Jeannie or someone set up petition for FDA comment?

Aboveallislove

Super Moderator
Thanks Jeanne!
A quick
clarification: If the NDA doesn’t get approved the combo drug cannot be sold. It is not an issue of insurance coverage now. This drug isn’t approved for sale AT ALL, unlike Kalydeco. That’s why I think it is so important the FDA hears from us and approves it. (Even if it has minor or no benefit to my son; it will have benefits to others and without approval it can’t used by anyone).

I also wanted to add a couple thoughts to, with a quick backdrop: I'm a lawyer and have professionally worked on many cases involving regulations, agencies, reviews of regulations, the notice process etc. While in the ideal world those charged with making regulations and issuing decision would have perfect knowledge, I/they never do. What was always helpful to me in any role was for an advocate to lay out logically the facts, the law, and then apply it, showing the consequences of the decision. While I have no specific experience with the FDA review process, I have read minutes of past proceedings and gleaned what it seemed concerned with, which has been "modest" FEV improvement. (You can google the Pulmozyme hearing and read that; they did recommend it for approval but there was great concern at the meeting about its "modest" FEV improvement.)

So given my experience, I would think it would be extremely helpful for folks affected by CF to point out with personal stories why this drug should be approved given the scientific results from the study, highlighting facts the Committee might not think of on its own. (This link provides a summary of the study results: [url]http://investors.vrtx.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=856185).[/URL]

Regina’s recent post above is a perfect example. The Advisory Committee might be thinking 2-4% that’s not much that’s too modest. But for Regina who struggles with her FEV AND is allergic to antibiotics, this drug means the world. Here are some more examples/types of information that if I were on the Committee it would be helpful for me to think of in reviewing the information:
 FEV Improvement: The drugs improve FEV between 2-4% over placebo. Has your FEV been continually declining? What would stabilizing FEV and having a slight increase in FEV mean to you?

Exacerbations: The drugs reduce exacerbations significantly. What does an exacerbation mean to you? Lost work? Lost school? Expenses? Did you come out of the hospital with another infection? MRSA? Are you resistant to antibiotics now because you’ve used them so much? Did you have negative reactions to antibiotics? Do you have invasive testing because of infections?

BMI: The drugs improve BMI. Do you struggle trying to gain weight? Do you have a feeding tube? Is eating enough always a battle?

Quality of Life: The drugs improve Quality of Life. What do you do to keep your lungs healthy? How much time a day? This is a pill. It could add to your health with a minor treatment burden. Do you have lots of GI issues that might be resolved?

These are just some thoughts. The more personal the illustration, tied to the scientific data, I think the better.

Finally, for those who are not inclined to write on their own, Jeanne is also working on a "group letter" which folks can easily sign.
 

jaimers

Super Moderator
Believing, pulmozyme works by breaking down the DNA in the mucous in the lungs to make it more loose and easier to cough out. This combo of lumacaftor and ivacaftor would be for double delta's specifically and treats the underlying cause of CF. So while pulmozyme is for symptom management, VX-809 (the combo) would treat the underlying cause of CF hopefully reducing symptoms and prolonging life. Your son would potentially stay on pulmozyme as the studies have shown that many only had a "modest" improvement or a few percentage points on FEV1. But I agree with AboveAll that even a few extra percentage points and a more stable FEV1 would be preferable to a continued decline. For your son who has a very high lung function it could mean that he doesn't necessarily notice anything different in his FEV1 but he's able to sustain that rather than declining over time.
here is a link to an article about it.
http://www.drugs.com/nda/ivacaftor_lumacaftor_141105.html
 
Okay I see. Thank you Jaimers. I don't want a continued decline, of course, either. I hate to not use his new insurance as it is far better than what we even have though. I do have a question still as my son said there was only a very slight improvement for people with lung functions over 100 vs. people who have a lung function around 50%. Would this stabilize his lung function or maybe prevent infections?
 
Last edited:
I know this sounds stupid but the link you posted Jaimers said less exacerbations. I honestly do not know what that is. Is that infections? My son has never been hospitalized except once. He really is in good health which I am so very thankful to God for.
 
Last edited:

static

New member
I know this sounds stupid but the link you posted Jaimers said less exacerbations. I honestly do not know what that is. Is that infections? My son has never been hospitalized except once to try to eradicate a resistant bacteria. He really is in good health which I am so very thankful to God for.

Yes, exacerbations can be hospital stays or flare up of CF symptoms.

To aboveall, I do want approval based on real science, and if the evidence is lacking maybe we should invest in something that works better. As people have already mentioned, this drug is expensive and I believe we should get what we pay for.
 

Aboveallislove

Super Moderator
Thanks static. I guess my thought is that sometimes decisionmakers need to be told why the real science is good enough for approval. All the pushing wont do anything if the science isn't good enough, but my experience is that decisionmakers don't always think of the various scenarios.
 
H

Hail2Pitt

Guest
I really hope this is approved, as the combination does show decent results for folks with two copies of F508del. Though I'm not in this category, I will definitely write a letter in support of it. Even if it does not result in an increase in FEV1, maintaining FEV1 status quo and reducing exacerbations would be a huge help for most of us!

That being said, it seems Lumacaftor is not as effective as hoped, as it has a pretty poor drug profile. My understanding is it is extremely dose sensitive - too high or too low a dose, and it is not effective at all. They are about to start a phase 2 trial with VX-661 and Ivacaftor, and I believe they have much higher hopes for VX-661. But, given that it's only phase 2, it's probably still a few years away...
 

Aboveallislove

Super Moderator
Hail,
That's an interesting point re dose sensitive. I hadn't heard that but it would make sense given the bizarre range for both doses with both showing improvement but it being kinda all over the place. That also might be why the 6-11 is on hold. I absolutely agree that the results are not as effective as hoped, but to think of exacerbations going down 20% or more that's so important, along with staying stable. I also had though 661 would be much better, but the results seem very similar. BUT with 661 they can then add a third drugs. So no, this isn't our Kalydeco, but it is a place holder until we get there.
 

benthyr123

New member
combination trial

I'm currently in this extended trial and on active drug. This is exciting stuff to say the least.
 
J

jdfoosh357

Guest
This is great! I will be submitting an individual letter highlighting the science, especially the significant reduction exacerbations. Thank you for doing this.

Edited: Submitted the following letter. Thanks again for laying this out and making it easy!

Pulmonary-Allergy Drug Advisory Committee
Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001
NDA 206038

Dear Committee Members,

I am the father of a young girl with cystic fibrosis (CF). I write in support of the NDA for lumacaftor/ivacaftor and strongly urge the committee to recommend this drug to the FDA for approval.

The mean absolute FEV improvement shown in TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT was indeed modest after 24 weeks, at 2.6 to 4% (p<0.007); however, this difference is critical for a patient population who typically loses approximately 1.5-2% of FEV1 annually.1,2 Additionally, the well-powered secondary endpoints, including BMI, quality of life, and rate of exacerbations further support the position that this small statistical improvement in pulmonary function is associated with much clinical significance. The pooled reduction in pulmonary exacerbations of 30 and 39 percent (p<0.001) is particularly impressive, as this is an ideal measure of a drug’s effectiveness in patients with cystic fibrosis. Exacerbations present CF patients with a myriad of difficulty, including increased antibiotic usage, hospital admissions, loss of productivity (missed work/school/etc), invasive testing, potentially dangerous medical procedures, and other complications. A reduction in exacerbations of 30 and 39 percent is truly phenomenal for CF population.

Please do not focus solely on the modest degree of improvement in the primary endpoint. This quantitative measure, while statistically and arguably very clinically significant, is only one of multiple major benefits. This drug combination not only halted lung function decline but improved FEV1 (over 24 weeks), significantly reduced the rate of exacerbations, increased BMI, and improved quality of life.

I urge the committee to consider the very real benefits this drug combination has to offer to those with cystic fibrosis in the form of improved FEV1, reduced exacerbations, improved weight, and overall improved quality of life. I very much want my daughter and all patients homozygous for dF508 to benefit as soon as possible for this pharmacologic advancement.

Sincerely,



Jonathan Foushee




References:


  1. Que et al. Improving rate of decline of FEV1 in young adults with cystic fibrosis. Thorax. 2006 Feb; 61(2): 155–157. Published online 2005 Dec 29. doi: 10.1136/thx.2005.043372
  2. Konstan et al. Risk factors for rate of decline in FEV1 in adults with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. Volume 11, Issue 5, September 2012, Pages 405–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2012.03.009.
 
Top