Archive for the ‘GlaxoSmithCline’ Category

Serevent and Foradil asthma drugs may be risky

Monday, December 15th, 2008

asthma drugsThe risks of two widely used asthma drugs outweigh their benefits for both children and adults, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel said Thursday.

The health panel targeted GlaxoSmithKline’s Serevent and Foradil, made jointly by Novartis AG and Schering-Plough, for restrictions, but it excluded Advair, Glaxo’s biggest-selling drug in the class of medications known as long-acting beta-agonists. It also left alone a fourth such drug, AstraZeneca’s Symbicort.

The health experts did not say that the use of Serevent and Foradil should be abandoned altogether. Instead, they said the medications’ labeling should be reworded to urge doctors to use the drugs along with an inhaled corticosteroid — as guidelines already recommend.

That may help explain why Advair and Symbicort were spared. Serevent contains just one active ingredient, salmeterol, while Foradil contains only formoterol. Advair is a combination of both salmeterol and fluticasone (an inhaled cortocosteroid), while Symbicort contains formoterol and another steroid (budesonide). All of these drugs relax airway muscles, letting asthma patients breathe more easily.

The controversy over these drugs has been going on for several years, with two FDA officials recently calling for banning the use of these drugs for anyone under 17. The results of studies noting a rise in asthma-related deaths by people using the medications have already resulted in a black-box warning that use could “increase the risk of asthma-related death.”

The advisory panel voted 10 to 17 on whether the benefits of Serevent outweighed its risk as maintenance therapy for adults, and voted 6 to 21 on the same question for adolescents ages 12 to 17, Dow Jones reported. Foradil received similar votes on the same questions: 9 to 18 for adults and 6 to 21 for adults.

The panelists were unanimous in voting that the benefits of the two drugs did not outweigh risks when used for children ages 11 and younger.

The announcement followed a two-day meeting on the issue by the expert advisory panel. The FDA is not obligated to follow the advice of its advisory panels but usually does so.

Speaking before Thursday’s decision, one expert said the problem is not with the drugs, but with their misuse.

“This is an over-interpretation of the risk without adequate consideration of benefit,” said Dr. Miles Weinberger, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Iowa. “However, there has been irresponsible marketing of the products, salmeterol and formoterol, and irresponsible prescribing by many physicians.”

“Since most patients with chronic asthma can be controlled with inhaled steroids alone, using these more expensive combination formulations as first line is inappropriate but strongly encouraged by marketing practices” of drug makers, Weinberger said.

In the panel’s first day of hearings on Wednesday, FDA officials themselves were split over the risks of the drugs.

One official told the panel members that more than 14,000 people may have died since 1994 after taking the drugs, while another suggested that an even greater number might have died without them, according to The New York Times.

Last week, two FDA officials, who work in the agency’s safety division, posted an assessment on the agency Web site, saying asthma sufferers of all ages should not take the medicines. But a third FDA official concluded that Advair and Symbicort are safe for adults, but that all four drugs should no longer be used by children 17 and younger, the Times said.

The panel was reviewing an FDA study of 110 trials that included 60,954 people and found an increase in asthma-related hospitalization, asthma-related intubation, and asthma-related death in asthmatic patients with the use of these drugs. The risk varied, however, depending on the particular drug studied.

For example, there were 20 asthma-related deaths, 16 among people taking long-acting beta agonists compared with four patients not taking these drugs. All the deaths were in patients taking Serevent, the FDA notes.

The increased risk wasn’t seen when a long-acting beta agonist was used along with an inhaled corticosteroid, the agency found.

The greatest risk appears to be among children aged 4 to 11; women also appeared to be at greater risk than men.

Weinberger thinks that long-acting beta agonists should be used only in combination with inhaled steroids.

“All trials of the combination of long-acting beta agonists and an inhaled steroid demonstrate substantial additive effect for patients not fully controlled on the inhaled steroid alone,” Weinberger said. “The sensible approach is to use the combination products only after inadequate control is observed with an inhaled steroid alone.”

For their part, the drugs’ manufacturers said they believe there is adequate evidence that their products are safe and effective when used properly.

In a joint statement issued after the panel voted, Novartis and Schering-Plough said both companies “remain confident in the safety and efficacy of Foradil.” The statement added, “Novartis and Schering-Plough strongly disagree with the Joint Advisory Committees view that the benefits of Foradil do not outweigh its risks in patients using it according to current product labeling for the maintenance treatment of asthma. We believe this opinion is inconsistent with clinical evidence supporting the benefit/risk profile of Foradil in patients not adequately controlled on other asthma-controller treatments.”

In its statement before the vote, AstraZeneca said the company “believes that Symbicort exhibits a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients 6 years of age and older. Symbicort offers an important therapeutic option for asthma patients who cannot be adequately controlled on other asthma controller medications [low- to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids] or whose disease severity clearly warrants initiation of treatment with two maintenance therapies.”
(more…)

Tyverb is back in Europe

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

Tyverb is back in EuropeThe European Commission has referred GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s breast cancer treatment Tyverb back for a fresh assessment by drugs regulators following new data from Europe’s biggest pharmaceuticals company.

Glaxo said on Tuesday that Tyverb, which is already on sale in the United States under the name Tykerb, had been referred back to the EU’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) for further discussion.

It said the new information was from a standard pharmacovigilance review of clinical trial and post-marketing data.

Glaxo’s Tyverb Referred for More Discussion in Europe

GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s Tyverb breast cancer drug was sent back to a European regulatory panel after new data showed the medicine may raise the risk of liver damage, slowing final approval.

The European Commission returned the application to the region’s health-care regulator for further discussion, probably during its April 21-24 meeting, London-based Glaxo said today in an e-mailed statement. An agency committee recommended approval of Tyverb following a review in December.

Tyverb is one of the medicines Glaxo is relying on to help counter slowing growth in sales of its top-selling asthma drug Advair and diabetes pill Avandia and the loss of patent protection on other products. The commission was expected to issue a final decision on the breast cancer drug between Feb. 22 and March 8, Glaxo said.

“It’s not particularly good news,” analyst Nick Turner of Mirabaud Securities in London said in a telephone interview. “This is a drug that promised much but isn’t likely to deliver.”

The new data showed signs that the medicine can raise the level of liver enzymes in patients, a possible warning sign for damage to the organ. Elevated liver enzymes were seen in four out of 1,000 patients, and “generally returned to normal” after they stopped using the drug, according to the U.K. company.

Positive Profile

“GSK believes these data do not change the positive benefit-risk profile for Tyverb in the proposed indication,” Glaxo said in the statement.

Glaxo shares rose 38 pence, or 3.7 percent, to close at 1,054 pence in London trading.

The European Medicines Agency said in December that it recommended conditional approval of Tyverb for breast cancer that has advanced or spread to other parts of the body in patients with the HER-2 gene, which makes the disease more aggressive. Conditional approval is valid for one year while the company obtains more information about the medicine and its effectiveness, EMEA said at the time.

(more…)

Tykerb (lapatinib) kills breast cancer

Wednesday, December 26th, 2007

GlaxoSmithKline Tykerb (lapatinib)GlaxoSmithKline Plc announced further clinical trial results on Sunday underlining the ability of a drug combination including its product Tykerb to fight breast cancer that has spread to the brain.

An extension to an earlier Phase II study involving 49 patients showed 20 percent of those receiving a mix of Tykerb and Roche’s Xeloda experienced at least a 50 percent volume reduction in measurable brain metastases.

The finding is significant because up to a third of women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer may develop brain metastases, which occur when cancer spreads from its original site.

The results were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in San Antonio, Texas.

Tykerb, a once-daily pill, was approved by U.S. regulators in March and won a conditional green light from the European Medicines Agency on Friday.

It is recommended as a treatment, in combination with Xeloda, for patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer whose tumors over-express protein HER2.

Tykerb kills breast cancer stem cells

A combination drug, Tykerb, known generically as lapatinib, appears to be able to fight breast cancer that has spread to the brain, media reported Tuesday.

For the first time, researchers have shown that the drug can slash the number of cancer stem cells in women with breast cancer, curbing tumor growth.

The latest theory of what causes cancer namely is that stem cells hiding within tumors drive their growth. Conventional treatments fail to cure cancer, according to the theory, because they are targeting the wrong cells.

Six weeks of Tykerb treatment slashed the number of breast cancer stem cells by more than half in 30 women studied, and two-thirds were cancer-free after follow-up treatment, says Jenny Chang, MD, of Baylor University in Houston.

The finding is significant because up to one third of women with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer may develop brain metastases.

About TYKERB/TYVERB(3)

TYKERB/TYVERB (lapatinib) is a first-in-class oral small-molecule inhibitor of the HER2 (ErbB2) tyrosine kinase receptor. Stimulation of HER2 is associated with cell proliferation and with multiple processes involved in tumor progression and metastases. Overexpression of this receptor has been reported in a variety of human tumors and is associated with poor prognosis and reduced overall survival. On March 13, 2007, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved TYKERB, in combination with capecitabine, for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer whose tumors overexpress HER2 and who have received prior therapy including an anthracycline, a taxane, and trastuzumab.

TYVERB has been approved in more than 15 countries, and marketing applications for TYKERB/TYVERB have been filed around the world.

About GlaxoSmithKline

GlaxoSmithKline — one of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare companies — is committed to improving the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer.

Avandia heart risks

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

Avandia risksThe findings of clinical trials have linked the use of thiazolidinediones, a class of diabetes drugs, with congestive heart failure and possibly heart attacks. Now, new research indicates that these associations, at least with Avandia, also apply to individuals in the community, and not just clinical trials.

Dr. Lorraine L. Lipscombe, from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto, and colleagues analyzed data for 159,026 older adults who were treated with at least one oral diabetes drug between 2002 and 2005 and were entered in an Ontario healthcare database. The subjects were followed through March 2006.

During an average follow-up period of 3.8 years, 7.9 percent of the patients were hospitalized for congestive heart failure, 7.9 percent were hospitalized for a heart attack, and 19 percent died, according to the researchers’ report in Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current thiazolidinediones use increased the risks of heart failure, heart attack and death by 60 percent, 40 percent, and 29 percent, respectively, compared with the use of other types of oral diabetes drugs.

Further analysis revealed that the risks were largely confined to patients who were using Avandia, known generically as rosiglitazone.

“These findings provide evidence from a real-world setting and support data from clinical trials that the harms of thiazolidinediones may outweigh their benefits, even in patients without obvious…cardiovascular disease,” the authors write.

More studies are needed to better define the risk-benefit ratio and the trade-offs associated with thiazolidinedione therapy and to explore if the treatment risks are confined specifically to rosiglitazone.

Avandia risks highlighted

Canadian researchers furnished the strongest evidence to date linking the popular diabetes drug Avandia to an increased risk of heart attack in a scientific study released yesterday.

Compared with other diabetes pills, Avandia’s use was associated with a 60 percent higher risk of heart failure, 40 percent higher risk of heart attack and 30 percent higher risk of death in patients 65 and older, the researchers found.

“The risks associated with these drugs may outweigh the benefits, at least for older populations,” said Dr. Lorraine L. Lipscombe, the lead author of the study and a researcher at a health research agency funded by the Ontario government.

The findings, published in the influential Journal of the American Medical Association, will probably intensify pressure on the government to restrict sales of the oral diabetes medicine.

“It should come off the market,” said Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, director of health research at Public Citizen, a liberal interest group preparing to petition the Food and Drug Administration to pull the drug.

Sales of Avandia have plummeted since Dr. Steven Nissen, a prominent cardiologist, reported in May that it raised the risk of heart attack. His report prompted congressional hearings and demands to stop sales.

The FDA decided against that last month, instead adding a label warning that urges users to consult a doctor if they have serious heart problems.

The decision divided agency staff. Ultimately, FDA officials decided the scientific evidence wasn’t conclusive, and they asked Avandia’s manufacturer to conduct a long-term study.

In a statement, the FDA said it would review the results from the Canadian study, but it needs more evidence before taking any further action. “This new study we have just seen today does not change FDA’s recommendations,” the agency said.

GlaxoSmithKline, Avandia’s maker, dismissed the Canadians’ findings as limited and misleading because the elderly studied might have been at higher risk of heart problems.

The Philadelphia company, which is conducting a long-term study of Avandia’s side effects, said in a statement that many other studies show Avandia is safe and effective.

The new study is the first to review side effects in real patients, rather than test subjects, according to Lipscombe, a researcher at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto.

Beginning in March, Lipscombe and her colleagues analyzed health care records for all elderly Ontario residents who took an oral diabetes medicine between 2002 and 2006.

Lipscombe said they focused on the elderly because 40 percent of diabetes patients in Ontario are 65 and older, but the elderly tend to be underrepresented in scientific drug studies.

The researchers didn’t find a higher heart risk among users of Actos, an Avandia competitor that belongs to the same class of diabetes drugs, but Lipscombe said there weren’t enough Actos users to draw a firm conclusion.

Older Diabetics Using Avandia Face Increased Death Risk

Older patients using the diabetes drug Avandia faced an increased risk of heart attack, heart failure and even death, new research shows.

According to the Canadian authors of the study, which is published in the Dec. 12 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, this is the first population-based look at the class of drugs to which Avandia belongs and the first report to find an increase in mortality rates.

“Our study looked at an older population in the real world who tend to be underrepresented in research trials and are at higher risk,” said study author Dr. Lorraine L. Lipscombe, a researcher with the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto. “While the overall risk versus benefit is difficult to interpret in all people, in older people, the risks may outweigh the benefit.”

“This is very striking data,” added Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. “This and other studies are going to put tremendous pressure on the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to act more forcefully with regard to Avandia.”

But the maker of Avandia (rosiglitazone), GlaxoSmithKline, took issue with the findings.

In a prepared statement, the company said the Canadian study “has significant limitations and generates misleading conclusions regarding acute myocardial infarction and death. These conclusions are inconsistent with a more robust body of evidence from large, long-term, prospective, well-designed clinical studies, including ADOPT and RECORD. These long-term trials in diabetic patients comparing rosiglitazone to other oral anti-diabetic medicines show no increased risk for cardiovascular events compared to other commonly used medications, other than the well-known risk of congestive heart failure with thiazolidinedione (TZDs).”

Nissen was the first scientist to publish concerns about Avandia and increased heart risks in a study last May.

After that and other research was released, the FDA added a “black box” warning to all drugs in the class. An FDA advisory panel voted against removing the drug from the market, citing inconclusive evidence.

The Canadian label for Avandia carries a stronger message: The drug is not to be used as the sole medication for type 2 diabetes unless the patient cannot take another drug to lower blood sugar and that the drug should not be used by any patient with heart failure.

People with type 2 diabetes are already at heightened risk for cardiovascular disease.

Thiazolidinediones including Avandia and Actos (pioglitazone) heighten the body’s sensitivity to insulin. Some 3.5 million U.S. patients take Avandia, which has also been linked to bone loss in some patients.

The current study involved an older (66 and over), “real-world” population consisting of more than 159,000 residents of Ontario in this age group who were treated with at least one oral diabetic medication. The patients were followed for about four years.

Compared to individuals taking more than one oral hypoglycemic agent, people using Avandia on its own had a 60 percent increased risk of congestive heart failure, a 40 percent increased risk of heart attack, and a 29 percent increased risk of dying.

The increased risks were associated with Avandia only, but fewer people in the study took Actos, so the results could be skewed, the researchers noted.

“It looks like the results were limited to Avandia, but 50 percent fewer people were on Actos, so you can’t rule out an increased or decreased risk with Actos,” Lipscombe said. “We need more studies.”

“It’s an observational study and, like all observational studies, this has strengths and weaknesses. These studies do not provide the strength of evidence of a prospective, randomized trial,” Nissen pointed out. “But as observational studies go, this one is very helpful, because it is quite large, and it is independent, not sponsored by any company. Remarkably, with Avandia, the increased risk of heart attack is very similar to what we reported in our meta-analysis last May.”

In related research appearing in the same issue of JAMA, a review of 25 studies found that current smokers have a 44 percent increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with nonsmokers.

The degree of risk was linked to the level of smoking — there was a 61 percent increased risk for those smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day and a 29 percent increased risk for those who smoked less, said the Swiss researchers. Former smokers had a 23 percent increased risk.