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

The Qnexa Vote: Beyond the Bean Counting

This article was originally published in RPM Report

Executive Summary

FDA's Endocrinologic & Metabolic Drugs voted 10-6 against approval of Vivus' weight loss drug Qnexa (phentermine/topiramate) at this time. But committee members were almost unanimous in agreeing that it was a very close call, and their comments captured the nuance of the many issues FDA must resolve in the context of reviewing weight loss drugs in general and this application in particular. Below is our transcript of the discussion by each panelist about the reasons for their vote.

You may also be interested in...



Setting the Stage: Qnexa and the Power of REMS

Vivus’ second trip to an advisory panel was a much happier one, with the company’s weight loss therapy garnering an overwhelming “yes” vote on approvability. The key change? A Risk Evaluation & Mitigation Strategy that will be precedent setting if approved—and that demonstrates the power of REMS even if FDA moves in a different direction with this application.

A July to Remember: Lessons from an Eventful Month at FDA

July 2010 may have been one of the busiest and most important months ever for the Food & Drug Administration's new drug regulatory group. Here are 10 themes to think about heading into the fall.

Weighing the Regulatory Climate: Qnexa and the New Approval Model

If you are looking for evidence that the regulatory climate has improved at FDA since 2007, look no farther than FDA's handling of Vivus' weight loss drug Qnexa: FDA's review team was ready to take a risk on the drug despite a number of safety signals that would most likely have killed a product three years ago. But if you want to know how fundamentally the regulatory model has changed, listen to what the committee said in rejecting the application.

Related Content

Topics

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS080729

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