Archive for the "Pharmaceutical News" Category

4
Sep

 

Pharmaceutical News

Biovail Corporation today announced that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted the Company’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for a generic formulation of 145mg and 48mg strengths of fenofibrate tablets (sold under the brand name Tricor by Abbott Laboratories).

“This represents the second successful ANDA filing in the past six months,” said Biovail Chief Executive Officer Bill Wells. “While our primary focus remains the implementation of our New Strategic Focus, we continue to make progress with our existing pipeline products.”

Tricor is a lipid-lowering agent used to treat abnormal lipid levels in the bloodstream, including cholesterol and triglycerides. The product is available in 145mg and 48mg strengths. According to IMS Health, Tricor generated U.S. revenues of approximately $1.45 billion in the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2008, with the 48mg strength accounting for $69.5 million of the total.

http://www.biovail.com

4
Sep

 

Pharmaceutical News

The editors of the New England Journal of Medicine have raised concern regarding the cholesterol-lowering drugs Zetia and Vytorin.

They say, following reports linking the drug to a higher risk of dying of cancer, more research is needed.

In three clinical trials researchers found that patients had a 40% higher chance of dying of cancer if they took Vytorin instead of a placebo - Vytorin is a combination drug containing ezetimibe, the generic name for Zetia and is used in Australia.

The study known as SEAS, raised questions about potential cancer links, and whether Vytorin helps prevent cardiovascular problems better than a placebo.

Drug makers Merck and Schering-Plough have defended the drug and say ezetimibe showed no cancer risk in animal trials and that the cancer finding is probably a result of chance.

However the editors of the journal say it is “appropriate to raise a note of caution” as whether the increased mortality risk is due solely to chance, is uncertain.

The editors say ezetimibe interferes with the gastrointestinal absorption not only of cholesterol, but also of other molecular entities that could conceivably affect the growth of cancer cells and the fact that the combined data from all three trials showed an increase in cancer deaths linked to the drug, should not be assumed to be a chance until further research is done.

The journal had previously published the report also saying a cancer link was likely due to chance.

When the SEAS study was presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting in Munich, the lead investigator Terje Pedersen, from Ulleval University Hospital, Oslo, said that the increased risk of cancer “could have occurred as a result of chance.”

The results were made public in July when a prominent Oxford University researcher Dr. Richard Peto said the cancer risk wasn’t credible; it now remains to be seen what action will take place.

4
Sep

 

Pharmaceutical News

Spinifex Pharmaceuticals, an Australian pain drug development company, today announced it has secured venture capital investment of A$12 million from GBS Venture Partners Limited, Brandon Capital Partners and Uniseed to fund the development of its pain management drug, EMA401.

The funding is in two tranches, the first $6 million has been received and the second tranche has been targeted for Phase II clinical trials of EMA401 due to start in late 2009.

Based in Melbourne, Spinifex was established in 2007 to develop new drug candidates for the treatment and management of pain. Its lead candidate, EMA401, is currently in Phase I clinical trials under an Investigational New Drug application (IND) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with results from the first clinical trial expected at the end of this year or early 2009.

Spinifex’s clinical program is focused on an area of high unmet medical need. Demand for pain drugs continues to increase, fuelling the growth of a market that is expected to be worth US$75 billion annually by 2010.

Spinifex’s principal technology relates to the discovery made by University of Queensland researchers led by Professor Maree Smith, of a novel pathway for the treatment of neuropathic and inflammatory pain.

Spinifex Pharmaceuticals CEO Tom McCarthy said: “We are very pleased to have secured the support of these key investors, and are buoyed by the strength of the venture capital funding system in Australia for companies with strong prospects, particularly in the context of the ongoing pressure on listed biotechnology companies.”

“The support of these three institutions validates our research effort to date and provides us with the platform to take our clinical candidate EMA401 closer to commercialisation.”

The investment by GBS Venture Partners and Uniseed is the second investment in Spinifex for both funds. Along with Symbiosis Group, they were part of a 2007 syndicate that invested A$3.25 million into the company that was spun out of UniQuest, the commercialisation arm of the University of Queensland.

“We have identified a clear and valuable market for Spinifex’s lead compound and believe the company’s clinical program is well placed to serve a significant and growing global market,” GBS’s Dr Andrew Baker said.

“Brandon Capital is excited by the opportunity to participate in what we see as a very significant clinical program,” Brandon Capital’s Chris Nave said.

Dr McCarthy said while the new funding is being targeted at developing the company’s lead candidate through Phase II clinical trails, management are also working towards deepening Spinifex’s clinical pipeline.

http://www.spinifexpharma.com.au

2
Sep

 

Pharmaceutical News

The Wall Street Journal width=396 align=left vspace=5 border=0>This article is republished with kind permission from our friends at The Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery of in-depth coverage of health policy developments, debates and discussions. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for Kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Copyright 2008 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

2
Sep

 

Pharmaceutical News

Since Rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the worldwide market based on the safety findings of the Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx (APPROVe) study, the uncertainty around the cardiovascular safety of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors remains and leaves practitioners with difficult management decisions for the hundreds of millions of patients worldwide who continue to require pain-relieving therapy to maintain an acceptable quality of life.

Importantly, the Food and Drug Administration recently summarized a statement that in various controlled clinical trials the cardiovascular risks of COX-2 selective drugs have been indistinguishable from non-selective NSAIDs, thus also raising serious questions about the safety of the latter. As such, the FDA mandated a “boxed warning” for COX-2 selective inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs alike in view of the potential of these agents to increase adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Unfortunately, none of the reported randomised trials undertaken with NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors have thus far been specifically designed to examine cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, the current situation is one of classic ‘equipoise’. Adequately powered, independently run randomized clinical trials prospectively designed to capture cardiovascular outcomes are urgently needed.

In order to address at least some of the remaining clinically important questions concerning anti-inflammatory drugs, the PRECISION - Prospective Randomised Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs. Ibuprofen and Naproxen - trial in more than 20000 patients with osteoarthritis is now under way. Until trials like these are completed, careful risk benefit analysis needs to be undertaken for all anti-inflammatory agents regarding their potential gastrointestinal benefit, which in many cases remains yet to be definitely established, versus potential increase in cardiovascular risk, hypertension and its clinical sequels in particular.

Similarly, safety concerns exist for novel anti-VEGF therapies that have shown to effectively delay vision loss in patients with age-related neovascular macular degeneration (AMD), the most important cause of blindness in the Western world. Although the pathophysiology of AMD is still poorly understood, it is increasingly clear that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays an important role in the promotion of neovascularization and vessel leakage that leads to loss of central vision. Therefore, intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy is currently the primary therapy for neovascular AMD. Currently, the most common therapeutic agents are ranibizumab, bevacizumab and pegaptanib which differ in their selectivity for VEGF. However, their well-documented efficacy in treating wet AMD may come at the cost of cardiovascular safety, as VEGF, mostly through its downstream mediator NO, exerts essential physiological functions in maintaining vascular integrity. Since breakdown of the blood-ocular barrier is common in AMD, repeated intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy may lead to clinically relevant systemic VEGF inhibition, possibly resulting in serious long-term cardio- and cerebrovascular adverse events. Unfortunately, the number of cardiovascular events in these AMD trials without pre specified cardiovascular safety endpoints are too small to provide any clinical relevant evidence of safety.

Only adequately powered randomized clinical trials prospectively addressing cardiovascular safety will provide the evidence of whether the proven benefits of VEGF antagonism in the eye may come at the cost of potential systemic, particularly adverse cardiovascular events. Until this trial evidence becomes available, ophthalmologists and cardiologists should synchronize their efforts to reduce the cardiovascular burden of patients with wet AMD.

http://www.escardio.org

29
Aug

 

Pharmaceutical News

Medicare overpaid for irinotecan, a cancer drug sold by Pfizer under the name Campostar, by $6.5 million in March because of a delay in updating its pricing formula, according to a report released width=396 align=left vspace=5 border=0>This article is republished with kind permission from our friends at The Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery of in-depth coverage of health policy developments, debates and discussions. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for Kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Copyright 2008 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

29
Aug

 

Pharmaceutical News

Seattle’s Infectious Disease Research Institute width=396 align=left vspace=5 border=0>This article is republished with kind permission from our friends at The Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery of in-depth coverage of health policy developments, debates and discussions. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for Kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Copyright 2008 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

29
Aug

 

Pharmaceutical News

Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. today announced that its subsidiary, Barr Laboratories, Inc., received final approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to manufacture and market a generic version of Ortho McNeil Janssen’s Razadyne (galantamine hydrobromide), 4 mg, 8 mg and 12 mg tablets. Barr intends to launch its generic Razadyne tablets product immediately.

Barr filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for Janssen’s Razadyne (galantamine hydrobromide), 4 mg, 8 mg and 12 mg tablets on February 28, 2007, the first day that an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV certification could be submitted based on the expiration of the New Chemical Entity (NCE) exclusivity on the product. Following receipt of notification from the FDA of the application’s acceptance for filing, Barr notified the New Drug Application (NDA) holder and patent owner of Barr’s challenge to the patents protecting Razadyne. On June 15, 2007, Barr announced that Janssen had filed suit in the District Court for the District of Delaware, and the trial occurred in May 2007.

On June 15, 2007, Barr announced that Janssen had filed suit in the District Court of Delaware. Janssen announced in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission on May 10, 2007 that it had received Paragraph IV certifications for Razadyne from six other generic pharmaceutical companies relating to the patents protecting Razadyne.

Earlier today, Barr announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has ruled in favor of its subsidiary, Barr Laboratories, Inc., in the challenge of U.S. Patent No. 4,663,318 (”the ‘318 patent”) listed by Ortho McNeil Janssen in connection with Razadyne (galantamine hydrobromide), 4mg, 8mg and 12mg tablets. The Court’s decision effectively ended the 30-month stay with respect to Barr’s generic Razadyne tablets and Barr’s generic Razadyne ER (galantamine hydrobromide), 8 mg, 16 mg and 24 mg extended release capsules.

In her ruling, District Court Judge Robinson found that the ‘318 patent is invalid for lack of enablement. Judge Robinson also denied Janssen’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order which would have prevented Barr from marketing its product. Ortho-McNeil Neurologics, a division of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has announced that it will appeal the decision.

Razadyne tablets had annual sales of approximately $102 million for the twelve months ending June 2008, according to IMS sales data.

http://www.barrlabs.com

29
Aug

 

Pharmaceutical News

Researchers at The University of Nottingham have been awarded £2.8 million by the Wellcome Trust to develop a new drug that could ease the suffering of hundreds of thousands of heart disease patients who are unable to take beta-blockers.

In the UK, 2.6 million people suffer from heart disease and most are able to have their symptoms effectively managed with the prescription of beta-blocker drugs which stop adrenaline from making the heart work too hard.

However, a major side effect of beta-blockers is that they make the symptoms of asthma and other breathing problems worse, so that around 300,000 patients in the UK who also suffer from respiratory conditions are prevented from taking them.

Now, a team of scientists from the University’s Schools of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy will use the Wellcome Trust’s funding, made under the Seeding Drug Discovery initiative, to conduct a three-year study to develop a modified type of beta-blocker that will treat heart disease and angina without exacerbating any underlying respiratory problems.

If successful, the new drug could become the general medicine of choice for all heart patients because its targeted action will lead to a significant reduction in overall side effects.

Even the best currently available beta-blockers are poor at discriminating between the heart and lungs, causing the muscles in the lungs to tighten and making breathing more difficult in some patients who have a pre-existing lung complaint.

In patients suffering from asthma, in which environmental factors cause muscle contractions leading to a narrowing of the airway, taking these medicines can trigger an attack or, even if tolerated enough to be taken regularly, can stop other asthma drugs from working.

Doctors are also extremely wary in prescribing beta-blockers for patients suffering from heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a progressive condition which causes the destruction of lung tissue and increased mucus production, because any reduction in respiratory function that may be caused by the drugs could have a major impact on symptoms.

The Nottingham scientists have already developed a molecule that is much more effective at discriminating between the heart and lungs than current drugs. The funding will allow them to carry out further studies to improve the molecule to ensure that it is able to target the heart cells more effectively - therefore directing the therapeutic effect only to the heart and not the lungs. The aim is that the resulting drug will be long-lasting and could be taken orally.

Leading the research, Dr Jill Baker from the School of Biomedical Sciences said: “Once developed, this molecule will cause much less wheezing and shortness of breath and should be able to be given safely to the hundreds of thousands of patients with both heart and lung diseases. Furthermore, because it will have so few side effects, it has the potential to become the beta-blocker of choice for all heart patients.”

Dr Ted Bianco, Director of Technology Transfer at the Wellcome Trust, said: “We know that beta-blockers save lives in patients with heart disease, so making them safe for those unlucky enough to have a respiratory disorder as well is a clinical imperative. I applaud Jill Baker for questioning why beta-blockers should remain contraindicated for so many of her patients, and being stirred to correct this with an incisive programme of work. In the best traditions of medical research, this endeavour was born out of a problem encountered at the sharp end of clinical practice.”

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/

28
Aug

 

Pharmaceutical News

Novartis has announced that Gleevec (imatinib mesylate) tablets, (known as Glivec (imatinib) outside the US, Canada and Israel), has been granted priority review status by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the first therapy to be reviewed for use after surgery in kit-positive gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST).

FDA priority review status is granted to therapies that could potentially fill a currently unmet medical need and accelerates the standard review timing from ten to six months. Similar regulatory submissions have been filed in the European Union and Switzerland and will be filed in other countries shortly.

The Gleevec submissions are based on data from a Phase III, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, international study of more than 700 GIST patients who had surgery to remove their tumors. The results showed a dramatic 89% reduction in risk of kit-positive GIST returning after surgery (adjuvant setting) in patients treated with Gleevec versus placebo.

In early 2007, the study met its primary efficacy endpoint, showing an advantage for Gleevec in recurrence-free survival. At that time, following the recommendation of the independent study data monitoring committee to stop the trial accrual early, the study investigators made public the interim results and offered Gleevec to patients receiving placebo.

Approximately half of all patients with newly diagnosed GIST are considered candidates for surgical resection, or removal of their tumors. Of those who have the surgery, about half will suffer a recurrence. If approved for this indication, Gleevec will be the first treatment option available to GIST patients after surgery to reduce the risk of disease recurrence or to possibly prevent the disease from returning.

“The dramatic clinical results from this study of Gleevec in the adjuvant GIST setting are especially encouraging when we consider the incremental benefit we typically see with other adjuvant therapies for solid tumors,” said Rainer Boehm, MD, Executive Vice President, North American Region Head, Novartis Oncology. “The adjuvant use of Gleevec, if approved, would represent an important advance in the ongoing post-surgery management of GIST.”

Gleevec is currently indicated in both the US and EU for the first-line treatment of metastatic or unresectable (inoperable) kit-positive GIST. If approved, the use of Gleevec for the treatment of GIST in the adjuvant setting would add to its eight current indications, which include Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (Ph+ CML) and five other rare diseases. Novartis also has a therapy for the treatment of carcinoid tumors and acromegaly and multiple treatments in the pipeline targeting rare diseases.


Filing data

The study on which the regulatory filing is based compared the recurrence-free survival of GIST patients taking Gleevec 400 mg/day versus placebo for one year immediately following surgery. The results showed that 98% of patients receiving Gleevec remained recurrence free at one year following surgery compared to approximately 82% of those receiving placebo. This shows that as a result of adjuvant therapy with Gleevec, there was an 89% reduction in risk of GIST returning.

The study, known as ACOSOG Z90001, was conducted at multiple cancer centers throughout the US and Canada, under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between Novartis and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The study was led by the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG).

The investigators reported that Gleevec therapy was well tolerated by most patients, with side effects similar to those observed in previous clinical trials with Gleevec. These include nausea, diarrhea and swelling (edema).

About gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) belong to a group of cancers known as soft tissue sarcomas. They are the most common sarcomas and can be found most often in the stomach and small intestine. The incidence of GIST is estimated to be 4,500 - 6,000 new cases per year in the US (15-20 cases per million population), of which more than 90% are kit-positive. Kit — also known as CD117 — is a protein that, when mutated, has been identified as one of the major causes of GIST.


About Gleevec

Gleevec (imatinib mesylate) tablets are indicated for the treatment of newly diagnosed adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (Ph+ CML) in the chronic phase. Follow-up is limited to 5 years. Gleevec is also indicated for the treatment of patients with Ph+ CML in blast crisis (BC), accelerated phase (AP), or in chronic phase (CP) after failure of interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) therapy; adult patients with relapsed or refractory Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL); adult patients with myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative diseases (MDS/MPD) associated with PDGFR (platelet-derived growth factor receptor) gene rearrangements; adult patients with aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM) without the D816V c-KIT mutation or with c-KIT mutational status unknown; adult patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and/or chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL) who have the FIP1L1- PDGFR alpha fusion kinase (mutational analysis or FISH demonstration of CHIC2 allele deletion) and for patients with HES and/or CEL who are FIP1L1-PDGFR alpha fusion kinase-negative or unknown; adult patients with unresectable, recurrent, and/or metastatic dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP); patients with KIT (CD117)-positive unresectable and/or metastatic malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). The effectiveness of Gleevec in GIST is based on objective response rate. There are no controlled trials demonstrating a clinical benefit, such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival.


Safety information

Fetal harm can occur when Gleevec is administered to a pregnant woman; therefore, women of childbearing potential should be advised to not become pregnant while taking Gleevec tablets and to avoid breast-feeding while taking Gleevec tablets because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in nursing infants. Sexually active female patients taking Gleevec should use adequate contraception. If the patient does become pregnant while taking Gleevec, the patient should be advised of the potential hazard to the fetus.

In adult Ph+ CML patients, severe (NCI Grades 3/4) lab abnormalities — including neutropenia (3.6%-48%), anemia (1%-42%), thrombocytopenia (<1%-33%) and hepatotoxicity (approx 5%) — and severe adverse experiences (NCI Grades 3/4), including severe fluid retention (e.g., pleural effusion, pulmonary edema, and ascites) and superficial edema (1.3%-11%), hemorrhage (1.8%-19%), and musculoskeletal pain (2%-9%) were reported among patients receiving Gleevec*. Severe fluid retention appears to be dose-related, was more common in the advanced-phase studies (where the dosage was 600 mg/day), and is more common in the elderly.

* Numbers indicate the range of percentages in 4 studies among adult patients with Ph+ CML in blast crisis, accelerated phase, and chronic phase.

In HES/CEL patients, instances of Grade 3 leukopenia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and anemia were reported.

For DFSP, severe (NCI Grades 3/4) lab abnormalities included anemia (17%), thrombocytopenia (17%), neutropenia (8%) and increased creatinine (8%).

In GIST, severe (NCI Grades 3/4) lab abnormalities (400 mg/day; 600 mg/day) — including neutropenia (10%; 11%), anemia (3%; 9%), thrombocytopenia (0%; 1%) and hepatotoxicity (6%; 8%) — and severe adverse experiences (NCI Grades 3/4), including severe fluid retention (e.g., pleural effusion or ascites; 3%; 8%) and superficial edema (6%; 5%), hemorrhage (6%; 11%), abdominal pain (11%; 4%), nausea (6%; 4%), diarrhea (3%; 7%) and musculoskeletal pain (6%; 1%) were reported among patients receiving Gleevec.

Severe congestive heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction have occasionally been reported. Most of the patients with reported cardiac events have had other comorbidities and risk factors, including advanced age and previous medical history of cardiac disease. Patients with cardiac disease or risk factors for cardiac failure should be monitored carefully, and any patient with signs or symptoms consistent with cardiac failure should be evaluated and treated.

Dose adjustments may be necessary due to hepatotoxicity, other nonhematologic adverse reactions, or hematologic adverse reactions. Therapy with Gleevec was discontinued for drug-related adverse reactions in 2.4% to 5% of adult patients with Ph+ CML and for adverse reactions in 5% of KIT+ GIST patients. None of the 5 patients in the ASM study discontinued Gleevec due to drug-related events or abnormal laboratory values. Complete blood counts should be performed weekly for the first month, biweekly for the second month, and periodically thereafter as clinically indicated (for example, every 2-3 months).

A 25% decrease in the recommended dose should be used for patients with severe hepatic impairment.

Some GIST patients (5%) were reported to have severe gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds and/or intratumoral bleeds. GI tumor sites may have been the source of GI bleeds.

Patients should be weighed and monitored regularly for signs and symptoms of edema, which can be serious or life-threatening. There have also been reports, including fatalities, of cardiac tamponade, cerebral edema, increased intracranial pressure, papilledema, and GI perforation.

In patients with HES and cardiac involvement, cases of cardiogenic shock/left ventricular dysfunction have been associated with the initiation of imatinib therapy. The condition was reported to be reversible with the administration of systemic steroids, circulatory support measures, and temporarily withholding imatinib. MDS/MPD disease and systemic mastocytosis may be associated with high eosinophil levels. Performance of an echocardiogram and determination of serum troponin should therefore be considered in patients with HES/CEL, and in patients with MDS/MPD or ASM associated with high eosinophil levels. If either is abnormal, the prophylactic use of systemic steroids (1-2 mg/kg) for 1-2 weeks concomitantly with imatinib should be considered at the initiation of therapy.

Bullous dermatologic reactions (eg, erythema multiforme and Stevens- Johnson syndrome) have also been reported. In some cases, the reaction recurred upon re-challenge. Several postmarketing reports describe patients able to tolerate the reintroduction of Gleevec at a lower dose with or without concomitant corticosteroids or antihistamines following resolution or improvement of the bullous reaction.

Consider potential toxicities-specifically liver, kidney and cardiac toxicity, and immunosuppression from long-term use.

Gleevec is metabolized by the CYP3A4 isoenzyme and is an inhibitor of CYP3A4, CYP2D6 and CYP2C9. Dosage of Gleevec should increase by at least 50%, and clinical response should be carefully monitored, in patients receiving Gleevec with a potent CYP3A4 inducer such as rifampin or phenytoin. Examples of commonly used drugs that may significantly interact with Gleevec include ketoconazole, acetaminophen, warfarin, erythromycin and phenytoin. (Please see full Prescribing Information for other potential drug interactions).

For daily dosing of 800 mg and above, dosing should be accomplished using the 400 mg tablets to reduce exposure to iron.


Common side effects of Gleevec tablets

The majority of adult Ph+ CML patients who received Gleevec in clinical studies experienced adverse reactions at some time, but most were mild to moderate in severity. The most frequently reported adverse reactions (all Grades) were superficial edema (60%-74%), nausea (50%-73%), muscle cramps (28%-62%), vomiting (23%-58%), diarrhea (43%-57%), musculoskeletal pain (38%- 49%) and rash and related terms (36%-47%).*+

* Numbers indicate the range of percentages in 4 studies among adult patients with Ph+ CML in blast crisis, accelerated phase, and chronic phase.

+ For more detailed study information, please see full Prescribing Information.

The adverse reactions and safety profile for Ph+ ALL, MDS/MPD, ASM and HES/CEL were generally similar to the safety profile for Ph+ CML.

The most frequently reported drug-related adverse reactions reported in the Ph+ ALL studies were mild nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia, muscle cramps and rash, which were easily manageable. Superficial edemas were also a common finding in all studies and were described primarily as periorbital or lower-limb edemas. However, these edemas were rarely severe and may be managed with diuretics, other supportive measures, or, in some patients, by reducing the dose of Gleevec.

Frequently reported adverse reactions (all Grades) in the seven MDS/MPD patients assessed were nausea (57%); diarrhea and muscle cramps (43% each); anemia, fatigue, arthralgia and periorbital edema (29% each).

All ASM patients experienced at least one adverse reaction at some time. The most frequently reported adverse reactions were diarrhea, nausea, ascites, muscle cramps, dyspnea, fatigue, peripheral edema, anemia, pruritus, rash and lower respiratory tract infection.

All HES/CEL patients experienced at least one adverse reaction, the most common being gastrointestinal, cutaneous and musculoskeletal disorders. Hematologic abnormalities were also frequent, with instances of Grade 3 leukopenia, neutropenia, lymphopenia and anemia.

Frequently reported adverse reactions (all Grades) in the 12 DFSP patients assessed included nausea and fatigue (42% each); periorbital, peripheral and eye edema (33% each); diarrhea, vomiting, rash, lacrimation increased and anemia (25% each); face edema, pyrexia, exertional dyspnea, rhinitis, and anorexia (17% each).

The majority of patients who received Gleevec in the GIST study experienced adverse reactions at some time. Most adverse reactions were mild to moderate in severity. The most frequently reported adverse reactions (400 mg/day; 600 mg/day) (all Grades) were superficial edema (81%; 77%), nausea (63%; 74%), muscle cramps (47%; 58%), diarrhea (59%; 70%), fatigue (48%; 53%), abdominal pain (40%; 37%), rash and related terms (38%; 53%), vomiting (38%; 35%), musculoskeletal pain (37%; 30%) and hemorrhage (26%; 34%).*

* For more detailed study information, please see full Prescribing Information.

Supportive care may help management of some mild-to-moderate adverse reactions so that the prescribed dose can be maintained whenever possible. However, in some cases, either a dose reduction or interruption of treatment with Gleevec may be necessary.

Gleevec tablets should be taken with food and a large glass of water to minimize GI irritation. Gleevec tablets should not be taken with grapefruit juice and other foods known to inhibit CYP3A4.

Patients should be informed to take Gleevec exactly as prescribed, not to change their dose or stop taking Gleevec unless they are told to do so by their doctor. If patients miss a dose, they should be advised to take their dose as soon as possible unless it is almost time for their next dose, in which case the missed dose should not be taken. A double dose should not be taken to make up for any missed dose.

http://www.novartis.com/