11 March 2009 Phase III Sativex ® MS Spasticity Trial Study GWSP0604 Preliminary Results.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy - Pilot LPV/r - M American Study - KalMo - OK - OK04 - KALESOLO - MOST - HIV-NAT 077.
Advertisements

Linoxsmart S DX Master Study
Evaluation of Oral Azacitidine Using Extended Treatment Schedules: A Phase I Study Garcia-Manero G et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 603.
Nimotuzumab and radiotherapy in children and adolescents with brain stem glioma: Preliminary results from a Phase II study. T. Crombet 1, R. Cabanas 2,
Overview of Risk management: A EU perspective Lincoln Tsang May 2008.
What is Pharmacometrics (PM)?
Design of Dose Response Clinical Trials
Labeling claims for patient- reported outcomes (A regulatory perspective) FDA/Industry Workshop Washington, DC September 16, 2005 Lisa A. Kammerman, Ph.D.
Matthew M. Riggs, Ph.D. metrum research group LLC
OPTN Modifications to Heart Allocation Policy Implemented July 12, 2006 Changed the allocation order for medically urgent (Status 1A and 1B) patients Policy.
Durability of Response and Rate of Re-emergence of Wild Type at Boceprevir (BOC) Resistance-Associated Variant (RAV) Loci in Genotype 1a and 1b Patients:
Addition Facts
Implementing NICE guidance
Gopal AK et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 4382.
Analgesic ACM 7/29/021 Time-Specific Measurements vs. Time-Weighted Average for Pain in Chronic and Acute Analgesia Trials Laura Lu, Ph.D Office of Biostatistics,
Fundamentals of Clinical Trials
Phase II/III Design: Case Study
Group 3 – Michael, Elani, Golshan, Sarah, Joseph, Nana
Process Study 24-Month Results October 1, 2008 (abridged)
P. S. KUNDHAL ET AL. JAMA November, 2013 Moderator – Dr Vineet Ahuja
PROCESS vs. WA State SCS Study A Comparison of Study Design, Patient Population, and Outcomes August 29,2007.
Susan Boynton, VP, Global Regulatory Affairs, Shire
Addition 1’s to 20.
Week 1.
Plan B ® Actual Use and Behavior Studies NDA NDAC & ACRHD Joint Meeting December 16, 2003 Jin Chen, MD, PhD Division of OTC Drug Products NDAC &
The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network One-Year Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating Intravitreal Ranibizumab or Saline for.
Study Design 121 Relapsing-remitting MS patients randomized to –Stress Management Therapy MS active treatment* 16 individual sessions conducted over 24.
Long-term Safety and Effectiveness of Natalizumab STRATA MS Study.
Robertson JFR et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(27):
1 Efficacy of Testosterone Transdermal System (TTS) for Treatment of HSDD in Surgically Menopausal Women on Concomitant Estrogen Daniel Davis, MD, MPH.
Welcome Ask The Experts March 24-27, 2007 New Orleans, LA.
Dose-Toxicity Study of Oral Prednisone in Ocular Myasthenia Michael Benatar, Mike McDermott, Gil Wolfe and Don Sanders.
FREEDOMS II TRIAL.
Simvastatin Increases HDL-C and Apolipoprotein A-1 Levels Significantly More Than Atorvastatin John P. Kastelein, Evan A. Stein, Michael A. Davidson, John.
© CAMS Trial 2001 CAMS Study A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial of Cannabinoids in Multiple Sclerosis Principle Investigators Dr John Zajicek Dr.
Luveris ® New Drug Application ( ) Kate Meaker, M.S. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics II Kate Meaker, M.S. Statistical Reviewer Division.
Memantine in Clinical Practice – Results of an Observational Study Calabrese P., Essner U. and Förstl H. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 2007;
CB-1 PULMINIQ™ (cyclosporine, USP) Inhalation Solution Benefit-Risk/Conclusions Stephen Dilly, MD, PhD Chief Medical Officer Chiron | BioPharmaceuticals.
ODAC SCHERING-PLOUGH RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 Temozolomide Oncology Drug Advisory Committee March 13, 2003 Craig L. Tendler, M.D. Vice President, Oncology.
Quality of life improves after patients switch to biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30): IMPROVE™ Study data from 39,015 patients M. Benroumpi 1, T.
Food and Drug Administration Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting July 13, 2005 Safety of.
AAV2-NRTN (CERE-120) In Parkinson’s Disease: Phase 2 Trial Results and Path Forward Joao Siffert, MD Chief Medical Officer Ceregene, Inc. San Diego, CA.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
Switch NNRTI to NNRTI  Switch EFV to ETR –CNS toxicity study –Patient’s preference study.
1Bachelot T et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract S1-6.
CE-1 IRESSA ® Clinical Efficacy Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive.
Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee May 1, 2007 FDA Presentation Advair Diskus 500/50 Carol Bosken, MD, ScM, MPH Medical Officer Division of Pulmonary.
1 Agenda  Overview –Burt Adelman MD  Efficacy and Pharmacodynamics –Akshay Vaishnaw MD, PhD  Safety –Gloria Vigliani MD  Alefacept Risk Benefit Profile.
COMET: Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial Purpose To compare the effects of carvedilol (a β 1 -, β 2 - and α 1 -receptor blocker) and short-acting.
Statistical Considerations on NDA Sonia Castillo, Ph.D. Division of Biometrics 2 June 26, 2000.
SNDA Letrozole (Femara®) Indication: First-line therapy in post- menopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Prior approval: Second-line therapy.
CV-1 Trial 709 The ISEL Study (IRESSA ® Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) Summary of Data as of December 16, 2004 Kevin Carroll, MSc Summary of Data.
until tumour progression until tumour progression
Lenalidomide Maintenance After Stem-Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma: Follow-Up Analysis of the IFM Trial Attal M et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract.
Regulatory Considerations for Endpoints Ann T. Farrell, M.D. FDA/CDER/DODP.
SNDA # GLIADEL® WAFER (Polifeprosan 20 with Carmustine Implant) APPLICANT: GUILFORD PHARMACEUTICALS ODAC: December 6, 2001 Medical Reviewer: Alla.
Safety, Efficacy and Duration of Effect of RT002, a Botulinum Toxin Type A for Injection, to Treat Glabellar Lines: The Phase 2 BELMONT Study Authors:
Long term effectiveness of perampanel: the Leeds experience Jo Geldard, Melissa Maguire, Elizabeth Wright, Peter Goulding Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds.
Attal M et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 310.
The Anglo Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial
EMPHASIS-HF Extended Follow-up
until tumour progression until tumour progression
Bergh J et al. SABCS 2009;Abstract 23.
Issues in TB Drug Development: A Regulatory Perspective
Section III: Neurohormonal strategies in heart failure
1 Verstovsek S et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract Cervantes F et al.
The American College of Cardiology Presented by Dr. Timothy Henry
Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: What Do We Know and Where Are We Heading?
The efficacy and safety of omalizumab in pediatric allergic asthma
Presentation transcript:

11 March 2009 Phase III Sativex ® MS Spasticity Trial Study GWSP0604 Preliminary Results

2 Study Rationale: Route to Regulatory Approval In previous regulatory application, quality and safety data were sufficient to support approval Regulators identified a key outstanding efficacy issue –Target MS patients have advanced disease and are treatment-resistant –Hence, not all patients have capacity to respond –Benefit seen in responders is masked by mean data across all patients –Regulators wish to be able to identify Sativex responders in the first 4 weeks of treatment and to confirm that improvements gained by such responders over a further 12 week period is significantly greater than placebo –Post hoc analyses of responders data in previous submission showed strong results (p=0.015) –Regulators asked GW to re-confirm this in a prospectively planned study The regulators gave GW clear guidance on the design of the required study –Enriched design –First identify responders over a 4 week period, and then analyse the effect of Sativex vs placebo on those responders over a further period of 12 weeks

3 Study Design General: Placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel group study Patients: People with Multiple Sclerosis and spasticity who have failed to gain adequate relief from existing anti- spasticity medication and who demonstrate a capacity to respond to treatment Duration: 4 weeks single blind Sativex followed by 12 weeks double blind randomised period Primary Endpoint:Mean change in spasticity measured on the 0-10 NumericRating Scale Secondary Endpoints:Responder Analysis, Spasm, Sleep, Patient & Physician Global Impression of Change, etc

4 Double Blind Randomised Period GWSP0604 Study Design End of treatment /withdrawal 12 weeks Sativex 12 weeks Placebo 7 day Baseline Period 4 wks Single Blind Sativex Phase A Phase B Notes: Patients must achieve >20% improvement to be randomised The dose taken remains stable from Phase A to Phase B

5 GWSP0604: Demographics Age (yrs)48.5 years Gender – Male 40% Female 60% Type of MS Primary Progressive 16% Secondary Progressive 50% Remitting/Relapsing 32% Progressive Relapsing 2% Duration of MS12.14 years Duration of Spasticity7.17 years Mean Baseline Spasticity (0-10 NRS)7.04 Baseline EDSS6 Treatment-resistant MS patients with significant disability and unmet medical need

6 GWSP0604: Background Medication Medication% Baclofen57% Tizanidine19% Benzodiazepines17% Others (gabapentin, dantrolene, botulinum toxin) 12% Disease modifiers53% All patients have previously failed to respond to anti-spasticity therapy and continue to take their pre-existing background medication throughout the study

7 GWSP0604: Responders in Single-Blind Period (Phase A) Entered Phase A = 573 Screened = 670 >20% = 271 (47%) Non-responders = 302 (53%) Randomised (Phase B) = 241 Sativex = 124 Placebo = 117

8 GWSP0604: NRS Spasticity scores over time NRS spasticity score Mean 48% improvement in spasticity on Sativex over 16 weeks Phase APhase B

9 GWSP0604: Primary Endpoint Phase B Change in Spasticity scores Deterioration in spasticity score p= Baseline scores Sativex: 3.87 Placebo: 3.92

10 GWSP0604: Secondary Endpoint: Change in Sleep Disturbance scores Deterioration in sleep disruption Baseline scores: Sativex: 1.96 Placebo: 2.07 p<0.0001

11 GWSP0604: Secondary Endpoint Change in Spasm Frequency scores Deterioration in spasm frequency Baseline scores: Sativex: 5.61 Placebo: 5.29 p=0.005

12 GWSP0604: Secondary Endpoint Responder Analysis: 30% Response A responder is defined as the change from the original study baseline All patients had been refractory to other anti- spasticity treatments 92/124 Sativex patients showed a response of at least 30% following this treatment regimen p= % of population

13 GWSP0604: Other Positive Secondary Endpoints Patient global impression of change in spasticity (p=0.023) Physician global impression of change in spasticity (p=0.005) –Provides useful objective verification of response

14 Excellent Safety Profile: Adverse Events at > 3% Adverse EventPhase A period of Study SP0604 (n=573) Guidance from previous MS studies (n=663) Dizziness13%32% Fatigue6%12% Somnolence5%8% Nausea4%12% Dry Mouth4%8% Urinary Infection3%9% Vertigo3%4% Improved safety profile resulted from modified dose titration regimen employed in the study

11 March 2009 Randomised Withdrawal Study of Sativex ® in MS Spasticity Study GWSP0702 Preliminary Results

16 Study Rationale: The Regulatory Perspective In previous application, GW presented substantial long term open label data in 444 patients exposed to Sativex for a mean of 455 days –Represents 554 patient-years of exposure Long term open label data showed evidence of maintenance of efficacy and no new safety signals Long-term open-label studies are not regarded by EU regulatory agencies as providing robust evidence of the maintenance of efficacy in the long term UK MHRA: A randomised withdrawal trial following a period of open label treatment in patients considered to be responders would provide such information and would satisfy the need for controlled long term efficacy data.

17 Long Term Sativex Prescription Use Double Blind Randomised Open Label – Mean Duration 3.6 years 4 weeks Sativex (n=18) Placebo (n=18) GWSP0702: Study Design All patients demonstrated clinically relevant response to Sativex whilst on long term prescription use Study dosing determined by dose level used in long term prescription use Recruitment for study was a challenge due to reluctance of patients to risk coming off Sativex for 4 weeks

18 GWSP0702: Positive Primary Endpoint Time to Treatment Failure TestChi-Squarep-value Kaplan-MeierLog-Rank

19 GWSP0702: Secondary Endpoint Carer Global Impression of Change - Functional Ability Carers identify difference in functional ability

20 GWSP0702: Secondary Endpoint Patient Global Impression of Change

21 Summary Phase III study results provide robust evidence of efficacy of Sativex in MS Spasticity Phase III study expected to meet regulatory requirements for approval as stated in previous regulatory application Randomised withdrawal study provides significant evidence of long term efficacy in a study design recommended by regulators Sativex continues to show an excellent safety profile, which is further improved in this new data –Amended dose titration schedule reduces adverse event rate in early exposure In the last 6 months, GW has reported three positive Sativex studies incorporating a design modified from previous studies –New approach is producing consistent positive results Regulatory submission to be made Q2 09