April 28, 2008

Is the FDA Getting Tough on Surrogate Markers?

Allow me to introduce readers to PM, who will be guest blogging in this space from time to time. PM follows developments at the FDA closely.

Last week's surprise decision from the Food and Drug Administration that it will require a new cholesterol-lowering drug from ISIS Pharmaceuticals and Genzyme to actually reduce mortality from coronary artery disease may signal a subtle but significant shift in agency policy when approving new drugs that affect surrogate markers.

Cardiovascular (CV) surrogate markers are risk factors like high blood pressure, elevated blood sugar, low HDL cholesterol levels, and elevated LDL cholesterol levels that are associated with increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. In approving new drugs designed to prevent and treat CV disease, the FDA has often relied on improvements in the "surrogate endpoints," not the outcomes patients really care about -- reduced risk of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure and death. 
 
That approach has been unevenly applied over the years. Last month in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Bruce Psaty and Thomas Lumley noted the contrasting paths followed by the FDA with respect to two lipid-altering drugs, ezetimibe (Zetia and a component of Vytorin) and torcetrapib.  In the case of torcetrapib, a drug that raised "good" cholesterol (HDL) and lowered bad cholesterol (LDL), the sponsor carried out the ILLUMINATE trial, in which 15,057 patients with high CV risk were randomized to receive torcetrapib plus atorvastatin (Lipitor) or atorvastatin alone.  Although patients who received torcetrapib had higher HDL and lower LDL than patients who did not, the trial was stopped early because of an increase in the risk of CV events and total mortality in the torcetrapib group.  Pfizer subsequently halted the development of torcetrapib.
 
By contrast, ezetimibe was approved in October 2002 on the basis of its ability to reduce levels of LDL alone.  Clinical trials evaluating ezetimibe's impact on the risk of CV events were slow to start. Indeed, the ENHANCE trial, which evaluated the effect of ezetimibe on atherosclerosis, was not completed until 2006 -- four years after approval -- and the results were not reported until January of thsi year. Guess what? No effect on atherosclerosis was shown.

A large trial, IMPROVE-IT, to evaluate the effect of ezetimibe on CV events will not be completed until at least 2012.  If ezetimibe is ultimately shown to have no benefit for the prevention of CV events, thousands of patients will have been treated with an ineffective drug when more effective drugs were available.
 
Which brings us to this weekend's surprise announcement. Mipomersen, an LDL-lowering drug, is being developed by Isis Pharmaceuticals in partnership with Genzyme Corp.  While the sponsors announced Friday that the FDA was permitting reduction of LDL to be used as a surrogate endpoint for accelerated approval of mipomersen for patients with genetically-inherited high cholesterol (known as homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or hoFH), the agency will require the companies to conduct a very large clinical trial with real clinical endpoints (heart attacks, strokes, death) if they want to expand its use to the broader population with high cholesterol levels.

It is unclear whether this represents a new FDA approach to approval of lipid-altering drugs when they are first-in-class, or whether the FDA has special concerns with mipomersen. The FDA has asked the companies to include data from two ongoing preclinical studies for carcinogenicity when it submits its filing in 2010, a year later than expected. Whatever the FDA's reason, it's the right approach to take. --PM

Posted by gooznews at April 28, 2008 05:44 PM
Comments

Surely there is a cynical pun on the matter of "calling in their markers."

Posted by: davey at May 3, 2008 12:16 PM

Good for FDA! Surrogate endpoints need a closer look. We looked at claims made for high achieved hematocrit and consequently high epoetin doses. Our results support earlier clinical trial and epidemiological data suggesting that hematocrit may not be a valid surrogate for survival among the epoetin-treated renal failure population.

Cotter et al. Hematocrit was not validated as a surrogate end point for survival among epoetin-treated hemodialysis patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Oct;57(10):1086-95.

Posted by: Dennis Cotter at May 3, 2008 03:03 PM

The endemic use of surrogate endpoints as a valid standard by which to judge drugs is a phony ploy fostered by the FDA's CDER to enhance the acceptability of symptom-improving drugs which often have no true clinical benefit of decreased mortality. This is particularly true for chemotherapeutic agents, judged for their tumor-shrinking ability.

Posted by: Philip Rudnick at May 4, 2008 12:49 AM

What about FDA's approval of Avastin for metastatic breast cancer, back in February? The trial there met its "primary endpoint" of progress-free survival (PFS), but Breast Cancer Action criticized that, saying "that endpoint is meaningless because (1) it does not address the patient’s quality of life during those additional months...and (2) it has not been shown in this case to correlate with overall survival."

So one could argue that PFS was actually more of a surrogate endpoint. What does that approval add to this discussion of whether FDA is getting tougher on surrogate endpoints?

Posted by: Prescription Access Litigation at May 8, 2008 09:46 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?