This is another drug approved by the FDA although the pivotal study (so called EMBARK study) failed in the primary efficacy endpoint (the North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA)). While secondary efficacy endpoints (such as Time to Rise From the Floor) were statistically significant in favor of the Elevidys treatment group, the secondary efficacy endpoints were supposed not to be tested if the primary efficacy endpoint was not statistically significant.
- Top FDA official overrules staff to approve gene therapy that failed trial
- Duchenne approval exposes FDA rift over Sarepta gene therapy
- Déjà Vu: CBER Director’s Intervention Saves Sarepta’s Elevidys Again
- How controversial was the decision by FDA’s Peter Marks to approve Sarepta’s gene therapy? Check its footnotes
Perhaps, Dr Peter Marks is right. We should not base the approval on the single p-value from the primary efficacy endpoint and we should not be a slave of the p-values. FDA's announcement says "In making this decision, the FDA considered the totality of the evidence, including the potential risks associated with the product, the life-threatening and debilitating nature of the disease and the urgent unmet medical need." In the rare disease setting, selecting a clinical scale as the primary efficacy endpoint can sometimes be a gambling decision. in DMD situation, FDA published a guidance for industry "Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Related Dystrophinopathies: Developing Drugs for Treatment". The guidance did not recommend which endpoint should be used the primary efficacy endpoint. The guidance was indecisive in efficacy endpoints.
"FDA has no defined set of required or recommended clinical outcome measures for studies in dystrophinopathies. Although existing outcome measures developed for clinical trials and/or clinical care in dystrophinopathies or related conditions may be appropriate, FDA will also consider proposals for the use of novel outcome measures that are capable of measuring clinically meaningful effects in patients. FDA encourages sponsors to propose and, if necessary, develop endpoints that can validly and reliably assess patients with a wide spectrum of symptoms and disease stages. Sponsors should engage FDA early during the selection and/or development of efficacy endpoints. The sponsor should include an assessment of multiple efficacy endpoints, when feasible, to characterize the breadth of effects on dystrophin-related pathologies, including skeletal, respiratory, and cardiac muscle function, even if the primary endpoint is only one of these measures. "
Even if the drug is effective, the statistical significance for the selected primary efficacy endpoint (NSAA total score in EMBARK study) may not be demonstrated. In the rare disease setting with the urgent unmet medical need, the strict statistical rules may need to be loosened, the sequential testing rule for controlling the overall alpha may need to be skipped, and the totality evidence from the trial needs to be considered in the decision making.
DMD, like the ALS amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, is a challenging disease for clinical trials. Majority of the late phase DMD trials failed. FDA's approval of Elevidys in DMD comes right after two recent failed trials in DMD by Pfizer and NS Pharma. Their clinical programs in DMD were stopped.- Pfizer’s Phase III DMD gene therapy trial misses primary endpoint
- NS Pharma's Duchenne therapy Viltepso fails confirmatory trial