FDA advisory committee supports new CV liraglutide indication

 

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 17-2 in support of a supplemental new drug application for liraglutide (Victoza) injections to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

Novo Nordisk, the maker of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, proposed the additional indication for liraglutide as an adjunct to standard treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in such patients based solely on the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled postmarketing LEADER trial.

If this additional indication for liraglutide is approved by the FDA, the drug would join the antidiabetic drug empagliflozin (Jardiance) in having a second indication for the reduction of the risk of cardiovascular death. The supplemental new drug application for Jardiance was approved by the FDA in December 2016 – also based on the results of a single trial (the EMPA-REG outcomes trial). Of note, the American Diabetes Association in its 2017 Standards of Medical Care has already called for consideration of both liraglutide and empagliflozin to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and documented cardiovascular disease.

Liraglutide is currently approved for blood glucose lowering in adults with type 2 diabetes and is marketed as Saxenda for the treatment of overweight and obese adults with at least one weight-related comorbidity. It was shown in the LEADER trial to be associated with a significant 13% lower risk vs. placebo for a composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes.

All 19 voting members of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee (EMDAC) agreed that the LEADER results confirm there is no excess cardiovascular risk associated with liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes, but, on the question of whether the results provide “the substantial evidence required to establish that liraglutide 1.8 mg reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease,” almost all voting members expressed concerns about subgroup analyses showing reduced benefit among U.S. patients, compared with those from other countries.

Some also grappled with voting for approval based on the results of a single trial; the evidentiary standard to support a new efficacy claim has typically been two or more well-designed trials. However, all but two members said that the overall benefits demonstrated in the LEADER trial outweighed the concerns.

“I think probably the most influential finding for me was the overall cardiovascular mortality finding, followed by the consistency of the results,” said biostatistics expert James D. Neaton, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He added that the indication should focus on patients at high cardiovascular event risk, as the LEADER population was a very high risk group.

Similarly, temporary voting member Marvin A. Konstam, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, said “the primary trial results are very robust and substantiated.

“And I think the cardiovascular mortality is the biggest contributor to that, which is obviously a very important finding,” he said, also stressing that the indication should focus on patients with established cardiovascular disease.

“I am concerned about the U.S. population, but at the end of the day, it’s a subgroup, and I just can’t overrate that to diminish the overall finding,” he added.

Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, EMDAC chairperson, said he “wrestles with exactly who benefits the most because of overlapping of some of the groupings.

“But people who really have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ... are probably the people who will benefit the most, and I hope those are the people who will get it,” said Dr. Wilson, professor of medicine at Emory University, professor of public health at Rollins School of Public Health, and director of epidemiology and genomic medicine at the Atlanta VA Medical Center.

In explaining his “no” vote, Daniel Budnitz, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said his was a tough decision, but that ultimately, since the U.S. population is the one the FDA is addressing with its labeling, the subgroup concerns weighed heavily.

“And I do worry about a slippery slope of using single-trial data for new indications, when there are questions and when you do have an interaction term for the U.S. vs. the rest of the world,” he said, adding that he would like to see either another international trial where the United States population does not differ from the rest of the world, or a U.S. trial.

Carmen J. Allegra, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, also voted no, and said he, too, was concerned by the subgroup analysis.

“I was very much concerned and swayed by the subgroup analysis. The U.S. target population is a pretty darn important population for us to consider, and we saw a significant interaction with outcomes vs. the region by the FDA’s analysis,” he said. “I was really swayed by the fact that we really didn’t see evidence of superiority in the U.S. population.”

The LEADER trial, which was designed in accordance with FDA Guidance issued in 2008 to demonstrate that new antidiabetes drugs do not result in unacceptably increased cardiovascular risk, included 9,340 patients who were randomized to receive liraglutide or placebo as add-on to standard of care treatment and who were followed for a median of 3.8 years. Those randomized to receive liraglutide experienced significantly lower risk of the composite primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87), Notably, the effect was diminished among U.S. patients, compared with the overall benefit.

However, after hearing LEADER analyses from Novo Nordisk representatives and FDA representatives, and testimony from numerous individuals, including patients, physicians, and patient advocates who spoke overwhelmingly in favor of approval of the supplemental drug application, the committee recommended that approval.

“This was not a slam dunk. I think the subgroup analysis was interesting discussion, but in the end you have to take the data and the primary outcome measure as what you move on,” said temporary voting member David C. Robbins, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, adding that “the good is outweighing the bad on this.

“I’m glad to see diabetes management moving toward more than lowering blood sugar. It’s a good step in the right direction,” he said.

The FDA, which usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, will now consider the supplemental new drug application for liraglutide.

In a statement released after the vote, Todd Hobbs, MD, vice president and U.S. chief medical officer of Novo Nordisk, noted that cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for people with type 2 diabetes. The discussion during the EMDAC meeting is “an important reminder that there is an unmet need to provide benefits beyond HbA_1c control” in patients with type 2 diabetes.

EMDAC committee members were screened and found to be in compliance with federal ethics and conflict of interest laws; one (Dr. Konstam) was granted a waiver in accordance with rules allowing such waivers when the need for an individual’s service outweighs any potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Konstam reported financial relationships with competing firms.
 

 

[email protected]

 

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 17-2 in support of a supplemental new drug application for liraglutide (Victoza) injections to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

Novo Nordisk, the maker of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, proposed the additional indication for liraglutide as an adjunct to standard treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in such patients based solely on the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled postmarketing LEADER trial.

If this additional indication for liraglutide is approved by the FDA, the drug would join the antidiabetic drug empagliflozin (Jardiance) in having a second indication for the reduction of the risk of cardiovascular death. The supplemental new drug application for Jardiance was approved by the FDA in December 2016 – also based on the results of a single trial (the EMPA-REG outcomes trial). Of note, the American Diabetes Association in its 2017 Standards of Medical Care has already called for consideration of both liraglutide and empagliflozin to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and documented cardiovascular disease.

Liraglutide is currently approved for blood glucose lowering in adults with type 2 diabetes and is marketed as Saxenda for the treatment of overweight and obese adults with at least one weight-related comorbidity. It was shown in the LEADER trial to be associated with a significant 13% lower risk vs. placebo for a composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes.

All 19 voting members of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee (EMDAC) agreed that the LEADER results confirm there is no excess cardiovascular risk associated with liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes, but, on the question of whether the results provide “the substantial evidence required to establish that liraglutide 1.8 mg reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease,” almost all voting members expressed concerns about subgroup analyses showing reduced benefit among U.S. patients, compared with those from other countries.

Some also grappled with voting for approval based on the results of a single trial; the evidentiary standard to support a new efficacy claim has typically been two or more well-designed trials. However, all but two members said that the overall benefits demonstrated in the LEADER trial outweighed the concerns.

“I think probably the most influential finding for me was the overall cardiovascular mortality finding, followed by the consistency of the results,” said biostatistics expert James D. Neaton, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He added that the indication should focus on patients at high cardiovascular event risk, as the LEADER population was a very high risk group.

Similarly, temporary voting member Marvin A. Konstam, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, said “the primary trial results are very robust and substantiated.

“And I think the cardiovascular mortality is the biggest contributor to that, which is obviously a very important finding,” he said, also stressing that the indication should focus on patients with established cardiovascular disease.

“I am concerned about the U.S. population, but at the end of the day, it’s a subgroup, and I just can’t overrate that to diminish the overall finding,” he added.

Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, EMDAC chairperson, said he “wrestles with exactly who benefits the most because of overlapping of some of the groupings.

“But people who really have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ... are probably the people who will benefit the most, and I hope those are the people who will get it,” said Dr. Wilson, professor of medicine at Emory University, professor of public health at Rollins School of Public Health, and director of epidemiology and genomic medicine at the Atlanta VA Medical Center.

In explaining his “no” vote, Daniel Budnitz, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said his was a tough decision, but that ultimately, since the U.S. population is the one the FDA is addressing with its labeling, the subgroup concerns weighed heavily.

“And I do worry about a slippery slope of using single-trial data for new indications, when there are questions and when you do have an interaction term for the U.S. vs. the rest of the world,” he said, adding that he would like to see either another international trial where the United States population does not differ from the rest of the world, or a U.S. trial.

Carmen J. Allegra, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, also voted no, and said he, too, was concerned by the subgroup analysis.

“I was very much concerned and swayed by the subgroup analysis. The U.S. target population is a pretty darn important population for us to consider, and we saw a significant interaction with outcomes vs. the region by the FDA’s analysis,” he said. “I was really swayed by the fact that we really didn’t see evidence of superiority in the U.S. population.”

The LEADER trial, which was designed in accordance with FDA Guidance issued in 2008 to demonstrate that new antidiabetes drugs do not result in unacceptably increased cardiovascular risk, included 9,340 patients who were randomized to receive liraglutide or placebo as add-on to standard of care treatment and who were followed for a median of 3.8 years. Those randomized to receive liraglutide experienced significantly lower risk of the composite primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87), Notably, the effect was diminished among U.S. patients, compared with the overall benefit.

However, after hearing LEADER analyses from Novo Nordisk representatives and FDA representatives, and testimony from numerous individuals, including patients, physicians, and patient advocates who spoke overwhelmingly in favor of approval of the supplemental drug application, the committee recommended that approval.

“This was not a slam dunk. I think the subgroup analysis was interesting discussion, but in the end you have to take the data and the primary outcome measure as what you move on,” said temporary voting member David C. Robbins, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, adding that “the good is outweighing the bad on this.

“I’m glad to see diabetes management moving toward more than lowering blood sugar. It’s a good step in the right direction,” he said.

The FDA, which usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, will now consider the supplemental new drug application for liraglutide.

In a statement released after the vote, Todd Hobbs, MD, vice president and U.S. chief medical officer of Novo Nordisk, noted that cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for people with type 2 diabetes. The discussion during the EMDAC meeting is “an important reminder that there is an unmet need to provide benefits beyond HbA_1c control” in patients with type 2 diabetes.

EMDAC committee members were screened and found to be in compliance with federal ethics and conflict of interest laws; one (Dr. Konstam) was granted a waiver in accordance with rules allowing such waivers when the need for an individual’s service outweighs any potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Konstam reported financial relationships with competing firms.
 

 

[email protected]

 

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 17-2 in support of a supplemental new drug application for liraglutide (Victoza) injections to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

Novo Nordisk, the maker of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, proposed the additional indication for liraglutide as an adjunct to standard treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in such patients based solely on the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled postmarketing LEADER trial.

If this additional indication for liraglutide is approved by the FDA, the drug would join the antidiabetic drug empagliflozin (Jardiance) in having a second indication for the reduction of the risk of cardiovascular death. The supplemental new drug application for Jardiance was approved by the FDA in December 2016 – also based on the results of a single trial (the EMPA-REG outcomes trial). Of note, the American Diabetes Association in its 2017 Standards of Medical Care has already called for consideration of both liraglutide and empagliflozin to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and documented cardiovascular disease.

Liraglutide is currently approved for blood glucose lowering in adults with type 2 diabetes and is marketed as Saxenda for the treatment of overweight and obese adults with at least one weight-related comorbidity. It was shown in the LEADER trial to be associated with a significant 13% lower risk vs. placebo for a composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes.

All 19 voting members of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee (EMDAC) agreed that the LEADER results confirm there is no excess cardiovascular risk associated with liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes, but, on the question of whether the results provide “the substantial evidence required to establish that liraglutide 1.8 mg reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease,” almost all voting members expressed concerns about subgroup analyses showing reduced benefit among U.S. patients, compared with those from other countries.

Some also grappled with voting for approval based on the results of a single trial; the evidentiary standard to support a new efficacy claim has typically been two or more well-designed trials. However, all but two members said that the overall benefits demonstrated in the LEADER trial outweighed the concerns.

“I think probably the most influential finding for me was the overall cardiovascular mortality finding, followed by the consistency of the results,” said biostatistics expert James D. Neaton, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He added that the indication should focus on patients at high cardiovascular event risk, as the LEADER population was a very high risk group.

Similarly, temporary voting member Marvin A. Konstam, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, said “the primary trial results are very robust and substantiated.

“And I think the cardiovascular mortality is the biggest contributor to that, which is obviously a very important finding,” he said, also stressing that the indication should focus on patients with established cardiovascular disease.

“I am concerned about the U.S. population, but at the end of the day, it’s a subgroup, and I just can’t overrate that to diminish the overall finding,” he added.

Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, EMDAC chairperson, said he “wrestles with exactly who benefits the most because of overlapping of some of the groupings.

“But people who really have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ... are probably the people who will benefit the most, and I hope those are the people who will get it,” said Dr. Wilson, professor of medicine at Emory University, professor of public health at Rollins School of Public Health, and director of epidemiology and genomic medicine at the Atlanta VA Medical Center.

In explaining his “no” vote, Daniel Budnitz, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said his was a tough decision, but that ultimately, since the U.S. population is the one the FDA is addressing with its labeling, the subgroup concerns weighed heavily.

“And I do worry about a slippery slope of using single-trial data for new indications, when there are questions and when you do have an interaction term for the U.S. vs. the rest of the world,” he said, adding that he would like to see either another international trial where the United States population does not differ from the rest of the world, or a U.S. trial.

Carmen J. Allegra, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, also voted no, and said he, too, was concerned by the subgroup analysis.

“I was very much concerned and swayed by the subgroup analysis. The U.S. target population is a pretty darn important population for us to consider, and we saw a significant interaction with outcomes vs. the region by the FDA’s analysis,” he said. “I was really swayed by the fact that we really didn’t see evidence of superiority in the U.S. population.”

The LEADER trial, which was designed in accordance with FDA Guidance issued in 2008 to demonstrate that new antidiabetes drugs do not result in unacceptably increased cardiovascular risk, included 9,340 patients who were randomized to receive liraglutide or placebo as add-on to standard of care treatment and who were followed for a median of 3.8 years. Those randomized to receive liraglutide experienced significantly lower risk of the composite primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87), Notably, the effect was diminished among U.S. patients, compared with the overall benefit.

However, after hearing LEADER analyses from Novo Nordisk representatives and FDA representatives, and testimony from numerous individuals, including patients, physicians, and patient advocates who spoke overwhelmingly in favor of approval of the supplemental drug application, the committee recommended that approval.

“This was not a slam dunk. I think the subgroup analysis was interesting discussion, but in the end you have to take the data and the primary outcome measure as what you move on,” said temporary voting member David C. Robbins, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, adding that “the good is outweighing the bad on this.

“I’m glad to see diabetes management moving toward more than lowering blood sugar. It’s a good step in the right direction,” he said.

The FDA, which usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, will now consider the supplemental new drug application for liraglutide.

In a statement released after the vote, Todd Hobbs, MD, vice president and U.S. chief medical officer of Novo Nordisk, noted that cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for people with type 2 diabetes. The discussion during the EMDAC meeting is “an important reminder that there is an unmet need to provide benefits beyond HbA_1c control” in patients with type 2 diabetes.

EMDAC committee members were screened and found to be in compliance with federal ethics and conflict of interest laws; one (Dr. Konstam) was granted a waiver in accordance with rules allowing such waivers when the need for an individual’s service outweighs any potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Konstam reported financial relationships with competing firms.
 

 

[email protected]