1

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH

PEDIATRIC ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE ANTI-INFECTIVE DRUGS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Wednesday, June 9, 2004

8:00 a.m.

ACS Conference Room

Room 1066

5630 Fishers Lane

Rockville, Maryland

2

PARTICIPANTS

Joan P. Chesney, M.D., Chair

Thomas H. Perez, M.P.H., Executive Secretary

CONSULTANTS (VOTING):

Mark Hudak, M.D.

David Danford, M.D.

Richard Gorman, M.D.

Robert Nelson, M.D., Ph.D.

Susan Fuchs, M.D.

Victor Santana, M.D.

Naomi Luban, M.D.

Judith O\'Fallon, Ph.D.

Katherine L. Wisner, M.D.

MEMBER OF THE ANTI-INFECTIVE DRUGS ADVISORY

COMMITTEE (VOTING):

Steve Ebert, Pharm.D., Consumer Representative

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE (VOTING):

Janet Cragan, M.D.

INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE TO ANTI-INFECTIVE DRUGS

ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NON-VOTING):

Sam Maldonado, M.D., industry representative

FDA STAFF:

Solomon Iyasu, M.D.

Susan Cummins, M.D.

Shirley Murphy, M.D.

Dianne Murphy, M.D.

3

C O N T E N T S

Call to Order and Introductions,

Joan P. Chesney, M.D. 5

Meeting Statement, Thomas H. Perez, M.P.H. 7

Welcome, Dianne Murphy, M.D. 10

Adverse Event Reports per Section 17 of Best

Pharmaceutical for Children Act,

Solomon Iyasu, M.D. 15

Fexofenodine, Jane Filie, M.D. 22

Topotecan and Temozolomide, Susan McCune, M.D. 34

Moxifloxacin and Ciprofloxacin,

Harry Gunkel, M.D. 59

Fosinopril, Larry Grylack, M.D. 66

Fentanyl, ShaAvhree Buckman, M.D. 78

David J. Lee, Ph.D. 89

D. Elizabeth McNeil, M.D. 91

Discussion of Question 1 92

Adverse Event Reports per Section 17 of BPCA

(cont.), Venlafaxine, Hari Sachs, M.D. 115

Pediatric Update, Dianne Murphy, M.D. 148

Meeting Statement, Thomas H. Perez, M.P.H. 170

Update on Neonatal Withdrawal Syndrome:

Kathleen Phelan, R.Ph. 174

Robert Levin, M.D. 189

Katherine Wisner, M.D.,

Women\'s Behavioral Health CARE 216

Discussion of Questions 2 and 3 254

Update on Congenital Eye Malformations in Infants,

Solomon Iyasu, M.D. 303

4

C O N T E N T S (Continued)

Open Public Hearing:

Philip Sanford Zeskind, Ph.D., University

of North Carolina 309

Pediatric Research Equity Act,

Shirley Murphy, M.D. 326

Overview of Institute of Medicine Report, \"Ethical

Conduct of Clinical Research Involving

Children,\" Robert Nelson, M.D. 340

5

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 Call to Order, Introductions

3 DR. CHESNEY: Good morning. I think we

4 are ready to get started. I would like to welcome

5 everybody to this meeting which, for those in the

6 room who don\'t know, and Dr. Murphy will elaborate

7 on this, this is the last meeting for this group of

8 the Pediatric Subcommittee as currently

9 constituted. I would like to also mention that Dr.

10 Mimi Glode will not be with us because her father

11 became ill on Sunday and she had to cancel at the

12 last minute.

13 Tom has just told me that traffic is going

14 to become very bad this afternoon because of

15 President Reagan\'s funeral so we want to keep that

16 in mind as we move on throughout the day. So, I

17 think we will start with introductions and, Dr.

18 Maldonado, would you like to start?

19 DR. MALDONADO: Sam Maldonado, from

20 Johnson & Johnson, the industry representative on

21 this committee.

22 DR. FUCHS: Susan Fuchs, pediatric

6

1 emergency medicine physician from Children\'s

2 Memorial Hospital in Chicago.

3 DR. O\'FALLON: Judith O\'Fallon,

4 statistics, retired from the Mayo Clinic.

5 DR. SANTANA: Victor Santana, pediatric

6 hematologist/oncologist from St. Jude\'s Children\'s

7 Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

8 DR. GORMAN: Rich Gorman, pediatric

9 private practice in Ellicott City, Maryland.

10 DR. EBERT: Steve Ebert, pharmacist,

11 infectious diseases, Meriter Hospital and

12 University of Wisconsin, Madison.

13 DR. PEREZ: Tom Perez, executive secretary

14 to this committee meeting.

15 DR. CHESNEY: Joan Chesney, pediatric

16 infectious disease at the University of Tennessee

17 in Memphis, and also St. Jude\'s Children\'s Research

18 Hospital.

19 DR. HUDAK: Mark Hudak, neonatologist,

20 University of Florida, Jacksonville.

21 DR. DANFORD: Dave Danford, pediatric

22 cardiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center,

7

1 Omaha.

2 DR. NELSON: Robert Nelson, pediatric

3 critical care medicine, Children\'s Hospital,

4 Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania.

5 DR. IYASU: Solomon Iyasu, lead medical

6 officer in pediatrics, FDA.

7 DR. CUMMINS: Susan Cummins, lead medical

8 officer, pediatrics, FDA.

9 DR. S. MURPHY: Shirley Murphy, Division

10 Director, Division of Pediatric Drug Development,

11 FDA.

12 DR. D. MURPHY: Dianne Murphy, Office

13 Director, Office of Counter-terrorism and Pediatric

14 Drug Development, in the Office of Pediatric

15 Therapeutics.

16 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Now Tom Perez

17 will read the meeting statement.

18 Meeting Statement

19 DR. PEREZ: Thank you and good morning.

20 The following announcement addresses the issue of

21 conflict of interest with regard to the adverse

22 event reporting session and is made part of the

8

1 record to preclude even the appearance of such at

2 this meeting.

3 Based on the submitted agenda for the

4 meeting and all financial interests reported by the

5 committee participants, it has been determined that

6 all interests in firms regulated by the Center for

7 Drug Evaluation and Research present no potential

8 for an appearance of a conflict of interest at this

9 meeting, with the following exceptions:

10 In accordance with 18 USC 208(b)(3), full

11 waivers have been granted to the following

12 participants, Dr. Richard Gorman for ownership of

13 stock in a company with a product at issue, valued

14 between \$50,001 to \$100,000; Dr. Judith O\'Fallon

15 for her and her sponsor\'s ownership of stock in a

16 company with a product at issue, between \$5,001 and

17 \$25,000; Dr. Katherine Wisner, for her speaker\'s

18 bureau activities for a company with a product at

19 issue for which she receives less than \$10,001 per

20 year; Dr. Patricia Chesney for her spouse\'s

21 ownership of stock in a company with a product at

22 issue, valued from \$5,001 to \$25,000 and unrelated

9

1 consultant earnings less than \$10,001 per year. In

2 addition, Dr. Chesney\'s spouse owns stock in a

3 company with a product at issue, worth less than

4 \$5,001. Because this stock interest falls below

5 the minimis exception allowed under 5 CFR

6 2640.202(b)(2), a waiver under 18 USC 208 is not

7 required. Further, Dr. Chesney is recused from

8 participating from the subcommittee\'s discussion

9 regarding Duragesic due to a conflict of interest.

10 A copy of the waiver statements may be

11 obtained by submitting a written request to the

12 agency\'s Freedom of Information Office, Room 12A-30

13 of the Parklawn Building. In the event that the

14 discussions involve any other products or firms not

15 already on the agenda for which an FDA participant

16 has a financial interest, the participants are

17 aware of the need to exclude themselves from such

18 involvement and their exclusion will be noted for

19 the record.

20 We would also like to note that Dr. Samuel

21 Maldonado has been invited to participate as an

22 industry representative, acting on behalf of

10

1 regulated industry. Dr. Maldonado is employed by

2 Johnson & Johnson. With respect to all other

3 participants, we ask in the interest of fairness

4 that they address any current or previous financial

5 involvement with any firm whose product they may

6 wish to comment upon. Thank you.

7 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Our first

8 speaker for the morning will be Dr. Dianne Murphy,

9 Director of the Counter-terrorism and Pediatric

10 Drug Development Office.

11 Welcome

12 DR. D. MURPHY: And just as you all

13 understand how those two got to be combined, we

14 have come to the end of an era. That was really

15 the substance of my opening comments this morning

16 and I am going to talk more about this later in the

17 day, that this is a milestone.

18 But I wanted to take this morning to focus

19 on the importance of the activity of this committee

20 in the review of the safety or adverse events that

21 occur after a product has been granted exclusivity.

22 It has been clearly legislatively mandated that

11

1 this is going to occur and that task has come to

2 this committee.

3 I wanted to make sure that you all

4 realized how much you have contributed to this

5 process. We have received feedback from you during

6 the time about what was useful and have tried to

7 maintain a course, as we have to, that obeys the

8 legislative intent and, yet, makes it more

9 scientifically interesting within the constraints

10 that we have. I think probably years from now we

11 could come and ask you all what are the problems

12 with the AERS data reporting system. So, you have

13 been mandated to participate in a process in which

14 you were told every meeting that you come here that

15 the limitations are numerous with passive

16 reporting; that when we do get reporting it is

17 either poor or limited in nature; that there is

18 little ability to go back and reconstruct in detail

19 any of that information; and it basically doesn\'t

20 have the same quality as a prospective surveillance

21 or active process. Yet, during this time I think

22 we have evolved a process, again with your feedback

12

1 and assistance, that has allowed us to make it more

2 valuable.

3 I would like to say that I think that what

4 we have been able to identify over the past year or

5 so has been the benefits of this system, and that

6 is that it ensures that attention is focused on

7 what is happening postmarketing to these products

8 that the government initiates and rewards for

9 studies being conducted. As most of you are aware,

10 one of the largest safety databases that occurs

11 with any product is the postmarketing activities.

12 That is where you find your rare serious events.

13 And, this process has been critical for this

14 committee and this has been a very important

15 activity that I do think has focused and ensured

16 that products that are marketed for children are

17 looked at in a studied way, a reliable way, a

18 predictable way, and I think that that is

19 important.

20 Now, why is it important? Because I don\'t

21 know how many times you have sat through these

22 meetings where we said, \"well, here are the

13

1 problems and we didn\'t see anything. Okay?\" But

2 that is good news. We would hope that the majority

3 by far, if not 100 percent of these products that

4 are studied and marketed don\'t have serious hidden

5 adverse events. So, in a say, it is like

6 prophylaxis. We hope we don\'t find major issues.

7 But I think the other thing that this

8 process has done that I wanted you all to know

9 about that was important is that it has the effect

10 on the agency of re-prioritizing pediatric safety

11 assessments. As everyone knows, there are many

12 deadlines the agency has to meet and it is hard

13 often to see the plate for all the things that are

14 on it. But clearly the legislation, your

15 participation and our coming to you says we are

16 having a public meeting and a discussion and it

17 re-prioritizes this activity for the agency, as I

18 said, and ensures that attention occurs.

19 We are going to hear today about some

20 activities that have evolved during this process,

21 some questions that we want to bring to you because

22 of information that, in essence, was moved forward

14

1 a little faster because of this process, not that

2 it was being neglected but because we basically

3 made sure that we facilitated the assessments of

4 some of these products and some of the issues. In

5 the past, as you know, we have had some reviews of

6 the SSRIs and this whole process has been important

7 in helping facilitate moving that activity forward

8 also.

9 I wanted to just thank you for your

10 scientific input, your thoughtfulness and your

11 feedback which we still would like to receive about

12 the process on adverse event reporting, knowing

13 that we have to work within the constraints of the

14 systems that we presently have. With that, I will

15 speak a little more about the contributions of this

16 committee and where we are going in the future

17 later today. Thank you very much.

18 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you, Dr. Murphy. Our

19 second speaker this morning, Dr. Solomon Iyasu, is

20 going to talk to us about adverse event reports,

21 per Section 17 of the Best Pharmaceuticals for

22 Children Act. Dr. Iyasu is a pediatrician, a

15

1 medical epidemiologist who has fellowship training

2 with the EIS of the CDC and residency training in

3 preventive medicine at the CDC. Prior to joining

4 the FDA, just in 2002, he worked for 13 years as a

5 medical epidemiologist at the CDC, in Atlanta,

6 where he led research and programmatic programs in

7 infant health. He also served as the CDC liaison

8 to the Committee on the Fetus and Newborn of the

9 American Academy Pediatrics for many years, and has

10 served on several HHS committees and inter-agency

11 working groups, including the National Children\'s

12 Study. His research papers have involved maternal

13 and child health issues. In his current position

14 at the FDA he serves as a medical team leader in

15 the Division of Pediatric Drug Development and also

16 serves as the lead medical officer for safety in

17 the Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, which has

18 become\--always was but has become a particularly

19 important office in function. Dr. Iyasu?

20 Adverse Event Reports per Section 17 of Best

21 Pharmaceuticals for Children Act

22 DR. IYASU: Thank you very much, Dr.

16

1 Chesney, for that kind introduction. Good morning.

2 In the next few minutes I will provide you

3 with an overview of today\'s agenda. The theme for

4 today is safety, safety of pediatric drugs. A

5 series of presentations will discuss postmarketing

6 reviews of adverse events for drugs that have been

7 granted exclusivity.

8 The review of the post exclusivity adverse

9 events is accomplished through the collaboration

10 with the Office of Drug Safety, Office of Pediatric

11 Therapeutics and Division of Pediatric Drug

12 Development. Therefore, at first I would like to

13 acknowledge the contribution of the staff in the

14 Office of Drug Safety for these reviews.

15 In the morning you will hear adverse event

16 reviews for eight drug products that were granted

17 pediatric exclusivity. These reviews will be

18 presented by medical officers within the Division

19 of Pediatric Drug Development. Several of these

20 presentations are informational while a few discuss

21 important issues, ranging from a lack of

22 age-appropriate pediatric formulations for

17

1 fosinopril to a preventable safety signal

2 associated with the use of fentanyl transdermal

3 system or Duragesic. You will be asked to discuss

4 a question of risk management strategies in

5 relation to fentanyl. The morning will also

6 include a time for open public hearing, followed by

7 a short pediatric update by Dr. Dianne Murphy.

8 We are doing the adverse event review a

9 little differently than before. In addition to the

10 usual format which you are familiar with, we have

11 incorporated some of the clinical trial data

12 available in the public domain into these reviews.

13 You are not going to see this component for all the

14 drugs because the trial data are not yet in the

15 public domain for some of the drug products that we

16 will be discussing.

17 This is a pediatric page on the external

18 FDA website where you will find all the publicly

19 available summaries of medical and clinical

20 pharmacology of these pediatric studies for

21 exclusivity. The process of making these reviews

22 available in the public domain is evolving,

18

1 therefore, some of the reviews that I mentioned

2 before may not be yet available on this website.

3 Nevertheless, I invite you to use it as a resource

4 and urge you to spread the word about this site.

5 In the afternoon we will discuss two

6 pediatric safety issues regarding the use of SSRIs

7 and SNRIs during pregnancy. As you recall, we

8 discussed several case reports of neonatal

9 withdrawal syndrome related to the use of Paxil and

10 Celexa during the meeting of this committee last

11 February. At that time you requested more

12 information on the syndrome and FDA\'s efforts to

13 address it.

14 To address this issue, we have lined up

15 three presentations for you. Kate Phelan, from the

16 Office of Drug Safety, will present the

17 postmarketing adverse event review for this class

18 of drugs. Dr. Bob Levin, from the Division of

19 Neuropharmaceutical Drug Products, will speak on

20 the new class labeling regarding neonatal

21 withdrawal toxicity and its rationale. Dr. Kathy

22 Wisner will address the risk/benefit of treatment

19

1 in child depression, a critical issue for both the

2 practitioner and the patient. At the end of this

3 update you will be asked to discuss two questions.

4 Next, I will present an update on

5 congenital eye malformations, again, as a fallout

6 to the February meeting when we reported a case

7 report about possible congenital eye malformation

8 related to the use of Celexa during pregnancy.

9 This update will review all postmarketing reports

10 of congenital eye malformations for Celexa and some

11 newer anti-depressants.

12 Before we present the specific adverse

13 events, I will briefly review the data sources used

14 in this review and their limitations. The Adverse

15 Event Reporting System is a spontaneous and

16 voluntary system. Because it is a passive system

17 it suffers from a number of limitations, listed

18 here on this slide, that you are already familiar

19 with and we have discussed several times during

20 previous presentations.

21 Again the drug use data source and their

22 limitations have also been presented before and are

20

1 not new to you. IMS National Prescription Audit

2 Plus is used to estimate the number of outpatient

3 prescriptions but lacks demographic information.

4 The National Disease and Therapeutic Index can

5 estimate drug mentions during office-based

6 physician visits but pediatric use estimates can be

7 unstable for less frequently used medications.

8 Another outpatient data source is the IMS

9 National Sales Perspectives which provides

10 estimates of units sold from manufacturers to

11 various channels of distribution and, therefore,

12 may be a possible surrogate measure for drug use.

13 An important limitation of this data source is

14 absence of demographic information such as age and

15 gender.

16 Important drug use data sources and their

17 limitations are well-known to you. To refresh your

18 memory, these are described in this slide and the

19 next slide. The main limitation with all the

20 inpatient data sources, except for Premier, is the

21 inability to make national projections of drug use.

22 However, national estimates from Premier are

21

1 available but are selective. Furthermore, drug use

2 cannot be linked to diagnosis or procedure and drug

3 use in hospital or outpatient clinics is not

4 captured in this data system. Data from CHCA are

5 limited to 29 children hospitals and cannot be

6 projected nationally.

7 This concludes my remarks and now let me

8 turn to the presentations for this morning by

9 introducing the first speaker. But before I do

10 that, I do want to recognize two individuals who

11 have tirelessly worked behind the scenes to make

12 this meeting possible. Please stand up and be

13 recognized, Miss Christine Phucas and Rosemary

14 Addy.

15 \[Applause\]

16 Thank you. Now the next speaker, Dr.

17 Filie is a general pediatrician and pediatric

18 rheumatologist. She conducted research on

19 molecular biology, connective tissue disorders and

20 genetics at NIH for many years before going into

21 private practice. She joined the FDA from private

22 practice about a year ago. She will discuss

22

1 adverse event reports for fexofenodine. Dr. Filie?

2 Fexofenodine

3 DR. FILIE: Good morning, everyone. I

4 will proceed with the adverse event review for

5 fexofenodine during the one-year post-exclusivity

6 period.

7 Fexofenodine, trade name Allegra, is an

8 antihistamine by Aventis Pharmaceuticals. The

9 indications for adults and children are relief of

10 symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis

11 and non-complicated skin manifestations of chronic

12 idiopathic urticaria. It was originally approved

13 in July, 1996 and pediatric exclusivity was granted

14 in January, 2003.

15 In order to fulfill the requirements for

16 exclusivity, 3 pivotal studies were conducted and

17 415 children, 6 months to 6 years of age, were

18 treated for allergic rhinitis. One study was a

19 Phase 1 pharmacokinetic study characterizing the

20 dose for children 6 months to 2 years of age.

21 Another study was a Phase 3 study assessing safety

22 and tolerability in 2 groups, 6 months to 2 years

23

1 of age, weighing under 10.5 kg and weighing over

2 10.5 kg.

3 A previous safety and tolerability study

4 on children 2-6 years of age was also submitted.

5 The adverse events occurred at similar frequencies

6 as for placebo, and no new safety signals were

7 observed.

8 Efficacy studies were not conducted due to

9 the fact that the disease course and

10 pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis and chronic

11 idiopathic urticaria, as well as the drug\'s effect,

12 are similar in children and adult patients. The

13 studies conducted on children 6 months to 6 years

14 of age utilized fexofenodine powder mixed with

15 apple sauce or rice cereal. There is no marketable

16 age-appropriate formulation for children 6 months

17 to 6 years of age.

18 Drug use trends for

19 fexofenodine\--currently, fexofenodine is the

20 leading prescription for non-sedating antihistamine

21 on the market since loratadine became

22 over-the-counter in 2002. The total number of

24

1 fexofenodine product dispensed increased from

2 approximately 20.9 million in 2000 to 29.6 million

3 in 2003. Pediatric patients accounted for

4 approximately 2.5 million prescriptions of

5 fexofenodine dispensed in 2003. The most common

6 diagnoses associated with the use in pediatric

7 patients in 2003 were allergic rhinitis and

8 allergic disorder.

9 The adverse events from pediatric clinical

10 trials that I just presented are as follows:

11 Headache, accidental injury, cough, fever, pain,

12 otitis media and upper respiratory infection, and

13 least common, insomnia, nervousness, sleep

14 disorders, rashes, urticaria, pruritus and

15 hypersensitivity reactions.

16 During the exclusivity period the total

17 adverse event reports from the AERS database was

18 158, 84 of them in the United States. Among the

19 158 reports there were 8 unduplicated pediatric

20 reports which included 2 with serious outcomes, 1

21 hospitalization and 1 life-threatening event.

22 There were no pediatric deaths.

25

1 In the 8 pediatric case reports the

2 following unlabeled pediatric adverse events were

3 reported, psychosis exacerbation with suicidal

4 ideation and depression; seizure, visual

5 disturbances; abnormal liver function; fungal

6 urinary tract infection; non-accidental overdose of

7 multiple drugs and prolonged QT, prematurity,

8 maternal experience and medication error.

9 I would like to present you with a

10 synopsis of individual reports. A 15 year-old with

11 schizoaffective disorder and ADD, on multiple

12 medications, experienced exacerbation of psychosis,

13 suicidal ideation and depression which resolved

14 after discontinuation of fexofenodine.

15 A 13 year-old child presented with grand

16 mal seizures. The patient was also on multiple

17 medications and one of them was bupropion which has

18 a warning about the potential to cause seizures.

19 A 7 year-old presented transient loss of

20 color vision and visual disturbances such as black

21 dots and bubbles. It also resolved after

22 discontinuation of the drug in a few days.

26

1 A 10 year-old patient developed a

2 bacterial UTI and abnormal liver function tests

3 after receiving fexofenodine for one week. The

4 child was on concomitant medications and one of

5 them was labeled for hepatic function impairment.

6 We do not have the name of the drug on the report.

7 The child recovered after discontinuation of

8 fexofenodine.

9 A 16 year-old who developed a fungal UTI

10 and pyelonephritis was hospitalized. This patient

11 was also on multiple medications for depression and

12 gastritis.

13 A 13 year-old had an intentional overdose

14 of fexofenodine, acetaminophen, metoclopramide and

15 tramadol. QT prolongation was observed in the

16 emergency room which normalized the following day.

17 The last two cases\--a 27-week old

18 premature baby, small for gestational age, was born

19 by C-section due to pre-eclampsia. There was a

20 history of abnormal alpha-1 fetoprotein. The

21 mother was on concomitant medications.

22 The last case\--a prescription refill was

27

1 mistakenly filled with Zyrtec-D instead of

2 Allegra-D, but no adverse event was reported.

3 Concluding the report, despite the large

4 number of fexofenodine prescriptions, there were

5 few pediatric adverse event reports during the

6 one-year post-pediatric exclusivity period. It is

7 also very difficult to make any attributions of the

8 adverse events of the drug when there are

9 concomitant medications in the reports. In this

10 case, the FDA will continue to monitor the adverse

11 event reports in all populations. Any questions or

12 comments?

13 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Santana?

14 DR. SANTANA: Do you know if there are any

15 similar adult reports with the use of this

16 medication and concomitant anti-psychotic

17 medications in adults?

18 DR. FILIE: I don\'t know that I can

19 respond to that adequately. From the information

20 that we have on the label, the adverse events are

21 very similar in both populations. They resemble

22 pretty much the two groups.

28

1 DR. S. MURPHY: Pete Stark I think is here

2 from the Division. Do you have any comments about

3 adult report?

4 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. O\'Fallon?

5 DR. O\'FALLON: It seems to me that the way

6 you keep your data may help you to find things.

7 So, I am wondering when you have these reports, are

8 you keeping track of the various concomitant

9 medications so that you could be looking for trends

10 developing that may be subtle, that there may be

11 interactions, or something?

12 DR. FILIE: Yes. The hope is to

13 accumulate this data over a long time.

14 DR. O\'FALLON: Yes, but I mean in a way so

15 that you are able to go back, search and find those

16 combos? I am asking about how the data is being

17 collected so that you are going to be able to

18 search on it.

19 DR. FILIE: Yes, it is possible and we are

20 doing that collecting and the Office of Drug Safety

21 is also involved in this. This is something that

22 has accumulated and we can keep all this data

29

1 without losing it.

2 DR. O\'FALLON: But in a computer file that

3 you can search?

4 DR. FILIE: I don\'t know.

5 DR. IYASU: Let me respond to this. The

6 AERS database has been in existence for a long time

7 and the database is searchable both by high risk

8 event terms as well as by the drug name or the

9 trade name. So, it is searchable by a number of

10 parameters and there is an accumulated database

11 which resides at FDA so you can look at one year or

12 you can look at several years since the first time

13 a report comes into existence for a particular

14 product. Once there is approval, there are going

15 to be postmarketing reports that come in. So,

16 there is a way to look at that. But there isn\'t a

17 whole lot of information to try to look at multiple

18 permutations of different confounders or looking up

19 interactions. It is a limited database in that

20 way.

21 DR. D. MURPHY: I did want to respond that

22 in your package it does tell you that fexofenodine

30

1 has been looked at with the co-administration of

2 acetyl console and erythromycin, the sip

3 interactions. So, what the agency does is where we

4 know that a metabolism uses a certain sip enzyme

5 that will cause increases or decreases, they will

6 frequently look at that interaction but they can\'t

7 look at all of them. That often is actually a

8 negotiated activity as to how many of them they do

9 look at, and whether there are ones that are more

10 likely to give serious adverse events by the normal

11 drugs that might be used with this specific

12 disease. So, you could see that with an allergic

13 indication you might think that antibiotics would

14 be one of the set of drugs that they would look at.

15 So, I just wanted to put on the table that

16 prospectively the agency will sometimes ask,

17 knowing what the metabolism is, for these

18 interactions. But, you can imagine that the list

19 could get endless so the agency does not do all

20 possible combinations. Certainly, I think from

21 allergic rhinitis to antidepressants\--I mean,

22 unless you had a mechanistic reason for doing that,

31

1 you wouldn\'t up front do it. Your question, I

2 realize, was looking at statistical analysis post

3 but up front there is a certain amount of activity

4 in that area.

5 DR. O\'FALLON: It seems to me that since

6 you only have a handful of reports it might be

7 worth it, that when you see something showing up

8 you would say they took drug A, drug B, drug C,

9 let\'s look and see if we have any reports in the

10 database, especially in the adults or something, to

11 see if you are seeing if that has been reported

12 before.

13 DR. D. MURPHY: As noted, ODS has the

14 database and it will have that information in it.

15 So, you could go back and plug in certain drug

16 names. I think, as always, the caveat is that

17 there are those who didn\'t enter that and were on

18 it so there is always that question of what does it

19 mean when you do it. But, you are right, if you

20 kept seeing that pattern, then it would be

21 something you might wish to pursue further and ask

22 for some additional studies.

32

1 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Gorman?

2 DR. GORMAN: This is mainly for

3 clarification from my reading of the labeling. On

4 page 7 of the label for this product there is a bar

5 on the side and I wanted to know whether this was

6 edited out of the label or is the present labeling

7 wording which says that the safety and

8 effectiveness of fexofenodine in pediatric patients

9 under 6 years of age has not been established. Is

10 that in the label now or out of the label?

11 DR. D. MURPHY: It is not labeled under 6.

12 Is that right?

13 DR. GORMAN: It is a question of the bar

14 because it comes up several times later on in

15 labeling.

16 DR. D. MURPHY: Right, right. We will

17 verify this but I think the point was that because

18 there was no formulation that was available, it is

19 not labeled under 6.

20 DR. GORMAN: I think one of the issues

21 that was raised at the last meeting, and I would

22 like to have it reemphasized again is that there is

33

1 now data. When we started this process two decades

2 ago, that statement meant that there were no

3 studies. Now it means there may well be studies

4 but it is not included in the label. I noticed in

5 the executive summary, which will be available on

6 the web-based FDA data, that there is information

7 about its use in children less than 6 months of

8 age.

9 DR. D. MURPHY: I think you referred to

10 the clinical pharmacology and biopharm study.

11 Unfortunately, it doesn\'t have a page number but it

12 is after the label. It does say in there that no

13 labeling changes for pediatric indication or dosing

14 for children less than 6 years old will be made at

15 this time because there are no age-appropriate

16 formulations for fexofenodine for these children,

17 and your point being that it was studied. And,

18 that is not going to be put in the label and I

19 think that is an issue.

20 DR. GORMAN: That is the issue I wanted to

21 raise and it will now be raised by others for the

22 rest of the meeting.

34

1 DR. CUMMINS: Can I just provide one point

2 of clarification? The labels that we provide to

3 you are ones that are publicly available and are

4 the most recent labels. Often the strikeouts are

5 still present. We download them from the labels

6 that are posted on the web often\--you know, that we

7 post on the FDA website. If you see a strikeout,

8 as you see on page 7, then that strikeout will be

9 removed in the published label by the company.

10 DR. GORMAN: Thank you.

11 DR. CUMMINS: You are welcome.

12 DR. FILIE: Given there are no further

13 comments or questions, let me introduce the next

14 speaker, Dr. Susan McCune. Dr. McCune is a

15 neonatologist whose previous experience includes

16 academic neonatal practice at Johns Hopkins and

17 Children\'s National Medical Center. She recently

18 received her masters degree in education and has

19 worked on computer-based education models for

20 pediatrics. She will discuss two oncology

21 products, topotecan and temozolomide. Dr. McCune.

22 Topotecan and Temozolomide

35

1 DR. MCCUNE: Thank you very much, Dr.

2 Filie. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee and

3 guests, Drs. Murphy told me to try to keep things a

4 little bit light to keep you all awake and my Irish

5 ancestry would allow me to tell shaggy dog stories

6 but, unfortunately, I don\'t do very good jokes so I

7 think we will just move along.

8 As Dr. Filie mentioned, I will talk about

9 two oncologic agents this morning. The first is

10 topotecan. Topotecan, trade name Hycamtin, is an

11 anti-tumor oncologic agent produced by

12 GlaxoSmithKline. The indication in adults is

13 metastatic carcinoma of the ovary after failure of

14 initial or subsequent chemotherapy and small cell

15 cancer sensitive disease after failure of

16 first-line chemotherapy. There are no approved

17 pediatric indications. The original market

18 approval was May 28, 1996 and the pediatric

19 exclusivity was granted on November 20, 2002.

20 I am going to tell you about the studies

21 for exclusivity for this drug. As you all

22 mentioned, in terms of data that is available for

36

1 the label, these studies were done based on what

2 Dr. Iyasu told you already. BPCA mandates that

3 this information be available on the website and

4 this information is available on the website,

5 however, there were no changes to this label based

6 on this information.

7 The studies that were submitted for

8 exclusivity were summaries of studies that were

9 previously performed by the Pediatric Oncology

10 Group. They were initiated in 1992 and 1993. This

11 was a Phase 2 study in pediatric solid tumor that

12 enrolled 108 patients that were less than 16 years

13 of age. The tumor types were Ewing\'s sarcoma,

14 peripheral neuroectodermal tumor, neuroblastoma,

15 osteoblastoma and rhabdomyosarcoma. The study

16 endpoint was tumor response rate. Eighty-six

17 percent of patients died, with 10 percent dying

18 within 30 days of the last dose of topotecan. The

19 overall response rate was 8 percent but the

20 response rate for patients with neuroblastoma was

21 18 percent. Of note, it is important to know that

22 for alternative regimens using combinations of

37

1 available drugs in pediatric patients with relapse

2 neuroblastoma the response rates were 35-50

3 percent. In this case, no patients less than 2

4 years of age showed any response.

5 Eight of the 11 patients that died within

6 30 days of the last dose of topotecan had

7 progressive disease and 3 died with infection which

8 is a known complication. Forty-four percent of

9 patients were hospitalized with adverse events,

10 primarily febrile neutropenia, fever or sepsis.

11 The Phase 2 study did determine a

12 different dose from adults, a daily infusion for 5

13 consecutive days every 21 days. The adult dose is

14 1.5 mg/m 2/day and the

pediatric dose that was given

15 was either 1.4 mg/m

2/day without granulocyte-colony

16 stimulating factor or 2 mg/m

2/day with

17 granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.

18 In terms of drug use trends in topotecan

19 in the inpatient setting, between July, 2001 and

20 June, 2003 there were 10.6 percent of discharges.

21 Just to give you a rough idea, compared to the last

22 drug which had a number of prescriptions, this was

38

1 only 425 of 4,001. Pediatric topotecan did

2 increase annually in that time period, from 6.8 to

3 18.6 percent. It accounted for 407 discharges from

4 29 CHCA free-standing pediatric hospitals, with the

5 most frequent diagnosis being chemotherapy

6 encounter followed by malignant neoplasm of the

7 adrenal gland. A significant limitation, as we

8 have already discussed, of the analysis is that the

9 FDA does not currently access data capture in the

10 outpatient hospital clinic setting where most

11 chemotherapy is administered.

12 Now I am going to tell you about the

13 adverse event reports for topotecan for the

14 one-year post-exclusivity period. There were 29

15 total reports for all ages, 18 in the United

16 States. There were no pediatric reports that were

17 submitted during this time. Of note, in the 7-year

18 period from 1996 there were some unlabeled

19 pediatric reports, none of them during that 1-year

20 post-exclusivity period. There were 4 reports of

21 convulsion, hypotension, edema and speech

22 disorder, and 3 reports each of arachnoiditis,

39

1 ascites, Budd Chiari syndrome, caecitis and

2 confusional state.

3 In summary, the FDA will continue its

4 routine monitoring of the adverse events in all

5 populations. I will stop here and take any

6 questions on this particular drug.

7 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Santana?

8 DR. SANTANA: I think I have made this

9 point before and I will try to reinitiate it again.

10 In contrast to some of the other drugs that we have

11 in front of us, the oncology drugs are usually used

12 in the setting of clinical research. They are not

13 used in the setting of common practice. So, there

14 is a wealth of data from protocols either initiated

15 by the historically previous oncology groups or the

16 current Children\'s Oncology Group and certainly by

17 other large institutions like St. Jude\'s that do

18 research in these drugs. How is that data captured

19 and reflected in these reports? Because there is a

20 wealth of adverse event data that is generated

21 through that clinical research that will not show

22 up through these voluntary reporting mechanisms but

40

1 will show up in the databases of the clinical

2 research infrastructure.

3 DR. MCCUNE: A lot of the reports that we

4 get for these particular drugs are actually from

5 study reports. In terms of the studies that were

6 done for exclusivity for this drug, they actually

7 were, as you mentioned, part of the research

8 protocols so they were independent studies

9 conducted by the company.

10 DR. SANTANA: But I guess the point is

11 that that is true but there is a lot more usage of

12 this drug now, as you indicated in your brief

13 summary of the trends of usage of this drug in

14 pediatric oncology. How is that data eventually

15 going to make it into the adverse event reporting?

16 Because it is not really part of the exclusivity

17 because those studies have not been submitted for

18 exclusivity. Am I correct?

19 DR. MCCUNE: That is correct.

20 DR. SANTANA: These are studies that are

21 ongoing.

22 DR. MCCUNE: That is correct. This is the

41

1 one-year post-exclusivity period.

2 DR. SANTANA: How will that data show up

3 in the current study?

4 DR. S. MURPHY: It would have to come

5 through the AERS. It would have to be submitted to

6 AERS for us to have that information. Dr.

7 Maldonado may want to comment, but the companies

8 have to report any adverse events to the FDA. So,

9 the companies, you know, keep very close tabs on

10 the medications, especially the medications that

11 are in trials that are using their drugs. So,

12 there is a sort of cross-reference thing. Then, it

13 is even global with the pharmaceutical companies

14 and with the international organizations with the

15 FDA. So, I think it is a very good question. I

16 think Don Mattison might want to make a comment,

17 from NIH.

18 DR. MATTISON: Just a brief comment. We

19 are currently working with NCI and COG to develop

20 full access to their databases and that information

21 will be shared with FDA.

22 DR. D. MURPHY: Dr. Santana, I think if

42

1 you look at what is in the label now, it just says

2 that the effectiveness in children has not been

3 demonstrated. Then it goes ahead and it does

4 describe the studies. As you know, for cancer this

5 has been a real issue because of the reasons you

6 have stated. The label is marketing approval and

7 if it is not approved for that indication, you

8 know, the agency is in this quandary of how do you

9 make information available when you don\'t want to

10 give a de facto indication that doesn\'t exist? So,

11 that is the tension here. Depending on the

12 product, depending on what comes out of the

13 exclusivity studies if we don\'t have sufficient

14 evidence to say it is efficacy and, as you know,

15 and I don\'t want to say this over and over again,

16 but these studies are not powered to do that. So,

17 how do we make that information available has been

18 difficult.

19 I think what they have done here is that

20 they have been able to put into\--by saying it has

21 not been demonstrated, first, and saying yet we

22 looked and here is what we found in a very limited

43

1 way, and then having some adverse event reporting

2 that came out. Now, does it happen for every

3 product, every time? Not always because it may be

4 that there were other issues with the studies and

5 then what you may end up with in the label if there

6 is a particular safety thing, they would say it was

7 studied in so many kids; it wasn\'t effective or we

8 couldn\'t determine effectiveness but we are going

9 to tell you about these adverse events. So, that

10 can happen. The adverse events in those studies

11 could be put into the label if it is a safety

12 issue.

13 DR. SANTANA: I guess what I am getting at

14 is that the information that is derived from

15 granting exclusivity is for the studies that the

16 sponsor has put forth to reach that point.

17 DR. D. MURPHY: Right; that is correct.

18 DR. SANTANA: But there is another wealth

19 of data that is being generated. As I understand

20 it, unless it is throught the sponsor or through

21 some other mechanism that data becomes available to

22 the FDA it is not part of the information that we

44

1 have in front of us today or in the future.

2 DR. D. MURPHY: Well, it is required to be

3 reported to the FDA. It is required to be reported

4 and if the agency sees a signal, then there is a

5 re-review of the data and a determination if that

6 additional information needs to be entered into the

7 label. I would say that if a researcher had access

8 to data that they were concerned about and saw that

9 it wasn\'t in the label, it is perfectly appropriate

10 to ask\--you know, again, it is a requirement.

11 Companies get into big trouble if they have adverse

12 events that they don\'t report to us.

13 The other issue\--I am not saying it

14 happens, but if somehow you thought something

15 wasn\'t getting reported, it is perfectly

16 appropriate to call the agency and say I am aware

17 of this; make sure you got those reports.

18 DR. SANTANA: I want to make it clear for

19 the public record that I am not raising issues with

20 this drug or the next oncology drug. I am trying

21 to understand the process. I just want to make

22 that clear.

45

1 DR. D. MURPHY: Yes, and we want to make

2 it clear that it is part of companies\' standard

3 reporting activity. Sam, maybe you could say

4 something about the routine things that go on in

5 reporting both during a trial and after a product

6 is marketed.

7 DR. MALDONADO: Both of you are completely

8 right. Companies are not going to get in trouble

9 by not reporting. That is very enforceable. A lot

10 of not reported events happen when physicians don\'t

11 report to companies. So, that is where the problem

12 is; it is the education. We are not only talking

13 about sending in the reports, but sending them

14 within 15 days of occurrence. Most of the

15 non-reporting happens because of lack of education

16 from clinicians. In clinical trials it happens

17 much less, or probably very, very close to zero

18 because there is monitoring by the company. Actual

19 people go there and make sure they are doing it.

20 Outside clinical trials it is more difficult

21 because you cannot police physicians so it is up to

22 them to report. But once it is reported to the

46

1 companies, it is reported to the FDA and the FDA,

2 of course, can always come to a company and check

3 if we are doing it and actually FDA does that.

4 DR. D. MURPHY: I think what Sam has said

5 is really important. If a physician sees an

6 adverse event on a product, particularly if you put

7 them on a product, take them off and put them back

8 on\--you know, if you have evidence, but even if you

9 don\'t, if you put a child on a product and you have

10 some serious event and you are not sure whether it

11 is related or not, you don\'t have to make

12 attribution. This is one of the problems I think

13 physicians don\'t understand. You don\'t have to

14 determine individually that this product caused

15 this adverse event. If physicians would, please,

16 make it part of their public health rule to report

17 adverse events that they think are serious to the

18 agency and to the company, I mean, that is a double

19 way\--or either way, you know, whichever way you

20 know how to get that information in. It will get

21 to us if it gets to the company or it can come to

22 us directly. So, I would like to keep adding that

47

1 commercial. It is a very important part of

2 activity. I have been out there; I have practiced

3 medicine and I know I haven\'t done it when I should

4 have. So, it is just a plea that we keep putting

5 that out there because you can see how important it

6 can become.

7 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. O\'Fallon?

8 DR. O\'FALLON: There is one other issue

9 that is a possible problem. I don\'t know these

10 particular studies that COG is doing but if they,

11 indeed, have closed patient accrual before the

12 exclusivity period it is entirely possible that the

13 acute toxicities wouldn\'t be available at this

14 time. You know, not all the data in these clinical

15 trials gets reported out until the final study is

16 done. I mean, the company had to know about it

17 ahead of time, but during this exclusivity period

18 there maybe weren\'t any from those trials.

19 DR. D. MURPHY: I think that brings up the

20 other issue just of any follow-up post-trial. As

21 you know, there was a legislative mandate also to

22 put the 1-800 MedWatch number on labels and that

48

1 process is proceeding. I don\'t have any idea when

2 actually you will see it but it is continuing to

3 move forward.

4 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Ebert?

5 DR. EBERT: Just a follow-up to that, is

6 it feasible or even reasonable with these drugs

7 that are specifically under exclusivity for the FDA

8 to make pediatricians more aware of the fact that

9 they are under this particular scrutiny? And,

10 would it heighten their level of interest with

11 regards to reporting adverse events?

12 DR. D. MURPHY: Joan has a suggestion for

13 you later today I think about maybe one way of

14 doing it. We have been trying to do that in a

15 number of ways by working with the American Academy

16 of Pediatrics newsletter that goes out and doing

17 annual updates of changes in the label, talking

18 about exclusivity, but I think you bring up a good

19 point\--have we really made an issue in that

20 reporting about changes in label about reporting

21 adverse events? No. And, that is a good point and

22 we will take that back and pursue that as an

49

1 additional piece of information we should try to

2 get out to pediatricians, family practice, people

3 who are taking care of children. We are working

4 with the Academy on the CME activity so that we can

5 put in some case studies that might bring that up.

6 DR. S. MURPHY: Joan, just one more point,

7 there are really two ways of reporting adverse

8 events. One is to the FDA and the other is to the

9 companies. The larger pharmaceutical companies

10 have these 1-800 numbers and if you call and you

11 say you have an adverse event, you are immediately

12 put in touch with the Pharm.D. who has a whole

13 scheme of questions to ask you right away. All

14 those reports, like Sam said, do go back to the FDA

15 and the seriousness of the report triggers certain

16 times to report it. Having been on the other side

17 in a pharmaceutical company, I was in charge of a

18 drug that had a lot of adverse reactions and we

19 were constantly reviewing all the cases that came

20 in. The company will often send somebody out to

21 the hospital to look at the records and make sure

22 of the accuracy of the reporting. So, it is taken

50

1 incredibly seriously on both sides.

2 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. We can move on

3 to the next speaker.

4 DR. MCCUNE: Actually, I am doing the next

5 drug. You get to listen to me again. The next

6 drug I am going to talk about is temozolomide. The

7 trade name for this is Temodar. Once again, this

8 is an oncologic agent produced by Schering Plough

9 Research Institute. The indication in adults is

10 that the capsules are indicated for the treatment

11 of adult patients with refractory anaplastic

12 astrocytoma, in other words, patients at first

13 relapse who have experienced disease progression on

14 a drug regimen containing a nitrosourea and

15 procarbazine. In pediatrics there are no approved

16 pediatric indications. The original market

17 approval was August 11, 1999; the pediatric

18 exclusivity was granted November 20, 2002.

19 Once again, I am going to tell you about

20 the studies for exclusivity. These are available

21 on the website. In addition, for this particular

22 label safety information is included in the

51

1 pediatric section of the precautions part of the

2 label and it does include a description of the

3 clinical studies that were completed.

4 The studies that were submitted for

5 exclusivity were one Phase 1 and two Phase 2

6 open-label, multicenter studies. The Phase 1 study

7 was dose escalation in 27 patients with advanced

8 non-CNS and CNS cancers. The first Phase 2 study

9 was in 63 patients with recurrent brain stem glioma

10 and high grade astrocytoma. The second Phase 2

11 study, a cooperative group-sponsored study, was in

12 122 patients with various recurrent CNS tumors.

13 The patients ranged in age from 1 to 23 years of

14 age, with the majority of patients between 3 and 17

15 years of age.

16 The primary endpoint for these studies was

17 tumor response rate. In the first Phase 2 study

18 there was 1 complete response and 3 partial

19 responses among 27 patients. In the second study

20 there were no complete responses or partial

21 responses in the brain stem glioma patients and no

22 complete response and 12 percent partial responses

52

1 in the high grade astrocytoma patients. In the

2 third study the overall response rate, combined

3 complete response and partial response rate, was 5

4 percent. Only 1 patient achieved complete response

5 and 5 patients had partial responses.

6 Safety was assessed in 204 patients at

7 doses of 100-200 mg/m

2/day daily for 5 days every

8 28 days. The toxicity profile that was seen was

9 similar to adults. The most common adverse events

10 that were reported were dizziness, neuropathy,

11 paresthesia, nausea/vomiting, constipation and

12 myelosuppression.

13 Just to give you an idea of the drug use

14 trends in the outpatient setting for temozolomide,

15 the number of prescriptions dispensed has nearly

16 doubled over the past 3 years from 50,000 in 2001

17 to 93,000 in 2003, with the top prescribers, as you

18 can imagine, being oncology/neoplastic, neurology

19 and hematology. Of note, only 1 percent of

20 temozolomide prescriptions were written by

21 pediatricians.

22 The pediatric population of 1-16 years of

53

1 age accounted for a small number of temozolomide

2 prescriptions, 3.1 percent in 2002 and 3.9 percent

3 in 2003, with the most frequent diagnosis being

4 malignant neoplasm of the brain both in adults and

5 pediatric patients.

6 In terms of outpatient sales, they have

7 been on the rise, from 1.8 million capsules to 2.2

8 million capsules in the last 2 years, with the

9 majority of sales through retail channels, 80

10 percent of them going to chain and independent

11 pharmacies and other retail channels.

12 CHCA data demonstrated from 2002 to June,

13 2003 that there were only 17 pediatric discharges

14 associated with this drug.

15 The limitations to drug use data in the

16 outpatient setting for these drugs are important to

17 note because we don\'t have sources that

18 specifically examine outpatient hospital clinics

19 where chemotherapy treatments are provided. What

20 is important to note though is that the retail

21 sales do capture a number of those sources and it

22 is felt that most of the use of this drug is

54

1 captured through assessment of outpatient use.

2 In terms of adverse event reporting for

3 the post-exclusivity period from November, 2002 to

4 December, 2003 there were 250 reports in all ages,

5 160 of them in the United States. There were 5

6 unduplicated pediatric reports, 2 of them in the

7 United States, all with serious outcomes and 1

8 death. There were 4 females and 1 male. Three of

9 the patients were aged 2-5 years; 2 of the patients

10 6-11 years. There was one patient each for the

11 diagnoses of blastoma, adrenal metastatic

12 neuroblastoma, anaplastic astrocytoma,

13 medulloblastoma and brain stem tumor.

14 The clinically significant unlabeled

15 adverse events could be divided into 5 groups. One

16 was brain edema; 1 was death. Another, hemangioma

17 acquired; another ITP and another myelodysplastic

18 syndrome. All of these, although not specifically

19 delineated in the label, are potentially related to

20 either a labeled process or the underlying disease

21 state.

22 Just to take each one of these

55

1 individually, brain edema in the patient was

2 associated with concomitant radiation therapy. The

3 death was potentially due to the underlying

4 condition. The acquired hemangioma was potentially

5 related to either the underlying condition, the

6 concomitant medication or the radiation therapy.

7 The ITP was a potentially labeled event or

8 secondary to the underlying condition. The

9 myelodysplastic syndrome was also a potentially

10 labeled event or secondary to the underlying

11 condition.

12 Just to give you a brief synopsis of these

13 5 cases, the first was a 3 year-old that was

14 treated for pineal blastoma who died of an

15 unspecified cause.

16 The second was a 6 year-old who was

17 treated for recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma, was

18 on concomitant medications including radiation

19 therapy, and following temozolomide use, a

20 cavernous hemangioma was noted on MRI. Of note, it

21 was not previously seen on prior MRIs. Following

22 temozolomide treatment, this patient also had

56

1 thrombocytopenia requiring transfusions and was

2 diagnosed with ITP and myelodysplastic syndrome.

3 This patient was discharged with an improved

4 clinical status 18 days after admission.

5 The third case is a 4 year-old treated for

6 medulloblastoma who suffered an infection and there

7 was no outcome of the event that was documented.

8 The fourth case is a 4 year-old treated

9 for metastatic neuroblastoma who developed

10 thrombocytopenia, anemia and fever which were

11 managed with transfusions and antibiotics. She

12 recovered without sequelae and was given a second

13 cycle of temozolomide without recurrence.

14 The final case is an 8 year-old who was

15 treated for brain stem tumor. Routine MRI revealed

16 radiation-induced cerebellum edema requiring

17 hospitalization for intracranial drainage. This

18 patient was subsequently discharged in stable

19 condition.

20 In summary, for temozolomide there have

21 been described both labeled and unlabeled adverse

22 events. The unlabeled events have also been

57

1 reported in adults and are not unique to

2 pediatrics, and the FDA will continue to do routine

3 monitoring of adverse events in all of the

4 populations.

5 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you very much. I just

6 wanted to bring to the committee\'s attention the

7 fact that at 9:30, although we are getting

8 significantly behind with the very full agenda, the

9 FDA has asked us to address question one, which is

10 at the back of the packet that we were given today

11 with the agenda on it, which involves process

12 issues. So, I think unless you have specific

13 questions related to this drug, if they are process

14 issues, we will have an hour to discuss that later

15 on. So, does anybody have specific comments

16 regarding this drug? Shirley?

17 DR. S. MURPHY: Dr. Chesney, Dr. Starke

18 from the Pulmonary Division has some late-breaking

19 information on the first drug that we discussed.

20 He was just going to tell us a follow-up on a

21 question that the committee had, what the bar was

22 beside the label.

58

1 DR. STARKE: I am Dr. Starke, from

2 Pulmonary and Allergy Division. I am a medical

3 team leader. I went upstairs and double-checked

4 the label for you since there was a cross-out

5 there. That was simply something that was caught

6 as the final label was approved. The current

7 labeling does say for 6 months and older.

8 I just want to make the comment that even

9 though the studies were done down to 6 months of

10 age and, as you know, certain other antihistamines

11 may be approved down to 2 for SAR and 6 months for

12 PAR, this drug was not approved below age 6 because

13 there was no marketed formulation. A

14 non-marketable formulation was used which, of

15 course, is an issue which you may want to address.

16 Thank you.

17 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. If there are no

18 additional questions on your presentation, which I

19 thank you for, I think we can move on to the next

20 speaker.

21 DR. MCCUNE: It is my privilege to

22 introduce Dr. Harry Gunkel to you. He is the only

59

1 person standing between me and the privilege of

2 saying that I am the most junior member of the

3 Pediatric Drug Development Office. Like me, he is

4 a neonatologist who has extensive experience in

5 private practice, the pharmaceutical industry and

6 academic medicine. Many of you may know him for

7 his significant work on surfactant. He is going to

8 talk to you today about two ophthalmologic

9 anti-infective agents.

10 Moxifloxacin and Ciprofloxacin

11 DR. GUNKEL: Thank you, Susie. Hello. As

12 Susie said, the next two products on the list are

13 both ophthalmic antibacterials, both

14 fluoroquinolones. The first is ciprofloxacin,

15 known under the trade name Ciloxan and sponsored by

16 Alcon Laboratories. It is indicated in adults and

17 children greater than 1 year of age in a solution

18 dosage form, and adults and children greater than 2

19 years of age in the ointment dosage form for the

20 treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis caused by the

21 organisms shown on the slide. The solution form is

22 also indicated for corneal ulcer. The original

60

1 market approval was in 1990 and pediatric

2 exclusivity was granted in January, 03.

3 Drug use data shows that dispensed

4 prescriptions for Ciloxan decreased slightly over

5 the period of exclusivity. Almost half of the

6 prescriptions for this drug were for children

7 between 1 and 16 years of age, and pediatricians

8 wrote about a third of the prescriptions during the

9 exclusivity period.

10 The most common indication for the

11 prescription was conjunctivitis, other or

12 unspecified, and Ciloxan was the most mentioned

13 product for this indication in pediatric patients.

14 During the exclusivity period there were 9

15 total reports for all ages; 3 were from the U.S.

16 The age was not specified for 2 of the 9 reports.

17 There were no pediatric reports. We will continue

18 to monitor the adverse event reports, of course.

19 The next drug is moxifloxacin, also

20 sponsored by Alcon Laboratories, also an ophthalmic

21 antibacterial drug. It is indicated for adults and

22 children 1 year of age or greater for the treatment

61

1 of bacterial conjunctivitis caused by a number of

2 susceptible organisms, aerobic gram negative and

3 gram positive organisms. The market approval for

4 this product was April of \'03, less than a year

5 ago. So, that will become pertinent when we look

6 at the data in just a moment. Exclusivity was

7 granted before market approval, in January of \'03.

8 Since approval didn\'t occur until April of

9 last year, the drug use and adverse event data

10 cover less than a 1-year period, unlike the other

11 products you are reviewing today. About 800,000

12 prescriptions were dispensed since approval in

13 April, \'03. About a quarter of the prescriptions

14 were for pediatric patients. Ophthalmologists

15 wrote most of the prescriptions for this agent,

16 just over half of the prescriptions, followed by

17 pediatricians who wrote about a quarter of them.

18 The most common indication, as for ciprofloxacin,

19 was for conjunctivitis, other or unspecified and

20 Vigamox, the trade name of the product, accounted

21 for 4.6 percent of the mentions for children.

22 There was 1 report in the exclusivity

62

1 period and it was a pediatric report. It was an

2 incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage in a 6.5

3 year-old female that occurred 24 hours after the

4 use of Vigamox. The child was also using

5 Augmentin. The child recovered after

6 discontinuation of the drug and this event,

7 subconjunctival hemorrhage, is a labeled adverse

8 event occurring in 1-6 percent of patients. We

9 will continue to monitor this product as well, of

10 course.

11 One study was done for the exclusivity and

12 it actually involved both products. It was a

13 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel

14 group comparison of moxifloxacin and ciprofloxacin

15 in neonates, with the endpoints of clinical cure at

16 day 5 and the microbial eradication rate.

17 From the data that is available in the

18 public domain, these are the results. The rates of

19 clinical cure are shown for both the agents. These

20 rates are less than the generally expected vehicle

21 rate, and the difference between the two was not

22 significant. Thank you.

63

1 DR. CHESNEY: I have two questions. What

2 do you mean by expected vehicle rate?

3 DR. GUNKEL: If you apply a vehicle to a

4 case of bacterial conjunctivitis the expected cure

5 rate is 70 percent.

6 DR. CHESNEY: That is what I thought you

7 meant; I just wanted to be sure. And, what were

8 the side effects of Ciloxan? There were 9 reports.

9 DR. GUNKEL: They weren\'t pediatric so I

10 didn\'t see them. I don\'t know.

11 DR. CHESNEY: Other questions? Dr.

12 Murphy?

13 DR. D. MURPHY: Go ahead and finish up

14 with this topic because I was asked to make a

15 clarification on the last one.

16 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. O\'Fallon?

17 DR. O\'FALLON: If I were the statistician

18 on this study I would be very concerned. I would

19 be talking to the docs and saying, \"wait a minute

20 guys, this looks like it\'s doing harm.\" Both of

21 these agents look like they are not helping. If

22 they have a lower response rate or success rate,

64

1 whatever you want to call it, than the placebo

2 which is the vehicle without anything in it I would

3 be worried that it is contra-effective.

4 DR. GUNKEL: I don\'t know whether that is

5 the case. The information that is in the public

6 domain doesn\'t allow us to deduce that the rates

7 that were shown in the study that I showed were

8 significantly less than the expected vehicle cure

9 rate. But your point is well taken I would think.

10 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Murphy?

11 DR. D. MURPHY: Dr. McCune has said that I

12 may have confused things in efforts to answer Dr.

13 Santana\'s question about how we get information in

14 the label because you were talking about the

15 topotecan when I read to you the information that

16 was in the Temodar label. I was trying to point

17 out that there are various approaches depending on

18 the quality of the data. So, for the topotecan the

19 actual information that is in the label now in

20 pediatrics is that there is no safety or

21 effectiveness that has been established versus the

22 Temodar, which is the one that I read you. I

65

1 thought I read the product but they both start with

2 T. So, I want to make it clear that it is the

3 Temodar that has all that information in it.

4 DR. SANTANA: My question was a process

5 issue; it didn\'t relate to any specific\--

6 DR. D. MURPHY: Yes, and I was trying to

7 give a process where there can be different types

8 of information put in. Anyhow, I just wanted to

9 make sure that I didn\'t confuse the committee with

10 the Ts when I started talking about the second

11 label before it was actually presented. Thank you.

12 DR. CHESNEY: I think we are all looking

13 at your last two slides and puzzling over the last

14 one, but I think that wasn\'t really the issue of

15 this morning\'s discussion so we will leave that for

16 the moment and move on to the next speaker.

17 DR. GUNKEL: The next speaker is Dr. Larry

18 Grylack. Dr. Grylack began a career in the

19 Commission for U.S. Public Health Service from

20 1971-73. His training is in pediatrics in

21 neonatal/perinatal medicine. He was in the

22 practice of neonatal medicine at Columbia Hospital

66

1 for Women, in Washington, for 26 years with a

2 particular interest in neurodevelopmental follow-up

3 of high risk newborn and apnea during infancy. Dr.

4 Grylack?

5 Fosinopril

6 DR. GRYLACK: Thank you, Dr. Gunkel, for

7 the introduction. It is a privilege to speak to

8 the committee this morning. In case there has been

9 anything said so far this morning that has caused

10 your blood pressure to rise, I will be discussing

11 an antihypertensive drug at this time.

12 The name of the drug is fosinopril, with

13 the trade name of Monopril. Its sponsor is

14 Bristol-Myers Squibb. Fosinopril is in the renin

15 angiotensin antagonist subclass of

16 antihypertensives. Its mechanism of action is

17 inhibition of angiotensin converting enzyme.

18 Although fosinopril is approved for use in adults,

19 there are no approved pediatric indications.

20 Pediatric exclusivity was granted early last year.

21 Despite a 20 percent increase in the

22 prescribed use of renin angiotensin antagonist

67

1 drugs in the outpatient setting, there was a 25

2 percent decrease in the use of fosinopril during a

3 recent 3-year period. Conversely, there was a 33

4 percent increase in the use of the combination drug

5 fosinopril/hydrochlorothiazide during that same

6 time period. The ratio of the number of pediatric

7 prescriptions for fosinopril alone to prescriptions

8 for the combination drug was approximately 10:1.

9 Let\'s focus on the inpatient usage data

10 for fosinopril. Two databases from recent 3-year

11 periods report a very low percentage of pediatric

12 inpatients using fosinopril during their hospital

13 stays. There were no pediatric adverse event

14 reports submitted during the post-exclusivity

15 period.

16 Two studies were done for the purpose of

17 achieving exclusivity. A single-dose

18 pharmacokinetic study showed an age-dependent

19 increase in bioavailability in a population of 43

20 patients between the ages of 1 month and 16 years.

21 An oral solution containing a dose of 0.3 mg/kg of

22 body weight was used.

68

1 Secondly, an efficacy and safety dose did

2 not demonstrate a dose-response relationship in a

3 population of 253 patients between 6 and 16 years

4 of age. A tablet form of medication was used in

5 this study. No deaths or cases of angioedema were

6 reported, the latter being an adverse event

7 reported in adults.

8 Pharmacokinetic parameters in the children

9 studied are similar to those found in adults.

10 Dosing information is available for children

11 weighing more than 50 kg. However, the

12 formulations used in children in the exclusivity

13 studies are not currently commercially available.

14 This leads me to the broader issue of the

15 need for age-appropriate formulations. As

16 physicians and parents know, non-liquid forms of

17 medications are not appropriate for infants and

18 preschool children, as for some school age children

19 as well. Therefore, sponsors are being encouraged

20 to develop age-appropriate commercially available,

21 marketable pediatric formulations during their

22 exclusivity studies.

69

1 The goal of the FDA, and especially of our

2 Pediatric Drug Development Division, is to have

3 commercially available formulations for the

4 pediatric patient population. If this cannot be

5 done for certain drugs in a pharmacy\--and I

6 underscore pharmacy\--compounded recipes should

7 appear in the drug label.

8 This concludes my remarks for today.

9 Thank you for your attention.

10 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you very much. Any

11 non-process questions for the speaker? Dr. Hudak?

12 DR. HUDAK: The slide that showed that

13 there was no dose-response relationship in

14 children, is that sort of a euphemism for no

15 efficacy?

16 DR. D. MURPHY: Yes. It is in our written

17 request as one way for the cardiorenal drugs,

18 hypertensive drugs, to demonstrate efficacy and it

19 is a long description about what you have to do if

20 you don\'t choose a placebo-controlled trial and you

21 choose a dose effect trial and what sort of effect

22 you have to demonstrate and, if you don\'t, then you

70

1 failed.

2 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Nelson?

3 DR. NELSON: With your indulgence, it is a

4 process comment but it is not about risk process.

5 We have heard two presentations where there has

6 been a lack of an adequate formulation. I guess my

7 question, which may not be answerable today or we

8 may not want to answer it today is that my

9 understanding is a company doesn\'t get exclusivity

10 unless the FDA determines\--or doesn\'t get a

11 request\--that there is a significant health

12 benefit. It is unclear to me how you can decide

13 that there is a significant health benefit to the

14 population when at the end of the day there is no

15 formulation available for them.

16 DR. D. MURPHY: Again, they have to fairly

17 meet the terms of the written request. A written

18 request is based on what the public health benefit

19 would be and it often will say that you must

20 conduct this trial with an age-appropriate

21 formulation. If they conduct the trial with the

22 age-appropriate formulation it does not say, nor do

71

1 I think we would be allowed to legally say, you

2 must market it.

3 DR. NELSON: Well, I guess I would go back

4 to the attorneys and ask them to reflect on that

5 because\--

6 DR. D. MURPHY: We have.

7 DR. NELSON: \--I guess I don\'t think that

8 was the intent of Congress, that they would get the

9 money and then have nothing available for that

10 population.

11 DR. D. MURPHY: Yes, we have gone back

12 actually because, as you can see, this is becoming

13 an issue. We have brought this back to them and we

14 are in the process of discussing again, within our

15 legal regulatory authority, what we can and cannot

16 do.

17 In balancing that, the other effect, the

18 unintended effect is that you don\'t issue any

19 written request because they aren\'t going to do

20 them, or you can issue them and they won\'t do them

21 at all. So, is there a way we can balance the kind

22 of information that we need\--and I really can\'t

72

1 give a final answer on this right now\--is there a

2 way that we can set it up so that we say you need

3 to develop a marketable formulation that would be

4 appropriate for children? We have always had

5 criteria that if you can\'t do that you have to tell

6 us why but make that clear, more definitive.

7 Then, if you can\'t\--because there are

8 reasons sometimes why you cannot develop certain

9 formulations\--the solvents become too large or

10 other reasons, as you all I think know, with some

11 of the proton pump inhibitor types of

12 products\--then we are looking at trying to define

13 requirements that have to be met having to do with

14 stability, bioavailability, for kids\' use that

15 would be appropriate. We get into other issues for

16 compounding and how do you avoid those issues.

17 So, the bottom line, Dr. Nelson, is that

18 we are very aware that this is an issue and we are

19 trying to find a resolution that promotes

20 development of products while, at the same time,

21 does not end up in the situation where we have

22 products that are then not available.

73

1 DR. NELSON: I appreciate the

2 complexities. In my simplistic view, I suspect

3 that if you went back to those that drafted and

4 then passed the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children

5 Act, they would not interpret significant health

6 benefit to mean that at the end of the day there is

7 no formulation and nothing in the label.

8 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Hudak?

9 DR. HUDAK: Can I just clarify this

10 because I am trying to understand exactly what the

11 data show. The formulations used in children less

12 than 50 kg were not commercially available?

13 DR. GRYLACK: That is correct.

14 DR. HUDAK: These are the same

15 formulations used that assessed the PK issues?

16 DR. GRYLACK: Yes, the initial singe-dose

17 PK study was done in patients between the ages of 1

18 month and 16 years so, as you can determine, a

19 number of those were less than 50 kg. Then, the

20 second study, the efficacy and safety study, was

21 done in patients between 6 and 16 years and, again,

22 a certain number of those would be less than 50 kg.

74

1 DR. HUDAK: So, essentially, the drug with

2 this non-available preparation showed that, as

3 given, it was absorbed and available in the

4 bloodstream like in adults, but showed no efficacy.

5 DR. GRYLACK: Well, there was the

6 age-dependent increase in bioavailability.

7 DR. HUDAK: I understand, but giving

8 adequate levels of the drug, there was no

9 level-related efficacy, no dose response\--

10 DR. GRYLACK: No dose response.

11 DR. HUDAK: No dose response but if you

12 control for the level of the drug in the blood

13 there was still no response. See what I am saying?

14 There may be a difference depending upon the age.

15 DR. GRYLACK: Yes.

16 DR. HUDAK: So, the bottom line is that

17 this drug did not work with the best possible

18 formulation in this population and, therefore,

19 there doesn\'t seem to be any reason to have a

20 formulation available for pediatric patients. Is

21 that correct? For this drug?

22 DR. D. MURPHY: Correct.

75

1 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Danford?

2 DR. DANFORD: To Dr. Hudak\'s point, I

3 wonder if the group in which this drug was studied

4 actually had hypertension or not. Hypertensive

5 children, the younger you get, are harder and

6 harder to come by and if you were just studying the

7 bioavailability of the drug and giving it to

8 volunteer children you would not necessarily expect

9 a drop in blood pressure in a pediatric population.

10 Do you know who these children were?

11 DR. GRYLACK: I would have to take a

12 minute and go back and look at the detailed

13 description of the studies. I am sorry, I can\'t

14 answer that off the top of my head. Perhaps I can

15 get back to you a little later.

16 DR. D. MURPHY: Was the question did we

17 give it to normal children?

18 DR. DANFORD: Or children without

19 hypertension.

20 DR. D. MURPHY: That is what I meant,

21 children without hypertension.

22 DR. DANFORD: There could be a group that

76

1 might conceivably benefit from this, who have

2 congestive heart failure who would not have

3 elevated blood pressure. If you were looking at a

4 response in blood pressure and it were given to a

5 group of patients with VSD you might not be able to

6 determine much of a change in their blood pressure.

7 DR. D. MURPHY: I think the first part of

8 it is that we would not have done the studies in

9 children who were not hypertensive. Now, could we

10 have selected a different population so that

11 potentially mechanistically you could postulate a

12 benefit? You possibly could have but it was felt

13 that the need was in this population so that is why

14 it was written for this population. Again, as this

15 committee has discussed, it would have to be

16 children who had the disease under study.

17 DR. HUDAK: I am happy to hear that

18 because testing this antihypertensive medication in

19 normotensive children I think would be a real\--

20 DR. GRYLACK: I have some comment here.

21 Thank you for waiting for me. The patient

22 population in the efficacy and safety study

77

1 consisted of patients with hypertension or high

2 normal blood pressure.

3 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Nelson, one more

4 question and then we really need to move along.

5 DR. NELSON: It just occurs to me that

6 that question is answerable if you have the

7 pharmaceutical review that is on the website. So,

8 maybe in the future just including that as part of

9 the packet would enable us to have that at hand. I

10 am looking to see if that one is in here.

11 DR. PEREZ: Use the mike, please.

12 DR. D. MURPHY: It is in here in what is

13 called the critical pharmacology and

14 biopharmaceutics review; summary of findings\--

15 DR. S. MURPHY: Just to remind you that we

16 can only put what is in the public domain so, as we

17 look at what is being posted on the web I think

18 some of these are more extensive than others. So,

19 it is giving us an opportunity to see what is going

20 on.

21 DR. GRYLACK: The PK study was done on all

22 hypertensive patients. Are we going to take a

78

1 break now for the vote or are we going to pursue to

2 the next one?

3 DR. CHESNEY: Assuming there are no more

4 questions on this particular issue, Dr. Santana

5 will cover the next drug as I am recused for stock

6 reasons. So, Dr. Santana?

7 DR. SANTANA: Let\'s go ahead and get

8 started. Dr. Buckman?

9 DR. GRYLACK: Yes, it is my pleasure to

10 introduce Dr. ShaAvhree Buckman. Dr. Buckman is a

11 pediatrician who is not a neonatologist, who also

12 has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology and

13 pharmacology. Dr. Buckman has been a medical

14 officer with the Division of Pediatric Drug

15 Development for nearly two years, and I will add

16 that Dr. Buckman has been a valued colleague of

17 mine during the time I have been here at the FDA.

18 Fentanyl

19 DR. BUCKMAN: Good morning. I will be

20 discussing the one-year post-exclusivity adverse

21 events for the fentanyl transdermal system.

22 The fentanyl transdermal system or,

79

1 trademark Duragesic, is marketed by Johnson &

2 Johnson and its subsidiary ALZA. It is indicated

3 for the treatment of chronic pain such as that of

4 malignancy that cannot be managed by lesser means,

5 such as acetaminophen-opioid combinations,

6 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or PRN dosing

7 with short-acting opioids, and pain that requires

8 continuous opioid administration. It is approved

9 for pediatric use in children down to the age of 2

10 years. The drug obtained original market approval

11 in August of 1990 and pediatric exclusivity was

12 granted in January of 2003.

13 The Duragesic label carries a boxed

14 warning that specifically states that due to the

15 possibility of serious or life-threatening

16 hypoventilation Duragesic is contraindicated in the

17 management of acute or postoperative pain,

18 including use in outpatient surgeries. It is also

19 contraindicated in the management of mild or

20 intermittent pain responsive to PRN or non-opioid

21 therapy. It is also contraindicated in doses

22 exceeding 25 mcg/hour at the initiation of opioid

80

1 therapy.

2 I have also outlined in red the pediatric

3 safety information that is in the boxed warning,

4 which specifically states that the safety of

5 Duragesic has not been established in children

6 under 2 years of age. Duragesic should be

7 administered only if they are opioid-tolerant at

8 age 2 years or older.

9 There is selected additional safety

10 labeling which states that Duragesic should be

11 prescribed only by persons knowledgeable in the

12 continuous administration of potent opioids and the

13 management of patients receiving potent opioids for

14 treatment of pain and in the detection and

15 management of hypoventilation, including the use of

16 opioid antagonists.

17 Now, the total number of prescriptions

18 dispensed for the fentanyl transdermal systems in

19 the United States have increased by 20 percent in

20 the past 2 years, from 4.5 million in 2002 to 5.4

21 million in 2003. The top prescribers in 2003 for

22 the fentanyl transdermal systems were internal

81

1 medicine, family practice and anesthesiology.

2 Approximately 0.2 percent of fentanyl transdermal

3 system prescriptions dispensed were written by

4 pediatricians.

5 In the outpatient setting children and

6 adolescents have accounted for very few dispensed

7 fentanyl transdermal system prescriptions over the

8 past 2 years, 4,535 prescriptions from February

9 2002 to January of 2003 to 5,422 prescriptions from

10 February, 2003 to January, 2004. In both the

11 outpatient and inpatient settings, adolescents age

12 12-16 years accounted for 60 percent of the

13 pediatric fentanyl transdermal system use over the

14 past 3 years.

15 In the outpatient setting the most

16 frequent diagnoses associated with the fentanyl

17 transdermal systems in the pediatric, as well as

18 the adult, population were associated with diseases

19 of the musculoskeletal system and connective

20 tissues. In the pediatric population the most

21 predominant musculoskeletal diagnosis was spinal

22 stenosis, followed by injuries involving fractured

82

1 bones. One must be mindful though that these are

2 very small numbers that we are capturing.

3 In the inpatient setting the primary

4 discharge diagnoses most frequently associated with

5 billing during hospitalization in the pediatric

6 population were for cholesterol encounters and

7 various blood disorders, including sickle cell

8 disease.

9 There was a total of 1,917 adult and

10 pediatric adverse event reports for the fentanyl

11 transdermal system during the 1-year

12 post-exclusivity period. Of these, there were 8

13 unique pediatric cases. Seven were from the U.S.

14 and 1 was a foreign report. All of these cases

15 were described as serious outcomes, including 5

16 deaths. There were 4 reports in females and 4

17 reports in males, and the ages ranged from 4-16

18 years of age. Of these 8 pediatric reports, most

19 adverse events were mentioned only once. The

20 labeled adverse events that were captured twice

21 included overdose drug abuser and medication error.

22 Again, these are labeled adverse events.

83

1 Of the unlabeled adverse events that were

2 captured more than once, they included cardiac

3 arrest, respiratory arrest and self-medication.

4 There were 5 deaths that were reported

5 during the 1-year post-exclusivity period for

6 Duragesic and I would like to describe these

7 reports to you. The first was the case of an 8

8 year-old female who was diagnosed with

9 rhabdomyosarcoma who died 2 months after being

10 switched from the fentanyl transdermal system to IV

11 morphine. This was a foreign case and it is

12 believed that this child\'s death was due to

13 progression of her underlying disease and not due

14 to the patch itself.

15 The second case is that of a 9 year-old

16 male who was 2 days post tonsillectomy and

17 adenoidectomy, who was treated with the fentanyl

18 transdermal system 25 mcg patch with subsequent

19 respiratory arrest resulting in death. Concomitant

20 medications that were given included acetaminophen

21 with codeine elixir, although the timing of

22 administration of this dosing is unclear from the

84

1 report.

2 This was a U.S. case and I have a couple

3 of comments about this case. One is that this is a

4 case where a non-opioid tolerant patient was

5 prescribed the drug for an acute postoperative pain

6 situation. As you recall from the boxed warning,

7 Duragesic is contraindicated in the management of

8 acute or postoperative pain.

9 The next case was that of a 4 year-old

10 female who died from cardiac arrest after having

11 the fentanyl transdermal system applied by her

12 grandmother for pain relief. The details of this

13 case are largely unknown. This is a U.S. case, and

14 the only additional information that we have is

15 that the child had marks on her body that indicated

16 that she may have had more than one patch applied

17 because there was adhesive residue on her skin.

18 The next case was that of a 16 year-old

19 male with a history of drug abuse, including

20 marijuana, methylphenidate and dextropropoxyphene,

21 who was reported to have been using the fentanyl

22 transdermal system several days prior to death and

85

1 was found wearing a 100 mcg patch. This was a U.S.

2 case.

3 The last of the 5 reported deaths was that

4 of a 16 year-old male, with a history of alcohol

5 and marijuana use, who died of cardiac arrest after

6 using 100 mcg patches obtained from another

7 student. He was found wearing a 100 mcg/hour patch

8 and this was a U.S. case.

9 Now, there were 3 non-fatal adverse events

10 that were reported during the 1-year

11 post-exclusivity period. These included a patient

12 who experienced euphoria, hallucinations and weight

13 loss after initiation of therapy with the fentanyl

14 transdermal system.

15 The second case was a child who

16 experienced withdrawal symptoms from what was

17 considered a loose patch, meaning that the patch

18 had become non-adherent to the skin and the patient

19 experienced withdrawal symptoms which resolved

20 after replacement of a new patch.

21 The last case was that of respiratory

22 depression in a patient who had intentional misuse

86

1 of the fentanyl patch.

2 We have reported the adverse events that

3 occurred during the 1-year post-exclusivity period.

4 Due to our concern regarding the pediatric deaths

5 occurring with this product, we decided to

6 investigate the adverse events which occurred since

7 the approval of Duragesic for adults, in 1990.

8 There were 4 pediatric deaths before initiation of

9 the pediatric exclusivity period. There have been

10 3 additional pediatric deaths since the end of the

11 1-year post-exclusivity period. Although we are

12 continuing to monitor for adverse events, for the

13 purpose of this presentation we set our internal

14 cut-off for reporting to you at May 15th.

15 Now I would like to describe briefly those

16 deaths that occurred outside of the exclusivity

17 reporting period. The first was a case of

18 accidental exposure. The second was a case of

19 misuse or abuse. Most concerning are these cases

20 of off-label use. One is a case of a child with

21 post-tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy pain. Another

22 is a case of a child with infectious mononucleosis

87

1 and sore throat pain; a child with chronic

2 headaches and infectious mononucleosis; and a child

3 with acute migraine. The last case that was

4 reported was that of a child with rhabdomyosarcoma

5 and, again, this was another situation where it was

6 thought that the child died due to disease

7 progression and not due to administration of the

8 patch itself.

9 In summary, the cumulative pediatric

10 adverse events for the fentanyl transdermal system

11 since original market approval in 1990 totaled 35

12 unique cases. Of these, 22 reports were for

13 children who used the product appropriately for an

14 indication of chronic pain. Of these 22 reports,

15 there were 2 pediatric deaths and these were both

16 children with rhabdomyosarcoma which I described.

17 By comparison, there were 13 reports in

18 children using the medication for a non-chronic

19 pain management indication. Of these 13 reports,

20 there were 10 pediatric deaths. It is important to

21 remember that the Adverse Event Reporting System is

22 a voluntary reporting system which is subject to

88

1 under-reporting and other influences, which you

2 have heard described multiple times this morning.

3 In conclusion, several of the serious

4 pediatric adverse events captured occurred in

5 patients who administered the product for an

6 unlabeled indication, for example, treatment of

7 acute pain in a non-opioid tolerant patient. There

8 is need for additional education regarding the

9 proper use of the fentanyl transdermal system to

10 help further minimize abuse, misuse and off-label

11 use.

12 In conclusion, instead of answering

13 questions right now, because we have two subsequent

14 presentations that deal with the same product, I

15 would like to introduce the next speaker and then

16 we can take questions at the end of all three

17 presentations. So, Dr. Lee will address the

18 fentanyl pharmacokinetic characteristics following

19 Duragesic application. Dr. Lee is a clinical

20 pharmacology and biopharmaceutics reviewer with the

21 Office of Clinical Pharmacology and

22 Biopharmaceutics, currently working with the

89

1 Division of Anesthetic, Critical Care and Addiction

2 Drug Products. Dr. Lee?

3 DR. LEE: Thank you, Dr. Buckman. Good

4 morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to

5 present to you this morning on unique features of

6 fentanyl pharmacokinetics after Duragesic patch

7 application, but first, before I go into my slides,

8 I would like to give you some overall background

9 information on the Duragesic patch.

10 First on the patch strengths, Duragesic

11 patches are available as 25 mcg, 50 mcg, 75 mcg and

12 100 mcg fentanyl delivered per hour patches.

13 Secondly on the site of application, patches are

14 applied mostly on a flat skin surface, mostly on

15 the upper torso, such as chest, back, flank or

16 upper arms. In young children, however, the upper

17 back is a preferred location to minimize the

18 potential for the child to remove the patch.

19 Lastly on the intended use, as we all know, each

20 patch can be worn continuously up to 72 hours but,

21 if analgesia for more than 72 hours is required, a

22 new patch should be applied to a different skin

90

1 site after removal of the previous patch.

2 Gollowing the patch application the

3 fentanyl drug molecules move from the patch

4 reservoir through a rate-controlling membrane and

5 continue to be absorbed into the skin. At this

6 juncture a depot of fentanyl concentrates in the

7 upper skin layer and fentanyl then becomes

8 available to the systemic circulation. Peak serum

9 concentrations of fentanyl generally occur between

10 24 and 72 hours.

11 However, after patch removal the serum

12 fentanyl concentrations decline slowly, falling

13 about 50 percent in approximately 17 hours, which

14 is the elimination half-life of the fentanyl patch

15 drug delivery system. Due to the continued

16 absorption of fentanyl from the skin because of the

17 skin depot effect, fentanyl disappearance from the

18 serum is slower than is seen after an IV infusion.

19 The elimination half-life for the IV infusion route

20 is approximately 7 hours compared to that of 17

21 hours.

22 So, what are some of the potential

91

1 implications? With respect to initial patch

2 application, the full drug benefit, analgesic

3 effect, may not be seen immediately. Thus, there

4 is a potential situation for applying another

5 patch. This can become a safety issue I think.

6 With respect to post-patch removal,

7 substantial drug effect may be felt for a

8 significant period of time. Thus, there is a

9 potential safety situation for a patient who will

10 be switching over to another opioid therapy.

11 If you have any questions, I will be happy

12 to answer any, otherwise I will introduce Dr.

13 McNeil. Dr. McNeil is a medical reviewer with

14 HDF-170. Prior to coming to the agency she trained

15 in pediatric neurology and oncology. Dr. McNeil?

16 DR. MCNEIL: Good morning. I am with the

17 Division of Anesthetic, Critical Care and Addiction

18 Drug Products and, in collaboration with our

19 pediatric colleagues, we have been considering ways

20 to manage the risk of off-label use.

21 We have been coming up with preliminary

22 strategies for managing this risk, and the

92

1 preliminary strategies that we have come up with

2 are labeling changes; prescriber education through

3 the company or, one thing that has been used in the

4 past, are \"dear healthcare professional\" letters,

5 or prescriber education through physician groups.

6 We will, of course, be in contact with the company

7 and with our colleagues in pediatrics as we try to

8 come up with a method of managing this risk.

9 DR. SANTANA: Did you have further

10 comments, Dr. Buckman?

11 DR. BUCKMAN: We can go ahead and

12 entertain questions at this time.

13 Discussion of Question 1

14 DR. SANTANA: Good. I do have a question

15 for Dr. Lee. Is there any data either in

16 pediatrics or in adults that other concomitant

17 problems, like fever or skin rashes, change the

18 absorption? I was struck by a couple of the deaths

19 in patients who had infectious diseases or had

20 postoperative conditions that could be associated

21 with fever or some of these associated skin rashes.

22 So, is there any data to suggest that there is a

93

1 different pharmacokinetic profile under those

2 circumstances?

3 DR. LEE: As far as I know, I don\'t think

4 we have any information from the pediatrics which

5 were involved with PK studies. However, Dr. McNeil

6 may\--she says no.

7 DR. SANTANA: Do we know from the adults

8 about postoperative fever and things of that

9 nature?

10 DR. MCNEIL: No, we don\'t. It is actually

11 in the label that if you apply heat externally to

12 the drug patches you can increase the serum

13 concentration of fentanyl, but that is what is

14 known about it.

15 DR. SANTANA: Dr. O\'Fallon?

16 DR. O\'FALLON: I have been watching these

17 things because my 93 year-old mother-in-law has

18 been outcome this\--now she is 96 and a half\--for

19 three and a half years. When I first looked at it

20 what bothered me was the slow\--she is allergic to

21 lots of different things; as it turns out she is

22 fine with this, but with something that moves so

94

1 slowly what would happen? It would seem to me that

2 after 24, 36, 48 hours, something like that, a

3 person might reach a level where they would not be

4 able to tolerate it. Then, there is this 17-hour,

5 which is really up to a whole day\--before you can

6 drop the levels down sufficiently. What do you do

7 if somebody\--I don\'t see anything in the label

8 about how to manage somebody that has a bad effect.

9 How do you do it when it is in your system for so

10 long?

11 DR. LEE: My first answer could have been

12 that the person who is experiencing adverse events

13 may just peel off the patch and then for 17 hours,

14 for that I don\'t have any answers.

15 DR. O\'FALLON: It is actually up to 24

16 almost. I mean, there is a terrific range on these

17 things.

18 DR. LEE: Yes, the range is very large.

19 Yes.

20 DR. S. MURPHY: Dr. Lee, could you show

21 your backup slides with the kinetics? I think they

22 are very helpful.

95

1 DR. LEE: I would just like to remind you

2 that the information in this study is from a

3 limited number of patients and the pediatric

4 subjects were non-opioid tolerant subjects. This

5 study had full pharmacokinetic profiling and,

6 therefore, it was a very useful study for me.

7 The Y axis is in nanograms per milliliter

8 concentration versus time. We put a patch on and

9 take it off at 72 hours. This is the adult

10 population where we see the increase in the

11 fentanyl concentration at approximately 22 to about

12 40-some odd hours.

13 Compared to the adults, this is a

14 pediatric population and I would just like to

15 mention at this time that the patch strength size

16 was 50 mcg/hour for adults and 25 mcg/hour for the

17 non-opioid tolerant pediatric patients. As you can

18 see, time to maximum concentration has shifted at

19 earlier time points and it is higher. Where I have

20 marked it with the shaded ovals, that is where we

21 need to kind of think again as far as having the

22 pain relief because it takes so long in order to

96

1 reach that plasma concentration. And, then for the

2 black square, because it takes so long in order to

3 have the fentanyl concentration either eliminated

4 from the system or what-have-you, it takes so long,

5 even up to maybe 140 hours you could have some of

6 the residual fentanyl concentration after patch

7 removal. So, I guess this is what we have.

8 DR. MCNEIL: Excuse me, I should mention

9 that my answer on fever was related to the

10 information we have, actual data from patients, but

11 in the label, by PK modeling, there has been some

12 association that fentanyl doses could theoretically

13 increase up to a third but, again, that is from PK

14 modeling and not from actual patients.

15 DR. SANTANA: And we have no postmortem

16 information from any of these deaths regarding

17 measurement of drugs in these patients?

18 DR. BUCKMAN: In looking at a couple of

19 MedWatch reports we do have a couple of cases where

20 we did get levels. In one case that I reported to

21 you, the 16 year-old that died from an overdose of

22 the fentanyl patch had an autopsy that was

97

1 performed. The cause of death was cardiac arrest

2 due to highly toxic levels of fentanyl. The

3 fentanyl level was 16 ng/ml. He also had

4 cannabinoids in his bloodstream as well. So, that

5 was one case where we did actually have a

6 concentration.

7 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Fuchs?

8 DR. FUCHS: Well, two things that strike

9 me from reading all your cases are that three of

10 them were used in kids with tonsillectomy or mono,

11 and if you have ever looked at kids with

12 mononucleosis, those are kissing tonsils and, yes,

13 they do hurt. That may be something where we might

14 add a warning, \"do not use when there is any airway

15 problem or tonsillitis or mono\" because that is an

16 airway issue to begin with and then if you have

17 respiratory depression, which this drug is known to

18 cause, and you have no airway obviously you will

19 get hypoxia and that will then lead to respiratory

20 arrest and then lead to cardiac arrest.

21 The second thing is that in the cases

22 where you mentioned cardiac arrest, I suspect

98

1 mostly in kids this is respiratory arrest. Once

2 again, we can\'t really tell from the reports but I

3 suspect they are all respiratory related.

4 DR. BUCKMAN: That is a very good point.

5 We can only report to you exactly what is captured

6 there but I agree with you that in most pediatric

7 cases it is respiratory arrest leading to cardiac

8 arrest. But that is how it was captured in the

9 reports.

10 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Nelson?

11 DR. NELSON: Looking at the label, my

12 understanding is the strongest warning that the FDA

13 can do is the black box, which is what you have at

14 the front. So, unless we think it needs to be

15 worded differently, there is already a black box.

16 The only thing that doesn\'t seem to be in that

17 black box that is elsewhere is the comment about

18 the qualifications of who should prescribe this.

19 Working in critical care and having used this in

20 the past and no longer using it in the way that I

21 had used it simply because of the labeling change,

22 it is unclear to me how much stronger you could

99

1 make this, other than perhaps moving the

2 information about prescribers to the black box.

3 And, it is unclear to me\--I am assuming there was a

4 pretty good malpractice loss for these deaths, or

5 there should be\--so it is unclear to me how much

6 more you can do in your labeling if, in fact,

7 people are going to use it when it says not to use

8 it that way. It seems pretty straightforward to

9 me.

10 DR. BUCKMAN: Can I respond to that

11 briefly? That was why in the presentation we

12 wanted at the outset to show you exactly what was

13 in the labeling because that is what we need to

14 hear from you as far as comments as far as how can

15 we get that word out there anymore so. It seems as

16 if the greater propensity of what is happening is

17 that patients are being administered this product

18 for an unlabeled or contraindicated use. So, that

19 is the feedback that we want to get from you all.

20 You know, what other things can we do? That is

21 going to be the question that we will be asking.

22 DR. SANTANA: Dr. O\'Fallon first and then

100

1 Dr. Hudak.

2 DR. O\'FALLON: I think that the letter to

3 patients is very helpful that is included in our

4 packet. Is that normally given to the patients? I

5 don\'t know your process here. Between the

6 executive summary and the actual label there is a

7 patient information thing.

8 DR. MCNEIL: Patient information?

9 DR. O\'FALLON: Yes, and I don\'t know where

10 that comes into the Act.

11 DR. MCNEIL: In theory, what happens is

12 when you buy your box of Duragesic is that you

13 should get this.

14 DR. O\'FALLON: Yes, I don\'t think we did.

15 She said theoretically we should get it when we buy

16 our box but I don\'t remember that we did.

17 DR. D. MURPHY: Remember, it is not

18 required to be given to every patient.

19 DR. O\'FALLON: That is what I was

20 wondering.

21 The other thing is that I don\'t think it addresses

22 the issue. You see, I was worried the first time I

101

1 saw this about the long-lastingness of this drug.

2 What happens if they get into trouble? Is there

3 any information that the patients could have if

4 they are seeing something? I don\'t even see that

5 it says call your emergency room immediately, or

6 something. I don\'t see anything about what to do

7 in case the kid gets in trouble or the person gets

8 in trouble, the 90-odd year-old gets in trouble.

9 DR. MCNEIL: Under \"how do I use

10 Duragesic\" in the patient information section it

11 does say if you use too much Duragesic or overdose

12 get emergency medical help right away. But I guess

13 from what you are saying that is not enough.

14 DR. O\'FALLON: Well, I didn\'t see it in

15 the patient letter but maybe I missed it.

16 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Hudak?

17 DR. HUDAK: I guess in comment to Dr.

18 Nelson\'s comment, I am not sure what can be done

19 for language and what the limitations are but I

20 think many physicians are sort of jaded when they

21 see \"serious\" or \"life-threatening\" written down

22 somewhere because that seems to be on a lot of

102

1 different drugs, and maybe something very specific

2 about deaths have occurred due to, you know,

3 inappropriate use in these situations should be in

4 there in some form that makes it very concrete.

5 DR. SANTANA: Do we know from these

6 adverse event reports if, in the cases that were

7 postoperative, those were actually prescribed by a

8 person before the procedure or subsequently by a

9 pediatrician or family physician? I mean, what is

10 the sequence of prescriptions here?

11 DR. BUCKMAN: In one case it was

12 prescribed by a family physician. In another case

13 it was prescribed by the pain control team in the

14 ICU, and the mother had asked\--and Joe Wyeth, our

15 ODS person, please correct me if I am wrong; she

16 has done an incredible job of helping us get all

17 these reports together\--but in another case it was

18 prescribed in the ICU by the pain control team for

19 this child. The mother asked that two of the vital

20 checks be suspended. They were overnight vital

21 checks. She wanted the child to rest, and by the

22 morning when they did the next vital check the

103

1 child was dead.

2 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Gorman, I would like to

3 hear your opinion on this since you are a

4 practicing pediatrician in the community.

5 DR. GORMAN: First of all, all of these

6 patches as they have come out, these long-acting

7 patches\--I think I remember the same event with a

8 patch that came out for hypertension with another

9 product where children had it applied

10 inappropriately or retrieved it from wastepaper

11 baskets. There were several adverse outcomes which

12 were slightly different than these.

13 I would have to echo Dr. Hudak\'s very

14 explicit comments. I think the hypothetical that

15 is put in the black box warning now is a reality

16 and there should be a statement\--and I understand

17 that labels are a negotiated legal document between

18 the FDA and the pharmaceutical company, but a

19 simple statement that deaths have occurred through

20 the inappropriate use of this in the following

21 settings, and then a listing that you have

22 contraindicated would take this out of the realm of

104

1 hypothetical and say it is real.

2 Then to echo a little bit of what Dr.

3 Nelson said, there could be a little asterisk on

4 the bottom\--which I know you are not allowed to

5 use\--that says and big malpractice awards were

6 awarded.

7 \[Laughter\]

8 DR. SANTANA: We don\'t want to get into

9 that! Any other comments? Dr. Lee?

10 DR. LEE: I just wanted to make a

11 clarification that for the data that I presented

12 for the non-opioid tolerant patients, the age range

13 was from 1.5-5. I just wanted you to understand

14 that. It doesn\'t give us an overall 2-16 year-old

15 range.

16 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Luban, you deal with

17 patients with sickle cell who have chronic pain

18 issues. Would you like to comment on this issue?

19 DR. LUBAN: I think the biggest issue

20 there is the complex use of more than one

21 analgesic, and the occasional failure of families,

22 when discharged, to follow the pain team\'s

105

1 recommendation and to really abuse the medications

2 because of continuing needs of the child. So, I

3 see sickle cell disease and the use of this as a

4 real avenue of education that really should be

5 followed up on.

6 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Murphy?

7 DR. D. MURPHY: Do you think that it is

8 clear\--getting back to Dr. O\'Fallon\'s

9 question\--from the patient insert that after you

10 remove this product it is still absorbed? Do you

11 think that is clear enough in here, for longer

12 periods of time?

13 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Luban?

14 DR. LUBAN: I think that is not at all

15 clear. I think that this is written at a very

16 sophisticated level for some families to interpret.

17 We certainly don\'t have high level language use

18 when we are doing informed consent, so why should

19 we if we are trying to educate patients and

20 families?

21 DR. MCNEIL: Thank you. We will talk more

22 with the folks\--there is actually a whole team of

106

1 people who help us write these patient information

2 inserts and they are supposed to be geared to the

3 sixth to eighth grade level. By the giggles in the

4 room, I guess we have not hit that mark so I will

5 talk with people and we will see what we can do.

6 If I understand you correctly, we should make it

7 slightly simpler.

8 DR. LUBAN: Speaking for our patient

9 populations, I would say yes. The use of the term

10 \"opioid tolerant\" is not a term that most parents

11 can understand.

12 DR. SANTANA: And I am not even sure a lot

13 of physicians understand it.

14 \[Laughter\]

15 No, that is a fair observation.

16 DR. MCNEIL: The reason that we used

17 \"opioid tolerant\"\--I mean, I understand your

18 comment but the reason that we used \"opioid

19 tolerant\" was just to reflect the language in the

20 boxed warning, but I do understand what you are

21 saying and we will try to come up with something.

22 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Gorman and then Dr.

107

1 Nelson.

2 DR. GORMAN: It strikes me how attractive

3 this product would have to be to people doing ear,

4 nose and throat surgery on tonsils. You have a

5 population with generally poor options for oral

6 medications in terms of their taste and

7 tolerability and adverse events of vomiting. So,

8 you have a product that looks really attractive to

9 them because it is applied to the outside to an

10 obstreperous 4 year-old and you don\'t have to try

11 to get them to drink something. If I was targeting

12 my educational process, ear, nose and throat

13 physicians and ambulatory surgery centers would be

14 at the top of my list.

15 DR. MCNEIL: Excuse me, may I just go back

16 to Drs. Luban and O\'Fallon? I just want to make

17 certain that what we were speaking about before,

18 that the language is a bit too sophisticated is in

19 the patient information section, not the actual

20 label? Correct?

21 DR. LUBAN: Correct.

22 DR. O\'FALLON: The statement \"call your

108

1 healthcare provider right away of get emergency

2 help if you have trouble breathing or have other

3 serious side effects,\" that is in there on the

4 fourth page, without a bullet in a wholly bulleted

5 thing. I think you should move it up to what is

6 the most important information I should know. It

7 should go there.

8 DR. MCNEIL: Thank you.

9 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Nelson, you had your

10 hand up?

11 DR. NELSON: Well, I think my comment

12 follows from both of the last two, which is to also

13 look at the order within which you are putting

14 things, particularly given Dr. Gorman\'s comment.

15 The first thing probably shouldn\'t be only use it

16 in the way that your healthcare professional tells

17 you to.

18 \[Laughter\]

19 Because we are talking about healthcare

20 professionals not using it appropriately.

21 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Hudak?

22 DR. HUDAK: I guess this is sort of

109

1 getting at the question here, but the other avenue

2 for education, it seems to me, since some of these

3 more egregious events occurred in the hospital

4 setting, is perhaps to have a letter that goes out

5 to the hospital pharmacies, pediatric pharmacies

6 about this, and in this day and age where there are

7 computerized physician order entry systems it seems

8 that this would be a big way to sort of capture

9 that before it might become an issue.

10 DR. DANFORD: Does the FDA ever

11 communicate directly with risk management

12 individuals for hospitals and clinics? Several of

13 the speakers have suggested that the adverse events

14 might most likely be prevented by having a general

15 understanding that lawsuits can happen over misuse.

16 Perhaps the lawyers from hospitals and clinics who

17 try to reduce their exposure to big settlements, if

18 they received something from the FDA about the

19 misuse of such products might actually do a lot of

20 work of educating the people who work in their

21 institutions.

22 DR. SANTANA: Dr. Nelson?

110

1 DR. NELSON: I think, at least in my

2 setting, if a letter went out to the pharmacist you

3 effectively would accomplish that because it would

4 then go to the control mechanisms for prescribing

5 that would be used within a facility at least to

6 establish risk management strategies. I would

7 probably prefer going that way because it is at

8 least then directed to the provision of care rather

9 than the other way.

10 DR. SANTANA: I would support that. It is

11 within the scope of their care of what they should

12 be doing with patients in terms of educating as

13 they get prescriptions filled, and so on and so

14 forth. So, I would support that too. Any other

15 comments? Dr. Murphy?

16 DR. D. MURPHY: I just wanted to summarize

17 and ask the Division to also pitch in here if they

18 don\'t think I have summarized correctly what we

19 have heard from the committee.

20 DR. SANTANA: I took some notes. Would

21 you allow me to do that? I think the committee

22 would like the FDA to move in three directions that

111

1 you have pointed out in this slide. One of the

2 comments I heard very strongly from the committee

3 is that the label needs to be re-looked at in the

4 context of maybe providing stronger statements,

5 regarding the inappropriate use resulting in deaths

6 that have already been observed, somewhere earlier

7 in the actual label so that physicians and others

8 prescribing this can see that clearly early on.

9 I also heard a comment that there is a

10 section about qualifications of the prescriber and

11 those qualifications were kind of hidden in the

12 back of the information, and it should be brought

13 forward into the label too. So, it is not a matter

14 of re-writing the label but maybe providing some of

15 the information in different sections, particularly

16 at the beginning that would be more evident to

17 those that are prescribing. Those are the comments

18 that I heard about the label.

19 I heard a lot of comments about patient

20 information and using the patient as an advocate

21 for him or herself. I heard comments that probably

22 the reading language was inappropriate for the

112

1 populations that are being targeted in which this

2 medication could be used. So, that needs to be

3 looked at very carefully.

4 I also heard some comments that I think

5 were very appropriate about clearer statements in

6 the patient information regarding how, when this

7 medication or patch is removed, there will be

8 sustained levels that may continue to put you at

9 risk of having respiratory depression and

10 associated side effects.

11 Related to the patient information, I also

12 heard some comments about how the information in

13 that patient information leaflet should be

14 reorganized to put some of the highlights earlier

15 on and make them more self-evident.

16 Then I heard a brief discussion about

17 education, primarily to prescribers. I heard

18 various comments about some of the incident cases

19 that received care that had been by ENT, by

20 anesthesiologists, by pain teams. I didn\'t hear a

21 lot of discussion about how we could accomplish

22 that so I am going to seek a little bit more advice

113

1 from the committee on how potentially that could be

2 accomplished. But I did hear that there needs to

3 be reeducation of people prescribing this and

4 potentially starting with some target populations

5 and then moving it more openly, including

6 pharmacists, of course.

7 Then I also heard a very strong statement

8 about educating our patients who are using these

9 products and parents, and how we can best

10 accomplish that.

11 So, maybe the committee wants to spend

12 maybe one more minute probably advising the agency

13 on potentially what educational systems may already

14 be in place that they could target or the company

15 could target. If anybody wants to add to that?

16 Dr. Murphy?

17 DR. D. MURPHY: Thank you very much. I

18 only have one question I want to clarify, and that

19 is the label\--the statement you had, Dr. Santana,

20 was that we want a stronger statement concerning

21 the deaths early in the label. I thought I heard

22 that you wanted it in the black box.

114

1 DR. SANTANA: Yes, in the black box. That

2 is what I meant. That is correct.

3 DR. D. MURPHY: Thank you.

4 DR. SANTANA: Any further sort of advice

5 to the agency on this issue? I think we have

6 discussed question one actually. Am I correct?

7 DR. MCNEIL: Thank you for your comments.

8 It is very helpful to us. I am going to take them

9 back for further discussions with the company.

10 DR. SANTANA: Thank you so much. I think

11 we are going to take a ten-minute break and start a

12 little bit after 10:30. Thank you.

13 \[Brief recess\]

14 DR. CHESNEY: While everybody is finding

15 their seats, I wanted to thank the FDA for

16 clarifying one issue which had to do with the use

17 of ciprofloxacin and moxyfloxacin in ophthalmic

18 preparations. In the last two slides the expected

19 cure rate of 70 percent, is that for conjunctivitis

20 in adults? This study was actually done in

21 neonates. So, probably one can\'t extrapolate from

22 one to the other, just for clarification. Dr.

115

1 Iyasu is going to introduce our next speaker.

2 DR. IYASU: Thank you. Our next speaker

3 is Dr. Hari Cheryl Sachs. Dr. Hari Sachs is a

4 professor of pediatrics at GW and Children\'s

5 Hospital National Medication Center. She has over

6 15 years of experience in private practice. She

7 also served on the FDA non-prescription drug

8 advisory committee and is one of the FDA liaisons

9 to the AAP committee on drugs. She will be

10 presenting the adverse events for venlafaxine.

11 Adverse Event Reports per Section 17 of BPCA

12 (cont.), Venlafaxine

13 DR. SACHS: Thank you very much. I am

14 glad to be here to talk to you, guys. It is

15 actually nice to see some familiar faces among the

16 crowd.

17 I will be discussing the adverse events

18 for venlafaxine, and I think you, guys, are

19 familiar now with the basic organization of the

20 talk. Venlafaxine, or trade name Effexor, has been

21 on the market since December, 1993 for the

22 treatment of major depressive disorder, generalized

116

1 anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder.

2 Although these are the indications in adults, there

3 are no approved pediatric indications despite the

4 fact that exclusivity was granted in December,

5 2002, and the sponsor now goes by the name of Wyeth

6 Pharmaceuticals.

7 Venlafaxine and its active metabolite,

8 whose name I am not going to try to pronounce, is a

9 potent inhibitor of both serotonin and

10 norepinephrine reuptake so this is actually an SNRI

11 but for convenience I am going to refer to the

12 whole class as SRIs. It also is a weak inhibitor

13 of dopamine reuptake. These actions, along with

14 the lack of significant muscarinic cholinergic and

15 histaminergic effects, do alter the side effect

16 profile of the drug. The half-life, which is about

17 5 hours for venlafaxine and 11 hours for the active

18 metabolite, is relevant for the timing of potential

19 discontinuation symptoms when they occur.

20 Venlafaxine was the fourth most commonly

21 prescribed antidepressant in the U.S. during 2003

22 and, as with other SRIs, prescriptions have been

117

1 rising in both pediatric and adult populations.

2 Although pediatric use seems to account for only

3 about 2.5 percent, this represents almost half a

4 million prescriptions. This use is all off-label.

5 Disorders of mood and anxiety, along with ADHD are

6 the most common indications that kids have been

7 treated for with venlafaxine.

8 I will now briefly describe the results of

9 the studies performed for exclusivity. There were

10 4 large, multicenter, double-blind,

11 placebo-controlled, parallel group, flexible dose

12 studies for each indication, that is, major

13 depressive disorder and general anxiety disorder.

14 The dose used was flexible dosing between 37.5 mg

15 and 225 mg, and the age was 6-17 years. None of

16 the studies in major depressive disorder showed a

17 significant difference in placebo and,

18 interestingly enough, only one of the studies for

19 generalized anxiety disorder showed a positive

20 study result.

21 The endpoints in both the trials were

22 age-appropriate clinical symptom rating scales for

118

1 major depressive disorder. It was the CDRS

2 revised. For the GAD trial it was the Columbia

3 Kiddy Scale for Affective Disorders, or the KSADS.

4 Since only one study showed efficacy, that is why

5 no approval was granted.

6 Safety information was based in part on

7 these 4 studies, as well as 2 open-label trials, a

8 6-month trial in major depressive disorder and

9 another study in conduct disorder. In these

10 studies decreased weight gain and growth was noted

11 which was unrelated to treatment emergent-anorexia.

12 You can see the numbers for the approximate weight

13 loss and weight gain in the placebo population, and

14 the height. If you actually read the results of

15 the studies posted on the web, these numbers differ

16 slightly from that because the FDA received

17 additional information and analyzed it. The other

18 thing that is kind of interesting is that it is

19 actually important that the height effect was seen

20 in the exclusivity studies. It is pretty

21 significant because it was a very short period of

22 time that the drugs were studied.

119

1 The other adverse event that was noted,

2 mild adverse event, is that there were elevations

3 in cholesterol and blood pressure that were similar

4 to those seen in adults. That also was added to

5 the label.

6 Since we are speaking of the label, let\'s

7 turn to the relevant safety labeling. I would like

8 to highlight several things about the labeling,

9 some of which is relevant to the safety discussion

10 or the adverse events that we see, but also many of

11 the changes are physically highlighted in yellow to

12 kind of emphasize that these are the new changes

13 that have been added actually since March.

14 In terms of neonates and pregnancy,

15 venlafaxine is considered a category C drug. That

16 means it should be used in pregnancy only if

17 clearly needed. Language regarding the

18 discontinuation syndrome in newborns was added

19 fairly recently, first in January, 2003 and then

20 updated last month. It is found in the section

21 under \"non-teratogenic effects.\" What the labeling

22 describes is that you can see discontinuation

120

1 effects in newborns with complications that may

2 require prolonged hospitalization or respiratory

3 support that may arise even as soon as delivery.

4 You may also see some clinical findings, including

5 neurologic, respiratory and systemic symptoms.

6 These symptoms are consistent either with

7 discontinuation of the drug or potentially actually

8 a direct toxic effect of the serotonin.

9 As you know, in part because of the

10 deliberations in February, a warning recommending

11 close observation for deterioration or emergence of

12 psychiatric symptoms in patients that are treated

13 with these SRIs was added in May, 2004 to the

14 label, and this warning actually supersedes and

15 replaces some of the information that was in the

16 label previously regarding the association of

17 suicide with depression and other co-morbid

18 disorders, and a statement that Wyeth had added on

19 its own that there were some suicidality seen in

20 the pediatric trials. The other thing that is

21 mentioned is the occurrence of sustained

22 hypertension.

121

1 These slides show an extensive list of

2 precautions which are listed in the order that they

3 appear in the label. Most of these things were

4 seen in the top 20 adverse events that you have in

5 the main report for venlafaxine, and we see some of

6 these in the post-exclusivity adverse events that

7 occurred during the year. I draw your attention to

8 the risk of bleeding and also the problems with

9 seizures, and then in the new labeling which is

10 regarding the weight loss and slower rate of growth

11 in children.

12 In addition, under adverse reactions the

13 risk of symptoms with discontinuation, and this is

14 in adults and older children, include both physical

15 and psychiatric symptoms. In March there was some

16 labeling added to the postmarketing reports on

17 dyskinesia and rhabodomyolysis.

18 So, now that you are familiar with all the

19 changes in the label, let\'s look at the adverse

20 events for the year. These are actually the raw

21 counts of all the adverse events. There were

22 approximately 1,500, of which about half are in the

122

1 U.S. and they may represent some duplicates.

2 Pediatric reports are really a relatively small

3 proportion, less than 4 percent of total reports

4 and this has been pretty consistent over the past

5 several years since marketing. There were only 2

6 deaths that occurred, and I will be discussing them

7 in a few moments.

8 Turning to the specific 1-year

9 post-exclusivity period, there were 49 unduplicated

10 events. I apologize for the busy nature of this

11 slide. There were 19 events that involved in utero

12 or maternal exposures and 30 that were direct

13 pediatric exposures. The gender and age

14 distribution is seen here. Of interest, there is a

15 male predominance of the adverse events in the

16 infants and neonates while the gender distribution

17 is pretty similar in the older children. Outside

18 the neonatal period, most of the direct exposures

19 involved adolescents and children, as would be

20 expected.

21 Looking more closely at the in utero

22 events, there were actually no deaths reported

123

1 among the 19 in utero events, 3 of which also had

2 concomitant breast feeding. There were 4 unrelated

3 congenital anomalies; 2 had cardiac malformations,

4 1 with an ASD and the other with dextrocardia.

5 Another infant had hypospadias and the last infant

6 had extra syndactyly, which is a fusion and webbing

7 of the digits. Co-morbidities and other

8 medications were actually involved in all these

9 congenital anomalies.

10 Neurologic events were described in 11

11 infants. We saw 2 infants that had hypotonia; 3

12 infants who developed seizures; and 6 infants who

13 had disordered movements.

14 Just to illustrate how difficult it is to

15 sort out causality for these events, on follow-up

16 for one of the infants who had seizures the event

17 was considered unrelated to venlafaxine because the

18 patient had experienced a subarachnoid hemorrhage.

19 But, if you will recall, abnormal bleeding can be

20 associated with venlafaxine. So, it is potentially

21 possible that the baby had subarachnoid hemorrhage

22 related to the medication. Of course, that is

124

1 conjecture but just to show how hard it is to sort

2 out the information.

3 The losartan in utero exposure events were

4 really 4 reports that detail complications that

5 occurred in babies with co-morbid conditions and

6 medications. They are described here. While it is

7 less serious, it is something that has emerged in

8 the literature so it is interesting that we did see

9 2 cases here as well.

10 Co-morbid disease and medications, as I

11 have explained, may contribute to some of these

12 events. Although 2 events were coded specifically

13 as neonatal withdrawal, there are actually up to 5

14 others where symptoms that emerged, like

15 jitteriness or tremor or seizure, could have

16 reflected neonatal withdrawal but it was just not

17 coded that way.

18 Prematurity was reported in 4 infants but

19 in 8 cases there actually was insufficient

20 information in the case report to determine whether

21 or not a baby was premature. Three infants were

22 breast fed. One mother reported smoking and

125

1 drinking but that information about tobacco or

2 substance exposure or illicit drugs is actually not

3 present in the majority of the reports. About half

4 the infants were exposed to concomitant

5 medications, 4 of which were psychotropic. When I

6 looked back, 5 included benzodiazepines. In only 2

7 the case report expressly stated that there were no

8 other medications involved, and whether or not

9 medicines were involved in 7 of the other cases is

10 not known.

11 So, in looking at the neonatal events,

12 they do seem to reflect the ones that are labeled

13 in adults, for example tremor, convulsion and

14 hypotonia. The role of concomitant medicines and

15 co-morbid conditions, such as prematurity, is

16 unclear. And, whether or not symptoms such as

17 jitteriness or tremor or seizure are related to

18 withdrawal or serotonin toxicity is also unclear,

19 and this will be discussed later today by Miss

20 Phelan and Dr. Levin.

21 Now I am going to turn to the 30 adverse

22 events that have been associated with direct

126

1 exposure. The majority of these were neurologic,

2 psychiatric or related to overdose. Of the 30

3 direct exposures, dose range and indication for use

4 is not available for all of them but the doses were

5 generally within the approved adult dosing. Note

6 again that there is no pediatric dosing. The

7 indications were combinations of depression,

8 anxiety or ADHD.

9 Health providers were responsible for the

10 majority of the reports. You might recall that

11 that is in contrast to the information presented at

12 the last session. Many patients were on other

13 medicines in addition to venlafaxine. Twenty were

14 on concomitant medication, about two-thirds, and 10

15 patients were on other psychotropic medications.

16 The majority of adverse events were

17 psychiatric. The 2 deaths in the sample were due

18 to completed suicides. Four attempted suicides

19 also occurred. All of them were overdoses, 1 case

20 of suicidal ideation and 2 cases of self-injury

21 where there was no clear intent of suicidal

22 ideation. There are also 3 cases of aggression and

127

1 agitation and 2 cases of behavior changes. Once

2 again, there were concomitant medications in a

3 majority of these cases, 6 of which were

4 psychotropic.

5 Neurological events were the next most

6 frequent adverse events reported, and seizures,

7 loss of consciousness and motor or sensory

8 impairment are all labeled events and many of these

9 cases, again, involved other medicines or

10 underlying medical conditions.

11 There were 4 patients that developed

12 symptoms of serotonin toxicity, such as hyperexia

13 and/or neurological symptoms that were related to

14 overdoses. One of them, a 3 year-old, may have

15 accidentally ingested his sister\'s medication. The

16 other 3 were deemed non-accidental as the intent

17 was unclear. The remaining adverse events occurred

18 singly and are labeled or related to labeled

19 events, with the possible exception of the specific

20 drug interaction between Augmentin and venlafaxine

21 in this one case where the effectiveness of the

22 antidepressant was decreased.

128

1 As with the SRIs, you can see symptoms

2 with discontinuation or decrease in dose, and we

3 did see physical symptoms or emergence of

4 psychiatric symptoms in 6 patients in these adverse

5 event reports. So, the adverse events really are

6 related to labeled or already labeled events, with

7 the possible exception of the events seen in

8 neonates.

9 Warning concerning the increased risk of

10 suicidal behavior did exist in venlafaxine\'s label

11 prior to our advisory committee in February but, as

12 you know, there is now a new class warning for the

13 SRIs. The new labeling was added as a result of

14 the exclusivity studies regarding the effect of

15 growth and that was very recent. The new class

16 labeling regarding maternal exposure and potential

17 occurrence of neonatal withdrawal with serotonin

18 toxicity will be discussed further this afternoon.

19 Routine adverse event monitoring for venlafaxine,

20 as with all other drugs, will continue. I hope you

21 are not depressed.

22 \[Laughter\]

129

1 Are there any questions?

2 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you very much.

3 Questions? Dr. Ebert?

4 DR. EBERT: Is a non-accidental overdose

5 similar to a suicide attempt? Are they classified

6 together or separately?

7 DR. SACHS: The reason these actually were

8 not classified as suicides, although, truthfully, I

9 made every attempt to do so, is that you can\'t

10 tell. In one case, for example, the kids may just

11 have been exchanging medication. In another case

12 you don\'t know if they were taking it to get high.

13 That is actually why.

14 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Nelson?

15 DR. NELSON: It may be because it is more

16 recent, but I haven\'t been able to find in the

17 label that we have in our book the growth change.

18 DR. SACHS: Yes, that change is very

19 recent. What I think you got the handout of the

20 whole statement of the adverse events that is kind

21 of a summary of what our presentation is and these

22 sections of the label are included in that in

130

1 entirety. But I think this issue is the point. I

2 mean, we are trying very hard, at FDA, to make the

3 labels available and there is a website now called

4 drugs at FDA. You can see that for just this drug

5 alone there have been three changes to the label

6 since March.

7 DR. NELSON: Just as a follow-up question

8 to reinforce something I think Dr. Gorman said at

9 the beginning of the day, if there is information

10 about that placed in because of pediatric

11 exclusivity, I would strongly recommend that the

12 standard comment about safety and effectiveness not

13 being established in children is changed to where

14 it actually says 2 randomized, controlled trials

15 involving 353 children failed to demonstrate safety

16 and effectiveness. If you look right under it,

17 under geriatric use, it actually does list a number

18 of adults\[sic\]. So, I think it is somewhat, in my

19 mind, duplicitous to leave that general statement

20 in which many pediatricians interpret as there were

21 no studies.

22 DR. SACHS: And I think there is always a

131

1 tension between kind of somehow having some tacit

2 approval if you put too much information in the

3 label.

4 DR. D. MURPHY: I think the other issue

5 too is that in this field particularly 2 studies

6 does not mean the product doesn\'t work. I think

7 your point is that at least there is information

8 and we ought to indicate that there is information.

9 Is that really what you are trying to get at? And,

10 I think we ought to be able to find a way to do it.

11 The issue is getting agreement within the Division

12 that they think that is an appropriate thing to do.

13 So, you are telling us to get feedback to the

14 Division that you think it is an appropriate thing

15 to do?

16 DR. NELSON: Yes, and no matter how many

17 footnotes you want to put in about assay

18 sensitivity, I would still put it in there. I

19 mean, you can quote everything Bob Temple ever

20 wrote on the topic, as far as I am concerned, in

21 the label if you want to do that.

22 \[Laughter\]

132

1 DR. D. MURPHY: Joan, is there additional

2 concurrence with Dr. Nelson\'s comment?

3 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Santana would like to

4 comment.

5 DR. SANTANA: I want to take it further.

6 I have heard a lot of comments about this at

7 various meetings and I wonder if the direction that

8 we should be taking\--and this is a suggestion\--is

9 that we start thinking about creating an area in

10 the labels that is related to pediatric

11 exclusivity. It is here. It is being done. There

12 is data. It doesn\'t imply that there is enough

13 data to provide an indication or that there is

14 enough data to do all these other things that are

15 in the label, but I wonder if a part of our mission

16 is to educate practitioners and to educate the

17 public whether having a section in labels that

18 relates to pediatric exclusivity studies and trying

19 to explain what those mean, obviously, in the

20 context of what those are really done for, would be

21 helpful.

22 Because, if not, the information is not

133

1 going to get there. The label is not created for

2 that information. So, unless we use the label in a

3 different way that information is not going to get

4 there. I don\'t know what the challenges or the

5 barriers for doing that in the label are. I grant

6 I am ignorant on that, but maybe that is something

7 we should be aiming towards.

8 DR. CHESNEY: Can I comment? I think this

9 is almost a slippery slope. I think by putting

10 studies and results in the label\--we already have

11 people prescribing for totally unapproved

12 indications, in fact contraindications, and if they

13 see something in there, that there were really no

14 bad side effects seen, and even though it is not

15 efficacious and approved, \"hey, the studies were

16 done.\" I don\'t know if I am expressing myself very

17 well but I think this is a very difficult area.

18 On the surface I would agree with what Dr.

19 Nelson is saying, but I think that it has to be

20 worded very carefully because I think when people

21 say there are studies and, \"hey, they haven\'t said

22 not to use it so why don\'t I just go ahead,\" to me,

134

1 this is a little more complicated. On the surface

2 it seems like a no-brainer, but I think maybe there

3 are some other issues. Dr. Hudak?

4 DR. HUDAK: Well, I would echo prior

5 comments here. I look at this and there are half a

6 million prescriptions of this in the pediatric

7 population a year, and I presume by the other

8 information you shared that most of that is in

9 association with treatment for depression, although

10 you don\'t have any hard figures on that. You know,

11 you look at the labeling here and in terms of the

12 adult efficacy it talks about 5 studies that

13 demonstrated efficacy in adults that showed

14 improvement in at least 2 of 3 different clinical

15 measures. I think it is critical to have the

16 pediatric trial information in there because you

17 have 2 studies with a significant number of

18 patients for this type of disorder where you have

19 no effect. I think any information like that is

20 very important to get out there.

21 I guess I may take a different tone than

22 Dr. Chesney on this, but I think, you know,

135

1 information is good and I think the reason we have

2 a half million prescriptions in pediatrics is

3 because we are looking at the adult studies and, as

4 someone else said, \"well, it worked in adults, you

5 know, the same disease and it might work in

6 children; let\'s use it.\" On the other hand, if you

7 have specific information that says we now have 2

8 studies that cannot find efficacy in 353 patients,

9 providers might have a different philosophy in

10 terms of what medication they will use in this

11 population.

12 DR. CHESNEY: I agree with that. I think

13 it is just that you have to be very careful about

14 the wording because it does provide a very subtle

15 endorsement in a sense, just because it is there.

16 I am probably not expressing this very well. Dr.

17 O\'Fallon and then Dr. Gorman.

18 DR. O\'FALLON: One of the issues here is

19 that a lot of these were pharmacokinetic studies.

20 You know, if a child is not treated at an effective

21 dose level it is not fair to count them as not

22 being very effective. In a certain sense, by just

136

1 quoting, you know, 500 children were treated, that

2 is not quite fair if they were being treated at

3 lower levels that were being used for

4 pharmacokinetic studies and that sort of thing.

5 What I am saying is I think you have to be

6 a little careful how you do it. I vote to have

7 that information in there, but I am not an M.D.; I

8 don\'t treat these patients. But I think you should

9 have the data in but don\'t just dump it because you

10 have to be careful about where that data came from.

11 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Gorman?

12 DR. GORMAN: It strikes me that for the

13 last six years with this group we have talked a lot

14 about the label. I have had the opportunity to go

15 back and read old drug labels and they are very

16 brief, a page, maybe two pages. The label

17 continues to try to struggle under its present

18 format to encompass new realities. I am impressed,

19 and I both dislike this and find it very valuable,

20 that in the era we now live in there are documents

21 that present executive summaries with embedded

22 links to information for those who want to pursue

137

1 more information.

2 I wonder\--I love proposing work for other

3 people so let me do this really carefully\--is there

4 an effort at FDA to create a new labeling

5 structure? You did that with OTC medicines and I

6 think with great success. I think the new drug fax

7 label is a major step in the right direction.

8 Could not a similar design be done for prescription

9 medicines with embedded electronic links, and the

10 official label stop being the piece of paper in the

11 document and start being an electronic form while

12 there is an official executive summary that

13 continues to go out with the product?

14 DR. D. MURPHY: Yes, there has been years

15 of work on this. You have to notify industry that

16 they have to submit things electronically. You

17 have a whole process. There is a deadline of when

18 they have to be doing that. One of our problems

19 since I have been at FDA, since 1998, is that we

20 have been struggling with the fact that FDA doesn\'t

21 have available the labels. We have been trying not

22 only to have them available to the public but

138

1 electronically available so you can link in these

2 ways. Yesterday I met with a group that has

3 literally been working on this for years now. You

4 would think it would be simple. It is not. As I

5 said, one of the first steps is getting things

6 electronically. The second thing is getting it

7 maintained, updated, etc.

8 There is a new group that now has a

9 business plan associated with it so that we are

10 hoping that we actually will be able to have this

11 resolved, and there has been a lot of activity and

12 attention to this, I guess is what I am trying to

13 say. Everybody who is in FDA fundamentally agrees.

14 This is our product. This is our work. We need to

15 make it current and available and linkable and

16 searchable. From our perspective, we also would

17 like to be able to search our labels so we can go

18 and say I want to relabel that it has QT

19 prolongation as an adverse event. We are trying to

20 accomplish more than just having a scanned-in label

21 up on the web. That is what I am trying to say.

22 There also is, and has been for a number

139

1 of years a concerted effort to simplify and change

2 our label, and there have been public announcements

3 of that and feedback on that, making these labels

4 more user-friendly and that also is one of those

5 continuing works in progress. It is very near but,

6 God knows, I have been terrible at predicting.

7 So, yes, and I think that actually one of

8 the things that I was thinking about because of

9 this tension, this dichotomy, you know, is you may

10 get 5 positive studies but you may have 10 others.

11 The label cannot become a repository of negative

12 studies. But we need to be able to find a way to

13 transmit the fact that there is information

14 available. What I think the challenge for the

15 committee is how can we go forward with finding a

16 way to put a statement in the label that there has

17 been data collected and how to get to that data, at

18 a minimum\--at a minimum. This whole process of

19 having some sort of linkage would really make it

20 much easier.

21 DR. CHESNEY: I like your comment that the

22 label can\'t become a repository of negative

140

1 studies. That is a good way of phrasing it. Other

2 comments on this issue? Dr. Hudak?

3 DR. HUDAK: I would say in a way it has to

4 be because those negative studies don\'t make it in

5 the literature where they can be otherwise

6 accessed.

7 DR. D. MURPHY: There has to be a way of

8 making the point of the negative studies and where

9 they are available, I think, and that they have

10 been done. That is what I think you are saying.

11 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Gorman?

12 DR. GORMAN: I think that is an issue we

13 have been struggling with, that is, how do we

14 remove the veil that seems to be present for what

15 has been done and is important clinically but isn\'t

16 out there? One of the many goals of pediatric

17 exclusivity and the process was to try to get

18 studies done in children and have that material

19 disseminated. If when it comes up for

20 reauthorization, this continues to be an ongoing

21 problem of a continued veil of information, that

22 there is negative information out there, negative

141

1 either in terms of effectiveness or negative in the

2 fact that there are significant safety issues that

3 are not presented, then that will have to be

4 readdressed in the legislative process.

5 DR. D. MURPHY: I think that the positive

6 part of this is that, as you have noticed, actually

7 the clinical review is up and it is for a

8 non-approval action. I don\'t think you, guys,

9 realize what a watershed event this is. This

10 information is otherwise not available except for

11 pediatrics now. So, it is getting out there. One

12 of the problems, as you know, is we have to

13 re-notify industry, as we explained last time, and

14 until we re-notify them we cannot put information

15 up. That is now happening.

16 There is another potential problem. It

17 may or may not play out, but I do want to say that

18 the agency agrees that one of the intentions of the

19 legislation was to try to make this information

20 available and to put what we would see as quality

21 information into the label. But we are in a

22 situation where if we had a non-approval or an

142

1 approval it had to go up publicly and that is

2 happening. So, I think that is a major watershed

3 event that is occurring for pediatrics.

4 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Sachs, did you want to

5 comment?

6 DR. SACHS: I just wanted to say that this

7 was a drug that was not approved and you can access

8 this information.

9 DR. CHESNEY: All right, I think we will

10 move ahead then. We will have more anticipated

11 discussion that includes venlafaxine when we talk

12 about the class this afternoon.

13 I want to clarify one issue. I thought

14 that since question 1 had its separate bracket that

15 it was for everything we discussed but I understand

16 it was just for fentanyl. So, that has been taken

17 care of.

18 Our next issue is the open public hearing,

19 and before I read this two-page statement let me

20 ask if there is anybody who wanted to present at

21 the open public hearing this morning.

22 \[No response\]

143

1 No? Thank you very much. Our next

2 speaker is Dr. Murphy, who is going to give us a

3 pediatric update.

4 Pediatric Update

5 DR. D. MURPHY: I don\'t have any slides

6 for you. Actually, this is a ruse. I am going to

7 give you a very short update and then I hope to

8 indicate to you how much we have appreciated the

9 work of this committee.

10 Who is it that said \"the best of times and

11 the worst of times?\" A dissolution has led to an

12 evolution. By that, I mean that you had better

13 watch out what you wish for. We have long wanted

14 there to be a full pediatric advisory committee

15 which Congress has seen to do, to provide the

16 agency with, which is about the only way we were

17 going to get it because there are certain other

18 laws regulating how many advisory committees we can

19 have. So, Congress stepped in and mandated that

20 there will be a full pediatric advisory committee,

21 which should help a lot with transparency so that

22 when we are having a meeting to talk about

144

1 pediatrics, it won\'t come out under infectious

2 diseases, and it was gracious of that committee to

3 chair you and to grow this subcommittee but it has

4 been very misleading to the public.

5 So, the good news is we have a new full

6 pediatric advisory committee, and it is charged

7 with a fair number of substantial activities which

8 you have been told about previously, such as the

9 reporting of the post-exclusivity safety and

10 adverse events, such as the ethical issues and any

11 activity involving pediatrics within the agency

12 across all centers. So, there will be the

13 construct of a new pediatric full advisory

14 committee.

15 The legislation also clearly tells us some

16 of the representation that we need to have on that

17 committee, and we are working on that. That

18 committee will be administered out of the Office of

19 the Commissioner\'s Office and Tom Perez and others

20 have really done yeoman\'s work for us. Jan

21 Johannssen, are you back there? Would you like to

22 raise your hand so they will see that we now have a

145

1 new exec. sec. for this committee and Jan is in

2 charge of making all of this happen. As I stated,

3 this is also going to work across centers for

4 issues that may be coming up.

5 So, we have a new committee but with that

6 one has to dissolve the old committee and this is

7 your last meeting as a pediatric advisory

8 subcommittee. It is really sad. You know, we have

9 developed such an enormous database\--I guess is the

10 way to put it\--of information with you that I wish

11 we could just roll everybody from this committee

12 over to the new committee but I have been told that

13 is not possible, and we did try to call and explain

14 that to everybody.

15 I want to take one more moment and just

16 quickly remind you of the work that you have done,

17 and that is, we began this process thinking it was

18 going to be a typical sort of scientifically-based

19 activity and, clearly, it immediately became

20 evident that we would have to address the ethical

21 issues. This committee has struggled with many

22 ethical issues, and you have advised the agency on

146

1 how to approach trial design. When the patient

2 doesn\'t have the disease, is that ethical? How can

3 that be done or can it be done at all?

4 You have advised us on placebo-controlled

5 trials in children and you have advised us on how

6 to conduct research in a vulnerable pediatric

7 population. That advice has resulted in consensus

8 statements that are now on the web, which I think

9 are very helpful in answering questions that people

10 may have because they were very thoughtful

11 discussions with a range of opinions and have been

12 referred to a number of times.

13 The scientific issues that you have dealt

14 with, in addition to the adverse event reporting

15 which you have a marathon day on today, you have

16 done on numerous occasions. You can see some of

17 the important scientific issues that have arisen

18 during this process, again, looking at the SSRIs,

19 looking a Duragesic patches, the neonatal

20 withdrawal, a number of events that you have all

21 asked for additional information on I think have

22 been important in helping us move this area

147

1 forward.

2 Another big milestone for this committee

3 and an important one was the whole discussion of

4 therapies or interventions for infants who are

5 jaundiced. I think that was a very important

6 discussion and will continue to be important. I

7 think that this committee contributed very

8 significantly in the agency\'s assessment of how to

9 proceed in that arena of developing interventions

10 for neonates who have hyperbilirubinemia.

11 You also dealt with issues of should we

12 even develop a product for children and I think a

13 very important contribution was to say no, such as

14 the development of certain sleep products\--don\'t

15 issue a written request for this. This is not a

16 public health need we want to advocate.

17 Other big issues that you have

18 addressed\--long-term follow-up, and this is an

19 ongoing problem. You didn\'t solve it but you

20 helped us work at it, as we will continue to work

21 at this because it is a very complicated process.

22 Also, I don\'t want to forget the topical products.

148

1 Things that one applies to the skin are not as

2 innocent as may always seem and this committee has

3 dealt with adrenal access suppression and potential

4 long-term carcinogenic effects and

5 immunosuppression of some topical products.

6 That is a lot. That is sort of on top of

7 your ongoing activities and learning about all your

8 new tasks that keep getting assigned to you with

9 the new legislation.

10 Now, what I have to do today is say

11 goodbye to all of you because I guess the technical

12 legal term is that we have to declare you

13 dissolved.

14 \[Laughter\]

15 I have asked Raya McCree, who is our

16 administrative person who really runs the Office of

17 Counter-terrorism and Pediatric Development. She

18 is why we get through every day, and she also

19 rescued your presentations today. You would think

20 this would be simple to get but it is one of those

21 cartoons where the kid goes every which way, the

22 process that getting these plaque presentations

149

1 took. So, Raya, if you would come up here?

2 I would like to start out with presenting

3 a plaque and a certificate to Joan Chesney who, as

4 we know, is the chairman of this committee and has

5 been the chairman of the subcommittee and who is a

6 professor of pediatrics at the University of

7 Tennessee. Joan, I tried to think of how to say

8 this, what you have done has been so important, you

9 have helped bring this committee a level of

10 credibility within a scientific organization. I am

11 sure you, in academic medicine know, pediatrics is

12 always fighting for its academic recognition. It

13 was really important that this committee be

14 perceived as a good science-based committee, and I

15 think Joan\--all of you have\--and Joan\'s leadership

16 has been very important. She not only helped bring

17 together this group and made sure that you all had

18 your say. She didn\'t try\--and I have seen chairmen

19 do this\--to intimidate people on the committee; not

20 let them speak when a chairman didn\'t particularly

21 agree with their opinion. I think she has been

22 very important in making sure that the committee

150

1 had a say, whether they agreed with her or not, and

2 has brought forth that consensus, and then helped

3 to synthesize it. She has been very helpful in

4 helping us synthesize what we think the committee

5 said.

6 Joan, if you would come on up here, I

7 would like to present you\--I will ask each one of

8 you actually to come up and I will give you a

9 little token of our appreciation. Joan, thank you

10 very much.

11 \[Applause\]

12 Be careful where you put these. They will

13 knock somebody down if they fall down. Joan\'s

14 indicates that she was chair of the advisory

15 committee.

16 Judith O\'Fallon has been our statistician.

17 One thing that has been wonderful about Judith is

18 that she takes the statistical talk and makes it

19 applicable to the clinical. The way she has been

20 able to condense the questions has been wonderful

21 and much appreciated. As somebody said, we talk

22 about therapeutic options and I don\'t think anybody

151

1 at the FDA will forget the extra quivers that you

2 said we needed. Thank you very much.

3 \[Applause\]

4 Let\'s see, who is next? Mimi isn\'t here.

5 Steve Ebert. After all this time, I am still

6 mispronouncing your name. Steve has been our

7 consumer representative, who goes through a

8 particular process to get to this place. It is an

9 independent parallel process. We wanted to thank

10 him very much because I think your contributions

11 have been very thoughtful and have been the type of

12 comments that we would hope somebody in your

13 position would contribute.

14 \[Applause\]

15 Bob Nelson, Dr. Nelson. Dr. Nelson,

16 professor of pediatrics, as you know, Department of

17 Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine at Children\'s

18 Hospital in Philadelphia where he also serves on an

19 IRB. I went through that long title because I

20 think it is important to know that one of the roles

21 that we hoped Dr. Nelson would play would be as our

22 point person for ethical issues and, boy, has he

152

1 done that! He has been invaluable and has also

2 helped us identify other people to assist in the

3 more extensive discussions that we have had, and

4 has been a critical person in the development of

5 this committee. Bob, thank you so much.

6 \[Applause\]

7 Victor Santana, Dr. Santana is the

8 associate professor in hematology and oncology at

9 St. Jude\'s. He has been our alternate chair at

10 times; has been very helpful in helping us with

11 this whole issue of oncologic development where the

12 process is different, and has brought that

13 expertise to this committee. He is also on the

14 Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee. So, this has been

15 an important liaison that we have had and we really

16 appreciate your time and effort. Thank you very

17 much.

18 \[Applause\]

19 Dr. Danford is associate professor of

20 pediatrics and pediatric cardiology at the

21 University of Nebraska Medical Center and has been

22 our cardiac expert. I know we haven\'t had specific

153

1 drug issues in your area but we finally got one for

2 Dr. Danford. In the last meeting on cardiac

3 imaging he did an outstanding job of synthesizing

4 that entire technical day and it has been very

5 useful to us and I really want to recognize that

6 specific effort, besides your overall efforts on

7 the committee. Thank you very much.

8 \[Applause\]

9 Dr. Fink. Is he not here? Oh, shoot! We

10 always count on him to give us a comment nobody

11 else would have thought of.

12 \[Laughter\]

13 Dr. Fuchs, Dr. Susan Fuchs. Dr. Fuchs is

14 our emergency medicine person. Actually, Dr.

15 Fuchs, you are one of the people that we haven\'t

16 had a real product for but today we were counting

17 on you to be able to provide some specific input as

18 far as Duragesic is concerned, and we appreciate

19 your overall contributions very much. Thank you

20 very much.

21 \[Applause\]

22 Dr. Gorman, general pediatrician in

154

1 Ellicott City, chair of the Committee on Drugs for

2 the American Academy of Pediatrics and\--how can I

3 say it?\--I am amazed at this man, I really am. How

4 he does this, continues to practice, stays up to

5 date, provides really insightful comments, is

6 chairing the Committee on Drugs at the Academy\--he

7 just puts us to shame and I just want to thank you

8 for your tremendous contributions.

9 \[Applause\]

10 Dr. Luban, who is the Vice Chair in the

11 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Director of

12 Transfusion Medicine and Quality Assurance for

13 Children\'s National Medical Center in Washington,

14 and is our hematology and lab expert on the

15 committee. Gosh knows, the diagnosis depends on

16 the correctness and validity of the laboratory and

17 we have been counting on her and she has provided

18 that type of expertise and helped to us and we want

19 to thank you very much.

20 \[Applause\]

21 Dr. Sam Maldonado, Dr. Maldonado, we can\'t

22 give you a little thing\--we don\'t give gifts to

155

1 industry.

2 DR. MALDONADO: I understand.

3 DR. D. MURPHY: But we can recognize the

4 tremendous effort that you have provided by giving

5 us your perspective, and you know we have relied on

6 you many times during the conduct of these

7 committees to provide us that perspective and

8 input. We thank you very much and you can come

9 back and give your carrot talk. I just love your

10 carrot and stick talk.

11 \[Applause\]

12 Tom, I did recognize your efforts while

13 you were out of the room. I want to make sure that

14 you knew that.

15 DR. PEREZ: Well, thank you, and I would

16 like to recognize you for doing what you are doing

17 because, believe it or not, the bureaucracy gets in

18 the way of doing things of this nature and it takes

19 a little bit of money, clout and neither of those I

20 have.

21 \[Laughter\]

22 DR. D. MURPHY: Dr. Hudak, somehow your

156

1 certificate isn\'t here. Dr. Hudak, as you know, is

2 a professor at the University of Florida

3 Jacksonville in neonatology. Dr. Hudak has not

4 only contributed to the arena of information on

5 neonatology for drug development but, as I reminded

6 him when I spoke to him the other day, he has had

7 the joy of working specifically on the proton pump

8 inhibitor drug development program which continues

9 also to be in the process. I wanted to thank you

10 very much and I am sorry we don\'t have your

11 certificate. We will get it to you.

12 One last announcement is that I am

13 dissolving myself too from being the Office

14 Director for the Office of Counter-terrorism and

15 Pediatric Drug Development as of September.

16 Somebody asked me was it not too much because I was

17 not only doing counter-terrorism and pediatrics but

18 I also was doing part-time in the Office of

19 Pediatric Therapeutics within the Office of the

20 Commissioner, and it got to be too much. So, I am

21 going to go full-time to the Office of Pediatric

22 Therapeutics in September. So, I will be seeing

157

1 many of you again, or some of you again, I hope.

2 But no longer will I be with the Office of

3 Counter-terrorism and Pediatric Drug Development.

4 Dr. Shirley Murphy, who is a division

5 director for pediatrics, has done such an

6 outstanding job bringing together so many wonderful

7 people and getting this information to you, she is

8 going to continue to be here. And Dr. Rosemary

9 Roberts\--I had hoped she would be here but she said

10 if I don\'t make it, they know what I look

11 like\--will be the Acting Office Director. So, you

12 are in very good hands anyway that you look at it.

13 Again, thank you all very much for your

14 participation.

15 \[Applause\]

16 DR. CHESNEY: I am going to take the

17 chair\'s prerogative and add to the agenda. I just

18 wanted to say in our state of dissolution\--

19 \[Laughter\]

20 \--there are some people we would like to

21 thank. I am looking at the list here and I hope I

22 don\'t forget anybody but, first of all, we have to

158

1 thank all the people that developed the legislation

2 that allowed us to be here at all. So, I think

3 that involves people in the back of the room. It

4 involves mainly the Academy of Pediatrics but also

5 pediatric department chairs, just a whole host of

6 people that even had the concept that children had

7 to be recognized in terms of drug use.

8 I would like to thank Elaine Vining, in

9 the back, and particularly Richard Gorman. I think

10 they have done an amazing amount of

11 behind-the-scenes activity speaking in front of

12 Congress. In fact, Richard, you did have dinner

13 with the President. Is that not right?

14 DR. GORMAN: No, that is not right.

15 DR. CHESNEY: Elaine may have. Elaine,

16 why don\'t you stand up? I don\'t know that

17 everybody in the room knows Elaine but she is the

18 legislative lobbyist\--is that the correct

19 term?\--for the American Academy of Pediatrics and

20 she is really the one that has negotiated with all

21 the congressional aides that work with the

22 senators. I had the opportunity two weeks ago to

159

1 go to the Hill to do some lobbying for the first

2 time and these legislative aides are really key,

3 and Elaine has worked very, very closely with them

4 for years now getting all these different laws

5 passed. So, I am so glad you are here,

6 representing what the Academy does.

7 \[Applause\]

8 Richard, I don\'t know if you want to say

9 anything further about the Academy and the

10 Committee on Drugs.

11 DR. GORMAN: Never give up a chance to

12 talk! I think this has been an issue for the

13 Committee on Drugs for at least 35 years where it

14 has ben written down, and Ralph Coffman, who is not

15 in the room today, and Chet Berlin and Bob Ward, my

16 previous committee chairs, have carried this torch

17 and just passed it to me to, luckily, run the last

18 100 yards to get this legislation passed. But the

19 Academy has been organizationally, systematically

20 and bureaucratically involved in this effort and I

21 just happened to be the face at the end of this

22 process. As we know, we are not at the end of this

160

1 process as refinements on our initial efforts

2 continue to be made.

3 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. I also wanted to

4 particularly thank all the members of the staff who

5 have really made our job easy. We really do 0.001

6 percent of the work when we sit here on the

7 committee because they have done all the work

8 behind the scenes. They have selected what it is

9 we are going to talk about\--and who knows what they

10 don\'t give us to talk about. But I have always

11 been assured that they don\'t bring the easy things

12 to the committee so when we sit and struggle, I

13 think that is often correct.

14 But many, many people\--and I will try to

15 recognize the few that my memory will allow me to

16 pull out\--but Rosemary Roberts just walked in.

17 Stand up. I think everybody knows Rosemary, but

18 she has been almost as key to this effort from the

19 beginning as Dianne has. Shirley Murphy, obviously

20 Susan Cummins. You don\'t know that there are

21 always phone calls behind the scenes and Susan and

22 Shirley are on those. Rosemary Addy, who most

161

1 recently has been extremely helpful in all of this,

2 and, Solomon, I feel like you have become one of

3 this group of staff because you present to us so

4 often and represent so many of the issues. Tom has

5 been a wonderful executive secretary. I think we

6 are all befuddled by everything that goes on in the

7 FDA, but Tom is one of the people who tells us what

8 we can and can\'t say and tells me when I can and

9 can\'t announce lunch and some very fundamental

10 things like that.

11 \[Laughter\]

12 But Tom has been just enormously helpful

13 and gets our emails to us on time, gets us our

14 reservations and gets us our limousines to the

15 airport, which he will do today in spite of the

16 ongoing events.

17 Then, all the medical officers who have

18 presented to us\--I can\'t tell you how impressive

19 and what an inspiration it is how clearly you

20 present; your slides are perfect. They are always

21 readable. They are succinct. They are right to

22 the point. I don\'t know who rehearses behind the

162

1 scenes all the time but I assume it is Susan and

2 Shirley and Solomon, and lots of other people. But

3 we really respect that you respect our time and

4 make it so much easier for us.

5 I think Bill Rodriguez and Don Madison are

6 both in the room, and Don Weis, but they have also

7 been very helpful to this whole process.

8 I am only going to say thank you to Dianne

9 because you have been key. As you can tell, I am

10 an intuitive person and I don\'t handle this kind of

11 dissolution very well.

12 \[Applause\]

13 Anyway, thank you Dianne. You have been

14 everything to this committee. Thank you.

15 \[Applause\]

16 I have discussed this with a few members

17 of the committee and I wanted to bring it again to

18 the committee\'s attention. I mentioned it to

19 Dianne yesterday when we were at a very interesting

20 meeting of which I will just give you a

21 two-sentence summary, the Food and Nutrition

22 Committee has very serendipitously discovered the

163

1 presence of furan, which has some very remote

2 similarities to dioxin. It is used to dissolve

3 resins, to prepare lacquers in a variety of

4 industries, but they have discovered very small

5 concentrations of it, on the order of parts per

6 billion, in a number of foods, primarily those that

7 have been canned and prepared. Interestingly,

8 because the issue came up with the pediatric

9 formulation of apple juice, they looked at other

10 pediatric foods and it is in formulae and it has

11 been in a number of pediatric baby food which is

12 prepared in bottles by heating.

13 They have been extremely diligent about

14 putting this on the web. It has been out there

15 since May 7 if you want to look and find all the

16 details. They are still very busily trying to look

17 at other foodstuffs. They are working very closely

18 with the folk in Canada. They have an extremely

19 sensitive mass spec assay now which has allowed

20 them to detect this. Of course, nobody knows if it

21 means anything at all. But it is out there now and

22 they are working very hard, and Dianne and Susan

164

1 were kind enough to ask me and Dr. Gorman, who

2 wasn\'t able to come, if we would go and listen and

3 comment. Dianne was also there. We represented

4 the committee in telling them that we would like

5 them to look for the presence of furan in a variety

6 of situations, including the fetus, the

7 mother-fetal diet, the newborn infant who may have

8 extremely permeable guts, and look at whether this

9 furan is concentrated in specific tissues, look at

10 fetal and infant animal models, and so on and so

11 on.

12 I won\'t elaborate any further, except to

13 say that that should all be up on the website and

14 that will be evolving. But in the process I had an

15 opportunity to talk to Dianne and I told her what

16 many of us have felt, which is that the issues that

17 are covered on this committee are so important and

18 so interesting and generally not available to 99

19 percent of those caring for children just because

20 most of us don\'t go to the Federal Register on a

21 regular basis or go to the FDA website even though

22 we have a vested interest in it.

165

1 So, one thought we had was that this

2 committee provide a synopsis of the events of each

3 of its meetings to be published in potentially a

4 pediatric journal. Pediatrics comes to mind right

5 away because it is the official spokes item for the

6 Academy and generally one that is read by all those

7 who care for children. This is at the moment a

8 total hypothetical construct because the editors of

9 Pediatrics may say they don\'t want to have anything

10 that is not pure science and heavily peer reviewed,

11 but that was the suggestion because issues like the

12 whole bilirubin issue I think are just fascinating

13 and they are just not out there.

14 I have talked to my colleagues and I have

15 told them about it; most of them don\'t know it.

16 So, that was the suggestion and I would be very

17 interested in comments from the committee and the

18 FDA and anybody else. The thought might be that

19 somebody on the committee would write a brief

20 summary and perhaps it would be the person who

21 specialized in that particular subject or area, or

22 perhaps it would be the chair, which I can say

166

1 since I don\'t even know whether I will be on the

2 next committee. Then the FDA would review it to be

3 sure that there was nothing that had been

4 accidentally included which is still confidential,

5 and then submitted to the journal. So, I would be

6 interested in comments or suggestions, other places

7 to publish it\--New York Times, Wall Street Journal.

8 Anyway, if you have comments, please let me know or

9 let Dianne or Susan or Shirley or anybody else

10 know. Shirley?

11 DR. S. MURPHY: I would just like to say

12 that we have been discussing internally about how

13 to get information, how to disseminate information,

14 and I totally agree with you that it is just not

15 out there. It reaches sometimes the newspapers if

16 it is really controversial but I think a systematic

17 way of having a regular column and reporting in

18 Pediatrics, and I think your idea of sharing the

19 responsibility, and then we would be happy to fact

20 check it because the slides are publicly available

21 on the web, it is all in the public domain, what is

22 discussed here, unless it is a closed session. So,

167

1 I think it is not too onerous a job and we would be

2 happy to pitch in an help with that.

3 DR. CHESNEY: Skip?

4 DR. NELSON: Two comments, I think if the

5 idea was to have an ongoing mechanism by which

6 information could get out to pediatricians, that

7 probably wouldn\'t be Pediatrics as a venue but

8 might be something like AP news where there could

9 be an interest in more timely and less sort of

10 academic discussions. Part of the problem with

11 this is who is going to write the first draft. I

12 mean, there are some practical things. But if, in

13 fact, that was done one of the questions would be

14 to what extent it could be a broad sort of

15 reflection on pediatric drug development\--where has

16 it been; where is it going, with a focus on the

17 committee but not just simply a historical basing

18 of the topics but also stepping back and looking at

19 some of the broader process issues that we bring

20 up; labeling issues that we have discussed; and

21 those kinds of things. If we did that, it would

22 probably have to be more of a product of the

168

1 individuals on the committee and not of the

2 committee nor of the FDA because I presume there

3 are some things that people in the FDA couldn\'t in

4 fact say.

5 DR. D. MURPHY: I think there are a

6 variety of ways to approach this. One possibility

7 is just this synthesis of the discussion. At least

8 in one option here it would be limited to the facts

9 that were presented and the discussion, and it

10 would be synthesized\--these were the issues; these

11 were the pros and cons; this is what the committee

12 advised; this is what might be happening. So

13 pediatricians, family practice people who take care

14 of children would know that this is you, out there.

15 The broader topic I think is always

16 something that is an option for anybody on the

17 committee who can use this information because it

18 was publicly presented. But I think what Joan was

19 talking about was trying to identify maybe not

20 every meeting but those scientific issues that have

21 come up. You all are a panel of experts that were

22 brought together; you think about it; and when you

169

1 think that it is important that somehow it be

2 synthesized and made more available.

3 DR. CHESNEY: One other group I forgot to

4 thank is the committee itself. I think this has

5 been a wonderful group and we have enjoyed each

6 other\'s company when we were allowed to talk to

7 each other. Thank you all for making the little

8 bit that I have had to do so much easier. Tom, do

9 we have permission to eat now? Why don\'t we plan

10 to reconvene no later than 12:30 so that we can

11 continue to move things ahead in terms of traffic?

12 Thank you.

13 \[Whereupon, the proceedings were recessed

14 for lunch, to reconvene at 12:30 p.m.\]

170

1 A F T E R N O O N P R O C E E D I N G S

2 DR. CHESNEY: I think we are ready to

3 start. There were two people that came in after we

4 did the formal introductions this morning so I

5 wondered if they could both introduce themselves.

6 Dr. Cragan and Dr. Luban.

7 DR. CRAGAN: I am Jan Cragan. I am a

8 pediatrician with the Division of Birth Defects and

9 Developmental Disabilities at CDC.

10 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Dr. Luban?

11 DR. LUBAN: Naomi Luban, pediatric

12 hematologist, Children\'s Hospital National Medical

13 Center in Washington, D.C.

14 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Now Dr. Iyasu is

15 going to\--my apologies. As I told you, Tom keeps

16 us in line. He has to read a second meeting

17 statement before we have the next session. Thank

18 you.

19 Meeting Statement

20 DR. PEREZ: Thank you and good afternoon.

21 The following announcement addresses the issue of

22 conflict of interest with respect to the update on

171

1 neonatal withdrawal syndrome and congenital eye

2 malformations reported in infants whose mothers\'

3 used an SSRI during pregnancy and is made part of

4 the record to preclude even the appearance of such

5 at this meeting.

6 Based on the agenda, it has been

7 determined that the topics of today\'s meeting are

8 issues of broad applicability and there are no

9 products being approved at this meeting. Unlike

10 issues before a committee in which a particular

11 product is discussed, issues of broader

12 applicability involve many industrial sponsors and

13 academic institutions. All special government

14 employees have been screened for their financial

15 interests as they may apply to the general topic at

16 hand. Because there has been reported interest in

17 pharmaceutical companies, the Food and Drug

18 Administration has granted general matters waivers

19 to the special government employees who required a

20 waiver under a waiver under Title 18 U.S. Code

21 Section 208 which permits them to participate in

22 today\'s discussion.

172

1 A copy of the waiver statement may be

2 obtained by submitting a written request to the

3 agency\'s Freedom of Information Office, Room 12A-30

4 of the Parklawn Building.

5 Because general topics impact so many

6 entities, it is not prudent to recite all potential

7 conflicts of interest as they apply to each member,

8 consultant and guest speaker. FDA acknowledges

9 that there may be potential conflicts of interest

10 but, because of the general nature of the

11 discussion before the committee, the potential

12 conflicts are mitigated.

13 With respect to FDA\'s invited industry

14 representative, we would like to disclose that Dr.

15 Samuel Maldonado is participating in this meeting

16 as an industry representative, acting on behalf of

17 regulated industry. Dr. Maldonado is employed by

18 Johnson & Johnson.

19 In the event that the discussions involve

20 any other products or firms not already on the

21 agenda for which an FDA participant has a financial

22 interest, the participants are aware of the need to

173

1 exclude themselves from such involvement and their

2 exclusion will be noted for the record. With

3 respect to all other participants, we ask in the

4 interest of fairness that they address any current

5 or previous financial involvement with any firm

6 whose product they may wish to comment upon. Thank

7 you.

8 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Dr. Wisner,

9 could you introduce yourself, please?

10 DR. WISNER: My name, is Kathy Wisner and

11 I am from the University of Pittsburgh. My work

12 involves studies of depression and its treatment in

13 childbearing aged women.

14 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. What department

15 are you in there?

16 DR. WISNER: I have academic appointments

17 primarily in psychiatry, but secondary appointments

18 in OB-GYN and epidemiology.

19 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Dr. Iyasu?

20 DR. IYASU: It is my pleasure to introduce

21 the first speaker for this session, which is an

22 update on neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Kate

174

1 Phelan is a pharmacist and works at the FDA. She

2 has spent six years as a drug information

3 specialist at the United States Pharmacopeia before

4 coming to the FDA. In her current position she is

5 a safety evaluator in the Office of Drug Safety.

6 She has been with FDA since 1999.

7 Update on Neonatal Withdrawal Syndrome

8 MS. PHELAN: Hi. My name is Kate Phelan.

9 I am a pharmacist. I work as a safety evaluator in

10 the Office of Drug Safety.

11 In November of 2001 I completed a review

12 of reports of neonatal withdrawal syndrome of

13 serotonin uptake inhibitors. I will present that

14 review to you today. First, I will give a brief

15 overview of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System,

16 or AERS, so you will understand the context and the

17 source of the neonatal withdrawal syndrome cases

18 that I reviewed. Second, I will describe the

19 process of evaluating an adverse event. Third, I

20 will present my review of neonatal withdrawal

21 syndrome after in utero exposure to SRI drugs.

22 Finally, I will give a few conclusions.

175

1 The FDA\'s database of adverse events

2 reported for drug and biological products is known

3 as AERS, which stands for Adverse Event Reporting

4 System. Adverse event reports come from healthcare

5 professionals, consumers, medical literature and

6 postmarketing trials. Healthcare professionals and

7 consumers report to manufacturers and, through

8 MedWatch, they report directly to the FDA.

9 Reporting by healthcare professionals is

10 voluntary. However, drug manufacturers are

11 required to send adverse event reports that they

12 receive to the FDA in various time frames based on

13 the severity and expectedness of the event.

14 Expectedness is determined by drug labeling.

15 There are some limitations to AERS data.

16 Some limitations pertinent to the issue of neonatal

17 withdrawal syndrome are that the reporting is

18 voluntary and, therefore, adverse events are

19 under-reported. The FDA does not have drug usage

20 data for use during pregnancy. For these reasons,

21 we cannot calculate true incidence rates using

22 these data.

176

1 Many reports lack information, especially

2 about other drugs that may have been used by the

3 mother. Also, most reports do not specify what

4 steps were taken to eliminate other possible cause

5 for the signs that are seen in the neonate.

6 Reporting biases affect adverse event reporting.

7 For example, media attention, such as Paxil has

8 received in recent years, can stimulate uneven

9 reporting between drugs. Also, the length of time

10 a drug has been marketed affects adverse event

11 reporting. Reporting bias can invalidate

12 comparisons of drugs that are made based on the

13 numbers of reports. Therefore, AERS data can

14 suggest but it cannot confirm that a drug caused an

15 adverse event or that drugs differ in relatedness

16 to the adverse event.

17 So what good is AERS? AERS is invaluable

18 in helping to discover previously unknown adverse

19 drug events, especially adverse events that occur

20 too rarely to be seen in clinical trials or that

21 occur in populations that are excluded from

22 clinical trials such as pregnany women. AERS data

177

1 must be supported by further investigation. Safety

2 evaluators obtain follow-up information from

3 reporters of important cases if possible and we

4 review the medical literature. Also, FDA new drug

5 review divisions may revisit previously submitted

6 drug trial data or even request additional study by

7 a drug sponsor. So, attempts are made to obtain

8 data from numerous sources in determining

9 association between the reported adverse event and

10 a suspect drug.

11 Each safety evaluator in the Office of

12 Drug Safety monitors a fixed group of drugs for

13 adverse events that are possibly related to the

14 drug and are unexpected or of greater severity,

15 frequency or specificity than is described in drug

16 labeling. Safety evaluators may contact reporters

17 for additional information and we search AERS and

18 the medical literature for similar reports, as I

19 mentioned.

20 Each report is evaluated for relatedness

21 to drug and included or excluded from the case

22 series using case definition criteria developed by

178

1 the Office of Drug Safety or by the safety

2 evaluator. Case definitions are used to provide

3 consistent characterization of the adverse event

4 and to facilitate retrieval of clinically relevant

5 cases. Findings and recommendations of the Office

6 of Drug Safety are sent to the new drug review

7 divisions for their consideration.

8 Now that you have a general understanding

9 of the Office of Drug Safety\'s reviews, I will

10 present my review of neonatal withdrawal syndrome

11 with SSRI drugs. The drugs that I led are

12 citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine,

13 sertraline and venlafaxine. Collectively, I am

14 referring to these drugs as serotonin reuptake

15 inhibitors or SRIs. As you know, the first 5 drugs

16 selectively inhibit serotonin reuptake and

17 venlafaxine inhibits both serotonin and

18 norepinephrine uptake. Citalopram was not approved

19 in the U.S. at the time this review was completed.

20 Because adult discontinuation syndrome is

21 a known effect of these drugs, when reports of

22 neonatal withdrawal syndrome appeared in AERS it

179

1 was logical to believe that there might be an

2 association between the reported signs in the

3 neonate and the abrupt discontinuation of the SRI

4 that occurred at birth.

5 Reports in AERS are coded using the medDRA

6 terminology. MedDRA is a hierarchical dictionary

7 designed for use in drug regulation. In fact,

8 MedDRA stands for Medical Dictionary for Regulatory

9 Activities. I began with a review of AERS cases

10 with the MedDRA code drug withdrawal syndrome,

11 neonatal. This review showed predominantly

12 neurological, neuromuscular and autonomic effects

13 so I broadened my AERS search accordingly.

14 Ultimately I did 3 AERS searches, focusing

15 on neurological, neuromuscular and autonomic

16 events. In the first search I used MedDRA terms

17 specific to neonates. In the second search I used

18 general MedDRA terms but I restricted the search to

19 cases in which the patient was reported as age 0-3

20 months. The third search was performed because

21 complications of maternal exposure to therapeutic

22 drugs are sometimes reported and coded in AERS as

180

1 though the mother were the patient so if I had

2 searched restricted by age, I would not have

3 retrieved those reports.

4 I also searched PubMed for related studies

5 and cases. All cases retrieved from PubMed were

6 also in AERS and will be covered in this talk. The

7 few studies available at that time will be

8 mentioned by Dr. Levin who will speak after me.

9 In deciding whether to include each case

10 as neonatal withdrawal syndrome possibly associated

11 with SRI, I applied these criteria. These criteria

12 were adapted from the article \"Serotonin Reuptake

13 Inhibitor Discontinuation Syndrome: A Hypothetical

14 Definition,\" by Schatzberg et. al. that appeared in

15 the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 1997. Please

16 note that the case definitions that we apply to

17 AERS data evaluation are not synonymous with

18 diagnostic criteria. Our case definitions must be

19 useful in the setting of incomplete data.

20 The case should have all 4 of the

21 following characteristics: First, the mother had to

22 be taking an SRI up to the birth. Cases were

181

1 excluded if the SRI was discontinued before the

2 birth.

3 Second, the observed signs should not be

4 attributable to factors other than the discontinued

5 administration of the SRI. Many cases were

6 excluded because the mother was also taking a

7 benzodiazepine which could cause withdrawal in the

8 neonate.

9 Third, the signs of withdrawal should not

10 be present at birth but should appear with some

11 delay after birth. It is possible for withdrawal

12 to be seen at birth depending on the timing of the

13 mother\'s last dose and the half-life of the drug

14 but I applied this criterion in an attempt to

15 distinguish withdrawal from serotonin toxicity in

16 the neonate.

17 Fourth, the sign should resolve. Part of

18 the hypothetical definition of SSRI withdrawal in

19 Schatzberg is that withdrawal syndrome is a

20 transient phenomenon. In a few cases the adverse

21 event was persisting months or years after birth.

22 These cases were excluded.

182

1 Finally, most cases were reported by

2 healthcare professionals. I did not want to

3 question the clinical judgment of the healthcare

4 professional who had witnessed the event. So, if

5 the reporter called the adverse event suspected or

6 diagnosed SRI withdrawal and the information in the

7 case did not contradict either the first or the

8 second criterion that I have here, then the case

9 was included in the case series. In many of the

10 cases included on this basis the adverse event was

11 present at birth or was persisting at the time the

12 case was reported.

13 My AERS search retrieved the number of

14 cases that appears in the column headed \"2001.\" I

15 reviewed the cases and applied the case definition

16 that I just described. The number of cases that

17 met the case definition of neonatal withdrawal

18 syndrome possibly related to the SRI appears in the

19 middle column, headed \"met definition.\" Numbers of

20 cases received by FDA since the November, 2001

21 review of this issue appears in the final column,

22 headed \"2001-4.\" I need to stress that the counts

183

1 in that column are raw case counts, the cases that

2 had no evaluation, and I have included it merely to

3 illustrate that we are still receiving cases.

4 A total of 57 cases met the case

5 definition. In 47 of these cases suspected or

6 diagnosed withdrawal syndrome was reported.

7 Thirty-seven additional cases were excluded because

8 the adverse event was present at birth. This

9 contributed to the new drug review division

10 decision not to distinguish withdrawal from

11 toxicity that Dr. Levin will discuss.

12 As an example to show you why so many

13 cases were excluded from the case series, I will

14 present fluoxetine. Fifty-six unduplicated cases

15 were retrieved for fluoxetine and 52 of these cases

16 were excluded for the reason shown. I will

17 elaborate on only 2 of these reasons. In 8 cases

18 the reported adverse event was not consistent with

19 the characteristics of the other withdrawal cases.

20 These cases included 4 congenital anomalies, 3

21 adverse events that occurred during breast feeding,

22 and 1 report of dehydration. Also, 1 case was

184

1 excluded because fluoxetine administration to the

2 neonate did not relieve symptoms. Although this

3 was not a criterion of the case definition, it is a

4 characteristic of withdrawal. Administration of a

5 similar drug should relieve symptoms.

6 In the neonatal withdrawal case series

7 there were 56 pregnancies and 1 twin birth. The

8 mother\'s age was unknown in most cases. The

9 diagnoses for maternal SRI use was depression in

10 the majority of cases that included this

11 information. There were several diagnoses reported

12 in one case each that I did not include here. SRI

13 dosage was within labeled recommendations except

14 for one venlafaxine case in which the mother was

15 taking 450 mg/day. She was taking venlafaxine

16 tablets which have a maximum recommended dose of

17 375 mg/day for severe depression. Some cases

18 include drug use that may have been confounding and

19 perhaps, in retrospect, I should have excluded some

20 of these cases. These were occasional alcohol, in

21 4 cases; cigarettes, in 7 cases; and marijuana, in

22 2 cases. However, these cases were distributed

185

1 among the SRIs so they should not greatly affect

2 the data.

3 Neonates were premature in 5 of 35 cases

4 that included length of gestation. These were 1

5 fluoxetine and 4 paroxetine cases. There were 25

6 males and 17 females. Birth weights averaged 3.04

7 kg in the 28 cases that included birth weight

8 Apgar scores averaged 7-9 at 1, 5 and 10 minutes.

9 On this slide the drugs are listed in

10 order of increasing half-life. Time from birth to

11 onset of the adverse event and duration of the

12 adverse event are presented as median times if

13 there were 3 or more cases that contained this

14 information. The reported times to onset and the

15 duration of signs actually covered rather broad

16 ranges. However, the median times to onset

17 somewhat follow half-life. Onset and resolution of

18 signs may be difficult to pinpoint clinically and

19 there are few cases here so we can\'t really draw

20 conclusions from this.

21 These are the adverse event terms that

22 were reported in more than one case. They are

186

1 grouped by body system and presented by decreasing

2 number of mentions. The profile is similar for all

3 SRIs, with nervous system and neuromuscular

4 excitation most frequently reported. Feeding and

5 breathing difficulties and temperature

6 dysregulation were also reported. Additionally, a

7 number of breathing difficulties were reported in

8 one case each, including apnea episodes, gasping,

9 shallow respiration and hypoventilation.

10 A comparison with reported signs and

11 symptoms of discontinuation syndrome for

12 venlafaxine and SSRI class labeling show some terms

13 in common with the neonatal reports. These are

14 irritability and agitation. Most of the other

15 terms in the class labeling are subjective and

16 would not be observable in a neonate.

17 More than half of the cases reported some

18 treatment for withdrawal, most commonly increased

19 hospital stay. Regarding outcome, the case

20 definition for accepting cases as neonatal

21 withdrawal possibly related to the SRI specified

22 resolution of signs unless the reporter said SRI

187

1 withdrawal or was diagnosed or suspected. So, most

2 of the cases did resolve.

3 In conclusion, there are possible cases of

4 neonatal withdrawal reported for all of the SRIs

5 approved at the time of this review. They reported

6 similar signs in the neonates. Thus, the AERS data

7 support the occurrence of neonatal withdrawal as a

8 class effect of the SSRI drugs.

9 The most frequently reported signs of

10 neonatal withdrawal are excitatory nervous and

11 neuromuscular effects. Breathing, feeding and

12 thermal regulation difficulties have also been

13 reported. Neonates exhibiting signs of SRI

14 withdrawal may require supportive treatment.

15 Therefore, healthcare professionals should be made

16 aware that adverse events may occur soon after

17 birth in neonates exposed to SRI drugs in utero at

18 the end of pregnancy.

19 The purpose of my review was to examine

20 SRI withdrawal. However, some of the cases that I

21 excluded from my case series, particularly those

22 excluded because the adverse event was present at

188

1 birth, suggest that SRI toxicity may also occur in

2 neonates exposed to these drugs in utero. Dr.

3 Levin will discuss that issue further. Thank you.

4 DR. CHESNEY: Should we hold comments and

5 questions until the other two speakers? Are there

6 any technical questions that anybody has for Dr.

7 Phelan?

8 MS. PHELAN: I am not a doctor. That is

9 why I said I was a pharmacist. I don\'t want any

10 false expectations!

11 DR. CHESNEY: I call pharmacists doctors

12 also. Next speaker?

13 MS. PHELAN: Dr. Robert Levin is the next

14 speaker. Dr. Levin is a medical reviewer in the

15 Psychiatry Section of the Division of

16 Neuropharmacological Drug Products. Prior to

17 coming to FDA, he was with the NIMH where he worked

18 as a health policy analyst in the Office of the

19 Director and as an NIMH staff fellow in the

20 Geriatric Psychiatry Branch. Before working at

21 NIH, Dr. Levin had practiced in clinical

22 psychiatry.

189

1 DR. LEVIN: I will be talking about a

2 recent FDA class labeling initiative regarding

3 SSRIs and SNRIs. In particular we are focusing

4 today, of course, on the neonatal adverse events.

5 With that initiative we are also discussing and

6 proposing class labeling for adult discontinuation

7 symptoms which we will discuss a bit today in

8 comparison and contrast to neonatal symptoms.

9 Here is an example of one of the little

10 boys and girls we will be discussing.

11 These are the particular drugs that we

12 will be discussing as well. They are all marketed

13 SSRIs and one marketed SNRI, venlafaxine as well.

14 Here are the objectives. One is to

15 present highlights of the proposed class labeling

16 that we have for both precautions sections,

17 pregnancy and also dosage and administration.

18 Also, I would like to provide a rationale for our

19 decision to propose such class labeling. As Kate

20 suggested, within the topic of providing a

21 rationale for the labeling, I would like to

22 emphasize that the neonatal adverse events that we

190

1 will discuss appear to be consistent with either

2 neonatal withdrawal from SSRIs, SNRIs or toxicity,

3 or perhaps both in some cases.

4 These are the sources of information that

5 led us to our decision to propose class labeling.

6 Kate mentioned and detailed the usefulness and

7 limitations of the AERS data system. Subsequently

8 I will discuss the benefits and limitations of the

9 other three sources I have listed here.

10 This is some of the verbatim language,

11 proposed language in our precautions section.

12 There are two important points in the first bullet.

13 One is that all the SSRIs and SNRIs have been

14 implicated or associated with the adverse events at

15 the time of our analysis. The other major point

16 under bullet number one is that the adverse events

17 to be discussed have only been reported in

18 association with third trimester exposure to the

19 drugs, not the first or second trimester.

20 As Kate mentioned, the most severe

21 complications and treatments required have been

22 prolonged hospitalization, admission to special

191

1 care nurseries, respiratory support including

2 ventilation and CPAP, tube feeding as well as use

3 of anticonvulsants, IV fluids, and in some cases,

4 just a handful of cases, clinicians have decided to

5 use antiserotonergic drugs such as thorazine.

6 Also, clinicians have used propranolol.

7 Apparently, they made the claim that there was

8 improvement in the symptoms but it is hard to tell.

9 It is hard to interpret with those few cases.

10 Whereas symptoms may arise immediately

11 upon delivery, they can also arise anywhere from a

12 day and a half to five days. It seems that the

13 most typical time for presentation of these signs

14 or symptoms is roughly several hours to a day and a

15 half. Beyond a day and a half it seems to be rare

16 that these events arise.

17 This is a list of the most commonly

18 reported neonatal signs associated with maternal

19 use of SSRI and SNRI during pregnancy. You can

20 read those. As Kate suggested also, we can roughly

21 categorize these in several clusters. One is

22 feeding difficulty. Another is respiratory

192

1 distress/autonomic instability. Also, there are

2 cases in which signs are consistent with

3 temperature instability, as well as abnormal tone,

4 both hypotonia and hypertonia; tremor and

5 jitteriness and the non-specific sign of \"constant

6 crying\" or \"increased crying.\" Also, sleep

7 disturbance is a very common sign reported in these

8 cases.

9 One of the more important points in the

10 precautions section in pregnancy is that, as I

11 mentioned, the signs reported look to be consistent

12 with either SSRI or SNRI discontinuation symptoms,

13 so analogous to the adult symptoms, or direct toxic

14 effects of the drugs in question.

15 In the more severe cases these neonatal

16 signs resemble or are consistent with serotonin

17 syndrome, quite a severe form of serotonin

18 toxicity. We refer to that warning section which

19 contains language about serotonin syndrome.

20 This may be a bit controversial but we

21 have included this based on some evidence,

22 admittedly not on data for controlled studies.

193

1 There is some suggestion that when treating a woman

2 with SSRI or SNRI one might decrease the risk of

3 both SSRI withdrawal and toxicity by carefully

4 tapering the drug roughly 10-14 days before the

5 expected due date and in the case of fluoxetine

6 perhaps abruptly discontinuing the drug at about 14

7 days. That is why we made the suggestion included

8 in that dosage and administration section.

9 These are the six terms, all of them have

10 been used and reported for what appear to be

11 somewhat identical syndromes, meaning the signs and

12 symptoms we just discussed that are in the labeling

13 and that we have been talking about and that Kate

14 has talked about. I will go over one in particular

15 because it is probably one of the terms that is

16 least familiar to most of us. Poor neonatal

17 adaptation is defined by Chambers et al. as

18 tachypnea/respiratory distress, oxygen desaturation

19 upon feeding, hypoglycemia, poor tone, weak or

20 absent cry. That is the extent I think of the

21 consensus definition of poor neonatal adaptation.

22 Maybe there will be other investigators who will

194

1 use a slightly different definition but those are

2 typically the signs and symptoms that are included

3 under that definition.

4 The other terms listed have various levels

5 of definition as far as consensus goes but SRI

6 withdrawal, as Kate mentioned, does have a

7 hypothetical definition as per Chambers et al.

8 which we will discuss subsequently. We will talk

9 about the other syndromes in a few minutes too.

10 This is Schatzberg. This paper is the

11 result of an expert panel that was convened for two

12 basic reasons: The participants wanted to decide

13 upon a hypothetical definition of adult SSRI/SNRI

14 discontinuation syndrome, and they also wanted to

15 identify particular symptoms involved, cluster of

16 symptoms. You can see the six clusters that they

17 have agreed upon. I think in general it is fair to

18 say this is well accepted by clinicians and

19 investigators for definition of adult SSRI/SNRI

20 withdrawal.

21 These are very common reports. It is

22 quite common for patients to report dizziness upon

195

1 discontinuation or light-headedness. GI

2 disturbance is quite common, as are reports of

3 flu-like syndromes. It is quite common for

4 patients to report \"electric shock\" sensations or

5 \"my brain is shorting out\" or \"my head is shorting

6 out.\" It is very common also to have sleep

7 disturbance and neuropsychiatric symptoms that are

8 listed on this slide.

9 One of the main points of the

10 neuropsychiatric symptoms is that, of course, they

11 can resemble the very disease patients are being

12 treated for but there are also \"new\" symptoms that

13 are not identical to a patient\'s previous symptoms.

14 If one does have those signs and symptoms, it is

15 more suggestive that this may be a discontinuation

16 or withdrawal syndrome rather than a recurrence of

17 the illness. That has practical implications for

18 how to treat and interpret the symptoms.

19 This is a brief list, a well-accepted list

20 of toxicity symptoms in adults. Kate suggested

21 this too. There are largely CNS effects,

22 neuromuscular effects and GI disturbance.

196

1 A more severe for of serotonin toxicity is

2 serotonin syndrome. This can be life-threatening,

3 and these are the three main clusters that are

4 involved. Notice that the more severe symptoms

5 include convulsions, disorientation, cognitive

6 impairment, abnormal muscular tone as in the case

7 of the infants, and serious complications such as

8 autonomic and temperature instability. One can

9 note the similarities of these symptoms to some of

10 the neonatal cases reported. Again, those neonatal

11 cases that overlap with these symptoms are the more

12 severe cases. It is likely that cases of SSRI and

13 SNRI withdrawal toxicity are probably

14 under-reported, as are many adverse events, and as

15 a result of the various biases that we see the most

16 severe cases are reported. So, even though the

17 labeling reports the most severe, we include also

18 some typical symptoms. Admittedly, we have

19 purposely included the more severe symptoms.

20 You can look at this slide and my point

21 here is to try to make the case that what

22 investigators are reporting to be neonatal

197

1 withdrawal is, in fact, consistent and analogous to

2 adult withdrawal. As Kate mentioned, it is quite

3 difficult to elicit symptoms in a neonate. We must

4 rely on signs. But in the ones that I have listed

5 here there does seem to be an overlap, in the first

6 bullet, between the neonatal withdrawal syndrome

7 report and the adult withdrawal symptoms. The

8 timing of onset of symptoms is also important to

9 consider and may help us make an interpretation of

10 whether the syndrome is withdrawal versus toxicity.

11 Time to resolution also might help but that is a

12 little more difficult to interpret.

13 This is an analogous slide. here I am

14 trying to make the case that in some cases neonatal

15 toxicity of SSRIs and SNRIs is consistent with and

16 perhaps identical in some cases to adult toxicity.

17 In my opinion, there is more overlap in many cases

18 with adult toxicity than with neonatal withdrawal

19 but, again, both cases probably exist.

20 What is especially suggestive are several

21 things, both the quality and severity of the

22 symptoms and the treatment required, as well as the

198

1 immediate onset of symptoms in many cases that Kate

2 referred to as well. The cases that seem

3 suggestive of toxicity also appear to have a longer

4 duration. The other suggestive piece of

5 information that is rarely available, but in some

6 case reports clinicians have obtained serum levels

7 of the drug and the active metabolites to try to

8 correlate symptoms and resolution with drug levels

9 and the decrease of drug levels. That has been

10 somewhat successful but, admittedly, it is just a

11 handful of cases and one study which we will review

12 uses that approach.

13 Actually, it is this study. This is a

14 study by Laine et al. It is a prospective study,

15 not randomized, with matched controls. The point

16 was to prospectively assess the possible

17 association between SSRI/SNRI use during pregnancy

18 and subsequent neonatal adverse events that we have

19 discussed, in the short term, meaning 0-4 days,

20 which we will discuss.

21 The subjects included were women who

22 either had depression or panic disorder. There

199

1 were matched controls who were not receiving these

2 drugs. The two drugs that the women had been

3 treated with before\--in other words, these were not

4 randomized women but had been treated with

5 fluoxetine or citalopram, hopefully, by other

6 clinicians, and were included in the study and they

7 must have been using one of the two drugs

8 throughout pregnancy up until delivery to be

9 included in the study.

10 In yellow I have highlighted two of the

11 important points about the study. One of the

12 benefits of the study compared to others is that

13 the investigators used specific outcome measures

14 that were quite helpful in making an assessment of

15 whether or not the drug exposure was related to the

16 subsequent symptoms. Of course, they elicited

17 spontaneous adverse events. They looked closely,

18 in a serial fashion, at both maternal and neonatal

19 drug levels and active metabolite levels and they

20 looked at monoamine levels, including serotonin as

21 well as their active metabolites.

22 Also quite helpful was their use of the

200

1 specific 7-item assessment looking in particular

2 for potential signs of toxicity that have been well

3 accepted in adults. Their scale is based on 2

4 validated scales by authors who had studied

5 serotonin toxicity in adults.

6 Those are the 7 items that they monitored

7 prospectively. They found that the 3 most common

8 adverse events among the 7 were tremor,

9 restlessness and rigidity. One important finding

10 was that in the group treated with SSRIs throughout

11 pregnancy, compared to the control group, had a

12 4-fold increase in serotonergic symptom score and

13 severity during days 1-4, from birth to day 4.

14 They also compared groups at day 14 and day 28 but

15 did not find a significant difference at those 2

16 points.

17 The mean neonatal drug levels were in the

18 usual adult range, the \"normal\" range of adults.

19 There may have been a few in the abnormally high

20 range but generally the levels were within the

21 normal adult range. They also reported that

22 symptom resolution correlated with decreasing serum

201

1 SSRI drug level.

2 Another interesting finding was that the

3 SSRI group had a mean lower cord 5-HIAA which is a

4 metabolite of serotonin and purportedly suggests a

5 higher serum of CSN serotonin activity and the

6 serotonergic symptom score correlated inversely

7 with that measure.

8 In this slide I want to make the point

9 that if one looks at the green cubes, they

10 represent the numerous factors that are involved in

11 pregnancy, in the normal physiology of pregnancy as

12 well as perturbations of the physiology of

13 pregnancy. I am referring to drugs such as SSRIs,

14 SNRIs, other psychotropic drugs, drugs such as

15 alcohol and other drugs of misuse, vitamins,

16 nutrients\--all those obviously have an effect on

17 the outcome of pregnancy and we must consider the

18 numerous variables when trying to interpret these

19 neonatal adverse events that we are talking about.

20 In the cases that Kate has discussed and

21 that I am referring to, I think it is fair to say

22 that the majority of the cases had confounding

202

1 variables, either depression itself\--and that is

2 one of the most important points to focus

3 on\--depression itself clearly has associated

4 adverse events that are similar to the adverse

5 events that we may attribute to SSRI/SNRI

6 withdrawal or discontinuation. For example, babies

7 born to mothers who are not treated for depression

8 but who are clearly depressed can have jitteriness,

9 low birth weight. They are described as being hard

10 to soothe frequently. So, the signs do overlap

11 with the symptoms we are talking about in relation

12 to SSRI exposure. Also, there are clearly numerous

13 factors that we don\'t know of in the case reports,

14 which are limited in the AERS system.

15 Another important point in trying to sort

16 out to what extent other drugs in this class are

17 similar or different is that we really don\'t know

18 what the denominator is. We don\'t know what the

19 actual quantitative use of these drugs in pregnancy

20 is. We also don\'t know the background rates of the

21 adverse events in pregnancy or other conditions.

22 So, these are huge problems in making certain

203

1 determinations. I mentioned the limitations of the

2 data.

3 Another difficulty in interpreting these

4 neonatal adverse events is, of course, the limited

5 repertoire of neonatal behaviors. We can\'t elicit

6 symptoms per se and the signs that they exhibit are

7 within a fairly tight range so it makes it more

8 difficult, of course, than making an interpretation

9 in adults with adult adverse events.

10 One of the other problems with

11 interpreting whether or not, for example, these

12 drugs have a causal relationship to neonatal

13 adverse events, either the drug effect or the

14 discontinuation, is that many of the SSRI/SNRI

15 symptoms of neonatal withdrawal or toxicity have an

16 overlap. The very symptoms that are reported for

17 withdrawal such as jitteriness, for example, or

18 tremor or increased tone are also reported for

19 purported neonatal toxicity.

20 Despite the uncertainty that we discussed,

21 we feel that there is a strong association between

22 the use of these drugs with neonatal adverse events

204

1 that these should be listed in labeling. Again, we

2 emphasize that this is only associated with third

3 trimester use of these drugs.

4 To repeat one of the points, we feel that

5 the adverse events can be consistent with the

6 SSRI/SNRI withdrawal or toxicity and perhaps both

7 in an individual case. In fact, there were several

8 cases that were suggestive of a neonate having

9 toxicity several days or perhaps a week later going

10 through withdrawal so that is theoretically

11 possible.

12 Several other reasons for deciding to

13 place this language in labeling is that, at least

14 in the cases reported, many of the neonates

15 required serious specialized care such as

16 hospitalization, ventilation, etc., the types of

17 treatments we have mentioned. Of course, because

18 of this, clinicians need to be aware of the

19 potential for development of these adverse events

20 in neonates who had been exposed in utero to these

21 drugs. It may be possible, and Dr. Wisner may

22 discuss this, that there may be prevention

205

1 strategies that are practical and effective. We

2 also need to consider diagnosis, meaning, making

3 differential diagnosis between withdrawal and

4 toxicity, or neither. Of course, in many cases

5 these symptoms may have nothing to do with the

6 drug. We can\'t make definitive attributions.

7 On the last slide I want to emphasize

8 that, of course, it is very important to treat

9 depression during pregnancy. There is extreme

10 morbidity of depression and everything that applies

11 to a man or woman, pregnancy or not, in depression

12 applies to women during pregnancy\--suicide, severe

13 dysfunction, social dysfunction, poor weight gain,

14 malnutrition which, of course, impacts the

15 development of the neonate.

16 In contrast to previous years during which

17 many authors reported that pregnancy \"protected\"

18 women against mood disorders or recurrence of mood

19 disorders, it is becoming more clear that the

20 prevalence of depression during pregnancy is quite

21 high, as high as 10-16 percent. With more

22 information that is available as time goes on,

206

1 physicians and the patient can weigh potential

2 risks and benefits to the mother and neonate when

3 deciding whether to treat depression or not or

4 other psychiatric symptoms.

5 That is another important point, that we

6 are not just talking about depression. These

7 drugs, of course, are used for anxiety disorders

8 such as panic disorder and PTSD and

9 obsessive-compulsive disorder so it is a larger

10 population than I was actually referring to.

11 Also, it is possible that the clinician

12 might reduce the risk of neonatal exposure to these

13 drugs by tapering near term and that they might

14 reduce the risk of recurrence of depression or

15 postpartum depression by promptly restarting the

16 drug in some cases upon delivery in the delivery

17 room. That is one potential strategy. Of course,

18 we do not have a consensus about interpretation and

19 management of these complicated neonatal adverse

20 events and ideally controlled trials are needed in

21 this important field.

22 The last point\--of course, it is hard for

207

1 many of us to imagine, including myself, that one

2 can conduct truly randomized, controlled studies in

3 pregnant women but it is possible to consider the

4 ethics of not treating, not knowing what is

5 happening in these studies. It would be

6 interesting to see what might happen, particularly

7 whether or not investigators might be able to

8 conduct randomized, controlled trials.

9 Finally\--I thought the last slide was

10 final; this is the last slide and I want to point

11 out the status of the proposed class labeling, and

12 this is for both labeling in pregnancy and labeling

13 in precautions in adults and for dosage

14 administration. Firstly, all the drugs have

15 incorporated the proposed labeling. Those listed

16 in the first bullet have included the language.

17 The sponsor of fluoxetine has verbally accepted the

18 class labeling and currently our Division is in

19 discussion with the sponsor of sertaline about

20 whether or not they will consider incorporating the

21 class labeling. Thank you very much.

22 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Any technical

208

1 questions? Dr. Gorman?

2 DR. GORMAN: In accepting this class

3 labeling, do the sponsors have the opportunity to

4 modify it in any way or is it a whole or none, up

5 and down quote?

6 DR. LEVIN: They have the chance to

7 attempt to do so.

8 \[Laughter\]

9 No, seriously, we had discussions about

10 that. Of course, as you might guess, especially

11 with drugs that have a longer half-life, companies

12 might argue that qualitatively and quantitatively

13 these adverse events are different but, in fact,

14 that is probably not true from the data available.

15 So, for practical reasons, probably each company

16 did request making modifications but in the end

17 they accepted the verbatim language that we

18 proposed.

19 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Ebert?

20 DR. EBERT: I hope this is a technical

21 question, but does the AERS database enable the FDA

22 to do any long-term follow-up on these children?

209

1 You have the immediate postnatal adverse events but

2 are you able to follow-up these individuals two or

3 three years later to identify the long-term

4 effects?

5 DR. LEVIN: I think one answer is that it

6 is extremely difficult based on the fact that these

7 are spontaneous reports and voluntary reports. It

8 would be great if we had that. It is very hard

9 under the current system. There are companies,

10 maybe one company I can think of that is

11 prospectively monitoring women who are using an

12 antidepressant during pregnancy. That seems to be

13 a more productive strategy. At this point,

14 although what you are suggesting would be ideal, I

15 am not really sure to what extent one can request

16 further follow-up unless there are serious adverse

17 events. If it is a serious adverse event, defined

18 by regulatory language, then the companies are

19 obliged to give follow-up reports. But the typical

20 reports describe, as Kate mentioned, the type of

21 symptoms and signs, the timing of onset, a few of

22 the obstetric factors and co-morbidities, some

210

1 concomitant meds, but my recollection is that it is

2 fairly rare for those reports to have included the

3 duration of the adverse event or the time to

4 resolution.

5 DR. D. MURPHY: Just to reinforce that,

6 AERS is not set up for long term. Also, it would

7 be difficult to sort of imagine how someone would

8 make that connection later on to a therapy given

9 earlier so you really would need to set up some

10 sort of prospective study.

11 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. O\'Fallon?

12 DR. O\'FALLON: It seems to me it is

13 crucial to be able to distinguish between

14 withdrawal or discontinuation versus toxicity

15 because you have to treat them totally differently.

16 Correct?

17 DR. LEVIN: Right, yes.

18 DR. O\'FALLON: So, I am looking at your

19 list and I don\'t see how you could possibly, just

20 by looking at these descriptions, tell. Is there

21 any way you can? Here is a person who has this

22 problem, can you distinguish which one it is? Is

211

1 there something you can do?

2 DR. LEVIN: Yes, you are right. Exactly.

3 That is one of the major points. It is extremely

4 difficult in some cases primarily because of the

5 relative lack of information as you are saying,

6 also there is clearly an overlap in the wording for

7 withdrawal and toxicity.

8 DR. O\'FALLON: Yes.

9 DR. LEVIN: In my mind, and of course I

10 acknowledge that people can disagree completely,

11 but I think it is the severity of the symptoms.

12 DR. O\'FALLON: The severity?

13 DR. LEVIN: The severity is one point.

14 One reason I mention that is it is comparing and

15 contrasting to adult syndromes. Typically, in the

16 adult syndromes with withdrawal they can be quite

17 distressing. In adults they are usually mild to

18 moderate and transient but in some cases they can

19 be quite distressing and temporally disabling,

20 meaning, people are not be able to take care of

21 their families for days or miss work for several

22 days. But it is quite rare. Usually they are mild

212

1 and transient. Most likely there are neonatal

2 cases that are withdrawal that aren\'t reported. In

3 personal communications clinicians have suggested

4 that the most common scenario if neonates have

5 these type of symptoms, they have things such as

6 feeding difficulty and increased crying which

7 doesn\'t require specialized care and resolves

8 fairly quickly.

9 But, yes, you made several important

10 points. There is an overlap in the symptoms.

11 Another way to answer your question is that I think

12 getting serial drug levels would be very helpful.

13 It has been done in several cases. I think it is

14 one of the most important pieces of information

15 given the confusion and uncertainty about these

16 symptoms.

17 People have also given sort of treatment/

18 diagnosis. In other words, I remember only two or

19 three cases in which a clinician decided or thought

20 it was probably withdrawal syndrome and they gave

21 the neonate the very drug that they may have been

22 withdrawing from. I remember two cases. In one

213

1 case they reported that the infant became better, I

2 don\'t know in what time frame. In the other case

3 it got worse. The symptoms were exacerbated.

4 There was a handful, three cases in

5 which\--this is interesting actually, there were

6 three cases in which the clinician clearly

7 diagnosed the infant with having withdrawal

8 syndrome and he decided to give the drug thorazine

9 which is known to have antiserotonergic properties.

10 Even though we can\'t make attribution, the

11 chronology was such that within minutes to hours

12 the infant was \"remarkably\" better. We don\'t

13 really know what that means but it is interesting

14 that he chose to use the drug while still using the

15 term withdrawal. Beta blockers also may be

16 helpful.

17 DR. O\'FALLON: It just seems to me that we

18 can\'t even deal with this very well until we have a

19 good idea of which problem it is.

20 DR. LEVIN: Exactly. That is true.

21 DR. O\'FALLON: Do you think you will have

22 an opportunity to explore that further as we get to

214

1 the questions? It is an issue.

2 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Danford has a technical

3 question.

4 DR. DANFORD: Well, I wonder if there are

5 observable fetal effects that we ought to be

6 looking for to help make this distinction. Is

7 there an impact on the baby\'s biophysical profile?

8 Is there observable jitteriness, abnormal

9 movements, that sort of thing that, if we just were

10 to look in an organized fashion for those among

11 fetuses of pregnant ladies on these medicines we

12 would either find them or not\--

13 DR. LEVIN: Right.

14 DR. DANFORD: \--and were we to find them,

15 we would think that toxicity might be in effect.

16 And, if were to find them only after delivery

17 perhaps that would be withdrawal.

18 DR. LEVIN: Right. Exactly. That is why

19 we are considering that and perhaps beginning

20 studies to look at that with ultrasound, especially

21 with ultrasound, to look for potential

22 abnormalities of movement. I haven\'t read anything

215

1 as far as results. There may be some, I just don\'t

2 recall seeing results of any studies, even

3 preliminary studies looking at that but that is a

4 critical question to ask and to answer. It would

5 be extremely helpful. That would be an excellent

6 piece of information to have in sorting out whether

7 this might be toxicity or withdrawal.

8 DR. CHESNEY: I think those will all come

9 up when we try to answer the questions. I guess

10 you are going to introduce Dr. Wisner.

11 DR. LEVIN: Yes, I would like to introduce

12 Dr. Wisner. It is my pleasure to introduce her and

13 I am very glad that she is here. Dr. Wisner is the

14 Director of the Women\'s Behavioral Health CARE, a

15 specialized treatment research program for

16 childbearing women at the University of Pittsburgh.

17 Parenthetically, I was a resident in psychiatry

18 there and had the great pleasure and privilege to

19 learn from Dr. Wisner so that is another reason why

20 I am especially happy to see here. Dr. Wisner

21 conducts several NIMH-funded studies involving

22 pregnant women and postpartum women with mood

216

1 disorders. She is trained in a number of fields in

2 adult and child psychiatry, as well as pediatrics.

3 She has done a postdoctoral program in

4 epidemiology. She has academic appointments in

5 psychiatry, obstetrics, gynecology and

6 epidemiology.

7 DR. WISNER: Thank you, Bob, for that very

8 nice introduction, and it is a great pleasure to be

9 here and I thank you for the invitation. Again, it

10 is a real pleasure to be here and I am thankful for

11 the opportunity to address you.

12 I have several goals for the talk this

13 afternoon. The first is to discuss an approach to

14 making treatment choices for pregnant women who are

15 depressed. The second is to think about how to

16 conceptualize the diagnosis of the effects that we

17 have been talking about. In other words, how do we

18 think about whether what the neonate is

19 experiencing is acute side effects or what has been

20 called toxicity or, in fact, is a withdrawal

21 syndrome from the same medications? Finally, I

22 would like to tell you about a study that I am

217

1 doing now, an RO1 that is funded by NIMH in which

2 we are actually trying to address some of these

3 issues.

4 Well, how big of a problem is this, that

5 is, depression and other disorders that require

6 treatment with medications during pregnancy? In

7 fact, it is a major public health problem. Bob had

8 a rate of about 10-16 percent of women who

9 experience depression in pregnancy. In fact, that

10 fits with the kind of rates that we see in

11 childbearing age women. If we look at the rate of

12 depression across ages in women compared to men,

13 about twice as many women have depression during

14 their childbearing years as do women \[sic\] and, in

15 fact, somewhat unfortunately, it is right in the

16 childbearing age time that women experience this

17 devastating illness.

18 Given that many women are going to have

19 this disorder during their childbearing years, how

20 do you deal with the fact that at least the

21 pharmacologic therapy is a chronic treatment for

22 this illness and, in fact, women want to conceive

218

1 while they take this medication? Our American

2 Psychiatric Association put together a committee to

3 look at these issues several years ago and a number

4 of papers resulted. One of them is referenced in

5 which we defined what kinds of issues docs would

6 need to think about in talking to women who are

7 contemplating pregnancy if they are depressed or

8 they are already taking an antidepressant

9 medication.

10 This is a somewhat complicated slide but I

11 am just going to break it down into components.

12 The first area is what are the responsibilities of

13 the physician. Of course, talking to patients

14 about what depression is is incredibly important

15 because many patients feel like the depression is

16 like having a bad day, or they have a lay person

17 definition and, unfortunately, the word depression

18 is used colloquially\--\"I had a fight with my boss;

19 I\'m depressed.\" This major depression that we are

20 talking about is a clinical diagnosis called major

21 depression and it is a dysregulation illness in

22 which the physiologic functions of the patient are

219

1 affected. We will talk a bit more about that a

2 little bit later.

3 But just the criteria of this disorder are

4 very weird. Here is a medical illness where

5 dysregulation of mood, ability to enjoy life\--those

6 things are affected but the dysregulation is

7 confounded. You can either have too little sleep,

8 for some patients an hour of sleep a night; or some

9 patients sleep 23 hours. Those are both

10 dysregulated sleep that count as part of the

11 diagnosis. Another example is agitation. You can

12 have excess motor activity and not be able to sit

13 down, be very agitated, or be so slowed down you

14 can barely move. Again, it is indicative of not

15 just something that is \"I feel sad emotion\" but

16 this is a whole body dysregulation illness.

17 In talking to patients, what I typically

18 do is discuss what treatments are available for

19 major depression, and there are many. Then I talk

20 to her about what specifically might be appropriate

21 with respect to her clinical history and then,

22 secondly, how that might be modified because she is

220

1 either pregnant or she wants to become pregnant.

2 We have many options for depression in pregnancy in

3 terms of treatment. Many patients are already

4 taking effective medications. Psychotherapy has

5 certainly been studied as a treatment for

6 depression in pregnancy. Due to some of the issues

7 we are talking about in this very meeting, my group

8 has begun to pilot light therapy for treatment of

9 depression in pregnancy. We also talk to patients

10 about the risks of no treatment during pregnancy,

11 which I think is a very poor option.

12 We are also then obligated to talk to

13 patients about what are the outcomes if she accepts

14 a particular form of treatment during pregnancy,

15 and what are the outcomes for her depression if she

16 doesn\'t accept treatment or wants to consider

17 moving to a different treatment which may or may

18 not be effective for her. Our discussion today

19 really focuses on this final area of neonatal

20 toxicity. In this paper we meant to designate the

21 kind of broad construct that Bob talked about.

22 That is, negative symptoms that occur in the

221

1 post-birth period for those neonates.

2 But there is another issue here that I

3 don\'t want to exclude from the discussion, and that

4 is the idea of behavioral teratogenicity. That is,

5 of course, the idea that these potent central

6 nervous system acting agents when brain, as

7 vulnerable as the neonatal brain, is exposed

8 through pregnancy and perhaps there may be effects

9 that occur that manifest later on in life. That is

10 often talked about as later on in life, like way

11 down the line. A hypothetical example might be

12 that a child might be at higher risk for learning

13 disabilities as a school age child. But there is a

14 very real question of when behavioral

15 teratogenicity occurs, meaning that there is no

16 time point so that some of the effects that we see

17 may be really due to this particular kind of

18 mechanism as opposed to either withdrawal or acute

19 side effects or toxicity. That is another issue

20 that hasn\'t been explored. I think that that

21 question is inherent in some of the questions here

22 which are how long does this thing, whatever we

222

1 call it, last. Because it will help us define the

2 mechanism.

3 Treatment of depression in pregnancy is

4 important. The outcomes for untreated depressed

5 women in pregnancy are not good. Unfortunately,

6 every paper that has been cited in this meeting

7 today has not uncoupled the occurrence of the

8 illness, that is depression, from the drugs used to

9 treat it. That is like saying we want to study a

10 hypoglycemic agent as an exposure in pregnancy but

11 we are not going to control or look at the blood

12 sugars of the pregnant women, and that is our major

13 problem with this field.

14 An interesting area is what kinds of

15 treatments do women select in pregnancy. There is

16 a common belief that because women are pregnant

17 they might want psychotherapy or light therapy but,

18 in fact, in my research program many of the women,

19 particularly those who get very good responses from

20 antidepressants, are very interested in continuing

21 those medications in pregnancy.

22 These large blocks are just there to show

223

1 that the decision is really a dynamic one and the

2 choice of providing, say, a medication treatment in

3 pregnancy means that we have decided that the

4 benefit of that is greater than the risk for that

5 patient. But if, in 4-6 weeks, that medication

6 does not produce an antidepressant effect or

7 sustain an antidepressant effect, then that

8 decision-making process has to be reconsidered.

9 This committee that I spoke about, the

10 American Psychiatric Association committee, wrote

11 this first paper in which we reviewed the

12 prospective data for antidepressant use in

13 pregnancy. Although I am not going to go into that

14 in detail because I want to focus on poor neonatal

15 adaptation and neonatal effects that are the topic

16 of this meeting, one issue that I think is

17 important is that because these agents are not

18 major morphological teratogens there has been over

19 the last several years a relative comfort about

20 their use in pregnancy. So, there is a much larger

21 population of mothers being exposed to these

22 agents, and I think we are seeing these kinds of

224

1 outcomes, like neonatal toxicity, that are becoming

2 more frequent, in fact, because of the increased

3 use.

4 Tina Chambers\' article which Bob

5 mentioned, I think is a very important article

6 because the agent studied was fluoxetine. About a

7 third of patients have this poor neonatal

8 adaptation and 24 percent of her patients were

9 admitted to special care nurseries. Because that

10 is a prospective study specifically of fluoxetine

11 at least it gives us a rate in which the

12 denominator is known.

13 Well, I want to focus on treating maternal

14 depression and the importance of uncoupling that

15 factor in these data sets because there are papers

16 that show that maternal depression and anxiety

17 increase the odds ratio or the risk of multiple bad

18 things in pregnancy, like preeclampsia, and also

19 that there are investigators, particularly in

20 England, who have looked at uterine artery

21 resistance in the face of depression and anxiety.

22 These factors have been related to growth

225

1 restriction in fetuses as well as preeclampsia.

2 So, again, depression itself can create negative

3 outcomes, and how to uncouple the disease-produced

4 negative effects from the medication is incredibly

5 important.

6 We also know that maternal stress and

7 certain anxiety disorders and mood disorders result

8 in dysregulation of the HPA access and that, in

9 fact, that has ramifications for the fetus as well

10 and has effects on fetal ability to respond to

11 stress.

12 The question was asked before about

13 ultrasound and in utero behavioral studies of

14 fetuses to look at this issue. In fact, I have an

15 MT at Brown, named Amy Salisbury who is working

16 with me and Gianne DePitro, whom you know, who has

17 done these in utero studies. They are doing

18 parallel studies of fetuses with the same three

19 groups that I will talk about in my study. So,

20 those kinds of investigations are being performed

21 right now.

22 We also know that even before an infant is

226

1 born to a depressed mom it interacts with that

2 depressed mom. Those infants have been seen by

3 nursery care staff to be irritable, difficult to

4 console. So, these same kinds of behavioral

5 effects that we have been talking about as due to

6 medication also occur because infants are born to

7 moms who have this dysregulation disorder we call

8 depression. Again about depression, the point that

9 I want to emphasize is that depression is this

10 physiological dysregulation but it really is

11 probably a variable. That is, the presence of

12 depression that really brings with it a whole

13 multitude of factors that contribute to poor

14 outcomes for pregnancy if it is left untreated.

15 We talked about appetite changes and food

16 choice changes that occur. Certainly, the ability

17 to comply with prenatal plans, such as vitamins and

18 other prescribed treatments in pregnancy are less.

19 Women can be irritable. They can have isolation

20 and alienation of psychosocial relationships right

21 at a time when it is natural for families to begin

22 to think about being parents, to begin to bond

227

1 together. Many women who are depressed also use

2 other drugs and smoke, which create confounds, and

3 many women who are depressed elect not to breast

4 feed which then deprives the infant of that

5 particular favored choice of feeding.

6 This is a model from Dawn Misra that I

7 like to use to think about this whole group of

8 factors that relate to outcomes for mothers and

9 babies no matter what the disorder is. The way she

10 conceptualized it is very relevant to this

11 discussion in that depression is an illness with

12 genetic factors. It runs in families, like most

13 disorders. Physical environments affect it,

14 including light. Where you live and the amount of

15 light affects your risk for depression, and social

16 environments affect it. So, if you are in a

17 wonderfully comfortable neighborhood versus a

18 neighborhood in which there are drive-by shootings

19 every day that makes a big difference. Those are

20 factors that are more distal risk factors in terms

21 of distal from the pregnancy, but they shape the

22 biological and behavioral responses that the woman

228

1 brings to conception. So, those factors which

2 increase the risk for depression are what she

3 brings along with her to the pregnancy. Again, you

4 have the physiologic dysregulation, the HPA access

5 dysregulation and other difficulties that she

6 brings to the pregnancy state with her.

7 What we are trying to do as healthcare

8 professionals at these intervention points is say

9 all right, we know there are these whole groups of

10 variables that come with a mother who has major

11 depression. How can we deal with that so we

12 maximize the outcome for both the mother and the

13 baby? And, how can we do that not only in a

14 short-term way but in a long-term way? How do we

15 get the best result? Because we know that we would

16 rather not use pharmacotherapies for these

17 depressed women but leaving them untreated is not

18 particularly good either. I think this particular

19 mom sums it up the very best when she says,

20 \"believe me, mommy\'s mood stabilizing drugs are not

21 something that anybody wants mommy to just say no

22 to.\"

229

1 \[Laughter\]

2 I have many patients who really feel like

3 they are in this particular situation.

4 Well, let\'s look at some specific issues

5 related to use of SSRIs during pregnancy,

6 especially the final part of pregnancy, and the

7 risk of neonatal complications. We have talked

8 about several papers, especially Laine\'s paper,

9 which have shown this increase in the risk of

10 difficulties in the neonatal period related to

11 fluoxetine. Now, fluoxetine is unusual among the

12 SRI medications in that it has an incredibly long

13 half-life and it has a metabolite that is equally

14 active with an even longer half-life. So, it is

15 distinct in that pharmacologic way which may make

16 it distinct in the way it behaves in neonates as

17 well.

18 Paroxetine, or Paxil, has been most

19 commonly identified in case reports, but there is a

20 recent article in one of the pediatrics journals in

21 which the investigators sought to replicate the

22 finding that paroxetine was the SSRI that was

230

1 particularly problematic and was unable to do so.

2 Paroxetine is unusual as well in that it is not

3 only a serotonergic antidepressant, it is the only

4 one that has significant anticholinergic effects as

5 well so that one could imagine having cholinergic

6 overdrive in addition to the serotonergic mediated

7 effects in newborns. And, we have less data on the

8 other three agents, sertaline, citalopram and

9 fluvoxamine, so we sort of make inferences based on

10 the pharmacology of those agents.

11 One issue is certainly placental passage.

12 Vicky Hendrick has looked at this particular

13 problem and shown that these agents have lower

14 placental passage, and these agents have higher.

15 So, one would expect that agents with greater

16 access to the fetal compartment might have more

17 effects as well. Again, there is a look to could

18 we think about, or is there enough evidence to

19 suggest that certain agents might present less

20 distribution into the fetal compartment and,

21 therefore, might be less problematic. So, that is

22 again another area of investigation.

231

1 The other issue is the variability in

2 fetuses and moms in general so that why some kids

3 have major difficulties and other kids don\'t

4 becomes probably related to individual variability

5 differences. So, one of my concerns is not so much

6 about the full-term babies lately, but we have had

7 some premature babies born where you have all the

8 sequelae of prematurity in addition to a

9 significant amount of drug on board in those

10 patients.

11 There are also additional exposures that

12 might complicate the baby\'s ability to metabolize

13 the drugs with which it is born. The overall

14 health and nutrition of the newborn are major

15 factors. There are also genetic issues so that we

16 all know that our and our baby\'s ability to

17 metabolize drugs really depends on the ability of

18 hepatic enzymes to metabolize them and there are

19 poor metabolizers as well as rapid metabolizers

20 distributed in the population. The activity of the

21 particular enzymes within the fetus and within the

22 parent are important as well. Some people can

232

1 break down serotonin rapidly; others really can\'t.

2 Then, there is the final issue of how available are

3 serotonin precursors. So, there are a number of

4 factors that really go into this decision about

5 what is really happening in the neonatal period and

6 how do we understand it.

7 This point has been made by Bob very well.

8 If we look at poor neonatal adaptation defined by

9 Tina Chambers and Carey Laine\'s paper which looks

10 at serotonin over-stimulation, and you say, well,

11 these are the symptoms here, these are the symptoms

12 there, and these are the overlapping symptoms, you

13 are really struck with the sense that we have

14 different groups defining different things, and how

15 we can really put them together is somewhat

16 problematic.

17 Bob mentioned something that I think is

18 very important, and that is that Carey Laine\'s

19 paper really suggests that the babies born to women

20 who take antidepressants through the final

21 trimester, if they are going to experience

22 something at birth based on those high serum

233

1 levels, the suggestion in that paper is that it

2 truly is serotonin effects. So, what this group is

3 saying is that essentially there are side effects

4 and in the severest form you have serotonin

5 syndrome. Those babies are essentially born with

6 an adult level of the drug on board so these are

7 acute side effects and, in fact, maybe they have

8 those in utero, and we will find out with some of

9 the fetal studies.

10 As the cord is cut though, the source of

11 the drug is not there so there is an abrupt

12 discontinuation but since babies don\'t metabolize

13 these drugs particularly well there is a rate at

14 which those drugs come down in the baby\'s body and

15 it is possible, in fact, to have both these acute

16 effects. It is possible to have what are really

17 more consistent with withdrawal effects down the

18 line. The other possibility we have entertained

19 with paroxetine is that, depending on the receptor

20 occupation, it may be possible to have one or both

21 of those syndromes related to cholinergic receptors

22 versus serotonin receptors. So, it is a very

234

1 complicated picture.

2 Bob and others have already talked about

3 these domains of symptoms that are really affected

4 in neonates exposed to SSRIs. The other point that

5 I think is interesting is the repertoire of babies

6 to tell us that they are not particularly

7 comfortable. In fact, there are likely to be

8 symptoms and signs that overlap across time that

9 can be indicative of either of those. So, the time

10 course is particularly critical.

11 So, the questions that I think we need to

12 understand are what are the symptoms that

13 characterize these syndromes? What is the

14 incidence? Because we really don\'t know that. The

15 data from Tina Chambers\' paper is probably the best

16 and it is for one agent. Is this withdrawal or

17 intoxication or some form of neurobehavioral

18 teratology? Are they all equally likely to cause

19 it? The answer to that I think we can say pretty

20 confidently is no. Because the risk of not

21 treating depression in women typically outweigh the

22 risks, what can we do to prevent these things,

235

1 minimize them or even treat them so that when we

2 get back to that model I showed you we are really

3 maximizing the short- and long-term outcomes for

4 moms and babies?

5 What our group has done is to take Loretta

6 Finnigan\'s wonderful scale that was designed to

7 look at withdrawal from drugs of abuse, and we

8 integrated these symptoms and signs that have been

9 described here into the scale to try to understand

10 what is happening. I will show you that scale in a

11 minute.

12 In this particular investigation that I

13 have under way now what we are doing is picking up

14 women before week 20 of pregnancy and studying the

15 moms and their babies out to month 24 postpartum.

16 We have exposures week by week in this study. So,

17 originally they come in; they have 20 weeks

18 retrospective exposure history, and by exposure I

19 mean drug, not only SSRI but anything else they

20 have taken, and we think of depression as an

21 absolutely separate exposure. So, on the exposure

22 chart you will have criteria for major depression

236

1 or depression scores because we get continuous

2 measures as well.

3 We are after three groups, although we

4 have ended up with a fourth group here as well.

5 The three groups are pregnant women with depression

6 who refuse medication. You cannot say they can\'t

7 have other therapies and many of our patients do

8 but many of the women don\'t respond. So, it is

9 positive depression, no drug group. The second

10 group is women who are not depressed because

11 probably they are taking an antidepressant so it is

12 negative depression, positive drug. We have a

13 normal control group. And, not in the original

14 design but certainly as a part of life, we have

15 patients who are partial responders. You know,

16 they are a little bit better but they are exposed

17 to both the drug and some level of depression as

18 well. We are studying these four groups.

19 At week 36 of gestation, what I do is I

20 talk to them about a choice they have, whether they

21 are going to continue the drug right through the

22 end of pregnancy, or whether they would like to

237

1 consider tapering the drug 2 weeks before the EDC.

2 If it is fluoxetine we just discontinue it, again,

3 because of the long half-life.

4 At this point I can tell you that over

5 half, probably close to two-thirds of the women we

6 offer this option and give a careful risk/benefit

7 discussion to elect to stay on their medication

8 through the end of pregnancy, and their reasoning

9 typically is every time I go down on the dose or I

10 stop this medication I get sick very quickly and I

11 don\'t want to go into labor and delivery like that.

12 The women who can say, gee, it is a couple of

13 months off and when I taper my drug or discontinue

14 it before I get symptomatic again\--those women are

15 willing to do this alternative strategy but it has

16 been very intriguing to see under what

17 circumstances they choose this strategy.

18 What we then do is monitor weekly with a

19 continuous depression measure through whenever they

20 give birth, and we are looking at a number of

21 outcomes at birth and at two weeks and beyond to

22 compare across the two groups.

238

1 Here are some questions that we are

2 struggling with. Does this taper regimen\--let\'s

3 say they decide to go off the drug in the latter

4 part of pregnancy\--we don\'t abruptly discontinue

5 it, we taper down\--does that affect the near-term

6 fetus in utero? We make the assumption that if we

7 are withdrawing the drug, that slow withdrawal is

8 better than the abrupt discontinuation of cutting

9 the cord at birth, but the kinds of studies that

10 were mentioned about fetal well being are critical

11 in that context.

12 Does the baby or infants who are born of

13 mothers who taper their drug in the latter part of

14 pregnancy compare to unexposed moms? I mean, does

15 it really work?

16 Do mothers become symptomatic during the

17 taper phase? By and large, they don\'t and that

18 probably has to do with the fact that they are

19 choosing based on their history of how long it took

20 them to get sick and, you know, it takes a while

21 before women respond to antidepressants. It takes

22 2-4 weeks. We are trying to take advantage of that

239

1 time frame with withdrawing the medication to try

2 to get more of the drug out of the fetal

3 compartment before the baby is born. Does that

4 work? We are finding out.

5 Does restarting the medication at birth

6 prevent recurrence of the episode? I can tell you

7 that, by and large, it does. The baby comes out;

8 mom goes back to her room; the drug goes right

9 in\--you know, no delay in getting the drug in.

10 An intriguing question is that small

11 amounts of all these drugs occur in breast milk.

12 Does breast feeding provide some partial protection

13 against at least the component that we think may be

14 withdrawal?

15 In our study the raters are totally blind

16 to not only the status of the baby in terms of

17 exposure but to the study hypotheses. So, the

18 raters for the birth assessments and 2-week

19 assessments are totally blind. We do maternal

20 serum and cord blood antidepressant levels. We

21 also do cortisol and other hormone levels as well.

22 We do a mother and baby breast feeding level at

240

1 week 3. We do cry analysis at birth and 2 weeks; a

2 pediatric neuro exam at 2 weeks. It is an exam

3 that was given to us by Lynne Singer who works with

4 addicted moms in Cleveland; and we do the modified

5 Finnigan scale.

6 I had a heck of a time trying to figure

7 out how to put this document on Power Point but I

8 finally figured it out last night. Essentially,

9 what we have done with Dr. Finnigan\'s scale is to

10 say here are the items for her scale that we don\'t

11 think are relevant to these syndromes. Here are

12 the items that seem to overlap with her particular

13 scale. As you look down, they are pretty much the

14 symptoms that we have been talking about. These

15 are additions that didn\'t occur in her scale that

16 we wanted to assess. So, this scale is now

17 integrated into our study that I told you about.

18 In fact, Amy Salisbury, at Brown, who is doing the

19 other study I told you about, is having these as

20 well.

21 Well, the point has already been made that

22 we really have to understand how to diagnose this

241

1 because the treatments are exactly opposite. If

2 you think, because of the high level that a baby

3 might have a birth that it is a serotonin toxicity

4 that is side effects, which is what I think the

5 majority of these kids have, when it is an early

6 presentation, then it is toxicity and what might

7 you do?

8 Our main interventions have been parental

9 education and cognitive strategies. These are moms

10 who are very prone to feel guilty. You know, \"what

11 did I do to my baby?\" So, we really do a kind of a

12 therapy to help them understand what is happening

13 and that it is transient. Certainly, the strategy

14 I mentioned in terms of an attempt to taper in the

15 final part of pregnancy is an option, but we tend

16 to be very conservative and we have a very good

17 pediatrician that talks to the moms about kangaroo

18 care and swaddling, and do more behavioral

19 management strategies.

20 What if, though, a baby had very severe

21 symptoms? In fact, the case that was described by

22 Manna et al., which is one of the first ones in

242

1 Cleveland, was actually a baby born to one of the

2 moms that I treated and that baby was really quite

3 ill. Might we think about an antiserotonergic drug

4 like cyproheptadine? There you always get into the

5 issue of we don\'t know what kind of dose to use so

6 some sort of dose-ranging safety and efficacy study

7 would be appropriate. What if we give too much?

8 Do we then give back the agent? Those kinds of

9 studies are important to think about and we have

10 begun working with our neonatal pharmacologists to

11 think about those as well.

12 Well, what if it is withdrawal? Again,

13 does lactation provide some potential prevention

14 against withdrawal? Again, the kind of

15 conservative management strategies that we have

16 already talked about may make sense. Bob mentioned

17 that if you really think it is withdrawal, for

18 adults you give a dose of the medication they are

19 withdrawing from and they really feel better fairly

20 rapidly. Is that the case for these babies as

21 well, and might we think about a dose-ranging

22 safety and efficacy study to define a model so that

243

1 if they are a certain number of days postpartum and

2 they are having withdrawal symptoms you give a dose

3 and then taper it in some prescribed way? That is

4 all work that needs to be done.

5 Let me finish with this thought, that

6 mental health truly is fundamental to health, and

7 how to package this so we get the best result for

8 the mom and baby who are clearly not independent is

9 critically important. Thank you.

10 DR. CHESNEY: Any technical questions for

11 Dr. Wisner? Dr. Maldonado?

12 DR. MALDONADO: Excuse my ignorance, I

13 just have a couple of concepts that I want

14 clarification for. These concepts are new to me,

15 behavioral teratogenicity. Is there biological

16 evidence for that, or any animal models? If there

17 is, what kind of hypotheses do you think need to be

18 tested in clinical trials to answer that question?

19 The other is the symptoms of depression

20 you said are equal to physiological dysregulation.

21 Are there biological markers that can be used as

22 surrogates to test where the dysregulation is or

244

1 whether those biological markers actually may be

2 good markers to use to see response?

3 DR. WISNER: How long do I have? Those

4 are really good questions. Let me deal with the

5 biological markers issue first. There is a lot of

6 interest in working particularly at HPA access

7 regulation changes in patients with depression.

8 The majority of patients, particularly those with

9 what we call typical depression, have high levels

10 of cortisol and they have accentuation of the HPA

11 access products. There are patients, those

12 particularly with post-traumatic stress disorder,

13 who have high proactivation of that access. There

14 are some interesting differences diagnostically in

15 how those axes are affected.

16 Secondarily, we have studies that look at,

17 say, osteoporosis in depressed women, which tends

18 to be higher. The extension of that is, well, in

19 women who have depression with HPA access

20 difficulties, are there changes in pregnancy that

21 we need to know about? In the National Children\'s

22 Study, I was in the stress and pregnancy work group

245

1 and talking about looking at cortisol, CRH and

2 other measures in pregnancy were important and, of

3 course, there are papers which have shown that CRH

4 levels may actually be somewhat predictive of

5 premature birth. So, there is an attempt to look

6 at some of the changes that we know occur in

7 depression and bring it into a much broader

8 construct of medicine and say, well, what does that

9 really mean? One of those is what would

10 potentially be the effects for pregnancy.

11 The other question was about behavioral

12 teratogenicity. There certainly are studies. The

13 ones that I have looked at more recently are

14 studies on long-term effects of fluoxetine during

15 pregnancy in rats and long-lasting changes that

16 occur that result in behavioral problems, but they

17 are not manifested until a later point in

18 development, or the point in development when they

19 occur is delayed or made earlier. So, the issue is

20 that as these potent central nervous system agents

21 occur in the fetal brain, changes happen that we

22 might not see directly at birth but we might see,

246

1 say, at age 7 as development unfolds.

2 The problem that I was trying to identify

3 is an interesting concept. There certainly are

4 animal data, and I am more familiar with the animal

5 data on this to support it. But then how far back

6 in time do you go to say that is the mechanism?

7 Or, what if the exposure was at birth, whatever it

8 was happened at one month or two weeks, how would

9 we distinguish something that is the result of that

10 mechanism from either withdrawal or acute side

11 effects? That is the point I was trying to raise.

12 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. I think that

13 last point you made is something that has been

14 puzzling me and I think that is one of the very

15 subtle aspects of this whole issue that we are

16 going to be wrestling with.

17 DR. WISNER: In the study that I am doing,

18 although I focused just on the birth and 2-month

19 effects because we are looking at this neonatal

20 issue, it is embedded in a study in which we are

21 also doing a minor physical anomalies assessment

22 because Tina Chambers\' paper found higher minor

247

1 anomalies in the fluoxetine-exposed kids, as well

2 as far as major anomalies and overall developmental

3 progress as well. So, it is couched in a study

4 that goes out to 24 months.

5 DR. CHESNEY: Any other technical

6 questions for Dr. Wisner? Naomi, you had one. Go

7 ahead, Dr. Luban.

8 DR. LUBAN: I am just curious. The only

9 articles that I could find that actually quantified

10 the drugs were in a very, very small case report.

11 Is there a broader-based data set that has looked

12 at the differences in clinical manifestations

13 apropos of drug level actually measured in the cord

14 or in a newborn infant?

15 DR. WISNER: Carey Laine\'s paper that Bob

16 mentioned is really the best paper because they

17 have not only levels of drug and metabolite but

18 levels of serotonin metabolites as well. They also

19 scanned the babies\' brains to show that there were

20 no structural abnormalities. But as far as a paper

21 which really needs to be done in which the cord and

22 then potentially serum levels have been tracked

248

1 across time and related to symptoms, that has not

2 been done to my knowledge.

3 DR. LUBAN: Thank you.

4 DR. CHESNEY: Yes, Dr. Sachs?

5 DR. SACHS: I was just curious about two

6 things. One thing that struck me is that I know

7 for lithium, for example, there is a lot of

8 variation in the way the drug is metabolized right

9 around delivery. It kind of occurs to me that that

10 might be the case here and I am curious if your

11 study is going to look at that.

12 DR. WISNER: That is such an interesting

13 point. With respect to antidepressants and how

14 their dose and metabolism might change across

15 pregnancy, there is one paper that is published

16 that looks at serum levels across pregnancy and

17 antidepressant dose. It is a paper that my group

18 published about tricyclics in \'93. That is pretty

19 bad. Essentially, what we showed was that there is

20 an increase across pregnancy, particularly starting

21 with the second half of pregnancy and then in the

22 third trimester the oral dose required to achieve

249

1 the same serum level was an average of 1.6 times as

2 high. Others have described that but not looked at

3 serum levels for SSRIs.

4 In this study, in fact, we have serum

5 levels and cortisol hormones\--all kinds of stuff,

6 at weeks 20, 30 and 36 across pregnancy. So, we

7 are looking at that issue. We have, again, very

8 careful mapping of depressive symptoms. My major

9 interest is in sorting out what are the things on

10 these scales that happen with depression with no

11 drug, and what are the things that happen with drug

12 but no depression, and what is the mush in between.

13 We call that fourth group affectionately that I

14 defined our mush group because they are probably

15 going to give us that answer.

16 DR. SACHS: And you mentioned that you are

17 doing I guess questionnaires about substance abuse

18 and things like that. Are you actually doing drug

19 screens, alcohol levels?

20 DR. WISNER: Yes, at the 20-week intake we

21 do a drug screen and exclude any women with any

22 substances of abuse. In fact, that has been very

250

1 interesting. The number of positive drug screens

2 from women who declare absolutely that they never

3 took anything, those women are excluded. You still

4 can\'t exclude everybody based on a drug screen and

5 some of our women consume what I think are

6 unhealthy doses of alcohol after they are in the

7 study. We keep them in but we continue to track

8 that. But my guess is we will have to analyze

9 those patients separately.

10 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Gorman?

11 DR. GORMAN: Of particular interest to me

12 was the longer-term follow-up to 24 months. Will

13 there be any objective non-maternal, non-physician

14 office evaluation of those babies?

15 DR. WISNER: Objective? Well, let me tell

16 you what we are doing and you can tell me if it

17 fits into your categorization. At 18 and 24 months

18 we were very interested in more subtle behaviors

19 like task persistence. So, we have our mastery

20 motivation model that Kay Jennings developed that

21 has to do with the toddler\'s ability to attend to a

22 prescribed task. There are timed measures in that.

251

1 It is sustained attention, propensity to be

2 activated to continue to solve a task. It is that

3 kind of measure. It is a measure that is affected

4 by maternal depression so, again, we are interested

5 in that in the four groups. Across the postpartum

6 period for all time points we have an appropriate

7 measure. The Bailey scales. We do the full

8 scales. One of our neonatal psychologists does the

9 Bailey scales across the postpartum period for kids

10 as well. We have standard pediatric exams at all

11 points. Is that what you meant? What are you

12 thinking of?

13 DR. GORMAN: No, those are commonly

14 accepted and I think perhaps the state-of-the-art

15 evaluations, sometimes some of the global

16 impression scales that I have very little faith in,

17 except I think they actually do work. When Kennedy

18 Kreeger asked the mothers in the waiting room to

19 give a developmental age for the children and then,

20 after they did a 72-hour exam, they were within a

21 month or two of being correct. So, I was looking

22 for day care providers or child care centers or

252

1 kindergarten teachers\--I know you are not going out

2 quite that far\--are they different? Or, what do

3 you think about these kids?

4 DR. WISNER: You mean collection of data

5 about the kid that is as uncontaminated by maternal

6 report as possible.

7 DR. GORMAN: Correct.

8 DR. WISNER: No. We have CBCL at age two,

9 which is again a maternal report. We have a number

10 of measures of maternal function, like maternal

11 role function, maternal role gratification and

12 completion of immunization rates in the first year

13 that are more functional measures for the mom, but

14 no totally independent\--I mean, even the Bailey\'s

15 would not be totally independent although it gets

16 closer than some of the other things you are

17 talking about.

18 But in the resubmission and competing

19 continuation of this grant, we certainly are going

20 to propose to go out to school age kids because

21 that is really important.

22 DR. GORMAN: It is just that in this

253

1 particular population the contamination with

2 disease diagnosis or potential disease diagnosis

3 makes the data even harder to interpret for those

4 outside the field.

5 DR. WISNER: There are a couple of things

6 there. It is something that we can at least look

7 at across the four groups because we have the

8 occurrence of depression and drug all the way from

9 pregnancy out to that 24-month time. So, we will

10 have women with trait depression, that is, they

11 have had it but they are well, commenting on these

12 measures; women who are actively depressed,

13 commenting; women who are normal controls and that

14 mush group. What I think you are getting at is

15 what is the validity of material that is

16 observational about an infant or toddler if it is

17 reported by someone who is depressed, whether it is

18 state, that is right now, or whether it is

19 potentially trait. So, it is more of a validity

20 issue.

21 I think you are right, the way to really

22 get at that\--I am cringing because it is hard to

254

1 do, but the way to get at that is what we think

2 about, say, blind observer ratings. Now, even a

3 teacher isn\'t though because that teacher, knowing

4 the parent, is going to be to some extent affected.

5 It is a little more clean but still the validity

6 issue is important. I mean, if you ask a teacher

7 of a five year-old to fill out a CBCL, that teacher

8 knows the family. I mean, it is a little more

9 non-biased. The ability to comment on that child

10 related to a class of 30 is probably more what we

11 are after.

12 DR. CHESNEY: I have a suggestion for you,

13 to hire Dr. Gorman as your consultant for your

14 study!

15 DR. WISNER: Fabulous!

16 Discussion of Questions 2 and 3

17 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you very, very much

18 for a rigorous drilling here. I think we need to

19 move on to the questions. Dr. Iyasu is going to

20 post those for us and maybe get us started on the

21 first one.

22 DR. IYASU: We have two questions for you,

255

1 as usual, and we have subparts to those questions.

2 The first question has to do with how we

3 disseminate the information, the new label

4 information to the public and prescribers. The

5 second question deals with additional research that

6 could eliminate some of the issues on neonatal

7 toxicity and withdrawal.

8 I will read the first question: The FDA

9 is proceeding with class labeling about neonatal

10 toxicity/withdrawal syndrome related to in utero

11 exposure to SSRI/SNRIs. Considering the

12 risk/benefit of SSRI/SNRIs use in pregnancy with

13 depression versus the risk/benefit to the

14 fetus/newborn, how should this new information on

15 the label be disseminated to child health

16 practitioners and the public?

17 For your comments, here are the options

18 that we have listed. Please discuss the following

19 options: No further action is necessary. Label

20 change is adequate.

21 A \"Dear Healthcare Professional\" letter.

22 Prescriber or healthcare professional

256

1 education through professional groups.

2 The last option is a public health

3 advisory. After you have discussed this I will

4 read the next question.

5 DR. CHESNEY: Could you just elaborate on

6 the public health advisory? What would that

7 involve?

8 DR. IYASU: Well, that would involve

9 issuing a public health advisory. That means

10 really an explanation of what the label change is

11 and why we are doing it. It is usually issued by

12 FDA and includes information about the rationale,

13 the new information and is disseminated to the

14 public and also put on the website, and also there

15 is a paper that goes out. So, it is really a

16 high-level dissemination so that everybody knows

17 about this new label information.

18 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. So, we should

19 proceed with question number two and then you will

20 come back with question number three. The issue is

21 that the FDA is moving ahead with class labeling.

22 That is a given. They are asking us for

257

1 information as to how the fact that the label is

2 going to be changed should be disseminated to child

3 health practitioners and the public, and they have

4 given us four potential options. Dr. Nelson?

5 DR. NELSON: In trying to formulate an

6 answer to which approach is best, I would start by

7 framing it as a question of informed consent. What

8 strikes me about this area is, as compared to a

9 label which gives you data, you have a complex

10 balancing within the decision-making of the

11 pregnant woman between risks to herself, risks to

12 the fetus and risks to the newborn. I think there

13 has been a lot in the ethical literature about that

14 in other areas.

15 So, in framing it as informed consent,

16 then the question would be which of those actions

17 would be most effective in providing information

18 that could be useful within the informed consent

19 process. I would be concerned if that were seen

20 simply as providing information to the healthcare

21 professional. Looking at the existing label with

22 non-teratogenic effects and looking at the

258

1 pregnancy, it simply says tell your doctor if you

2 get pregnant. Then, under the non-teratogenic

3 effects it talks about what the physician should

4 think about. But there is really nothing in here

5 about the risks of untreated depression in

6 pregnancy. I mean, there is nothing in here, as

7 opposed to the articles, and there was some

8 discussion of that, but nothing that I think you

9 could give to a pregnant woman to say here is

10 something that can help you and, in fact, if it

11 helps here it probably helps the health

12 professional think through this complex

13 risk/benefit decision.

14 So, the question I would ask is could one

15 develop information for the patient, much as

16 Duragesic had, that could go through the kind of

17 decision-making issues that would have to be

18 addressed? That would be a very complex document.

19 But I am not sure any of these four actions that

20 are proposed actually would really get at the

21 informed consent question which I think is at the

22 heart of this.

259

1 DR. D. MURPHY: In a way, I think what you

2 are telling us\--and I would ask you all to comment

3 on this, is that the information that we are

4 putting in the label\-- because, again, our labels

5 have to try to at least raise this issue\--is that

6 that is not adequate for people to make a

7 prescribing decision. So, you are proposing\--and I

8 am not quite sure whether you are saying it is not

9 adequate for the physician or mostly for the

10 patient\--and you are proposing that we have in

11 addition a patient insert on this issue that would

12 have more information that would allow the patient

13 and the physician to have a more detailed

14 discussion. Is that correct?

15 DR. NELSON: Yes, I think it is correct.

16 I think some of the comments that were made about

17 women making decisions based on their response to

18 coming off medication and whether they get sick

19 quickly or get sick slowly, you are not going to

20 put that in the label. It can\'t be put in the

21 label. So, how you give people information to do

22 that kind of balancing is the question. You can

260

1 certainly have the risks of the non-teratogenic

2 effects in here but I can\'t imagine a sponsor

3 wanting you to put in the risk of untreated

4 depression in the label\--

5 DR. D. MURPHY: Yes.

6 DR. NELSON: \--for an antidepressant.

7 DR. D. MURPHY: Sandy Kweder, from the

8 pregnancy labeling group is back in the audience.

9 Sandy, would you like to make any comments on this

10 area, and then I would like to go back to the

11 Division and see what the Division might have to

12 say too.

13 DR. KWEDER: Good afternoon. One of the

14 things that we are in the process of is trying to

15 revise the regulations for how drugs are labeled

16 for use in pregnancy and lactation. One of our

17 goals in that is to try and frame risk information.

18 What I mean by that is try to include in labeling

19 any information that would be relevant to take into

20 account when considering the risk to the extent

21 possible. In the version that we are working on of

22 a new regulation, one of the things that we will be

261

1 asking companies to do in labeling is, to the

2 extent possible, to include some information about

3 the risk of the illness in pregnancy, of not

4 treating the illness in pregnancy.

5 We have done this in several cases

6 already. Even though we are quite a while away

7 from a new regulation, we have been trying to

8 incorporate that to the extent we can. A couple of

9 examples where we have done it have been in drugs

10 to treat and prevent malaria. Because the risk of

11 malaria in pregnancy to the mother and fetus is

12 extremely high and grave, we have incorporated that

13 juxtaposed to any risk information. We have done

14 it recently for some asthma medications. The risk

15 of untreated asthma in pregnancy is discussed.

16 So, nothing is perfect and, you know, the

17 unfortunate thing is sometimes we don\'t have data,

18 although in this case I think there are some and it

19 certainly could be done. One of the things that we

20 know about this section of the label, unlike most,

21 is that doctors read it. It is also often the only

22 thing that they read and take into account when

262

1 considering whether to prescribe a medicine in

2 pregnancy. We also know that patients read this

3 section of the label. Pregnant women are a

4 population that is very savvy and they look stuff

5 up. One of the first things they find when they

6 look things up when they are pregnant is the label.

7 So, even though the information, as you

8 said, is for the prescriber, and the label itself

9 is not necessarily the tool through which to

10 communicate information to the patient, we have to

11 take into account that they will read it and we

12 need to take care in how we frame things in the

13 label because it is likely to reach both prescriber

14 and patient. Is that what you were looking for,

15 Dianne?

16 DR. D. MURPHY: Yes. I think we always

17 have to deal with that balance. Bob, did you want

18 to say anything more about where the Division is?

19 DR. LEVIN: Sure. Dr. Nelson, I think one

20 thing you are suggesting, and if this is the case I

21 agree, is that the labeling currently doesn\'t

22 address the risk/benefit as fully as one might like

263

1 and focuses more, obviously, on potential adverse

2 events than it does on potential benefits of

3 treatment.

4 Also, in general my sense is\--at least in

5 our Division we talk about this\--that in labeling

6 we try to stay away from micro-managing, dictating

7 or strongly suggesting treatment. Even though in

8 some cases we do, obviously, in dose

9 administration, my sense is that people try to stay

10 away from giving real definitive recommendations on

11 exact treatment. So, it might relate to what you

12 are saying. But I agree that it would be ideal to

13 have something in the labeling that more carefully

14 details the risks and benefits of treatment or not

15 treating.

16 DR. CHESNEY: I think what we have heard

17 from Dr. Kweder is that the agency already has

18 experience in terms of putting information into

19 label situations in which there is a very high risk

20 to both the mother and the infant of doing one

21 thing or another. So, they have had that kind of

22 experience and we would assume it would be carried

264

1 over into this area. Dr. Wisner, you had your hand

2 up?

3 DR. WISNER: I guess the way I think about

4 this is the way that was mentioned, which is what

5 do we want people to do? And, what we want them to

6 do is recognize that things that happen to neonates

7 born when moms take these drugs have to be

8 considered in the context of that risk/benefit

9 decision, which is more of an education issue.

10 The thing that makes me a little uneasy is

11 that what to do is so unclear. I make the choice

12 to offer the option to taper but as a researcher I

13 sit here and say but I am cleaning my data about

14 the outcomes for the babies about whether that

15 intervention actually works, and I am cleaning the

16 data about depression scores in the moms. So, I

17 would like to have more to say to them, other than

18 be aware.

19 Just as an aside, when Solomon called me

20 about this and Sandy too, I actually put on a

21 couple of graduate students to clean that data

22 because I understand now the importance of getting

265

1 it out into the literature. But it seems to me I

2 would like to have more meat in terms of telling

3 them what to do once I get to the risk/benefit

4 decision.

5 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Nelson?

6 DR. NELSON: Just a follow-up comment on

7 the labeling experience that you have already had,

8 I am thinking of it from the sponsor\'s point of

9 view, and it is pretty clear that if you have

10 malaria, in fact, listing the risks of untreated

11 malaria drives individuals to realize the

12 importance of getting treatment. That is very

13 different than sharing the ambiguity about

14 something that is so extensive in the population

15 that you are then on it when you get pregnant and,

16 in fact, given the variability in the diagnosis of

17 depression, in many ways what you are trying to do

18 is encourage people not to take the medication.

19 So, I could imagine the discussion around the label

20 would be framed very differently in depression than

21 it would be perhaps in malaria and the other

22 conditions. It sounds like you are going in the

266

1 direction that I encourage, but whether or not you

2 would get there in this case, based on the other

3 ones, I think is an open question.

4 DR. D. MURPHY: Bob will have to help us

5 carry the message back.

6 DR. CHESNEY: Another consultant, along

7 with Dr. Gorman, for Dr. Wisner. I think what we

8 are all groping with is what you just mentioned,

9 which is that we don\'t know what these

10 manifestations represent and, therefore, we don\'t

11 really know what to do about it, and I don\'t know

12 that we can\--in fact, I am sure can\'t solve that

13 today, but I think what the FDA is asking us is

14 what level of anxiety should we have, should they

15 have in terms of how to at least let people know

16 that this is a recognized phenomenon, even if we

17 are not exactly sure what to do about it\--if that

18 is correct, I think that is where you wanted the

19 focus to be.

20 Any comments about that? Do we want to go

21 to the equivalent of a public health advisory or

22 just let the process of label change move ahead, or

267

1 something in between? Dr. Hudak?

2 DR. HUDAK: Well, again, I struggle with

3 exactly what all this information means for the

4 baby. I mean, what we have heard so far I think is

5 that some subset of babies have what appears to be

6 a transient period of symptoms. We have no idea

7 whether or not there are later-term persistent

8 effects, and studies certainly need to be done on

9 that.

10 I would say that even if you do get

11 studies at two years of age that show that there is

12 not an apparent effect, that doesn\'t guarantee that

13 there is not an important long-term effect because

14 in babies what we have been finding out is that we

15 often have neurodevelopmental follow-up at a year

16 or two years of age where it shows no difference

17 between the two groups, whatever they are, but by

18 the time you get to school age and look at function

19 there are very significant things that are present

20 that impact how those children can be taught.

21 I think here it is very difficult, without

22 any data, to sort of have a huge public health

268

1 advisory. On the other hand, I would say that the

2 information\--I mean, this is relatively new and I

3 don\'t think widely available information to target

4 obstetricians and family practitioners who deliver

5 mothers and those professionals that take care of

6 newborns should know.

7 One of the important things\--this is a

8 trivial thing but one of the important things is

9 you would think that a pediatrician who took care

10 of a baby whose mother was treated with one of

11 these drugs would know that the mother was treated

12 with one of these drugs, but I will guarantee you

13 that that doesn\'t happen. That is a shocking thing

14 but in the hospital environment we have been

15 working for years with medical record systems and

16 obstetricians, and so forth, to let us know a

17 simple thing, that is, is the mother Group E strep

18 positive and, if so, did she get antibiotics and

19 how long before she delivered did she get them

20 because it impacts how we evaluate that baby and

21 take care of that baby. And, we have just gotten

22 to the point where we are successful but we do not

269

1 get prenatals; we do not get any information in the

2 neonatal record in the hospital as to what

3 medications the mother is on necessarily. That may

4 be known but it is not available easily to the

5 people taking care of the babies. I imagine in the

6 office setting, Dr. Gorman, when you see a baby for

7 the first time that information is even more

8 closeted.

9 So, I think that one of the things in the

10 advisory needs to be communication, that if mothers

11 are on treatment for these things, rather than

12 making it, you know, something that should be

13 hidden, it should be something that is accessible

14 and made known to the people who are taking care of

15 the infants.

16 DR. CHESNEY: Can I ask a very pointed

17 question? What is the downside of a public health

18 advisory? I wonder if an upside wouldn\'t be in

19 alerting everybody that this is a concern and much

20 more research is needed. Would that, thereby,

21 stimulate granting agencies to recognize that this

22 is a very pronounced problem at this point in time

270

1 that we need to address? Would that be an upside?

2 What are some recent examples that we could perhaps

3 compare this to? If we have to come down on some

4 side or another, I guess I would come down on that

5 just to get the discussion started. What are the

6 pros and cons of a public health advisory for

7 something like this?

8 DR. D. MURPHY: We had all this at one

9 time. For the health advisory I think in this

10 situation the positive would be, yes, you would get

11 it out to a large number of people. But the very

12 potential downside is exactly what the committee

13 has been discussing, which is what are we telling

14 you to do? Not that we tell you at FDA what the

15 practice of medicine is. That is not it. But do

16 we have enough data to even tell you anything

17 beyond the fact that this occurs?

18 Now, one could argue that that is a

19 sufficient message but if you send out too many

20 messages you lose the effect of the messages. So,

21 I think that saying, very well articulated, this is

22 what we know about it, you know, we know that it

271

1 occurs in certain situations; we can tell you what

2 these are. From the FDA\'s point of view, it is,

3 again, informing the physician who is prescribing

4 this medicine so it is back to Dr. Nelson\'s point.

5 You know, what else can we tell you about how to

6 prescribe it or not prescribe it? That needs to be

7 really put into some sort of context.

8 So, I think if you are going to do the

9 advisory you have to be able to come up with a

10 context that would allow people to make those

11 risk/benefit assessments. I mean, has it always

12 been true for every one of our advisories? No. As

13 you know from some of our early SSRIs, we were

14 criticized for some of the advice we gave there,

15 which was just be aware. But we though it was

16 important enough, there was enough concern that we

17 went out\--you know, we are still struggling with

18 how much information we don\'t have but we thought

19 it was important to get it out.

20 So, that is sort of what we are asking the

21 committee. With this limited information should we

22 do any of these other things at this time? Sandy

272

1 has worked at a lot of these with us.

2 DR. KWEDER: Good afternoon again. Yes,

3 we have done a number of these and we try to be

4 judicious in selecting simply because you can only

5 do so many of these before people stop listening.

6 Also, when we do issue them, usually it is because

7 there is something that people can do. Some of the

8 more recent ones that come to mind are risks of a

9 particular drug that are new and that are

10 potentially serious and immediate that would

11 require stopping a medicine. Or, we have done them

12 when a drug is being withdrawn from the market and

13 we expect that clinicians need to know right away

14 that there is a serious safety issue.

15 In the few cases where we have issued them

16 when there is not something like that, as someone

17 who takes a lot of the press calls, people are very

18 confused when we don\'t have \"and, therefore, you

19 should do this.\" Both the professional groups and

20 the lay public don\'t really understand why we do

21 that. So, these things do have their pros and

22 cons.

273

1 One of the things that we have learned is

2 that it is very frustrating for practicing

3 clinicians and professional groups when a public

4 health advisory comes out and they aren\'t aware of

5 the data. They understand it when it is something

6 that is really critical with, you know, a major

7 public health issue that is immediate but when

8 there are nuances and there are data behind it that

9 may be complicated they are frustrated when FDA

10 comes out with something and they haven\'t had an

11 opportunity to digest the data that underlie it and

12 prepare themselves in their practice for what may

13 end up being a deluge.

14 DR. CHESNEY: Just for the sake of

15 argument, I was interested in the materials and the

16 one thing that can be done is to observe these

17 infants for a longer period of time for some of

18 these findings. They said, for example, now with

19 discharge within 24-48 hours maybe these infants

20 need to be observed for a longer period of time. I

21 realize that is trivial compared with what we would

22 like to tell them to do but, again, just for the

274

1 sake or argument, there is something that could be

2 done which is watch for these children because you

3 might see some difficulty eating or all these

4 different things. Dr. Hudak?

5 DR. HUDAK: No, I think that is a good

6 point and that is why it is necessary for the

7 physicians who treat the baby to know those things.

8 The good news is that the trend is in the opposite

9 direction now, that mothers are staying not 24

10 hours but more like 48 minimum, which is a good

11 thing. The other thing that this would do is that

12 even if the baby is okay at 48 hours, it would

13 encourage the baby to be seen in early follow-up

14 which would mean one or two days after discharge

15 rather than two weeks, which is typical in many

16 practices, especially the non-nursed baby.

17 DR. CHESNEY: I am going to stop talking

18 right after this, but if we go back one

19 step\--professional education, I feel like that is a

20 given. We have to do that through a whole variety

21 of different societies and so on. But our next

22 alternative is the \"dear healthcare professional\"

275

1 letter which is the sponsor\'s responsibility. And,

2 I will stop talking and get some other input. Dr.

3 Gorman?

4 DR. GORMAN: I think one of those has

5 already arrived in my mail box. Being the good

6 doctor that I am, I haven\'t read it yet. It is

7 sitting on the pile of unopened mail but it does

8 say a large pharmaceutical company and it says

9 \"open immediately, dear doctor\" letter. So, there

10 may be one of those already out there.

11 I am going to take the side of the

12 obstetricians and psychiatrists for a moment and

13 say that we are talking about a neonatal withdrawal

14 syndrome but this decision has the potential for

15 major negative impact on the mother. In the

16 present state of information where we have what we

17 presume to be an acute withdrawal phenomenon, I

18 think the label is adequate as it is because if we

19 try to change practice for obstetricians and

20 psychiatrists that have negative adverse events on

21 the moms when we have just an acute withdrawal

22 syndrome for babies, pediatricians and

276

1 neonatologists should be able to handle an acute

2 withdrawal syndrome.

3 Having said that, my background and my

4 spotty career or checkered career or mosaic career,

5 depending on which way you want to think about it,

6 is lead. Lead is how I got interested in this

7 whole field and there is an area where there is

8 obviously an initial incident and then a long-term

9 devastating neurological outcome. Like lead, this

10 is so commonplace today, if 10 percent of pregnant

11 women are going to be on these medications we will

12 have a really hard time teasing this out if it

13 doesn\'t get teased out earlier, meaning in 2004,

14 \'05 or \'06 rather than in 2024 or \'25 or \'26.

15 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Nelson?

16 DR. NELSON: I have a question but it

17 would help me then frame how you would target the

18 professional education. There are two options. I

19 would assume that most of the overlap between

20 depression and pregnancy are women who are on

21 antidepressants becoming pregnant, as opposed to

22 pregnant women getting depressed.

277

1 DR. WISNER: That is probably true but

2 there are, in fact, many women who have a first

3 episode of depression in pregnancy. So, there are

4 both subgroups.

5 DR. NELSON: And if they have that in

6 pregnancy, are there differences in terms of

7 response to antidepressants?

8 DR. WISNER: It has never been studied

9 systematically but from our long-term experience,

10 no. Differences in side effects but not efficacy.

11 DR. NELSON: Because depending, I guess,

12 on which approach you take when thinking about it,

13 I mean, I am not sure I would advocate a \"dear

14 health professional\" letter because if I got it, I

15 mean, I would kind of look at it and say okay.

16 But, you know, what would you say to someone who is

17 prescribing antidepressants when they would counsel

18 a woman, should she be thinking about becoming

19 pregnant as one set of questions, and then what to

20 do if she becomes pregnant. And then a whole other

21 set of questions is then depression during

22 pregnancy and the kinds of decision-making that

278

1 would be different and would be approached

2 differently and would be complex in

3 short-term/long-term issues.

4 So, I think, by default, you would end up

5 in the third because the healthcare professional

6 letter which a sponsor sends out I can\'t imagine

7 could go into the kind of detail that you would

8 need to tease out those issues, in particular since

9 most of them would end up on the second page and

10 people wouldn\'t read past the first paragraph or

11 two. So, I think by default you end up in three.

12 So, the question is, is there a way you can

13 stimulate the third in a way that is productive?

14 My own bias is that I think a public

15 health advisory\--it doesn\'t sound like there is

16 enough concrete information to where sending that

17 out wouldn\'t send up an alarm and everybody says,

18 well, what do I do about it? And, the answer is we

19 don\'t know. That would strike me as crying wolf in

20 a way that would undercut that process.

21 DR. CHESNEY: I hear what you are saying.

22 On the other hand, SSRIs are such a hot button item

279

1 now. Other comments? Dr. O\'Fallon?

2 DR. O\'FALLON: We really have two patients

3 here. We have the mother and we have the babe. We

4 don\'t really know at this point how damaging this

5 toxicity or withdrawal is. We truly don\'t have the

6 data. So, this may be a horrible problem about to

7 explode, I mean, down the line five years from now

8 or it may not.

9 DR. WISNER: There are long-term follow-up

10 studies of kids that have been exposed during

11 pregnancy, particularly to fluoxetine and the

12 tricyclics. By and large, the development, at

13 least on fairly global but standard measures, has

14 been indistinguishable between the groups. So, I

15 don\'t think we are looking at something that is

16 going to blow up and be very bad down the line at

17 least on those major impacts. There is still a

18 dis-ease about some more subtle, perhaps those

19 neurobehavioral things that we are talking about,

20 but I don\'t honestly think it is a major horrible

21 thing.

22 DR. CHESNEY: I think that is critical

280

1 information. I don\'t believe I knew that. So,

2 there have been extensive long-term follow-up

3 studies of infants exposed to SSRIs in utero and

4 those children are now without clear complication

5 or problem?

6 DR. WISNER: That is correct.

7 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. O\'Fallon?

8 DR. O\'FALLON: The point here is we have

9 all been talking about giving the information out

10 to the doctors and, you know, it is important. But

11 you also have to give it to the mother. I mean,

12 the mothers have to have this information given to

13 them the best that they can have. You know, I

14 don\'t know what our options are but that letter to

15 the patient we saw earlier today, maybe something

16 along those lines, or maybe the FDA could have a

17 pregnancy website where they could keep the latest

18 information about issues pertinent to pregnancy so

19 if a woman gets pregnant and wants to do her

20 homework she could go look up as much information

21 and possibly that would at least help her. Because

22 if she is depending on one of these doctors that is

281

1 so busy, and I understand because I work with them,

2 they have never read it. They never read that

3 advisory and she is not going to get the

4 information either. There should be a way to get

5 that information to the public directly.

6 DR. D. MURPHY: When you say patient

7 letter, you are talking about the patient insert

8 that we are proposing for the label?

9 DR. O\'FALLON: Right.

10 DR. D. MURPHY: That would say in more

11 detail to the mother about depression and treatment

12 and just making her aware of the fact that this a

13 risk. We know that there is a risk to the infant;

14 we can say that as far as acute, manageable

15 toxicity or adverse event. The question I think we

16 are struggling with is\--and that may be fine but

17 then is there anything else to say? At this point

18 I am hearing even though the Division is proposing

19 that we have in there that your physician may want

20 to taper your medication, we would then have to

21 actually frame that in a way that would be more

22 balanced about the limitations of information.

282

1 DR. O\'FALLON: That is right.

2 DR. D. MURPHY: I mean, the point of a

3 patient letter is that it gives you the ability to

4 say more to balance it instead of just saying we

5 don\'t know. There is that opportunity.

6 DR. O\'FALLON: And like she just said, if

7 they have some information\--it may not be the

8 highest quality because it may be voluntary

9 information and all that, but if there is something

10 there that says, \"hey, look, we haven\'t seen all

11 these long-term things\" the mother could say,

12 \"well, you know, it won\'t be so awful for my baby

13 if I stay on my medication\"\--that type of thing.

14 Give them the information so that they can make an

15 informed decision like he was talking about in

16 terms of an informed consent.

17 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Wisner?

18 DR. WISNER: I agree very much with what

19 you just said, but what I worry about is exactly

20 what I saw in a case recently. I did a

21 consultation on a patient who was very pregnant,

22 who came in because she said, \"you know, I went on

283

1 the web and I saw all this terrible stuff that

2 happens to newborns if the mom is taking an

3 antidepressant so I stopped my drug a month ago

4 because what if I deliver early and maybe my baby

5 will get those terrible things?\" We had to

6 hospitalize her because she was really quite

7 depressed and suicidal and she went into labor,

8 delivered and had to be transferred down to the

9 maternity hospital. I have no question that all of

10 that was way worse than to continue the drug.

11 So, if the information is in a context in

12 which she is helped to value the traces, that makes

13 sense, but delivered, you know, in a situation

14 where, in fact, her treating physician wasn\'t very

15 aware of the issues and she didn\'t have a lot of

16 confidence, I just worry about the meta-message.

17 When this organization says something it can pack a

18 big wallop and that meta-message may lead to more

19 negative outcomes than we hope, or the kind of

20 negative outcomes that we don\'t want to happen.

21 DR. O\'FALLON: But maybe they are going to

22 go look at the website where it doesn\'t have any of

284

1 the nuances in it. So, I am suggesting that the

2 FDA try to create a balanced message and point to

3 the different issues so that they would have a

4 halfway chance of knowing what they are doing.

5 DR. WISNER: Except that my point was

6 somewhat different. That is, if it is an FDA

7 message there is a meta-message that is separate

8 from what the content says that packs a bigger

9 wallop even if it is tempered. That was more my

10 point.

11 DR. D. MURPHY: If FDA sends out a public

12 health advisory, you are right, there is a big

13 meta-message and you have to read a lot to be able

14 to overcome that meta-message, which is the point

15 of not sending out a whole lot of them because we

16 want you to pay attention when we send them out,

17 versus the other proposal I am hearing. I am just

18 trying to make sure I am getting your perspective

19 on this, versus the patient insert, which is

20 another way \"FDA says\...\" Are you still concerned

21 about that meta-message that we would have a

22 patient insert that went through this issue of

285

1 mothers on antidepressants and that there are these

2 syndromes, but we don\'t know what the long-term

3 effects are? We have some evidence at least in

4 certain situations that there aren\'t that we know

5 of at this point or have been able to identify, and

6 that this is a decision you need to balance against

7 the importance of maintaining your health during

8 this process. I mean, you are concerned that even

9 for the additional\--because something is going to

10 go in the label because we have this information

11 and we have to tell people.

12 I think what is being brought forth is

13 that there is a concern that that alone may not be

14 balanced enough, and is there another way to

15 balance it without making it worse, and is the

16 patient insert that way versus\--I think I am

17 hearing we don\'t want to send out an FDA notice but

18 is there another way?

19 DR. CHESNEY: What I am hearing are three

20 things. One is that there will be a label change.

21 The second is that we should educate. I think that

22 is a given. Then, the third, which is the issue

286

1 now is whether, Dr. Wisner, you have concerns that

2 just by putting in a patient insert or an enhanced

3 patient insert would frighten women, without any

4 black boxes or anything, just a more informational

5 patient insert?

6 DR. WISNER: Actually, I was responding

7 more and I think agreeing with the negative

8 feelings about the advisory as a major message.

9 You know, I guess as you were talking what I kept

10 thinking about is what was raised before, that

11 women will find out about this if they are

12 industrious anyway, and if we take the meta-message

13 liability away, which I think would happen with the

14 advisory, and it is a balanced presentation, that

15 sounds more reasonable because at least it is a

16 trusted source. If the directive is to say here is

17 information we think you need as you consider your

18 choices, that makes sense to me.

19 DR. CHESNEY: In the interest of moving on

20 because we still have another question, is there

21 anybody on the committee that would not agree with

22 an enriched patient insert, enhanced education of

287

1 physicians and then the label change that is in

2 process? Does everybody agree to that? Dr.

3 Gorman?

4 DR. GORMAN: The only part of the enhanced

5 label that I saw was in the dosing and

6 administration and I still have reservations about

7 where it prescribes a course of action for

8 physicians which is to taper these doses. I think

9 that is a leap of faith that we don\'t have

10 information for.

11 It says when treating a pregnant woman

12 with these drugs carefully consider potential risk

13 and benefit. Then, physicians may consider

14 altering or revising or rethinking these treatments

15 during pregnancy as information becomes available

16 that will give the physician alternatives. The

17 only alternative they put in here is tapering and

18 then it gets that imprimatur of that is the way to

19 go. I don\'t think we have any data to say that

20 that is the way to go. That is the only

21 reservation I have about the proposed label change.

22 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Dr. Iyasu, do

288

1 you want to give us question number three?

2 DR. IYASU: The second question deals with

3 research. I will just read it. BPCA does not

4 provide a mechanism for issuing a written request

5 to study drug therapies for pregnant women. There

6 are no population-based estimates of SSRI or SNRI

7 exposure data in pregnant women and there are no

8 systematically collected data on neonatal outcomes

9 in infants exposed to these drugs. Furthermore,

10 determining causality for neonatal reactions is

11 challenging as the role of drug discontinuation,

12 direct toxicity (example serotonin syndrome) and/or

13 other drug/substance exposure during pregnancy is

14 often unclear.

15 Is there a need for further research to

16 evaluate and characterize the neonatal effects of

17 in utero exposure to SSRI/SNRIs? If your answer is

18 yes, in your discussion of research options, please

19 discuss feasibility and potential sponsors for each

20 option. I think you have answered the first

21 question already.

22 DR. CHESNEY: Does anybody feel that we

289

1 know everything that we need to know?

2 \[Laughter\]

3 Thank you. Moving on then?

4 DR. IYASU: Here are the options that we

5 have for you for discussion, and think about

6 feasibility and potential sponsors from these

7 approaches.

8 DR. CHESNEY: And we are always interested

9 in more options.

10 DR. IYASU: The first option is to

11 continue evaluating/monitoring postmarketing

12 adverse event reports, like what we do with the

13 Office of Drug Safety.

14 Conduct some population-based prospective

15 study of pregnancy exposed to antidepressants and

16 assess neonatal outcomes.

17 Another option is to conduct a

18 retrospective study of neonatal withdrawal syndrome

19 or serotonin toxicity.

20 The last option is conducting a

21 randomized, controlled trial of treatment of

22 maternal depression. As a subpart to this

290

1 question, if yes, what research questions should be

2 addressed by the trial?

3 DR. CHESNEY: Probably we can already

4 x-out the first option because you will continue to

5 monitor postmarketing adverse events.

6 DR. D. MURPHY: I think one of the things

7 that that was meant to try to say is that there is

8 a difference between the routine monitoring or

9 saying we are going to follow up, and we want to

10 make sure that when we tell you that we are just

11 going to do routine monitoring that means that we

12 are going to then be bringing it back again. Of

13 course, like many of the things today we really

14 didn\'t think we needed to bring back to you but

15 this is really that question in a way, do you want

16 us to just to continue versus just have the routine

17 path of reporting process?

18 DR. CHESNEY: I understand. In other

19 words, with an emphasis on further research, are we

20 content with that or do we want you to continue to

21 look at this internally and bring us additional

22 feedback each meeting?

291

1 DR. D. MURPHY: It could be simply that we

2 will continue to look at it a year from now and if

3 we don\'t see anything we won\'t come back to you if

4 we don\'t have any new information, but clearly if

5 we did, we would. I mean, you would be putting

6 this as a task for us, meaning Pediatrics, to

7 follow-up with you versus we are not following up.

8 If we report to you 1-year post-exclusivity and

9 there is nothing there, we do no longer follow-up

10 with you.

11 DR. CHESNEY: It is a form of ongoing

12 research for you all, if you will, and you are not

13 required to do that; we would be asking you to do

14 that. Comments? Dr. Nelson?

15 DR. NELSON: I guess I have three. The

16 first is that I would be interested in Sam\'s

17 comments on whether a registry requirement for

18 industry for women who become pregnant or are

19 pregnant and they get placed on the medications,

20 whether that would facilitate data collection and

21 also meet some of the problems behind the voluntary

22 system of adverse events.

292

1 The second two I think would be fine,

2 although I would modify the retrospective and talk

3 about case control, and I would advocate that

4 something like that ought to be NIH funded as

5 opposed to industry funded.

6 The reason for that is that I get nervous,

7 particularly when I look at number four and think

8 about the impact of an industry-sponsored

9 trial\--which I presume you could only get them to

10 do if there was money on the table to be earned by

11 doing it\--in a setting where there is under-funding

12 of basic care for mental health and the potential

13 for undue influence on women even going into the

14 trial, and the complexities of even designing an

15 ethical trial under those circumstances. I think

16 it could be done but I would prefer it then to be

17 done without the sort of recruitment drive that

18 industry-funded research creates even if that

19 recruitment is carried out appropriately. I mean,

20 mental health is so under-funded the undue

21 influence to then go into that trial, even if their

22 own risk assessment independently might not to be

293

1 on antidepressants, I think could be potentially

2 large.

3 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you.

4 DR. MALDONADO: I think actually the FDA

5 has experience with registries. When I was at the

6 agency in antivirals we asked companies to do that

7 and I remember that one of the first registries was

8 for acyclovir in pregnancy and also AZT.

9 Unfortunately, those registries\--please correct me

10 if I am wrong\--never yielded any of the goals that

11 they were created for. I am sure that Sandy knows

12 that very well. So, basically, over the years they

13 have not been very good at giving data. They

14 basically give extemporaneous reports to an 800

15 number by clinicians or by women exposed and they

16 didn\'t yield the results that we wanted.

17 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Dr. Cragan?

18 DR. CRAGAN: I have actually been on the

19 scientific advisory committees of four of those

20 registries that are sponsored by industry. They

21 are very similar in methods but the usual one is

22 that the outcomes are obtained. There is active

294

1 attempt to contact whoever reported the pregnancy

2 originally to the registry, and most of the times

3 that is the obstetrician; occasionally it is a

4 pharmacist or a neurologist or some other

5 specialist. They are contacted to find out the

6 outcome of the infant. So, it is somewhat whatever

7 the obstetrician knows about the outcome or if they

8 take the extra step to contact the pediatrician and

9 find out.

10 But I think in this kind of behavioral

11 type of symptoms, withdrawal versus toxicity and

12 such, you really need to get to hard, objective

13 data by the person who is caring for the child and

14 not just the first day in a delivery room. So,

15 that method I think is not well suited for this

16 type of outcome.

17 Now, there is one registry, the

18 anti-epileptic registry, that is multiple company

19 sponsored and they give a grant to someone in a

20 university setting who actually administered the

21 registry, and the mother enrolls herself and they

22 get informed consent to contact the pediatrician

295

1 and attempt to get copies of hospital records, and

2 such. So, it is possible; there is one registry

3 that does that better but I think this kind of

4 outcome is not well suited to that design in

5 general.

6 DR. CHESNEY: Could you comment on what

7 design would be good, specifically with respect to

8 bullet number two?

9 DR. CRAGAN: What comes to mind is the

10 National Children\'s Study which is a

11 population-based enrollment, a longitudinal study

12 of children and they do have work group on drugs

13 and they have a group on newborn outcomes I think.

14 I would make sure that these kinds of issues will

15 be covered in what they are addressing. I think

16 they will be automatically but presumably SSRIs and

17 antidepressants in general are a common enough

18 exposure in the population that you really may be

19 able to get some good data from that.

20 The other things that come to mind that

21 have an existing structure that you might be able

22 to tap on\--one is the teratology information

296

1 services, the one in California particularly that

2 Christina Chambers heads or is part of. They are

3 set up to interview mothers about exposures. They

4 have several studies where they follow infants out

5 to a year. They have physicians who travel around

6 in California to examine infants. I think with

7 some funding and some support they would probably

8 be able to take that on for a longer term. It

9 depends on how many you have.

10 Our division funds a number of state-based

11 population-based birth defect surveillance programs

12 and those are geared toward malformations. But

13 some of those, the ones in California, the one in

14 Texas, do have abstractors that go out to hospitals

15 and look for abstract information about children

16 with specific conditions. Again, with some extra

17 support or funding some of those might be able to

18 broaden those to look for symptoms noted in the

19 newborn that then could be followed up to look for

20 exposure. Those are the thoughts that come to

21 mind.

22 DR. CHESNEY: Other suggestions or

297

1 comments? Dr. O\'Fallon?

2 DR. O\'FALLON: You know, I think that

3 retrospective studies are the ones that can get

4 done the fastest and probably provide the most bang

5 for the buck, at the beginning anyway. But the

6 problem with them is they do depend on data that

7 was or was not recorded so you have interesting

8 biases that show up, but they still are the

9 greatest bang for the buck and, at least in the

10 beginning, give us some information. It would

11 probably have to be validated through something

12 like a prospective study forward in time if it

13 looks like there is something going on.

14 DR. CHESNEY: I was struck in reading the

15 articles and here today that we don\'t really know

16 what we are looking for in the newborn. I mean,

17 there may be two totally different syndromes, one

18 being the behavioral teratogenicity and the other

19 being the toxicity/withdrawal. We don\'t even have

20 good definitions for what we are looking for if we

21 were to go retrospective. I just kept thinking

22 this would be so perfect for somebody that, you

298

1 know, would actually get in and examine the infants

2 and develop some kind of scale for evaluation. Dr.

3 Gorman, I think you had your hand up.

4 DR. GORMAN: After listening to the AERS

5 disclaimer for the last three years, it strikes me

6 that the process we follow for identifying

7 off-label drugs for study at NIH might be a useful

8 analogy to start looking at for AERS signals that

9 are picked up. They get a signal in AERS. It says

10 there may be a toxicity that has previously been

11 unrecognized. You use some group to rank them in

12 terms of their significance and find a way through

13 NIH to fund them through whatever mechanism. It

14 struck me as incredibly serendipitous that there is

15 an RO1 trial going on today that is trying to

16 answer the question that we are being faced with.

17 I would like to make that less serendipitous.

18 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Luban?

19 DR. LUBAN: There certainly are two

20 NIH-sponsored groups that look into pharmacologic

21 trials that PBRUs, and certainly the neonatal

22 network, which is Maternal and Child Health-funded,

299

1 is another resource. It almost seems like you need

2 to get all these people to sit down in one room

3 together and talk to one another. I would imagine

4 that between that you could get the measurements

5 that I would be most interested in looking at

6 because the PBRUs have very extensive drug testing

7 methodologies available to them and the neonatal

8 network certainly has a broad base of diffuse

9 neonates from different socioeconomic groups that

10 are from across the United States.

11 DR. CHESNEY: Maybe I could hazard a

12 response to your first bullet. I partly feel like

13 you have done your job and we don\'t see you as a

14 research agency. On the other hand, given that it

15 may take some time for some of these other programs

16 to get up and running, and hopefully they will

17 fairly quickly, maybe it would be useful for us to

18 have this on the agenda for a year to have you come

19 back and say here is what we have found since last

20 year and, again, I just put that on the table for

21 others on the committee to comment on. Dr. Nelson,

22 you always have a comment to my comments.

300

1 DR. NELSON: Well, I was thinking that the

2 data look like it needed to be updated. If I

3 recall, it was 2001 cleaned and then 2001 to 2004

4 uncleaned. So, at the very least, an update of the

5 2004 data cleaned would probably make sense. So, I

6 guess I am in agreement that that might be a useful

7 thing to do and then present.

8 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. We agree on

9 that. Does anybody disagree with that?

10 \[No response\]

11 That is number one. Number two,

12 population-based prospective studies, I think we

13 all feel that that is absolutely important and

14 essential through whatever mechanism we can come up

15 with.

16 Retrospective studies\--there are some out

17 there now. They have alerted us to the problem. I

18 don\'t know how much more information they could

19 give us because we don\'t know what to look for now,

20 let alone what to look for retrospectively. I am

21 just free-associating and then I will let other

22 people comment.

301

1 A randomized, controlled trial of

2 treatment of maternal depression and what research

3 questions should be addressed\--that is much more

4 difficult. Dr. Wisner?

5 DR. WISNER: If what you mean is a

6 drug-placebo, controlled study during pregnancy, it

7 wouldn\'t be funded by NIH. One of the

8 possibilities is a drug-other treatment control,

9 and there are investigators who have tried to

10 compare drug treatment versus psychotherapy and

11 have submitted such studies but for a whole number

12 of methodological and ethical reasons they have not

13 been funded by NIMH.

14 What we are doing is a study of light

15 therapy. We have done two pilot studies and hope

16 to present enough evidence that it is an effective

17 treatment to do a light therapy versus drug

18 treatment when then could potentially give us the

19 chance to look at drug versus another active

20 treatment on the kinds of neonatal outcomes that we

21 have been talking about today.

22 DR. CHESNEY: What do we know about

302

1 neonatal outcomes of women who had severe

2 depression before we had effective drugs? Do we

3 know anything about those neonates? How they

4 behaved?

5 DR. WISNER: Other than being described as

6 irritable and difficult to console\--you mean

7 longer-term outcomes?

8 DR. CHESNEY: No, just the immediate, just

9 the effects of the maternal depression without any

10 therapy. They were irritable, difficult to

11 console?

12 DR. WISNER: Yes, and can have long-term

13 growth and certainly socioemotional difficulties.

14 In Lynne Singer\'s data set in which she looked at

15 women who had abused various substances in

16 pregnancy, the motor and more physical effects on

17 kids long term could be related to drug use, but

18 the socioemotional development was pretty highly

19 correlated with maternal depression score, which is

20 kind of interesting. The effects on development

21 are pretty devastating.

22 DR. CHESNEY: Fascinating. What research

303

1 question should be addressed by the trial? Shall

2 we continue to pursue that part of bullet number

3 four?

4 DR. D. MURPHY: I think we have enough

5 here to work with.

6 DR. CHESNEY: I am hearing no\'s all around

7 me. I hope you could hear that. Thank you,

8 everybody for getting us through all of that. I

9 think, unless Tom is signaling me something else,

10 we need to move on now to Dr. Iyasu\'s presentation

11 on an update on congenital eye malformations in

12 infants.

13 Update on Congenital Eye Malformations in Infants

14 DR. IYASU: Good afternoon again. This

15 will not take a very long time and you have the

16 break after that.

17 I am going to discuss congenital eye

18 malformations reported through AERS with the

19 maternal use of antidepressants during pregnancy.

20 First I would like to acknowledge Kate Phelan from

21 the Office of Drug Safety for performing the

22 primary review of adverse event reports. I think

304

1 Kate is still here.

2 To provide you with some background,

3 during the February, 2003 meeting of this committee

4 we reported a case report of a potential eye

5 malformation related to the use of citalopram

6 during pregnancy. Namely, it was a patient with

7 ptosis, eye muscle paresis and nystagmus. At that

8 time an expanded review of citalopram and several

9 other antidepressants for potential reports of eye

10 malformations were under review. The review has

11 been completed and today\'s talk is an update of

12 congenital eye malformations for citalopram and its

13 enantiomer, escitalopram and several other newer

14 antidepressants.

15 In March, 2002 the WHO Upsala Monitoring

16 Center of Drug Safety published three possible

17 reports of congenital eye malformations with the

18 use of citalopram during pregnancy. Two of these

19 reports were congenital optic nerve hypoplasia.

20 Both were from Sweden. The third was a report of a

21 non-specific eye malformation from Great Britain.

22 All were exposed to citalopram during the first

305

1 trimester. The publication of this report

2 triggered an FDA review of the AERS database.

3 First I will just give you some background

4 again about this drug. I will discuss relevant

5 labeling for the drug products included in this

6 current review. Citalopram is labeled as a

7 pregnancy category C drug. In rat embryo or fetal

8 development studies teratogenic effects have been

9 reported at maternally toxic doses, and this

10 included decreased embryo or fetal growth,

11 decreased survival and increased incidence of

12 cardiovascular/skeletal defects. However, this did

13 not include any teratogenic effects on the eye.

14 Fluoxetine, flovoxamine, paroxetine,

15 sertraline and venlafaxine are labeled as pregnancy

16 category C drugs. No teratogenic effects have been

17 seen with these drugs, except decreased pup

18 survival in rats. Like all antidepressants, the

19 label also recommends use of these drug products

20 during pregnancy only if the benefit outweighs the

21 risk to the fetus.

22 The other drug that was reviewed was

306

1 bupropion which is labeled as a pregnancy category

2 B drug. No teratogenic effects in rat studies have

3 been reported.

4 The last medication is desipramine which

5 has no pregnancy category on the label but does

6 carry a warning about use in pregnancy, like

7 antidepressants, and reproductive studies are

8 reported to be inconclusive.

9 Now on to the search strategy of the AERS

10 database, the Office of Drug Safety searched the

11 AERS database for reports of \"eye disorders,

12 congenital\" in relation to citalopram,

13 escitalopram and the other drugs that I mentioned

14 before.

15 The AERS search results for citalopram

16 revealed that there were 5 unduplicated pediatric

17 eye malformations. One was a U.S. case; 4 were

18 international reports. Only one congenital optic

19 nerve hypoplasia, reported in the WHO bulletin, was

20 found in the AERS database. There were no adverse

21 event reports for escitalopram.

22 Of the 5 reports that are in the AERS

307

1 database, one was a congenital optic nerve

2 hypoplasia and there were other medications also

3 used concomitantly during pregnancy, cefuroxime and

4 nitrofurantoin for urinary tract infection about

5 the fifth month of pregnancy.

6 The second case was a non-specific eye

7 malformation, also with multiple medications were

8 used concomitantly during pregnancy.

9 The third case is the one we reported last

10 February, which was a congenital ptosis and

11 nystagmus. The report does not indicate any

12 concomitant medication use.

13 The fourth case is bilateral retinal

14 coloboma, right hydronephrosis, respiratory

15 distress syndrome with collapsed lung. There were

16 no other medications except multivitamins.

17 The last case was downward deviation of

18 gaze without paralysis. In the case report there

19 were no concomitant medications. No other

20 neurologic or increase in pressure was noted in

21 this patient.

22 Looking at the other search results, for

308

1 bupropion there were 2 cases, one with lacrimal

2 duct obstruction and another case of eyelid

3 malformation. Fluoxetine had 2 cases, optic nerve

4 anomaly and congenital lacrimal passage anomaly.

5 For paroxetine there were 2 reports, retinopathy

6 and congenital cataract. For Sertraline there were

7 3 reports. One was an eye deformity which was

8 non-specific; an anomaly of the orbit; and then

9 lacrimal passage anomaly. Desipramine, fluvoxamine

10 and venlafaxine did not reveal any case reports.

11 In conclusion, these adverse event reports

12 were reviewed extensively by the Office of Drug

13 Safety and also by the review division, as well as

14 the ophthalmology group at FDA. The conclusion is

15 that the report of congenital eye malformations

16 does not constitute a recognizable pattern that

17 could be attributed to the use of citalopram or any

18 of the other antidepressants during pregnancy.

19 There were too few cases to make any significant

20 attribution or association with its use during

21 pregnancy, and there were also several concomitant

22 medications.

309

1 Therefore, we will continue, as was

2 mentioned before, with monitoring of the AERS for

3 any additional cases of eye malformations with

4 these medications.

5 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you. Any technical

6 questions for Dr. Iyasu?

7 \[No response\]

8 Open Public Hearing

9 Thank you very much. We do have one

10 speaker for the open public hearing today and I do

11 have something I have to read before that. Both

12 the Food and Drug Administration and the public

13 believe in a transparent process for information

14 gathering and decision making. To ensure such

15 transparency at the open public hearing session of

16 the advisory committee meeting, the FDA believes

17 that it is important to understand the context of

18 an individual\'s presentation.

19 For this reason, the FDA encourages you,

20 the open public hearing speaker, at the beginning

21 of your written or oral statement to advise the

22 committee of any financial relationship that you

310

1 may have with any company or any group that is

2 likely to be impacted by the topic of this meeting.

3 For example, this financial information may include

4 a company\'s or a group\'s payment of your travel,

5 lodging or other expenses in connection with your

6 attendance. Likewise, the FDA encourages you at

7 the beginning of your statement to advise the

8 committee if you do not have any such financial

9 relationships. If you choose not to address this

10 issue of financial relationships at the beginning

11 of your statement, it will not preclude you from

12 speaking.

13 Our speaker is Dr. Philip Sandy Zeskind,

14 who has provided us with a set of his slides in our

15 packet. Also, Tom tells me, one of his papers is

16 in the blue book material we received before coming

17 to the meeting. Dr. Zeskind?

18 DR. ZESKIND: Thank you very much. While

19 Tom is coming up to rescue me, I am not funded by

20 any drug companies. There is no conflict of

21 interest there. In my role as director of

22 neurodevelopmental research in my hospital, they

311

1 are supporting my transportation here.

2 I have a series of comments and I am going

3 to try and whip through this pretty quickly. After

4 hearing the discussion, some of the issues that are

5 embedded in this presentation directly address some

6 of the questions that you are asking about what

7 kinds of questions should be asked and what kinds

8 of research methods should be done.

9 This is in reference to an article that I

10 published in the journal Pediatrics in February of

11 2004. I will whip through the stuff that is

12 obvious, that there is a lot of depression.

13 Depression in and of itself, as Dr. Wisner said,

14 does have debilitating effects. Serotonin is a

15 neurotransmitter that is going to affect

16 development. In my view, it is not whether it

17 affects development but how much and in what ways.

18 That, to me, is a given as someone who studies

19 prenatal development.

20 Unfortunately, the way these questions

21 have been answered in the past is by using measures

22 such as birth weight, gestational age and physical

312

1 anomalies. Quite honestly, in my view, these are

2 the measures that Sparta used to see if a baby was

3 healthy 3,000 years ago and I think that, as a

4 field of research, we have moved on way beyond that

5 yet we are not applying it to some of these

6 important questions that we have in front of us

7 today.

8 For the study that we did, the issues that

9 are relevant for us, especially if you are talking

10 about doing retrospective studies and big

11 population-based studies\--all infants in this study

12 were full birth weight. Except for one infant,

13 they were all full term, and no infants had any

14 physical anomalies. There were absolutely no

15 differences between the SSRI-exposed and the

16 non-exposed infants. It is a small sample, yet it

17 was an intensively studied sample. If anybody went

18 back to the medical records on these infants, they

19 would find \"no effects of SSRI exposure.\" That is

20 the bottom line.

21 What we found, through methods that are

22 described in the paper, is quite a list of

313

1 neurobehavioral differences in the prenatal

2 SSRI-exposed babies They showed incredible amounts

3 of tremulousness that was not picked up by the

4 attending physicians; increased startles or some

5 call them arousals. There was also independent

6 motor activity besides those. The whole

7 sleep-state architecture of the infant was totally

8 disrupted. We sat and we watched these babies

9 sleep and recorded blinded measures of state

10 regulation in a way that we have developed over 30

11 years and others have used as part of standard

12 newborn exams. We measured increased REM sleep;

13 rigid state organization and depressed range of

14 states. Normal babies should get up and cry.

15 These babies are functionally, physiologically,

16 behaviorally depressed.

17 We have also worked out a way of spectrum

18 analyzing the infants\' heart rate variability to

19 look at oscillations in the heart rate. What we

20 found is that the oscillations in heart rate over

21 time are totally messed up, just to put it

22 colloquially. They are not rhythmic. The

314

1 parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system is

2 disrupted seriously.

3 Importantly, all these measures have been

4 previously used to detect effects of prenatal drug

5 exposure or differentiate high risk infants in the

6 past. These are not new measures. They have been

7 used to assess cocaine-exposed infants,

8 cigarette-exposed infants, alcohol-exposed infants,

9 prenatal malnutrition, etc. They are the same

10 kinds of behaviors.

11 We also found, as far as

12 neurodevelopmental effects, a lower gestational age

13 by one week even within a full-term sample. Again,

14 going back to medical records which can\'t use NICU

15 admissions as a measure, yet, there was seemingly

16 an effect on gestational age.

17 As far as whether these have effects on

18 subsequent development, I want to address this

19 because this came up and Dr. Wisner answered it

20 very nicely, that is, the long-term studies of SSRI

21 exposure have focused on the equivalent of using

22 birth weight an physical anomalies of the newborn.

315

1 Doing standard IQ tests at 2 years of age is not a

2 way of measuring long-term effects, and that is

3 what has been used, standard IQ tests and language

4 development tests. They will not detect effects of

5 SSRI exposure. The cocaine literature, the

6 cigarette smoking literature knows this already.

7 They have moved on from that kind of analysis. Now

8 what people look at is socioemotional regulation,

9 how people handle emotional issues, regulation of

10 arousal, those kinds of things.

11 I will say one more thing with that, the

12 measures that we have found, these neurobehavioral

13 measures in my own work and others\' work have been

14 predictive of subsequent differences in

15 development. I don\'t think we can say that there

16 aren\'t differences at this point. We still need,

17 of course, better research to look at it directly.

18 I will say also that since I published

19 that article I have received a plethora of letters,

20 unsolicited emails and letters from parents saying,

21 \"my God, I\'m glad someone finally said this because

22 my baby, at 2 years of age, is having these motor

316

1 tremors and my doctor says it looks normal, but

2 there\'s something not right about my child.\" I

3 have a list of emails and letters from parents.

4 Again, that is a biased sample, self-selected,

5 however, we need to throw that into the hopper

6 here.

7 I really enjoyed listening to the

8 discussion. I don\'t know if we should just call

9 this withdrawal syndrome. We heard whether this is

10 serotonin toxicity. Serotonin is the precursor for

11 synaptic development. I don\'t know how being

12 bathed in extra serotonin for nine months during

13 gestation would not have some kind of serious

14 long-term detrimental effect. It just escapes me.

15 My conclusions are that what we have found

16 is that prenatal exposure to SARIS during pregnancy

17 disrupts neurobehavioral development. I think we

18 have clear evidence of that. I don\'t think that

19 birth weight, pre-term birth, NICU admission and

20 physical anomalies are sufficient measures of the

21 effects, and I think that if we continue to do that

22 we will be missing the boat. Number three, there

317

1 may be neurotoxic effects; it may not just be

2 withdrawal. I think number four is obvious.

3 In conclusion, I think when we were asking

4 here what should we do about this, I think it is a

5 question of balance. As Dr. Wisner said,

6 depression during pregnancy is a serious problem in

7 and of itself. For me, talking to the patients

8 that I examine, SSRIs have been given out pretty

9 much like M&Ms during pregnancy. I think it is a

10 question of balance and concern. \"Oh, you\'re

11 feeling a little bit down? Here, have this,\" I do

12 believe that characterizes some of the

13 administration of this drug.

14 So, we don\'t want to throw the baby out

15 with the bath water with this, but I don\'t think it

16 is safe for us to conclude, well, don\'t worry; it

17 is only a transient effect. It is only withdrawal.

18 The baby will get over it or there are no effects

19 because the baby is full birth weight and full

20 term. I will stop there and thank you very much.

21 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you very much. We

22 really appreciate your perspective of many years of

318

1 having looked at this very issue that, obviously,

2 many of us are coming at from a much less detailed

3 background. So, we really appreciate your input.

4 Are there any questions of Dr. Zeskind? Dr. Gorman

5 and then Dr. Wisner.

6 DR. GORMAN: SSRIs have now been out in

7 the population for ten years. I assume pregnant

8 women start taking them whether they know they are

9 pregnant or not near the beginning. What epidemic

10 are we seeing today, in your opinion, that has been

11 predicated on this use? And, it doesn\'t have to be

12 an epidemic of such, you know, is this why all the

13 patients in my practice use Game Boys\--

14 \[Laughter\]

15 DR. ZESKIND: You joke\--

16 DR. GORMAN: I am not joking.

17 DR. ZESKIND: We are talking about

18 emotional regulation. You know, one of the

19 long-term effects, now that we know about prenatal

20 cigarette exposure for example, is some very nice

21 research that shows it is attention deficit. Where

22 did that come from? I don\'t know what the epidemic

319

1 is, but I do know, as you said and it is not an

2 exaggeration; I run a child clinic at my hospital

3 and there are a lot of children with regulation

4 disorders that are associated with things that moms

5 take during pregnancy, including subclinical

6 effects of alcohol, cigarettes, SSRIs. I think we

7 have a lot of children. Where is all the

8 depression coming from that makes the headlines of

9 Newsweek magazine for bipolar disorder? We are

10 creating children that just, by the amount of it,

11 appear as \"normal\" in a statistical sense.

12 That is the best answer I can give and I

13 think it is a very good question. But I don\'t

14 think if we give the kid IQ tests and they appear

15 normal, then we should conclude there is no effect

16 on develop.

17 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Wisner?

18 DR. WISNER: Sandy, I wonder in your

19 application of the wonderful measures you have

20 developed, you have looked at the SSRI cases but,

21 as I recall, you have a parallel literature on the

22 effects of depression as well. Right? I mean,

320

1 moms who are depressed give birth independent of

2 SSRIs. Is there a difference on those outcomes?

3 DR. ZESKIND: That is a great question,

4 Kathy. From my clinical experience, the effects of

5 depression are different than the effects of SSRI

6 exposure. The study would have, of course,

7 benefited greatly by having an untreated depressed

8 group. I mean, that is obviously the next question

9 that needs to be answered so I know the limitation

10 of the study in that sense. But these do not look

11 like infants of depressed moms; they look like a

12 different kind of issue.

13 DR. WISNER: And just to add to that,

14 Sandy has a wonderful cry analytic procedure that

15 is being done with RR1 so that at birth and 2 weeks

16 the cries of all kids in those groups will go to

17 Sandy for analysis.

18 DR. ZESKIND: What we do with that is we

19 spectrum analyze the cries. This is something we

20 have been developing over 30 years. By spectrum

21 analyzing the cry and looking at the 4-minute

22 frequencies you can actually tell if there is a

321

1 problem with the brain stem. I am very sure, based

2 on some of the stuff we have already received, in

3 collaboration with others and my own work, that

4 these babies have the kinds of cries, cry

5 thresholds and sounds that are evidence of damage.

6 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Gorman?

7 DR. GORMAN: Just to be pesky, threshold

8 effect or non-threshold effect dose response, and

9 is it uniform across babies or are there babies who

10 are spared and babies who are dramatically

11 affected?

12 DR. ZESKIND: That is another good

13 question. I can\'t answer that. That is not my

14 area of expertise. I believe Dr. Oberlander\--he is

15 over on the West Coast of Canada\--has been looking

16 at differences in genetic populations with

17 different cultural groups and how they metabolize

18 the drug. There may be differences in metabolic

19 activity that may have an effect. My study cannot

20 address the dose response or whether an one SSRI is

21 worse than another, that kind of stuff.

22 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you again very much

322

1 for taking the time to come and be with us.

2 DR. ZESKIND: Thank you for having me.

3 DR. CHESNEY: Tom is asking whether we

4 want to take a break, and my thought is that a

5 5-7-minute break isn\'t really going to impact

6 traffic and it may impact traffic to the men\'s and

7 ladies\' room. So, if is all right with everybody,

8 I would like to take a 7-minute break. Plan to be

9 back here at 3:45. At that time, Dr. Maldonado

10 also wants to give a response to some of the issues

11 raised this morning, briefly, before we move on.

12 Thank you.

13 \[Brief recess\]

14 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Maldonado had asked if

15 he could spend just a few minutes responding to

16 some of the issues that were raised this morning

17 that involved pharmaceutical companies. He has

18 promised he will be brief but they are important

19 and I think it is important for him to enlighten

20 us.

21 DR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Dr. Chesney. I

22 know we talked a little bit about formulations and

323

1 I will be brief on this. That is an issue where,

2 unfortunately, the science has not evolved as

3 rapidly as in other parts of pharmaceutical

4 aspects. The reason is that basically there are

5 two very good solvents for a lot of the products,

6 especially in liquid. One is water and the other

7 is alcohols, and there are limitations with

8 alcohols. A lot of the new drugs are not very

9 soluble in water. So, even when I was still at the

10 agency, I remember a sponsor trying 200

11 formulations and failing in every one of them. So,

12 the science, unfortunately, is not very conducive

13 to producing formulations sometimes.

14 The other thing is that we talked a little

15 bit about negative studies. That might have

16 actually a negative connotation. Negative studies

17 are not necessarily unsafe; they just fail to

18 demonstrate what they thought they were going to

19 demonstrate, and in Phase 1, those are exploratory

20 studies many times. I am glad that Dr. Murphy

21 clarified that within BPCA those studies are

22 becoming public and published, if not in journals,

324

1 at least the BPCA requires that the FDA make them

2 public. So, there is not the veil that there used

3 to be. This is the first time that actually

4 industry has the incentive to send so-called

5 negative studies to the FDA. Many of those studies

6 were never sent before because they knew they were

7 not going to be reviewed anyway.

8 But the most important thing that I want

9 you to consider, the committee to consider and even

10 the people from FDA\--and I have to be very careful

11 because I don\'t want you to perceive that I am

12 trying to create a negative impact on how you do

13 business. For example, today we saw several drugs

14 in which the pediatric use is very minimal, 0.1

15 percent, 0.2 percent in some of them. So, most of

16 the drugs are used in adults. After the meeting in

17 the morning I inquired of one of the reviewers how

18 is that different, how is the adverse event profile

19 different in pediatrics than it is in adults. I

20 was told it is the same.

21 Now, we are talking about changing the

22 labels and focusing on the pediatric part. So, I

325

1 think we shouldn\'t do that because we are creating

2 a perception of liability in pediatrics. If the

3 adverse events are similar in adults, let\'s do it

4 because of what is happening globally. I can tell

5 you, I am an advocate for pediatric studies in my

6 company. Otherwise, when we go back in front of

7 the people who hold the wallet of the company,

8 there is going to be some reluctance to approve

9 pediatric studies because they are going to be

10 perceived as being a liability. As you see here, I

11 mean it is a no-brainer, if the companies only sell

12 0.1 percent of the drug in pediatrics or 0.2

13 percent, not even 1.0 percent\--actually, I had a

14 lawyer ask me at one of the labeling meetings why

15 are we doing this to ourselves? I said, no we are

16 not doing this to ourselves. We are providing this

17 information for kids. So, this is the connotation.

18 So, if there are particular things for

19 pediatrics, frame it on pediatrics but if it is not

20 particular to pediatrics, then let\'s not frame it

21 in pediatrics. Let\'s say, okay, these things\--for

22 example the abuse of some of the drugs, happen

326

1 actually more in bigger absolute numbers in the

2 general adult population. So, that way we don\'t

3 create a perception that there is something wrong

4 with the pediatric drug development or pediatric

5 use of these drugs because many times that is not

6 the case. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

7 DR. D. MURPHY: I think, Sam, we have to

8 find for the committee your presentation on what

9 companies think about when they go through the

10 process of trying to develop drugs for pediatrics.

11 I think that it is a very useful process for the

12 committee to be aware of.

13 DR. CHESNEY: On the next committee, of

14 which we may not be members, we will get to hear

15 your presentation. Dr. Shirley Murphy is going to

16 talk to us about the Pediatric Research Equity Act.

17 Pediatric Research Equity Act

18 DR. S. MURPHY: We have heard today about

19 what Dr. Gorman and the American Academy of

20 Pediatrics did to really lobby to get this into

21 legislation. In your packet you have the law. It

22 is a long way from the law to what it actually

327

1 means and how you interpret it, and what I am going

2 to do today is just give you a very top-line

3 overview of how we are starting to interpret this

4 law at the FDA.

5 It really takes a whole team to interpret

6 the law, and on this team have been Terry Kwizenzi,

7 Grace Karmuz, Rosemary Addy and Rosemary Roberts.

8 It is evolving. It is like medicine, it almost

9 takes a case-by-case. You look at an application

10 and you see if it triggers PREA. You discuss it,

11 why it does; whey it doesn\'t. So, it takes a while

12 for precedent to be developed, just like in BPCA

13 with the written request.

14 But I will give you a very quick overview

15 of PREA, what it means, how it compares to the Rule

16 and really how we are interpreting at the FDA. The

17 Pediatric Research Equity Act has lovingly been

18 called PREA, and is known throughout the FDA and

19 through the pharmaceutical world too as PREA. So,

20 it rapidly got a nickname.

21 It became law, as you know, on December 3,

22 2003 when it was signed by the President. The

328

1 legislation mimics the Pediatric Rule with some

2 changes. It required pediatric studies of certain

3 drugs and biological products unless they are

4 waived or deferred. It is retroactive to all

5 applications back to April 1, 1999, and that was

6 when applications started to be triggered by the

7 Rule. So, what happens is instead of just starting

8 the date it was approved, it makes sure that

9 certain applications didn\'t fall through the cracks

10 so nobody got an \"out of jail\" free card with this.

11 PREA is not applicable to drugs with

12 orphan designations or orphan applications. That

13 is very different, as you will see, from BPCA.

14 There is a guidance under development. Initially

15 we had hoped that this guidance would be available

16 to hand out to you but it is not quite baked yet.

17 It, very importantly, establishes the pediatric

18 advisory committee.

19 How does PREA compare to the Rule? It is

20 actually quite similar. PREA is legislation so it

21 is a law. So, thank you very much, American

22 Academy of Pediatrics and everyone who worked so

329

1 hard on this. The Rule was a regulation and, as

2 you know, the courts enjoined its enforcement.

3 PREA does not specify meetings at

4 appropriate times, although we anticipate that the

5 guidance will give some guidance about this. The

6 Rule said you should have a pre-IND meeting and

7 discuss pediatric plans. That wasn\'t in PREA. It

8 is retroactive and it does establish the advisory

9 committee.

10 Well, PREA is the return of the stick and

11 BPCA remains the carrot. You know, why do

12 companies do studies when there is such a small

13 percentage of the patients that are taking the

14 drug? Well, it is for the billion dollars that you

15 make on the six months. It is not for the 0.1

16 percent of the kids that may take that drug. And,

17 BPCA remains a very successful carrot.

18 These studies are voluntary in BPCA. They

19 include orphan drugs and orphan indications, where

20 PREA does not include orphan drugs and orphan

21 indications. Now, BPCA is wide. It is just huge

22 wide. It covers the entire moiety. So, if you

330

1 have a corticosteroid, for instance, like

2 fluticasone, the written request may be for the

3 lung, the nose and the skin, all of those

4 indications. PREA is very, very narrow. The

5 studies are limited to the drug and the indication

6 that is under development. So, that is very, very

7 different.

8 Now, a pediatric assessment is required

9 for applications, or applications trigger PREA when

10 there is a new ingredient. So, say, a combination

11 of Tylenol and a muscle relaxant wanted to add

12 caffeine in, that would trigger PREA. A new

13 indication, say, a skin steroid wanted to go for an

14 indication of eczema; a new dosage form, something

15 goes from a liquid to a chewable, dispersable

16 tablet; a new dosing regimen goes from 4 times a

17 day to 2 times a day; or a new route of

18 administration, it goes from an IV administration

19 to a patch. So, these are the things that trigger

20 PREA and require the company to have a pediatric

21 plan and do pediatric assessments.

22 A pediatric assessment\--and pediatric

331

1 assessment is probably interchangeable with

2 pediatric studies\--it has to be data adequate to

3 assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug or

4 the biologic product and data to support dosing and

5 administration for each of the relevant pediatric

6 subpopulations.

7 Just like with drug development in

8 general, effectiveness can be extrapolated from

9 adequate and well-controlled studies in adults, and

10 then can be supplemented, just like we do in BPCA

11 and the written request. Where there are gaps, it

12 can be supplemented with safety and PK/PD data in

13 children. You can extrapolate from one age group

14 to another where appropriate. So, you might be

15 able to extrapolate from an adolescent down to a

16 child of, say, 6 but it would be a big gap to go

17 from adolescents to neonates.

18 Now, I mentioned that there could be

19 deferrals and there could be waivers. A deferral

20 is granted when the drug or biologic product is

21 ready for approval in adults and the pediatric

22 studies aren\'t completed yet. You cannot hold up

332

1 access of medication for adults under PREA so you

2 go ahead and approve it and then you would have

3 then you would have the adult \[sic\] studies come in

4 a year or two later. Or, the FDA believes that

5 additional safety or effectiveness data that is

6 necessary before this drug is studied in children.

7 Some sponsors will come in very eagerly at a

8 pre-IND meeting and want to start study in children

9 when adults haven\'t been studied and the FDA can

10 say wait, let\'s get some adult data, or it can even

11 go up to approval and say let\'s get it on the

12 market a while and see what happens before we

13 subject children to it. This is really with a new

14 molecular entity most often. But these deferrals

15 are tracked in a database at the FDA as Phase 4

16 commitments so they don\'t get lost.

17 What about waivers? Well a full waiver,

18 meaning you don\'t have to do pediatric studies at

19 all, are granted when a condition doesn\'t occur in

20 children. Prostate cancer would be an example of

21 that. Or, necessary studies are impossible or

22 highly impractical, and these are probably some

333

1 cases we will have to go through to see what this

2 exactly means. Or, strong evidence suggesting a

3 drug or biologic would be ineffective or unsafe.

4 Or, a drug or biologic does not represent a

5 meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing

6 therapies and is not likely to be used in a

7 substantial number of pediatric patients.

8 A partial waiver can be granted when there

9 is a subset of kids that can\'t be studied. That

10 might be neonates. Or, reasonable attempts to

11 produce a pediatric formulation necessary for that

12 age group has failed, and that gets to what Sam was

13 saying.

14 But there is a labeling requirement. If a

15 full or partial waiver is granted because there is

16 evidence that the drug or the biologic would

17 ineffective or unsafe, the information then has to

18 be placed in the label.

19 These are the drugs that I was talking

20 about that are new, new applications, new

21 ingredients, new formulations, new chemical

22 entities. What about already marketed drugs, drugs

334

1 that are already out there on the market? Can they

2 be triggered by PREA? This had the same

3 stipulation under the Rule, but the FDA never

4 invoked it and it is a very, very long, laborious

5 process under PREA in which the FDA has to notify

6 the company, give them a chance to come in and have

7 a meeting. Then the FDA writes a written request.

8 Then the sponsor declines it. Then the written

9 request is referred to the NIH Foundation and, if

10 there is no money there, then the sponsor is

11 required to do the studies. And, if the sponsor

12 doesn\'t do the studies the drug can be misbranded.

13 In that are lots and lots of meeting periods and

14 time periods. So, it would take over a year to go

15 through this. But, as I said, it was never invoked

16 with the Rule but it is there as, I guess, the

17 heavy part of the stick if it is really needed.

18 PREA establishes, like Dianne talked

19 today, very importantly, a full pediatric advisory

20 committee at the Office of the Commissioner with

21 very broad responsibilities that go across foods,

22 devices and biologics and lots of issues that go

335

1 across the FDA. The advisory committee will

2 continue to have the adverse event reporting, and

3 labeling dispute resolutions will also be heard. I

4 have to say, you know, we have gone almost to the

5 line of having to bring a labeling dispute

6 resolution to the committee but, somehow, just the

7 threat of, \"well, we\'re going to take it to the

8 advisory committee,\" gets those things resolved

9 in-house so I guess it is another form of a stick.

10 Subpart D referrals that Dianne has talked to you

11 about will also be part of the advisory committee.

12 In summary, we feel that PREA and BPCA,

13 just like BPCA and the Rule, really go hand-in-hand

14 to give us new pediatric information for labeling.

15 Thank you. Any questions?

16 DR. CHESNEY: Dr. Santana?

17 DR. SANTANA: So, under PREA the likely

18 scenario, and I will speak from the oncology point

19 of view, is that most drugs in oncology are not

20 developed for kids; they are developed for the

21 common adult cancers, prostate, breast and so on.

22 So, in the developmental process of those drugs if

336

1 the sponsor knows already that they are going to

2 develop the drug for prostate and breast, then

3 there will never be pediatric studies. Right?

4 Because those indications are not part of what they

5 ultimately want to develop their drug for. So,

6 PREA will not help us be able to study those drugs

7 effectively in children. Am I correct?

8 DR. S. MURPHY: Well, for that specific

9 indication\--it is indication specific. So, if they

10 are coming in for a prostate cancer indication,

11 yes, it wouldn\'t. It would probably be waived.

12 But if they start to broaden out into solid tumors

13 that would occur in children or hematologic tumors

14 that would occur in children, then that indication

15 would trigger PREA.

16 DR. D. MURPHY: I think, Victor, you are

17 getting at the struggle that we are aware of, and

18 one of the reasons that there was that forum that

19 the Academy called a number of years ago is because

20 it was recognized that the Rule just isn\'t going to

21 work as well where you don\'t have similar diseases

22 between adults and kids. I am not talking about

337

1 extrapolation but just talking about, you know, you

2 can get an indication for pneumonia for adults and

3 kids. But where you don\'t have that link you are

4 not going to be able to use this hook. That is why

5 the exclusivity process was reevaluated as to how

6 it can most effectively be utilized for cancer

7 development for children. That is why there is a

8 special guidance out on how products that are being

9 developed for cancer therapies in kids could get

10 exclusivity at a stage that is less clear as where

11 they are going to go than in other products. That

12 was a particular focus of that guidance.

13 DR. S. MURPHY: And I think exclusivity

14 has worked extremely well in oncology, which we saw

15 this morning. By doing really Phase 1 and Phase 2

16 studies, without doing Phase 3 companies do get

17 exclusivity.

18 DR. SANTANA: The exclusivity only applies

19 to marketed drugs. Am I correct?

20 DR. S. MURPHY: Well, it can be planned

21 premarketing. Design the studies and plan them\--

22 DR. D. MURPHY: Right.

338

1 DR. S. MURPHY: \--way before. In fact, it

2 is included in the forecasting for products now as

3 they come out that they are going to get

4 exclusivity and how much money they are going to

5 make.

6 DR. GORMAN: One of the hopes that some of

7 us expressed during the creation of PREA was that

8 as drugs go through Phase 1 testing in adults, and

9 oncology drugs would be included in this, and they

10 are tested for mechanism of action, if the

11 mechanism of action is shared it might become clear

12 where pharmaceutical companies might go with the

13 development of agents, and that would be an

14 opportunity to initiate pediatric studies. It may

15 not be as effective as we hope because of the

16 limitations of PREA, which is for targeted

17 indication and it may not be there, but it will

18 alert the agency, as well as the pediatric research

19 community, that these agents are coming down the

20 pike and have potential pediatric utilization.

21 DR. CHESNEY: I think Dr. Nelson commented

22 on this, but I am intrigued that the companies can

339

1 do Phase 1 and 2 studies with preparations that

2 can\'t be used commercially. I realize it is very

3 hard to develop those. We have heard that over and

4 over again. Dr. Spielberg used to talk about that

5 all the time. But does the company have to be

6 actively working on trying to get the product into

7 a commercially usable preparation at the same time

8 that they are doing Phase 1 and 2 studies?

9 DR. S. MURPHY: Well, I think it all

10 depends on the product. A lot of the verbiage in

11 the law talks about the severity of the illness,

12 the existence of other therapies, the need

13 basically and the number of patients affected, as

14 to how early the pediatric plan would come in and

15 be accepted and go into effect. So, I think it is

16 really, like I said, almost like medicine. We are

17 seeing this already because Grace and Rosemary are

18 the repository of all the questions in the FDA

19 about PREA. They come in case by case and we are

20 actually having to decide is this good; is this

21 bad.

22 I think the pendulum, you know, we don\'t

340

1 want that when things are added to drugs,

2 especially generic drugs and it triggers PREA. We

3 don\'t want children studied with things that are

4 unsafe, that have AERS reports coming in, that are

5 probably never used in kids. So, we have to be

6 really careful because it is a balance.

7 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you very much, Dr.

8 Murphy. Finally, Dr. Nelson is going to give us an

9 overview of the Institute of Medicine report, of

10 which we have a copy although I think it hasn\'t

11 been published yet\--\"Ethical Conduct of Clinical

12 Research Involving Children.\"

13 Overview of Institute of Medicine Report,

14 \"Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research

15 Involving Children\"

16 DR. NELSON: Thank you and, given the hour

17 and time, I am going to try and go through this

18 quickly. I think all of you have copies of the

19 slides and I would comment the full report.

20 What I would like to do\--you know, we say

21 you shouldn\'t look at the trees and miss the

22 forest. In this case I want to point out some

341

1 trees and, you know, you can look at the full

2 report for the forest. So, let me run through this

3 fairly quickly.

4 This just lists the study committee, and

5 Dick Behrman did an admirable job chairing it.

6 The study process\--you see on the slide,

7 in terms of number of committee meetings and public

8 discussions and forums. It was publicly released

9 on March 25th but I don\'t think it is yet in a form

10 you can actually purchase and hold in your hand at

11 this point though it is available on the Internet.

12 The issue I think fundamentally\--and this

13 is from Dick Behrman\'s preface\--is that we are

14 trying to balance providing benefit but, yet,

15 making sure that in the process of providing

16 benefit we are not inappropriately exposing

17 children to risk. That is really the purpose of

18 the regulations that guide our research process, to

19 try and balance the appropriateness of the benefit

20 and risk that is involved.

21 The charge to the committee was

22 specifically focused on clinical research. This

342

1 lists the specific topics that you can look in the

2 report for. The only comment that I want to make

3 here is that these topics were mandated by the Best

4 Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. The report, if

5 it went outside those topics, in fact, couldn\'t

6 include it because it would be struck. This was

7 mandated by Congress and if the committee wanted to

8 talk about something that wasn\'t on that list, it

9 really couldn\'t put it in there. So if you don\'t

10 see it, that is why it is not there.

11 Three broad things, first, good research

12 is important for the health of children. It is

13 pretty obvious but we wanted to strike that theme

14 at the beginning of the report.

15 The second is that protecting children is

16 part of human subject protection overall. There

17 has been a fair amount of criticism and concern

18 about the overall system. To the extent that you

19 want to protect children you need to look at that

20 overall system was our second broad theme.

21 The third broad theme was that the

22 effective implementation in terms of both

343

1 protection and, I would argue, also the conduct of

2 research is appropriate expertise. I will come

3 back to that towards the end in some of the

4 comments. But, basically, appropriate expertise in

5 the design, review and conduct of such research. I

6 don\'t think anybody who has been part of the

7 discussion on this committee over the last five

8 years would disagree with any one of those themes.

9 Now, the summary statement was that the

10 committee felt that the regulations were by and

11 large appropriate. But the problem with it is that

12 there is insufficient guidance about the

13 interpretation of those regulations. It is

14 difficult to get data about that. I mean, you look

15 at the Adverse Event Reporting System\--try and get

16 data about the IRB system, it is worse, believe it

17 or not. It is worse. There is nothing out there.

18 And, there is a lot of variability in the

19 application and interpretation.

20 The feeling was you are not going to

21 reduce this variability by trying to narrow down

22 the regulations themselves, which really means

344

1 guidance. When you think about it, it is much like

2 PREA. You have the regulations themselves at a

3 certain general level, then you have to have

4 guidance that implements that down to the case

5 level. You are not going to solve the problem by

6 going back to the regulations and changing them;

7 what you need is better guidance.

8 In the spirit of that, the recommendation

9 of the report was an attempt to look at some of

10 those areas where guidance is necessary. I am

11 going to run through these five areas quickly, just

12 highlighting some of the trees, if you will, rather

13 than the forest.

14 One of the issues that has been discussed

15 over the years is the interpretation of minimal

16 risk. In pediatrics it is important. If it is

17 minimal risk research you are eased of certain

18 restrictions and the balancing of risk and benefit

19 is very different. Well, does minimal risk refer

20 to the normal, healthy, average child on the street

21 or does it refer to the child with leukemia? Every

22 single commission, including the national

345

1 commission originally and the Institute of Medicine

2 report has said this should refer basically\--here

3 is the definition, by the way, which is 45 CFR

4 46.102. I apologize, I think it is 21 CFR 54.102

5 but I could be mistaken.

6 The committee as well said that you should

7 interpret minimal risk in relationship to the

8 normal experiences of healthy, average, normal

9 children. So, when you are looking at the

10 definition of minimal risk, this has an impact on

11 how IRBs would review the research. I won\'t go

12 through the rest.

13 Now, the second category, which is in the

14 FDA 50.53, which is minor increase over minimal

15 risk, basically this is to be slightly more than

16 minimal risk. That doesn\'t really tell you much

17 but where this becomes important is if you want to

18 do this kind of research\--and often single-dose PK

19 studies are approved by IRBs under this minor

20 increase over minimal risk\--you then get into

21 condition because this particular category of

22 research is restricted to research where a child

346

1 has a particular condition.

2 So, where I think this becomes important

3 for our discussion is how do you decide whether a

4 child has a condition or not. This is how the

5 Institute of Medicine committee approached this.

6 It should be interpreted\--and this is one of the

7 trees I want to talk about\--it should be

8 interpreted as referring to a specific or a set of

9 specific physical, psychological,

10 neurodevelopmental, or social characteristics\--we

11 had a lot of discussion about that word \"social.\"

12 Should it be in there? Should it not? What are

13 the issues, etc.\--that an established body of

14 scientific evidence\--and those who wanted it in,

15 kept it there but the issue is what is the

16 evidence. If you want to use the social

17 characteristic what is the evidence that that is,

18 in fact, tied to something that would negatively

19 affect children\'s health and well being or increase

20 their risk of developing a health problem in the

21 future?

22 So, the emphasis here is on evidence and

347

1 on risk of development. For example, we talked

2 about fenfluramine study in New York and the issue

3 of whether or not you could consider being the

4 sibling of a child who is incarcerated as a

5 condition. That is not in the report but that was

6 part of our discussion.

7 Now, personally, in looking back at this

8 consensus statement, I think there are some

9 ambiguities in it that would merit perhaps

10 revisiting by the next edition of the committee.

11 Here susceptibility to the disease I think does

12 imply this notion of risk but it is tied to this

13 notion of benefit in a way that doesn\'t really

14 capture condition in the same way that the

15 Institute of Medicine reported, in my view, in the

16 same way the regulations tried to capture it. So,

17 I think this statement that is up on the web melds

18 risk of condition and benefit together in a way

19 that is ambiguous and not as helpful as it could

20 be, looking back now four years later. So, I think

21 it would make sense to revisit this particular

22 statement at some future time.

348

1 The committee does call for the need for

2 the development of guidance and I think that is

3 fairly straightforward. I might just say that

4 there is a potential mechanism for this. The

5 Secretary\'s Advisory Committee on Human Research

6 Protections does have a pediatric working group

7 which could be one locus for that discussion, and

8 then having guidance work its way up through

9 SACHRP, which is the Secretary\'s advisory

10 committee, and then work with FDA and OHRP, and I

11 think there may well be a process under way to look

12 at that.

13 Another tree is what is called component

14 analysis of risk. For research that offers

15 benefit, the argument here is that if you have a

16 procedure that doesn\'t offer benefit as part of

17 it\--let\'s say a bone marrow aspirate where the

18 oncologist clearly says this does not offer any

19 clinical benefit to that child\--within the

20 pediatric regulations you are supposed to judge the

21 appropriateness of that procedure against its risk,

22 minimal risk or minor increase over minimal risk,

349

1 as opposed to the benefit of other things that may

2 be in that protocol, the chemotherapy. The risk

3 and benefit of the interventions that offer the

4 possibility of benefit are evaluated on their own

5 merits, and then the risks of procedures that don\'t

6 offer the prospect of direct benefit need to be

7 restricted to minimal risk or a minor increase

8 over minimal risk. That is called the component

9 analysis of risk.

10 Otherwise, what you could do is take a

11 very risky non-beneficial procedure, toss it in and

12 offset it with all sorts of other benefits that are

13 totally unrelated to that procedure and that is not

14 felt to be appropriate. So, it raises an

15 interesting question about choice of control

16 groups. This is what the Institute of Medicine

17 report says, for research involving children and a

18 placebo control group to be approved by an IRB

19 under federal regulations, either the balance of

20 potential harms and benefits for children in the

21 placebo control arm must be as favorable as those

22 for children receiving the active, standard

350

1 treatment\--that is simply restating the conditions

2 of 50.52 which is the regulation.

3 Or, the potential harms to which children

4 in the placebo control arm would be exposed are no

5 more than minimal or involve only a minor increase

6 over minimal risk. So, what that is saying is if

7 you are removing the potential benefit from that

8 placebo group, then the risk that they are exposed

9 to because of the removal of that benefit needs to

10 fit within the minimal risk or the minor increase

11 over minimal risk.

12 That then raises the question about

13 whether one of my favorite documents, ICH-E10,

14 control of control group, how you should interpret

15 that in light of pediatrics. We had a discussion

16 of this on the committee, probably in 1999, at this

17 point, and one or my favorite quotes is from Bob

18 Temple saying that he doesn\'t think E-10 dealt with

19 pediatrics because the E-10 did not apply to

20 children because it assumed as the ethical basis

21 for withholding effective treatment informed

22 consent. Look back at the transcript. I will tell

351

1 you where it is. I use it all the time when I talk

2 about E-10. I think it is an open question.

3 The issue of the threshold, death or

4 irreversible morbidity\--I would propose to you the

5 absence of that may not be the same as minimal risk

6 or minor increase over minimal risk. It probably

7 isn\'t. So, I think that is an open area that would

8 have to be addressed in the ethics. So, that is

9 another tree.

10 Parental permission and child assent\--this

11 is a drum that I think ethicists are continuing to

12 hit, the notion that the FDA does not allow a

13 waiver of parental permission for conducting

14 pediatric research, and specifically said they

15 would not adopt the same waiver that is found in

16 the HHS regulations. The report says that is not a

17 good idea; we think they should, in fact, be the

18 same regulation.

19 The notion of harmonization is part of

20 that component, that these two regulations ought to

21 be harmonized. The one point that is not

22 harmonized is, in fact, the waiver under 46.408(c).

352

1 A controversial issue, but the report said that

2 should be harmonized. Will it be? Who knows?

3 Payments\--this is an opportunity to say

4 something good about industry. It says that people

5 should be compensated for injury during trials. I

6 will point out that in most of my experience

7 industry trials do offer that kind of compensation;

8 other trials do not generally. It does talk about

9 investigator payments where it says investigators

10 and staff should be compensated for the costs

11 associated with conducting research. However,

12 finders fees and those kinds of kickbacks, if you

13 will, to individuals referring subjects are

14 unethical and should not be permitted. So, this is

15 another tree.

16 Now, there is a PhARMA principle for

17 conduct of clinical trials which does, I think, say

18 something similar, that payment to clinical

19 investigators is appropriate if it is reasonable

20 for the work to be done; that you can, in fact,

21 provide additional payment if there is more work to

22 recruitment of subjects. You could read this as

353

1 precluding finders fees but it doesn\'t come out and

2 say that clearly. I would interpret it as

3 precluding that. Just as an aside, so would James

4 Sheehan, the Associate U.S. Attorney of the Eastern

5 District of Pennsylvania, who often has looked at

6 industry-sponsored research who says that there is

7 no law prohibiting payment to doctors for

8 recruiting study subjects but a jury would find the

9 practice wrong. Even in the absence of an

10 expressed statutory prohibition on finder fees,

11 they are problematic. I think most industry

12 protocols do not include finders fees, in my

13 experience, and I think most sponsors would

14 interpret PhARMA\'s principle as excluding those but

15 they are still out there.

16 Regulatory compliance\--there is a need for

17 data. We probably know more about what is going on

18 in the FDA arena and to some extent in the NIH

19 arena, but we have no idea what is going on in

20 pediatric research in other arenas in terms of the

21 distribution of protocols among minimal risk, minor

22 increase over minimal risk, what is happening with

354

1 investigator-sponsored, single institution, locally

2 funded\--we have no idea what is going on in that

3 area. It would be helpful to know what is

4 happening in terms of development of guidance. So,

5 that was one of the recommendations, to get better

6 data.

7 Finally, responsible conduct of research,

8 which I interpret as systems improvements, the

9 first is something that I think has been brought

10 up. It was brought up by the original national

11 commission and again by the Institute of Medicine,

12 that federal law should require all clinical

13 research to be governed by the same set of rules.

14 The way it is worded is conducted under the

15 oversight of a formal program for protecting human

16 participants in research. In other words, you have

17 the FDA and industry sponsored research; you have

18 NIH and its funded research. But if you are not

19 going to submit any of the data to the FDA or if

20 you are not funded by the NIH and you are not

21 working in an institution that would require you to

22 be obedient to those rules, you can carry research

355

1 out in your basement and whether you are breaking

2 the law or not is a separate question.

3 I might point out that there is a draft

4 Bill that I believe Sen. Kennedy\--I don\'t know if

5 it is officially coming out in a draft but I read

6 about this in a BNA medical policy report, where he

7 wants to provide statutory authority for OHRP to,

8 in fact, issue rules that would apply a common rule

9 to all research, and to require all greater than

10 minimal risk research to gain approval from an

11 accredited IRB, effective by those two dates.

12 Whether this will happen or not\--open question.

13 But that is at least one attempt to move that

14 along.

15 The need for IRB expertise\--I think this

16 is one thing where IRBs, particularly small

17 community IRBs, may struggle with. I would propose

18 that this could be something that the FDA audit

19 procedure could, in fact, look at if they wanted

20 to. IRBs reviewing pediatric protocols should have

21 adequate expertise in child healthcare and

22 research. At least three individuals with such

356

1 expertise present and voting, and among the

2 pediatric clinical care research, psychosocial

3 aspects of child and adolescent healthcare and

4 research, and then ethics of research involving

5 children.

6 Where did we get this list of three?

7 Well, if you look at ICH-E11, at the end it says

8 there should be adequate expertise on an IRB in

9 these three areas, but it doesn\'t translate that to

10 three people. We had a lot of discussion about

11 this. Is one enough? Is five too many? We just

12 decided to say you should have three because often

13 if you are on a general IRB with only one

14 pediatrician it is very easy for that voice to be

15 drowned out. I think there are many IRBs that

16 might struggle with this particular requirement.

17 We also say they should consult with other child

18 healthcare experts, parents, children, etc.,

19 relevant family and community perspectives.

20 It goes on and actually you could say

21 potentially it would impact the pediatric advisory

22 committee. The Institute of Medicine report

357

1 advises that standing pediatric advisory committees

2 and pediatric IRBs, but standing pediatric advisory

3 committees include at least one non-scientific,

4 unaffiliated member who can represent explicitly

5 the perspectives of parents and children.

6 I would propose this is not quite the same

7 as a consumer perspective. The argument here was

8 that this is very much a sort of participant

9 standpoint perspective as far as those who would

10 potentially be the subjects of this kind of

11 research, which would be very different than a

12 consumer perspective. So, that is one of those

13 recommendations.

14 Multicenter studies in terms of

15 coordination was another recommendation. Here is

16 another guidance. This is another tree I would

17 like to call your attention to. Ideally, there

18 would be coordinated guidance among NIH, FDA, OHRP

19 and the like, and that doesn\'t currently exist.

20 Let me give you one example that I came upon when I

21 was reviewing the NIH guidance on the inclusion of

22 children in research for another talk.

358

1 You heard earlier today that the FDA does

2 not require sponsors to do efficacy studies if, in

3 fact, you can extrapolate data from the adult to

4 children. The ethical argument is that it is

5 really unnecessary to expose children to the risk

6 of that research if, in fact, the efficacy data can

7 be extrapolated and you would only need PK data or

8 safety data. I think that has been a fairly

9 consistent approach over the last decade. But if

10 you look at the NIH guidance on the inclusion of

11 children, it actually says if the disease is the

12 same you can include children and you don\'t even

13 need to include enough children to do a meaningful

14 subgroup analysis. So, it is the opposite and I

15 think the FDA approach is right; I think the NIH

16 approach is wrong. In fact, you shouldn\'t include

17 children in the research unless you can have

18 meaningful data about them as a population. It

19 raises the same issue as the inclusion of women so

20 it is a broader issue than that, but if you look at

21 that guidance, it is the exact opposite.

22 So, I think that is something that ought

359

1 to be discussed between the two, and I might point

2 out there was recently an RFA for inclusion of

3 adolescents in sleep studies but then a proposal

4 failed to get past what would be equivalent of a

5 50.54 review because the review panel and then the

6 OHRP and the Secretary agreed that it was unethical

7 to do the study in adolescents even though the RFA

8 specifically asked for adolescents to be included.

9 Finally, 50.54 which was alluded to. Here

10 I think again the FDA has a leg up on the process.

11 It has a federally mandated public, accessible

12 advisory committee where, if there is a 50.54

13 application that the sponsor then pursues and

14 doesn\'t take off the table because they don\'t want

15 the publicity, and that is a whole separate

16 question, there is now a venue for that to happen

17 which is open and publicly accessible. To date,

18 that has not been available. To date, all of the

19 reviews that have happened within OHRP have been

20 done non-publicly by individuals offering opinions

21 individually to the OHRP, which then correlated it

22 all and went through that process.

360

1 There is a proposal that, in fact, that

2 will be done publicly but OHRP can\'t establish a

3 FACA committee so it will be a public, non-FACA

4 process. If you can imagine, all of us, after we

5 have our discussion, we leave the room, write our

6 individual reports and we send them in to the

7 office and then they try to collate that. That

8 would be the equivalent. Here now at least there

9 is a process that the FDA has where they can do

10 that if such request comes up. I know there are

11 discussions about how to coordinate that if there

12 is a coordinated product that would be both NIH

13 reviewed and FDA regulated.

14 So, I have kind of given you a whirlwind

15 tour. Hopefully, you can see the forest but I

16 wanted to point out where I see some trees that are

17 of interest and the impact of this report

18 potentially on FDA activities and the like, and in

19 may ways, I hope in a positive sense, where there

20 are some things that are being done well and some

21 things that could be done better.

22 Again to remind you of the three-part

361

1 theme, clinical research is essential to improve

2 the health of future children; a robust system is

3 necessary for protecting child research

4 participants; and effective protection requires

5 expertise in child health at all stages of the

6 design, review and conduct of such research. I

7 hope that hasn\'t been too fast.

8 DR. CHESNEY: Outstanding. Any technical

9 questions for Dr. Nelson? Dr. Luban?

10 DR. LUBAN: I don\'t know if you would

11 define this as technical, but could you flesh out a

12 little bit more some of the discussion on the

13 multicenter studies? That appears to be, at least

14 at our institution, just one of the most difficult

15 problems to deal with, particularly when they are

16 NIH-sponsored and large and excessively

17 multi-institutional. DR. NELSON: I guess the

18 committee felt since the institute process is meant

19 to be evidence-based, and there are a lot of models

20 out there in terms of independent IRBs that are

21 often used by industry; central IRBs that are used

22 by cooperative groups\--I know there is a National

362

1 Cancer Institute initiative that is primarily in

2 adults; there are a lot of initiatives out

3 there\--the feeling was that right now there is not

4 good data to say which of those models is best.

5 Part of that was also recognition that many

6 institutions are very reluctant to hand over

7 authority or responsibility for some of that

8 decision-making. So, one of the obstacles to

9 centralization is often local concerns about

10 liability. Basically, the report runs through some

11 of those issues and suggests that we just need more

12 work done in sorting out what is the best way to

13 conduct those multicenter studies. I have my own

14 bias about that, but we didn\'t feel there was any

15 clear winner in all of that to be able to say, from

16 an evidence perspective, what is the best approach.

17 DR. CHESNEY: Local concerns about

18 liability.

19 DR. GORMAN: Just to reengage the

20 discussion on minimal risk, which average, healthy,

21 normal children were you planning on using? Would

22 that be country dependent or the traditional

363

1 suburban child in east Philadelphia or west

2 Philadelphia?

3 DR. NELSON: You know, if you look at the

4 report, the way I would answer that is one of the

5 principles that I think has been under-discussed in

6 research ethics is justice. What we are really

7 talking about is under what conditions is it

8 appropriate to expose a child to increased risk.

9 Is one of those conditions that you happen to live

10 in inner city Baltimore in lead-affected housing?

11 Well, maybe in one protocol the answer is yes and

12 in another protocol the answer is no. So, figuring

13 out the notion of condition requires both evidence

14 and then I think an understanding of the risk

15 within that. With average, healthy, normal

16 children the intent was to not use what would be

17 considered research irrelevant characteristics to

18 justify increased risk exposure. You know, if you

19 were going to do non-lead related research you

20 wouldn\'t use the risk of living in Baltimore as a

21 justification for going into that population to do

22 something riskier than you wouldn\'t do in the

364

1 suburb that you live in, for example, maybe. So,

2 that would have to be the same.

3 On the other hand, if you define the

4 condition, then there might be a justification for

5 a protocol that would have an increased risk

6 exposure in that population. So, that is part of

7 the balancing that we went through. So, average,

8 normal, healthy\--I don\'t think we defined it but,

9 on the other hand, since it is not defined at all I

10 think the first step is to at least agree that that

11 is what we are talking about. Right now you could

12 define as minimal risk, although most IRBs don\'t, a

13 child who has leukemia, if you wanted to, in terms

14 of their daily experience. I don\'t think IRBs do

15 that but they could.

16 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you very much. I

17 think Dr. Buckman had a comment that she wanted to

18 make in response to Dr. Maldonado\'s comments.

19 DR. BUCKMAN: Sorry, you probably thought

20 you had finished hearing from me today. Just very

21 briefly, I just wanted to bring up one point of

22 clarification. As you know, the FDA is all about

365

1 the details. It is just responding to a comment

2 that was made a little bit earlier and maybe a

3 concern that was raised to me regarding adverse

4 events in the pediatric population versus the adult

5 population for the Duragesic patch, and whether

6 there were similarities or differences, and I

7 wanted to give the exact information because I

8 didn\'t want it to go into the record without it

9 being very clear.

10 DR. CHESNEY: Do I need to recuse myself

11 from listening to this?

12 DR. BUCKMAN: I don\'t think so. No

13 questions; this is just a point of clarification.

14 The top 20 reported adverse events in the adult

15 population were compared to the pediatric

16 population for that 1-year post-exclusivity period

17 for Duragesic. Of the events that were captured in

18 the adult population, there were 4 unique events

19 that were captured in the pediatric population that

20 were not seen in the top 20 for the adults. I just

21 want to read what those were: cardiac arrest;

22 respiratory arrest; self-medication; and anxious

366

1 parent. Those were not captured in the top 20

2 adverse events for the adult population.

3 Now, I cannot say whether below the top 20

4 those adverse events were also captured in the

5 adult population, but I just wanted to give that as

6 a point of clarification.

7 DR. CHESNEY: Thank you.

8 DR. SANTANA: So, besides the message that

9 there were some differences, the underlying message

10 is that when you look at pediatric adverse events

11 for these drugs you also look at the adverse event

12 reporting for adults and do a backside comparison.

13 DR. BUCKMAN: Right, right, we try to.

14 You know, we look for similarities and differences.

15 I don\'t want to go on the record making a global

16 statement that they are the same or that they are

17 different, but there are some similarities and

18 there may be some differences as well.

19 DR. MALDONADO: I wasn\'t focusing on that

20 particular drug because I heard the same thing for

21 Effexor. So it is in general. I mean, I said

22 don\'t frame it in pediatrics if it is not only a

367

1 pediatric problem; just frame it generally because

2 otherwise people will focus and say this is a

3 pediatric liability issue. It is general. That is

4 all.

5 DR. BUCKMAN: The point is well taken.

6 DR. SANTANA: Yes, it is, but we did see a

7 couple of examples of the drugs that were reviewed

8 this morning in which they were very similar and no

9 issues were made of that. I remember at least two

10 of the oncology drugs in which the profiles were

11 very different and no further issues were created

12 because of that analysis.

13 DR. BUCKMAN: Thank you.

14 DR. CHESNEY: Well, thank you, all, very,

15 very much. Tom tells me that the vans to take

16 anybody wherever they want to go are outside. I

17 don\'t know what to say except thank you, all,

18 again.

19 DR. D. MURPHY: Thank you, all.

20 \[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the proceedings

21 were adjourned.\]

22 - - -