DRugwatch BlogRSS 2.0

DRugwatch Blog > February 2012 > Good News for Bydureon, but Bad News for Dapagliflozin

Good News for Bydureon, but Bad News for Dapagliflozin

Matt KileenContributor: Christine Helliwell

Well, it has been a busy start to the year for the type 2 diabetes market, with both good and bad news from the FDA for some of the major players in this market. First came the news on the 19th of January that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter (CRL) for Bristol-Myers Squibb/AstraZeneca’s dapagliflozin, the first-in-class sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor. This news actually came earlier than anticipated, because the drug’s PDUFA date was scheduled for January 28th, 2012. But the news itself was not at all unexpected. As we discussed in our 'Dapagliflozin – What Now?' blog post on July 20th, 2011 on July 19th 2011 an FDA Advisory Committee voted 9-6 against recommending approval of dapagliflozin. The Committee’s concerns revolved around an excess number of cases of both breast and bladder cancer cases observed among patients taking dapagliflozin rather than a placebo or comparator drug, as well as a case of severe liver injury that was deemed to be likely to be caused by dapagliflozin. Although the overall number of cases of cancer was small, the FDA CDER’s Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (OSE) noted that the imbalance was statistically unlikely to have occurred by chance. 

Following the Advisory Committee meeting, the FDA requested further data from recently completed and ongoing clinical trials of dapagliflozin, and pushed back the original scheduled PDUFA date from October 28th, 2011, to January 28th, 2012, in order to allow enough time for the data to be submitted and assessed. However, as we suspected, the data provided were insufficient to allay the FDA’s concerns over dapagliflozin’s safety, resulting in the issuance of the CRL. Although the precise details of the CRL have not been disclosed, AstraZeneca and BMS did report that the FDA has requested additional clinical data to allow a better assessment of the benefit-risk profile for dapagliflozin. These data will come from extensions of and follow-up to ongoing clinical trials (which we estimate will lead to a delay of up to two years before dapagliflozin is approved), but, crucially, new clinical trials may also be required. We assume that new clinical trials will only be required if the data from ongoing trials are insufficient to provide adequate reassurance of the safety of dapagliflozin. This seems unlikely, given that over 2,500 patients are still enrolled in five different trials or trial extensions, all due to finish by mid-2013. However, should one or more new clinical trials be required, then any such trial would most likely have to be large and lengthy, because the safety concerns noted so far are very rare. The expense of such a trial, and the inevitable delay to dapagliflozin’s approval, may cast a question mark over dapagliflozin’s further development. For now though, we assume that this will not be the case, and that dapagliflozin will be approved in the United States in 2014.

Another question that remains over the future of dapagliflozin is: what will happen in Europe? According to AstraZeneca’s latest pipeline update, the European regulatory submission for dapagliflozin is slated to occur during the second half of 2012. By the time the EMA comes to make a decision on the drug, at least some of the data requested by the FDA will be available, and so a straight-forward approval (most likely with warnings on the drug’s label) is more likely in Europe. And yet another question is the impact of this scrutiny of dapagliflozin’s safety on other SGLT2 inhibitors in development, in particular Johnson & Johnson’s canagliflozin and Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly’s empagliflozin, both of which are in Phase III development and expected to launch in 2014. Until a detailed analysis of late-stage clinical trial data becomes available, it is impossible to say whether these drugs are also associated with the same safety concerns as dapagliflozin. What is certain, however, is that the developers of canagliflozin and empagliflozin can expect a high level of scrutiny of their drugs’ safety profile. These companies will be watching the dapagliflozin story unfold with great interest.

Amylin and Alkermes were the recipient of better news from the FDA; their drug Bydureon (a once-weekly version of the GLP-1 analogue Byetta), was finally approved in the United States on January 27th, 2012. The NDA for this drug was originally submitted in May 2009, but approval was delayed first by issues with the product label and manufacturing procedures (leading to a CRL in March 2010), and then by a request (in the form of a second CRL in October 2010) for further clinical data including data from a thorough QT (tQT) study. These data were submitted to the FDA in July 2011, and were sufficient for the drug to be deemed approvable in January 2012. This delay dearly cost Amylin and Alkermes (and, until November 2011 when the company terminated its involvement in Bydureon and Byetta, Eli Lilly; see our November 17th, 2011 blog post 'The End of the Road for Amylin and Lilly’s Diabetes Pact' (for more on this), because it gave the once-daily GLP-1 analogue liraglutide (Novo Nordisk’s Victoza), a significant head-start after its launch in February 2010.

Victoza has seen strong growth since its launch, resulting in blockbuster sales in 2011, its first full year on the market. However, Victoza now faces a serious challenger in the form of the once-weekly Bydureon. Although in the head-to-head DURATION-6 study Bydureon failed to demonstrate non-inferiority to Victoza on the primary endpoint of HbA1c reduction, Bydureon is tolerated better and only requires once-weekly injections rather than the once-daily injections required for Victoza. In the near term, we expect that Victoza’s strong lead will allow it to stay well ahead of Bydureon in the race for leadership of the GLP-1 analogue space. Looking further ahead, at a ten-year horizon, the picture is somewhat different, with sales of Bydureon almost catching up with sales of Victoza. Who will be the ultimate winner is likely to be a close call that will depend heavily on the ability of the respective developers to market each drug. Given that both Victoza and Bydureon are expected to be blockbusters and big players within the type 2 diabetes space, it will be interesting to see how their relative fortunes fare.
Posted on: 2/7/2012 5:51:17 PM | with 2 comments


Tags: Christine Helliwell, Metabolic Disorders

Trackback URL: http://decisionresources.com/trackback/30e05baa-4077-4597-bf31-6591adaa1938/Good-News-for-Bydureon,-but-Bad-News-for-Dapagliflozin.aspx?culture=en-us

Comments
Christine Helliwell
I believe that no further data or information (either clinical or mechanistic) have been released regarding the potential cancer-causing capabilities of dapagliflozin (or other SGLT2 inhibitors) since the FDA Advisory Committee meeting.

As for dapagliflozin’s approvability, without knowing the precise contents of the Complete Response Letter issued by the FDA (which have not been disclosed), it is difficult to predict how approvable the drug is, and how long approval is likely to take. Our current assumption is for at least a two-year delay owing to the need to collate data from ongoing trials. However, should data from ongoing trials be insufficient to adequately rule out a risk of cancer (or liver injury), thus necessitating further, long-term, trials, then dapagliflozin’s approvability will be called into question.

The question of approvability in Europe versus the United States is an interesting one that is difficult to answer. As you may well know, there have been several recent cases of drugs being approved in Europe but delayed by regulatory hold-ups in the United States, including the anti-diabetic drug exenatide LAR (Amylin/Alkermes’ Bydureon) and the anti-dyslipidemia drug modified-release nicotinic acid/laropiprant (Merck’s Tredaptive). Our current assumption is that dapagliflozin will be approved in Europe without any regulatory delay, following its submission which is anticipated to occur towards the end of this year.
3/7/2012 10:27:18 AM

Dr M R Joshi
I just had a few questions that you may be able to help me with.

Has any new data regarding the possible bladder/Breast Ca causing properties of Dapagliflozin been presented or is it still ongoing?

What are the chances that a risk/benefit analysis will get it approved?

In terms of European approval, why would they approve it if the FDA are not?
3/5/2012 6:39:40 PM

Leave comment Subscribe



What is the abbreviation for Accountable Care Organization?

 

rss twitter linkedin

 

DRugwatch Blog

Quick insight on intriguing drug market developments from Decision Resources’ analysts.

Recent posts

Post title:
FDA Approval for The Medicines Company’s Intravenous Antiplatelet Kengreal
Post date:
6/23/2015 1:22:54 PM
Post Summary:
Conor WalshContributors: Conor Walsh, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Topics: Cardiovascular

On June 22nd, 2015 the U.S. FDA approved Kengreal (cangrelor), the Medicines Company’s intravenous antiplatelet drug for use “as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for reducing the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stent thrombosis in patients in who have not been treated with a P2Y12 platelet inhibitor and are not being given a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor.”

Post title:
Hematological Malignancies: Are Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Checking-in?
Post date:
6/17/2015 9:32:42 AM
Post Summary:
Contributor: Dana Gheorghe, Ph.D
Topics
: Conference Commentary, Oncology


Recent years have seen an added emphasis on the relationship between cancer and the activity of the immune system. Novel agents that aim to harness the immune system have already been approved in the U.S. for solid tumors (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Ono Pharmaceutical’s Opdivo [nivolumab] for NSCLC and malignant melanoma, and Merck & Co.’s Keytruda [pembrolizumab] for malignant melanoma), and are in development for a plethora of other oncology indications. Most of the development has been targeted towards solid tumors, but the potential of immune checkpoint inhibitors in hematological malignancies is becoming increasingly evident.

Post title:
Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Answer Long-Asked Questions – But New Questions Arise
Post date:
6/12/2015 10:26:05 AM
Post Summary:
Contributor: Eamonn O'Connor, Ph.D.

The recent American Diabetes Association’s 75th Scientific Sessions in Boston saw the release of data from the ELIXA cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) for lixisenatide (Sanofi/Zealand Pharma’s Lyxumia), the first such trial completed for the GLP-1 receptor agonist drug class. However, it was the publication of the data from the CVOT for sitagliptin (Merck’s Januvia/Ono’s Glactiv), known as TECOS1, that was most eagerly anticipated; this is because the previous CVOTs for saxagliptin (AstraZeneca’s Onglyza) and alogliptin (Takeda/Furiex’s Nesina/Vipidia) had raised significant concerns about a potential risk for increased rates of hospitalization due to heart failure. The results from TECOS therefore, were viewed as pivotal as to whether this risk was a feature specific to the DPP-IV inhibitor drug class.

Post title:
Malignant Melanoma: Evolving Standards of Care
Post date:
6/5/2015 2:52:20 PM
Post Summary:
Contributor: Natalia Reoutova, M.Sc.
Topics: Conference Commentary, Oncology

The past five years have seen unprecedented progress in the treatment of malignant melanoma, which translated into approval of highly efficacious immunotherapies, targeted small-molecule therapies, and several combination regimens.

Post title:
Dual Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Oncology: Ready for Prime Time?
Post date:
6/3/2015 4:22:51 PM
Post Summary:
Contributor: Khurram Nawaz, M.Sc.
Topics: Conference Commentary, Oncology

The 2015 ASCO annual meeting promised to be packed with new and exciting data on cancer immunotherapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, therapeutic vaccines, and T-cell therapies (to name a few examples). The meeting has certainly lived up to our expectations—with a few surprises along the way.

Decision Resources Group brands include: