Xarelto Tested FDA’s Comparative Efficacy Powers, But Conservative View Prevailed
This article was originally published in Pharmaceutical Approvals Monthly
J&J/Bayer’s Xarelto tested the limits of FDA’s policy on comparative efficacy, thanks to suboptimal use of the active comparator, warfarin, and the introduction of a new competitor, Pradaxa. In the medical reviewers’ view, new therapies should be as effective as existing therapies used skillfully, but division leadership would withhold approval only if the new drug were clearly inferior to approved agents.
You may also be interested in...
As Daiichi’s experience suggests, sponsors of later-in-class products may face unfavorable efficacy comparisons to their earlier-approved brethren and challenges in qualifying for a priority review; however, risk management obligations may be less burdensome than for first-in-class products.
Structured benefit/risk framework requires consideration of current treatment options, agency says in asking its cardio-renal advisory committee to consider the existence of three other novel anticoagulants when weighing the poor efficacy seen with Daiichi’s Factor Xa inhibitor in a large patient subgroup.
In comments on the agency’s expedited programs draft guidance, PhRMA and BIO say a decision about the relevant standard of care is needed earlier in the development process; groups call for more flexibility on accelerated approval than is suggested in the guidance and identify several issues involving breakthrough therapies that need more clarity.