Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

J&J's OMADINE MDS DANDRUFF SHAMPOO IS "MOLECULARLY DISTINCT"

Executive Summary

J&J's OMADINE MDS DANDRUFF SHAMPOO IS "MOLECULARLY DISTINCT" from pyithione zinc, Procter & Gamble maintained in June 19 comments to FDA.. P&G objected to J&J's petition requesting that omadine MDS be declared ANDA suitable on the basis of its comparability to pyrithione zinc, the active ingredient in P&G's Head & Shoulders shampoo. "The two materials have different physical and chemical properties which in and of themselves are sufficient reasons to conclude that data for pyrithione zinc cannot be used to judge either the safety or effectiveness of omadine MDS," P&G stated. P&G argued that "pyrithione zinc is a particulate solid, virtually insoluble in a shampoo matrix, while omadine MDS is a soluble material." The firm noted that FDA's OTC advisory panel concluded "the effectiveness of a pyrithione zinc shampoo formulation is dependent upon the deposition of fine particles on the scalp which resist rinsing off with water." In addition, P&G maintained there are differences in safety profiles between the two ingredients. "A key toxicity issue associated with any pyrithione derivative is central peripheral distal axonopathy," P&G said. "Of particular note, the dose for producing neurotoxicity for a soluble pyrithione, such as NaPT, is much lower than [for] an insoluble pyrithione, such as pyrithione zinc." The firm said that in order to establish the safety of omadine MDS, the no-effect dose for toxicity and the human exposure to the ingredient under use conditions must be determined. P&G asserted that FDA should not allow the marketing of omadine MDS "(1) without direct demonstration of antidandruff efficacy through at least two well controlled human clinical studies under normal use conditions, and (2) without specific demonstration of the safety of omadine MDS through a combination of animal studies and human clinicals designed to assure the existence of an adequate safety margin between no effect doses in animals and systemic loads in humans." At a minimum, P&G stated, FDA should require that bioavailability and bioequivalence testing be performed under conditions of normal shampoo use. With respect to the efficacy of omadine MDS, P&G maintained that "there is no compelling evidence that omadine MDS has inherent antidandruff activity." The firm asserted that "the single small base size foreign clinical study" cited by J&J to support the efficacy of the ingredient "is so seriously flawed that the validity of the data and their analysis as well as the blindness of its execution are highly questionable." For example, P&G said, at least 282 subjects entered the study, but data on only 77 subjects is reported.

You may also be interested in...



Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data

Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011

FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance

FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials

Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund

Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

ID005817

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel