Pharmacy

Prescription drugs

Photo courtesy of CDC

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued final guidance documents for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and pomalidomide (Imnovid).

The agency is recommending rivaroxaban (in combination) as an option for preventing atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

But NICE said it cannot recommend pomalidomide (in combination) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM).

Rivaroxaban

Rivaroxaban is licensed in the European Union to prevent atherothrombotic events in adults who have an ACS severe enough to result in the release of cardiac biomarkers into the blood. The drug is given with aspirin and clopidogrel or aspirin alone.

Based on results of the ATLAS-ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial, an appraisal committee advising NICE concluded that rivaroxaban given at 2.5 mg twice daily in combination with aspirin plus clopidogrel or with aspirin alone was more effective than aspirin plus clopidogrel or aspirin alone for preventing further cardiovascular deaths and myocardial infarction in patients with ACS and raised cardiac biomarkers.

The committee also found rivaroxaban to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources. They noted, however, that the drug can increase the risk of bleeding.

“Because rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of causing bleeding than clopidogrel in combination with aspirin or aspirin alone, the guidance recommends that, before starting treatment, doctors should carry out a careful assessment of a person’s bleeding risk,” said Carole Longson, NICE Health Technology Evaluation Centre Director.

“The decision to start treatment should be made after an informed discussion between the doctor and patient about the benefits and risks of rivaroxaban. Also, because there is limited experience of treatment with rivaroxaban up to 24 months, the guidance recommends careful consideration should be given to whether treatment is continued beyond 12 months.”

Pomalidomide

NICE’s final guidance on pomalidomide said the agency cannot recommend the drug as a treatment option for MM.

Pomalidomide is approved in the European Union for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with relapsed and refractory MM who have had at least 2 prior treatments, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and whose disease has progressed on the last therapy.

“Unfortunately, we cannot recommend pomalidomide, as the analyses from Celgene, the company that markets the drug, showed that it does not offer enough benefit to justify its high price,” said Sir Andrew Dillon, NICE chief executive.

NICE said the appraisal committee could not judge with any confidence how effective pomalidomide is compared to current treatment options based on the available evidence provided before and after consultation.

Bearing in mind the magnitude of the differences in the overall survival estimates between pomalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in the phase 3 MM-003 trial and all data presented to the committee for comparators, the committee was persuaded that pomalidomide extends life for at least 3 months on average when compared with standard NHS care.

However, considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, the committee concluded that, even with the end-of-life criteria met, the weighting that would have to be placed on the quality-adjusted life-years gained would be too high to consider pomalidomide a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

The committee also said the uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of pomalidomide compared with established NHS practice would affect any weighting that could be placed on quality-adjusted life-years gained.

Prescription drugs

Photo courtesy of CDC

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued final guidance documents for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and pomalidomide (Imnovid).

The agency is recommending rivaroxaban (in combination) as an option for preventing atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

But NICE said it cannot recommend pomalidomide (in combination) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM).

Rivaroxaban

Rivaroxaban is licensed in the European Union to prevent atherothrombotic events in adults who have an ACS severe enough to result in the release of cardiac biomarkers into the blood. The drug is given with aspirin and clopidogrel or aspirin alone.

Based on results of the ATLAS-ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial, an appraisal committee advising NICE concluded that rivaroxaban given at 2.5 mg twice daily in combination with aspirin plus clopidogrel or with aspirin alone was more effective than aspirin plus clopidogrel or aspirin alone for preventing further cardiovascular deaths and myocardial infarction in patients with ACS and raised cardiac biomarkers.

The committee also found rivaroxaban to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources. They noted, however, that the drug can increase the risk of bleeding.

“Because rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of causing bleeding than clopidogrel in combination with aspirin or aspirin alone, the guidance recommends that, before starting treatment, doctors should carry out a careful assessment of a person’s bleeding risk,” said Carole Longson, NICE Health Technology Evaluation Centre Director.

“The decision to start treatment should be made after an informed discussion between the doctor and patient about the benefits and risks of rivaroxaban. Also, because there is limited experience of treatment with rivaroxaban up to 24 months, the guidance recommends careful consideration should be given to whether treatment is continued beyond 12 months.”

Pomalidomide

NICE’s final guidance on pomalidomide said the agency cannot recommend the drug as a treatment option for MM.

Pomalidomide is approved in the European Union for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with relapsed and refractory MM who have had at least 2 prior treatments, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and whose disease has progressed on the last therapy.

“Unfortunately, we cannot recommend pomalidomide, as the analyses from Celgene, the company that markets the drug, showed that it does not offer enough benefit to justify its high price,” said Sir Andrew Dillon, NICE chief executive.

NICE said the appraisal committee could not judge with any confidence how effective pomalidomide is compared to current treatment options based on the available evidence provided before and after consultation.

Bearing in mind the magnitude of the differences in the overall survival estimates between pomalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in the phase 3 MM-003 trial and all data presented to the committee for comparators, the committee was persuaded that pomalidomide extends life for at least 3 months on average when compared with standard NHS care.

However, considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, the committee concluded that, even with the end-of-life criteria met, the weighting that would have to be placed on the quality-adjusted life-years gained would be too high to consider pomalidomide a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

The committee also said the uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of pomalidomide compared with established NHS practice would affect any weighting that could be placed on quality-adjusted life-years gained.

Prescription drugs

Photo courtesy of CDC

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued final guidance documents for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and pomalidomide (Imnovid).

The agency is recommending rivaroxaban (in combination) as an option for preventing atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

But NICE said it cannot recommend pomalidomide (in combination) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM).

Rivaroxaban

Rivaroxaban is licensed in the European Union to prevent atherothrombotic events in adults who have an ACS severe enough to result in the release of cardiac biomarkers into the blood. The drug is given with aspirin and clopidogrel or aspirin alone.

Based on results of the ATLAS-ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial, an appraisal committee advising NICE concluded that rivaroxaban given at 2.5 mg twice daily in combination with aspirin plus clopidogrel or with aspirin alone was more effective than aspirin plus clopidogrel or aspirin alone for preventing further cardiovascular deaths and myocardial infarction in patients with ACS and raised cardiac biomarkers.

The committee also found rivaroxaban to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources. They noted, however, that the drug can increase the risk of bleeding.

“Because rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of causing bleeding than clopidogrel in combination with aspirin or aspirin alone, the guidance recommends that, before starting treatment, doctors should carry out a careful assessment of a person’s bleeding risk,” said Carole Longson, NICE Health Technology Evaluation Centre Director.

“The decision to start treatment should be made after an informed discussion between the doctor and patient about the benefits and risks of rivaroxaban. Also, because there is limited experience of treatment with rivaroxaban up to 24 months, the guidance recommends careful consideration should be given to whether treatment is continued beyond 12 months.”

Pomalidomide

NICE’s final guidance on pomalidomide said the agency cannot recommend the drug as a treatment option for MM.

Pomalidomide is approved in the European Union for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with relapsed and refractory MM who have had at least 2 prior treatments, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and whose disease has progressed on the last therapy.

“Unfortunately, we cannot recommend pomalidomide, as the analyses from Celgene, the company that markets the drug, showed that it does not offer enough benefit to justify its high price,” said Sir Andrew Dillon, NICE chief executive.

NICE said the appraisal committee could not judge with any confidence how effective pomalidomide is compared to current treatment options based on the available evidence provided before and after consultation.

Bearing in mind the magnitude of the differences in the overall survival estimates between pomalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in the phase 3 MM-003 trial and all data presented to the committee for comparators, the committee was persuaded that pomalidomide extends life for at least 3 months on average when compared with standard NHS care.

However, considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, the committee concluded that, even with the end-of-life criteria met, the weighting that would have to be placed on the quality-adjusted life-years gained would be too high to consider pomalidomide a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

The committee also said the uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of pomalidomide compared with established NHS practice would affect any weighting that could be placed on quality-adjusted life-years gained.

Vials of drug and a syringe

The European Commission has granted orphan drug designation for intravenous (IV) alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) to treat graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

AAT is a protein derived from human plasma that has demonstrated immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, tissue-protective, antimicrobial, and anti-apoptotic properties.

AAT may attenuate inflammation by lowering levels of pro-inflammatory mediators such as cytokines, chemokines, and proteases associated with GVHD.

The European Commission granted IV AAT orphan designation based on preliminary clinical and preclinical research.

Orphan designation is granted to a medicine intended to treat a rare condition occurring in not more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union. The designation allows the drug’s maker to benefit from incentives such as a 10-year period of market exclusivity, reduced regulatory fees, and protocol assistance from the European Medicines Agency.

IV AAT also has orphan designation to treat GVHD in the US.

Studies of AAT

AAT is being investigated in a phase 1/2 study involving 24 patients with GVHD who had an inadequate response to steroid treatment. The patients are enrolled in 4 dose cohorts, in which they receive up to 8 doses of AAT.

Interim results from this study were presented at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 3927). Preliminary results indicated that continuous administration of AAT as therapy for steroid-resistant gut GVHD is feasible in the subject population.

Following AAT administration, the researchers observed a decrease in diarrhea, a decrease in intestinal AAT loss, and improvement in endoscopic evaluation. In addition, AAT administration suppressed serum levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and interfered with GVHD biomarkers.

Investigators have also published research on AAT in Blood. This study suggested that AAT has a protective effect against GVHD and enhances graft-vs-leukemia effects.

Kamada Ltd., the company developing IV AAT, plans to begin a phase 3 trial of the treatment in 2016 and get the product to market in 2019 or later.

Vials of drug and a syringe

The European Commission has granted orphan drug designation for intravenous (IV) alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) to treat graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

AAT is a protein derived from human plasma that has demonstrated immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, tissue-protective, antimicrobial, and anti-apoptotic properties.

AAT may attenuate inflammation by lowering levels of pro-inflammatory mediators such as cytokines, chemokines, and proteases associated with GVHD.

The European Commission granted IV AAT orphan designation based on preliminary clinical and preclinical research.

Orphan designation is granted to a medicine intended to treat a rare condition occurring in not more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union. The designation allows the drug’s maker to benefit from incentives such as a 10-year period of market exclusivity, reduced regulatory fees, and protocol assistance from the European Medicines Agency.

IV AAT also has orphan designation to treat GVHD in the US.

Studies of AAT

AAT is being investigated in a phase 1/2 study involving 24 patients with GVHD who had an inadequate response to steroid treatment. The patients are enrolled in 4 dose cohorts, in which they receive up to 8 doses of AAT.

Interim results from this study were presented at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 3927). Preliminary results indicated that continuous administration of AAT as therapy for steroid-resistant gut GVHD is feasible in the subject population.

Following AAT administration, the researchers observed a decrease in diarrhea, a decrease in intestinal AAT loss, and improvement in endoscopic evaluation. In addition, AAT administration suppressed serum levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and interfered with GVHD biomarkers.

Investigators have also published research on AAT in Blood. This study suggested that AAT has a protective effect against GVHD and enhances graft-vs-leukemia effects.

Kamada Ltd., the company developing IV AAT, plans to begin a phase 3 trial of the treatment in 2016 and get the product to market in 2019 or later.

Vials of drug and a syringe

The European Commission has granted orphan drug designation for intravenous (IV) alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) to treat graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

AAT is a protein derived from human plasma that has demonstrated immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, tissue-protective, antimicrobial, and anti-apoptotic properties.

AAT may attenuate inflammation by lowering levels of pro-inflammatory mediators such as cytokines, chemokines, and proteases associated with GVHD.

The European Commission granted IV AAT orphan designation based on preliminary clinical and preclinical research.

Orphan designation is granted to a medicine intended to treat a rare condition occurring in not more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union. The designation allows the drug’s maker to benefit from incentives such as a 10-year period of market exclusivity, reduced regulatory fees, and protocol assistance from the European Medicines Agency.

IV AAT also has orphan designation to treat GVHD in the US.

Studies of AAT

AAT is being investigated in a phase 1/2 study involving 24 patients with GVHD who had an inadequate response to steroid treatment. The patients are enrolled in 4 dose cohorts, in which they receive up to 8 doses of AAT.

Interim results from this study were presented at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 3927). Preliminary results indicated that continuous administration of AAT as therapy for steroid-resistant gut GVHD is feasible in the subject population.

Following AAT administration, the researchers observed a decrease in diarrhea, a decrease in intestinal AAT loss, and improvement in endoscopic evaluation. In addition, AAT administration suppressed serum levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and interfered with GVHD biomarkers.

Investigators have also published research on AAT in Blood. This study suggested that AAT has a protective effect against GVHD and enhances graft-vs-leukemia effects.

Kamada Ltd., the company developing IV AAT, plans to begin a phase 3 trial of the treatment in 2016 and get the product to market in 2019 or later.

Blood smear showing PV

Image courtesy of AFIP

The European Commission (EC) has approved ruxolitinib (Jakavi) to treat adults with polycythemia vera (PV) who are resistant to or cannot tolerate hydroxyurea.

This is the first targeted treatment the EC has approved for these patients.

The approval applies to all 28 member states of the European Union (EU), plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.

Ruxolitinib is already approved to treat PV in the US, and additional regulatory applications for ruxolitinib in PV are ongoing worldwide.

The drug is also approved to treat adults with primary myelofibrosis (MF), post-PV MF, or post-essential thrombocythemia MF in more than 70 countries, including EU member states and the US.

“The European Commission’s approval of Jakavi [for PV] is encouraging news for patients,” said Claire Harrison, MD, a consultant hematologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, England.

“Jakavi will fill an unmet need as the first treatment shown to significantly improve hematocrit, as well as symptom control and reduce spleen size in patients with polycythemia vera resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea.”

RESPONSE trial

The EC’s approval is based on data from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial. The study included 222 patients who had PV for at least 24 weeks. All patients had an inadequate response to or could not tolerate hydroxyurea, had undergone a phlebotomy, and had splenomegaly.

Patients were randomized to receive ruxolitinib starting at 10 mg twice daily or best available therapy (BAT) as determined by the investigator. The ruxolitinib dose was adjusted as needed.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of hematocrit control and spleen reduction. To meet the endpoint, patients had to experience a 35% or greater reduction in spleen volume from baseline, as assessed by imaging at week 32.

And a patient’s hematocrit was considered under control if he was not eligible for phlebotomy from week 8 through 32 (and had no more than one instance of phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and week 8). Patients who were deemed eligible for phlebotomy had hematocrit that was greater than 45% or had increased 3 or more percentage points from the time they entered the study.

Twenty-one percent of ruxolitinib-treated patients met this endpoint (achieving hematocrit control and spleen reduction), compared to 1% of patients who received BAT (P<0.001).

And the researchers said ruxolitinib was well-tolerated. Common adverse events included headache, diarrhea, and fatigue.

Grade 3/4 anemia, grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, and herpes zoster infections of all grades were more common in the ruxolitinib arm than the BAT arm. But thromboembolic events were more common with BAT than ruxolitinib.

This trial was funded by the Incyte Corporation, which markets ruxolitinib in the US. Novartis licensed ruxolitinib from Incyte for development and commercialization outside the US.

For more details on ruxolitinib, see the full prescribing information, available at www.jakavi.com.

Blood smear showing PV

Image courtesy of AFIP

The European Commission (EC) has approved ruxolitinib (Jakavi) to treat adults with polycythemia vera (PV) who are resistant to or cannot tolerate hydroxyurea.

This is the first targeted treatment the EC has approved for these patients.

The approval applies to all 28 member states of the European Union (EU), plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.

Ruxolitinib is already approved to treat PV in the US, and additional regulatory applications for ruxolitinib in PV are ongoing worldwide.

The drug is also approved to treat adults with primary myelofibrosis (MF), post-PV MF, or post-essential thrombocythemia MF in more than 70 countries, including EU member states and the US.

“The European Commission’s approval of Jakavi [for PV] is encouraging news for patients,” said Claire Harrison, MD, a consultant hematologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, England.

“Jakavi will fill an unmet need as the first treatment shown to significantly improve hematocrit, as well as symptom control and reduce spleen size in patients with polycythemia vera resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea.”

RESPONSE trial

The EC’s approval is based on data from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial. The study included 222 patients who had PV for at least 24 weeks. All patients had an inadequate response to or could not tolerate hydroxyurea, had undergone a phlebotomy, and had splenomegaly.

Patients were randomized to receive ruxolitinib starting at 10 mg twice daily or best available therapy (BAT) as determined by the investigator. The ruxolitinib dose was adjusted as needed.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of hematocrit control and spleen reduction. To meet the endpoint, patients had to experience a 35% or greater reduction in spleen volume from baseline, as assessed by imaging at week 32.

And a patient’s hematocrit was considered under control if he was not eligible for phlebotomy from week 8 through 32 (and had no more than one instance of phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and week 8). Patients who were deemed eligible for phlebotomy had hematocrit that was greater than 45% or had increased 3 or more percentage points from the time they entered the study.

Twenty-one percent of ruxolitinib-treated patients met this endpoint (achieving hematocrit control and spleen reduction), compared to 1% of patients who received BAT (P<0.001).

And the researchers said ruxolitinib was well-tolerated. Common adverse events included headache, diarrhea, and fatigue.

Grade 3/4 anemia, grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, and herpes zoster infections of all grades were more common in the ruxolitinib arm than the BAT arm. But thromboembolic events were more common with BAT than ruxolitinib.

This trial was funded by the Incyte Corporation, which markets ruxolitinib in the US. Novartis licensed ruxolitinib from Incyte for development and commercialization outside the US.

For more details on ruxolitinib, see the full prescribing information, available at www.jakavi.com.

Blood smear showing PV

Image courtesy of AFIP

The European Commission (EC) has approved ruxolitinib (Jakavi) to treat adults with polycythemia vera (PV) who are resistant to or cannot tolerate hydroxyurea.

This is the first targeted treatment the EC has approved for these patients.

The approval applies to all 28 member states of the European Union (EU), plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.

Ruxolitinib is already approved to treat PV in the US, and additional regulatory applications for ruxolitinib in PV are ongoing worldwide.

The drug is also approved to treat adults with primary myelofibrosis (MF), post-PV MF, or post-essential thrombocythemia MF in more than 70 countries, including EU member states and the US.

“The European Commission’s approval of Jakavi [for PV] is encouraging news for patients,” said Claire Harrison, MD, a consultant hematologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, England.

“Jakavi will fill an unmet need as the first treatment shown to significantly improve hematocrit, as well as symptom control and reduce spleen size in patients with polycythemia vera resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea.”

RESPONSE trial

The EC’s approval is based on data from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial. The study included 222 patients who had PV for at least 24 weeks. All patients had an inadequate response to or could not tolerate hydroxyurea, had undergone a phlebotomy, and had splenomegaly.

Patients were randomized to receive ruxolitinib starting at 10 mg twice daily or best available therapy (BAT) as determined by the investigator. The ruxolitinib dose was adjusted as needed.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of hematocrit control and spleen reduction. To meet the endpoint, patients had to experience a 35% or greater reduction in spleen volume from baseline, as assessed by imaging at week 32.

And a patient’s hematocrit was considered under control if he was not eligible for phlebotomy from week 8 through 32 (and had no more than one instance of phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and week 8). Patients who were deemed eligible for phlebotomy had hematocrit that was greater than 45% or had increased 3 or more percentage points from the time they entered the study.

Twenty-one percent of ruxolitinib-treated patients met this endpoint (achieving hematocrit control and spleen reduction), compared to 1% of patients who received BAT (P<0.001).

And the researchers said ruxolitinib was well-tolerated. Common adverse events included headache, diarrhea, and fatigue.

Grade 3/4 anemia, grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, and herpes zoster infections of all grades were more common in the ruxolitinib arm than the BAT arm. But thromboembolic events were more common with BAT than ruxolitinib.

This trial was funded by the Incyte Corporation, which markets ruxolitinib in the US. Novartis licensed ruxolitinib from Incyte for development and commercialization outside the US.

For more details on ruxolitinib, see the full prescribing information, available at www.jakavi.com.

US dollars

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

Increasingly high prices for cancer drugs are affecting patient care and the overall healthcare system in the US, according to authors of an article in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

The authors noted that the average price of cancer drugs for about a year of therapy increased from $5000 to $10,000 before 2000, and to more than $100,000 by 2012.

Over nearly the same period, the average household income in the US decreased by about 8%.

“Americans with cancer pay 50% to 100% more for the same patented drug than patients in other countries,” said author S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“As oncologists, we have a moral obligation to advocate for affordable cancer drugs for our patients.”

Dr Rajkumar and co-author Hagop Kantarjian, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, rebutted the major arguments the pharmaceutical industry uses to justify the high price of cancer drugs; namely, the expense of conducting research and drug development, the comparative benefits to patients, that market forces will settle prices to reasonable levels, and that price controls on cancer drugs will stifle innovation.

“One of the facts that people do not realize is that cancer drugs, for the most part, are not operating under a free market economy,” Dr Rajkumar said. “The fact that there are 5 approved drugs to treat an incurable cancer does not mean there is competition.”

“Typically, the standard of care is that each drug is used sequentially or in combination, so that each new drug represents a monopoly with exclusivity granted by patent protection for many years.”

Drs Rajkumar and Kantarjian said other reasons for the high cost of cancer drugs include legislation that prevents Medicare from being able to negotiate drug prices and a lack of value-based pricing, which ties the cost of a drug to its relative effectiveness compared to other drugs.

The authors recommended a set of potential solutions to help control and reduce the high cost of cancer drugs in the US. Some of their recommendations are already in practice in other developed countries. Their recommendations include:

• Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices
• Develop cancer treatment pathways/guidelines that incorporate the cost and benefit of cancer drugs
• Allow the Food and Drug Administration or physician panels to recommend target prices based on a drug’s magnitude of benefit (value-based pricing)
• Eliminate “pay-for-delay” strategies in which a pharmaceutical company with a brand name drug shares profits on that drug with a generic drug manufacturer for the remainder of a patent period, effectively eliminating a patent challenge and competition
• Allow the importation of drugs from abroad for personal use
• Allow the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and other cancer advocacy groups to consider cost in their recommendations
• Create patient-driven grassroots movements and organizations to advocate effectively for the interests of patients with cancer to balance advocacy efforts of pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, pharmacy outlets, and hospitals.

Dr Kantarjian has organized a petition, which is available on change.org, asking the federal government to implement these changes.

US dollars

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

Increasingly high prices for cancer drugs are affecting patient care and the overall healthcare system in the US, according to authors of an article in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

The authors noted that the average price of cancer drugs for about a year of therapy increased from $5000 to $10,000 before 2000, and to more than $100,000 by 2012.

Over nearly the same period, the average household income in the US decreased by about 8%.

“Americans with cancer pay 50% to 100% more for the same patented drug than patients in other countries,” said author S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“As oncologists, we have a moral obligation to advocate for affordable cancer drugs for our patients.”

Dr Rajkumar and co-author Hagop Kantarjian, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, rebutted the major arguments the pharmaceutical industry uses to justify the high price of cancer drugs; namely, the expense of conducting research and drug development, the comparative benefits to patients, that market forces will settle prices to reasonable levels, and that price controls on cancer drugs will stifle innovation.

“One of the facts that people do not realize is that cancer drugs, for the most part, are not operating under a free market economy,” Dr Rajkumar said. “The fact that there are 5 approved drugs to treat an incurable cancer does not mean there is competition.”

“Typically, the standard of care is that each drug is used sequentially or in combination, so that each new drug represents a monopoly with exclusivity granted by patent protection for many years.”

Drs Rajkumar and Kantarjian said other reasons for the high cost of cancer drugs include legislation that prevents Medicare from being able to negotiate drug prices and a lack of value-based pricing, which ties the cost of a drug to its relative effectiveness compared to other drugs.

The authors recommended a set of potential solutions to help control and reduce the high cost of cancer drugs in the US. Some of their recommendations are already in practice in other developed countries. Their recommendations include:

• Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices
• Develop cancer treatment pathways/guidelines that incorporate the cost and benefit of cancer drugs
• Allow the Food and Drug Administration or physician panels to recommend target prices based on a drug’s magnitude of benefit (value-based pricing)
• Eliminate “pay-for-delay” strategies in which a pharmaceutical company with a brand name drug shares profits on that drug with a generic drug manufacturer for the remainder of a patent period, effectively eliminating a patent challenge and competition
• Allow the importation of drugs from abroad for personal use
• Allow the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and other cancer advocacy groups to consider cost in their recommendations
• Create patient-driven grassroots movements and organizations to advocate effectively for the interests of patients with cancer to balance advocacy efforts of pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, pharmacy outlets, and hospitals.

Dr Kantarjian has organized a petition, which is available on change.org, asking the federal government to implement these changes.

US dollars

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

Increasingly high prices for cancer drugs are affecting patient care and the overall healthcare system in the US, according to authors of an article in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

The authors noted that the average price of cancer drugs for about a year of therapy increased from $5000 to $10,000 before 2000, and to more than $100,000 by 2012.

Over nearly the same period, the average household income in the US decreased by about 8%.

“Americans with cancer pay 50% to 100% more for the same patented drug than patients in other countries,” said author S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“As oncologists, we have a moral obligation to advocate for affordable cancer drugs for our patients.”

Dr Rajkumar and co-author Hagop Kantarjian, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, rebutted the major arguments the pharmaceutical industry uses to justify the high price of cancer drugs; namely, the expense of conducting research and drug development, the comparative benefits to patients, that market forces will settle prices to reasonable levels, and that price controls on cancer drugs will stifle innovation.

“One of the facts that people do not realize is that cancer drugs, for the most part, are not operating under a free market economy,” Dr Rajkumar said. “The fact that there are 5 approved drugs to treat an incurable cancer does not mean there is competition.”

“Typically, the standard of care is that each drug is used sequentially or in combination, so that each new drug represents a monopoly with exclusivity granted by patent protection for many years.”

Drs Rajkumar and Kantarjian said other reasons for the high cost of cancer drugs include legislation that prevents Medicare from being able to negotiate drug prices and a lack of value-based pricing, which ties the cost of a drug to its relative effectiveness compared to other drugs.

The authors recommended a set of potential solutions to help control and reduce the high cost of cancer drugs in the US. Some of their recommendations are already in practice in other developed countries. Their recommendations include:

• Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices
• Develop cancer treatment pathways/guidelines that incorporate the cost and benefit of cancer drugs
• Allow the Food and Drug Administration or physician panels to recommend target prices based on a drug’s magnitude of benefit (value-based pricing)
• Eliminate “pay-for-delay” strategies in which a pharmaceutical company with a brand name drug shares profits on that drug with a generic drug manufacturer for the remainder of a patent period, effectively eliminating a patent challenge and competition
• Allow the importation of drugs from abroad for personal use
• Allow the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and other cancer advocacy groups to consider cost in their recommendations
• Create patient-driven grassroots movements and organizations to advocate effectively for the interests of patients with cancer to balance advocacy efforts of pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, pharmacy outlets, and hospitals.

Dr Kantarjian has organized a petition, which is available on change.org, asking the federal government to implement these changes.

Bone marrow aspirate

showing MM

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has given a novel vaccine orphan designation as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).

The vaccine, known as ImMucin, targets the signal peptide domain of the MUC1 tumor antigen.

ImMucin works by “teaching” the immune system to identify and destroy cells that display a short, specific, 21-mer portion from MUC1, which appears on 90% of all cancer cells but not in patients’ blood.

Results of a phase 1/2 trial suggested that ImMucin was safe and active in MM patients. The trial included 15 MUC1-positive patients who had residual or biochemically progressive disease after autologous stem cell transplant.

The patients received 6 or 12 bi-weekly intradermal doses of ImMucin co-administered with human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.

The researchers said the vaccine was well-tolerated, as all adverse events were temporary, grade 1-2 in nature, and resolved spontaneously.

There was a significant decrease in soluble MUC1 levels in 9 patients, and 11 patients had stable disease or clinical improvement that persisted for 17.5 months to more than 41.3 months.

A follow-on study (which is ongoing) in patients who responded to ImMucin has shown that some patients can go more than 4 years without requiring any further treatment for their disease.

ImMucin is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 study to treat patients with metastatic breast cancer who are receiving first-line hormone therapy.

ImMucin is under development by Vaxil Biotherapeutics Ltd.

About orphan designation

The EMA grants orphan designation to promote the clinical development of drugs that treat rare, life-threatening, or debilitating conditions and are expected to provide significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.

Orphan designation provides the company developing a drug with significant benefits, including 10 years of market exclusivity following approval, reductions in the fees and costs of the regulatory process, and scientific assistance from the EMA in clinical development.

Bone marrow aspirate

showing MM

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has given a novel vaccine orphan designation as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).

The vaccine, known as ImMucin, targets the signal peptide domain of the MUC1 tumor antigen.

ImMucin works by “teaching” the immune system to identify and destroy cells that display a short, specific, 21-mer portion from MUC1, which appears on 90% of all cancer cells but not in patients’ blood.

Results of a phase 1/2 trial suggested that ImMucin was safe and active in MM patients. The trial included 15 MUC1-positive patients who had residual or biochemically progressive disease after autologous stem cell transplant.

The patients received 6 or 12 bi-weekly intradermal doses of ImMucin co-administered with human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.

The researchers said the vaccine was well-tolerated, as all adverse events were temporary, grade 1-2 in nature, and resolved spontaneously.

There was a significant decrease in soluble MUC1 levels in 9 patients, and 11 patients had stable disease or clinical improvement that persisted for 17.5 months to more than 41.3 months.

A follow-on study (which is ongoing) in patients who responded to ImMucin has shown that some patients can go more than 4 years without requiring any further treatment for their disease.

ImMucin is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 study to treat patients with metastatic breast cancer who are receiving first-line hormone therapy.

ImMucin is under development by Vaxil Biotherapeutics Ltd.

About orphan designation

The EMA grants orphan designation to promote the clinical development of drugs that treat rare, life-threatening, or debilitating conditions and are expected to provide significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.

Orphan designation provides the company developing a drug with significant benefits, including 10 years of market exclusivity following approval, reductions in the fees and costs of the regulatory process, and scientific assistance from the EMA in clinical development.

Bone marrow aspirate

showing MM

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has given a novel vaccine orphan designation as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).

The vaccine, known as ImMucin, targets the signal peptide domain of the MUC1 tumor antigen.

ImMucin works by “teaching” the immune system to identify and destroy cells that display a short, specific, 21-mer portion from MUC1, which appears on 90% of all cancer cells but not in patients’ blood.

Results of a phase 1/2 trial suggested that ImMucin was safe and active in MM patients. The trial included 15 MUC1-positive patients who had residual or biochemically progressive disease after autologous stem cell transplant.

The patients received 6 or 12 bi-weekly intradermal doses of ImMucin co-administered with human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.

The researchers said the vaccine was well-tolerated, as all adverse events were temporary, grade 1-2 in nature, and resolved spontaneously.

There was a significant decrease in soluble MUC1 levels in 9 patients, and 11 patients had stable disease or clinical improvement that persisted for 17.5 months to more than 41.3 months.

A follow-on study (which is ongoing) in patients who responded to ImMucin has shown that some patients can go more than 4 years without requiring any further treatment for their disease.

ImMucin is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 study to treat patients with metastatic breast cancer who are receiving first-line hormone therapy.

ImMucin is under development by Vaxil Biotherapeutics Ltd.

About orphan designation

The EMA grants orphan designation to promote the clinical development of drugs that treat rare, life-threatening, or debilitating conditions and are expected to provide significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.

Orphan designation provides the company developing a drug with significant benefits, including 10 years of market exclusivity following approval, reductions in the fees and costs of the regulatory process, and scientific assistance from the EMA in clinical development.

Syringe

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning healthcare professionals not to use Treanda (bendamustine hydrochloride) solution with closed-system transfer devices (CSTD), adapters, and syringes containing polycarbonate or acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS).

Most marketed CSTDs contain either polycarbonate or ABS. And these materials dissolve when they come into contact with N, N-dimethylacetamide (DMA), an ingredient in Treanda solution.

This can lead to device failure, possible product contamination, and potential serious adverse health consequences, including skin reactions in healthcare professionals preparing and administering this product and the risk of small blood vessel blockage in patients.

Discovering the incompatibility

Treanda, which is manufactured by Teva, is used to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has progressed during or within 6 months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen.

Treanda is available as a solution—Treanda Injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 180 mg/2 mL solution)—and a lyophilized powder—Treanda for Injection (25mg/vial or 100 mg/vial lyophilized powder).

The incompatibility of DMA with polycarbonate and ABS is only an issue with Treanda solution—not the lyophilized powder.

Since December 2014, Teva has received 40 complaints of the incompatibility issue, which was recently brought to the FDA’s attention. The agency also received a notification of device incompatibility with Treanda solution from a pharmacist.

These incompatibility issues included leaking of the CSTD, breaking or operational failure of the CSTD components, and a cloudy appearance or presence of particulate matter in the intravenous bag after dilution. To date, no adverse events have been reported related to the incompatibility.

FDA recommendations

The FDA has required label changes for both the solution and the powder formulations of Treanda to reflect the following safe preparation information.

The agency is recommending that healthcare professionals use Treanda solution only with polypropylene syringes containing a metal needle and a polypropylene hub. Polypropylene syringes are translucent in appearance.

Treanda solution should be inspected visually for particulate matter and discoloration prior to administration whenever the solution and container permit. The solution must be withdrawn and transferred for dilution in a biosafety cabinet or containment isolator.

If they aim to use a CSTD with Treanda solution, healthcare professionals should verify with the CSTD manufacturer or Teva US Medical Information (1-800-896-5855) that the CSTD is compatible with Treanda solution before preparing the drug.

Alternatively, healthcare professionals can use Treanda lyophilized powder with a CSTD. The solution and lyophilized powder formulations of Treanda should not be mixed.

For additional details on safe preparation of Treanda solution and lyophilized powder, see Teva’s Dear Health Care Provider letter.

Adverse events or quality problems associated with the use of Treanda products can be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Syringe

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning healthcare professionals not to use Treanda (bendamustine hydrochloride) solution with closed-system transfer devices (CSTD), adapters, and syringes containing polycarbonate or acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS).

Most marketed CSTDs contain either polycarbonate or ABS. And these materials dissolve when they come into contact with N, N-dimethylacetamide (DMA), an ingredient in Treanda solution.

This can lead to device failure, possible product contamination, and potential serious adverse health consequences, including skin reactions in healthcare professionals preparing and administering this product and the risk of small blood vessel blockage in patients.

Discovering the incompatibility

Treanda, which is manufactured by Teva, is used to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has progressed during or within 6 months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen.

Treanda is available as a solution—Treanda Injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 180 mg/2 mL solution)—and a lyophilized powder—Treanda for Injection (25mg/vial or 100 mg/vial lyophilized powder).

The incompatibility of DMA with polycarbonate and ABS is only an issue with Treanda solution—not the lyophilized powder.

Since December 2014, Teva has received 40 complaints of the incompatibility issue, which was recently brought to the FDA’s attention. The agency also received a notification of device incompatibility with Treanda solution from a pharmacist.

These incompatibility issues included leaking of the CSTD, breaking or operational failure of the CSTD components, and a cloudy appearance or presence of particulate matter in the intravenous bag after dilution. To date, no adverse events have been reported related to the incompatibility.

FDA recommendations

The FDA has required label changes for both the solution and the powder formulations of Treanda to reflect the following safe preparation information.

The agency is recommending that healthcare professionals use Treanda solution only with polypropylene syringes containing a metal needle and a polypropylene hub. Polypropylene syringes are translucent in appearance.

Treanda solution should be inspected visually for particulate matter and discoloration prior to administration whenever the solution and container permit. The solution must be withdrawn and transferred for dilution in a biosafety cabinet or containment isolator.

If they aim to use a CSTD with Treanda solution, healthcare professionals should verify with the CSTD manufacturer or Teva US Medical Information (1-800-896-5855) that the CSTD is compatible with Treanda solution before preparing the drug.

Alternatively, healthcare professionals can use Treanda lyophilized powder with a CSTD. The solution and lyophilized powder formulations of Treanda should not be mixed.

For additional details on safe preparation of Treanda solution and lyophilized powder, see Teva’s Dear Health Care Provider letter.

Adverse events or quality problems associated with the use of Treanda products can be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Syringe

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning healthcare professionals not to use Treanda (bendamustine hydrochloride) solution with closed-system transfer devices (CSTD), adapters, and syringes containing polycarbonate or acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS).

Most marketed CSTDs contain either polycarbonate or ABS. And these materials dissolve when they come into contact with N, N-dimethylacetamide (DMA), an ingredient in Treanda solution.

This can lead to device failure, possible product contamination, and potential serious adverse health consequences, including skin reactions in healthcare professionals preparing and administering this product and the risk of small blood vessel blockage in patients.

Discovering the incompatibility

Treanda, which is manufactured by Teva, is used to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has progressed during or within 6 months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen.

Treanda is available as a solution—Treanda Injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 180 mg/2 mL solution)—and a lyophilized powder—Treanda for Injection (25mg/vial or 100 mg/vial lyophilized powder).

The incompatibility of DMA with polycarbonate and ABS is only an issue with Treanda solution—not the lyophilized powder.

Since December 2014, Teva has received 40 complaints of the incompatibility issue, which was recently brought to the FDA’s attention. The agency also received a notification of device incompatibility with Treanda solution from a pharmacist.

These incompatibility issues included leaking of the CSTD, breaking or operational failure of the CSTD components, and a cloudy appearance or presence of particulate matter in the intravenous bag after dilution. To date, no adverse events have been reported related to the incompatibility.

FDA recommendations

The FDA has required label changes for both the solution and the powder formulations of Treanda to reflect the following safe preparation information.

The agency is recommending that healthcare professionals use Treanda solution only with polypropylene syringes containing a metal needle and a polypropylene hub. Polypropylene syringes are translucent in appearance.

Treanda solution should be inspected visually for particulate matter and discoloration prior to administration whenever the solution and container permit. The solution must be withdrawn and transferred for dilution in a biosafety cabinet or containment isolator.

If they aim to use a CSTD with Treanda solution, healthcare professionals should verify with the CSTD manufacturer or Teva US Medical Information (1-800-896-5855) that the CSTD is compatible with Treanda solution before preparing the drug.

Alternatively, healthcare professionals can use Treanda lyophilized powder with a CSTD. The solution and lyophilized powder formulations of Treanda should not be mixed.

For additional details on safe preparation of Treanda solution and lyophilized powder, see Teva’s Dear Health Care Provider letter.

Adverse events or quality problems associated with the use of Treanda products can be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the leukocyte growth factor Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), the first biosimilar product to be approved in the US.

A biosimilar product is approved based on data showing that it is highly similar to an already-approved biological product.

Sandoz Inc’s Zarxio is biosimilar to Amgen Inc’s Neupogen (filgrastim), which was originally licensed in 1991. Zarxio is now approved for the same indications as Neupogen.

Zarxio can be prescribed for:

• patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
• patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy
• patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplant
• patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy
• patients with severe chronic neutropenia.

Zarxio is marketed as Zarzio outside the US. The biosimilar is available in more than 60 countries worldwide.

“Biosimilars will provide access to important therapies for patients who need them,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, MD.

“Patients and the healthcare community can be confident that biosimilar products approved by the FDA meet the agency’s rigorous safety, efficacy, and quality standards.”

Zarxio data

The FDA’s approval of Zarxio is based on a review of evidence that included structural and functional characterization, in vivo data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrates Zarxio is biosimilar to Neupogen.

The PIONEER study was the final piece of data the FDA used to approve Zarxio as biosimilar to Neupogen. The data was sufficient to allow extrapolation of the use of Zarxio to all indications of Neupogen.

In the PIONEER study, Zarxio and Neupogen both produced the expected reduction in the duration of severe neutropenia in cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy—1.17 and 1.20 days, respectively.

The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery in cycle 1 was also similar—1.8 ± 0.97 days in the Zarxio arm and 1.7 ± 0.81 days in the Neupogen arm. No immunogenicity or antibodies against rhG-CSF were detected throughout the study.

The most common side effects of Zarxio are aching in the bones or muscles and redness, swelling, or itching at the injection site. Serious side effects may include spleen rupture; serious allergic reactions that may cause rash, shortness of breath, wheezing and/or swelling around the mouth and eyes; fast pulse and sweating; and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

About biosimilar approval

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) was passed as part of the Affordable Care Act that President Barack Obama signed into law in March 2010. The BPCI Act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be “biosimilar” to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-licensed biological product, known as the reference product.

This abbreviated licensure pathway under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act permits reliance on certain existing scientific knowledge about the safety and effectiveness of the reference product, and it enables a biosimilar biological product to be licensed based on less than a full complement of product-specific preclinical and clinical data.

A biosimilar product can only be approved by the FDA if it has the same mechanism(s) of action, route(s) of administration, dosage form(s) and strength(s) as the reference product, and only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product. The facilities where biosimilars are manufactured must also meet the FDA’s standards.

There must be no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product in terms of safety and effectiveness. Only minor differences in clinically inactive components are allowable.

Zarxio has been approved as a biosimilar, not an interchangeable product. Under the BPCI Act, a biological product that has been approved as “interchangeable” may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the healthcare provider who prescribed the reference product.

For Zarxio’s approval, the FDA has designated a placeholder nonproprietary name for this product as “filgrastim-sndz.” The provision of a placeholder nonproprietary name should not be viewed as reflective of the agency’s decision on a comprehensive naming policy for biosimilars and other biological products.

While the FDA has not yet issued draft guidance on how current and future biological products marketed in the US should be named, the agency intends to do so in the near future.

For more details on Zarxio, see the full prescribing information.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the leukocyte growth factor Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), the first biosimilar product to be approved in the US.

A biosimilar product is approved based on data showing that it is highly similar to an already-approved biological product.

Sandoz Inc’s Zarxio is biosimilar to Amgen Inc’s Neupogen (filgrastim), which was originally licensed in 1991. Zarxio is now approved for the same indications as Neupogen.

Zarxio can be prescribed for:

• patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
• patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy
• patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplant
• patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy
• patients with severe chronic neutropenia.

Zarxio is marketed as Zarzio outside the US. The biosimilar is available in more than 60 countries worldwide.

“Biosimilars will provide access to important therapies for patients who need them,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, MD.

“Patients and the healthcare community can be confident that biosimilar products approved by the FDA meet the agency’s rigorous safety, efficacy, and quality standards.”

Zarxio data

The FDA’s approval of Zarxio is based on a review of evidence that included structural and functional characterization, in vivo data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrates Zarxio is biosimilar to Neupogen.

The PIONEER study was the final piece of data the FDA used to approve Zarxio as biosimilar to Neupogen. The data was sufficient to allow extrapolation of the use of Zarxio to all indications of Neupogen.

In the PIONEER study, Zarxio and Neupogen both produced the expected reduction in the duration of severe neutropenia in cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy—1.17 and 1.20 days, respectively.

The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery in cycle 1 was also similar—1.8 ± 0.97 days in the Zarxio arm and 1.7 ± 0.81 days in the Neupogen arm. No immunogenicity or antibodies against rhG-CSF were detected throughout the study.

The most common side effects of Zarxio are aching in the bones or muscles and redness, swelling, or itching at the injection site. Serious side effects may include spleen rupture; serious allergic reactions that may cause rash, shortness of breath, wheezing and/or swelling around the mouth and eyes; fast pulse and sweating; and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

About biosimilar approval

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) was passed as part of the Affordable Care Act that President Barack Obama signed into law in March 2010. The BPCI Act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be “biosimilar” to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-licensed biological product, known as the reference product.

This abbreviated licensure pathway under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act permits reliance on certain existing scientific knowledge about the safety and effectiveness of the reference product, and it enables a biosimilar biological product to be licensed based on less than a full complement of product-specific preclinical and clinical data.

A biosimilar product can only be approved by the FDA if it has the same mechanism(s) of action, route(s) of administration, dosage form(s) and strength(s) as the reference product, and only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product. The facilities where biosimilars are manufactured must also meet the FDA’s standards.

There must be no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product in terms of safety and effectiveness. Only minor differences in clinically inactive components are allowable.

Zarxio has been approved as a biosimilar, not an interchangeable product. Under the BPCI Act, a biological product that has been approved as “interchangeable” may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the healthcare provider who prescribed the reference product.

For Zarxio’s approval, the FDA has designated a placeholder nonproprietary name for this product as “filgrastim-sndz.” The provision of a placeholder nonproprietary name should not be viewed as reflective of the agency’s decision on a comprehensive naming policy for biosimilars and other biological products.

While the FDA has not yet issued draft guidance on how current and future biological products marketed in the US should be named, the agency intends to do so in the near future.

For more details on Zarxio, see the full prescribing information.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the leukocyte growth factor Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), the first biosimilar product to be approved in the US.

A biosimilar product is approved based on data showing that it is highly similar to an already-approved biological product.

Sandoz Inc’s Zarxio is biosimilar to Amgen Inc’s Neupogen (filgrastim), which was originally licensed in 1991. Zarxio is now approved for the same indications as Neupogen.

Zarxio can be prescribed for:

• patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
• patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy
• patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplant
• patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy
• patients with severe chronic neutropenia.

Zarxio is marketed as Zarzio outside the US. The biosimilar is available in more than 60 countries worldwide.

“Biosimilars will provide access to important therapies for patients who need them,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, MD.

“Patients and the healthcare community can be confident that biosimilar products approved by the FDA meet the agency’s rigorous safety, efficacy, and quality standards.”

Zarxio data

The FDA’s approval of Zarxio is based on a review of evidence that included structural and functional characterization, in vivo data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrates Zarxio is biosimilar to Neupogen.

The PIONEER study was the final piece of data the FDA used to approve Zarxio as biosimilar to Neupogen. The data was sufficient to allow extrapolation of the use of Zarxio to all indications of Neupogen.

In the PIONEER study, Zarxio and Neupogen both produced the expected reduction in the duration of severe neutropenia in cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy—1.17 and 1.20 days, respectively.

The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery in cycle 1 was also similar—1.8 ± 0.97 days in the Zarxio arm and 1.7 ± 0.81 days in the Neupogen arm. No immunogenicity or antibodies against rhG-CSF were detected throughout the study.

The most common side effects of Zarxio are aching in the bones or muscles and redness, swelling, or itching at the injection site. Serious side effects may include spleen rupture; serious allergic reactions that may cause rash, shortness of breath, wheezing and/or swelling around the mouth and eyes; fast pulse and sweating; and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

About biosimilar approval

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) was passed as part of the Affordable Care Act that President Barack Obama signed into law in March 2010. The BPCI Act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be “biosimilar” to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-licensed biological product, known as the reference product.

This abbreviated licensure pathway under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act permits reliance on certain existing scientific knowledge about the safety and effectiveness of the reference product, and it enables a biosimilar biological product to be licensed based on less than a full complement of product-specific preclinical and clinical data.

A biosimilar product can only be approved by the FDA if it has the same mechanism(s) of action, route(s) of administration, dosage form(s) and strength(s) as the reference product, and only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product. The facilities where biosimilars are manufactured must also meet the FDA’s standards.

There must be no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product in terms of safety and effectiveness. Only minor differences in clinically inactive components are allowable.

Zarxio has been approved as a biosimilar, not an interchangeable product. Under the BPCI Act, a biological product that has been approved as “interchangeable” may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the healthcare provider who prescribed the reference product.

For Zarxio’s approval, the FDA has designated a placeholder nonproprietary name for this product as “filgrastim-sndz.” The provision of a placeholder nonproprietary name should not be viewed as reflective of the agency’s decision on a comprehensive naming policy for biosimilars and other biological products.

While the FDA has not yet issued draft guidance on how current and future biological products marketed in the US should be named, the agency intends to do so in the near future.

For more details on Zarxio, see the full prescribing information.

Thrombus

Image by Andre E.X. Brown

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guidance recommending the anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) as an option for treating and preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adults.

A NICE committee concluded that apixaban is clinically and cost-effective for this indication.

The draft guidance is now with consultees, who can appeal against it. Once NICE issues its final guidance on a technology, it replaces local recommendations.

“Apixaban, like the other newer oral anticoagulants already recommended by NICE for the treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, does not require frequent blood tests to monitor treatment and so represents a potential benefit for many people who have had a VTE,” said Carole Longson, NICE Health Technology Evaluation Centre Director.

“The committee also heard that apixaban is the only oral anticoagulant for which the licensed dose is lower for secondary prevention than for initial treatment of VTE. This could also be of potential benefit in terms of reducing the risk of bleeding where treatment is continued and therefore increase the chance that a person would take apixaban long-term.”

Clinical effectiveness

The NICE committee assessed the clinical effectiveness of apixaban based on results of the AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT studies.

Results of the AMPLIFY study indicated that apixaban is noninferior to standard treatment for recurrent VTE—initial parenteral enoxaparin overlapped with warfarin. Apixaban was comparable in efficacy to standard therapy and induced significantly less bleeding.

In AMPLIFY-EXT, researchers compared 12 months of treatment with apixaban at 2 doses—2.5 mg and 5 mg—to placebo in patients who had previously received anticoagulant therapy for 6 to 12 months to treat a prior VTE.

Both doses of apixaban effectively prevented VTE, VTE-related events, and death. And the incidence of bleeding events was low in all treatment arms.

The NICE committee noted that there were limited data in these trials pertaining to patients who needed less than 6 months of treatment and for patients still at high risk of recurrent VTE after 6 months of treatment.

However, the committee concluded that, despite these limitations, the AMPLIFY trials were the pivotal trials that informed the marketing authorization for apixaban. As such, they were sufficient to inform a recommendation for the whole population covered by the marketing authorization.

The committee did point out that there were no head-to-head trials evaluating the relative effectiveness of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban and dabigatran etexilate for treating and preventing VTE.

In addition, there were insufficient data to assess the effectiveness and safety of apixaban in patients with active cancer who had VTE, so it was not possible to make a specific recommendation for this group.

Cost-effectiveness

The recommended dose of apixaban as VTE treatment is 10 mg twice a day for the first 7 days, followed by 5 mg twice a day for at least 3 months. To prevent recurrent VTE, patients who have completed 6 months of VTE treatment should take apixaban at 2.5 mg twice a day.

The cost of apixaban is £1.10 per tablet for either the 2.5 mg or 5 mg dose (excluding tax). The daily cost of apixaban is £2.20. (Costs may vary in different settings because of negotiated procurement discounts.)

Analyses suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of apixaban was less than £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for either 6 months or life-long treatment. Therefore, NICE concluded that apixaban is a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. 

Thrombus

Image by Andre E.X. Brown

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guidance recommending the anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) as an option for treating and preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adults.

A NICE committee concluded that apixaban is clinically and cost-effective for this indication.

The draft guidance is now with consultees, who can appeal against it. Once NICE issues its final guidance on a technology, it replaces local recommendations.

“Apixaban, like the other newer oral anticoagulants already recommended by NICE for the treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, does not require frequent blood tests to monitor treatment and so represents a potential benefit for many people who have had a VTE,” said Carole Longson, NICE Health Technology Evaluation Centre Director.

“The committee also heard that apixaban is the only oral anticoagulant for which the licensed dose is lower for secondary prevention than for initial treatment of VTE. This could also be of potential benefit in terms of reducing the risk of bleeding where treatment is continued and therefore increase the chance that a person would take apixaban long-term.”

Clinical effectiveness

The NICE committee assessed the clinical effectiveness of apixaban based on results of the AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT studies.

Results of the AMPLIFY study indicated that apixaban is noninferior to standard treatment for recurrent VTE—initial parenteral enoxaparin overlapped with warfarin. Apixaban was comparable in efficacy to standard therapy and induced significantly less bleeding.

In AMPLIFY-EXT, researchers compared 12 months of treatment with apixaban at 2 doses—2.5 mg and 5 mg—to placebo in patients who had previously received anticoagulant therapy for 6 to 12 months to treat a prior VTE.

Both doses of apixaban effectively prevented VTE, VTE-related events, and death. And the incidence of bleeding events was low in all treatment arms.

The NICE committee noted that there were limited data in these trials pertaining to patients who needed less than 6 months of treatment and for patients still at high risk of recurrent VTE after 6 months of treatment.

However, the committee concluded that, despite these limitations, the AMPLIFY trials were the pivotal trials that informed the marketing authorization for apixaban. As such, they were sufficient to inform a recommendation for the whole population covered by the marketing authorization.

The committee did point out that there were no head-to-head trials evaluating the relative effectiveness of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban and dabigatran etexilate for treating and preventing VTE.

In addition, there were insufficient data to assess the effectiveness and safety of apixaban in patients with active cancer who had VTE, so it was not possible to make a specific recommendation for this group.

Cost-effectiveness

The recommended dose of apixaban as VTE treatment is 10 mg twice a day for the first 7 days, followed by 5 mg twice a day for at least 3 months. To prevent recurrent VTE, patients who have completed 6 months of VTE treatment should take apixaban at 2.5 mg twice a day.

The cost of apixaban is £1.10 per tablet for either the 2.5 mg or 5 mg dose (excluding tax). The daily cost of apixaban is £2.20. (Costs may vary in different settings because of negotiated procurement discounts.)

Analyses suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of apixaban was less than £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for either 6 months or life-long treatment. Therefore, NICE concluded that apixaban is a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. 

Thrombus

Image by Andre E.X. Brown

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guidance recommending the anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) as an option for treating and preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adults.

A NICE committee concluded that apixaban is clinically and cost-effective for this indication.

The draft guidance is now with consultees, who can appeal against it. Once NICE issues its final guidance on a technology, it replaces local recommendations.

“Apixaban, like the other newer oral anticoagulants already recommended by NICE for the treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, does not require frequent blood tests to monitor treatment and so represents a potential benefit for many people who have had a VTE,” said Carole Longson, NICE Health Technology Evaluation Centre Director.

“The committee also heard that apixaban is the only oral anticoagulant for which the licensed dose is lower for secondary prevention than for initial treatment of VTE. This could also be of potential benefit in terms of reducing the risk of bleeding where treatment is continued and therefore increase the chance that a person would take apixaban long-term.”

Clinical effectiveness

The NICE committee assessed the clinical effectiveness of apixaban based on results of the AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT studies.

Results of the AMPLIFY study indicated that apixaban is noninferior to standard treatment for recurrent VTE—initial parenteral enoxaparin overlapped with warfarin. Apixaban was comparable in efficacy to standard therapy and induced significantly less bleeding.

In AMPLIFY-EXT, researchers compared 12 months of treatment with apixaban at 2 doses—2.5 mg and 5 mg—to placebo in patients who had previously received anticoagulant therapy for 6 to 12 months to treat a prior VTE.

Both doses of apixaban effectively prevented VTE, VTE-related events, and death. And the incidence of bleeding events was low in all treatment arms.

The NICE committee noted that there were limited data in these trials pertaining to patients who needed less than 6 months of treatment and for patients still at high risk of recurrent VTE after 6 months of treatment.

However, the committee concluded that, despite these limitations, the AMPLIFY trials were the pivotal trials that informed the marketing authorization for apixaban. As such, they were sufficient to inform a recommendation for the whole population covered by the marketing authorization.

The committee did point out that there were no head-to-head trials evaluating the relative effectiveness of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban and dabigatran etexilate for treating and preventing VTE.

In addition, there were insufficient data to assess the effectiveness and safety of apixaban in patients with active cancer who had VTE, so it was not possible to make a specific recommendation for this group.

Cost-effectiveness

The recommended dose of apixaban as VTE treatment is 10 mg twice a day for the first 7 days, followed by 5 mg twice a day for at least 3 months. To prevent recurrent VTE, patients who have completed 6 months of VTE treatment should take apixaban at 2.5 mg twice a day.

The cost of apixaban is £1.10 per tablet for either the 2.5 mg or 5 mg dose (excluding tax). The daily cost of apixaban is £2.20. (Costs may vary in different settings because of negotiated procurement discounts.)

Analyses suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of apixaban was less than £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for either 6 months or life-long treatment. Therefore, NICE concluded that apixaban is a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. 

Aspergillosis

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved isavuconazonium sulfate (Cresemba) to treat adults with invasive aspergillosis and invasive mucormycosis, life-threatening fungal infections that predominantly occur in immunocompromised patients.

Isavuconazonium sulfate is an azole antifungal agent that works by targeting the cell wall of a fungus. The drug is available in oral and intravenous formulations.

“[The] approval provides a new treatment option for patients with serious fungal infections and underscores the importance of having available safe and effective antifungal drugs,” said Edward Cox, MD, director of the Office of Antimicrobial Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Clinical trials

The FDA approved isavuconazonium sulfate to treat invasive aspergillosis based on results of the phase 3 SECURE trial. The study included 516 adults with invasive aspergillosis who were randomized to receive isavuconazonium sulfate or voriconazole.

Isavuconazonium sulfate demonstrated non-inferiority to voriconazole on the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality through day 42 was 18.6% in the isavuconazonium sulfate arm and 20.2% in the voriconazole arm.

In addition, isavuconazonium sulfate demonstrated similar rates of mortality and non-fatal adverse events as voriconazole

The FDA approved isavuconazonium sulfate to treat invasive mucormycosis based on results of the phase 3 VITAL trial. This single-arm study included 37 patients with invasive mucormycosis who received isavuconazonium sulfate.

All-cause mortality in these patients was 38%. The efficacy of isavuconazonium sulfate as a treatment for invasive mucormycosis has not been evaluated in concurrent, controlled clinical trials.

The most frequent adverse events for patients treated with isavuconazonium sulfate in clinical trials were nausea (26%), vomiting (25%), diarrhea (22%), headache (17%), elevated liver chemistry tests (17%), hypokalemia (14%), constipation (13%), dyspnea (12%), cough (12%), peripheral edema (11%), and back pain (10%).

QIDP status

Isavuconazonium sulfate is the sixth approved antifungal/antibacterial drug product designated as a qualified infectious disease product (QIDP). This designation is given to antibacterial or antifungal products that treat serious or life-threatening infections.

As part of its QIDP designation, isavuconazonium sulfate was given priority review. The QIDP designation also qualifies the drug for an additional 5 years of marketing exclusivity to be added to certain exclusivity periods already provided by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

As invasive aspergillosis and mucormycosis are rare, the FDA also granted isavuconazonium sulfate orphan drug designations to treat these infections.

Isavuconazonium sulfate is marketed as Cresemba by Astellas Pharma US, Inc., which is based in Northbrook, Illinois. For more information on the drug, see the full prescribing information.

Aspergillosis

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved isavuconazonium sulfate (Cresemba) to treat adults with invasive aspergillosis and invasive mucormycosis, life-threatening fungal infections that predominantly occur in immunocompromised patients.

Isavuconazonium sulfate is an azole antifungal agent that works by targeting the cell wall of a fungus. The drug is available in oral and intravenous formulations.

“[The] approval provides a new treatment option for patients with serious fungal infections and underscores the importance of having available safe and effective antifungal drugs,” said Edward Cox, MD, director of the Office of Antimicrobial Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Clinical trials

The FDA approved isavuconazonium sulfate to treat invasive aspergillosis based on results of the phase 3 SECURE trial. The study included 516 adults with invasive aspergillosis who were randomized to receive isavuconazonium sulfate or voriconazole.

Isavuconazonium sulfate demonstrated non-inferiority to voriconazole on the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality through day 42 was 18.6% in the isavuconazonium sulfate arm and 20.2% in the voriconazole arm.

In addition, isavuconazonium sulfate demonstrated similar rates of mortality and non-fatal adverse events as voriconazole

The FDA approved isavuconazonium sulfate to treat invasive mucormycosis based on results of the phase 3 VITAL trial. This single-arm study included 37 patients with invasive mucormycosis who received isavuconazonium sulfate.

All-cause mortality in these patients was 38%. The efficacy of isavuconazonium sulfate as a treatment for invasive mucormycosis has not been evaluated in concurrent, controlled clinical trials.

The most frequent adverse events for patients treated with isavuconazonium sulfate in clinical trials were nausea (26%), vomiting (25%), diarrhea (22%), headache (17%), elevated liver chemistry tests (17%), hypokalemia (14%), constipation (13%), dyspnea (12%), cough (12%), peripheral edema (11%), and back pain (10%).

QIDP status

Isavuconazonium sulfate is the sixth approved antifungal/antibacterial drug product designated as a qualified infectious disease product (QIDP). This designation is given to antibacterial or antifungal products that treat serious or life-threatening infections.

As part of its QIDP designation, isavuconazonium sulfate was given priority review. The QIDP designation also qualifies the drug for an additional 5 years of marketing exclusivity to be added to certain exclusivity periods already provided by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

As invasive aspergillosis and mucormycosis are rare, the FDA also granted isavuconazonium sulfate orphan drug designations to treat these infections.

Isavuconazonium sulfate is marketed as Cresemba by Astellas Pharma US, Inc., which is based in Northbrook, Illinois. For more information on the drug, see the full prescribing information.

Aspergillosis

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved isavuconazonium sulfate (Cresemba) to treat adults with invasive aspergillosis and invasive mucormycosis, life-threatening fungal infections that predominantly occur in immunocompromised patients.

Isavuconazonium sulfate is an azole antifungal agent that works by targeting the cell wall of a fungus. The drug is available in oral and intravenous formulations.

“[The] approval provides a new treatment option for patients with serious fungal infections and underscores the importance of having available safe and effective antifungal drugs,” said Edward Cox, MD, director of the Office of Antimicrobial Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Clinical trials

The FDA approved isavuconazonium sulfate to treat invasive aspergillosis based on results of the phase 3 SECURE trial. The study included 516 adults with invasive aspergillosis who were randomized to receive isavuconazonium sulfate or voriconazole.

Isavuconazonium sulfate demonstrated non-inferiority to voriconazole on the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality through day 42 was 18.6% in the isavuconazonium sulfate arm and 20.2% in the voriconazole arm.

In addition, isavuconazonium sulfate demonstrated similar rates of mortality and non-fatal adverse events as voriconazole

The FDA approved isavuconazonium sulfate to treat invasive mucormycosis based on results of the phase 3 VITAL trial. This single-arm study included 37 patients with invasive mucormycosis who received isavuconazonium sulfate.

All-cause mortality in these patients was 38%. The efficacy of isavuconazonium sulfate as a treatment for invasive mucormycosis has not been evaluated in concurrent, controlled clinical trials.

The most frequent adverse events for patients treated with isavuconazonium sulfate in clinical trials were nausea (26%), vomiting (25%), diarrhea (22%), headache (17%), elevated liver chemistry tests (17%), hypokalemia (14%), constipation (13%), dyspnea (12%), cough (12%), peripheral edema (11%), and back pain (10%).

QIDP status

Isavuconazonium sulfate is the sixth approved antifungal/antibacterial drug product designated as a qualified infectious disease product (QIDP). This designation is given to antibacterial or antifungal products that treat serious or life-threatening infections.

As part of its QIDP designation, isavuconazonium sulfate was given priority review. The QIDP designation also qualifies the drug for an additional 5 years of marketing exclusivity to be added to certain exclusivity periods already provided by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

As invasive aspergillosis and mucormycosis are rare, the FDA also granted isavuconazonium sulfate orphan drug designations to treat these infections.

Isavuconazonium sulfate is marketed as Cresemba by Astellas Pharma US, Inc., which is based in Northbrook, Illinois. For more information on the drug, see the full prescribing information.

An iPhone (left) and

a Nokia smart phone

Photo by Halvard Lundgaard

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched the agency’s first mobile application (app) designed to speed public access to information on drug shortages.

The app provides details regarding current drug shortages, resolved shortages, and discontinued drug products.

It works just like the FDA’s drug shortages website. App users can search for a drug by its generic name or active ingredient, or they can browse by therapeutic category.

The app can also be used to report a suspected drug shortage or supply issue to the FDA.

The app is available for free download via iTunes (for Apple devices) and the Google Play store (for Android devices). It can be found by searching “FDA Drug Shortages.”

The FDA developed the app to improve access to information about drug shortages, as part of the agency’s efforts outlined in the Strategic Plan for Preventing and Mitigating Drug Shortages.

“The FDA understands that healthcare professionals and pharmacists need real-time information about drug shortages to make treatment decisions,” said Valerie Jensen, associate director of the Drug Shortage Staff in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The new mobile app is an innovative tool that will offer easier and faster access to important drug shortage information.”

An iPhone (left) and

a Nokia smart phone

Photo by Halvard Lundgaard

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched the agency’s first mobile application (app) designed to speed public access to information on drug shortages.

The app provides details regarding current drug shortages, resolved shortages, and discontinued drug products.

It works just like the FDA’s drug shortages website. App users can search for a drug by its generic name or active ingredient, or they can browse by therapeutic category.

The app can also be used to report a suspected drug shortage or supply issue to the FDA.

The app is available for free download via iTunes (for Apple devices) and the Google Play store (for Android devices). It can be found by searching “FDA Drug Shortages.”

The FDA developed the app to improve access to information about drug shortages, as part of the agency’s efforts outlined in the Strategic Plan for Preventing and Mitigating Drug Shortages.

“The FDA understands that healthcare professionals and pharmacists need real-time information about drug shortages to make treatment decisions,” said Valerie Jensen, associate director of the Drug Shortage Staff in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The new mobile app is an innovative tool that will offer easier and faster access to important drug shortage information.”

An iPhone (left) and

a Nokia smart phone

Photo by Halvard Lundgaard

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched the agency’s first mobile application (app) designed to speed public access to information on drug shortages.

The app provides details regarding current drug shortages, resolved shortages, and discontinued drug products.

It works just like the FDA’s drug shortages website. App users can search for a drug by its generic name or active ingredient, or they can browse by therapeutic category.

The app can also be used to report a suspected drug shortage or supply issue to the FDA.

The app is available for free download via iTunes (for Apple devices) and the Google Play store (for Android devices). It can be found by searching “FDA Drug Shortages.”

The FDA developed the app to improve access to information about drug shortages, as part of the agency’s efforts outlined in the Strategic Plan for Preventing and Mitigating Drug Shortages.

“The FDA understands that healthcare professionals and pharmacists need real-time information about drug shortages to make treatment decisions,” said Valerie Jensen, associate director of the Drug Shortage Staff in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The new mobile app is an innovative tool that will offer easier and faster access to important drug shortage information.”