Problems Seen in Draft Pressor Effect Guidance

Share

Public Citizen says that an FDA draft guidance on assessment of drugs’ pressor effects “is vague and will thereby fail to effectively identify the cardiovascular risk of drugs that have hypertensive effects.” The advocacy group’s comment letter lists several limitations of the draft and recommends several revisions.

Roche/Genentech say that while they agree with the spirit of the draft with respect to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), they believe that “a risk-based approach would better address the concern of potential drug-induced effects on blood pressure by reserving ABPM investigations ‘for cause’ (e.g., based on mechanism or action, high-risk population, or evidence of a blood pressure effect in early emerging data).” It suggests alternatives for FDA to consider.

In its comment, Novo Nordisk asks the agency to elaborate on use of home blood pressure measurements over three days as an alternative to ABPM. “In general, ABPM is challenging to use,” the company says, “due to expensive equipment, time consuming mounting and de-mounting, data analysis and interpretation, and effects of a patient’s every-day life during the measurement period. Serial in-office, resting cuff measurements during a trial visit or home BP measurements would not be sufficient in a large-scale study, which would be much more feasible for sponsors.”

Finally, Merck says it supports the overall aims of the draft guidance and wants further clarity on issues including the guidance’s scope, preclinical considerations, clinical threshold, study population, study sample size, study timing, and active control.

Read more