregnancy test, and
that the
patient has agreed to use two forms of
effective
contraception--unless that patient is
abstinent,
post-menopausal, or male.
Also on the yellow
qualification sticker
are reminders for pharmacists to dispense
only a 30
day supply, not to give refills, and to
fill the
prescription within seven days of the
qualification
date.
Now, these qualification
stickers are
obtained by prescribers by signing a
letter of
understanding in which they attest that
they
possess the relevant competencies
necessary to
safely prescribe isotretinoin and that
they agree
to fully utilize the risk-management
program. The
yellow stickers are provided by the
sponsor upon
receipt of the signed letter of
understanding.
The voluntary patient survey
and pharmacy
surveys--again, not risk-management tools
in
themselves--were used to assess the
impact of the
program.
And at the time of approval of the
185
program, the sponsor was informed that
the
effectiveness would be assessed at one
year, and
performance benchmarks were set at a
patient survey
enrollment of 60 percent, and
qualification sticker
use approaching 100 percent.
[Slide.]
The one year metrics were presented
to
this combined advisory committee in some
detail in
February of this year. And I'm just going to
summarize them with a single slide.
The patient survey response
rate was 36
percent.
It failed to meet the sponsor-identified
benchmark of 60 percent.
Sicker use was high, exceeding
90 percent,
but it proved to be an unsatisfactory
surrogate
endpoint, in that there was poor
correlation
between sticker use and survey
responses. For
instance, although, again, the sticker
use was high
and above 90 percent of the stickers were
correctly
filled out, a significant number of women
on the
voluntary survey did not recall having
received any
pregnancy test. And perhaps most
importantly, the
186
number of reported exposed pregnancies
was
unchanged after implementation of the
current
risk-management plan from the previous
year.
[Slide.]
And so, this combined advisory
committee
recommended, in February of this year,
that the
current risk-management plan be
augmented, and
specifically, your recommendations
included:
mandatory registration of all patients,
both male
and female; registration of all
pharmacies;
registration of all prescribers; and the
implementation of mandatory pregnancy
registry.
And I want to inform you that the
sponsors and the
agency are diligently working to
implement these
recommendations.
[Slide.]
So, a quick review of the
isotretinoin
risk-management program chronology: the
drug was
approved in 1982. In 1988 the Accutane Pregnancy
Prevention Program was implemented. In 2002 the
current risk-management program was
implemented.
And in 2004, this combined advisory
committee
187
recommended mandatory registration,
pregnancy
registry, and controlled distribution.
I want to discuss three other
systemic
retinoids at this time.
[Slide.]
Etretinate was the second oral
retinoid
approved in the United States. It was approved in
1986 for the treatment of severe
recalcitrant
psoriasis. It was approved after isotretinoin
entered the market, but prior to the
implementation
of the Accutane Pregnancy Prevention
Program. And
the risk-management program for
etretinate
included--was limited to labeling, with a
boxed
warnings and warnings regarding the risk
of
teratogenicity in the "Warnings,
Contraindications
and Precautions" section of the
label. And, as
I've mentioned previously, this drug was
withdrawn
from the U.S. market in 2002.
[Slide.]
Acitretin--the third oral
retinoid
approved for the treatment of a cutaneous
condition, was approved in 1996 for the
indication
188
of severe psoriasis. There is a caveat in the
indications section, indicating that in
women of
childbearing potential this drug should
be used
only if they are unresponsive to other
therapies,
or if other systemic therapies are
contraindicated.
[Slide.]
Acitretin was approved, as I
said, in
1996.
This was after the implementation of the
Accutane Pregnancy Prevention Program,
and hence
the sponsor was asked to implement a
risk-management program that was
consistent with
the best practices at that time.
The sponsor labeled their
risk-management
program for Soriatane, the
"Soriatane Pregnancy
Prevention Program," and it
contained elements
similar to the Accutane Pregnancy
Prevention
Program: labeling, education and
reminders.
Targretin--bexarotine--was
approved in
1999, the fourth oral retinoid to treat a
cutaneous
condition. It's indicated for the treatment of the
cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T
cell
lymphoma which is refractory to other system
189
therapies. And--again, approved in 1999, this
would have been after the implementation
of the
Accutane Pregnancy Prevention Program,
but before
the implementation of the current
risk-management
program.
And the risk-management program for
bexarotine is similar to that for--it's
similar to
the Accutane and Soriatane pregnancy
prevention
programs.
It consists of labeling, targeted
education, and a limitation on the amount
dispensed
to 30-day supply.
[Slide.]
I just want to conclude with a
few summary
remarks.
All of these approved systemic
retinoids
are known or highly suspect human
teratogens and,
as such, present potential risks to the
public
health that needs to be management.
Risk-management programs should
incorporate current
best known practices, and these practices
for
pregnancy prevention risk management have
evolved
over time, and have progressively
included elements
from the four categories of
risk-management tools:
190
labeling, targeted education, reminder
systems, and
controlled discrimination.
[Slide.]
And our current thinking
regarding best
practices for pregnancy prevention risk management
for isotretinoin include the fact that
per the
advice of this combined committee, the
isotretinoin
current risk-management program needs to
be
strengthened, and that elements--and that
that
strengthened program should include the
following
elements: mandatory registration of
patients,
prescribers and pharmacies, as well as a
mandatory
pregnancy registry.
And I now want to turn the
microphone over
to Dr. Ann Trontell from the Office of
Drug Safety,
who will discuss risk-management tools
for oral
tazarotene.
Risk Management Tools for Oral
Tazarotene: Context,
Considerations and
Experience
DR. TRONTELL: Good morning.
I'm going to hope to set some
context, as
well as describe considerations that FDA
has taken
191
into account, as well as our experience
in risk
management, and in particular in the context
of
potential risk management tools for oral
tazarotene.
[Slide.]
I'm going to set the context in
terms of
the recently issued draft guidances on
risk
management, from the agency. I'll talk about our
experience with application of some of
the tools of
risk management, and what we know of
their
advantages and disadvantages.
I'll talk briefly about the
isotretinoin
rm
program.
Dr. Lindstrom has already told you quite
a bit.
I'll talk somewhat about he ongoing
negotiations. And then I will talk about the
options for risk management for
tazarotene which,
in fact, have changed since these slides
were
prepared.
[Slide.]
As many of you know, under the
third
reauthorization of the Prescription Drug
User Fee
192
Act, the agency was charged with developing
three
interrelated guidances on the topic of
risk
management. The first dealt with premarketing risk
assessment; the second, with
pharmacovigilance and
pharmacoepidemiology--largely applied to
the
post-marking setting; and the third
document now
discusses what we term "risk
minimization action
plans"--a term that you've heard
this morning.
I'll use that, as well as
"RiskMAPs"
interchangeably.
[Slide.]
In this guidance, a risk
minimization
action plan--or RiskMAP--was defined as a
strategic
safety program designed to meet specific
goals and
objectives in minimizing known risks of
drug
products.
In this context, a RiskMAP is described
as a program that goes beyond what FDA
usually does
in the approval of a drug product. Ordinarily FDA,
and with the sponsor, develop
professional labeling
and then conduct routine postmarking
pharmacovigilance. And this largely constitutes
sufficient risk management for most
marketed drug
193
products.
[Slide.]
For risk minimization action
plans the
goals are described as targeting the
achievement of
a health outcome related to the known
risks of the
product.
These goals would reflect the idea
outcome of the RiskMAP; that might be
achievement
of a certain health outcome, or avoidance
of an
undesirable health outcome.
FDA recommends that these be
stated in
absolute terms to maximally reduce the
risk. So,
in the case of teratogenicity risk reduction,
the
goal might well be stated as "no
fetal exposure
should occur.'
Foals are broken down into
intermediate
steps that are also termed
"objectives." And it's
in the context of objectives that we talk
about
RiskMAP tools.
[Slide.]
These are processes or systems
intended to
minimize known safety risks, and are
designed to
target the achievement of at least one or
more
194
objectives that serve the overall RiskMAP
goal.
[Slide.]
In its draft guidance issued in
May on
RiskMAPs, FDA set forth a number of
different
considerations an how tools might be
selected.
Each tool, ideally, should be adding
value in
attaining the program goals. They should seek,
wherever possible, to use tools that have
proven
effectiveness, either in other programs,
or based
upon the scientific literature.
FDA also advocates that the
tools chosen
be acceptable to a wide range of
audiences, and
certainly those individuals who will
participate in
the implementation of the plan, and low
burden
should be a goal for that, as well.
The agency suggested that in
selecting
risk-management tools, that one avoid
unnecessary
limitations on product access, since that
might
restrain or constrain benefits of the
product, and
to similarly avoid the creation of
multiple
customized tools, since this creates
confusion as
well as burden on the health care
system. And,
195
again, so far as one is able to
anticipate
unanticipated consequences of a
risk-management
program, those should be considered.
[Slide.]
In the draft guidance, FDA
describes three
broad categories of tools that can be
used for
purposes of risk minimization--some of
these have
been described already by Dr.
Lindstrom--the first
being targeted education and outreach;
this
involving educational materials that go
beyond the
professional labeling, and may be
targeted to
health care practitioners or to patients.
The second category is what has
been
termed "reminder systems." This may use tools such
as stickers, that were used in the
isotretinoin
risk-management program, or informed consent. In
some instances limitations on product
supply or
packaging has been put in place to try
and guide
clinicians and patients in using products
in the
most appropriate and safe ways.
The third category involves a
somewhat
awkward terminology. It's somewhat equivalent to
196
the control distribution terminology that
Dr.
Lindstrom mentioned in her talk.
In the draft guidance FDA
refers to the
tool system involving limitations on
distribution
as "performance-linked access
systems." These are
programs that, in fact, do constrain
availability
of
the product to certain conditions' being met.
Often there's a selected group of
individuals who
may be able to prescribe, dispense or use
this
product.
And often these are tied to mandatory
performance of some of the reminder
systems
described in the previous category.
Some product examples may give
you a
better understanding of these tool
categories.
[Slide.]
In the area of target education
and
outreach, we can't really give you a full
list
because there are probably, at this
point, several
hundred products that have either patient
product
inserts, or medication guides--a much
smaller
number in that category. Also, a number of
programs employ patient brochures,
various forms of
197
continuing education for physicians and
pharmacists.
Reminder systems include the
ones I list
here.
Alosetron, like isotretinoin, uses a sticker
program that indicates that the clinician
is
familiar with the disease [sic], its
risks and how
to appropriately prescribe it to the
patient in
light of certain safety considerations.
For the drug product lindane,
the amount
of product now available to patients is
limited to
one or two-ounce aliquots to reduce the
risks of
individuals' using excessive amounts, or
using it
repeatedly and exposing themselves to
certain
toxicity.
So the drug product abarelix, a product
used for advanced prostatic cancer,
certain
constraints are placed on how that
product is
prescribed; in particular, to restrict it
to those
individuals whose disease warrants the
risk of
anaphylactic reactions with it.
In the category
"performance-linked access
systems," I have six products listed
here.
Bosentan, dofetilide and mifepristone are
programs
198
that, in fact, operate under a form of
specialty
pharmacy distribution. There may be one, or
perhaps a few handful of pharmacies where
individuals are able to obtain the
product. And I
will apologize--I mis-spoke. The products that are
under the specialty category include
Bosentan,
mifepristone and xyrem.
For clozapine, dofetilide and
thalidomide,
these are available through pharmacies
that are
registered, as well as the registration
processes
that extend to physicians and to
patients. The
ones that appear with an asterisk are
ones where
laboratory testing is part of what's required
for
product access.
With regard to use and
non-effectiveness
of the tools, we are still in the process
of trying
to understand more how these tools work
and which
are most effective.
[Slide.]
Targeted education and
outreach, as I've
already said, it's been used most
extensively, but
formal evaluation of the effectiveness of
these
199
programs has been limited--though many
obviously
believe the importance of education for
all manners
of risk management.
Reminder systems--again, are
relatively
limited in their number. They've been used
infrequently, and effectiveness to date
has largely
been untested.
For the performance-linked
access systems,
or ones that register various
participants, these,
again, have been used sparingly, and
typically
they've been applied to relatively small
patient
populations where the therapeutic options
for those
patients are limited. The registration process
that tracks physicians, patients or
pharmacists, in
fact, has allowed good data capture in terms
of
their effectiveness. So the effectiveness of this
small category of tools is high.
Let me walk through some of the
advantages, again, of these three major
tool
categories.
[Slide.]
Targeted education and outreach
has the
200
advantage that education is really a
motherhood-and-apple-pie issue. It's very hard for
anyone to discount its value, so it's
generally
it's very high acceptability, and
relatively easy
to implement in a variety of forums and
media.
The benefit of education is it
has no
effects on product access.
A disadvantage, however, is, in
fact, it's
effectiveness is still largely unknown to
us when
it's used in isolation of other
tools. And, as was
described just recently in Dr.
Lindstrom's talk,
when it was applied in the most early
form of
isotretinoin in risk management, its effectiveness
was low, at least in terms of pregnancy
outcomes
persisting.
[Slide.]
For reminder systems,
advantages of these
programs are that they allow some
remnants of
physician, pharmacist and patient
autonomy. These
reminders are put in place to, in fact,
make it
difficult [sic] for clinicians or
patients to do
the night thing. They allow the opportunity for
201
ongoing education, and the reminder of
individuals
on what is necessary to achieve use of
the product.
And relative to the category of
performance-linked
access systems, they're obviously less
intrusive.
But we have to acknowledge,
they imposed
time and monetary costs on the medical
care system;
and that, again, their experience to date
has been
largely limited. And as was discussed in the
February advisory committee, the
experience of the
isotretinoin program showed high process
compliance
with the program, but limited outcome
effectiveness, in that pregnancy
exposures
persisted.
[Slide.]
For the performance-linked
access systems,
advantages of this is that, in fact, it
does
constrain use of the product to those
conditions
where use is considered to be most
safe. The
mandatory participation of such systems,
in fact,
allows registration of participants and
the ability
to better evaluate their
performance. And, in
fact, this has led to our understanding
of their
202
high performance.
The nature, not only for issues
of
teratogenicity risk exposure in
performance-linked
access systems, is because they do
represent an
obstacle to the ready use of the drug
product, they
generally tend to diminish overall
utilization of
the drug product; and, in a sense, then
if you
wanted to reduce exposure of females of
childbearing potential, that would be a
secondary
benefit.
However, you may look at
limitations on
access similarly as forms of
disadvantages. And,
certainly, limitations in access may also
present
limitations to patients' obtaining
benefits from
the drug product. Of course, there are time and
financial burdens to such programs.
And the risk
that is certainly known to the agency is
that the
existence of such programs may prompt
individuals
to try and seek the product in less
burdensome
ways, and to try and obtain it illicitly,
through
the internet or other measures.
Gain, the experience that has
been
203
obtained to date in the area of pregnancy
prevention, through thalidomide, has
largely been
limited to a small population of
individuals who
are not of high fertility. So experience in its
extension to large numbers of young,
fertile women
has not yet been done.
[Slide.]
In its draft guidance, FDA
tries to set
forth when you might use different tools,
and it's
somewhat of a circular argument: you use
them when
you need them, and perhaps when a less
severe
tool--or a less intrusive tool--has
proven itself
to be ineffective.
Targeted education and outreach
might be
used alone, or certainly in combination
with other
tools.
And in those instances where product
labeling and routine pharmacovigilance
have shown
themselves to be insufficient. And the example
certainly pertains in the case of
Accutane and the
development of the Accutane Pregnancy
Prevention
Program.
[Slide.]
204
Reminder systems may be
implemented at
such times as when targeted education and
outreach
are insufficient, either based upon
experience with
other drug products, or in the specific
drug
product being addressed. And the example of this
system would be the development of what
is the
SMART, SPIRIT, ALERT and so forth
programs, or what
Dr. Lindstrom referred to as the
"current
risk-management program" for
isotretinoin.
[Slide.]
The performance-linked access
systems are
probably the category where it may be a
little
easier to define the products where these
may be
merited, since these tools are, in fact,
intrusive.
These are ones that we might expect would
be used
largely for those products that have
significant or
unique product benefits, but that have
associated
unusual risks that may include
irreversible
disability or death. Examples--in
clozapine, the
risk is of agranulocytosis. For thalidomide,
again, teratogenicity and birth defects.
And the
isotretinoin RiskMAP, as we've discussed,
is now
205
under active development in that arena.
[Slide.]
Let me tell you a little bit
more about
what's been in progress since we last met
with this
committee in February. Performance-linked access
system is under active discussion and
development
by the sponsors. The details still remain somewhat
undefined. They are under active development.
The plan is to have a
centralized
clearinghouse that would involve all
prescribers,
pharmacies and patients; and that this
clearinghouse would be configured to
assure and
account for the performance of key safety
features;
for example, pregnancy testing.
[Slide.]
the key safety features of the
new
isotretinoin RiskMAP will include all
three
categories of tools: targeted education
and
outreach; reminders; and the linkage of
access to
the product to the performance of certain
activities.
[Slide.]
206
For targeted education and
outreach of all
participants, there will be a medication
guide,
patient brochures, videos. And, again, education
will continue for health care
practitioners,
including physicians and pharmacists.
Reminders will include informed
consent
and attestation on the part of health
care
practitioners. There is some discussion of ongoing
patient education and risk-factor
screening as part
of this program.
And the linkage of access to
the product
to the performance of key features goes
back to the
clearinghouse, which involves all
prescribers,
pharmacies and patients--pregnancy
testing will be
required for the product to be
prescribed,
dispensed, and for the patient to receive
it.
The issue of the linkage of
these separate
components, in fact, remains a challenge
on two
grounds; first, on the technology, as
also for the
potential concern of constraints on the
product and
mechanisms for doing that that have been
patented.
[Slide.]
207
now, these slides will actually
be dated,
in light of the presentation you've heard
this
morning.
We had, at the time of these slides'
preparation, two earlier versions of the risk
minimization action plan proposed by
Allergan.
[Slide.]
Let me jump ahead--the initial
one
proposed was one that was similar to the
existing
isotretinoin risk minimization action
plan in place
and current, prior to February of this
year, and
still currently in place. This plan, at that time,
exempted males, and females who were not
of
childbearing potential.
The subsequent development was for--of a
program that had linkage of the product's
access to
pregnancy testing, pharmacist validation
of
pregnancy testing, and patients' having
monthly
reeducation and assessment of their
knowledge and
compliance with contraceptive practices
for
prescriptions to be obtained. That one had
excluded males and females who were not
of
childbearing potential. And, as we've heard this
208
morning, that has been since modified.
[Slide.]
So, in summary, systemic
retinoid risk
management for the concern of
teratogenicity has
evolved and has been largely informed by
isotretinoin over the past approximately
20 years.
It has migrated from labeling alone to
the use of
targeted education and outreach, the use
of
reminder system; and, now, the active
development
of a performance-linked access
system.[Slide.]
And the tazarotene
program--again, as
you've heard this morning--is now
configured to be
similar to what is being developed for
the
isotretinoin program, with the
performance-linked
access system; and, as the sponsors told
us this
morning, applied to all patients.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: Thank you very
much. Might I
ask one or two quick questions?
You've talked about isotretinoin. Is
there any parallel development for the
other
now-approved retinoids? For acitretin, bexarotine,
209
in terms of a parallel system for
performance-linked access?
Because I think each time
you've talked
about isotretinoin, and not mentioned
those others
currently labeled.
DR. TRONTELL: I'll actually
refer that
question to Dr. Wilkin.
DR. WILKIN: I can't speak
regarding
bexarotine. That's not in our division.
We do have another systemic
retinoid in
our division. There are no changes at this time in
the risk-management program, but we have
communicated our interested with the
industry group
that owns that product, that we do want
to have
this discussion; we'd like to know what
the current
performance is, how successful it is, and
think
about the need as to whether we need to
upgrade
their risk-management program.
DR. STERN: Could I then ask a
follow-on
question of someone who's an expert on
risk
management--is, does one believe that
when dealing
with agents that have similar risk
profiles, and
210
the same dominant group of
prescribers--although
the patients may vary in
characteristics--that
programs that apply across the board are
more
likely to be followed? Or are multiple programs
likely to be followed?
I think in your guidance there
was one
little thing that said one of the things
the FDA
wants to avoid is too much individual
customization. And I'm wondering if some of that
is on the basis of likelihood of good
performance
when you have one-size-fits-all, rather
than many
sizes for slightly different product.
DR. TRONTELL: At this point in
time, in
fact, we--I'm not sure we have any
risk-management
program that exactly duplicates another.
Certainly, it was based upon feedback we
heard from
the practicing community of physicians,
as well
as--and probably in particular--pharmacists.
Because the confusing array of manners in
which a
product might be presented to a
pharmacist was a
cause for concern.
So the idea was, in fact, to
approve some
211
element of efficiency, memorability, and
to
decrease confusion in its use.
DR. STERN: One last question
before lunch.
DR. SHAPIRO: I just wonder if
there's a
timeline about when the Accutane
proposals might be
implemented, and when and how evaluation
of the
impact might be evaluated?
DR. BULL: There is a timeline,
but in
terms of it being a very, very complex
negotiation,
involving multiple sponsors, I would say
we hope to
have it as soon as possible. But it's
extraordinarily complex. So, I would say as soon
as all of the details can be attended to,
there
will be something out there. But it's being
actively, very vigorously worked on.
DR. STERN: I'm sure it will be
as soon as
possible, but the question is when that
will be
[laughs.]
[Laughter.]
Dr. Wilkerson--and then we will
close for
lunch.
DR. WILKERSON: I just had a
point of
212
clarification with Dr. Trontell.
There was something you said
about patent
issues.
Could you just elaborate for us what--do
we have some restraints here, or
something that we
don't know about?
DR. TRONTELL: We--as I think
everyone is
aware, some of the discussion for
isotretinoin was
largely framed based upon the successes
of the
STEPS program that was put into place for
thalidomide. The issue of how features of that
program may or may not be applied to
isotretinoin
has raised the potential question of
patent
protection or infringement. And that is, again,
among the complex issues that are being
sorted out
at the present time.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
We've ended almost on time, and
I'd like
us to start promptly at one o'clock, and
we'll
adjourn for lunch.
Thank you very much.
[Off the record.]
Open Public Hearing
213
DR. STERN: We've now come to the part
of
the meeting that is the open public
hearing. We
have three speakers who have indicated
their
intention to speak. Before they speak, I must
read, exactly as written, the following.
Both the Food and Drug
Administration and
the public believe in a transparent
process for
information gathering and
decision-making. To
ensure such transparency at the open
public hearing
session of the advisory committee
meeting, FDA
believes that it is important to
understand the
context of an individual's presentation.
For this reason, the FDA
encourages you,
the open public hearing speaker, at the
beginning
of your written or oral statement to
advise the
committee of any financial relationship
that you
may have with the sponsors of any product
in the
pharmaceutical category under discussion
at today's
meetings.
For example, this information may
include the sponsor's payment of your
travel,
lodging or other expenses in connection
with your
attendance at the meeting.
214
Likewise, FDA encourages you,
at the
beginning of your statement, to advise
the
committee if you do not have any such
financial
relationships. If you choose not to address this
issue of financial relationships at the
beginning
of your statement, it will not preclude
you from
speaking.
I've also been informed that I
may only
introduce the speakers according to
number. It
sounds a little bit like a Seuss novel,
but would
Mr.--would Person One please come?
MR. WHITE: Well, since I know
Dr. Krueger,
the only other thing could be either Dr.
Krueger or
Number One. So, I guess I'm Number One.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you
very much.
I'm delighted to be here this afternoon,
and
appreciate the opportunity to make a few
remarks
before this committee.
My name is Dale White and I am
Vice
Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the
National
Psoriasis Foundation. I am volunteering to be here
today on behalf of the Foundation and the
community
215
it represents, to testify in support of
the drug
oral tazarotene for the treatment of
moderate to
severe psoriasis.
As the parent of a teenage with
psoriasis,
I am excited about testifying today about
the
urgent need psoriasis patients have for
additional
treatment options. Thank you again for this
opportunity.
[Slide.]
By way of introduction, the
National
Psoriasis Foundation is a leading
nonprofit
organization fighting to improve the
quality of
life of the more than 5 million Americans
diagnosed
with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis.
The Foundation was established
in 1968 by
a grassroots network of patients and
physicians.
Through education and advocacy,
the
Foundation promotes awareness and
understanding,
ensures access to treatment, and supports
research
that will lead to effective management of
this very
serious chronic disease--and, ultimately,
a cure.
Each year the Foundation receives
216
financial support from tens of thousands
of people,
and from 15 to 20 pharmaceutical
companies. This
includes unrestricted support from
Allergan, and
from it's competitors in the
pharmaceutical field.
[Slide.]
There was a lot of discussion
this morning
about the impact psoriasis can have on
people. But
I'd like this afternoon to emphasis a few
important
points about the disease.
First, of the more than five
million
Americans who have psoriasis, an
estimated 1.5
million have a moderate to severe form of
the
disease.
The Foundation's national
survey research
has shown that for 75 percent of these
people, the
disease has a moderate to large impact on
their
daily lives. For 26 percent of these folks, it
alters normal daily activities, and for
21 percent,
it stops them completely.
For 36 percent, it causes
trouble with
sleep, and for another 40 percent, it
affects how
they choose their clothing.
217
For every one, moderate to
severe
psoriasis can profoundly affect one's
work, family,
and personal relationships.
[Slide.]
Here are a few photographs that
illustrate
how physically disabling and emotionally
devastating psoriasis can be, particularly
for
people with moderate to severe cases.
[Slide.]
The Psoriasis Foundation
believes there is
a need for more treatment options for
people with
moderate to severe psoriasis. In
addition to being
a very serious disease, psoriasis is a
chronic
disease.
It typically first strikes people between
the ages of 15 and 35, but it can affect
anyone at
any age, including children.
Our research in 2001 showed
that 78
percent people with moderate to severe
psoriasis
were not using aggressive therapies
because of
concerns about side affects and
effectiveness. In
a recent national survey, more than
one-third of
the patients said they were "very
satisfied" with
218
the treatment they were receiving for
psoriasis.
While there are several treatments
available for moderate to severe
psoriasis, none of
these treatments work for everyone, or
can be used
by everyone, or necessarily works the
same over
time.
An individual patient's psoriasis can change
in severity, and even if type over years,
months,
or even weeks. Patients need and deserve choices
that meet their individual concerns about
safety,
effectiveness, cost and access.
[Slide.]
The Psoriasis Foundation
believes
psoriasis patients should have access to
oral
tazarotene. It may offer many patients a reduction
in psoriasis symptoms, and thus an
improved quality
of life.
And its approval for the treatment of
moderate to severe psoriasis would give
an option
to people who cannot use currently
approved
therapies.
The Foundation supports a
risk-management
program focused on women of childbearing
potential
to minimize, to the greatest extent
feasible, the
219
likelihood that a women will become
pregnant while
taking this drug.
We hope Allergan and the Food
and Drug
Administration adopt a risk-management
program that
addresses this risk without imposing
constraints
that would effectively limit access to
oral
tazarotene for the many psoriasis
patients whose
lives might be greatly enhanced by it.
Finally, as with any new medication, the
long-term
side effects of oral tazarotene are
unknown and
need further study.
[Slide.]
In closing, moderate to severe
psoriasis
can dramatically and negatively affect a
person's
quality of life. People with psoriasis need and
deserve more treatment options. And the Foundation
believes access to the new treatment,
oral
tazarotene, is important and desirable.
By expanding the array of
choices
available to treat this serious chronic
disease, we
empower patients to choose the treatment
that works
best for them.
220
I know that the quality of life
for my son
and thousands upon thousands of people
like him
will improve dramatically as a result.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: Thank you very much.
Could speaker number two please
come to
the podium?
MS. FREEMAN: Before I introduce myself,
I'd like to thank the National Psoriasis
Foundation
and the tens of thousands of people who
support it
for giving me the opportunity to tell my
story here
today and to represent the millions of
people
suffering from psoriasis.
I also need to say that I do
not have a
financial interest in the company that
makes the
drug we are talking about here today.
It is ironic that I should be
here, as
less than three weeks ago I was sitting
in the
clinical trial research center, and I had
just
filled out my monthly questionnaire. I closed the
folder and went to date it, and next to
the day was
"Patient Number 1569." I looked at my new bottle
221
of pills, and again I was "Patient
1569," and I
thought, "Gee, here I am, I'm really
just a
number."
So, today I want to introduce
you to
Patient Number 1569. My name is Janey Freeman, and
I live in Yantis, Texas, which is two
hours east of
Dallas.
I'm married. I have two children, and I
currently work as an office manager for a
land
developer and an insurance agent. And Yantis is as
"country" as it sounds.
[Laughter.]
I was diagnosed with psoriasis
when I was
20 years old. So for 34 years I have been injected
with steroids, wrapped in tar, put under
lights,
and zapped with machines. I have used creams,
lotions--not to mention slept wrapped in
cellophane--and I have worn gloves and
socks filled
with all kinds of creams and lotions.
I have washed my hair with tar
shampoo,
and I've ruined a lot of towels and a lot
of white
bathtubs, soaking in all kinds of
products.
222
I have also taken
methotrexate. This made
me sick two days out of the week. And about the
time I was feeling better, it was time
for me to
take another dose.
I have had my blood drawn every
six weeks
for 10 years. And I have had one liver biopsy.
Psoriasis is not usually
life-threatening,
but some of the current treatments
are. So, forced
to choose between a quality and a
quantity, I chose
the quality.
What would my life be like had
I not had
psoriasis? I'll give you some examples.
When I was younger, I thought
about
modeling, but models don't normally have
psoriasis.
And then I wanted to be a dentist, but at
that time
my hands and my nails were really badly
affected.
So I chose a field where I could sit at a
desk and
be out of the public view.
I have missed a total of two
years of work
due
to the disease. I have turned down two
promotions. I missed my senior high school trip to
New Mexico because I was afraid I might
flare.
223
I have never had a manicure or
a pedicure,
and my best friend still cuts my hair.
From my early 30s to my
mid-40s, I was
single.
My psoriasis was then at its worst, and I
was too embarrassed to have an intimate
relationship.
My closet has always had two
sets of
clothes: the clothes that I wear when my
psoriasis
is bad, and then my "sometimes"
or fun clothes that
I get to wear when my skin is okay.
I have had co-workers more out
of my part
of the office. I have had nurses put on rubber
glovers for just a routine exam. And people have
even moved to another cashier after
seeing my arms
or my elbows when I'm flared.
Psoriasis hurts. The lesions bleed. You
itch uncontrollably. It's embarrassing, it's
expensive, it's physically disfiguring,
and
mentally exhausting.
I can't really tell you what my
life would
have been like without psoriasis, but I
can tell
you that Patient Number 1569 is better
because of
224
oral tazarotene.
The medicine I am using is not
perfect,
but I feel hopeful for the first
time. My plaques
are clearing, and I'm at least 60 percent
improvement according to the research
center, and I
have no new ones.
My scalp is clear and the
itching is gone.
I've never been sick to my stomach, and
the only
side effects I have experienced are mild
joint pain
and the dry skin.
The first time I walked into my
current
dermatologist's office was 10 years ago,
and I was
crying.
A few weeks ago, after my last exam, we
both were smiling, excited and hopeful.
I believe that his drug--oral
tazarotene--should be available to
patients that it
might help. With continued research and dedicated
and caring physicians and staff, we can
give hope
and options to those millions of people
like me who
suffer every day of their life with
psoriasis.
I thank you very much.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
225
And could we please have
speaker number
three come to the podium?
MR. GORRE: Good afternoon. My name is
Tyrone Gorre. And I was born in Sacramento,
California, raised in Newcastle, which is
about 45
minutes northeast, in the Sierra
foothills--and
that's considered what is called
"Gold Country."
I am a single, 45-year old
fishing guide
and ranch hand, who is currently raising
two
daughters--young adult daughters--who are
seemingly
unaffected yet.
I want to say thanks to the
National
Psoriasis Foundation for making
this--giving me
this opportunity to speak to you guys
today, and I
would like to say at this time that I
have no
financial obligation or commitments or
interests in
the company that makes this particular
drug.
I've had psoriasis most of my
life. I've
tried many different treatments over the
years,
including UVA, B, psoralen with PUVA,
most topical
steroids, Dovinex, and Tegison and
methotrexate.
Through that period I really began to
understand
226
what medical "practitioner"
meant. That changed
for me.
My psoriasis really started
getting bad
when I was about 25 years old. I had had it for a
long time before that, but it really
became more
prevalent and widespread, with noticeable
plaquing
on my face and all over my body. At this time I
was just a newlywed and beginning to have
children.
Psoriasis had changed my
life. I used to
be a life guard and wear shorts all the
time. I
gradually changed my style of dress to
basically go
into a coverup. I would always wear long pants and
long-sleeved shirts and even hats;
collars,
turtlenecks--anything to hide this
terrible
disease.
I was really embarrassed,
because at that
point I had psoriasis on about 40 percent
of my
body.
My daughter has recently told
me that her
mother said one of the reasons that she
divorced me
was
because when I was young and married her I did
not have psoriasis, and while we were
married I got
227
psoriasis and it became very bad.
She said that his was a big
factor in my
divorce, and I really do believe it. It would be
terrible to go to sleep at night, and
have the
woman I loved wake up covered in scabs
and pieces
of skin on her.
There was few years when I
simply played
cover-up, and hide my disease, because I
had no
access to health-care coverage, or no
insurances of
any form.
So, I tended to worsen at that time.
Since I've had psoriasis pretty
bad for
quite a long time, I had known a
dermatologist who
was helping in research studies. At that time he
had asked me if I would participate in a
study of a
new oral drug, tazarotene.
I thought about it
seriously. At the
time, I had had a nephew who was
beginning to show
signs of psoriasis. He was about the same age as I
was when I got psoriasis, or noticed
psoriasis.
This was the extra motivation that I
needed to join
the study. I was willing to do this because I
wanted to answer the question for myself,
for my
228
family and all the people who I
recognized as
having this disease.
During the first part of my
study I was 99
percent sure that I was given a
placebo. There
seemed to be zero effect. During the second part
of the study, I believe I received the
drug. The
side effects that I noticed while taking
the drug
were basically my feet peeled one time,
and I
seemed to show some signs of achiness.
After about six weeks, I
noticed the
thickness of my plaquing beginning to
shrink
dramatically. And, man, my attitude was really
changing at that time. I was really excited.
Within about four months, I was
95 percent
clear.
I had just small areas, and they were all
less than the size of a quarter. My research
clinic that I went to told me that I went
from
having 25 percent to 4 percent. That was pretty
good improvement but, man, it felt like
it was way
more than that. It was much more of an
improvement--in my mind.
At the point the study ended, I
had only a
229
few patches of red skin that were very
small. For
the first time in my life, I was
virtually clear of
psoriasis.
Now, I wear flip-flops,
open-toed shoes
and shorts. I even wear black shirts now. For the
first time in 20 years, I wore a black
tuxedo with
a silk collar. That's absolutely amazing.
For the first time, I would go
to northern
California and not get kicked out of the
hot
springs.
For the first time in my life, I went to
my health club and people didn't stare at
me when I
went to the shower.
I used to feel bad about
this. The amount
of mental pressure that is released is
huge.
The confidence of not having
psoriasis is
amazing.
It brings amazing confidence back.
It
was so rewarding to not to have to worry
so much
about this problem.
There are three huge things that
this
study has changed for me. One, with psoriasis you
cannot sleep at night. The constant itching just
absolutely drives you--and if you have a
partner
230
would drive them--absolutely crazy, and
it keeps
them up at night also.
Two, you are so self-conscious
about
psoriasis that the psoriasis virtually
eats your
confidence down to nothing. You do not even want
to be seen. So that's all changed now, too.
Three, the constant pain and
stinging of
psoriasis is incredible. This consumes a major
part of your life. And now that has all gone.
Imagine this: take a mosquito
bite--take
the mosquito bite and get it on your
knuckle. Take
that itch that you feel, and multiply it
times 20.
Then scratch that itch for five minutes,
until you
break the skin and you make it
bleed. And about
the time you start feeling that that
itching is
gone, throw some salt on that wound and
experience
the burning of psoriasis. That is what I would
feel up to a hundred times a day. And I've
experienced that for over 20 years.
With that sort of feeling a
hundred times
a day, what kind of distractions from my
life has
occurred, and what have I missed in my
life?
231
I will live with psoriasis for
the rest of
my life. I'm really glad that I got
involved with
this study, because it gave me hope, and
it should
give hope to other people with psoriasis,
too.
After more than 20 years of struggling
with
psoriasis, I feel like a new man after
being on
this drug for the short term that I was.
This medication not only
improved my
physical health, but it gave me back my
self-confidence.
One thing that I hope this
committee will
do is make this drug available to
patients who need
it.
I'm just a common laborer--a working man. And
in most of the work that I do, I need
tools to
accomplish the jobs that I'm asked to
do. And I
really believe that there are not enough
tools out
there--and I've used the tools to try to
take care
of my psoriasis.
So I really hope that you guys
have a
strong consideration for people who are
suffering
like me.
This drug is definitely the
least
232
threatening of all oral medications that
I have
taken.
It has worked for me, and I've done this
study for myself, for my family and for
the
thousands of people just like me all over
the
world.
Thank you very much for your
time.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
Is there anyone who did not
register who
would like to come and present at this,
the open
public forum?
[No response.]
With no one so indicating, then
we'll call
this the end of the open public forum and
more on
to discussion and questions.
And, again, I'd like to thank
the three
people who presented for taking the time
and
traveling here to give us their feelings
and
opinions.
Discussion and
Questions
DR. STERN: Until two o'clock, I
would
propose that we have the first part be
questions of
clarification--essentially what we did
after the
233
sponsor's presentation in the morning,
but now the
questions could go to anyone: FDA,
sponsors or, in
fact, any other committee member.
So, if anyone has questions in
terms of
content, as opposed to really deliberation
of the
questions that have been posed to the
committee--why don't we start with you,
Dr. Honein?
DR. HONEIN: Yes, I just had a
question of
clarification from FDA.
My recollection at the February
meeting is
that we had recommended that pharmacists
register
rather than the pharmacy. And what I saw presented
was the pharmacy in what was proposed for
this.
So I was just wondering if I
recalled that
wrong, or what our final recommendation
was?
DR. BULL: I would say, given
that the
overall program is not completely worked
out, there
are still a lot of details
remaining. And I think
some of the--is it on?
We're trying to look at what will be the
most efficient way to ensure the risk
management,
and I think it may be premature to say
exactly
234
which part. I think there was a lot of discussion
at the meeting--as you recollected--on
the issue of
pharmacies and pharmacists. But I think that's an
element of detail that is still being
evaluated as
what will be the most effective way to
ensure that
the elements adequately address the risk.
DR. STERN: I had a question for
FDA; a
little bit of a follow-up.
I know it's a very complex
process, with
multiple drugs and multiple
sponsors. But are
there other technical or external
constraints that
might be considered in
slowing--potentially slowing
the progress made toward developing a
PLAS system?
DR. KWEDER: I'm Sandra
Kweder. I was very
involved in your meeting in
February. I'm the
Deputy Director of the Office of New
Drugs.
And I had suggested to the
group that I
follow-up on this question, simply
because it's an
issue that's not only relevant at the
working level
in the division, but something that the
agency and
our office of chief counsel is concerned
with, as
well.
235
Probably the main--the sponsors
have been
working extremely well together, and this
is really
unprecedented among a number of generic
firms and
the innovator firm for isotretinoin. And I think
it's fair to say that.
But, without going into a lot
of detail,
the patent issue appears to be
potentially quite
large.
There is a patent held by--there are
actually four patents held by Selgene
Corporation
on risk management--the concept,
basically, of any
risk-management program that links
through one or
more computerized data bases--patients,
pharmacists
who intend to distribute drugs, and
physicians who
may be required to provide data to that
system.
And the patents cover products where
fetal toxicity
is of concern, as well as any potential
adverse
event or contraindication.
So, these patents are
available--you can
find them at the U.S. Patent Office
website. But
this is the first time that we have
encountered a
situation like this, and it--our lawyers
are
studying this. But it does appear that it may pose
236
some obstacles to the implementation of a
modified
program as you recommended, and as we
have been
pursuing.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
Eileen?
DR. RINGEL: This may be a
question for
Allergan--whoever wants to answer it is
fine.
I was wondering if patients who
had
erythrodermic or pustular psoriasis, that
subgroup
was identified and, if so, what the data
about
efficacy was for this medication?
DR. WALKER: I'll answer that
for you.
We required the patients to have stable
plaque psoriasis, and did not do a
subgroup--or did
not have patients actually enroll in the
trial that
had erythrodermic or pustular psoriasis.
DR. STERN: Dr. Day?
DR. DAY: I just had a brief comment about
pharmacies versus pharmacists.
In the briefing document from
the sponsor,
it does say "a representative;"
"a pharmacy
representative." It does sound like one person
237
from each pharmacy--in the briefing
document.
DR. WALKER: yes--I can comment
on that.
We are proposing that a
pharmacy be
registered, and that there is a
representative from
each pharmacy who is responsible for
training all
the pharmacists within that
system--really, to
avoid problems such that if one
pharmacist is
registered, they all aren't, one gets
sick, is out,
that the drug couldn't be distributed. So the
entire staff would be registered by one
key,
identifiable individual within that
pharmacy.
DR. STERN: Dr. Katz.
DR. KATZ: A question for Dr.
Walker.
Can the committee be privy to the
expert
opinions of people with expertise in bone
metabolism?
DR. WALKER: They certainly can.
DR. KATZ: Can we--
DR. WALKER: Yes--
DR. KATZ: Thank you.
DR. WALKER: I have three
different people
here that have analyzed the data, and a
fourth
238
person who, unfortunately, can't be
here. But we
do have the conclusions from that
person. They've
had a family emergency.
We have someone who's an expert
on both
the technology and interpretation of bone
mineral
density data; on orthopedic
changes--calcification,
osteophyte formation; and then an expert
outside
statistician who's helped us look at the
data to
see how these regressions from the mean,
and are
they what you would expect in this
population as
normal variance.
So it might be helpful for me
if you tell
me--if you want me to bring them up
individually,
or if you have questions that I can then
field to
the appropriate person?
DR. KATZ: The main question is
what they
would visualize as progression with the
data that
we've seen, combining the hip
demineralization, the
alkaline phosphatase--how that can be
tied up. And
what one would expect for the future.
DR. WALKER: All right--this is
such a
complex area. I have a lot of data in different
239
things. I'm going to start by having the
statistician, who's looked at the data
that we
have, looked at the data from the 12-week
study,
and then looked at the data from the
open-label
050P study, and has done some statistical
analysis.
Now, he's looking to see: is
there a
variation that you would expect in the
population?
So I think we'll start
there. And then
I'd also like to show you data that
Frederick
Bettingfield from Allergan will show you
on: is
this actually regression to the mean?
And we'll go from there. I think this
could be fun.
DR. HELMS: Yes, I'm Ron
Helms. I'm
Professor Emeritus of Biostatistics,
University of
North Carlina, Chapel Hill. And I've been doing
this a long time--someone suggested I
say.
Probably a statistician is the
last person
you want to hear from, instead of the
first. But
there is an important point here.
Can we have the slide up,
please?
[Slide.]
240
This is data from femoral neck
bone
mineral density evaluations. And I apologize from
the lightness of the slide.
This is in the 52-week study. The red x's
there are a scatter diagram. Along the bottom we
have baseline measurements, and on the
vertical
axis we have the post-treatment or
endo-treatment
measurements.
And the primary point I want to
make with
this slide is that these data follow a
bivariate
normal distribution very closely. The data are
closely approximated by a bivariate
normal
distribution.
Now, that would be more
meaningful to the
statisticians in the room than to others,
perhaps.
The consequence of that is that: if we
see a shift
from baseline to post-treatment over a
period of a
year, and if this bivariate normal
distribution
fits, then the shift shows up in the
mean. It
doesn't show up in other kinds of
features of the
distribution.
If you look on the bottom
right-hand side
241
there, the man shift here was about minus
.01; the
mean shifted in 102 patients, I believe
it was,
from .943 to .933. And a similar median shift.
So, over a period of a year
there was
about a 1 percent shift in the mean; a
decrease in
bone mineral density.
While the slide is up I'll go
ahead and
make another point. I hope this is okay.
There has been some discussion
about
values that had decreased by more than 5
percent.
There's a line that's very difficult to
see, right
along there--it's a green line--that's a
95 percent
line, and that is--points below that line
are
points that were less than 95 percent at
the end of
treatment--less than 95 percent of what
they were
at the baseline. And there are some points in
there.
The fact that this is a
bivariate normal
distribution actually means that that's
not a very
good way at looking at these data. The ellipse
that you see there is called a 95-percent
tolerance
region, and it's designed to capture 95
percent of
242
the data points. And in this case, it actually
captures 94 percent of them, which is a
pretty good
fit.
But looking at points that are
below the
line, where there was a reduction of 5
percent or
more, there were 11 percent of those
points in the
data.
If we were finding something going on other
than just normal trends, just noise, that
appears
in these data points, we would expect to
see more
than 11 percent. Actually, we would expect to see
13 percent, just on the basis of
noise. We only
saw 11 percent.
So this is an indication--the
conclusion
from that is that what we're seeing here
is just
bivariate normal random variability.
Yes, sir?
DR. STERN: I wanted to ask you
a question,
because to me, it's very different when
you're
looking at sometimes rare idiosyncratic
effects.
So I guess what I'd like to know is: what
was the
power of this study to detect a 1
percent--1
percent of people having, in fact, 5
percent
243
reductions, and prove it statistically?
So, you've shown us everything
fits in,
but I don't know the power of this and
how you've
treated people without multiple
observations.
So I would ask you--I'm
interested in your
assuring me, with 80 percent confidence,
that not
more than one in a hundred individuals
has more
than a 5 percent reduction over a
year. What's
your power to exclude that with a beta .8
and an
alpha of .05?
That's, to me what's relevant
in a safety
study.
DR. LUE: I'm John LUE,
biostatistics.
I've done some power
calculation based on
a 1 percent background information, what
it would
take to detect a 2 percent difference.
The power is about 11 percent.
DR. STERN: I'm sorry, is that a
2 percent
difference in mean? Or one in a hundred
individuals--
DR. LUE: One in a hundred.
244
DR. STERN: Okay.
So, in other words, there's an
89 percent
chance that a difference--one in a
hundred people
could have more than a 2 percent
reduction, and we
wouldn't have detected it in your study.
DR. LUE: I need to qualify
that. This was
based on a sample side of average of 350
per
treatment group. So a basis--
DR. STERN: This is only about a
150
people.
Dr. LUE: Correct.
DR. STERN: So the power of this
is
probably--
DR. LUE: Less.
DR. STERN: Less--like .05,
.03--
DR. LUE: Right.
DR. STERN: --something in that--it's
probably not linear.
DR. LUE: Correct.
DR. STERN: Okay. Thank you.
DR. HELMS: Let me just clarify
one point,
though.
245
There is a lot of--the
substantial amount
of power here for--and this goes back to
the point
I made about it being a bivariate normal
distribution. If it really is a bivariate
normal--and it fits very well--then the
shift will
show up in the mean. Even if there is a small
subgroup, if it's a bivariate normal, the
shift
will show up in the mean.
DR. STERN: It all depends on
how small a
subgroup you'd be concerned about.
DR. HELMS: That's correct.
DR. STERN: And that's why I
asked the
question.
One in a hundred, to me, would be a
small number of people relative to those
treated,
but a clinically very important endpoint,
were it
true.
And that's why I wanted to know the power.
So what I'm hearing is: there's
not much
power at all, here.
DR. HELMS: That's correct. I mean, there
are 102 patients in the data.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
DR. WALKER: A couple more
speakers for you
246
on the same topic.
DR. STERN: I'm wondering, if
there's no
power to reject the null, whether we
should spend a
lot of time. Because I have already an increasing
list of speakers.
So, why don't we go on--
DR. WALKER: Well, umm--
DR. STERN: --to the next thing?
DR. WALKER: I actually think,
if you look
at this--and there's a lot of data in
this field
that I do think is important to look at.
If you look at osteoporosis
studies, for
instance, it's very common for patients
to have a
reduction as great or greater than what
we saw on
drugs.
So I do think it does lend
credibility to
what we've seen, and makes it a little
more
questionable.
We aren't saying that we don't
know for
certain that you don't detect a
signal. We just
think that the risk is minimal--not
certain.
DR. STERN: I don't mean to be
in any way
247
critical of the sponsor. I think we have to look
at what we're looking for. And to my mind, what
we're looking for--and perhaps other
members of the
committee would disagree--is a relatively
low
frequency event that could be
idiosyncratic, and
then we have to regard what is the
quantity and
quality of the data we have?
And I think I agree with you
that we
can't--these data do not either tell us
that this
drug is not bad for bones, or bad for
bones, and
that we have to live with that
uncertainty. And I
think we can look at these data five ways
from
Sunday--one of the things I'm a little
too prone to
do--and come to opposite conclusions.
But I think in the interest of
time, we
should probably move on.
DR. WALKER: All right. I actually
appreciate what you're saying, and I
think--I agree
with you.
I think my colleagues would agree with
you.
The only thing to think about,
when you
think about the drug, is that it is a
class of
248
drugs that we do have 20 years'
experience with.
And what we're seeing is nothing outside
of what we
would expect with the class.
Thank you.
DR. STERN: Ms. Shapiro?
MS. SHAPIRO: This is really a
quite
different topic. Okay.
I'm just wondering, from both
industry and
the FDA, if you can help me understand
the purpose
of,
and impact of, the pregnancy test which, as I
understand it, would be a part of this
proposed
risk-management program, as well--other
than the
first one.
In other words, when you do
them monthly
and you get a positive, is the
purpose--are you
going to then give counseling to that
person? Is
it going to be paid for by industry? Are you just
doing it so you can collect data?
What--it's going to be too
late, maybe, to
prevent harm. So what's the
purpose of it?
DR. WALKER: Do you want
industry to start,
or FDA?
249
DR. STERN: Did you want to
comment on
that, Dr.--
VOICE: [Off mike.] [Inaudible.]
DR. STERN: For some of us who've been
part of this process for the last 16 or
18 or 20
years, it's been a subject of
debate. And we could
probably be here for about another week
and not all
agree on what it is.
It's--everything have evolved
in a way,
and there are varying opinions about
which elements
are most and least effective. And I think this is
not the main purpose of our meeting
today. And
I'm--
MS. SHAPIRO: But, you know,
with all due
respect, if we're going to give advice on
a
risk-management program, I'd like to hear
some of
the proposed answers--in a nutshell.
DR. TRONTELL: Ahh--I can try
and take the
first pass at this--Anne Trontell.
You know, the purpose of
ongoing pregnancy
testing is, obviously, you would want to
detect a
pregnancy early and inform the patient
about the
250
exposure and options available to that
person.
Education may have a secondary role, in
terms of
reinforcing the importance of adhering to
contraceptive behavior.
And I would like--as a
pointy-headed
epidemiologist, and someone heavily
invested in
evaluating whether or not these various
programs
have an impact--it also gives us very
important
information to know whether or not the
interventions that are being addressed,
in fact are
having their desired impact.
So, I think those three are
probably what
we think is most important about it.
DR. WALKER: I'd like to add
that,
actually, what's different in the program
being
propose now, and what's different in the
recommendations for the new isotretinoin
programs,
are that there is a response to that
pregnancy
test.
You have a direct link--the pregnancy test
has to be negative before the drug can be
dispensed. Also, the educational materials--as you
251
heard this morning in the FDA
presentation--the
educational materials, there is a
performance that
the physician and the patient have to
achieve that
will trigger dispensing of the drug. If the
patient doesn't understand the
contraceptive
measures required, and that they need negative
pregnancy tests, then the drug, again,
won't be
dispensed.
So it is different than the
current SMART
program, in that there is--it's not just
a
pregnancy test. There is actually a response to
that test.
MS. SHAPIRO: But if it's
positive--it
could have been positive for 29 days.
DR. WALKER: Well, the entry
into the
program requires at least two consecutive
ones. But
then, next, if a woman of childbearing
potential
gets it during her menstrual cycle then,
in theory,
you should be within a two week
period. And,
you're correct, it would just be stopping
the drug
very early, rather than, certainly,
preventing the
pregnancy.
252
DR. STERN: But, at least, for
isotretinoin, the available evidence is
that there
is no safe period of exposure. There's a
literature going back to the late '80s or
early
'90s based on the originator company's
data that
showed that.
So, early stopping, once a
pregnancy has
occurred in an exposed individual is--
DR. WALKER: Agreed.
DR. STERN: --a very serious event.
DR. WALKER: Agreed.
DR. STERN: Dr. Epps?
DR. EPPS: Sorry to return to
the bone
topic just for a second.
There were--I guess the company
didn't
comment on the fractures. I would like to know the
type of fractures, and characteristics of
those
people.
DR. WALKER: Yes, we can show
you those
fractures. And we did go through the case report
forms, and then go to the source
documents at each
site, for each fracture.
253
And Dr. Beddingfield's going to
share that
with you.
DR. BEDDINGFIELD: I'm Dr.
Frederick
Beddingfield. I'm the medical director of skin
care at Allergan.
Slide up, please.
[Slide.]
We did go back and look at the
fractures
that were noted. We looked at several possible
variables that could be associated with
patients
who had the largest decreases in the
study.
And, as you can see from this
slide,
actually there were more than six
fractures in the
study.
But what's interesting to note is that the
age of the patient is typically young;
typically
male; and the sites of the fractures were
mostly
digits--and this has not been associated
with
decreases in bone mineral density.
If I could now have slide S-87,
please?
[Slide.]
We looked at what were the bone
mineral
density changes in these patients,
nonetheless.
254
Slide up.
[Slide.]
And what we found is that the
bone mineral
density changes within changes, and
across the
group, there's no consistent pattern, and
there's
certainly--one can see there's as many
increases as
decreases in bone mineral density. There's no
clear relationship at all to these
patients. And
these were the six fractures mentioned,
for which
there was bone mineral density data. There's no
clear relationship to the fractures and
mineral
density changes.
If I could just take a second
and have
slide S-183, please. There was mention in the
briefing package of a patient with a 50
percent
change in bone mineral density.
And--slide S-183, please?
[Slide.]
And just to--or, actually,
slide S-183.
Thank you.
[Slide.]
Just to set the record straight, this is
255
the recording we're talking about. And this is
another recording from the femoral neck
at the same
time.
And these scans were of unacceptable
quality.
I have further information on why they
were unacceptable if you need that. But those were
inaccurate results, and they were not
accepted.
The patient did have some
changes in bone
mineral density, but they were much, much
smaller,
and nowhere near the same degree.
And if I could have slide
S-206--there was
one other patient who was mentioned, with
bone
mineral density change close to 30 percent.
Slide up, please.
[Pause.]
[Slide.]
Yes. And this is the changes in this
patient over time.
This is the value that we're
referring to.
It's important to note that this patient
was an
over 300-pound gentleman, which makes
this a very
technically limiting study to
perform. And most of
the values were nowhere near this range.
256
However, again, there were
consistent
decreases in bone mineral density in this
single
patient, but certainly not in the range
of this,
over time.
DR. EPPS: Well, while you're
handy, there
was
a comment, I guess, at one time that, you know,
perhaps the gains or losses--depending
upon which
we're looking at--were per natural
progression.
Do you have normal progression?
DR. BEDDINGFIELD: Yes, we have
normalized
the data.
DR. EPPS: Not normalized. I mean in the
normal population--not on drug.
DR. BEDDINGFIELD: Okay, what we
did--and
I'd like to have our bone densitometrist
speak to
this--but what we did was to use a
t-score
evaluation, which is what the World
Health
Organization recommends. And it normalizes the
data to the ideal adult male--young male
bone
mineral density. And it helps put it into
perspective, because just because someone
has a 5
percent change in bone mineral density
doesn't tell
257
you where they end up. But the t-score does. It
lets you know if they're osteoporotic,
osteopenic,
or normal.
DR. EPPS: Why weren't females
used?
DR. BEDDINGFIELD: Well, that's
something
to ask the World Health Organization, I
suppose. I
wouldn't know the answer to that.
[Laughter.]
But that's a very good question
[laughs].
Could I have slide S-196,
please.
[Pause.]
Slide up, please?
[Slide.]
And this is a summary of the
t-score
results--in the patients with 5 percent
losses.
What we found is that these
would be--the
patients with the worse losses in the
study, that
we're specifically looking at here--44
percent of
them had normal bone mineral density
throughout the
study, all measurements; 38 percent had
osteopenia
at baseline, and they never became
osteoporotic.
Just to put this in
perspective,
258
osteopenia is 1 standard deviation from
the mean;
osteoporotic is 2.5 standard deviations.
16 percent who were normal did
develop
osteopenia. No patient in this group--not a single
one--developed osteoporosis. There was one patient
who started osteoporotic, and remained
osteoporotic.
Notwithstanding Dr. Stern's
comments about
the power, which I certainly appreciate,
I think
this is at least helpful information on
the
patients with the most significant
losses.
DR. STERN: I can't resist once
more saying
that: these are one-year data for a
chronic
disease, which we've heard earlier, has
an average
duration in severely affected individuals
of 40 to
60 years.
So, what we're looking for is
some little
signal.
If we had one patient who went from normal
bone density to osteoporosis in a year
without some
other explanation, we would be--we
probably
wouldn't be meeting here today.
So, we have to look for subtle
signals.
259
And I don't find these one-year
data--this
distribution--terribly reassuring.
[Pause.]
I'm sorry--Dr. Wilkerson.
DR. WILKERSON: I agree. I mean, we're
talking long-term disease here. We have a signal
from laboratory--just anecdotally, from
years of
retinoid use, I've rarely seen elevated
alkaline
phosphatase with the other products on
the market.
So, obviously, there's
something going on
with this drug. The sponsor didn't pursue any more
clarification of that. And, you know, as much as
we want to dance around this data here,
we've got
another signal from hard-core laboratory,
that is
reproducible, indicating a problem, you
know, with
metabolism.
Now, is this drug going to be
labeled an
and on-and-off type drug? Or is it going to be
labeled as a continuous
administration? I mean,
what are you going for?
DR. WALKER: Our proposal is to
have the
drug for chronic use. We studied it up to one
260
year.
We feel that the bone changes
are minimal
and rare.
I do fully agree that a rare event
cannot be picked up in clinical trials.
This isn't
unique to this product, it's any product
at the
time of approval, if it is a one in
100,000, or one
in 10,000 rate of occurrence, you will
not pick it
up in most clinical development programs.
DR. WILKERSON: But, in all due
respect, we
may be talking about one in a hundred, or
one in
200.
DR. WALKER: But you won't--
DR. WILKERSON: Not that rare,
rare event.
DR. WALKER: Okay. I agree.
DR. WILKERSON: The n of your
study is so
small--particularly for the long-term
administration of this product. I mean, you've got
far too few people in your studies right
now.
That's the problem.
And while we need some
alternatives--and I
think that's what we're all here for, is
to offer
patients alternatives, we also, as a
clinician, we
261
need to offer them things that we are
relatively
sure are safe for them to take long
term--in five
years we don't discover that, my God,
you've got 30
or 40 percent bone loss, you know,
sitting here,
and you're 35 years old, and now you're
osteoporotic at age 40.
DR. WALKER: I absolutely agree
with
everything you've said. But this drug is a new
drug, and this is a new indication for an
oral
formulation. This is not a new class of drugs.
DR. WILKERSON: No, you're
right. But we
have not--either we have missed the boat
with the
other products on the market, and we have
not
detected this, or, because the
selectivity of this
particular drug, we are seeing a new side effect.
DR. WALKER: I--
DR. WILKERSON: This is not
something that
has been worried about with other
retinoids that
have been on the market. We knew about the DISH
syndrome.
We knew about calcification on the
ligaments. But bone mineral loss has not at least
been on the radar screen of clinicians
for use of
262
retinoids in the United States.
DR. WALKER: Well, there are
published
reports of bone--
DR. WILKERSON: There may be--
DR. WALKER: --of bone mineral loss with
isotretinoin. If you look at the labeling for
isotretinoin and for acitretin, there is
an
alkaline phosphatase that increases up to
30
percent.
So, I do--you know, agree with
what you're
saying, but I take a little issue that
these are
new or unique events with tazarotene that
haven't
been observed in the class.
I do agree that it is, in
general, not a
major concern to clinicians when they
start
patients on acitretin or
isotretinoin. However,
when I trained, I did check x-rays in
patients on
acitretin for beyond--or, at that time,
it was
etretinate--beyond one year. And we did follow
them routinely.
So, I do think that for chronic
use, some
physicians feel differently. I might help if I had
263
one of our experts--Dr. Lebwohl, who's
used a lot
of retinoids--comment on how he sees this
drug
relative to others
DR. STERN: I think we're going to just run
out of time.
DR. WILKERSON: But, on the
other--not to
beat this bag of bones and move on--the
other issue
is: is this risk-management program
that's being
proposed going to be restricted also by
these
patent restrictions that we're talking
about? Or
is your program exempt from that.
DR. WALKER: Well, I have not
been involved
with the discussions for isotretinoin to
be
familiar enough to comment on whether we
will be.
However, if we are proposing
and adopting
all the essential elements of
isotretinoin, which
is what I've been telling you, it's very
likely
that we may have the same restrictions.
But I would have to defer that
question,
actually, to the agency for comment. We haven't
been involved in those discussions.
DR. WILKERSON: Could I hear
from Dr.
264
Lebwohl.
DR. WALKER: Yes. Thank you.
DR. LEBWOHL: Sure. Mark
Lebwohl--dermatologist in New York.
First, I would say that the
amount of data
regarding bone density that is presented
here I
think compares very favorably to what has
been
presented with the other retinoids that
are
available on the market.
Now, we do have a long history
of use and,
in fact, large numbers of patients who
have been on
oral either etretinate or acitretin for
many years.
And certainly in those patients I don't
doubt that
there is an amount of mineral bone
density loss
that can be found if you look closely,
but it is
not clinical significant. We're not seeing
fractures--we're not seeing the kind of
changes
that you see with systemic steroids.
So, while--you know, I think
that the kind
of statement that is in the package
insert for
those drugs is appropriate for those
drugs, I think
it does put into perspective what we're
seeing in
265
clinical practice both with this drug
for, albeit a
shorter period of time, as well as with
those drugs
over a long period of time, it's not
clinical
significant.
And I'm not aware of any
clinician
nowadays who routinely gets mineral bone
densities
or x-rays in patients on oral retinoids
for years.
You know, the person who
actually knows
this better than I is Tom Fuerst, because
he was
telling me about this with other drugs
that are
actually used to treat osteoporosis.
DR. FUERST: My name is Tom
Fuerst. I'm
trained as a medical physicist. I've worked in the
area of bone densitometry for the last 10
years,
using it to assess osteoporosis and
fracture risk,
and monitor changes in bone mineral
density, And I
just wanted to make a comment about the
potential
long-term effects.
I don't have the answer to
that. I don't
think the data in this room to answer
that
question.
But, in general, it's difficult to
extrapolate from shot-term data to longer
term use.
266
The general trend, whether you're
introducing an
agent that will increase bone mineral
density to
treat low bone mass, or another agent
that might
have a deleterious effect on bone mineral
density,
in general the changes are larger in the
first six
to 12 months, and not sustained
afterward. There
may continue to be losses, but just a
simple linear
extrapolation is difficult to do.
But, again, I don't have the
data bout
long-term treatment with this drug, but
just a
caution about extrapolation.
DR. STERN: Dr. Sellers?
DR. SELLERS. This is actually a very
basic question, and it has to do with
efficacy.
When I read the literature on
efficacy, I
don't see a significant difference
between the oral
formulation and the topical
formulation. And I was
wondering if you could comment on that?
DR. WALKER: I can. I was--first, I guess,
you want to phrase things that it's very
difficult
to compare study to study. This assessment is the
same, but the population was very
different.
267
The patients who came into the
topical
trial did not need to be as severe as
those that
came into the oral trial. Their average body
surface area was--around 10?--7 to 8
percent body
surface area. Their disease was less.
We also had, for our criteria
for
efficacy, not a "none" or
"minimal," but actually a
"mild," "none" or
"minimal." And those trials,
very few patients actually made it to
none or
minimal.
And I'm not sure--in Dr. Cook's analysis,
I think you might not have meant
"none" or
"minimal," but
"mild." Because when you look
at
our label for "none" or
"minimal" the numbers are
actually smaller than what was presented
today.
So I think it's difficult to
compare. I
think large body surface areas are
difficult. The
drug works, I should say, very well
topically. But
it's really a different patient
population.
Also, the topical drug is not
appropriate
for intertrigenous areas because of
erythema,
scaling and pruritus. It's difficult to put a gel
or a cream in the scalp. It doesn't help nails.
268
I will say although we didn't
see nail
changes in the 12-week study, we did see
positive
effects in the one-year study. You wouldn't expect
to see nail changes in a 12-week study
based upon
the growth rate of nails.
So, there were other effects
that you can
get long-term that you wouldn't get with
a topical.
DR. STERN: Dr. Epps?
DR. EPPS: I have a
question--just to
change organ systems--about the thyroid
issue.
Were any of the patients
symptomatic? What was the
outcome of some of those patients' alterations?
DR. WALKER: I'd like to share
that data
with you.
I think it's a complicated area, and
when you look at the data, it just shows
you how
much variation, also, you get with
thyroid within a
patient population.
And Dr. Beddingfield is going
to share
that with us.
[Pause.]
DR. BEDDINGFIELD: Could I have
slide
S-188, please? Slide up, please?
269
[Slide.]
This is the data that we have
on thyroid
disease, and thyroid labs from all three
studies;
the placebo-controlled trials, the
six-month trial,
and the one-year trial.
And this is adverse events. So this is
hypothyroidism, as reported as an adverse
even in
the placebo-controlled trial. There's no
difference between the tazarotene group
and the
placebo group.
We also looked at patients with
percentages of TSH that were
abnormal. And you can
see there's no difference between the two
groups.
Thyroxin level--no significant
difference
between the two groups--a trend for the
placebo
group to have a higher rate of
abnormalities.
And the similar pattern is seen
throughout
the trial. You do have, here, a slightly higher
rate in the long-term treatment with
tazarotene,
versus the 12-week treatment. This was not
statistically analyzed, but you can see
the rates
of TSH abnormalities and thyroxin
abnormalities
270
follow no consistent patterns there.
And then in the long-term study,
comparing
the first six months of treatment to the
second six
months, you don't see a spike up in the
second six
months.
And overall, the rate of adverse events
for hypothyroidism is quite low, and the
comparable
rates of abnormal TSHs and thyroxine.
So, I really do not think we've
seen a
signal here at all with respect to
thyroid. And,
of course, this is quite different than
what we've
seen with other retinoids.
DR. LEBWOHL: I just wanted to
comment--the
reason that we looked at hypothyroidism
in these
patients is because of a known retinoid
effect in
causing central hypothyroidism, which is
different
than what we're seeing here. With Targretin or
bexarotine, you see a drop in TSH, which
then leads
to hypothyroidism, and the TSH remains
low. So the
elevation of TSH is not a retinoid effect
that
we're used to.
DR. STERN: Dr. Honein?
DR. HONEIN: Yes, I have a
question about
271
any predictions that FDA olor the sponsor
has about
off-label use, since in the trends you
presented
for the topical version of this drug,
three-quarters of it is for acne.
And what I heard presented this
morning is
sort of focused on the psoriasis
population being
different. But if three-quarters of this drug is
going to be used for acne patients, I
think that
would need to play into what sort of risk
management program is appropriate.
DR. WALKER: Topical use for
acne has been
proven to be effective. For oral use, we did do a
Phase 2 dose-ranging study, and we showed
some
efficacy.
Whether it's as efficacious and would
meet the criteria for approval for
nodulocystic
acne is not known. We're currently not pursuing
the Phase 3 program for the acne
indication.
It's, I think, somewhat of a
leap of faith
to feel that 75 percent of the oral would
be used
for acne, since it hasn't been
proved. It
certainly--not all systemic retinoids
work for
acne.
Isotretinoin is very unique.
Acitretin,
272
etretinate--altrans retinoic
acid--bexarotine--three other systemic
retinoids,
don't work for nodulocystic acne, and
haven't been
proven.
So, I think that the logic is
there, but
it's not--it is somewhat of a leap of
faith.
Allergan won't promote this
product for
off-label use. We won't encourage off-label use.
We won't do any of those things. We will promote
the product to be used on-label, which
we're
requesting to be psoriasis.
Having said that, we do have a
risk-management program that does target
the
vulnerable population, irrespective of
the use of
the product. So we are protecting the patients to,
really, the same degree that the
isotretinoin
program is protecting them. So in the event that
it is used off label, that population
would be
protected.
And the next question, of
course, is how
would you track where it was used, and we
would
track that through known marketing data
bases, such
273
the IMS data base, or automated data
claims bases.
DR. STERN: But, the FDA, in
their briefing
document, in fact, gave as illustrations
a number
of studies that were presented as
posters, which
showed various kinds of efficacy in acne
for your
product, and I know you would not promote
it as
such, but one--in fact, if one looks at
the oral
retinoid use, there's at least an order
of
magnitude difference in the number of
people
exposed to isotretinoin than all other
oral
retinoids combined, with acne versus all
other
indications.
And the problem, to me, is that
who is to
say that even without promotion, given
that you
have a product that is topically used
both ways,
that the average clinician won't think,
"Oh,
tazarotene--something new. Works well topically
for both indications." And I guess
my concern is:
in any off-label use, unless we have
evidence--you
know, this is not the usual off-label
use, but
rather, we have a drug with known
substantial
risks, and then we have a drug with what
might be
274
the dominant use--at least if it
conformed to the
overall use pattern of retinoids--being
in acne.
And I don't know what the benefits are in
acne.
You know, if you could present me with
data that
showed the benefits are equal to
isotretinoin, and
you only use it for 20 weeks, and the
remissions
are the same, I'd feel pretty good
about--very good
about it, in terms of approving it now,
and then
letting your NDA go forward.
But let's say this is a drug
that doesn't
give remissions, and people use it in a
different
way for acne, with more exposures. You know, it's
not the usual--"Well, they might not
have gotten
approval." This is a class of drugs we're
extremely concerned about. And the psychology for
it, based on topical use, and based on
some studies
that the company must have sponsored and
saw fit to
have--let their individuals present at
meetings,
has an acne claim, basically. You
know--psychologically.
And before you answer that
question, I'd
like to pose a related question to the
committee,
275
and I'll start it by showing my own
ignorance.
Is there anyone else who's a
dermatologist
on this committee that knew that the
labeling for
topical tazarotene asked for a pregnancy
test
within two weeks of starting? That's my first
question. Was there anyone else
besides me who
didn't know about that?
Okay. I guess that means I don't have to
ask the second question: how many of you
routinely
do it. [Laughs.]
DR. EPPS: And no representative
has ever
told me that they should.
DR. STERN: And it's a very well
sampled
product in the places where I
practice. So it's
not like we haven't seen the folks--which
I
think--so that really concerns me,
too. You know--
DR. WALKER: Well, there's two
very
complicated questions--or really more
ideas that
that you've placed out there.
I'm going to start with the
idea of the
acne, and the oral tazarotene.
I think you have to keep
focused on the
276
fact that oral tazarotene works very well
for
moderate to severe psoriasis. The acne issue is
out there. It is a retinoid. You can make that
leap of faith. But really, to restrict a drug for
severe psoriasis patients because you're
concerned
about off-label use, I think is a bit
inappropriate. And the drug does work for
psoriasis, and that's why we're here
today. I want
to remind you. I want you to think about what the
patients said that were here, and to keep
focused
on all the work that we've done in the
psoriasis
indication.
We have done some Phase 2 work for
acne.
We presented that Phase 2 work at
meetings. It
does suggest some efficacy. Whether it's close to
Accutane; whether you don't have relapse
like with
Accutane, we haven't demonstrated.
You know, I don't think it's
going to go
off and be an Accutane in the first
year. We would
follow all that. If modifications needed to be
made because there was vast, you know,
off-label
use, then I think that would be something
that
277
could be discussed with this committee,
with the
agency.
But, you know, I really almost want to be
you: don't forget what we're really
looking at.
Don't forget those pictures of those
patients.
You know, this is for
psoriasis. It does
work.
We do have a very rigorous risk-management
program in place--or that we are going to
put in
place, which is--it has all the
components that he
isotretinoin program has. So we are tracking those
patients.
We are protecting those patients,
because--we appreciate your concern, but
we don't
think this should be restricted until we
prove or
disprove that it works for a separate
indication.
The other question that's out
there is the
topical.
It is clearly labeled. We do have
all
our advertisements that have it. And the reason
you probably don't worry about it is that
it isn't
a real risk. It is a very, very low systemic
absorption. We've had, I think, eight pregnancies.
I could show you that data. There's been no
retinoid-related effects.
If you look at the serum concentrations
278
with topical administration to the face
for acne,
relative to the teratogenic levels,
they're very,
very low.
So, although it is a risk, the company
supports the X label. We don't advertise against
the X label. It's in all of our literature.
That--you know, the company isn't saying
this, but
I think the fact that you're not that
aware of it
is
because it's not a real significant risk.
We aren't saying that with the
oral form.
We're saying it is a significant
risk. It is a
probably teratogen. And we are willing to go
beyond what any the retinoids out there
are doing
right now. We're going beyond what the competitive
retinoid is for psoriasis, and we're
going beyond
what bexarotine is, which is for
cutaneous t-cell
lymphoma.
And just keep your focus--I'd
like to say
on psoriasis and on the patients who need
this
drug.
DR. STERN: Dr. Sellers.
DR. SELLERS: This issue is
somewhat
problematic, though, because, in fact,
all you
279
really need are the data from a Phase 2
trial to
establish your off-label market before a
drug gets
approved for something else. And, in posters that
were cited were discussing efficacy, were
discussing safety, that were based on
trials that
may not capture populations at risk for
pregnancy
exposures, for some of the adverse events
that we
discussed today.
So, I think although the
company will not
be--quote-unquote--"promoting"
the use, it's
already out there. And there's no way we'll be
able to control it, unless we continue
with trials.
DR. WALKER: I will say that we
did do
safety monitoring in that population,
because the
risk of pregnancy, I really think we are
covering.
But if you think about bone
mineral
density, the x-rays--we did extensive
studies in
that population. We looked at epiphyseal
plate
closure, we looked at bone density, we
looked at
osteophyte formation. We also did urinary markers
for bone resorption and absorption, as
well as
fractionating--in that case, the alkaline
280
phosphatase. And we didn't see anything. That was
a six-month treatment.
So, for short-term treatments
like what
you have with isotretinoin, you don't see
the same
adverse event profile that you may see
out beyond a
year.
DR. STERN: But you did see
three out of
either 84 or 86 women enrolled in your
clinical
trials become pregnant--with, presumably,
since
these trials were relatively
recent--presumably a
company risk-management strategy for the
management
of the Phase 3 trials.
So--you know, that's not a
great number.
DR. WALKER: The trial--although
it has
essentially--it has a mandatory
registration, since
the patients are in the trial--there
wasn't the
extensive patient education. This was done several
years ago. There wasn't the mandatory patient
education. And then the reaction if the patient
didn't demonstrate appropriate education,
which is
now being employed in the post-marketing
of oral
tazarotene
281
So it is somewhat different,
although I
agree, there were pregnancies and that
concerned
us, and that's partly why we've modified
our
program.
DR. STERN: Dr. Katz.
DR. KATZ: First I have a couple
brief
comments.
Dr. Epps asked the question:
how does the
decreased bone mineral density compare to
what
would normally be found? In the FDA presentation
we were told less than 1 percent in males
per year,
and here all the trends are greater than
that.
Another comment to Dr. Sellers, when she
asked Dr. Walker whether the comparison
with
topical and oral was similar. I would like to
emphasize, again: these were not
double-blind
studies.
And for the non-dermatologists around the
panel: topical, tazarotene, it gives
irritation.
So it's unblinded immediately.
Nevertheless, all the studies
you see are
entitled "double-blind"
studies. You have to start
as double-blind studies, but anybody
knows that
282
they weren't double-blind studies.
The other thing I would take
issue
with--and there could be difference of
opinion on
this--Dr. Walker, I don't know if you
actually
treat patients--with the Tazorac,
topically, but
you repeatedly state "it's very
effective in
psoriasis." And that's all I do. I teach a half a
day, and otherwise I take care of
patients, many of
whom have psoriasis. And it's not very effective
topically. You know, it may be in the rare person.
I haven't seen them in 10 years. But it may be.
But it's certainly not very effective.
And soon after it came out they
were
suggesting its topical use with--I don't
want to be
argumentative now, but topical use with
topical
steroids.
And it is very effective with the use of
high potency topical steroids, which work
by
themselves.
Now, to get off from that, my
own comments
are that these bone--not only bone
density that
bothered me, but it's all in the same
direction:
elevation of alkaline phosphatase, more
retinoid
283
musculoskeletal symptoms. And it's all in that
direction. And it's only in a 52-week study. And
you worry about these patients long term.
It's unlike Accutane, where we
treat
patients for 20 weeks or a little longer,
and a
small number require--well, not so small
number
require re-treatment, but it's for
another 20
weeks.
It's not with continued use.
So you really worry about an
effect like
that.
And we can't use the argument
that we have
20 years of experience with it, because
we don't.
This is a different drug. It's a unique drug. It
only produces cheilitis in 65 percent of
patients,
whereas Accutane, it's 100 percent of
patients.
And so its unique effect on bone is not
astounding.
And, in fact--in disagreeing with a
colleague--in
the rare instances where we use Accutane
long
term--which is rare, like in Darrier's
disease--we
do check bone density after a year. We are very
concerned about that.
But this appears to have even
more of
284
those effects.
DR. WALKER: I'd just like to
comment.
Number one, I've learned about
the
double-blind from you, and I made a not
during
lunch.
So thank you. I think you're
absolutely
correct.
I've been accused before having that
"very" in there, and I need to
strike those from my
vocabulary. So that's another friendly reminder.
And also I think your point
about the
bone--we understand what you're
saying. I do feel
that it is within the range of what is
reported in
the literature for the other products,
but I
understand what you're saying and we
appreciate
your opinions. Thank you.
DR. STERN: Dr. Day.
DR. DAY: The proposed brand
name for the
oral is "Tazoral?" Is that the way you say it?
DR. WALKER:
"Taz-oral."
DR. DAY: Well, I've gone around
and asked
a bunch of people, and I've gotten lots
of
different pronunciations, even from
dermatologists.
So that could be a problem.
285
But there is a precedent with
Tazorac out
there.
Have I said that correctly?
DR. WALKER: You have said that
correctly.
DR. DAY: All right. When you write both
of those--and if you happen to write in
block
letters, the "C" and the
"L" at the end could look
very similar.
The Drug Safety and Risk Management
Advisory Committee has been concerned
with
confusion in drug names. And it is the same active
ingredient and so forth, but since there
are
different indications for the oral and
the
topical--and also different
effectivenesses for the
different types of psoriasis and location
for
psoriasis, could you comment on the
implications of
a patient getting one, as opposed to the
other, and
vice versa?
DR. WALKER: Yes, I think you bring up a
very important point. I think Tazorac is easy to
say, partly because a lot of us are used
to saying.
The Tazoral--you know, I think that that
has to go
through market testing and to see if
patients
286
understand it, if they can distinguish
it, if--you
know, there's specific testing to do for
writing
it.
And, to be honest with you, I don't
know
how much of that's been done. If Tazoral is not
the perfect name, then I think we can
always work
on another name.
I feel it's important to have
separate
names for the separate products, for a
lot of the
reasons that have already been voiced
here today.
Tazorac means acne to people. I mean, everyone
around the room says "Tazorac,
acne--effective for
acne."
If you have a separate name
that is
separated by the indication and by the
severity of
the disease, I think it may
help--although it is
the same active ingredient--I think a
separate name
can help distinguish a very separate
safety and
efficacy profile that this drug has.
DR. DAY: So, do I understand
that the
market testing on this is not completed,
in terms
of multiple pronunciations? I mean, I've gotten
287
"tayzer-ell," and all--
DR. WALKER: I will have to--I'm going to
ask one of my colleagues, because I am
not in the
marketing group, I'm in the R&D
group. So I'm
going to ask--and I'll answer that in
just a
moment.
[Pause.]
It was initially tested. But because of
the comments and feedback that we got
actually just
a couple of weeks ago, we are re-testing
that to
look at it, taking into account what
you've said.
DR. STERN: Dr. Gardner? And I hope I
pronounced your name correctly.
[Laughter.]
DR. GARDNER: Yes, you did, Dr.
Sterm.
Thank you.
[Laughter.]
You know, I'm becoming
increasingly
confused about what the risk-management
program is.
Because as much as I have to confess to
resisting
Dr. Walker's lecturing the committee
about what we
ought to be focused on, the fact remains
that if
288
you were to put a comprehensive
risk-management
plan the way I think it's been described
here, with
anybody who prescribes the drug has to be
registered; and anyone who gets it has to
be
registered; and anyone who dispenses it
has to be
registered--then it seems to me it almost
doesn't
matter whether it's being prescribed for
psoriasis
or acne.
We would pick up on it if, in fact, the
risk-management plan--you can't get it
unless you
go through this plan.
And even if that's true, then
Dr. Day's
most recent comment is very, very
important.
Because if someone is restricting Tazoral
in this
way, and protecting everyone from
harm--or,
theoretically, by it. Then if a prescription comes
through for Tazorac, and is mis-filled,
then all
that protection goes out the window,
because
someone mis-read what was written on a
prescription.
And so I guess I have two
points: is the
plan--the risk-management plan as we
understand
it--supposed to be comprehensive,
regardless of
289
what the prescriber is thinking the indication is;
and, two, how to protect against a
mis-reading of a
written prescription?
DR. WALKER: I want to thank
you. I think
you've said what I tried to say earlier
more
eloquently and efficiently.
Yes, the program--that's why we
want a
separate name, to keep it separate. The
risk-management program would protect all
vulnerable patients regardless of the
indication.
The indication could be tracked through
marketing
data bases. So you could track it. All those
patients would be protected. And I think a name
helps with confusion at the
pharmacy. It actually
helps the patients who need topical Tazorac
don't
have that restricted because they get
confused with
the program.
So what you've said is actually
what the
company agrees on.
DR. GARDNER: One more thing--if
you're
really registering everyone, then you
shouldn't
have to track it through IMS data bases,
because
290
you ought to have total coverage,
shouldn't you?
DR. WALKER: Mm-hmm. Well, that doesn't do
indication, per se. Indication is not tracked as
part of the proposed registry for
isotretinoin or
for the oral tazarotene formulation.
I have some other folks up here
who'd like
to make a comment.
DR. KRUEGER: I'm Jerry Krueger,
University
of Utah.
Just on the Tazorac oral and the Tazorac
topical--you can't have a prescription be
complete
if you just put down
"Tazorac." The pharmacy will
call you up and ask you, "Do you
want the gel or
the cream?" "Do you want .1 percent or .03
percent?"
So I don't quite see room for
confusion.
DR. DAY: It can go both
ways. It could be
"Tazoral--"
Dr. KRUEGER: So,
DR. DAY: --to Tazorac and vice versa.
And, furthermore, in electronic scrips,
you might
say, "Well, then you don't have to
read
handwriting." But there's a lot of scrolling down
291
and tapping, and you can mis-tap.
So this is a potential thing
that is very
likely to happen. And we just need to think about
what the consequences would be, going in
both
directions.
DR. KRUEGER: Yes, I can see
some real
concern going in one direction. I don't see much
concern going the other. Thank you.
DR. STERN: Dr. Levin.
DR. LEVIN: A couple of
questions for the
sponsor, and then back to the FDA, and
where we are
with risk-management programs, because I
think
that's key to how this afternoon
proceeds.
Question to the sponsor: why
aren't
you--or would you pursue a Phase 3 trial
about the
use of this drug for acne, which would
perhaps
answer the questions about whether this
drug is
safety and efficacy for acne use, and
might
reassure people who are concerned about
its
off-label use. So that's a question. Don't you
see this as an issue, and if it is an
issue, are
you willing to pursue it in the right
way--in my
292
opinion--which is to go for an approved
indication
using the approval process.
DR. WALKER: It's been a very
difficult
process.
We have met numerous times with the
agency on this. And I'm looking now at Khalyani
Bhatt, because she can verify we've asked
her for
numerous meetings on this.
It is a very difficult trial to
do. We
have had discussions--and maybe Dr.
Wilkin wants to
add to what I'm saying--what we've been
asked to do
is do a head-to-head comparison with
isotretinoin
for five to six months, and then follow
the
patients out for one year.
In order to have the power to
do that,
that becomes an incredibly large study,
if you add
x-rays and many things. It almost--and the
parameters that we've gone back and forth
that we
need to do--becomes a study that is so
onerous that
the company is not sure--with a lot of
risk knowing
whether the drug works or not, based upon
our Phase
2 data.
You always take your data and you
extrapolate as to whether or not you feel
you can
293
win.
At this point, we don't feel
ready to do a
Phase 3.
We don't feel that the Phase 3 designs
that we have discussed back and forth
with the
agency--not saying what they've asked us
to do is
wrong, just saying what we can accomplish
as a, you
know, mid to small pharmaceutical company
for a
dermatologic indication, that we can
actually do
that.
So it's become a feasibility,
economic,
and a very difficult study to do; to put
all the
bells and whistles. I mean, you know, if you
imagine everything that's been in these
trials; you
imagine every controversy that surrounds
isotretinoin, and you try to put that in
a study to
look at comparability--which are much
larger
studies; you multiply that times two, and
you take
that out two years--because you're, at
minimum, six
months enrollment--six to nine months,
enrollment;
you've got another six-month trial;
you've got a
year beyond that, follow-up, to look for
relapse.
You need to win on relapse rate, not
equivalence at
294
six months.
That just becomes a study that
we're not
sure we could ever do.
DR. LEVIN: Okay. Another question: you
look at the Accutane risk-management
program as
sort of the ceiling, and I would suggest
you might
want to look at it as a floor. And let's go back
to the indication issue.
For example, one of the things that
perhaps could be built in here as a
requirement for
ICD code-9s to be submitted, and actually
not
filling a prescription where the
coding--if ICD9
code's the appropriate code--isn't the
appropriate
indication. I mean, that's a new way--that's a new
way of looking at risk management.
But, again, I don't think
Accutane is
necessarily the ceiling here in how we
manage risk.
It might be a floor or a mid-way point,
and we
could add to it.
So, it's just a question--
DR. WALKER: Yes.
DR. LEVIN: If this is an issue
that people
295
are concerned about, rather than relying
on
marketing data, why not try to--and,
again, I don't
know if this is, you know, feasible or
not, but to
think about, talk about, building in a
requirement
that patients only get through the system
if they
have an appropriate indication that is
entered into
the system, as an ICD9 code or whatever.
DR. WALKER: It's certainly
feasible. I
think, for the practice of medicine in
general,
it's not desirable. And I don't know if any
clinicians, either on the panel or in the
room want
to comment on it.
You know, in dermatology--and I
can see,
you know, that is--if it was determined
to be such
a risk, it's certainly something that
could be
applied.
However, in dermatology, I know--I am, I
was asked before--I do still practice,
but I think
in the opposite ratio of Dr. Katz in
terms of time
spent doing research versus seeing
patients.
In dermatology, a lot of our
drugs don't
have approvals that are indicated. And I think
that doctors use drugs for many
uses. So we
296
wouldn't--you know, I can't talk out of
both sides
of my mouth--
DR. LEVIN: This isn't every
drug. And one
of the challenges we have when we discuss
a drug
which has some unusual risk profile is
that we're
always operating with a knowledge that
there is
diagnostic creep; and that a drug where
we're
weighing the benefit and risk of
toxicities versus
the benefit--and nobody is--you know, no
one is
against providing relief to people who
are
suffering some psoriasis that is
refractory to
other treatments. Nobody's saying that.
But we have this equation we
have to go
through.
Now, one part of the equation
is very
slippery, because it's called--you know,
the
diagnosis, or the indication for the
drug. And we
sit here knowing that it's going to get
used for
lots of other things besides that part of
the scale
that we're sort of judging against the
risk part.
So--
DR. WALKER: I agree. I think that you've
297
proposed something that could be
considered. I'd
be interested in other people's opinions.
It's
hard to argue that it shouldn't be
considered.
DR. STERN: Might I suggest that
there's at
least, in the PDR, one example of a drug
where for
certain in what was once the dominant use
of the
drug now has a black-box warning. If you look at
Allopurinol, it says very explicitly,
"This drug is
not for the treatment of asymptomatic
hyperuricemia," the reason being, in
fact, an
extraordinarily low-risk of
Stevens-Johnson system
and
hypersensitivity syndrome in association with
the drug.
And I guess that goes to my
point: as
opposed to what I've heard is, we're not
sure
enough that we can win the battle against
Accutane
with respect to efficacy--and efficacy,
to me,
means benefit in the acne
indication. Maybe what
we need to hear from the company--I don't
like
things that say, "Oh, let's restrict
use." I'd
like to hear more from the company about
how we're
going to educate physicians about, in
fact, making
298
sure that they understand the proper use
in areas
where, because of the risks of the drug,
it's not a
good idea to use it, as opposed to a
label and
things.
I'm wondering how willing--and
how we
would then monitor, in fact, the
follow-through of
the company in terms of making sure
people
understand where we might be confident
the
benefit-risk ratio is an appropriate one.
DR. WALKER: We plan to do that
through two
ways--if you could bring this first slide
up?
[Slide.]
Okay. We have designed a "What a
prescriber needs to know"
brochure. We also have a
prescriber introduction letter; a
prescriber
certification test--and that test will be
part of
the same system of you prove that the
prescriber
understands, just like you prove the
patient
understands their risk, you have to prove
that the
prescriber understands the risks and
limitations of
the drug, as well as having a medication
guide.
We also will have scientific
meetings to
299
certify physicians to be into this
registry. They
can't be in the system, they can't
prescribe the
drug unless they've gone through the
process.
So those physicians that go
through the
process, part of that process will be
educating
them that this is for psoriasis, what the
labeled
usage are, what the risks of the drug
are, as well
as the pregnancy risks. So all risks will be
discussed.
Now, Dr. Andrews would like to
kind of go
through the flow chart of the risk
minimization
action plan.
DR. ANDREWS: Thank you--
DR. STERN: I think we better
not do that
now.
That was not really responsive to my
question.
It's not "what's the usual
stuff?" I was
sort of hoping to hear something new and
different
that might really work. You know, these kinds of
things are things that the pre-1988
Accutane
interventions. I happen to believe that the 1988
Accutane interventions were better than
we heard
300
today, but that's strictly editorial.
So I was hoping to hear something
imaginative, impactful, innovative and
with, on
might think, a reasonable chance of
success. And I
know--I could see Dr. Furberg having the
same kind
of reaction to this
DR. FURBERG: I agree with you. And I
think that we need also some way of going
after
people who are not complying. There should be--a
stick there, somewhere--not just
pleading. Because
if you ignore this, there's no consequence.
DR. WALKER: Well--
DR. FURBERG: We need to set up
a system so
that people do comply.
DR. WALKER: Well, I think I'm
hearing two
things: one--I mean, I've got some things
up there:
"What would be the roll
out?" I don't think that
answers your question. There's nothing really
innovative up there.
I would love to hear--and we're
very open
to any kind of innovative feedback that
this group
wants to give us here, or in private.
301
But what you're saying about
consequences--this system's a little
different than
what exists now, in that you register the
physicians. There is a feedback as to whether they
understand the system, and there's
feedbacks that
the patients comply. There's feedbacks at the
pharmacy.
And there's checks and stops all through
the entire system.
I won't go through it in
detail, because I
think a lot of you already kind of know
what that
flow chart is. But it's different in that the
consequences--if you don't admit that you
understand, you don't follow the system,
your
patient won't get the drug. It will not be
dispensed to you.
DR. STERN: Dr. Honein.
DR. HONEIN: Yes, I just wanted
to add a
suggestion to what Dr. Levin said: that
we could
add indication to the registry. And I think we
suggested that in February for the
isotretinoin
registry, not as a restriction, that if
you didn't
enter the right code you don't get the
drug, but as
302
a way to evaluate how the drug is being
used over
time, and give us better information in
the future.
And the second--to reply to Dr.
Garner--I
think a major difference in what they're
proposing
for risk management is that males and
females who
are not of reproductive potential would
be allowed
to have refills of this drug. And they're basing
that on the psoriasis population. And I think that
sort of deviation is not justified if the
population is going to be largely acne
patients.
DR. STERN: Dr. Schmidt.
DR. SCHMIDT: I don't want
anybody to feel
like I'm a diagnostic creep--
[Laughter.]
--but, you know, I really feel
like we
shouldn't dictate how to practice
medicine. And I
think a lot of these medications are
going to be
used, you know, off-label.
And I, for one, at least think
that
with--of course, you all also know my
wife has
really bad psoriasis, and is on
methotrexate and
Embrel for it. So I live with a women, you know,
303
who has psoriasis and still love her.
But I wanted to just say that I
think we
ought to increase the amount that people
don't need
prescriptions for this in males. I think seeing
somebody with psoriasis, you know, every couple
of
months is maybe too much.
And then the other thing--and
this may not
be the appropriate time for this, but I
think we
need to think about this--is I want to
make a
couple of clinical reflections on retinoids,
and
how at least I treat people clinically,
is I don't
think the retinoids are the greatest
thing in the
world--you know, either Soriatane or
Accutane, for
plaque-type psoriasis. I think the best place to
use the retinoids in psoriasis is the
pustular-type
psoriasis, or the acropustulosis, on the
palms and
soles, which can be devastating, painful,
terrible,
horrible.
And they work beautifully.
But you don't ever leave
anybody on
anything, you know, for a long time. And when you
do, the beautiful thing about the--at
least the
retinoids we have now, is you can
decrease the dose
304
to where I have some patients who take
one 10mg
Soriatane every three weeks, and it keeps
them
clear.
So, a lot of these things
you're not going
to be giving them a real high dose, no
matter what
you're going to give them.
And then the other thing is,
just like
with my wife, you rotate people off, like
methotrexate onto Embrel, onto something
else, so
then you don't have to worry about, you
know, these
side effects so much.
DR. STERN: Dr. Wilkerson?
DR. WILKERSON: AS a practicing
dermatologist, I would plead--although it
sounds
like we've been siderailed by the patent
office--in
terms of having what I would call the
"pan-retinoid" form. In other words, you know,
right now, as it potentially stands, we
can be
scurrying to find five, six, seven, eight
different
forms for the particular drug and/or
generic
manufacturer, and/or sponsor making a
drug. And
since the side effects and the
requirements are so
305
similar, a unified form would simplify,
and I think
would also increase compliance with
things.
As far as the two to three month
additional refills, I've sat here and
debated that
in my mind, also. As much as you want to see that
from the standpoint of the patient's lack
of not
having to interact with the physician, it
also yet
provides another point of error at the
distribution
point, in terms of who gets--I mean, not
to use any
gender or similar names, but there are
names and
things where people could get refills
that are
females because of, you know, because the
wrong box
is checked, or an assumption's based upon
a name
that would result in females getting it.
And I think just like with
Accutane, where
it's monthly. It doesn't mean they have to have an
office visit, but they have to pick up
that
prescription. To have two different systems, I
think, is just introducing a point of
error in the
system well at the top which negates
everything
else that we're trying to do here, which
is to
reduce the rate of pregnancies.
306
DR. WALKER: I'd like to say
that I think
you've highlighted a lot of the
controversy very
well in what you've said.
As far as, though,
distinguishing males
and females, you wouldn't need to do it
by the
name.
We've toyed with many different things.
Certainly, the sticker program has
you--you know,
the physician fill out whether it's a
male or
female.
We've toyed with a specific prescription
pad that has male or females, and has,
you know,
basically like a gray box on it for
females, which
has the "no refills," and males
are a different
color, so it is clearly outlined.
But the pharmacist would not
distinguish
male or female by name, but rather by
what is
checked within the system.
Of course, a female of childbearing
potential would also have the trigger of
the
pregnancy test, which is connected with
her name.
And each patient has a unique identified,
which
would force the pharmacist, the
physician--everyone--to use that identifier
and
307
check whether the pregnancy test has been
ordered.
So there are safeguards for
that aspect of
it.
The one-month versus three-months
versus
more--it's very difficult--trust me, I
have had the
same thought--one system. The trouble with one
system is they're not one patient type.
DR. WILKERSON: Right.
DR. WALKER: And this is a lifelong
disease.
I think you're going to take patients
with psoriasis and you're going to put
them on
methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin or
other
biologics, because they can't come in--or
afford
it.
The health care system can't afford for
chronic cases to have them in there every
month.
It's very expensive.
DR. WILKERSON: Well, I mean,
not to micro
manage this down to that point, but, you
know,
there are ways around that. What I'm just saying,
if you are designing a system, the less
variability
there is at each decision point, the less
likely
error is to slip in. And error will slip in,
308
regardless. But, just to make that easier.
And my other comment was:
pharmacokinetics
on this drug--I can't believe that
everyone in this
room, sitting here, has the same number
of retinoid
receptors in their bodies. I mean, do we all have
the same number of retinoid receptors,
and saturate
at the same pharmacodynamics--
DR. WALKER: Well, there's a range from
seven to 12 hours. So, no, everybody doesn't
metabolize the same way, but that--
DR. WILKERSON: No, I'm not
talking about
metabolism, but in terms of once the
receptor is
bound, and there's a signal sent, does
everyone
have the same--in other words, it seems
that
picking a 4.5 mg dose is rather
simplistic when we
have 100-pound individuals versus
350-pound
individuals. Their volumes of distribution and
however else affects the pharmacodynamics
of the
drug, and what this leads up to is perhaps,
have
you correlated the weight of the
individuals
against your bone data? In other words, you know,
are you seeing increased side effects in
lower body
309
mass individuals perhaps?
DR. WALKER: We separated the
bone--I'm
want to kind of go from your last
question and move
forward. WE separated the bone data by
gender and
age, and we didn't see anything. But I don't know
that we did it by body weight. They're shaking
their heads no.
DR. WILKERSON: What you were
trying to
tell us before is there is no dose
response.
DR. WALKER: Right. I am.
And I'm going
to show you--
DR. WILKERSON: --[inaudible] defies the
laws of pharmacology.
DR. WALKER: I don't think it
doesn't go
with the laws of pharmacology. What it says is the
drug is not lipophilic and it's not stored
in fat;
that it's actually in the plasma volume.
And I'm going to have my
pharmacokineticist. He's got some very nice slides
that I think will help you see this.
It is not changed by weight.
DR. YU: I'm Dale Yu, pharmacokinetics.
310
What we've done is we looked at
the
systemic drug exposure of tazarotenic
acid, the
active ingredient, as a function of body
weight in
the Phase 3 trials. And I will show you
that data
now.
Slide up, please.
[Slide.]
Okay, if I can focus your
attention on the
right panel of this plot, these are data
from the
two Phase 3 trials. We looked at drug
concentrations from about 80
patients. The body
weight ranged from about 50 to 150 kg,
and the
concentration on the vertical access, as
you can
see, over a wide range.
What we were looking for is
some kind of
trend, if there is a relationship between
body
weight and concentration, we should see
either
increasing or decreasing trend. And we were not
able to see that.
So our conclusion that the drug
concentration does not change as a
function of body
weight, therefore we don't need to
consider dosing
311
by body weight.
DR. WILKERSON: Well, I mean,
you're just
looking at plasma concentrations here,
right?
DR. YU: That's one of the
things we looked
at.
DR. WILKERSON: But you're not
looking at
efficacy--endpoint efficacy and
expression of the
disease as a result of your pharmacologic
action.
DR. LU: So your question is
whether we
looked at efficacy as a function of body
weight.
DR. WILKERSON: Well, dose
response. I
mean, it can be this, but it can also be
what dose
does it take to effect a particular
response on the
disease process.
DR. WALKER: we do have that data, and
we'll share it with you.
DR. LU: John Lu, biostatistics, Allergan.
Slide up.
[Slide.]
A logistic regression was
performed on
data combining 048P and 049P study. The dependent
variable was clinical success. And I regress these
312
covariates on clinical success. And we didn't find
that weight was a predictor of clinical
success.
DR. STERN: And what was the fit of the
model?
DR. LUE: Umm--I didn't find a
significant
difference. I felt it fit pretty good.
DR. STERN: But, we need to know
how well,
in fact, each of these variables have any
individual relationship. So a lack of correlation,
in the absence of a model that has some
predictive
value, either says that you're looking at
all
randomness, or you've not chosen things
in a way
that, in fact, you have the right
independent
variables for the right dependent
variables.
So I think--and your data
sets--well, I
just think it's hard to interpret.
But we'd better stop, in terms
of one
more--
DR. WILKERSON: One more comment.
We've
heard all day that this drug is like all
the other
retinoids. Well, all the other retinoids show a
dose response curve.
DR. WALKER: Well,
that's--yes. That's
313
because of the distribution. The distribute out of
the plasma into the body fat.
DR. WILKERSON: Okay.
DR. WALKER: And tazarotene
doesn't do
that.
It is, you know, a--
DR. WILKERSON: Here today, gone
tomorrow--right?
DR. WALKER: Did you want to
comment, Dr.
Helms?
DR. HELMS: Just a point on the
model,
there.
Your point is a good point, but
if you
look at the significance level for the
treatment,
and the other factors that are
significant, you see
that the model really will pick up
something that's
important.
DR. WALKER: Any other
questions?
DR. STERN: Dr. Ringel--and then we're
going to take a break.
DR. RINGEL: Okay, I'm going to
give poor
Dr. Walker a break. This is going to be addressed
to Dr. Trontell. And I promise there really be a
314
question at the end of my little speech
here.
[Laughter.]
I really feel as if we're just
taking one
more step in opening up, you know, the
Pandora's
box
of teratogenicity here. With
isotretinoin, you
give it to people for five months, and it
has a
spectacular effect.
For acitretin, I think very few
physicians
actually give it to women of childbearing
potential, and that's probably why we've
been saved
from much of the teratogenicity of that
drug.
On the other hand, we're
talking about a
drug here--tazarotene--which is going to
be used
indefinitely by women of childbearing
potential.
And that seems very frightening. I don't
know how
many women can use two forms of birth
control and
guarantee forever that they will not be
pregnant.
I think that's a very, very difficult
task for
anyone.
On the other hand, you know, if
this were
a really star-quality drug; if this were
another
Accutane for psoriasis, and it were just
wonderful,
315
you know, then maybe it would be worth
it. But
it's not.
At least not if it's like the other
retinoids that I know.
And on the other hand--a lot of
hands
here--
[Laughter.]
--teratogenicity is very
serious. It's a,
you know, extremely serious problem. So, you know,
you've got a risk-benefit issue.
I think Gloria Steinem--if
she's here,
please cover your ears--I'm
wondering--here's my
question: can we restrict this drug to
males, and
women who are not of childbearing
potential? I
think that that would solve a bunch of
problems. I
know it's not politically correct, but I
feel that
for the women and their future children,
perhaps,
you know, we need to take different steps
for a
different population.
There are drugs, for example--I
mean, you
know, there are things like Propecia that
are
indicated only for men. I mean, it has been done
in the past. Would another risk-management option
316
be to restrict this to males and women
who cannot
have children?
DR. TRONTELL: Yeah, it's a
tough question
to think about the mechanism, how you
would go
about doing that.
If you tried to engineer some
restricted
distribution that would somehow knock out
those
individuals who are of childbearing potential,
you'd presumably enter into a lot of
complexities
making that determination; is that an
issue of, you
know, anatomy and physiology or of
behavior that
defines your reproductive potential.
And I think the challenge gets
at what was
discussed by the committee earlier about
our
ability--or authority--to speak to
off-label use of
medication. So there are some products that are
indicated for treatment of one gender
versus the
other but, in fact, that doesn't prohibit
clinicians following reasonable practice
patterns,
and a belief that usual and
customary--forgive me
if not using the correct legal
language--to employ
them.
317
So I'm thinking, in practice it
might be
quite difficult to do what you
suggest. In very
exceptional circumstances, where there
may be a
unique indication, where the risks may
warrant the
benefits to the patient using the drug,
has FDA
ever even attempted to speak to the
specific
indication for which a product should be
used
safely.
DR. WALKER: Can I make one
comment
before--
DR. STERN: Dr. Bull was going
to--
DR. BULL: you know, I think you have to
go, also to--we try to make decisions
based on
data.
And I haven't heard the committee comment on
what I think is a disparity in the data
base, and
Dr. Cook's earlier presentation. It may have also
been said in Allergan's--the disease has
an
incidence that does not reflect a male
preponderance of the disease, but you're
looking at
studies that had about 80 percent
inclusion of
males.
Now, I don't know why that
specifically
318
happened.
But, in terms of the adequacy of the
data to speak to female patients is also,
I think,
an issue we would welcome comments from
the
committee based on, you know, just what
you see
with regard to the demographics in the
studies that
have been submitted.
DR. STERN: I take the liberty
of
addressing that, as someone who's sort of
followed
clinical research in psoriasis for a
couple, three
decades.
And if you look at systemic
agents,
phototherapy, PUVA, and you look at the
clinical
trials published, one can predict that
they'll be
approximately two-thirds male, in terms
of
enrollment, across the United States and
Europe,
and they'll have a mean age of between 44
and 48.
So, whatever it is that goes
into who gets
enrolled, and trials of systemic agents,
phototherapy and PUVA, over the last 29
years,
there's a remarkable consistency about
the profile
of those individuals in psoriasis trials,
including
a
fair number that are not part of NDA submissions,
319
but are just various kinds of clinicals
done in
academic or other institutions.
So, I can't explain it, but
it's sure
there.
Wilkin?
DR. WILKIN: I'd just like to
comment on
Dr. Walker's earlier statement about
actions with
FDA for the acne indication. And I think you
represented that quite fairly.
WE were ultimately interested
in a
product--if it's a systemic retinoid and
a
teratogen--that it not be inferior,
efficacy-wise,
to isotretinoin. And the committee has picked up
on some of our concern that was in our
portion of
the briefing document that went to the
committee.
We referred to the posters from Allergan,
presented
at the American Academy of Dermatology,
and also
some of the articles that show up in the
throw--the
journals that come for free--
[Laughter.]
DR. STERN: I think we call them
"non-peer-reviewed."
320
DR. WILKIN: Non peer-reviewed. That's
better than what I was actually going to
say.
[Laughter.]
And this is actually the
summary paragraph
from one of these: "Nodulocystic
lesion count data
also show a statistically significant benefit
for
both tazarotene 3 mg and 6 mg compared
with
placebo.
Allergan has completed Phase 2 studies in
the treatment of nodulocystic acne, and
is
currently seeking a partner in the United
States
and Europe for further clinical
development."
So this is something that a lot
of
dermatologists would get to read.
And I'll not read all of the
posters, but
just one of them. It says: "The results in this
early Phase 2 trial show that once-daily
oral
tazarotene, 3 mg or 6 mg, reduces the
numbers of
both non-inflammatory and inflammatory
lesions. It
efficacy against commidones is especially
notable,
since these lesions are the precursors of
inflammatory lesions. Oral tazarotene could prove
to be an effective new therapy for
patients with
321
acne, and further investigation is
warranted."
So these are a whole series of
posters
that were presented at the American
Academy of
Dermatology.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
And why don't we take an
eight-minute
break and come back at three o'clock.
[Off the record.]
DR. STERN: Back on the record.
We'll have one final question,
from Dr.
Furberg, and then we'll move on to the
questions.
Dr. Furberg.
DR. FURBERG: Well, I ha two
brief comments
and a question.
One comment relates to bone
mineral
density, which we are using a surrogate
for
fractures. And my view is that there are no good
surrogates. And bone mineral density is certainly
not.
And the fact that there was no good
relationship between bone mineral density
and
fracture doesn't mean anything to me.
There are treatments that
increase bone
322
density, at the same time they increase
risk of
fractures. That's just an illustration of how weak
that is.
So if you're going--what I'd
like to do is
to encourage you to use fractures as an
outcome in
your future studies, and not rely too
much on bone
density.
The second comments relates to
the whole
issue about pregnancies. And I was surprised to
hear that there were 113 worldwide
exposures. And
most of that information came from
you. And for
107 of them, you have either "no
adverse outcome"
or "unknown."
And that, to me, is terribly
disappointing; that you're lumping the
two--you're
lumping the two, "no adverse
outcome" and
"unknown." I mean, you should cut down the number
of--first of all, you should separate
that, and the
unknown should be down to zero.
DR. WALKER: I'm not sure I
understand; 102
what?
DR. FURBERG: Pregnancies.
323
DR. WALKER: We didn't have 102
pregnancies--
DR. STERN: Topical taz--that's
what you
indicated.
DR. WALKER: We had eight
pregnancies.
DR. STERN: No, in topical
tazarotene.
DR. WALKER: You mean, yes--
DR. FURBERG: What I'm reacting
to is the
fact that you are not doing more to
eliminate the
unknowns in your data base. I mean, this is a
critical issue for us to know. And so I'm
expressing--this is a comment. I'm expressing my
unhappiness.
The question I have relates to
hyperglycemia.
You had seven events. And I just
wonder whether the drug is causing
diabetes--we
didn't hear anything about that. And, if so,
whether that should be part of the
labeling.
And, second is: whether, if it
has an
effect on glycemia, whether it should be
used in
diabetics?
DR. WALKER: Okay.
324
DR. FURBERG: That's my
question.
DR. WALKER: All right. Number one, the
pregnancies--those are spontaneous
reports that
come in.
WE actually track every report we can.
But sometimes they come in, not from a
doctor, not
even from the person who's pregnant. So we track
them to the best of our ability, because
they come
in spontaneously in the field from
multiple
different sources.
So, I agree that it's
unsatisfactory, but
with the systems that are in place for
surveillance, we always do the best we
can do, and
we take those very seriously. But, I agree,
they're not to anyone's satisfaction.
The second point, being the
hyperglycemia--and I'd like to have a
slide up so I
can
address that.
[Slide.]
There were seven cases of
hyperglycemia,
called an adverse event by the
physician. That is
just what the physician determines to be
an adverse
event.
Those were in the double-blind studies--the
325
048, 049P studies. There were none in the placebo.
But what I think is more
important to look
at is not the number of adverse events
which were
called that by the physician, but what
the
incidence of hyperglycemia was in the
whole
population. Because I think it's just--the 2
percent is not really real.
If you look, the 14 percent of
the
patients--or almost 15 percent--had
elevations of
hyperglycemia in the tazarotene group; 18
percent
in the placebo group. So when you look across the
population, you really didn't see that.
DR. FURBERG: Well, I disagree
with you on
that.
I'm interested in the rare cases, where a
drug may induce diabetes. And I don't expect that
to happen in everyone. It's just a small group of
people that are susceptible. And you have seven to
zero.
And I'm saying I'm not satisfied with you
classifying them as
"hyperglycemia." I'd like to
know more about those. You should go back to the
case records.
Were those patients diagnosed
as
326
diabetics?
DR. WALKER: They were--
DR. FURBERG: Started on
treatment? That's
what I'm asking.
DR. WALKER: Actually, the
patients were
diabetic.
They were on treatment, often because
they come in for the labs fasting. They do not
take their hyperglycemic drugs.
The patients--if you look at
the
scattergrams at all the time points,
there are no
differences between the groups. And patients go up
and down.
So we didn't see any
trend. We didn't see
any one-off's, we didn't see ones that
popped up
high.
So we did not see a signal. All
we saw were
that some physicians--it turned out,
seven
physicians--called the hyperglycemia an
adverse
event.
When you have a laboratory abnormality, the
investigator has a choice whether they
call it an
adverse event or not. And in this case, they fell
into the tazarotene group.
We've looked very closely at
the actual
327
lab data and don't see that.
DR. FURBERG: I wish you had presented
those seven cases so we could--we could
take a look
at it.
DR. WALKER: Okay. And I don't have those
seven broken out.
DR. STERN: We're going to now
end the
question period, and go on to the
questions to the
committee.
So I'd like to thank Dr.
Walker, because
unless there is something extremely
pressing, I
think--you can now relax and enjoy--
DR. WALKER: I'll be very--you
know, there
is one thing pressing. I think that there's been a
lot of discussion--
DR. STERN: I'm sorry. I'm going--I think
I'll have to take the--we only have two
hours left,
and we have five questions, many of which
have
subsets; some of which are just for
discussion,
others of which are for a formal vote.
The first question, which is
two parts,
the first part is:
328
"Based on the information
from the
clinical studies conducted for tazarotene
capsules,
is there adequate demonstration of
effectiveness
for moderate to severe psoriasis?"
This is for discussion. And so I think
what I'd like to do is go around the
table, for
people to make comments--or not, as they
so
choose--as to whether they believe the
clinical
studies presented here, and given to us,
in fact
show that this is a--quote-unquote--"effective
for
moderate to severe psoriasis."
And, perhaps--Dr. Honein, could
we start
with you?
And a "pass" is fine.
DR. HONEIN: I pass.
DR. STERN: Dr. Furberg?
DR. FURBERG: Yes, but effectiveness, for a
chronic condition, you don't show in 12
weeks. So
its effectiveness--I would call it
short-term.
DR. KATZ: Not to parse words,
like the
famous "is"--what does
"is" mean?
[Laughter.]
But
"effectiveness"--effectiveness or not?
329
Yes, I think it's been demonstrated that
the drug
is more effective than placebo, for
moderate to
severe psoriasis. Now, would you translate that to
quote somebody as saying "it's an
effective drug?"
If you define effectiveness as better
than placebo,
I would modify my response by saying,
it's better
than placebo.
DR. STERN: That sounds like a
low pass.
[Laughter.]
DR. KNUDSON: I'm going to echo
what Dr.
Katz said. Yes, it is more effective than placebo,
but that's about the best I can say.
DR. STERN: Dr. Sellers?
DR. SELLERS: I have problems
also with the
term "effectiveness." I would say that it showed
some efficacy. But with the background materials
that we were presented with other
treatment
modalities, it does not represent a
significant
advantage over currently marketed drugs.
DR. STERN: Dr. Schmidt?
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes, I agree. But--and, of
course, I'm looking at this through the
filter of
330
my clinical experience. As I said before, I don't
think any of these retinoids are just
real start
quality for plaque-type psoriasis. But I would
almost bet you a million dollars this is
going to
be great, you know, for other forms of
psoriasis.
And then the other thing that
really is a
mitigating factor for me, is the short
half-life
with this stuff. I mean, to me, to have a
retinoid, you know, that washes out of
your system,
and you potentially can give it to
younger people
for some of the sever acropustulotic-type
psoriasis, I fell like, you know, this is
going to
be effective for us.
DR. STERN: But we haven't seen
any data on
that.
DR. SCHMIDT: No, I said--
DR. STERN: Right.
DR. SCHMIDT: --I've got this
clinical--
VOICE: Feeling?
DR. SCHMIDT: --feeling.
[Laughter.]
But I agree with what was
said. What
331
we've been presented--
[Laughter.]
DR. STERN: Dr. Raimer.
DR. RAIMER: Yes, I think I have
to go on
the side of being effective. If you can see at
least 20 percent of people clear or
almost clear in
12 weeks, I think you have to call that--for
all
the drugs we have for psoriasis, that's
at least
somewhat effective.
DR. EPPS: I agree with the
comments so
far.
I agree I was a little disappointed with the
20 to 30 percent, but it has shown more
than
placebo.
DR. HOLMBOE: I agree, I think
it's mostly
an efficacy issue, not an effectiveness
issue.
Also, I'd like to make a couple other
points.
I think one caveat, in looking
at this
data, is we don't know the reliability
and validity
of this OLA tool. And that worries me a bit. And
I would have liked to have seen more
information
about the tool used to score.
However, that having been said,
if you
332
look at the number needed to treat, the
number you
need to see effect is seven to
eight. So you think
when you look at some of the things we
use in other
conditions--putting aside for a moment
our concerns
about teratogenicity--that's not a bad
number to
treat.
So I think it has shown some efficacy
related to placebo.
MS. SHAPIRO: I think Eric's
last point is
compelling, and I will defer to the rest
of you on
that.
DR. RINGEL: I basically
agree. I think
without a valid--without an instrument
that's been
validated, without knowing exactly how
this OLA was
performed, and how reliable it is, it's
very
difficult to say if this is an effective
drug.
However, listening to the
people
presenting their data, and knowing how
retinoids
work in general, I would suspect that it
probably
is an effective drug.
DR. STERN: I think the data
suggests, at
best, modest effectiveness. In this clinical
development program of 700 patients, and
we saw the
333
best photographs that--when I treat people
with
narrow-band UVB, would make me wonder
about whether
my lights were up to full power.
DR. GARDNER: I'll defer to my
dermatologist colleagues.
DR. WILKERSON: Yes, for
efficacy. And it
fills--I think Dr. Schmidt's point is
well taken,
and something that hasn't been talked a
whole lot
about is that female bracket--who the
other
retinoids are out of the question
for--this
does--and I think that's the most
compelling reason
to approve this drug is for that niche of
females
who need a retinoid, who don't respond to
any other
therapy, and want to get pregnant in the
future.
Right now, that's really not a
possibility with the
others on the market right now.
DR. DAY: Better than placebo;
maybe better
but can't tell, given the current level
of data.
DR. LEVIN: Yes, with all of the
limitations that have been expressed by
others.
DR. STERN: Well, that was easy.
[Laughs.]
Now to the second part:
334
"Is there adequate
demonstration of
efficacy for 'very severe' psoriasis?"
And perhaps, Dr. Cook, can you
quickly put
up your slide that broke out--just to
remind people
that the proportion of individuals with
"very
severe" at baseline who cleared was
not
significantly, but was only in the
placebo group,
is my recollection.
DR. COOK: Dr. Lee can put that
up.
DR. STERN: Oh--sorry.
DR. COOK: No problem.
[Pause.]
[Slide.]
DR. LEE: Here's the subgroup
results of
treatment success for the first
study. You take a
look at the last row; basically break it
down into
baseline, disease severity.
So the highlighted part--the
very
severe--there were a total, in the first
study,
only five patients enrolled. And the two patients
treated with tazarotene did not achieve
treatment
success.
335
[Slide.]
This is the result for the
second study.
And, again, the last row, a total of 10
patients
enrolled in this study. And four patients were
treated with tazarotene. And, again, none achieved
treatment success.
DR. STERN: Should we go around
and start
with Dr. Levin?
DR. LEVIN: I would not see this
as an
approved indication.
DR. DAY: And what question are
you wanting
us to comment on at this time?
DR. STERN: Is there adequate
demonstration
of efficacy
for--quote-unquote--"very severe"
psoriasis. That's why I had that slide put back
up.
DR. DAY: Right--because the
indication
is--for--I understand, but it does say
"moderate
and very severe." So we're just commenting on
"very severe."
Yes.
DR. STERN: That there is
demonstration of
336
efficacy for "very
severe." They went 0 for 6, I
believe.
DR. DAY: I'm sorry. Why don't you
consider around this way, we'll come
back.
DR. WILKERSON: yes, the data is
obvious.
But I would point out that the metric
here is--if
you take somebody with 90 percent
psoriasis, and
they had to get almost to
"clear" or almost clear,
in the real world that rarely
happens. But that
patient may very well have improved, you
know, 60
percent and still be happy with the
results.
So, yes, based upon the
data--but I don't
like the metric that we used in this
particular
study.
I don't think it's as flexible.
Even a
POSI has its problems.
But, as far as the data and the
endpoints,
the answer is no. But in a clinical sense, it
probably did make a lot of people a lot
better.
They just didn't hit that magic clearing
point,
which is probably unrealistic for
somebody with
very severe psoriasis in most cases, for
any
therapy.
337
DR. GARDNER: I think the answer
to the
question is no, but I would have to defer
to others
about the subtleties.
DR. STERN: I think the answer
is no, and I
think the reason it's important is: if it
were
labeled for "very severe" that
would be a
relatively unique labeling for psoriasis
product,
and it might well be that people went in
with
expectations--both doctors and
patients--of a level
of efficacy for the most severe cases,
beyond which
is supported by the data.
So I think it's sort of part of
keeping
the prescribing playing field as level as
one can,
in terms of information that's in the
insert. And
it certainly would restrict people from
using it
when they thought, "Gee, this
person's--"--whatever, and might be
susceptible.
DR. RINGEL: I don't think I
have anything
to add.
No, I don't think that it's justified by
the data.
MS. SHAPIRO: I agree with Dr.
Stern's
comments.
338
DR. HOLMBOE: I agree with the
above, and
even if it had shown some efficacy, there
wouldn't
have been enough power here for me to be
convinced
one way to the other, given there's only
a total of
15 patients who had the "very
severe" in both 048
and 049.
DR. EPPS: I agree also. It would be hard
to achieve minimal to no psoriasis within
12 weeks.
DR. RAIMER: I agree. No further comment.
DR. SCHMIDT: No.
DR. SELLERS: No.
DR. KNUDSON: Also no.
DR. KATZ: No.
DR. FURBERG: Yes.
DR. HONEIN: I agree, particularly with the
power comments, for trying to assess
this.
DR. STERN: Gee, if it had gone
6-for-6,
versus 0-for-7, I would have taken it.
[Laughter.]
But I'm not a biostatistician.
Ahh--the next questions also
for
discussion, are divided into two parts.
They both
339
have to do with "has the safety
profile for this
product been adequately assessed?" And the first
is:
"Please provide discussion
of the clinical
and preclinical safety data, including
comments on
bone and liver abnormalities,
hyperlipidemia and
teratogenicity."
And the second is:
"Please discuss any
potential issues
regarding long-term safety of oral
tazarotene with
repeated use."
And I would ask everyone not to
reiterate
their concerns, which are on the record,
but really
to try to use the time to bring out
something that
they don't think either they or someone
else has
addressed for each of these two.
DR. HONEIN: I'm concerned about
the
pregnancy rate that was observed in the
clinical
trials.
And I'm sort of not comforted by the
explanation that they didn't do a
thorough
education campaign as part of the
clinical trial,
because I don't understand that--and even
three or
340
four years ago, how that would not be
warranted.
And the other issue with
respect to the
sort of off-label usage, just wondering
if the plan
to have multiple dosages of this is going
to make
it easier for off-label usage, or if
there's
another rationale.
DR. FURBERG: For bone, there
was a trend
for fractures, which I think is more
important than
bone mineral density. So, inadequate power to
evaluate that possibility that this may
be real.
For hyperlipidemia, we didn't
have a good
discussion on that. We didn't get good
presentations on how many people had
increases,
exceeded the treatment guideline goals.
And for teratogenicity,
incomplete
ascertainment. We are missing information on known
cases.
And so, overall, I would say
the safety
profile for the product is not adequately
assessed.
DR. STERN: Dr. Katz.
DR. KATZ: The question being
"Has it been
adequately assessed?"--and I think
it has been
341
adequately assessed, given the time limit of 52
weeks, as well as could be.
However, the discussion of the
safety data
that my comments on bone is very
worrisome.
Everything's in the same direction:
decreased bone
density, patients' having symptoms of
musculoskeletal symptoms, an alkaline
phosphatase--all in the same direction.
And these are the objective
things. These
are not subject to double-blind ,
non-double-blind
things.
These are the same.
Liver abnormalities--I think we
are
reassured. And hyperlipidemia would not bother me.
First of all, it's a controllable
problem. We
worry, as clinicians, about things that
are not
controllable, like increasing
osteoporosis that you
can't reverse. But hyperlipidemia, if you get
adequate lipid assessment--though the one
case
bothered me. But that patient probably, in a
clinical practice, wouldn't have happened
because
started with a high triglyceride and it
kept going
up.
And somehow the drug was continued.
The
342
patient ended up with pancreatitis in the
hospital.
I mean, I can't imagine that that would
happen in
clinical practice. And so that wouldn't bother me.
And the teratogenicity is
obvious bother.
And we spent time discussing the
limited--the risk
management.
As far as the second part,
potential
issues are bone--bone, which is
paramount; and
obviously the pregnancy in
patients--unlike the
Accutane, where we're concerned about
this, people
using it for 20 weeks. People could be using it
for a lot longer than 20 weeks with this.
So that would be of great
concern.
DR. KNUDSON: I'm so glad that
Dr. Katz
comes before I do.
[Laughter.]
He said it just beautifully,
and
articulated for me the things that I've
been
thinking.
Yes, I agree with him.
DR. STERN: Dr. Sellers.
DR. SELLERS: Yes. I just would
reiterate
again the problem with power. When we design
343
efficacy trials, we don't really have the
best
statistical sample for evaluating safety.
Also problematic is the length
of
follow-up, and the demographics, again,
because we
have more males in the study than
females. And we
wonder to what extent we're excluding
populations
that may be at risk for some of these
observed
effects that we're seeing.
So I would say that the safety profile
has
not been adequately assessed.
DR. STERN: Dr. Schmidt?
DR. SCHMIDT: I think there's no
doubt
about the teratogenicity. As far as the
hyperlipidemia, I think that's been
assessed.
Liver abnormalities, to me--and
liver
chemistries--I hate to say it, but I
don't do GGTs
and some of these other things. But I'm not going
to--I feel like they have assessed that.
And the only thing that's really
troublesome to me is this bone. I don't think
that's been, you know, really
assessed. And it's
unfortunate that, you know,
musculoskeletal pain,
344
and then bone pain--like in renal
patients--to me
is different. You know, and I wish we had gotten
more information on that to make--but I
agree, I
don't think we have the numbers for that.
DR. STERN: Dr. Raimer.
DR. RAIMER: Well, I think
triglycerides
could be a potential problem. I don't necessarily
think the drug is potentially raising the
triglycerides too much, but 2 percent of
the
placebo patients had triglycerides over
500 to
start with. So I think the company was not
planning to recommending any lab, but I
think a
screening triglyceride to prevent people
from
getting pancreatitis wouldn't be a bad
idea.
And maybe considering if somebody's
on the
drug for 12 months, recommending DEXA
scans--at
least for a while, to follow bone
densities, until
we're sure it's not going to be a
problem--and
numbers of fractures.
DR. STERN: Dr. Epps?
DR. EPPS: I agree that the--I
don't
believe it's been adequately
assessed. The only
345
thing I would add to all the preceding comment
is
regarding the hyperlipidemia. And, I guess, 41
percent was the number that I did see at
one time.
And my concern, in young adults and, you
know--people, young people who are living
a long
time with the disease, or with the
potential to
take this medication, really
cardiovascular and
long-term side effects, and whether or
not those
were seen. And I didn't really hear much about
that.
DR. HOLMBOE: I agree with
basically
everything's that been said
previously. The only
thing I would add is that I would
encourage the
sponsor to think about the way it's
measuring some
of its adverse events--getting back to
Dr.
Furberg's point of kind of these
self-report
things, without better clinical
definitions of
exactly what we're looking for, such as
things like
diabetes and other endpoints.
MS. SHAPIRO: As a non-medical
person I'd
again defer to you on this, although what
seems
poignant to me, listening to you, is the
length of
346
time that this drug is potentially going
to be
taken, versus the drug we dealt with last
time.
DR. RINGEL: Likewise, I agree
with the
previous speakers. The only points that I have
that are different, first of all, has to
do with
the issue of semen. I found--
DR. STERN: We'll get to that.
DR. RINGEL: Oh, I'm sorry.
DR. STERN: We have questions
about that
later on.
[Discussion off mike.]
DR. RINGEL: I will save that.
In that case, briefly, the
alkaline
phosphatase has been elevated and,
intermittently,
AST and GTT are elevated. And, to my mind, it's
probably from bone, but it could be from
cholystasis, too. I think it's unlikely, given
what retinoids have done, which has
usually been
hepatocellular problems. But I think that
fractionating that alkaline phosphatase
makes a
whole lot of sense, and some sort of
mandatory
Phase 4 study, you know, fractures--at
the very
347
least--if not some other non-direct
measurements of
bone metabolism.
DR. STERN: Dr. Garner?
DR. GARDNER: Nothing to add.
DR. WILKERSON: Well, as usual,
I do.
[Laughter.]
Yes, I think the side effects
of this drug
are manageable, but I think the package
labeling
should include recommended or suggested
guidelines.
I don't think this is a drug that should
be put out
there on the market--I mean, when we look
at
isotretinoin and how long it took to
realize that
it caused depression and some of the
other, you
know, adverse events. I mean those are one in 20,
one in 50,000-type events. We need to be vigilant
beyond spontaneous reporting.
So, I don't think patients ever
get upset
about having some blood work drawn that
protects
them.
They get upset when things happen and we
haven't been vigilant--whether the package
labeling
indicates so or not.
So I think all these things
are--we've
348
been dealing with this for years, retinoid
side
effects.
They are easily dealt with with
appropriate monitoring.
DR. DAY: I agree with the
previous
speakers.
I wish more had been told to us about
the possibility of an on-and-off course
of
treatment, because we don't know anything
about the
very, very long use of this product.
DR. LEVIN: I guess I agree with
the
previous comments. I just want to point out that
what's being said here really makes
Question 6
extremely important, about additional
studies, and
would they be needed, prior to after
approval.
DR. STERN: We'll go on to one
of two
questions that we've be asked to vote
on. I guess
this is sort of generally the question at
these
meetings, which is:
"Give the safety and
efficacy information,
does the committee find a favorable
balance of
risks and benefits which would support
approval of
this drug?"
And I think that means "at this
time," on
349
the basis of the information we have,
since, as you
pointed out, there's Question 6.
And I'd like to take the opportunity
to
make a comment: is that unlike the
sponsor, I
believe that in deciding--one of the nice
things
about being only a special government
employee for
a day, is one has a greater latitude to
think--as
that trite phrase is--outside the box, or
outside
the box-labelings, in this case, and
think about
what happens to the public health when a
new
product--one's best estimate of what is
likely to
happen to the public health when a
product is
approved for a given indication.
And, therefore, I think we have
to think
about how responsive we thought the
sponsor was in
terms of some of us who had concerns
about
off-label use, and minimization of that,
in decided
about benefits and risks from a societal
perspective, and not as if this product
would
always be used within the indication.
So that more global
perspective--in the
absence of more reassurance, either about
dynamite
350
efficacy for acne, or knowing about it
very soon,
or an extremely robust program to make
sure it's
not used widely in people at high risk
for becoming
pregnant, where there are alternative
drugs that
are at least, and perhaps more, effective
for that
indication with similar risks makes me
vote no.
Dr. Levin?
DR. LEVIN: I would vote no,
too.
Abstain.
DR. WILKERSON: I would vote for
approval
of this drug, with monitoring, and a
Phase 4.
DR. GARDNER: I guess I would
answer the
question, no, but want more discussion
about
modification.
DR. RINGEL: This is a less
toxic drug
Soriatane, but the issue of
teratogenicity and its
effect of society, and everything we have
learned
from Accutane over the last 20 years is
so
compelling, that I would have to vote no
at this
time--until that issue is settled.
MS. SHAPIRO: I guess I need
clarity on the
question.
Is this with a risk-management program
351
that I still don't completely
understand--or not?
DR. STERN: Ahh--I think this is
with the
risk-management program--
MS. SHAPIRO: That's been--
DR. STERN: --that one would presume, at
the individual level, was of equal
efficacy to that
we hope will soon be in place for other
retinoids.
I think, in my deciding on
that, I thought
the risk per exposed individual of
unintended
exposure during pregnancy, correcting for
that
person's demographics, would be the
same. And my
concern, really, is on the benefits side,
where the
teratogenic risk is, in a population
sense, is in
the acne population. And I don't know if the
benefit's equal.
So--and my concern is that it
will be
largely--or to a large proportion--used
with less
benefit, with equal risk, which is the
logic behind
my vote.
MS. SHAPIRO: But if the
risk-management
program were comprehensive enough, it might
answer
some of your off-label concerns.
352
DR. STERN: No. If you have two drugs,
each of which has a risk your really
worried
about--let's say, two drugs that have a
one in a
thousand risk of instant death, and one
of them
works--and the risk of death is
proportional to how
long you're on it, or how many courses
you have;
and one requires more courses or a longer
period of
time--
MS. SHAPIRO: Mm-hmm.
DR. STERN: Even for that low
risk, you
wouldn't want the other drug on the
market.
MS. SHAPIRO: Right.
DR. STERN: And that's the logic behind my
vote.
MS. SHAPIRO: Okay. With that, I abstain.
DR. HOLMBOE: I don't feel I can
answer the
question at this time until I know
exactly what the
risk-management program is going to be,
and what
additional studies are planned.
DR. EPPS: The question, given
the safety
and efficacy information presented--my
vote is no.
DR. RAIMER: I vote yes.
353
DR. SCHMIDT: I vote yes.
DR. SELLERS: Based on the
overall public
health benefit and burden, I vote no.
DR. KNUDSON: I vote no, because
there's
too much unknown.
DR. KATZ: Before my vote, I
just want to
say that, obviously, when it comes to
efficacy, it
works great--for some people. The need is
there--we agree. And biologically, it's exciting.
But it's not very
efficient. With the
numbers we've seen, 17 percent--and then
numbers
were given, "patient
satisfaction," 75 percent.
Let's not forget about placebo of being
50 percent.
So, with all the problems involved, and the
low
general efficacy, my vote would be no.
DR. FURBERG: My view is
mixed. I think in
a highly selected group, with a
risk-management
program, the drug may be okay. But there's a lot
of missing information that could open
the
indications more broadly.
But I'm with Eric, that I think
we need to
hear a little bit more about what would
be the
354
risk-management program before I sort of
finally
support approval for a very limited
indication.
DR. HONEIN: Based on what's
been presented
so far, I'd vote no.
DR. STERN: We need--Dr.
Furberg, we need
"yes," "no" or
"abstain."
DR. FURBERG: Abstain.
DR. STERN: Now we get on to a
three-part
question, parts of which are for
discussion, and
the third part for a vote.
"Allergan has submitted a
risk-minimization--"--and, actually,
I'd like to
ask the FDA, since there has been
substantial
progress and evaluation of
risk-management program
since the original packet, whether they
wanted to
perhaps modify this question, in terms of
parts A
and B, since at least part B--it's my
understanding
that the sponsor is now going to
require--proposing
a requirement for all people to whom it's
prescribed, independent of gender or risk
of being
pregnant.
And there's been other evolution.
So do want to change A and B at
all? Or
355
do you want us to still address them?
DR. BULL: Well, I think in
terms of
general principles for a risk-management
plan, I
think we've heard a fairly consistent
message from
around the table that it would be--you'd
like to
see a consistent program across all the
retinoids;
and that the same kinds of risk
management--given
that there's high probability that this
one is an
equivalent teratogen to the other
products that are
currently marketed--I guess if there are
any
additional comments that are consistent
with any
other concerns that you want to be sure
the agency
attends to, maybe that might be the most
useful to
us for A and B.
DR. STERN: Great. Do you want to start,
Dr. Levin?
DR. LEVIN: I--what am I voting
on?
DR. STERN: As I understood Dr.
Bull--and
please correct if I'm wrong--that there's
been a
general sense, which is also my
sense--that the
committee--or many members of the
committee have
felt that a standardized program across
teratogens
356
[sic], however it best evolve, would be
applicable
to this agent, as well, if approved. And I guess
the question--the comments the FDA might
like are
any disagreement with that general
principle, and
any particular advice that's come out
specifically
at this meeting, and not revisiting the
February
meeting at all.
DR. LEVIN: I would agree that,
both from
the perspective of reducing burden, and
the
opportunity for error, that
standardization is
sometimes a good thing.
I would encourage the agency to
talk to
sponsors about the appropriateness of
including
indication for tracking how drugs are
used, and not
just relying on marketing data.
DR. DAY: Some standardization would be
very helpful for the reasons that Dr.
Levin has
said.
I can't tell enough about the
materials in
the briefing document about the
risk-management
program.
For example, there are different
brochures for males and females. And it could just
357
be that males have less information, so
some things
are left out. But we haven't discussed the other
question, about the involvement in males,
so this
gets a little bit circular, to decide all
of these
things.
So, in general, a general
program that
would be appropriate for all drugs in
this class
would be nice, but sponsors should be
allowed to
come forward with specific exceptions,
given their
product--such as the half-life in the
body, and so
on and so forth.
DR. STERN: Dr. Wilkerson?
DR. WILKERSON: Like I said
before, I think
the pan-retinoid form, from the
practitioner's
standpoint, is the best way to go with
this, for
lack of confusion, and just everything
else in the
market.
And then--you know, it's hammering out the
details.
But to have seven or eight different
renditions of managing these drugs, for
practitioners is just a nightmare.
As far as the indication being
on the
scrip, my only concern about that is
since we do
358
have to use drugs off-label many times,
that it not
become a means of an insurance company
denying
coverage for a drug that a patient needs
because
it's not--quote--"the FDA
indication," which is a
continual problem with insurance
companies, is that
they tend to cling to these indications
when, in
fact, we all know we use drugs off-label
every day.
DR. GARDNER: I think I'd like
to pass on
this until we get to the discussion of
the male
involvement.
DR. STERN: Nothing to add?
DR. GARDNER: Nothing to add at
this time.
DR. RINGEL: I'll pass, as well.
MS. SHAPIRO: Nothing to add.
DR. HOLMBOE: I would simply
reiterate what
Dr. Furberg had said earlier about some
sort of
feedback loop in this program. There's a lot of
monitoring activities that appear to
built in, but
there doesn't appear to be any feedback,
particular
to the practitioners.
There is good evidence now in
the health
services research arena that feedback,
particularly
359
when it's physician-specific, can change
behavior.
And I think that would be really important
to
include.
And I'd also like to see more
active
involvement on the part of patients. There are
also techniques, such as getting patients
to write
down a commitment to adhere to a program
can also
increase compliance rates. And I think those
should be considered as well.
DR. EPPS: I like the idea of
some kind of
standardized program. Currently, we have many
different pamphlets and folders and
things to
distribute and have signed.
The other issue--although
that's admirable
for patients to write things down,
sometimes
they'll put down what they think you want
to hear.
So, I mean, that's just being
realistic. And I'm
sure the sponsor would go along with whatever FDA
recommended.
DR. RAIMER: I really don't have
anything
to add. I'm still not sure why we include
males in
a registry, but I do like the idea of
having it
360
standardized, however we do it.
DR. SCHMIDT: I agree.
DR. SELLERS: I agree with the
previous
comments, and I also strongly urge the
use of
indications within the risk-management
program,
because although clinicians and
professionals are
generally aware that off-label use occurs
all the
time, in many cases patients and
consumers don't
realize that the drugs they're being
treated with
have never been approved for the
indications in
which they're being treated.
And so we'd like to have that
information
available.
DR. KNUDSON: I'm extremely
disappointed
that after the February meeting we're
still hung up
on getting a standardized program. I thought we
had decided that there would be.
I would like to urge the FDA to
please
find a way out of this patent
problem. There must
be
a way to solve that, and solve it fairly soon.
DR. KATZ: I have nothing to
add.
DR. FURBERG: Nothing to add.
361
DR. HONEIN: Nothing specific to
add, but
just to reiterate support for a
standardize program
that would be easier for all elements to
follow.
And I really do see a benefit of
indication, and I
don't know that there's a way this can be
part of
the
registry without insurance companies' having
access to it. I would think privacy concerns might
be able to get around some of this. But I think it
would be useful, both for the feedback to
providers, and for evaluating the
programs.
DR. STERN: thank you.
With the Executive Secretary's
permission,
the next thing is for a vote. And it has to
do--it's the question of: "Are the
scientific and
clinical uncertainties surrounding semen
levels of
Tazorac--the metabolite of Tazorac--a
factor to be
considered in tazarotene risk
minimization?"
And I don't know--is it
possible to do 5,
4 first, because that's really the
factual basis.
MS. TOPPER: You may.
DR. STERN: So, why don't we do
5, which is
the discussion basis for then voting--I
think.
362
So, Question 5, again, three
parts, all
for discussion:
"How can FDA best address
the potential
clinical relevance of high tazarotenic
acid levels
in semen?
Options might include: A) further
delineation of the potential risks (via
consultation with teratogenicity experts,
additional preclinical studies,
etcetera); B)
informing clinicians and patients of the
finding
and its uncertain clinical relevance; C)
recommending precautions (such as the use
of
condoms) pending characterization of the
potential
risk."
And we're asked to "Please
comment on
whether further risk assessment should be
done, and
whether any cautionary language or
recommendations
should be made while additional risk
assessment is
pending."
Who would like to--Dr. Honein.
DR. FURBERG: I'm for A, and I
would like
to add "D"--additional
studies. That's really what
we need.
Right now we don't know the significance
363
of the changes.
DR. STERN: Dr. Katz?
DR. KATZ: Well, why wouldn't
these
concerns be alleviated by just having a
labeling,
just like females can't get pregnant for
one month,
having males use the same precautions for
a month
afterwards. So, in other words, having C cover
everything.
Is that not feasible, or am I
missing the
point?
DR. STERN: I don't know. I mean, I--I'm
no surer about this than I think I'm
hearing you
are about this.
DR. KATZ: It's got to
be--half-life is
seven to 12 hours. Do we--is it appropriate to ask
if there's data on how--
DR. STERN: Dr. Wilkin?
DR. WILKIN: Yes, just--a point
of
explanation on the query here.
One of the daily challenges
that we have
at FDA is taking some evidence of a
potential risk,
and then translating what we know into
wording that
364
goes into labeling. And we're always trying to get
it just right. We don't want to over-warn, we
don't want to under-warn. If there's uncertainty,
we need to convey that. And even though it's a
daily task, it always seems to be
something that we
need to spend a lot of time and a lot of
thinking
on.
And I guess that's what we're
asking you
to share that piece with us.
If we end up over-warning on
this part,
what we might end up with is labeling
that said,
you know, "You absolutely
must--"--and if we don't
have other pieces in the labeling, then
women who
otherwise had a pregnancy that was very
highly
desired, they may have this concern and
have a
termination based on really scary
language.
So I think that's--you know,
we're trying
to hear from the advisory committees, in
this case,
you know, the direction that we should
pursue here.
DR. KATZ: I appreciate that comment.
And, with that in mind, probably, either we
should--if they have the data, we should
see that
365
again.
I know it was very lucidly given to us by
the sponsor. But perhaps we should see that data.
I remember some astronomically small--one
out of--
DR. STERN: One in 5,000.
DR. KATZ: --5,000 number. But from other
toxicologic studies, can that ever be
significant?
So I think we would need to
have more
information before we answer that
question--at
least I would. Maybe we could see the slide again,
if anybody else would like to.
DR. STERN: Why don't we see the
slide that
showed the 1 in 5,000--an FDA slide.
DR. BROWN: My name is Paul
Brown. I'm
acting pharm-tox supervisor in the
Division of
Dermatologic and Dental Drugs. And we anticipated
this question might come up, so we
actually have a
backup slide that addresses some of these
issues.
[Slide.]
The slide you saw before had
this
information in it, and I believe that the
total
dose that could be achieved in
semen--assuming
366
worst-case scenario--would be about 831
ng, which
about 1/5000th of a single 4.5 mg capsule
dose.
To try to put that in
perspective with the
teratogenicity studies, it's about
1/6000th of the
highest oral dose that was not
teratogenic in
animals.
So that would be a no-AL.
This last bullet just sort of
goes over
some of the uncertainty about that
information;
that, as Dr. Yao presented, the human may
actually
be a more sensitive species than some
other
animals.
So, looking at other retinoids,
you see a
ratio that might reduce that 1-to-6,000
to
something else, and just using the
numbers that are
available for the other retinoids, you
might reduce
it to some of the numbers shown there.
That's just based, again, on
the
literature and information with those
other
retinoids. We don't know for tazarotenic acid.
The other uncertainty, of
course, is that
the semen would be delivered by the
vaginal route.
The teratogenicity studies are oral
studies, so we
367
don't really know whether you could get
greater
exposure to the fetus from the vaginal
route than
through the oral route. There actually is
some
evidence in literature that that is
possible; that
you can get higher exposure in the uterus
by the
vaginal route compared to other routes.
So, again, the margin of safety
might be
reduced even more, and it's just
uncertain at this
point.
DR. STERN: Am I correct that
the greatest
concern would be, in fact, with exposure
after
implantation, essentially; or after
fertilization
by prior intercourse, as opposed to
anything to
do--some of it might be mitigated by some
kind of a
warning of using only--"If your
partner becomes
pregnant, then use a condom--"--as
contra-logical s
that may sound.
[Laughter.]
DR. BROWN: Yes, I think there's
two--[laughs]--I think there's two
possible areas
where there could be risk; either it's
exposure
initially, at conception--you know, what
with the
368
tazarotenic acid in the semen at that
point; or
repeat exposure later.
And there are fertility studies
that
looked at teratogenicity when male
animals were
treated only, and they didn't really see
a
teratogenic signal at that point. So I think the
main focus has been exposure if there was
repeated
exposure, once a female's pregnant.
DR. KATZ: Well, with that
information, I
would think, until any further data comes
up, then
we have to have some labeling as far as
the male
goes.
DR. KNUDSON: Well, A, B and C all seem
very reasonable to me--plus D, as Dr.
Furberg said.
But I will defer to others.
DR. SELLERS: It sounds like we
have an
incomplete risk analysis, and that
further animal
studies are necessary to understand what
the dose
is at the target, and what the effect of
exposure
duration may have.
DR. SCHMIDT: I think this is a
real sticky
wicket, in the sense that one of those
slides up
369
there said that this was like 10 cc of
semen. And
I don't want to belabor that point, but
all I can
say is, "What a man!"--you
know?
[Laughter.]
But--seriously--you know, these
are such
infinitesimal amounts, and I think that
B,
informing clinicians and patients of
findings--[laughs]--this is--and
findings, and its
uncertain clinical relevance would be the
thing
that I would put down.
I think that when you have
11,000, six
times the lower the amount to produce in
animals
and this other stuff, I think this is
something you
are--you're going to create more
problems.
And I know why we did this is
because of
the problem with Accutane, and some of
the
teratogenicity. But I thought that was
not really
proven.
DR. RAIMER: I agree, at this
point in time
we seem to have no idea of whether it's a
problem
or not.
But just--I mean, you'd think, logically,
it was in such small amounts that it's
probably
370
not, but we're not sure.
So, I kind of hate to frighten
people
unnecessarily, but I think we ought to
put that
it's there, and that it's one-to-one with
serum,
which would be in the labeling. But as far as
specific recommendations, I'm not sure we
should
make them when we have no idea what we're
doing.
DR. EPPS: I agree--more
information is
needed. I think, in the industry
information there
was something about a mucosal plug. Well, we don't
know whether there's mucosal
absorption. Perhaps
some studies could be done in that way to
find out
whether, you know, absorbed mucosally,
because that
would be an issue.
And, I guess, the issue is: the
continued
exposure, whether there's repeated
exposure. It
may not be a one-time issue. It's an issue of
whether it's a cumulative effect, or
whether it's a
one-time effect. We just don't know. And we need
more information.
DR. HOLMBOE: Just to argue for A, B and
D.
MS. SHAPIRO: It sounds like we
need more
371
information.
DR. RINGEL: One thing to take
into account
is that we do recommend pregnancy tests
for women
who are using topical tazarotene, just as
a--you
know, just as round number, if somebody
applies one
ml of tazarotene to their face, they've
got about 1
mg topically. And if we're looking at semen--just
quick numbers here--it looks like it's
about .0001
mg in the semen, which seems awfully
small.
I guess what I would do is the
same thing
I do in my office when I don't know what
I'm
talking about, I usually just tell my
patients, "I
really don't know what I'm talking
about."
[Laughter.]
And we need to put down what we
know in
the package insert, and leave it to the
patient's
judgment.
DR. STERN: I think Dr. Ringel
is
absolutely correct. And going back to what Dr.
Furberg--wouldn't it be nice and
comforting if we
had follow-up on those hundred-plus
pregnancies
during topical administration, where we'd
have some
372
idea of whether there was an
extraordinarily
low-level effect, and that would be very
reassuring
to us.
And perhaps, in fact--if you'll
pardon the
pun--the route to go in terms of deciding
whether
this exposure was, in fact, one to be
concerned
about, since we know with the widespread
topical
use there are going to be a fair number
of exposed
pregnancies with the topical tazarotene,
DR. GARDNER: I think I would
vote in favor
of generating more information about
these
subjects, and not in favor of anything
that sounds
like more recommendations on things that
we can't
monitor or enforce.
I know you don't want to talk
about the
February meeting, but it does seem that
we spent
two days trying to understand why the
contraceptive
recommendations that were out there, in a
known
arena, may be problematic; and then to
add that
someone who's going to use this product
for at
least 52 weeks should also always use
condoms seems
to me to be an exercise in futility,
especially on
373
as little data as we have.
So I would suggest that--I
think someone
said "A, B and D"--whatever we
decided D is--but
generating more information, or
re-analyzing data
that are there to shed light.
Also, this doesn't exist in a
vacuum. We
will be generating data from the
risk-management
programs of the retinoids as we go along
anyway,
and so this may appear as information we
can use.
DR. WILKERSON: Well, my concern is--I
mean, there's--what?--an approximately a
1 percent
birth defect rate in the population? Is that
right, Dr. Honein?
DR. HONEIN: About 3 percent.
DR. WILKERSON: Oh, okay. So--2 to 3.
As
far as I know, no one's ever died from
wearing a
condom, except maybe unless they had an
anaphylaxis
from the latex or something.
[Laughter.]
So--yeah, I don't see any
problem in
putting in the package labeling, that
this is
what's know, and the safe route is
certainly to do
374
that.
I guess my other comment on
this: I didn't
see anything as far as morphologies, or
sperm
counts.
I mean, I'm assuming, like the rest of the
retinoids, this did not have an issue as
far as
reducing those counts, or the morphologic
appearance or functioning or anything of
those
sperm.
VOICES: [Off mike.]
[Inaudible.]
DR. WILKERSON: Oh, it's in the animal?
Did I miss that one sentence?
[Laughter.]
Okay. And it did not, right?
VOICES: [Off mike.]
[Inaudible.]
DR. WILKERSON: Oh, it did.
VOICES: [Off mike.]
[Inaudible.]
DR. WILKERSON: It's not a big
deal? Well,
if you're a rat, it is.
[Laughter.]
So, yes--with cautions.
DR. DAY: A, B and D.
DR. LEVIN: A, B and D.
375
DR. STERN: Now we have to vote
on 4.C--
which we've already talked
about--formally.
So why don't we just go
through. And I
think everyone's expressed their opinion.
Is that right? Do you need a formal vote
on that particular question?
MS. TOPPER: Yes.
DR. STERN: So this question
deals with--it
has a lot of ambiguity, given the
complexity of the
question.
But people can say "yes," "no" or
"abstain."
"Are the scientific and
clinical
uncertainties surrounding--
DR. BULL: Unless there are
other opinions
that the committee would like to offer--
DR. STERN: Oh, great.
DR. BULL: --we are--I think you all have
given us, you know, very rich input on
that
issue--unless there are further comments.
DR. WILKIN: Actually, several
of the
members mentioned "D" as one of
the options. So I
hope that comes back up again--5.D--when
you talk
376
about 6; that is, what would the
additional studies
be?
DR. STERN: So, with being
granted a buy
for good behavior [laughs]--or perhaps
other than
good behavior [laughs]--we'll now go on
to Question
6, which is, again, a discussion
question. And
that is:
"What additional studies
are needed? Are
these studies needed before or after
approval of
the product?"
And I think "studies"
can be in the
broadest sense of the word.
Who would like to start with
recommendations?
DR. LEVIN: What was the result
of the vote
on
3? Which was approval?
[Pause.]
MS. TOPPER: There were four
abstentions,
three "yes" and nine
"no."
DR. LEVIN: Umm--as one of the
"no's" I
think I want to express what I really
wanted to get
to was 6.
I mean, the reason I voted no is because
377
I think that there's a lot we don't know
that we
need to know.
And so, two concerns: there's a
lot we
don't know that we need to know, and the
devil's in
the details of how we manage the risk of
this
particular product.
So, I think, in general--yes,
there's a
lot more.
And I think we've talked about all of
the missing pieces here. So I think the FDA has
heard--at least as far as I'm
concerned--what needs
to be done.
DR. STERN: Yes.
DR. DAY: Before, one of the
people on the
sponsor's side wanted to tell us about
the
risk-management program and it wasn't an
appropriate time, but we haven't heard
much about
it.
And just having the list of all the things up
there doesn't tell us.
And there are a number of
things that
might be in the works for the
risk-management plan,
to see whether--for example, Dr. Walker
talked
several times about the knowledge test,
to prove
378
that the physician and the patient
understand the
risks and so on. And I was wondering if there was
going to be comprehension testing of the
messages
in advance, or not.
And so there are things like
this, which
they already may have in their plan and
so
therefore I wouldn't suggest
anything--but they
might not. Or, they might have it in a way that
would be a good way to do it, or
something else
might be needed.
So, in terms of general knowledge testing,
we don't have enough information yet.
DR. STERN: Dr. Wilkerson?
[Pause.]
I'm just going around, since I
haven't
seen a lot of hands, to make sure that
everyone
puts in their comments about additional
studies.
DR. WILKERSON: Well, probably a
couple
things.
One, I think there is an adequate data
base to approve this drug. I think there is a need
in the market, and so I disagree.
You know, I think there are
issues, as
379
there are always issues. We always need more
information. But we have to draw a line.
There is a critical need in the
market for
a retinoid to treat certain female
patients,
because the alternative that we have
right now is
basically a bigger risk that this drug
is, in terms
of pregnancy. And I think to delay this approval,
it is going to put a lot of people out
there that
need therapy in harm's way.
But, in terms of additional
studies,
certainly the male side of it I think is
the issue,
and some of these other things.
But, yes, I think sometimes we
subject
some of these drugs to more--far more
scrutiny than
what the drugs that are already on the
market have
been subjected to. And if we sat and picked those
apart also they would not be approved if
we were
applying the same criteria.
DR. STERN: Dr. Gardner?
DR. GARDNER: I agree with Dr.
Wilkerson.
I think that we tend to talk ourselves
into a lot
of pre-approval requirements that may, in
fact, not
380
be necessary or prudent.
I would like to encourage that,
as the FDA
develops this--there are many questions
that I have
about the program that I think are
pending
discussions on the larger retinoid
thing. For
example, we've talked a lot about how to
make this
feasible to do, and what happens with the
lab
tests--the lab-confirmed pregnancy
tests--and some
of things that we haven't heard get
resolved.
I'm sure that as this develops
along,
working with the FDA, they will resolve
them. If
we could define a list of things that
probably
should be done sequentially with--or
sorry--concurrently with approving a
drug, if the
dermatology community believes that it
would a good
addition, I think we should focus on that
and see
what needs to be done in order to
supplement what
we already have as data.
DR. STERN: I think the study
that's need
is one that--where the company robustly
demonstrates that they've figured out a
way of
putting this drug into the market, that
it will be
381
used, in fact, for its labeled
indications, and not
for other indications that are more--that
have a
prevalence of very high-risk individuals
for
pregnancy; and that they have--that they
demonstrate that they have a way to do
it, and that
they have an ongoing study, in terms of
really
showing that that way that they're going
to bring
the drug to market will, in fact, be
effective in
having the drug used in the individuals for
whom
the benefit-risk ratio is likely to be
the best one
for a teratogen.
DR. RINGEL: One thing I'd want
to make
sure is--that I haven't heard quite
enough of--is
that this is a better drug for two-thirds
of the
population than is Soriatane for the
indication of
psoriasis. And I think that that's pretty clear.
And the problem is that it's a
horrendous
drug for the other third of the
population, who can
get pregnant. The one thing that needs to get
done, as far as I'm concerned, before
approval, is
to solve that problem.
In terms of the other issues, I
think
382
people are absolutely right; I mean, I'd
like to
see mandatory adverse event reporting for
all
medications, for serious adverse
events. But,
unfortunately, that's not the policy of
this
country.
I can't see singling out this
particular
drug.
I would love to see all of these things
followed up. But do I think this is worse than
other things that have come out on the
market? I
don't think so. I really am concerned about the
pregnancy issue.
MS. SHAPIRO: I guess my biggest
concern at
the moment is Dr. Stern's. So I would agree that
if we can figure that out, that would
relieve a lot
of concerns.
DR. HOLMBOE: Let me just add that if it
does get in the marketplace, to make sure
that the
outcome measures put in place from the
effectiveness analysis are robust, and
that it will
really be approached as an observational
registry
study to track a number of these metrics.
DR. EPPS: I would be interested
in more
383
information and follow-up on the
fractures; for
example, do people have multiple
fractures, what
kind of trauma is associated or not
associated.
I would be interested in
following up on
some of the endocrine and other issues,
whether
they be thyroid or triglycerides. Yes, they can be
treated, but if a significant number of
people get
them, whether it's triglyceride of 500 or
750--I
mean those are high. I mean, serum looks cloudy at
that point. And that's something to be followed.
Also, perhaps, more testing with the
rabbits and mice, which seemed to have
more data
regarding this drug, when compared to the
other
drugs, as far as the lowest teratogenic
dose.
Maybe that's a good basis for a comparison--doing
some trials regarding those. I guess it was in one
of the--oh--I guess it's Dr. Yao's
information.
Those would be two animals, perhaps,
where trials
could be done, and maybe some comparisons
there for
teratogenicity.
DR. RAIMER: I think most of our
concerns
have been expressed. I have a little bit of a
384
problem that we're basically not
approving a drug,
in part because we're worried it could be
used for
something that it hasn't been presented
for. I'm
not sure that was our real purpose here.
So, I do have a concern that
we're doing
that.
DR. SCHMIDT: I, too, think that
we should
approve this drug, but I do think that if
it is
approved, that there are some studies,
like the
fractionating the alkaline phosphatase,
the
repeated checks on triglycerides--not
just to not
have any lab.
And then this bone thing, to
follow that
out more than one year, on long-term
studies.
But I really think that there
is a niche
that we do not have a medication for,
with some
aspects of psoriasis, that we really do
need this
medication.
DR. SELLERS: I'd like to echo
Dr. Stern's
comments, and also mention that without
some of
these studies, we can't develop an
adequate
risk-management program. The risk assessment for
385
vaginal dose of the drug is critical for
informing
the risk-management program; also patient
populations in which the drug is going to
be
used--and that is informed, whether we like
it or
not--by the off-label use.
So I think that we need to look
at the
effects, in these drugs, in some of the
sub-populations that weren't represented
in the
data that was given to us.
DR. KNUDSEN: I have nothing to
add. I
think it's all been said.
DR. KATZ: I agree with Dr.
Raimer, that we
shouldn't be concerned with off-label
use. After
all, some of the drugs of choice in the
past for
certain diseases were used for years
off-label;
like methotrexate for psoriasis, dapsone
for
dermatitis hepatoformis. So that's the
responsibility of the physician and the
patient,
who's informed, that it's off-label use.
My main concern is longer
follow-up for
the bony abnormalities, and the, really,
efficacy--the low percentage of efficacy
here. We
386
heard from two patients, in whom it was
very
efficacious. But how about the other 17 out of
20--statistically--where it wasn't
equally
efficacious, and they would be going
through very
expensive treatment that also exposes the
female
population to the obvious teratogenic
effect.
DR. FURBERG: I abstain, because
I still
have a problem coming down, and
interpreting the
findings.
I think I would be in favor of
approval
for a limited indication, if we could
come up with
a strict management program--under that
condition.
And if we do, I'd like to make
it
conditional upon a thorough evaluation,
and a re-
review in a about a year or two, to see
whether the
management program worked.
We have had a lot of failures
along the
way.
But if we can set up a new, better system,
and we can show, after a year or two,
that it's
working fine, then I'll be for opening
the gates
more.
And while that is underway, I
wish we
387
could also get some additional long-term
follow-up
data on the patients we already have, or
other ones
that you may enroll; information on--as
we talked
about--failures; the metabolic effects on
glucose,
and lipids and so on.
So--but I haven't really
had--I'm not
getting a sense that we have come up with
a strict
risk-management program that would be
satisfactory
to me.
DR. HONEIN: Well, I think,
despite the
difficulties from a public health
perspective, the
most critical additional study to be done
is to do
the comparison of this drug with Accutane
for acne,
so that we know which one is better, and
that data
is available and published. And if this is as good
or better, then we could develop a
risk-management
program with that patient population in
mind. If
the data is published that this is not as
good,
then I think off-label use would probably
be
minimal, and I'd have much less concern
about this
being approved for psoriasis.
So I think that study is the
absolutely
388
critical additional study that I'd like
the
resources to be directed to.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
Dr. Wilkin, have we addressed all
of the
issues posed to the committee? Or are there
additional questions you'd like to pose
to us?
DR. WILKIN: I appreciate all
the
discussion. I think you went beyond the
questions--
[Laughter.]
--you added additional thoughts
that we
hadn't even thought to ask. And so you certainly
put an enormous amount of effort into
reading the
briefing documents, and thinking all this
through.
It will take us quite a while
to go back
over the transcripts and digest all of
this.
But we thank you very much.
DR. STERN: Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the
meeting was
adjourned.]
- - -