An FDA reviewer said that Promacta, an experimental platelet-boosting drug seeking an indication for acute treatment of chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura from GSK, did not help control bleeding any better than a placebo. The reviewer wrote:
“The data provided in this NDA (new drug application) do not demonstrate statistically significant, robust … treatment effect in decreasing bleeding events,”
The FDA is already being stingy about approving NDAs when they demonstrate statistically significant effects. I can’t imagine the advisory board, which meets Friday, is going to issue a positive opinion about recommending an acute therapy for a chronic disease state, especially with non-statistically significant results.
I’m not a regulatory guy, so anyone want to explain the GSK reasoning to me?
Theoretically Related Posts
Eben is a highly caffeinated business development associate at a small, cash sensitive pharmaceutical company somewhere in Massachusetts. He enjoys cliche-less banter, compartmentalization, non-equilibrium thermodynamics and NPV analysis. Agree or disagree with what he's posted? He encourages comments.
If one were so inclined, one could follow him at any of these fine web 2.0 establishments:
Feel free to leave a comment below. Eben loves comments. You may also subscribe to comments through this RSS Comments feed or trackback here.
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks
(Trackback URL)
May 30, 2008 at 6:47 pm
[...] few days ago, I scratched my head in amusement over GSK / Ligand’s decision to submit and NDA based ...