FDA
22nd July 2018

FDA Advisory Committee on the Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen and Ibuprofen

On April 24th – April 25th, 2018 a joint meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and Drug Safety and Risk Management Committee convened to review supplemental new drug application.

FDA Advisory Committee on the Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen and Ibuprofen

On April 24th – April 25th, 2018 a joint meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and Drug Safety and Risk Management Committee convened to review supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 0209998/S-050 for Pfizer Pharmaceuticals’ COX-2 inhibitor Celecoxib (Celebrex). Celebrex is an oral tablet that can be used as an analgesic and for swelling and inflammation. Pfizer’s objective was to demonstrate noninferiority for cardiovascular (CV) risk of celecoxib compared to non-selective COX inhibitors – naproxen and ibuprofen,  in osteoarthritic (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

The committee also discussed drug interactions between celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen when each was used concomitantly with aspirin. This meeting included participation of Bayer Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., and the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA).

Data was presented from the Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs. Ibuprofen or Naproxen study (PRECISION) trial which compared the cardiovascular effects and outcomes of the three medications. The rates of cardiovascular death, stroke or myocardial infarction were recorded as one value for each drug. Naproxen had a rate of 2.5%, 2.7% for ibuprofen and 2.3% for celecoxib.

Each sponsor presented data outlining benefits, risks, mechanisms and possible interactions of the three NSAIDS. All parties indicated that there was low CV risk associated with these NSAIDs when used as directed. All sponsors expressed their  commitment to providing appropriate labeling as per current FDA regulations.

The meeting included 6 discussion questions and 3 voting questions. The committee voted that Celecoxib demonstrated comparable CV safety compared to naproxen and ibuprofen (15 Yes, 5 No, 1 Abstention). Many committee members emphasized that this vote was limited to the 100 mg dose used twice daily, in OA and RA patients.  Members who voted ‘No’ indicated that PRECISION was not designed to conclude safety but rather addresses non-inferiority; i.e. celecoxib was no worse than ibuprofen and naproxen. The second and third voting questions concerned changes to nonprescription labeling of naproxen and ibuprofen, respectively.

Voting on regulatory actions for naproxen, 7 members voted that no change in labeling was needed, 12 voted that a warning regarding the interaction between aspirin and naproxen should be added and 2 panelists voted that the use of aspirin and naproxen should be contraindicated. The 12 panelists who voted to add a warning, indicated that there needs to be consistency in labeling between ibuprofen and naproxen.

Voting on regulatory actions for ibuprofen, 17 members voted that no change to the current label should be made and 4 members voting that ibuprofen use with aspirin should be contraindicated. Members who voted that no change should occur, stated that no new data was presented to warrant a change. Others felt that currently, safety is not adequately addressed and therefore a contraindication for the use of ibuprofen when taken with aspirin is necessary.

The agency is not obligated to follow its panel’s recommendation, but normally does so. On June 28th  the FDA approved drug labeling supplement for celecoxib with regards to new information from the PRECISION study.

ISS has almost two decades of experience in developing regulatory strategies including support for FDA Advisory Committee meetings. We are involved in more FDA AdComms per year than even the largest pharmaceutical companies. For more information on how ISS can help you prepare for your next meeting, contact info@innovativescience.net

This post was authored by Sami Mourad and Kaela Gerald. Sami is a summer intern at ISS and a 3rd year pharmacy student at the Rutgers University Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy.

 

Do you have an upcoming Advisory Committee Meeting?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Related Articles

Best Tips for Medical Device Manufacturers to Write a Compelling Substantial Equivalence Section for their FDA 510k Submission
01 July 2020
Best Tips for Medical Device Manufacturers to Write a Compelling Substantial Equivalence Section for their FDA 510k Submission

Over the past few years, the number of ex-US manufacturers submitting a Class II exempt 510k device registration has increased substantially. For companies with medical devices that are approved and successful in a foreign market, the logical next step is to introduce their product into the US, which has one of the most lucrative healthcare markets in the world. Read more

Evolving FDA Thinking on Advisory Committee Meetings Related to Foods, Drugs, and Devices
25 June 2020
Evolving FDA Thinking on Advisory Committee Meetings Related to Foods, Drugs, and Devices

FDA advisory committee meetings are important regulatory events for many manufacturers on the path to marketing approval. These meetings can quite literally result in the approval or rejection of a product based on the panel’s vote. Read more

NDA vs. OTC Monograph: Which Pathway is Right for You?
22 June 2020
NDA vs. OTC Monograph: Which Pathway is Right for You?

One of the main challenges our clients face is determining which regulatory pathway is best for their products. For example, what if an OTC product has a Monograph active ingredient but that ingredient is present at a different amount than the permitted amount? Or what if the label claims a novel indication not specified in a Monograph? If you are debating pursuit of either regulatory pathway for your OTC drug, it is critical to consider cost, timeline, and label claims to ensure your products has a unique stance in today’s market. Read more

4 Problems Importing Rapid Antibody Tests for Coronavirus
19 June 2020
4 Problems Importing Rapid Antibody Tests for Coronavirus

US distributors and agents trying to import rapid antibody tests for coronavirus face a number of obstacles. The good news is that FDA has opened up the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) program to include SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) and COVID-19 (the disease), expediting time to market. Read more

Let’s work together

The journey to scientific and commercial success is often complex and always critical, if you are looking for an expert partner to help steer you to confident solutions, contact us today

Contact us