throbber
CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND
`RESEARCH
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICATION NUMBER:
`22-024
`
`
`RISK ASSESSMENT and RISK MITIGATION
`REVIEW(S)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`DATE:
`
`TO:
`
`
`FROM:
`
` FDA CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
`DIVISION OF METABOLISM AND ENDOCRINOLOGY PRODUCTS
`
`
`M E M O R A N D U M
`
`
`
`October 26, 2008
`
`ACTOPLUS MET XR (pioglitazone HCl plus metformin HCl extended release)
`(NDA 22-024)
`
`Mary H. Parks, M.D., Director, Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology
`Products (DMEP)
`Amy G. Egan, M.D., M.P.H., Deputy Director for Safety, DMEP
`
`
`
`SUBJECT: REMS requirement for ACTOPLUS MET XR
`
`
`
`This memorandum documents the basis for our decision to require a Risk Evaluation and
`Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for the ACTOPLUS MET XR NDA.
`
`Title IX, Subtitle A, Section 901 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007
`(FDAAA) amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to authorize FDA to
`require the submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) if FDA determines
`that such a strategy is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks (section
`505-1(a)(1)). Section 505-1(a)(1) provides the following factors:
`
`
`(A) The estimated size of the population likely to use the drug involved;
`(B) The seriousness of the disease or condition that is to be treated with the drug;
`(C) The expected benefit of the drug with respect to such disease or condition;
`(D) The expected or actual duration of treatment with the drug;
`(E) The seriousness of any known or potential adverse events that may be related to the drug
`and the background incidence of such events in the population likely to use the drug
`(F) Whether the drug is a new molecular entity.
`
`
`After consultations between the Office of New Drugs and the Office of Surveillance and
`Epidemiology, we have determined that a REMS is necessary for ACTOPLUS MET XR to
`ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks of heart failure associated with the use of
`pioglitazone-containing products, based on clinical trial data. In reaching this determination, we
`considered the following:
`
`
`

`

`A. Approximately 24 million people in the U.S. have diabetes, of whom more than one-third
`will require more than one anti-diabetic agent to maintain adequate glycemic control within
`several years of initiation of drug therapy. The potential market for ACTOPLUS MET XR is
`several million patients annually.
`
`
`B. Patients with type 2 diabetes who require more than one anti-diabetic agent for glycemic
`control are at risk for a variety of complications including heart disease, stroke, blindness,
`kidney failure, nervous system damage, amputations, and death if untreated. ACTOPLUS
`MET XR is an option for those individuals who are inadequately treated with anti-diabetic
`monotherapy.
`
`
`C. The expected benefit of this combination drug product in terms of glycemic control is greater
`than either component administered as monotherapy.
`
`
`D. The expected duration of therapy is over a patient’s lifetime.
`
`E. One of the drugs comprising ACTOPLUS MET XR, metformin, has been associated with
`various other adverse effects, including lactic acidosis. Additionally, in a long-term
`cardiovascular outcomes trial, 5238 patients were randomized to pioglitazone (n=2605) or
`placebo (n=2633) in addition to their background anti-diabetic medications. The percentage
`of patients who had a serious heart failure event was higher for patients treated with
`pioglitazone (5.7%, n=149) than for patients treated with placebo (4.1%, n=108). In patients
`treated with an insulin-containing regimen at baseline, the incidence of serious heart failure
`was 6.3% (n=54/864) with pioglitazone and 5.2% (n=47/896) with placebo. For those
`patients treated with a sulfonylurea-containing regimen at baseline, the incidence of serious
`heart failure was 5.8% (n=94/1624) with pioglitazone and 4.4% (n=71/1626) with placebo.
`
`
`F. ACTOPLUS MET XR contains metformin and pioglitazone and is not a new molecular
`entity.
`
`
`In accordance with section 505-1 of the FDCA, as one element of a REMS, FDA may require the
`development of a Medication Guide as provided for under 21 CFR Part 208. Pursuant to 21 CFR
`Part 208, FDA has determined that ACTOPLUS MET poses a serious and significant public
`health concern requiring the distribution of a Medication Guide. The Medication Guide is
`necessary for patients’ safe and effective use ACTOPLUS MET. FDA has determined that
`ACTOPLUS MET is a product that has serious risk (relative to benefits) of which patients
`should be made aware because information concerning the risk could affect patients’ decisions to
`use, or continue to use ACTOPLUS MET.
`
`The elements of the REMS will be Medication Guide and a timetable for submission of
`assessments of the REMS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`This is a representation of an electronic record that was signed electronically and
`this page is the manifestation of the electronic signature.
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
` /s/
`---------------------
`Julie Marchick
`1/28/2009 07:03:28 AM
`CSO
`
`Mary Parks
`1/28/2009 07:22:55 AM
`MEDICAL OFFICER
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket