24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 621  |  回复: 3

古可ぷ

荣誉版主 (文坛精英)

优秀区长优秀版主优秀版主

[交流] 转:具有全新降低血糖机制的新药被fda专家小组否定已有2人参与

转自丁香园http://xdrug.dxy.cn/bbs/thread/20653328?keywords=»具有全新降低血糖机制的新药被fda专家小组否定#20653328
作者:blueskychina

FDA Panel Votes Against Diabetes Pill,Matthew Perrone,Drug Discovery & Development - July 20, 2011


fda15人专家小组昨天9对6票否定治疗糖尿病新药的决定,其理由是对此药可能引发癌症的数据不足。这不是fda官方最后决定,但是可以看成是官方决定。

此药具有全新机制的控制血糖功能,通过清除尿中葡萄糖量而降低血中糖量,此作用机理和传统降血糖机理完全不一样, 是一类全新降糖药物,也是这类作用机理中第一个药物。

由于是全新机制的降血糖药物,审评者对这些数据的评估也没有很多经验,有一个参入评审者说在要在做出最后决定之前的10秒钟他的主意改变了4次,当然这是和夸张的说法,但是可以看出对新机制药物要做出正确的决定很艰难,哪怕你有很多可靠的数据。

此药的有效性方面没有多少疑问。主要关注在是否引发癌症、肝脏毒性和感染方面,数据显示和对照组比较很难让人放心,例如在超过5000个病人中用药组膀胱癌发现有9例而非用药组没有一个,这样的数据很明显表面膀胱癌发病率和用药的关系,特别是在这么大的样本中。

本人的看法是此药如果再做癌症安全方面的实验,很难通过,因为现有的数据已经比较清楚说明了膀胱癌和药物的关系。个再做同样实验,结果很难被推翻。

从这样的临床实验看,具有全新机制的药物研发风险很大,而且不可控。严重不良反应真的很难预测和控制。但是这样的实验给后来者奠定了很好的基础,也许会少犯同样的错误。

其实在任何一个临床试验数据里都可以找到很多问题,只要不是核心的就好。在这个实验中,有人说老年人和非美籍病例数太少。如果有了这些数据,一定有人会说亚裔病人太少。问题是在一个临床试验中不可能包涵所有情况。

大家猜猜公司还会继续补充安全性方面的数据啊?我想会的,理由是这2个公司都很有实力,钱不是最大问题,对于这样全新机制的新药有效性没有问题,现在放弃很可惜。

下面是全文:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The majority of advisers on a federal health panel say a first-of-a-kind diabetes drug that uses a new method to reduce blood sugar shouldn't be approved for U.S. patients after higher rates of bladder and breast cancer were reported among patients in company trials.A Food and Drug Administration panel voted 9-6 against the experimental diabetes pill from Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca, while expressing hope that the drug might ultimately be approved if safety questions are resolved. The vote is only a recommendation for FDA, which will make a final decision on the drug before the end of October.

Dapagliflozin is a once-a-day pill designed to help diabetics eliminate excess sugar in their urine. That differs from older drugs that decrease the amount of sugar absorbed from food and stored in the liver. The companies have touted it as the first in a new class of drugs to address the nation's growing diabetes epidemic, which affects more than 25 million people.

Nearly all the panelists praised the drug's innovative approach to lowering blood glucose, but a majority said they wanted more information on a host of safety concerns, including cancer, infections and possible liver toxicity.

"It was the closest of calls, I changed my mind about four times in the last 10 seconds," said Dr. Erica Brittain, a biostatistician with the National Institutes of Health, who voted against the drug. "The level of evidence about the cancer is fairly weak, but it's just that the uncertainty is still there."
The companies reported nine bladder cancers among over 5,000 people taking the drug in company studies, compared with none among those taking a dummy pill. There were nine cases of breast cancer among 2,100 women taking the drug, compared with one in the control group. While the company studies were not designed to measure cancer risk, panelists noted that the incidence of cancers was four to five times higher than expected in the population.

Panelists said they would like more data on cancer rates in patients, but acknowledged that a definitive study of the risk probably would not be feasible, since it would mean enrolling more than 30,000 patients for several years.

"There are some things we can't learn from clinical trials," said Dr. Ed Hendricks of the Center for Weight Management in Sacramento, Calif., who voted to approve the drug. "Sometimes to introduce new, innovative medical therapies we have to make decisions with a certain amount of uncertainty."

The drug was also associated with bladder and urinary tract infections, due to increased sugar eliminated in patients' urine, and the companies suggested this factor may have led to higher detection of bladder cancers. That rationale did not explain why bladder cancers reported were limited to men, since urinary tract infections are more common in women. Panelists also complained about the small number of elderly and African-American patients enrolled in company studies. People in those groups are more predisposed to have diabetes.

People with type 2 diabetes are unable to properly break down carbohydrates, either because their bodies do not produce enough insulin or have become resistant to the hormone, which controls blood sugar levels. These patients are at higher risk for heart attacks, kidney problems, blindness and other serious complications. Diabetics often require multiple drugs with different mechanisms of action to control their blood sugar levels.
New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and London-based AstraZeneca PLC already co-market the diabetes drug Onglyza, which increases insulin production while reducing glucose production.

Date: July 19, 2011
Source: Associated Press

[ Last edited by 古可ぷ on 2011-9-29 at 22:49 ]
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

非吾小天下,才高而已;非吾纵古今,时赋而已;非吾睨九州,宏观而已;三非焉罪?无梦至胜
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

从头开始

荣誉版主 (文坛精英)

gost rider~

文献杰出贡献优秀版主


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖
国外的研发就是严谨
飞翔在辽阔的天空
2楼2011-09-29 15:37:19
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

blueskychina

铜虫 (初入文坛)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖
这是本人在丁香园写的,转到小木屋也不注明来源和原作者名字,这样也太不尊重他人了吧
3楼2011-09-29 22:38:09
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

古可ぷ

荣誉版主 (文坛精英)

优秀区长优秀版主优秀版主

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by blueskychina at 2011-09-29 22:38:09:
这是本人在丁香园写的,转到小木屋也不注明来源和原作者名字,这样也太不尊重他人了吧

表示对不起呀
加上
本来想在标题注明的
但是太长了

我到内容里边吧
非吾小天下,才高而已;非吾纵古今,时赋而已;非吾睨九州,宏观而已;三非焉罪?无梦至胜
4楼2011-09-29 22:47:09
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 古可ぷ 的主题更新
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[找工作] 初始合伙人来啦!(生物试剂耗材标准品) +7 欢快的小科研人 2024-06-15 12/600 2024-06-16 14:11 by 水水水中游
[论文投稿] 编辑是什么意思 15+3 s090604054 2024-06-15 3/150 2024-06-16 10:29 by bobvan
[博后之家] 山东大学(青岛)“天然药物生物智造”课题组 招聘“博士后”(年薪20.4-55.6万元) +5 第二种态度 2024-06-11 8/400 2024-06-16 10:14 by 午睡未进行
[考博] 2025考博 +5 自强不息a?a 2024-06-15 7/350 2024-06-16 10:07 by wang333666
[基金申请] 博士后创新人才支持计划公示 +9 aishida144 2024-06-14 15/750 2024-06-16 09:52 by msjy
[基金申请] 希望今年自己国自然面上项目和老婆青年项目能中! +6 恐龙爸爸 2024-06-14 6/300 2024-06-16 08:41 by shl2112501
[硕博家园] 硕博巨婴,也许才刚刚开始 +30 SNaiL1995 2024-06-12 72/3600 2024-06-16 08:34 by 小龙虾biubiubiu
[找工作] 江西双非一本和四川双一流高校如何选择? 5+7 寒山敲钟 2024-06-12 23/1150 2024-06-16 06:52 by puterde
[论文投稿] 投稿被一个审稿人恶意评审了怎么样? +5 1chen 2024-06-14 7/350 2024-06-15 23:15 by xy66xy
[基金申请] 博后面上今天有bug可以看到是否资助? +20 lyfbangong 2024-06-12 31/1550 2024-06-15 21:18 by since—2010
[教师之家] 我们学院常年位居 各学院 倒数第二。专业撤销的话,在编者有什么补偿? +13 河西夜郎 2024-06-09 14/700 2024-06-15 19:44 by LittleBush
[基金申请] BO4的YQ答辩通知发布了吗? +6 博学笃行 2024-06-11 6/300 2024-06-15 16:04 by 悲催科研狗
[教师之家] 饶议:什么制度能保障大学普通教师不用为领导拎包,不用看领导脸色 +8 zju2000 2024-06-12 14/700 2024-06-15 13:59 by chemhua
[论文投稿] 投稿时忘记修改一作 +7 gll123456 2024-06-13 11/550 2024-06-15 11:49 by gll123456
[论文投稿] 投了一篇4区的SCI,审稿人一个拒稿,一个小修,编辑给了大修。 +9 安稳22123 2024-06-13 10/500 2024-06-14 23:45 by jurkat.1640
[论文投稿] 审稿问题:为什么荧光激发波长和紫外吸收波长差的大? 10+4 sdawege 2024-06-14 8/400 2024-06-14 22:39 by 东北读书人
[基金申请] 面上基金有一个(两个)C是不是就没戏了.... 5+3 zzzm116 2024-06-13 17/850 2024-06-14 22:26 by lzt8076
[基金申请] 工材E10口函评结束了吗 10+3 我1的飞翔 2024-06-13 5/250 2024-06-14 06:35 by nono2009
[基金申请] 博后特助这周出结果吗?往年都是啥时候啊? +13 jsqy 2024-06-12 17/850 2024-06-12 19:55 by Lynn212
[论文投稿] water research状态咨询 5+3 Flyyawa 2024-06-10 6/300 2024-06-11 09:45 by bobvan
信息提示
请填处理意见