• Tue news: Pfizer explores sale of hospital drugs unit. FDA declines full approval of Ocaliva. AZ better than expected Q3 results. Pfizer, Lilly telehealth platforms draw scrutiny. 23andMe cutting lays off 40%. See more on our front page

Serelaxin is a Disaster













All the King's horses and all the King's men, couldn't put Serelaxin together again!

You must have never sold a drug where patients are very ill and have a high probability of death! No drug in AHF has shown a survival benefit! That probably won't be in the label, but it is in the Phase III trial as prespecified endpoint!
 




You must have never sold a drug where patients are very ill and have a high probability of death! No drug in AHF has shown a survival benefit! That probably won't be in the label, but it is in the Phase III trial as prespecified endpoint!

You must not understand hospital reimbursement and the impact of readmissions on 5 star quality ratings!
 








Yes I do and survival at 180 days and the secondary biomarkes and endpoints is what the 6000 plus patient study is being done.

Drug will do well if Nov doesn't mess it up.

Two key statements by the authors of the paper you are referring:

"Therefore, the results of this study pertain to a subgroup of patients with AHF and cannot be extrapolated to other AHF subgroups."

"The post hoc exploratory nature of our findings regarding the association between early biomarkers changes and 180-day mortality suggests that our study may be considered hypotheses generating and that further studies may be required to further explore the effects of serelaxin."
 




Two key statements by the authors of the paper you are referring:

"Therefore, the results of this study pertain to a subgroup of patients with AHF and cannot be extrapolated to other AHF subgroups."

"The post hoc exploratory nature of our findings regarding the association between early biomarkers changes and 180-day mortality suggests that our study may be considered hypotheses generating and that further studies may be required to further explore the effects of serelaxin."

What you are forgetting is that no drug in AHF has shon any morality benefit, and Relax AHF wasn't powered for a mortality benefit. If you can't sell on that, you need to go home!
 




What you are forgetting is that no drug in AHF has shon any morality benefit, and Relax AHF wasn't powered for a mortality benefit. If you can't sell on that, you need to go home!

What a wonderful lack of awareness ..

Since mortality was an exploratory endpoint it will not be included in the label so it will not be included in any promotional material including speaker training so you cannot 'sell' with it .

In fact if you so you will one Rich physician whistleblower and you'll be our of a job
 




What a wonderful lack of awareness ..

Since mortality was an exploratory endpoint it will not be included in the label so it will not be included in any promotional material including speaker training so you cannot 'sell' with it .

In fact if you so you will one Rich physician whistleblower and you'll be our of a job

It was a pre-specified SAFETY endpoint and the RELAX II will ultimately answer the question. Obviously you don't know how to sell in cardiovascular medicine. The questions about the data not in label will need to be answered by medical.

This drug will do well.
 




It was a pre-specified SAFETY endpoint and the RELAX II will ultimately answer the question. Obviously you don't know how to sell in cardiovascular medicine. The questions about the data not in label will need to be answered by medical.

This drug will do well.

Maybe in a sub population will this drug have clinical significance. This is what the evidence implies. Right now, a clear value proposition based upon known clinical data has yet to be established to justify clear benefit in the broader disease category.
 




Serelaxin improved symptoms, but didn't do so with a clinical significance better than existing agents to warrant its use over other most likely less expensive options. It did not reduce readmission rates and the question is whether the one trial observation of decreased mortality is repeatable or real. A true trial powered with mortality as a primary end point is needed.
 




Serelaxin improved symptoms, but didn't do so with a clinical significance better than existing agents to warrant its use over other most likely less expensive options. It did not reduce readmission rates and the question is whether the one trial observation of decreased mortality is repeatable or real. A true trial powered with mortality as a primary end point is needed.

Agreed. The trial was not powered significantly to truly establish "real" mortality benefit. The challenge is that on would expect decreased hospitalizations if the drug is really saving lives. Additionally, since the drug didn't meet all it's end points, it again draws question to an evidenced based benefit to justify the premium price Novartis wants or it's real utility.
 




Serelaxin's single trial with net outcomes similar to placebo will suffer the same fate!

Johnson & Johnson's anticoagulant Xarelto should not be approved to prevent further heart problems in patients who have recently suffered a heart attack, an advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded on Thursday.

The panel voted 10 to 0, with one abstention, against approval, saying data from a single clinical trial was not strong enough to justify approval, especially since some data from the trial was missing.

Xarelto is already used to treat and prevent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms and to reduce the risk of stroke and blood clots in patients with an irregular heart beat that is not caused by heart problems. (Reporting by Toni Clarke in Washington; Editing by Bernard Orr)
 












Serelaxin's single trial with net outcomes similar to placebo will suffer the same fate!

Johnson & Johnson's anticoagulant Xarelto should not be approved to prevent further heart problems in patients who have recently suffered a heart attack, an advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded on Thursday.

The panel voted 10 to 0, with one abstention, against approval, saying data from a single clinical trial was not strong enough to justify approval, especially since some data from the trial was missing.

Xarelto is already used to treat and prevent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms and to reduce the risk of stroke and blood clots in patients with an irregular heart beat that is not caused by heart problems. (Reporting by Toni Clarke in Washington; Editing by Bernard Orr)

So, Novartis is following J & J? The blind following the blind or maybe the desperate!
 




Told you!

European regulators hand Novartis a big setback on a top blockbuster prospect

January 24, 2014 | By John Carroll

European regulators handed Novartis a major setback in its quest to gain an approval for serelaxin, one of the pharma giant's top blockbuster prospects which earned "breakthrough" status at the FDA. The European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use rejected Novartis' application, calling out the development team for failing to demonstrate quick relief for heart disease in the first 24 hours, failing to demonstrate the significance of the benefit over 5 days and calling into question the data that were presented.

The CHMP's recommendations are generally followed by the European Commission when it makes the final decision on marketing. Now if Novartis ($NVS) wants to win an approval in Europe, it will likely have to present data from another study, derailing the company's marketing timetable. The stinging rejection in Europe could spell trouble in the U.S. as well, where the FDA has the drug under review.

Novartis is known for aggressive trial execution for a large slate of pipeline projects but typically does a poor job communicating with investors and reporters--particularly when the news is bad. Today, though, with a top drug hopeful in peril after a critical review, the pharma giant was in top form, putting R&D execs on the phone with analysts to outline Plan B: Shooting for conditional OK in Europe in the second quarter and then leveraging new data for a full approval, when it could expect to ramp up sales in line with expectations.
"We would expect sales to be modest initially, but then really take off after the second clinical trial proves its mortality benefit," noted Novartis' pharma chief David Epstein, according to a report from Reuters.

In late 2012 the pharma giant cited serelaxin as Exhibit A in making the case to investors that it has the late-stage drugs that will be needed to arrest a slide in sales revenue. The drug--a synthetic version of the hormone relaxin that aids pregnant women--helped improve shortness of breath among patients over 5 days. But the drug missed other endpoints, raising fears among analysts that an approval this year could simply set up a more critical review process among payers.

That's particularly bleak news for a drug that was expected to play a material role in filling the gaps that will be left when Diovan and Gleevec lose patent protection. Several analysts had estimated peak sales at more than $1 billion. But not everyone was sold on the data.
"This is only a modest negative in our view," wrote Bernstein's Tim Anderson. "While Novartis management has been bullish on the drug's prospects, investors have generally taken a more cautious view because the data seemed mixed. Novartis continues to describe the drug as showing a clear mortality benefit, but independent heart failure experts have been more lukewarm because the mortality benefit described was not part of the primary or secondary endpoints."

The EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use was blunt in its assessment:
"The Committee noted that the study results did not demonstrate a benefit for short-term relief of dyspnea over up to 24 hours, and although some benefit was shown over 5 days it was not clear how this was of clinical relevance. Furthermore, the Committee had concerns about the way the effectiveness of the medicine in the study had been analyzed. The results included calculated values for a number of patients who had died or had required additional treatment for worsening symptoms and whose actual data were not used. In addition, the CHMP questioned whether differences in the background treatment given to patients in the two study groups may have influenced the results. Since only one main study was included in the application, further studies would be needed to confirm the effectiveness of Reasanz (serelaxin) in the treatment of acute heart failure."