PDA

View Full Version : According to most analyst this approval was "WORST CASE SCENARIO".NO COMMERCIAL WIN!


Anonymous
01-26-2010, 04:23 PM
http://invivoblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/victoza-gets-past-fda-but.html



There are a few caveats. First, a black box warning for the once-daily GLP-1 analog which includes a potential increased risk of thyroid cancer (despite Novo Nordisk's repeated claims that this applies only to rodents, not monkeys or humans). Second, no first-line usage allowed. Third, significant post-approval requirements, including a CV safety study, a 5-year epidemiological study to evaluate thyroid cancer risks, a 15-year cancer registry to monitor thyroid cancer cases, and a REMS.

As such, "it's a worst case label for the product," concluded Sam Fazeli, an analyst at Piper Jaffray in London. "Bittersweet" was how Jefferies' Jeffrey Holford put it, while Citigroup simply cut to the chase with "Commercial success far from certain."

Things could have been still bleaker, though. At least the US approval has finally happened (the drug was filed in May 2008). It might have been pushed out significantly further, given the regulators' apparent problem with the thyroid cancer risk. And on the up-side, there's no need for calcitonin monitoring during Victoza therapy (calcitonin is the marker used in humans for thyroid cancer) and there are no broad contra-indications for the drug. Only patients with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome, aren't allowed Victoza--and both those indications are very rare.

As such, Novo's management was upbeat during the analyst call announcing the news. The REMS is very remiscent of that recently imposed on Lilly/Amylin's twice-daily GLP-1 analog Byetta, said EVP & CSO Mads Thomsen, and certainly manageable. He added that many diabetes drugs (metformin, the sulphonylureas) have black box warnings, and most new products aren't awarded first-line treatment at their first pass at FDA. Thus, "we're perfectly happy with our monotherapy label," he said. (The product was denied approval as a monotherapy in Europe).

There a big 'but', though--and it's Byetta. That product has not only a five-year head start, but also hasn't got a black box, hasn't got a thyroid cancer risk warning, can be used as an initial therapy, and thus remains "first choice" treatment in this class, according to Fazeli, despite its more frequent administration.

This explains the generally (although not exclusively) down-beat analyst reaction to the news; "we see more room for disappointment than surprise on Victoza," writes Citigroup's Mark Dainty. Never mind the fact that Victoza outperformed Byetta in blood sugar lowering in a recent Phase III head-to-head trial.

Novo's management still thinks it can surprise, however. (They're a confident lot.) They re-iterated their forecasts that Victoza will reach sales of over $1 billion by 2015 (Byetta's currently at about $700 million and it has been on the US market since 2005).

Much will depend on whether follow-on GLP-1 analogs including long-acting Byetta (EQW) and Roche/Ipsen's taspoglutide are stamped with the same thyroid cancer warnings as Victoza. (Amylin's epidemiological study of Byetta is due March 31). Novo's Thomsen is adamant that the thyroid cancer signal seen among rodents is a class-effect among the long-acting GLP-1 analogs, and points to a forthcoming peer-reviewed scientific paper outlining what he claims is a similar pre-clinical effect on thyroid c-cells for Victoza, long-acting Byetta and taspoglutide. "We'll have to live with the notion that long-acting GLP-1 analogs cause c-cell proliferation in rodents," he told The In Vivo Blog. "But there's no reason to believe that these findings have any relevance to higher species," he added.

Whether or not the other long-acting GLP-1s get the same treatment, FDA is unlikely to remove Victoza's black box for several years at least, likely until the 5-year follow-up cancer study data is available.

Meanwhile, though, with its already-expanded US sales force and pricing in line with Byetta at about $8/day for the 1.2mg dose, Novo will be pushing Victoza with all its might and leveraging its wider diabetes franchise where possible. And let's not forget the fundamentals: Victoza is once-daily, can be taken anytime, prompts some weight loss, isn't associated with hypoglycemia or significant nausea, and is relatively easy to titrate.

As a novo rep, I do not know what to think. Is this a good thing getting approval, or a waste of our time.

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 04:51 PM
You must be very scared. I too would be scared if i had Byetta samples in my bag.

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 05:31 PM
You must be very scared. I too would be scared if i had Byetta samples in my bag.
not in the least. If we were talking about Byetta, yes I would be concerned. However what u all will realize is that as of march u won't be competing against Byetta. This your detail piece, marketing plan to show superiority to Byetta is shot!

So not not concerned at all. In fact that leaves u all, roughly 2 weeks to convince doctors to overcome their apprehension of writing a product with a box warning, start writting shitoza, then BOOOOOM! LAR hits. What ya gonna do then.

Things & timing could not have worked out better this far.

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 05:48 PM
not in the least. If we were talking about Byetta, yes I would be concerned. However what u all will realize is that as of march u won't be competing against Byetta. This your detail piece, marketing plan to show superiority to Byetta is shot!

So not not concerned at all. In fact that leaves u all, roughly 2 weeks to convince doctors to overcome their apprehension of writing a product with a box warning, start writting shitoza, then BOOOOOM! LAR hits. What ya gonna do then.

Things & timing could not have worked out better this far.



C cell tumorsin rodents is GLP-1 class problem. I wouldnt be holding my breath for March approval.

In addition, You do HAVE A BOX WARNING TOO for pancreatitis. Furthermore, if approved LAR would have a box warning for both pancreatitis and C Cell tumors, especially with a long acting drug .

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 07:01 PM
C cell tumorsin rodents is GLP-1 class problem. I wouldnt be holding my breath for March approval.

In addition, You do HAVE A BOX WARNING TOO for pancreatitis. Furthermore, if approved LAR would have a box warning for both pancreatitis and C Cell tumors, especially with a long acting drug .

you sure about all of those facts, youngster??

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 07:15 PM
C cell tumorsin rodents is GLP-1 class problem. I wouldnt be holding my breath for March approval.

In addition, You do HAVE A BOX WARNING TOO for pancreatitis. Furthermore, if approved LAR would have a box warning for both pancreatitis and C Cell tumors, especially with a long acting drug .

WOW.. I Had 0 clue that Byetta had a Box warning. Hmm neither did the FDA, or Amylin or Lilly, or physicians. I wonder why that is. HMMM That may be because we DON'T have a box warning, you idiot. Maybe before you get on here talking, you should learn basic facts. I hope you go into physicians office with this same level of ignorance.

Secondly LAR, has had 0 cases of Pancreatitus in clinical trials, but I am certain we will still have warning, NOT BOX WARNING, and Ce CEll Tumors. You may need to study up, as I was the one who brought this and educated all of Novoland about this back in March of last year, when you all where telling me I was creating shit. For the record, Byetta/LAR has been tested in Rodents and has 0 cases of C Cell Tumors up to 100x the human dosage amount. Your CEO has been and still is trying in vain to link Byetta/LAR to the same concerns so that LAR is delayed. He is the only person who has ever said anything, as there is 0 evidence of this. FDA has requested information regarding our Plant, in Nov and reported that nothing that they found at fault should be a barrier to a March Approval.

What happens in March, I don't know, but I can tell you that you sure as hell are totally clueless. Study up young buck, as your facts are all in accurate.

Finally, I would encourage to your not drink all the Koolaid your company tells you, like they did on the cruise last year. Remember that, or have you just been hired.

This drug is simply dead on arrival. As all the reports are indicating, your only chance is if we get delayed. If we dont, they you have exactly 2 1/2 weeks of promoting your drug before a better drug hits, and your dead.

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 07:39 PM
....and will you Lilly trolls please explain to me how you get patients to have compliance with an intramuscular shot for LAR, while (supposedly) having to reconstitute it beforehand as well? NOBODY addresses that issue at all. Wonder why?

Victoza is simply an easier-to-use agent: once a day, regardless of mealtime. Not only is it easier to use against Byetta but LAR as well! Even if LAR results in SUPERIOR efficacy and safety than Victoza, who cares if patients will ultimately not use it because of non-compliance?!!

Please enlighten me...I'm all ears....

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 08:06 PM
....and will you Lilly trolls please explain to me how you get patients to have compliance with an intramuscular shot for LAR, while (supposedly) having to reconstitute it beforehand as well? NOBODY addresses that issue at all. Wonder why?

Victoza is simply an easier-to-use agent: once a day, regardless of mealtime. Not only is it easier to use against Byetta but LAR as well! Even if LAR results in SUPERIOR efficacy and safety than Victoza, who cares if patients will ultimately not use it because of non-compliance?!!

Please enlighten me...I'm all ears....

It is a subq shot. You may want to study up. You will all try to say patients will not want to use it, but I wonder how you all will respond when physicians are telling you patients are requesting it.

This is a no brainer. Easy sell.

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 10:53 PM
....and will you Lilly trolls please explain to me how you get patients to have compliance with an intramuscular shot for LAR, while (supposedly) having to reconstitute it beforehand as well? NOBODY addresses that issue at all. Wonder why?

Victoza is simply an easier-to-use agent: once a day, regardless of mealtime. Not only is it easier to use against Byetta but LAR as well! Even if LAR results in SUPERIOR efficacy and safety than Victoza, who cares if patients will ultimately not use it because of non-compliance?!!

Please enlighten me...I'm all ears....

Who told you that LAR has better efficacy or safety than Victoza?? there are no head to head studies at this point. You cant compare 2 diffrent studies wiht 2 different population baseline, different treatment history..etc

Victoza should be a very easy sell. C cell tumors like MTC are extremely rare in humans. There was no cancer cases reported in all the studies done for over 2 years. You can't prove the negative. Cancer studies require along period of time to do.

LAR as a GLP-1 class will have the same warning box as Victoza, just more difficult to use and compliance will be an issue. Noone would choose an intramuscular horse shot over subQ a 32 N gage.

Anonymous
01-26-2010, 11:30 PM
LAR 23 guage needle is not sub Cutaneous you loser. BIG, BIG needle. No one is injecting themselves with that! Get that resume out.

Anonymous
01-27-2010, 09:55 PM
dude you wont hear any amylin or lillybot talk about reconstitution, needle guage, mixing or any of those pesky little detail. that's cause they are completely in the dark about all that. they have no clue...so who's gonna be blindsided after Victoza's 2 1/2 wk headstart?
care to guess how big those reps eyes get when they see the actual product for 1st time? "bbbbbbut it's once/wk....bbbbut it's.....it's....."clunk...next thing you see, rep passed out on floor from needle phobia. hahahahah. score! Victoza!

Anonymous
01-28-2010, 06:17 AM
LAR 23 guage needle is not sub Cutaneous you loser. BIG, BIG needle. No one is injecting themselves with that! Get that resume out.


First off, i have been in Indy, and the 2 needles sized used in the clinical trials where 25 and 27 gauge. And yes the 23 -27 referes to width..not length, idiot. Finally, all you have to do is look at the trials, and you will see all done and submited to FDA was Subq shots..

Funny how novo reps do not even read the issues before arguing them.

I do not know if it will be 23, 25 or 27. At this point I dont think anyone knows, but it will be Subq, at least it was as of 4 months ago. If they have changed you would not know, neither do I.

Anonymous
01-28-2010, 03:17 PM
First off, i have been in Indy, and the 2 needles sized used in the clinical trials where 25 and 27 gauge. And yes the 23 -27 referes to width..not length, idiot. Finally, all you have to do is look at the trials, and you will see all done and submited to FDA was Subq shots..

Funny how novo reps do not even read the issues before arguing them.

I do not know if it will be 23, 25 or 27. At this point I dont think anyone knows, but it will be Subq, at least it was as of 4 months ago. If they have changed you would not know, neither do I.

A local KOL in Indiana stated that it would be a 25 gauge needle and require reconstitution before injection. He stated that he had no plans to use LAR due to the needle size and the uncertainty of reconstitution. Oh yeah...he speaks for Lilly as well. Too bad.