throbber

`
`
`
`DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
`
`
`
`
`
`Public Health Service
`Food and Drug Administration
`Rockville, MD 20857
`
`
`
`NDA 21-636
`
`
`Santarus, Inc.
`Attention: Christine Simmons, Pharm.D.
`10590 West Ocean Air Drive, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`
`Dear Dr. Simmons:
`
`Please refer to your new drug application (NDA) dated August 14, 2003, received August 15, 2003,
`submitted pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for Zegerid
`(omeprazole) Powder for Oral Suspension, 20 mg.
`
`We acknowledge receipt of your submissions dated December 9, 2003; January 7 and 15, February 9,
`13, 19, and 26, March 2, 11, 16, 22, and 30, April 5 9, 15, 19, 20, and 26, May 11, 13, 18, 19, and 28,
`June 2, 8, and June 14, 2004.
`
`This new drug application provides for the use of omeprazole powder for suspension 20 for short-term
`treatment (4-8 wks) of active duodenal ulcer; treatment of heartburn and other symptoms associated
`with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); short-term treatment (4-8 wks) of erosive esophagitis
`which has been diagnosed by endoscopy; and maintenance of healing of erosive esophagitis.
`
`We completed our review of this application, as amended. It is approved, effective on the date of this
`letter, for use of Zegerid (omeprazole) Powder for Oral Suspension, 20 mg, as recommended in the
`agreed-upon labeling text.
`
`The final printed labeling (FPL) must be identical to the enclosed labeling (text for the package insert)
`and submitted labeling (immediate container and carton labels submitted June 14, 2004). Marketing
`the product(s) with FPL that is not identical to the approved labeling text may render the products
`misbranded and an unapproved new drug.
`
`The electronic labeling rule published December 11, 2003 (68 FR 69009) requires submission of
`labeling content in electronic format effective June 8, 2004. For additional information, consult the
`following guidances for industry regarding electronic submissions: Providing Regulatory Submissions
`in Electronic Format – NDAs (January 1999) and Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic
`Format – Content of Labeling (February 2004). The guidances specify that labeling to be submitted in
`pdf format. To assist in our review, we request that labeling also be submitted in MS Word format. If
`formatted copies of all labeling pieces (i.e. package insert, patient package insert, container labels, and
`carton labels) are submitted electronically, labeling does not need to be submitted in paper. Approval
`of this submission by FDA is not required before the labeling is used.
`
`All applications for new active ingredients, new dosage forms, new indications, new routes of
`administration, and new dosing regimens are required to contain an assessment of the safety and
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 1
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 2
`
`effectiveness of the product in pediatric patients unless this requirement is waived or deferred. We are
`deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages 2 to 16 years until July 15, 2007.
`
`Your deferred pediatric studies for GERD (symptomatic GERD and Erosive Esophagitis) required
`under section 2 of the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) are considered required postmarketing
`study commitments. The statuses of these postmarketing studies shall be reported annually according
`to 21 CFR 314.81. These commitments are listed below.
`
`
`1) Single and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and safety study in
`pediatric patients aged 2 to 11 years.
`
`Protocol submission by: December 15, 2004 (6 mos. post-approval)
`Study start:
`
` July 15, 2005 (1 year post-approval)
`Final report submission: July 15, 2007 (3 years post approval)
`
`
`2) Single and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and safety study in
`pediatric patients aged 12 to 16 years.
`
`Protocol submission by: December 15, 2004 (6 mos. post-approval)
`Study start:
`
` July 15, 2005 (1 year post-approval)
`Final report submission: July 15, 2007 (3 years post approval)
`
`
`Submit final study reports to this NDA. For administrative purposes, all submissions related to
`this/these pediatric postmarketing study commitment(s) must be clearly designated “Required
`Pediatric Study Commitments”.
`
`Please submit one market package of the drug product when it is available.
`
`We remind you that you must comply with reporting requirements for an approved NDA (21 CFR
`314.80 and 314.81).
`
`If you have any questions, call Susan Daugherty, Regulatory Project Manager, at (301) 827-7456.
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`{See appended electronic signature page}
`
`Robert L. Justice, M.D., M.S.
`Director
`Division of Gastrointestinal and
` Coagulation Drug Products
`Office of Drug Evaluation III
`Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
`
`
`
`Enclosure: Labeling
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 2
`
`

`

`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`This is a representation of an electronic record that was signed electronically and
`this page is the manifestation of the electronic signature.
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
` /s/
`---------------------
`Joyce Korvick
`6/15/04 01:47:29 PM
`for Dr. Robert Justice
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 3
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 3
`
`
`Zegerid (omeprazole)
`Powder for Oral Suspension
`
`
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`The active ingredient in Zegerid (omeprazole) powder for oral suspension, is a substituted benzimidazole, 5-
`methoxy-2-[[(4-methoxy-3, 5-dimethyl-2-pyridinyl) methyl]sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole, a racemic mixture of two
`enantiomers that inhibits gastric acid secretion. Its empirical formula is C17H19N3O3S, with a molecular weight of
`345.42. The structural formula is:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Omeprazole is a white to off-white crystalline powder which melts with decomposition at about 155°C. It is a
`weak base, freely soluble in ethanol and methanol, and slightly soluble in acetone and isopropanol and very
`slightly soluble in water. The stability of omeprazole is a function of pH; it is rapidly degraded in acid media, but
`has acceptable stability under alkaline conditions.
`
` Zegerid Powder for Oral Suspension is supplied in unit dose packets as an immediate release formulation to be
`constituted with water for oral administration. Each packet contains 20 mg of omeprazole and the following
`excipients: sodium bicarbonate, sucrose, sucralose, xanthan gum, xylitol, and flavorings.
`
`CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
`
`Omeprazole is acid labile and thus rapidly degraded by gastric acid. Zegerid Powder for Oral Suspension is an
`immediate-release formulation that contains sodium bicarbonate to protect omeprazole from acid degradation.
`
`Pharmacokinetics:
`Absorption
`
`When Zegerid is administered on an empty stomach 1 hour prior to a meal, absorption of omeprazole is rapid,
`with mean peak plasma levels of omeprazole occurring at around 30 minutes (range 10 to 90 minutes) after a
`single dose or repeated once-daily administration (see figures below).
`
`
`Mean Plasma Omeprazole Concentrations (Days 1 and 7)
`(Day 1)
`(Day 7)
`
`
`The AUC(0-inf)(ng*hr/mL) was 1446 after 7 days of 20 mg daily doses and the Tmax was approximately 30
`minutes.
`
`Following single or repeated once daily dosing, peak plasma concentrations of omeprazole from Zegerid are
`approximately proportional from 20 to 40 mg doses, but a greater than linear mean AUC (three-fold increase) is
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 4
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 4
`
`observed when doubling the dose to 40 mg. The bioavailability of omeprazole from Zegerid Powder for Oral
`Suspension increases upon repeated administration of Zegerid.
`
`
`Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Zegerid Following
`Oral 20 mg Once-Daily Dosing for 1 and 7 Days
`
`
`Parameter
`AUC(0-inf) (ng*hr/mL)
`Coefficient of variation
`Cmax (ng/mL)
`Coefficient of variation
`Tmax (min)
`T½ (hr)
`
`Day 1
`825
`72%
`672
`44%
`29.8
`0.86
`Values represent arithmetic means.
`
`
`Parameter
`AUC(0-inf) (ng*hr/mL)
`Coefficient of variation
`Cmax (ng/mL)
`Coefficient of variation
`Tmax (min)
`T½ (hr)
`
`Day 7
`1446
`61%
`902
`40%
`28.3
`1.08
`Values represent arithmetic means.
`
`When Zegerid is administered 1 hour after a meal, Cmax and AUC are reduced by 63% and 24%, respectively,
`relative to administration prior to a meal.
`
`Distribution
`Omeprazole is bound to plasma proteins. Protein binding is approximately 95%.
`
`Metabolism
`Absolute bioavailability (compared to intravenous administration) is about 30-40% at doses of 20-40 mg, due in
`large part to pre-systemic metabolism.
`
`Excretion
`In healthy subjects, the mean plasma half-life is 1 hour (range 0.4 to 3.2 hours), and the total body clearance is
`500-600 mL/min.
`
`Following single dose oral administration of omeprazole, little if any unchanged drug is excreted in urine. The
`majority of the dose (about 77%) is eliminated in urine as at least six metabolites. Two metabolites have been
`identified as hydroxyomeprazole and the corresponding carboxylic acid. The remainder of the dose was
`recoverable in feces. This implies a significant biliary excretion of the metabolites of omeprazole. Three
`metabolites have been identified in plasma — the sulfide and sulfone derivatives of omeprazole, and
`hydroxyomeprazole. These metabolites have very little or no antisecretory activity.
`
`Special Populations
`Geriatric
`The elimination rate of omeprazole was somewhat decreased in the elderly, and bioavailability was increased.
`Omeprazole was 76% bioavailable when a single 40 mg oral dose of omeprazole (buffered solution) was
`administered to healthy elderly subjects, versus 58% in young subjects given the same dose. Nearly 70% of the
`dose was recovered in urine as metabolites of omeprazole and no unchanged drug was detected. The plasma
`clearance of omeprazole was 250 mL/min (about half that of young subjects) and its plasma half-life averaged
`one hour, similar to that of young healthy subjects.
`
`Pediatric
`The pharmacokinetics of Zegerid have not been studied in patients < 18 years of age.
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 5
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 5
`
`Gender
`There are no known differences in the absorption or excretion of omeprazole between males and females.
`
`Hepatic insufficiency
`In patients with chronic hepatic disease, the bioavailability of omeprazole increased to approximately 100%
`compared to an l.V. dose, reflecting decreased first-pass effect, and the mean plasma half-life of the drug
`increased to nearly 3 hours compared to the mean half-life of 1 hour in healthy subjects. Plasma clearance
`averaged 70 mL/min, compared to a value of 500-600 mL/min in normal subjects.
`
`Renal insufficiency
`In patients with chronic renal impairment, whose creatinine clearance ranged between 10 and 62 mL/min/1.73
`m2, the disposition of omeprazole was very similar to that in healthy volunteers, although there was a slight
`increase in bioavailability. Because urinary excretion is a primary route of excretion of omeprazole metabolites,
`their elimination slowed in proportion to the decreased creatinine clearance.
`
`Asians
`In pharmacokinetic studies of single 20 mg omeprazole doses, an increase in AUC of approximately four fold
`was noted in Asian subjects compared to Caucasians.
`
`Dose adjustment, particularly where maintenance of healing of erosive esophagitis is indicated, for the
`hepatically impaired and Asian subjects should be considered.
`
`Drug-Drug Interactions
`When omeprazole 40 mg once daily was given in combination with clarithromycin 500 mg every 8 hours to
`healthy adult male subjects, the steady-state plasma concentrations of omeprazole were increased by the
`concomitant administration of clarithromycin (Cmax, AUC 0-24 and T1/2 increased 30%, 89%, and 34%,
`respectively).
`
`Pharmacodynamics
`
`Mechanism of Action
`
`Omeprazole belongs to a class of antisecretory compounds, the substituted benzimidazoles, that do not exhibit
`anticholinergic or H2 histamine antagonistic properties, but that suppress gastric acid secretion by specific
`inhibition of the H+/K+ ATPase enzyme system at the secretory surface of the gastric parietal cell. Because this
`enzyme system is regarded as the acid (proton) pump within the gastric mucosa, omeprazole has been
`characterized as a gastric acid-pump inhibitor, in that it blocks the final step of acid production. This effect is
`dose-related and leads to inhibition of both basal and stimulated acid secretion irrespective of the stimulus.
`Animal studies indicate that after rapid disappearance from plasma, omeprazole can be found within the gastric
`mucosa for a day or more.
`
`Antisecretory Activity
`
`Results from a study of the antisecretory effect of repeated once-daily dosing of 20 mg of Zegerid in healthy
`subjects (n = 28) is shown below.
`
`
`Effect of Zegerid 20 mg on Intragastric pH on Day 7
`
`(19)
`
`Parameter
`% Decrease from Baseline for Integrated Intragastric
`Acidity (mmol*hr/L)
`51% (12.2 h) /(43%)*
`% Time Gastric pH > 4 (hours)
`4.2/(37%)*
`Median pH
` Values represent medians. All parameters were measured over a 24-hour period.
` * Coefficient of variation
`
`
`82%/(24%)*
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 6
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 6
`
`
`The antisecretory effect thus lasts far longer than would be expected from the very short plasma half-life
`(1 hour) apparently due to irreversible binding to the parietal H+/K+ ATPase enzyme. Repeated single daily oral
`doses of Zegerid20 mg have produced nearly 100% inhibition of 24-hour integrated intragastric acidity in some
`subjects.
`
`Enterochromaffin-like (ECL) Cell Effects
`
`In 24 month carcinogenicity studies in rats, a dose-related significant increase in gastric carcinoid tumors and
`ECL cell hyperplasia was observed in both male and female animals (see PRECAUTIONS, Carcinogenesis,
`Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility). Carcinoid tumors have also been observed in rats subjected to
`fundectomy or long-term treatment with other proton pump inhibitors or high doses of H2-receptor antagonists.
`Human gastric biopsy specimens have been obtained from more than 3000 patients treated with omeprazole in
`long-term clinical trials. The incidence of ECL cell hyperplasia in these studies increased with time; however, no
`case of ECL cell carcinoids, dysplasia, or neoplasia has been found in these patients. (See also CLINICAL
`PHARMACOLOGY, Pathological Hypersecretory Conditions.)
`
`However, these studies are of insufficient duration and size to rule out the possible influence of long-term
`administration of omeprazole on the development of any premalignant or malignant conditions.
`
`
`Serum Gastrin Effects
`
`In studies involving more than 200 patients, serum gastrin levels increased during the first 1 to 2 weeks of once-
`daily administration of therapeutic doses of omeprazole in parallel with inhibition of acid secretion. No further
`increase in serum gastrin occurred with continued treatment. In comparison with histamine H2-receptor
`antagonists, the median increases produced by 20 mg doses of omeprazole were higher (1.3 to 3.6 fold vs. 1.1
`to 1.8 fold increase). Gastrin values returned to pretreatment levels, usually within 1 to 2 weeks after
`discontinuation of therapy.
`
`Other Effects
`
`Systemic effects of omeprazole in the CNS, cardiovascular and respiratory systems have not been found to
`date. Omeprazole, given in oral doses of 30 or 40 mg for 2 to 4 weeks, had no effect on thyroid function,
`carbohydrate metabolism, or circulating levels of parathyroid hormone, cortisol, estradiol, testosterone, prolactin,
`cholecystokinin or secretin.
`
`No effect on gastric emptying of the solid and liquid components of a test meal was demonstrated after a single
`dose of omeprazole 90 mg. In healthy subjects, a single l.V. dose of omeprazole (0.35 mg/kg) had no effect on
`intrinsic factor secretion. No systematic dose-dependent effect has been observed on basal or stimulated pepsin
`output in humans. However, when intragastric pH is maintained at 4.0 or above, basal pepsin output is low, and
`pepsin activity is decreased.
`
`As do other agents that elevate intragastric pH, omeprazole administered for 14 days in healthy subjects
`produced a significant increase in the intragastric concentrations of viable bacteria. The pattern of the bacterial
`species was unchanged from that commonly found in saliva. All changes resolved within three days of stopping
`treatment.
`
`The course of Barrett’s esophagus in 106 patients was evaluated in a U.S. double-blind controlled study of
`omeprazole 40 mg b.i.d. for 12 months followed by 20 mg b.i.d. for 12 months or ranitidine 300 mg b.i.d. for 24
`months. No clinically significant impact on Barrett’s mucosa by antisecretory therapy was observed. Although
`neosquamous epithelium developed during antisecretory therapy, complete elimination of Barrett’s mucosa was
`not achieved. No significant difference was observed between treatment groups in development of dysplasia in
`Barrett’s mucosa and no patient developed esophageal carcinoma during treatment. No significant differences
`between treatment groups were observed in development of ECL cell hyperplasia, corpus atrophic gastritis,
`corpus intestinal metaplasia, or colon polyps exceeding 3 mm in diameter (see also CLINICAL
`PHARMACOLOGY, Enterochromaffin-like (ECL) Cell Effects).
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 7
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 7
`
`Clinical Studies
`
`Duodenal Ulcer Disease
`Active Duodenal Ulcer - In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo controlled study of 147 patients with
`endoscopically documented duodenal ulcer, the percentage of patients healed (per protocol) at 2 and 4 weeks
`was significantly higher with omeprazole 20 mg once a day than with placebo (p ≤ 0.01).
`
`
`Treatment of Active Duodenal Ulcer
`% of Patients Healed
`Omeprazole
`20 mg a.m.
`(n = 99)
`*41
`*75
`
`Placebo
`a.m.
`(n = 48)
`13
`27
`
`
`
`Week 2
`Week 4
`*(p ≤ 0.01)
`
`
`Complete daytime and nighttime pain relief occurred significantly faster (p ≤ 0.01) in patients treated with
`omeprazole 20 mg than in patients treated with placebo. At the end of the study, significantly more patients who
`had received omeprazole had complete relief of daytime pain (p ≤ 0.05) and nighttime pain (p ≤ 0.01).
`
`In a multicenter, double-blind study of 293 patients with endoscopically documented duodenal ulcer, the
`percentage of patients healed (per protocol) at 4 weeks was significantly higher with omeprazole 20 mg once a
`day than with ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. (p < 0.01).
`
`
`Treatment of Active Duodenal Ulcer
`% of Patients Healed
`Omeprazole
`20 mg a.m.
`(n = 145)
`42
`*82
`
`
`
`
`Ranitidine
`150 mg b.i.d.
`(n = 148)
`34
`63
`
`
`
`Week 2
`Week 4
`*(p < 0.01)
`
`
`Healing occurred significantly faster in patients treated with omeprazole than in those treated with ranitidine 150
`mg b.i.d. (p < 0.01).
`
`In a foreign multinational randomized, double-blind study of 105 patients with endoscopically documented
`duodenal ulcer, 20 mg and 40 mg of omeprazole were compared to 150 mg b.i.d. of ranitidine at 2, 4 and 8
`weeks. At 2 and 4 weeks both doses of omeprazole were statistically superior (per protocol) to ranitidine, but 40
`mg was not superior to 20 mg of omeprazole, and at 8 weeks there was no significant difference between any of
`the active drugs.
`
`
`Treatment of Active Duodenal Ulcer
`% of Patients Healed
`Omeprazole
`
`20 mg
`(n = 34)
`*83
`*97
`100
`
`40 mg
`(n = 36)
`*83
`*100
`100
`
`Ranitidine
`150 mg b.i.d.
`(n = 35)
`53
`82
`94
`
`
`
`
`Week 2
`Week 4
`Week 8
`*(p ≤ 0.01)
`
`
`Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)
`
`Symptomatic GERD
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 8
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 8
`
` A
`
` placebo controlled study was conducted in Scandinavia to compare the efficacy of omeprazole 20 mg or 10
`mg once daily for up to 4 weeks in the treatment of heartburn and other symptoms in GERD patients without
`erosive esophagitis. Results are shown below.
`
`
`
`
`All patients
`
`Patients with
`confirmed GERD
`
`% Successful Symptomatic Outcomea
`Omeprazole
`Omeprazole
`20 mg a.m.
`10 mg a.m.
`46*,†
`31†
`(n = 205)
`(n = 199)
`56*,†
`36†
`(n = 115
`(n = 109
`aDefined as complete resolution of heartburn
`*(p < 0.005) versus 10 mg
`†(p < 0.005) versus placebo
`
`Placebo
`a.m.
`13
`(n = 105)
`14
`(n = 59)
`
`
`Erosive Esophagitis
`
`In a US multicenter double-blind placebo controlled study of 20 mg or 40 mg of omeprazole in patients with
`symptoms of GERD and endoscopically diagnosed erosive esophagitis of grade 2 or above, the percentage
`healing rates (per protocol) were as follows:
`
`
`20 mg Omeprazole
`
`(n = 83)
`Week
`39*
`4
`74*
`8
`*(p < 0.01) Omeprazole versus placebo.
`
`40 mg Omeprazole
`(n = 87)
`45*
`75*
`
`Placebo
`(n = 43)
`7
`14
`
`
`In this study, the 40 mg dose was not superior to the 20 mg dose of omeprazole in the percentage healing rate.
`Other controlled clinical trials have also shown that omeprazole is effective in severe GERD. In comparisons
`with histamine H2-receptor antagonists in patients with erosive esophagitis, grade 2 or above, omeprazole in a
`dose of 20 mg was significantly more effective than the active controls. Complete daytime and nighttime
`heartburn relief occurred significantly faster (p < 0.01) in patients treated with omeprazole than in those taking
`placebo or histamine H2-receptor antagonists.
`
`In this and five other controlled GERD studies, significantly more patients taking 20 mg omeprazole (84%)
`reported complete relief of GERD symptoms than patients receiving placebo (12%).
`
`Long Term Maintenance Treatment of Erosive Esophagitis
`In a U.S. double-blind, randomized, multicenter, placebo controlled study, two dose regimens of omeprazole
`were studied in patients with endoscopically confirmed healed esophagitis. Results to determine maintenance of
`healing of erosive esophagitis are shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Life Table Analysis
`
`Omeprazole
`
`
`20 mg 3 days
`Omeprazole
`Placebo
`per week
`20 mg q.d.
`(n = 131)
`(n = 137)
`(n = 138)
`Percent in
`
`
`
`endoscopic
`
`
`
`remission at 6
`*70
`11
`34
`months
`*(p < 0.01) Omeprazole 20 mg q.d. versus Omeprazole 20 mg 3 consecutive days per
`week or placebo.
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 9
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 9
`
`
`In an international multicenter double-blind study, omeprazole 20 mg daily and 10 mg daily were compared to
`ranitidine 150 mg twice daily in patients with endoscopically confirmed healed esophagitis. The table below
`provides the results of this study for maintenance of healing of erosive esophagitis.
`
`
`
`
`Life Table Analysis
`
`
`
`Omeprazole
`Ranitidine
`Omeprazole
`20 mg q.d.
`150 mg b.i.d.
`10 mg q.d.
`(n = 131)
`(n = 128)
` (n = 133)
`
`
`
`Percent in
`endoscopic
`
`
`
`remission at 12
`‡58
`*77
`46
`months
`*(p = 0.01) Omeprazole 20 mg q.d. versus Omeprazole 10 mg q.d. or Ranitidine.
`‡(p = 0.03) Omeprazole 10 mg q.d. versus Ranitidine.
`
`In patients who initially had grades 3 or 4 erosive esophagitis, for maintenance after healing 20 mg daily of
`omeprazole was effective, while 10 mg did not demonstrate effectiveness.
`
`INDICATIONS AND USAGE
`
`Duodenal Ulcer
`
`Zegerid is indicated for short-term treatment of active duodenal ulcer. Most patients heal within four weeks.
`Some patients may require an additional four weeks of therapy.
`
`Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)
`
`Symptomatic GERD
`
`Zegerid is indicated for the treatment of heartburn and other symptoms associated with GERD.
`
`Erosive Esophagitis
`
`Zegerid is indicated for the short-term treatment (4-8 weeks) of erosive esophagitis which has been diagnosed
`by endoscopy.
`
`(See CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, Clinical Studies.)
`
`The efficacy of Zegerid used for longer than 8 weeks in these patients has not been established. In the rare
`instance of a patient not responding to 8 weeks of treatment, it may be helpful to give up to an additional 4
`weeks of treatment. If there is recurrence of erosive esophagitis or GERD symptoms (e.g. heartburn), additional
`4-8 week courses of omeprazole may be considered.
`
`Maintenance of Healing of Erosive Esophagitis
`
`Zegerid Powder for Oral Suspension is indicated to maintain healing of erosive esophagitis.
`
`Controlled studies do not extend beyond 12 months.
`
`CONTRAINDICATIONS
`
`Zegerid is contraindicated in patients with known hypersensitivity to any components of the formulation.
`
`PRECAUTIONS
`General
`
`Symptomatic response to therapy with omeprazole does not preclude the presence of gastric malignancy.
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 10
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 10
`
`
`Atrophic gastritis has been noted occasionally in gastric corpus biopsies from patients treated long-term with
`omeprazole.
`
`Zegerid contains 460 mg sodium per dose in the form of sodium bicarbonate. This should be taken into
`consideration for patients on a sodium-restricted diet.
`
`Zegerid contains 1680 mg (20 mEq) of sodium bicarbonate. Sodium bicarbonate is contraindicated in patients
`with metabolic alkalosis and hypocalcemia. Sodium bicarbonate should be used with caution in patients with
`Bartter’s syndrome, hypokalemia, and respiratory alkalosis. Long-term administration of bicarbonate with
`calcium or milk can cause milk-alkali syndrome.
`
`Information for Patients
`Zegerid is supplied as a powder for oral suspension. It should be taken on an empty stomach at least 1 hour
`prior to a meal.
`
`Zegerid is available as 20 mg single-dose packets. Directions for use: Empty packet contents into a small cup
`containing 2 tablespoons of water. DO NOT USE OTHER LIQUIDS OR FOODS. Stir well and drink
`immediately. Refill cup with water and drink.
`
`Drug Interactions
`Other
`
`Omeprazole can prolong the elimination of diazepam, warfarin and phenytoin, drugs that are metabolized by
`oxidation in the liver. There have been reports of increased INR and prothrombin time in patients receiving
`proton pump inhibitors, including omeprazole, and warfarin concomitantly. Increases in INR and prothrombin
`time may lead to abnormal bleeding and even death. Patients treated with proton pump inhibitors and warfarin
`may need to be monitored for increases in INR and prothrombin time. Although in healthy subjects no
`interaction with theophylline or propranolol was found, there have been clinical reports of interaction with other
`drugs metabolized via the cytochrome P-450 system (e.g., cyclosporine, disulfiram, benzodiazepines). Patients
`should be monitored to determine if it is necessary to adjust the dosage of these drugs when taken
`concomitantly with Zegerid.
`
`Because of its profound and long-lasting inhibition of gastric acid secretion, it is theoretically possible that
`omeprazole may interfere with absorption of drugs where gastric pH is an important determinant of their
`bioavailability (e.g., ketoconazole, ampicillin esters, and iron salts). In the clinical trials, antacids were used
`concomitantly with the administration of omeprazole.
`
`Co-administration of omeprazole and clarithromycin have resulted in increases of plasma levels of omeprazole,
`clarithromycin, and 14-hydroxy-clarithromycin (see also CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, Pharmacokinetics).
`
`Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
`
`In two 24-month carcinogenicity studies in rats, omeprazole at daily doses of 1.7, 3.4, 13.8, 44.0 and 140.8
`mg/kg/day (about 0.7 to 57 times the human dose of 20 mg per day, based on body surface area) produced
`gastric ECL cell carcinoids in a dose-related manner in both male and female rats; the incidence of this effect
`was markedly higher in female rats, which had higher blood levels of omeprazole. Gastric carcinoids seldom
`occur in the untreated rat. In addition, ECL cell hyperplasia was present in all treated groups of both sexes. In
`one of these studies, female rats were treated with 13.8 mg omeprazole/kg/day (about 5.7 times the human
`dose of 20 mg per day, based on body surface area) for one year, then followed for an additional year without
`the drug. No carcinoids were seen in these rats. An increased incidence of treatment-related ECL cell
`hyperplasia was observed at the end of one year (94% treated vs 10% controls). By the second year the
`difference between treated and control rats was much smaller (46% vs 26%) but still showed more hyperplasia
`in the treated group. Gastric adenocarcinoma was seen in one rat (2%). No similar tumor was seen in male or
`female rats treated for two years. For this strain of rat no similar tumor has been noted historically, but a finding
`involving only one tumor is difficult to interpret. In a 52-week toxicity study in Sprague-Dawley rats, brain
`astrocytomas were found in a small number of males that received omeprazole at dose levels of 0.4, 2, and 16
`mg/kg/day (about 0.2 to 6.5 times the human dose of 20 mg/day, based on body surface area). No
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1010 PAGE 11
`
`

`

`NDA 21-636
`Page 11
`
`astrocytomas were observed in female rats in this study. In a 2-year carcinogenicity study in Sprague-Dawley
`rats, no astrocytomas were found in males and females at the high dose of 140.8 mg/kg/day (about 57 times the
`human dose of 20 mg per day, based on body surface area). A 78-week mouse carcinogenicity study of
`omeprazole did not show increased tumor occurrence, but the study was not conclusive. A 26-week p53 (+/-)
`transgenic mouse carcinogenicity study was not positive.
`
`Omeprazole was positive for clastogenic effects in an in vitro human lymphocyte chromosomal aberration
`assay, in one of two in vivo mouse micronucleus tests, and in an in vivo bone marrow cell chromosomal
`aberration assay. Omeprazole was negative in the in vitro Ames Salmonella typhimurium assay, an in vitro
`mouse lymphoma cell forward mutation assay and an in vivo rat liver DNA damage assay.
`
`Omeprazole at oral doses up to 138.0 mg/kg/day (about 56 times the human dose of 20 mg per day, based on
`body surface area) was found to have no effect on fertility and reproductive performance.
`
`Pregnancy
`Pregnancy Category C
`
`There are no adequate and well-controlled studies on the use of omeprazole in pregnant women. The vast
`majority of reported experience with omeprazole during human pregnancy is first trimester exposure and the
`duration of use is rarely specified, e.g., intermittent vs. chronic. An expert review of published data on
`experiences with omeprazole use during pregnancy by TERIS – the Teratogen Information System – concluded
`that therapeutic doses during pregnancy are unlikely to pose a substantial teratogenic risk (the quantity and
`quality of data were assessed as fair).
`
`Three epidemiological studies compared the frequency of congenital abnormalities among infants born to
`women who used omeprazole during pregnancy to the frequency of abnormalities among infants of women
`exposed to H2-receptor antagonists or other controls. A population-based prospective cohort epidemiological
`study from the Swedish Medical Birth Registry, covering approximately 99% of pregnancies, reported on 955
`infants (824 exposed during the first trimester with 39 of these exposed beyond first trimester, and 131 exposed
`after the first trimester) whose mothers used omeprazole during pregnancy. In utero exposure to omeprazole
`was not associated with increased risk of any malformation (odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.50-1.34), low birth weight
`or low Apgar score. The number of infants born with ventricular septal defects and the number of stillborn infants
`was slightly higher in the omeprazole exposed infants than the expected number in the normal population. The
`author concluded that both effects may be random.
`
` A
`
` A
`
` retrospective cohort study reported on 689 pregnant women exposed to either H2-blockers or omeprazole in
`the first trimester (134 exposed to omeprazole). The overall malformation rate was 4.4% (95% CI 3.6-5.3) and
`the malformation rate for first trimester exposure to omeprazole was 3.6% (95% CI 1.5-8.1). The relative risk of
`malformations associated with first trimester exposure to omeprazole compared with nonexposed women was
`0.9 (95% CI 0.3-2.2). The study could effectively rule out a relative risk greater than 2.5 for all malformations.
`Rates of preterm delivery or growth retardation did not differ between the groups.
`
` controlled prospective observat

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