throbber
12/29/2015
`
`Natpara sails through panel despite headwind; NPS Pharma gets an 8­5 'yes' vote in hypoparathyroidism | BioWorld
`
`HOME
`
`LOGIN
`
`explore »
`
`about
`
`conferences
`
`reports
`
`staff
`
`store
`
`start a risk­free subscription
`
`Natpara sails through panel despite headwind; NPS
`Pharma gets an 8­5 'yes' vote in
`hypoparathyroidism
`
`By Randy Osborne
`Staff Writer
`
`With briefing documents and history on its side, the biologic
`license application for NPS Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Natpara
`emerged with success from a meeting of the FDA's Endocrinologic
`and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee (EMDAC) as expected,
`scoring eight votes in favor of approval and five against – but a
`handful of panelists said their ballots might have gone either way.
`
`NPS' recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) for the potentially fatal disorder hypoparathyroidism,
`if approved, would be the first therapy cleared for U.S. marketing in that indication. Lee Weinstein, acting
`chief of the metabolic diseases branch of National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
`Diseases in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), voted for approval.
`
`"I would honestly say I was very much on the fence with this, and perhaps at another time or another
`moment, I could have made my vote the other way," he said, adding that he "was not overly impressed
`with the study that was done and some of the outcomes that were shown in the data. To be honest with
`you, as a physician, I think I would probably very rarely if ever even prescribe it." Still, he said, there
`appear to be a "small number of very difficult­to­treat patients that, for whatever reason – and I'm not sure
`we totally understand why that is" – are helped by the drug.
`
`Thomas Weber from Duke University Medical Center went the other way, despite "compelling stories from
`patients" during the public­hearing portion of the meeting because he wanted to see a "true reduction in
`urinary calcium" and better assurance that patients would not meet with renal complications. "In the
`absence of clear benefit, the bar for safety has to be much higher," he said.
`
`Panelists considered data from the pivotal trial called REPLACE, along with supportive outcomes from
`RELAY and RACE. NPS, of Bedminster, N.J., disclosed positive top­line results from REPLACE in late
`2011. There was another study, too, smaller and single­center, called REPEAT, that didn't play much of a
`role. (See BioWorld Today, Nov. 8, 2011.)
`
`EMDAC verified expectations from briefing documents that questions would have mostly to do with the
`risks of such problems as hypo/hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and osteosarcoma with long­term use.
`
`Members seemed frustrated that many of their questions could not be answered in REPLACE data. In an
`intent­to­treat analysis, NPS reported that 53 percent (48/90) of Natpara­treated patients achieved the
`primary endpoint vs. 2 percent (1/44) of placebo­treated patients (p < 0.0001).
`
`That endpoint was defined as a 50 percent or greater reduction in oral calcium supplements and active
`vitamin D therapy, along with a total serum calcium concentration that was normalized or maintained
`compared to baseline after 24 weeks of treatment.
`
`Not using calcium excretion as the primary endpoint bothered panelists such as Weber, while others said
`the trial was necessarily too small to capture the volume of data that would be required with a different
`primary goal. Others questioned the dosing regimen, wanting more frequent than once per day; one voter
`suggested an administration route other than an injection. "This drug would be perfect if it was a pump, or
`at least multiple­day dosing, but that's not the option that was put in front of me today," said the NIH's
`Weinstein.
`
`LONG­TERM OSTEOSARCOMA PERIL?
`
`http://www.bioworld.com/content/natpara­sails­through­panel­despite­headwind­nps­pharma­gets­8­5­yes­vote­hypoparathyroidism
`
`1/2
`
`Page 1
`
`

`
`12/29/2015
`
`Natpara sails through panel despite headwind; NPS Pharma gets an 8­5 'yes' vote in hypoparathyroidism | BioWorld
`
`Natpara was well tolerated in REPLACE. Thirteen of the 134 randomized subjects discontinued the study
`early, including seven on placebo. Overall, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events
`was similar in both groups.
`
`The good data were bolstered by EMDAC's past, as surveyed by Leerink Partners analyst Joseph
`Schwartz, who found the most recent 2.5 years voting history showed nine of 10 meetings ended with a
`positive vote. The meetings included two orphan drugs and eight mass­market indications. Since early
`2013, the only negative EMDAC meeting involved Vascepa (icosapent ethyl), the lipid­lowering agent from
`Amarin Corp. plc, of Dublin. (See BioWorld Today, Oct. 17, 2013.)
`
`With Vascepa, the picture was nothing like that with Natpara. Not only were the briefing documents much
`more doubtful, but also the market for mixed dyslipidemia is much larger. What's more, the FDA "was (and
`still is) attempting to address a political question regarding special protocol assessments (SPA) and the
`emergence of new, conflicting information," Schwartz wrote in a research report. For the first time ever, the
`committee turned down an application submitted under an SPA agreement. (See BioWorld Today, Oct. 18,
`2013.)
`
`The issue at hand, though, was Natpara, for which analysts had predicted a win at EMDAC, with Schwartz
`– who maintained an "outperform" rating and $40 price target on the stock – pegging peak sales in 2025 of
`$1 billion. More conservative on the shares was Jefferies analyst Eun Yang, with a "hold" rating and a
`target price of $26. NPS (NASDAQ:NPSP) stopped trading at a price of $32.70 for the day of the panel
`meeting.
`
`Yang pointed out that the clinical significance of Natpara­induced osteosarcoma in a preclinical rat model
`was unknown, similar to the PTH peptide Forteo (teriparatide, Eli Lilly and Co.) in osteoporosis. "It remains
`to be seen whether the FDA would place a black box for osteosarcoma in Natpara label (as a PTH class
`effect) and consider treatment duration limitation to less than two years, similar to Forteo (and Preotact
`[also from NPS] previously) despite the chronic nature of secondary hypoparathyroidism. The
`osteosarcoma matter cropped up in the EMDAC meeting, with panelists proposing risk evaluation and
`management strategies if the compound is approved.
`
`Last year, NPS regained full worldwide rights to Gattex (teduglutide) for short bowel syndrome and the
`recombinant PTH Preotact from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., of Osaka, Japan, in exchange for stock
`valued at $50 million, plus a milestone payment of $30 million in cash or stock in the first year that net
`sales of both products exceed $750 million. (See BioWorld Today, March 20, 2013.)
`
`Our address has changed:
`BioWorld | 115 Perimeter Center Place
`Suite: 1100 | Atlanta, Georgia 30346, USA

`For Sales Inquiries,
`http://ip­science.interest.thomsonreuters.com/Bioworld_Sales_Inquiry
`NORTH AMERICA
`Tel: +1­855­260­5607
`Outside of the US
`Tel. +44­203­684­1797

`Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

`Part of Thomson Reuters
`
`thomsonreuters.com
`BioWorld.com
`
`lifesciences.thomsonreuters.com
`medicaldevicedaily.com
`
`Free Ezine
`
`Sign up for Highlights FREE e­mail newsletter
`
`Note: our contact information has changed
`Customer Service: 
`
`In the U.S. and Canada: +1­800­336­4474
`
`Outside the U.S.: +44­203­684­1796
`
`http://ip­science.thomsonreuters.com/support/#open_a_support_case
`Click here
`
`Hours: Monday ­ Friday, 8:00am ­ 6:00 pm EST
`
`© 2015 Thomson Reuters. Reproduction, reposting content
`
`is strictly prohibited.
`
`http://www.bioworld.com/content/natpara­sails­through­panel­despite­headwind­nps­pharma­gets­8­5­yes­vote­hypoparathyroidism
`
`2/2
`
`Page 2

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