A Sponsor's Perspective on the Contribution of Regulatory-Required Observational Post-Marketing Studies to Understanding Human Drug Product Benefit/Risk in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Following marketing authorization in Japan, for almost all new drugs or new indications, postmarketing studies (PMS) are a regulatory requirement. These PMS focus on accrual of a defined number of cases with data being collected for a predetermined period after approval to confirm efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and quality in the Japanese population. In contrast to other regions where PMS are only required to address a specific scientific uncertainty, in Japan, PMS are often required regardless of any specific scientific uncertainty, and therefore, their scientific value is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the contribution to the understanding of benefit/risk of PMS conducted by Pfizer in Japan over 2000-2020 for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) reexamination. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all Pfizer Japan postmarketing studies (PMS) during 2000-2020 was performed. Available Pfizer clinical study reports (CSRs) and PMDA reexamination reports (RERs) were reviewed for key safety findings. The primary analysis was conducted on the subset of PMS that had both an English CSR and a discussion of that PMS in the relevant RER issued by the PMDA, which was subsequently translated into English by a professional translation vendor. Reexamination outcome is included in each RER and served to demonstrate the impact of the study of the benefit/risk profile of the drug. RESULTS: A total of 79 PMS for 43 different drug products across therapy areas enrolled a total of 98,035 patients. The 79 PMS comprised 34 general drug use investigation (GDUI) studies and 45 special investigation (SI) studies. The primary analysis involved 37 PMS with a CSR and RER available in English (40,470 patients); all of which were observational in design. For 31 of 37 PMS, the RER concluded the overall adverse drug reaction (ADR) rate in the PMS was nominally lower than in the phase 3 program. Unlabeled ADRs were reported in 28 of 37 PMS; however, no new safety concerns requiring regulatory action arose from any PMS. The PMDA did not require additional risk minimization measures for any of the 43 drug products studied in any of the 79 PMS assessed. Japan PMS data were consistent with prior global data with no evidence of clinically meaningful differences in safety in Japanese patients. In all cases, the reexamination outcome was category 1 ("usefulness is confirmed"). CONCLUSIONS: The reexamination process did not result in regulatory changes for any of the examined drugs. The Japan new-drug application (J-NDA) review and approval process, including implementation of the initial Japan product label, assures acceptable benefit/risk at the time of approval such that mandatory GDUI or SI studies for all products should be reconsidered. In the case of genuine scientific uncertainty to the extent that the benefit/risk of the product is not clear, a PMS is warranted.

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate how benefit-risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study used a multimethod benefit-risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate-to-severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis was included as a favourable effect. Unfavourable effects, or risks, included opioid dependence, nonfatal myocardial infarction and rapidly progressive OA leading to total joint replacement. Clinical data from randomized clinical trials, a meta-analysis of opioid dependence and a long-term study of celecoxib were mapped into value functions and weighted with patient preferences from a discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Lower-dose NGFi had the highest weighted net benefit-risk score (0.901), followed by higher-dose NGFi (0.889) and NSAIDs (0.852), and the lowest score was for opioids (0.762). Lower-dose NGFi was the highest-ranked treatment option even when assuming a low incidence (0.34% instead of 4.7%) of opioid dependence (ie, opioid benefit-risk score 808) and accounting for both the uncertainty in clinical effect estimates (first rank probability 46% vs 20% for NSAIDs) and imprecision in patient preference estimates (predicted choice probability 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.28 vs 0.21, 95% CI 0.19-0.23 for NSAIDs). CONCLUSION: The multimethod approach to quantitative benefit-risk modelling allowed the interpretation of clinical data from the patient perspective while accounting for uncertainties in the clinical effect estimates and imprecision in patient preferences.

Subcutaneous tanezumab for osteoarthritis: Is the early improvement in pain and function meaningful and sustained?

BACKGROUND: To evaluate if early improvements in pain and function with subcutaneous tanezumab are meaningful and sustained over 24 weeks. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (hip or knee) in Europe and Japan were randomized to placebo, tanezumab 2.5 mg or tanezumab 5 mg (baseline, Week 8 and Week 16). Outcomes included: average daily index joint pain score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) subscales, rescue medication use, WOMAC responders (within-patient ≥30% reduction in WOMAC Pain or Physical Function), Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responders (within-patient) and Patient-reported Treatment Impact Assessment-Modified questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients received placebo (n = 282), tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or tanezumab 5 mg (n = 284). Changes from baseline in average daily index joint pain (within the first week) and WOMAC subscales (Week 2 through Week 24) were greater for each tanezumab group versus placebo (least squares [LS] mean, unadjusted p ≤ .05). Rescue medication use (days/week) was lower for each tanezumab group versus placebo from Week 2 through Week 12 (LS mean, unadjusted p ≤ .05) but not at Week 16 or 24. A higher proportion of each tanezumab group than placebo achieved ≥30% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain or Physical Function, or OMERACT-OARSI response (Week 2 through Week 24, unadjusted p ≤ .05), or were satisfied with treatment at Week 24 (unadjusted p ≤ .05). CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous tanezumab, compared with placebo, reduced pain within the first week, and pain and function were improved throughout 24 weeks. The proportions of responders and patients satisfied were higher with tanezumab than placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02709486. SIGNIFICANCE: This exploratory analysis of data from a placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study of patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the hip or knee for whom standard analgesics were not effective or could not be taken, found that onset of efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab was within the first week, and efficacy was maintained through the 24-week treatment period. Tanezumab was effective in those patients with the most radiologically severe osteoarthritis.

Subcutaneous tanezumab for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: efficacy and safety results from a 24-week randomised phase III study with a 24-week follow-up period.

OBJECTIVE: Tanezumab, a nerve growth factor inhibitor, was investigated for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee in a study with 24-week treatment and 24-week safety follow-up. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, phase III study enrolled adults in Europe and Japan with moderate-to-severe OA who had not responded to or could not tolerate standard-of-care analgesics. Patients were randomised to tanezumab 2.5 mg or 5 mg subcutaneously or matching placebo every 8 weeks (three doses). Co-primary end points were change from baseline to week 24 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function, and Patient's Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA). Joint safety and neurological assessments continued throughout the 48-week study. RESULTS: From March 2016 to December 2017, 849 patients were randomised and evaluated (placebo n=282, tanezumab 2.5 mg n=283, tanezumab 5 mg n=284). At week 24, there was a statistically significant improvement from baseline for tanezumab 5 mg compared with placebo for WOMAC Pain (least squares mean difference±SE -0.62±0.18, p=0.0006), WOMAC Physical Function (-0.71±0.17, p<0.0001) and PGA-OA (-0.19±0.07, p=0.0051). For tanezumab 2.5 mg, there was a statistically significant improvement in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function, but not PGA-OA. Rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) was observed in 1.4% (4/283) and 2.8% (8/284) of patients in the tanezumab 2.5 mg and tanezumab 5 mg groups, respectively and none receiving placebo. Total joint replacements (TJRs) were similarly distributed across all three treatment groups (6.7%-7.8%). Tanezumab-treated patients experienced more paraesthesia (5 mg) and hypoaesthesia (both doses) than placebo. CONCLUSION: Tanezumab 5 mg statistically significantly improved pain, physical function and PGA-OA, but tanezumab 2.5 mg only achieved two co-primary end points. RPOA occurred more frequently with tanezumab 5 mg than tanezumab 2.5 mg. TJRs were similarly distributed across all three groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02709486.

Satisfaction, Adherence and Health-Related Quality of Life with Transdermal Buprenorphine Compared with Oral Opioid Medications in the Usual Care of Osteoarthritis Pain.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) causes substantial pain and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although opioid analgesics are commonly used, the relative benefits of different opioids are poorly studied. Transdermal buprenorphine (TDB) offers an alternative to oral opioids for the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic pain. This observational study of people with OA pain assessed satisfaction, HRQL and medication adherence. METHODS: Patients in the UK with self-reported knee and/or hip OA who had been receiving one or more of TDB, co-codamol (an oral paracetamol/codeine combination) and tramadol for at least 1 month completed an online or telephone questionnaire. Medication satisfaction scores, HRQL scores (Short-Form 36 [SF-36]), medication adherence (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale [MMAS™]), adverse events and treatment discontinuations were recorded. Linear and logistic regression models were used to compare the treatment effect of TDB with co-codamol or tramadol. RESULTS: Overall, 966 patients met the inclusion criteria; 701 were taking only one of the target medications (TDB: 85; co-codamol: 373; tramadol: 243). The largest age group was 50-59 years and 76.0 % of patients were female. The TDB group was younger, with more male patients, therefore the statistical models were adjusted for age and sex. Medication satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the TDB group than the other two groups (TDB vs. co-codamol: 3.56, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.90-6.68, p < 0.0001; TDB vs. tramadol: 3.22, 95 % CI 1.67-6.20, p = 0.0005). Physical Component Summary scores for HRQL and mean adherence were also higher in the TDB group, while Mental Component Summary HRQL scores were similar across the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with knee and/or hip OA pain treated with TDB were more satisfied and more adherent with their medication, and reported higher Physical Component Summary HRQL scores than those treated with co-codamol or tramadol, although demographic differences were observed between groups.

Impact of prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone on outcomes affecting patients' daily functioning in comparison with extended-release tapentadol: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, tolerability, and health-related quality of life outcomes associated with management of moderate-to-severe chronic pain with oxycodone/naloxone and tapentadol, focusing on the effect of these treatments on patients' daily functioning. METHODS: Literature from a wide range of sources, including Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, was searched to identify randomized controlled trials investigating tapentadol or oxycodone/naloxone for the treatment of patients with chronic pain. A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative efficacy and safety profiles of these treatments. FINDINGS: Oxycodone/naloxone was significantly better than tapentadol with respect to the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms total score (risk ratio = -3.60; 95% credible interval, -5.36 to -2.11) and revealed a significantly lower risk of dizziness (risk ratio = 0.72; 95% credible interval, 0.42-0.98). Oxycodone/naloxone was directionally favored, although not significantly superior to tapentadol for headache, fatigue, dry mouth, dyspepsia, and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. For the AE outcomes of constipation, nausea, and vomiting, as well as pain efficacy and all-cause withdrawals from studies, tapentadol was directionally favored without any statistical difference from oxycodone/naloxone. However, the two treatments were not wholly comparable for the evaluation of pain efficacy because of differences in on-study rescue medication and a higher baseline pain severity in the tapentadol studies. IMPLICATIONS: Oxycodone/naloxone offers significant improvements in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms total score and dizziness and was directionally favored for fatigue and headache compared with extended-release tapentadol, which may translate to improved patient daily functioning and health-related quality of life.