How do we get the antibiotics we need?
-
Upload
transcrip-partners -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
470 -
download
0
Transcript of How do we get the antibiotics we need?
HOW DO WE GET THE ANTIBIOTICS WE NEED?Opportunities and challenges posed and lessons learned from recent submissions
Dr. Flic GabbaySenior Partner
TranScrip Partners LLP
24th AnnualEuroMeeting
26-28 March 2012Copenhagen, Denmark
2
DisclaimerThe views and opinions expressed in the following PowerPoint slides are those of the individual presenter and should not be attributed to Drug Information Association, Inc. (“DIA”), its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, members, chapters, councils, Special Interest Area Communities or affiliates, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated.
These PowerPoint slides are the intellectual property of the individual presenter and are protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America and other countries. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Drug Information Association, DIA and DIA logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of Drug Information Association Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
How do we get the antibiotics we need?
• Why do we need new antibiotics?
• What is prohibiting the development of new antibiotics?– discovery– funding– regulatory hurdles– successful launch and stewardship
3
Why do we need new antibiotics?
4
Crisis in Treatment of Bacterial Infection
• Infectious Diseases Society of America
• US senate, GAIN act
• ECDC and EMA
• Focus of World Health Day 2011; April 7th
5
Why do we not hear more about antibiotic resistance?
• If it was important the media would tell us about it wouldn’t they?– Superbugs –
• MRSA is getting under control • C.difficile is still worrying but being addressed
– Other diseases are perceived to be much more important
• AIDs, malaria, coronary heart disease and cancer
So why are all these organisations worried?
7
Incidence of disease (millions) based on WHO 2004
8
Diarrhoea0-4y children – 5% mortalityEuropean figures
a US alone, b JAMA 2007, c CDC annual, d 10 countries only 2010 EU Kock et al, e ECDC annual
LRTICAP – up to 5% mortalityHAP – up to 20% mortality
COPD and AECB, ranked 4th in deaths in US not measurable by incidence alone
We have been through a period of believing antibiotics are not needed for respiratory infections
• Many serious respiratory infections are perceived to be caused by viruses alone, however…..– there is an increasing recognition of the interplay
between viral infections and bacterial infection both needing to be treated (e.g. exacerbations of COPD and asthma)
• Resistance to antibiotics is perceived by some to be controlled by antibiotic stewardship alone… – it has now been shown this is not possible for
established resistance
9
Incidence of disease (millions) based on WHO 2004
10
a US alone, b JAMA 2007, c CDC annual, d 10 countries only 2010 EU Kock et al, e ECDC annual
MRSA – up to 20% mortality
Healthcare associated infection – up to 5% mortality
MRSA and E.coli resistance
11
Data: 1293 hospitals in 31 countries in Europe
MRSA: 5,503 excess deaths associated with resistance E.Coli: 2712 excess deaths associated with resistance
Trends estimate that 97,000 resistant bloodstream infections and 17,000 associated deaths could occur in 2015.
‘…. despite anticipated gains in the control of MRSA, the persistently increasing number of infections caused by third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative pathogens is likely to outweigh this achievement ….‘
de Kraker MEA, Davey PG, Grundmann H, BURDEN study group (2011)
And it is not just MRSA and E.coli it includes pneumococcus
12
In the US S.pneumonia has >40% resistance to macrolides, 15% to penicillin and 30% to quinolones
• So everyone now agrees we need new antibiotics…
• What is prohibiting the development of new antibiotics?
13
New classes of antibiotics in last 50y
14
Lack of antibiotics in R&D
• 2009 analyses by IDSA & ECDC/EMA– Only 15-16 antibiotics in clinical development– Only 8 have activity against key G-ve bacteria– Of these, NONE has activity against bacteria resistant
to all currently available drugs• 2011
– show only 10 compounds in clinical development against G-ves
– and no trials running in HAP/VAP and still NONE has activity against bacteria resistant to all currently available drugs
15
Why is pharma not researching more new antibiotics?
• Challenges to find novel targets• Return on investment for pharma companies is less
attractive than other therapeutic areas due to the “acute” nature of the disease and the current risk and cost of a regulatory programme
• Even if products are generated from discovery in small or big pharma it is hard to convince companies to fund drugs beyond Phase I
16
The Antibacterial-Target Tree
17
White and Fairhead 2012
RifampicinFidaxomycin
Fluoroquinolones
RNA POLYMERASE
DNA GYRASE Nitrofurantoin
CELL WALL
VancomycinPenicillinsCephalosporinsCarbapenems
PROTEIN SYNTHESIS30S ribosome
Aminoglycosides Tetracyclines
FOLATE SYNTHESISTrimethoprimSulphonamides
Metronidazole DNA SYNTHESIS
PROTEIN SYNTHESIS
50S ribosome
CYTOPLASMIC
MEMBRANES
OxazolidinonesMacrolides
ChloramphenicalLincosamides
Polymixins
Daptomycin
tRNA SYNTHETASEMupirocin
White and Fairhead 2012
Novel targets…
• Novel versions of existing mechanisms• Except non specific bacterial DNA inhibition (SASP)
which is universally effective but the vector is bacteria specific
• Faster diagnostics - allows narrower spectrum antibiotics• Control of mobile genetic elements resistance (inhibition
of plasmids) • Human Microbiome• Vaccines, therapeutic vaccines• Immunological approaches
18
But they all need to pass the regulatory hurdles
19
Regulatory submissions submitted or reviewed since 2006 in EU or US
IV/IM or IV/oral
2006• daptomycin
2008• telavancin• oritavancin• iclaprim• doripenem
2009• ceftobiprole
2010• ceftaroline
20
Oral/topical/inhaled
2006• garenoxacin• faropenem• gemifloxacin2007• retapamulin2009• Inhaled aztreonam• cethromycin2010•fidaxomicin
Key points US and EU registration
• Approvals:– 7/14 (50%) total antibiotics– 1/5 (20%) oral antibiotics*– 4/7 ( 57%) parenteral antibiotics– 2/2 (100%) approvals for topical/inhaled
antibiotics
*fidaxomicin was gained both EU and FDA approval for C.difficile
21
Indications
22
O = submitted and failed
P =registered
6 =studied
Date of submission or review
2006Comp skin HAP VAP CAP Endo cUTI AI
SITL/ ERY Decol AECB
Sinusitis decol
daptomycin P 6 Pfaropenem O O O Ogarenoxacin O O O O O Ogemifloxacin O O O2008telavancin PO PO POoritavancin Oiclaprim Odoripenem P P P2007retapamulin P 6 62009ceftobiprole O 6 6 6inhaled aztreonam Pcethromycin O2010ceftaroline P P
fidaxomicin P
Oral/topicalIV/parenteral
Key issues – changing environment
• Most antibiotics attempted registration in US first• Until 2006 most antibiotics were submitted for multiple
indications but since 2007 maximum indications has been 3
• Daptomycin was the first antibiotic to submitted for a single specific indication (cSSTI)
• Three of the 5* successful antibiotic submissions in last 5 years were for cSSTI
• Doripenem achieved, HAP, cAIS, cUTI• Telavancin got cSSTI in US and NP in Europe*excluding topical and inhaled
23
24
Why did the antibiotics fail?Was this bad navigation?
Oral antibiotics
• Change in regulatory attitude – Non inferiority changed to superiority over placebo
AECB, sinusitis etc – Few investigators will do these studies– Most products didn’t reach EMA– This has paralysed development of new oral
antibiotics• Safety issues
– garenoxacin – rare but unexplained hypotension– gemifloxacin – rash in 0.8% subjects
25
IV Antibiotics registration failure
• Four submissions failed in complicated SSTI– telavancin (EU) (based on benefit-risk)– oritavancin (lack of evidence of outcome (MRSA))– iclaprim (study designs inadequate)– ceftobiprole (GCP issues)
• One failed in HAP– telavancin (FDA) based on failure to meet new
endpoint guidance of 28 day mortality
26
So why are companies and agencies so far adrift on benefit risk decisions at end of Phase III
27
Detailed FDA Recent Guidance since 2006
28
Note cUTI issued Feb 2012
EU guidance
“Guideline on the evaluation of medicinal products indicated for treatment of bacterial infections”
15 December 2011 CPMP/EWP/558/95 rev 2 Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP)
More generic and flexible… Is this the way to go?
29
Current FDA guidance
• Predominantly requires two large studies per indication based on non inferiority guidance introduced in the early1990s– Non inferiority was ironically introduced to reduce the
size of studies!• Indications have been subdivided to such an extent that
no company can afford to register a drug for more than two or three indications making the return on investment limited.
30
Successful launch and stewardship
• Companies are concerned that restrictions on cost and use of antibiotics will struggle to cover the cost of the substantial drug development programmes
• Thus it will be difficult to get large pharmas to register and launch antibiotics
31
In summary
• The need for new antibiotics is critical• Governments and charity money are available in
recognition of this but mainly pre-clinical• The lack of funding for Phase II/III will kill off novel
compounds in Phase I• Regulatory guidance has been mainly US based and has
driven large expensive studies based on principles put in place 20y ago – can we think differently?
32
Finally
WHO quote:• “Antibiotic resistance is becoming a public health
emergency of yet unknown proportions”
• We could revert to infection mortality not seen since pre 1950s – we must find ways of developing and registering new antibiotics…
33
IDSA quote
Just as a reminder that antibiotics do make a difference…
34
DiseaseDeath Pre-Antibiotics
Death With Antibiotics
Change in Death
Community Pneumonia 1
~35% ~10% -25%
Hospital Pneumonia 2 ~60% ~30% -30%
Heart Valve Infection 3 ~100% ~25% -75%
Brain Infection 4 >80% ˂23% -60%
Skin Infection 5 11% ˂0.5% -10%
-3%By comparison...treatment of myocardial infarction
with aspirin or streptokinase 6
1 IDSA Position Paper ’08 Clin Infect Dis 47 (S3): S249-65; 2IDSA/ACCP/ATS/SCCM Position Paper ’10 Clin Infect Dis In Press; 3Kerr AJ. Subacute Bacterial Endocarditis. Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1955 & Lancet 1935 226:383-4; 4
Lancet ’38 231:733-4 & Waring et al. ’48 Am J Med 5:402-18; 5 Spellberg et al. ’09 Clin Infect Dis 49:383-91 & Madsen ’73 Infection 1:76081
Thank you
35