Contents of Background Package
Background summary and draft questions
TAB 1 Bayer
HealthCare Citizen's Petition
¨ Action requested
¨ Statement of grounds
¨ Physicians Health Study
¨ British Doctor Trial
¨ Thrombosis Prevention Trial
¨ Hypertension Optimal Treatment
¨ Primary Prevention trial
¨ Evaluation of Aspirin Safety
¨ Risk Benefit Evaluation
¨ Regulatory Summary of aspirin Indications
¨ Aspirin Primary Prevention Indication Worldwide
¨ Third Party recommendation
¨ Supporting published statements
¨ Proposed Labeling
¨ References
|
TAB 2 Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR
343.80: Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for
OTC Human Use: Professional Labeling |
|
TAB 3 Enlargement of the 21 CFR 343.80
Dosage and Administration Chart |
|
TAB 4 Minutes of the October 6, 1989
Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee |
|
TAB 5 Minutes of the January 23,1997
Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee and Nonprescription Drugs
Advisory Committee (Joint Meeting) |
TAB 6 Federal Register Notice:
Establishment of a Monograph for OTC Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and
Antirheumatic Drug Products - July 8, 1977
TAB 7 Federal
Register Notice: Tentative Final Monograph for OTC Internal Analgesic,
Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products - November 16,1988
TAB 8 Federal
Register Notice: Amendment to the Tentative Final Monograph for OTC Internal
Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products - June 13, 1996
TAB 9 Federal
Register Notice: Final Rule for Professional Labeling of Aspirin, Buffered
Aspirin, and Aspirin in combination with Antacid Drug Products - October 23,
1998
TAB 10 Review
materials from 1989 reviews of Physician's Heath Study
TAB 11 Medical
and Statistical Reviews of current Citizen's Petition materials.
Background Information:
An Amendment to the Final Rule for Professional Labeling for Aspirin
A Joint Meeting of the
Cardiovascular and Renal
Drugs & Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee
Purpose:
Bayer HealthCare submitted a Citizen's Petition (TAB 1)
dated February 11, 2003, requesting FDA's approval for expanded cardiovascular
indications and labeling for the use of a daily aspirin regimen (75 mg to 325
mg) in individuals: 1) with a 10 percent or greater risk of coronary heart
disease (CHD) over 10 years or 2) for whom there is a
positive benefit-risk as assessed by their healthcare providers.
In support of their request,
the petition provided results of five clinical trials in primary prevention: 1) Physician's Health Study (PHS) - 1988
2) British Doctor's Trial (BDT) - 1988
3) Thrombosis Prevention Trial (TPT) - 1998
4) Hypertensive Optimal Treatment Study (HOT)
- 1998
5) Primary
Prevention Project (PPP) - 2001
Background:
Professional Labeling
The petition is seeking to amend the current regulation,
CFR 21 343.80 (TAB 2), "Professional Labeling of Aspirin, Buffered
Aspirin, and Aspirin in Combination with Antacid Drug Products for OTC Internal
Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products." TAB 3 contains
the enlarged dosage and administration chart for the professional labeling of
aspirin that includes the indications, recommended daily dose, and duration of
therapy.
Professional labeling contains
comprehensive prescribing information (similar to that found on prescription
labels) for the use of aspirin for vascular indications, in patients who have
undergone certain revascularization procedures, and for rheumatologic diseases.
The regulation constitutes FDA's approved labeling for
this use of aspirin and is the labeling that is required to be provided to
healthcare professionals by manufacturers if they choose to promote aspirin for
this use.
• This
information may not appear in the OTC label.
OTC Drug Review
The professional labeling
regulation was developed as part of the OTC drug review. The review is a fourstep
notice and public comment rulemaking process:
|
OTC Drug Review |
Description of the Process |
|
Advisory Review Panel |
Evaluation of data submitted
in response to FDA's |
|
|
call for data on an OTC drug
Product category, |
|
|
e.g., analgesic/antipyretic
drug products. |
|
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) |
Publication of the Panel's
recommendations along |
|
|
with FDA's proposed
regulation based on these |
|
|
recommendations with an
opportunity for |
|
|
comment and submission of new
data. |
|
Tentative Final Monograph
(TFM) |
FDA's proposed regulation
based on FDA's |
|
|
consideration of the Panel's
recommendations and |
|
|
comments and new data
received with an |
|
|
opportunity for comment and
submission of new |
|
|
data. |
|
Final Rule (FR) |
FDA's regulation. |
The
Committee met to consider a claim for aspirin for the prevention of primary
(first) heart attack based on the findings of the U.S. Physicians' Health
Study. The Committee was aware of the findings of the BDT study, but only the
findings from the PHS were presented in detail.
Advisory
Committee Meetings
• The Committee did not have confidence in efficacy for
prevention of fatal MI alone, although combined fatal and not-fatal MI appeared
to be reduced. Aspirin had no effect on total cardiovascular mortality. The
number of fatal strokes was too small to reach a conclusion. The Committee was
divided 4-no, 3-yes whether there was a significant effect for increased
hemorrhagic stroke in the aspirin group. The committee was also divided on the
weight of the BDT. They voted 4-no, 3-yes that this outcome influenced their
evaluation of the PHS.
• The Committee recommended (by a 6 to 2 vote) that,
although some claim should be considered for some high-risk group of patients,
aspirin should not be used routinely in patients without risk factors or in
women, until such patients had been studied. The Committee minority was
concerned about the toxicity of aspirin and the number of normal individuals at
low risk of having a heart attack who would be treated long-term.
• The Committee recommended (by a 6 to 2 vote) that some
type of primary claim for some group of patients could be developed. The
committee was concerned that aspirin would be used in healthy people or
inappropriate patient populations and would be promoted for such use.
• The Committee unanimously agreed that patients should ask
their doctor before beginning prophylactic therapy.
January 23, 1997 - Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs
Advisory Committee and Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (TAB 5)
The Committee met to discuss a Citizen's Petition from
the Aspirin Strategy Group, seeking broadened indications for professional
labeling for aspirin to include anyone at risk for heart attack and stroke.
The Committee unanimously recommended that results
from the Swedish Angina Pectoris Antiplatelet Trial supported the benefits for
low-dose aspirin in patients with stable angina pectoris.
• The Committee unanimously recommended that low-dose
aspirin be extended to patients with arterial revascularization procedures,
i.e., CABG or PTCA.
• The Committee recommended (by an 11
to 2 vote) that professional labeling should not include an indication for use
in peripheral vascular disease because the evidence did not meet usual
standards for approval.
FEDERAL
REGISTER Notices
The active ingredient aspirin
and its use for professional indications has been
extensively evaluated in the review. We have included Federal Register
documents related to the development of the rulemaking for internal analgesic,
antipyretic, and antirheumatic drug products for OTC human use. This provides a
frame of reference for the information available in the public record and the
rationale behind past decisions.
|
Federal Register Notice |
Information in Notice |
Section |
|
Jul 8, 1977 42 FR 35346 |
FDA published the recommendations of the Advisory
Review Panel on OTC |
TAB 6 |
|
Establishment of a Monograph |
Internal Analgesic and Antirheumatic Drug Products
(Internal Analgesic |
|
|
for OTC Internal Analgesic, |
Panel). |
|
|
Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic |
• Pages 35384-35386 contain the Panel's extensive
discussion on the |
|
|
Drug Products |
effects of aspirin on platelet aggregation and
increased bleeding time. |
|
|
November 16, 1988 (53 FR |
In the TFM (pages 46258-46260), the Agency proposed
professional |
TAB'] |
|
46204) |
labeling in § 343.80 for the use of aspirin for
rheumatologic diseases, for |
|
|
TFM for OTC Internal |
reducing the risk of recurrent transient ischemic
attacks (TIA's) or stroke |
|
|
Analgesic, Antipyretic, and |
in men who have had transient ischemia of the brain due
to fibrin platelet |
|
|
Antirheumatic Drug Products |
emboli, and for reducing the risk of death or nonfatal
myocardial |
|
|
|
infarction (MI) in patients with a previous infarction
or unstable angina |
|
|
|
pectoris. |
|
|
|
• The Agency also proposed professional labeling for
the use of carbaspirin |
|
|
|
calcium, choline salicylate, magnesium salicylate, or
sodium salicylate |
|
|
|
for rheumatologic diseases. |
|
|
June 13, 1996 61 FR 30002) |
Amendment to the TFM to include an indication for the
use of aspirin in |
TAB 8 |
|
Amendment to the TFM for |
treating acute MI: an initial dose of 160 to 162.5 mg
to be continued daily |
|
|
OTC Internal Analgesic, |
for at least 30 days. |
|
|
Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic |
|
|
|
Drug Products |
|
|
|
October 23, 1998 63 FR |
In the final rule (pages 56803-56804), the Agency
concluded that the |
TAB 9 |
|
56802) |
available data did not support the professional
labeling of aspirin for the |
|
|
FR for Professional Labeling of |
prevention of first MI; some of the reasons included the
following: |
|
|
Aspirin, Buffered Aspirin, and |
|
|
|
Aspirin in Combination with |
• The PHS showed that some
of the study patients had a prior MI and |
|
|
Antacid Drug Products for |
aspirin is already known to
reduce the risk of recurrent MI in such |
|
|
OTC Internal Analgesic, |
patients. |
|
|
Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic |
|
|
|
Drug Products |
• According to the PHS study protocol, subjects should
not have had an |
|
|
|
MI before randomization, but the Agency's evaluation
showed 8% of the |
|
|
|
subjects who suffered a nonfatal MI during the study
also had evidence |
|
|
|
of an old MI. |
|
|
|
• The PHS, in particular,
did not show a statistically significant effect |
|
|
|
when all deaths as well as nonfatal MI and stroke were
combined. |
|
|
|
• The BDT, despite its similarity to the PHS, does not
support the use of |
|
|
|
aspirin to prevent an initial MI. |
|
|
|
• Currently approved indications: |
|
|
|
• Vascular: ischemic strokes and TIA, suspected
acute MI, prevention of |
|
|
|
recurrent MI, unstable angina pectoris, chronic stable
angina pectoris. |
|
|
|
• Revascularization Procedures in Selected
Individuals: CABG, PTCA, |
|
|
|
carotid endarterectomy. |
|
|
|
• Rheumatologic Disease:
rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid |
|
|
|
arthritis, spondyloarthropathies, osteoarthritis,
arthritis and pleurisy of |
|
|
|
SLE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Questions aspirin December 8, 2003 |
|
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Cardio-Renal Advisory Committee |
|
The
Cardio-Renal and OTC Advisory Committees are asked to opine on the use of
aspirin for the primary prevention of myocardial infarction. This meeting is
in response to a Citizen Petition, filed 11 February 2003 by Bayer
Healthcare, requesting an amendment to the professional labeling for aspirin.
The Petition cites the five studies summarized in the table below. |
|
The British Doctors' Trial (BDT;
British Medical Journal, 1988) was conducted between
1978 and 1984 among 5139 healthy male British doctors. age 50 to 78. The
comparison was between aspirin 500 mg daily and no treatment. The primary end
point was fatal or non-fatal MI, stroke, or TIA; p=NS. |
|
The Physician's Health Study (PHS;
New England Journal of Medicine, 1989) was conducted between 1982 and 1987
among 22071 healthy male US physicians, age 40 to 84. The comparison was
between aspirin 325 mg every other day and placebo. The primary end point was
cardiovascular mortality; p=0.87. |
|
The Thrombosis Prevention Trial (TPT;
Lancet, 1998) was conducted between 1984 and 1989 among 5085 British males at
high risk, age 45 to 69. The comparison was between controlled-release
aspirin 75 mg daily and placebo. The primary end point was "coronary
death and fatal and non-fatal MI"; p=0.04 (p=0.07 including silent MI). |
|
The Hypertension Optimal Treatment
study (HOT; Lancet, 1998) was conducted in 26 countries between 1992 and 1997
among 19196 men and women with mild-to-moderate hypertension and no stroke or
MI within 12 months. The comparison was between aspirin 75 mg daily and
placebo. The primary end point was cardiovascular death and non-fatal MI or
stroke; p=0.17 (p=0.03 excluding silent MI). |
|
The Primary Prevention Project (PPP;
Lancet 2001) was conducted in Italy between
1994 and 1998) among 4495 men and women over age 50 with some additional
cardiovascular risk. The comparison was |
|
C:\Data\My
Documents\FDA\CRAC\2003-12\ASA.doc Last
saved - I - Wednesday, 05 November 2003 at 09:14 |
|
Aspirin Cardio-Renal
Advisory Committee Primary
prevention of MI 8
December 2003 |
|
between
enteric aspirin 100 mg daily and no treatment. The primary end point was
cardiovascular death and non-fatal MI or stroke; p=NS. |
|
Of
the 5 studies, a study protocol and source data were available for only HOT,
and the FDA review of HOT suggests a substantially weaker result than is
published. The primary end point in HOT included silent MI, while in TPT silent
MI was assessed (but it unclear whether it is included in the reported
analyses) and in the other 3 studies silent MI was, apparently, not
collected. Assessed end points in the published studies are shown in the
table below: |
|
|
BDT |
PHS |
TPT |
PPP |
|
All-cause
mortality |
|
|
|
|
|
Cardiovascular
mortality |
|
|
|
|
|
CV
death + MI + stroke |
|
|
|
|
|
Fatal
MI + fatal stroke |
|
|
|
|
|
Fatal
or non-fatal MI |
|
|
|
|
|
Fatal
or non-fatal stroke |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-fatal
MI |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-fatal
stroke |
|
|
|
|
|
Silent
MI |
|
|
,/ |
|
|
|
|
1. Are there other studies that
should be considered? |
|
2. In considering how to interpret
these trials with respect to primary prevention of MI, whether by formal or
informal meta-analysis, ... 2.1. ...what
is the significance of each of the following? 2.1.1.
The study protocol is available for only one study. 2.1.2. The
source data are available for only one study. 2.1.3. No
study had primary prevention of MI as a primary end point. 2.1.4.
Only one study appears to have denied its null hypothesis. 2.1.5. The studies varied with
respect to what MIs were captured. 2.1.6.
The dose, regimen, and biopharmaceutical properties of aspirin
varied. 2.1.7.
The baseline risk factors varied. 2.2. ...do you conclude that a meaningful
synthesis is possible? |
|
3. Aspirin has a claim for secondary prevention
of myocardial infarction. 3.1. How
much, if at all, does this lower the evidentiary burden for primary prevention
of myocardial infarction? 3.2. Aspirin also has secondary prevention
claims related to strokes and overall cardiovascular mortality. Since effects
of aspirin on strokes and cardiovascular mortality are not evident in these
primary prevention studies, how much, if at all, does this |
|
C:\Data\My
Documents\FDA\CRAC\2003-12\ASA.doc Last
saved - 2 - Wednesday, 05 November 2003 at 09:14 |
|
Aspirin Cardio-Renal
Advisory Committee Primary
prevention of MI 8
December 2003 |
|
discrepancy
raise the evidentiary burden for primary prevention of myocardial infarction? |
|
4. What do the available data say was
the effect of aspirin on primary prevention of myocardial infarction? If a
consistent effect was seen, ... 4.1. ...name
that effect and define what constituted a myocardial infarction. 4.2. ...what was the effect in relevant
demographic subgroups (gender, age, and race)? |
|
5. What do the available data say
about the safety of aspirin in primary prevention setting? What do you know
about ... 5.1. ...risks in demographic subgroups (gender,
age, race)? 5.2. ...interactions with underlying disease? 5.3. ...use with various concomitant drugs? |
|
6. Should professional labeling for
aspirin recommend its use for primary prevention of MI? 6.1. If so, ... 6.1.1. ...what patient population can
expect to benefit from aspirin? 6.1.2....what dose, regimen, and form
of aspirin should be recommended? 6.2. If not, describe the study that would
provide compelling evidence for this indication. |
|
7. If aspirin were to be approved for
primary prevention of myocardial infarction, comment on the petitioner's
proposal to identify a target population using an integrated risk assessment
score. 7.1. How
confident are you that the proposed scoring system appropriately identifies
patients most likely to benefit from aspirin? 7.2. Can physicians use this? 7.3. Can patients understand it? |
|
C:\Data\My
Documents\FDA\CRAC\2003-12\ASA.doc Last
saved - 3 - Wednesday, 05 November 2003 at 09:14 |