throbber
CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND
`RESEARCH
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICATION NUMBER:
`202107Orig1s000
`
`SUMMARY REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`Summary Review for Regulatory Action
`
`17,2012
`F_b .
`M H. Parks, MD.
`
`Subject
`Division Director Summary Review
`NDA/BLA #
`202107
`
`(cross reference IND 76480
`Su n lement #
`
`Applicant Name
`Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.
`Date of Submission
`A .ril 18, 2011
`
`PDUFA Goal Date
`
`Feb
`
`17, 2012
`
`Proprietary Name /
`Established
`S ‘
`
`Name
`
`Korlym (mifepristone immediate-release tablet)
`
`Dosa_e Forms / Stren_ h
`
`300-m tablets
`
`
`
`Proposed Indication(s)
`
`To control hyperglycemia in adult patients with
`endogenous Cushing’s syndrome with T2DM or
`glucose intolerance who have failed surgery or are not
`
`Action/Recommended Action for Approval
`NME:
`
`1. Introduction
`
`Corcept Therapeutics has submitted this new drug application (NDA) under Section 505(b)(2)
`of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for the use of Korlym® (mifepristone) in
`the treatment of patients with endogenous Cushing’s syndrome who have failed surgery or are
`not candidates for surgery.
`
`Cushing’s syndrome is due to hypercortisolism and its clinical and metabolic consequences. It
`is broadly separated into exogenous and endogenous forms, the former due to exogenous
`glucocorticoid administration for varied medical conditions and the latter due to the body’s
`over production of cortisol. Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome is further divided into ACTH-
`dependent and ACTH-independent forms to distinguish between an extra-adrenal or intra—
`adrenal pathology. 1 As this application is only for the treatment of endogenous Cushing’s
`syndrome, the remainder of this memo will refer to Cushing’s syndrome with an
`understanding that it is specific to only the endogenous forms of this condition.
`
`Approximately 80—85% of Cushing’s syndrome are ACTH-dependent with 80% of these due
`to a pituitary tumor (Cushing’s disease) and 20% due to ectopic ACTH secretion from a non-
`pituitary tumor with the most prevalent ones being bronchial carcinoid and small cell lung
`
`1 Pivonello R et a1. Cushing’s Syndrome. Endocrinologv and Metabolism Clinics ofNorth America. 2008:
`37(1): 135-149.
`
`Page 1 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`cancer although any tumor of neuroendocrine origin may produce ACTH.2 Of the
`approximate 15-20% of ACTH-independent Cushing’s syndrome, the majority are due to an
`adrenal tumor. Cushing’s syndrome is a rare disease with an incidence of 0.7 to 2.4 per
`million population per year. This application received orphan designation on July 5, 2007.
`
`The diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome requires a multitude of laboratory and radiologic tests
`whose discussion extends beyond the scope of this memo. The objective of the laboratory
`tests is to demonstrate inappropriate and sustained hypercortisolism to distinguish these
`patients from conditions such as pseudo-Cushings, severe depression, or cyclical Cushing’s.
`Reliance on just clinical presentations is not possible or acceptable as patients’ presentations
`are highly variable and span a wide spectrum that includes textbook descriptions of buffalo
`hump, violaceous striae, hirsutism and facial plethora to more subtle signs of just diabetes and
`depression. The etiology of the syndrome may also influence the clinical presentation. For
`example, the age range of patients with ectopic ACTH syndromes is generally a decade older
`than those with Cushing’s disease with a lower female to male ratio. Patients with ectopic
`ACTH syndrome or adrenal cancers may also present with more severe signs and symptoms of
`hypercortisolism, and due to the underlying malignant nature of the tumor, these patients often
`have greater morbidity.
`
`Regardless of the etiology of Cushing’s syndrome, the treatment goal is the same and in all
`cases, if the underlying tumor can be located, surgical resection is the preferred initial therapy.
`Medical therapy may be initiated prior to surgery to control the hypermetabolic state and is
`often relied upon afterwards if surgery is unsuccessful or the tumor recurs. In some patients,
`radiation therapy and/or bilateral adrenalectomy are considered. The available medical
`therapies are limited and unapproved for Cushing’s syndrome.3 Their use has been based on
`the knowledge of their effects at inhibiting certain enzymes in the adrenal steroidogenesis
`pathway (e.g., ketoconazole or metyrapone) or limited inhibition of ACTH (e.g.,
`somatostatin). Mifepristone employs a different strategy in treating Cushing’s syndrome:
`blockade of the glucocorticoid II receptor (GR) to inhibit the actions downstream from this
`receptor. It also blocks the progesterone and androgen receptor, the former activity being the
`basis for its use in termination of pregnancy.
`
`
`2. Background
`
`
`There were two main challenges in the review of this application. The first was a scientific
`matter and the second was a regulatory/legal one.
`
`On the scientific note, the trial design to establish safety and effectiveness of Korlym for this
`indication was limited by 1) the underlying medical condition and 2) the pharmacologic action
`of the drug. Given the rarity and progressive nature of the condition with limited medical
`options, the type of trial design would have to be an uncontrolled and open-label design in a
`limited number of patients. Such a trial design in a small sample of patients complicates
`
`2 Alexandraki K and Grossman A. The ectopic ACTH syndrome. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2010; 11: 117-
`126.
`3 Mitotane is an exception but it has a limited indication in only patients with adrenal carcinomas
`
`Page 2 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`attribution of effect and safety to drug. The mechanism of action of the drug presented another
`complexity as to the appropriate endpoint to evaluate effectiveness of Korlym. Just as the
`diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome requires evidence of elevated cortisol levels, the treatment of
`these patients relies on a demonstration of reduced cortisol levels as a measure of response
`and/or success. Since the drug’s selective antagonism of the GR does not result in reduced
`cortisol levels, this biomarker was not of any utility for establishing efficacy and could not be
`employed as a measure for dose titration. Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of my memo delve further into
`the trial design and how the reviewers considered multiple lines of evidence to make a
`determination of safety and effectiveness.
`
`The regulatory and legal challenge of this application is because of the more controversial use
`of this active ingredient for medical termination of pregnancy in the approved formulation,
`Mifeprex®. Given as one-time lower doses than proposed in Cushing’s syndrome,
`mifepristone binds to the progesterone receptor (PR) to achieve pregnancy termination.
`Mifeprex, manufactured by Danco, was approved on September 28, 2000 under 21 CFR
`Subpart H and is available only through a restricted distribution program. With passage of the
`Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007, a Risk Evaluation and
`Mitigation Strategy (REMS) with Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU) was applied to
`Mifeprex on June 8, 2011. Mifeprex is not distributed to or dispensed through retail
`pharmacies but is limited to specialty clinics and prescribed by physicians who have enrolled
`in a certification program. (Please see DRISK review for a full description of the Mifeprex
`REMS with ETASU).
`
`Prior to the submission of Korlym and throughout the NDA review, multiple internal meetings
`and discussions were held to determine if Korlym and its proposed indication met the
`regulatory requirements for a REMS with ETASU or if one would be necessary to maintain
`the integrity of Mifeprex’s REMS with ETASU.
`
`Dr. Dragos Roman in his cross-disclipine team leader (CDTL) memo has clearly outlined
`these discussions and the reader is also referred to memos written by DRISK reviewers, Drs.
`Robottom, LaCivita, and Karwoski, and meeting minutes prepared by Dr. Amy Egan for a
`meeting involving CDER Center Director and senior managers in OND, OSE, and ORP. On
`November 3, 2011, a CDER recommendation was made that given the rarity and seriousness
`of Cushing’s syndrome and the unique situation in which it would be used, a REMS with
`ETASU was not warranted. However, the applicant has agreed to establish a voluntary limited
`distribution system and a drug utilization study will be required postmarketing. Please see
`Section 13.0 for further discussions of the PMR for this application.
`
`
`3. CMC/Device
`
`
`CMC has recommended approval without any additional testing or studies required. Please
`see reviews of Drs. Ysern and Al-Hakim dated January 12, 2012.
`
`
`Page 3 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`4. Nonclinical Pharmacology/Toxicology
`The applicant conducted several nonclinical studies to support the chronic use of mifepristone.
`These included safety pharmacology studies to evaluate potential of mifepristone to inhibit Ki
`channels, pharmacokinetic/ADME/and toxicokinetic studies, repeat-dose toxicity studies, in
`vitro genetic toxicology studies, and carcinogenicity studies. Published literature and studies
`conducted under approved NDA 20687 for use of mifepristone in pregnancy termination were
`also relied upon by the applicant as permitted under 505(b)(2). The three major metabolites of
`RU486 identified in humans were also present in mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys and were
`therefore adequately evaluated in the nonclinical program.
`
`Please see Dr. Patricia Brundage’s review dated January 19, 2012, for details of the nonclinical
`program supporting approval of this NDA. She and pharmacology/toxicology supervisor, Dr.
`Todd Bourcier, deem data acceptable in support of approval of mifepristone for Cushing’s
`syndrome provided labeling accurately reflects the nonclinical findings and their
`recommendations on use of the product. Dr. Bourcier’s memo dated February 7, 2012, also
`outlines the sufficient bridging data to Mifeprex® supporting reliance on FDA’s finding of
`safety and effectiveness for some aspects of this application. No postmarketing trials are being
`proposed by this discipline.
`
`Several of the safety findings identified reflect the pharmacology of mifepristone as an anti-
`glucocorticoid and anti-progesterogenic drug. The first of these effects is the basis for
`evaluating the use of mifepristone in the treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. Antagonism at the
`progesterone receptor is also included in the label and discussed in other sections of this memo
`with regard to the effect on fertility and pregnancy.
`
`Two hERG channel studies were performed of which one showed a concentration-related
`inhibition of potassium selective IKr current with mifepristone and its metabolites. A 12-
`month toxicity study in dogs also revealed a slight QTc prolongation in higher-dosed animals.
`These findings alongside the clinical tQT study support information on the potential QT
`prolongation effect of mifepristone in labeling with caution to be applied when used with
`drugs which might increase mifepristone drug exposures.
`
`
`5. Clinical Pharmacology/Biopharmaceutics
`Please see review of Drs. Jee Eun Lee and Jayabharathi Vaidyanathn dated January 13, 2012.
`Thirteen clinical pharmacology studies have been conducted by applicant and submitted to this
`NDA.
`
`Drug-drug interaction studies (DDI) were conducted with digoxin (P-gp substrate), alprazolam
`and simvastatin (CYP3A substrate), fluvastatin (insensitive CYP2C8/9 substrate), and
`cimetidine (mild CYP3A inhibitor). No DDI studies were conducted to address the effect of
`strong CYP3A4 inhibitors. The results from these studies are illustrated in the following
`figure:
`
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Effects of Mifepristone on Other Drugs
`
`
`
` Parameter Analyte Ratio [90% CI]
`
`Cmax
`AUC
`Cmax
`AUC
`Cmax
`
`AUC
`
`Cmax
`
`AUC
`
`Cmax
`
`AUC
`Cmax
`AUC
`
`Digox'n
`
`Alprazolam
`
`4.011 Alprazohm
`
`Simvastatin
`
`E:
`'I
`Ii
`E"
`If
`
`Ii
`
`H—1
`
`»—-—a
`
`1.64[ 1.50, 1.84]
`1.40[ 1.33, 1.47]
`0.81 [ 0.67, 0.99]
`1.81[ 1.52, 2.15]
`0.39[ 0.32, 0.47]
`
`0.76[ 0.64, 0.90]
`
`7.02 [ 5.27 , 9.34]
`
`10.40[ 8.11 , 1321 1
`
`Simvastatin acid
`
`»—-—>
`
`18.20 I 12.85 , 25.79]
`
`Fluvastatin
`
`E”
`
`m
`
`1—-—.
`
`15.70 | 1129 , 21.70]
`1.76[ 1.31 , 2.36]
`3.57[ 2.74, 4.65]
`
`r—I—I—I—I—I
`
`0
`
`5
`
`1o
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`Ratio
`
`*Simvastatin dose in multiple dosing regimen is 80 mg while 40 mg in single dosing regimen
`(Exposure was not normalized by dose)
`Figure 10. Forest plot for DDI with mtfeprlstone
`
`Given the significant increase in sensitive CYP3A substrate simvastatin, contraindications are
`proposed for simvastatin and lovastatin plus other CYP3A4 substrate drugs with narrow
`therapeutic indices.
`
`The applicant was asked to conduct a DDI with a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor. This was not
`done and the applicant instead provided 2 randomly-timed concentrations of mifepristone from
`one patient who was on concomitant ketoconazole th
`durin his artici ation in Stud
`400. This was not deemed acc
`
`table.
`
`Page 5 of23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`”(4)
`
`Afier further discussion it was decided that potential DDI with potent
`CYP3A4 inhibitors would be more appropriately discussed in Warnings and Precautions
`recommending against their use with mifepristone unless medically necessary. In addition the
`label will recommend limiting the dose of mifepristone to 300 mg daily if a strong CYP3A4
`inhibitor must be used concomitantly. A DDI study with ketoconazole will be required.
`Depending on the results of this study, updates to labeling may occur.
`
`Thorough QT Study
`A tQT study was conducted; please see the [RT review dated October 20, 2011. This study
`was a 14-day, multiple-dose, parallel treatment design enrolling 180 healthy male subjects but
`due to adverse events resulting in high discontinuation rates, data are limited out to Day 14.
`Mifepristone doses of 600 and 1800 mg were employed, the latter providing supratherapeutic
`exposures. A single oral dose of moxifloxacin 400 mg was used as a positive control.
`
`Overall, the study results were inconclusive because assay sensitivity was not established. The
`largest lower bound of the 2-sided 90% CI for the pbo—adjusted, baseline-corrected QTcI for
`moxifloxacin was < 5 ms; therefore, small changes in QTc interval cannot be excluded.
`Despite this shortcoming, the largest upper bounds of the 2-sided 90% CI for the mean
`difference between mifepristone 1800 mg and placebo did exceed 10 ms at several time points.
`No such finding was observed in the 600 mg dose group. This finding along with the one
`positive hERG channel study suggests a potential for QT prolongation associated with
`mifepristone use with increasing exposures.
`
`The proposed label will note that mifepristone and its metabolites block IKr, based on
`nonclinical data, and that Korlym prolongs QTc interval in a dose—related manner. More
`cautionary language is proposed with regard to using lowest effective dose. Since a DDI
`study has not been conducted with a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor, we will recommend limiting
`dose of Korlym to 300 mg if combined use with a potent inhibitor is necessary. The applicant
`will be required to conduct this DDI study with ketoconazole. Depending on the results,
`labeling may be revised accordingly.
`
`6. Clinical Microbiology
`
`Not applicable.
`
`7. ClinicalIStatistical-Efficacy
`
`Limitations of Clinical Development Program to be Considered
`One pivotal efficacy and safety trial was conducted by the applicant in support of this NDA.
`Published studies of mifepristone in Cushing’s syndrome were also submitted and summarized
`in Dr. Zemskova’s review but none of these studies was relied upon for the demonstration of
`efficacy of Korlym and are therefore not discussed in this memo.
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`C1073-400 or Study 400 was a 24-week, open-label, uncontrolled trial that enrolled a total of
`50 patients with endogenous Cushing’s Syndrome. The stated objectives of the trial were to
`evaluate the safety and efficacy of mifepristone in the treatment of the signs and symptoms of
`endogenous Cushing’s syndrome. These are very broad objectives and in reality, only two
`endpoints were identified and patients were selected specifically to evaluate these endpoints:
`glycemic control and blood pressure.
`
`Before presenting the trial results, a discussion on several aspects of the trial design, endpoints,
`and patient population, and how they impact data interpretability will be necessary.
`
`Trial Design (Open-label and Uncontrolled)
`The open-label and uncontrolled nature of a trial can introduce confounders, biases, and
`limitations that are often mitigated through the conduct of a randomized, double-blind, and
`controlled trial. For this condition, a placebo control arm could not be employed because the
`progressive and serious nature of the condition would make it unethical to randomize any
`patient to placebo.
`
`An active-controlled trial to currently available therapies was not considered for several
`reasons. With exception for mitotane, which is approved for the treatment of inoperable
`adrenal cortical carcinoma of both functional and nonfunctional types, all medical therapies
`employed in practice for the treatment of Cushing’s syndrome are used off-label. The
`treatment regimens and efficacy of these other medical therapies have not been adequately
`assessed beyond case reports and anecdotal experience. In addition, these other drugs target a
`reduction in cortisol levels which cannot be achieved with Korlym by virtue of mifepristone’s
`mechanism of action. Selecting an appropriate and easily quantifiable endpoint that can
`compare the effects of the off-label therapies and Korlym could not be identified for a well-
`designed, active-controlled trial. Similarly, radiotherapy, which is also a treatment option in
`Cushing’s syndrome, would not be an appropriate active control given its variable success rate
`and time to demonstration of efficacy measured over the course of years.
`
`Untreated hypercortisolism in Cushing’s syndrome is progressive with little to no expectation
`of spontaneous improvement (e.g. the very rare instance of pituitary apoplexy in Cushing’s
`disease). For this reason, an uncontrolled trial of Korlym that could assess a clinically relevant
`efficacy endpoint might produce results which can be reasonably attributed to the drug.
`However, this limitation of the trial design must still be considered in the evaluation and
`conclusions made of the study results.
`
`Efficacy Endpoints
`As stated in the Introduction and Background sections of this memo, the mechanism of action
`of Korlym is antagonism of the GR preventing the downstream effects of cortisol on its
`receptor. Unlike other interventions targeting a reduction in cortisol levels, Korlym does not
`reduce serum cortisol and in some cases cortisol levels may increase. Furthermore, despite
`biochemical hypercortisolism, patients can become adrenally insufficient as a result of absent
`post-receptor activation.
`
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`During the IND stage, FDA agreed with the applicant that demonstration of an effect on some
`other biochemical parameter will be accepted. The original protocol submission included very
`broad assessments of a composite clinical endpoint which was ultimately modified (with FDA
`input) to a demonstration on improvements in glycemic control and/or blood pressure defined
`as:
`
`
`1. The change in the area under the concentration-time curve for glucose (AUCglu) in the
`2-hr oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) from baseline to Week 24
`2. A change from baseline to Week 24 in mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP)
`
`
`Secondary endpoints included a blinded assessment of selected signs and symptoms of
`Cushing’s syndrome as well as laboratory findings by a Data Review Board, body weight, use
`of concomitant medications for diabetes and hypertension, levels of HbA1c, systolic blood
`pressure, and photographs. There were exploratory efficacy variables assessed which will not
`be discussed in this memo. It should be noted that no hierarchical sequence for analysis was
`applied in the analysis of secondary endpoints. Although FDA did not object to this, FDA did
`note that control of Type 1 error for secondary endpoints would be important for consideration
`of labeling.
`
`The trial selected patients but did not randomize them into subgroups which would be
`evaluated specifically for one of the two primary endpoints. These subgroups are referred to
`as the Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and the Hypertension (HTN) cohorts.
`
`FDA has well-established efficacy criteria for therapies intended for the treatment of
`hyperglycemia in diabetes mellitus. The primary efficacy endpoint in both T1 and T2DM
`trials has been HbA1c which is a reliable measure of glycemic control and a surrogate for
`clinical benefits (e.g., microvascular complications). HbA1c was not selected as a primary
`efficacy endpoint in the Cushing Syndrome population because the clinical presentation of
`diabetes is variable in this condition and adjustments in anti-diabetic therapies are expected
`which would hinder the interpretation of results, especially in an uncontrolled study. As the
`DM cohort also included a few patients with glucose intolerance, a change in HbA1c from
`baseline might not be as reliable of a measure in these patients as they would have normal
`values at baseline. Reliance on a change in AUCglu during a 2-hr oGTT is a reasonable
`alternative assessment of glycemic response as it is under a controlled setting (unlike self-
`blood-glucose monitoring); is administered via a protocol; and is an objective laboratory
`measure. Nonetheless, results can be influenced by certain patient behaviors. Furthermore,
`unlike HbA1c, the clinical relevance of a reduction in AUCglu during an oGTT is unknown.
`Hence, the effect of Korlym on glycemic control will focus on both this primary efficacy
`measure supported by changes in HbA1c and anti-diabetic medications.
`
`Anti-hypertensive therapies have been approved based on mean changes in systolic and/or
`diastolic blood pressure. Hence, the endpoint of change in DBP is not unprecedented for drug
`approval. However, the effect of Korlym on blood pressure proved to be more difficult to
`demonstrate than anticipated and the results were obfuscated by the inclusion criteria, protocol
`violations, and use of certain anti-hypertensive medications. In retrospect, establishing
`efficacy of Korlym in Cushing’s syndrome based on blood pressure reduction should not have
`
`Page 8 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`been considered a primary endpoint because the increased cortisol levels resulting from the
`drug’s mechanism of action may actually exacerbate hypertension secondary to
`mineralocorticoid receptor activation. Nonetheless, this memo will highlight these results
`from both an efficacy and safety perspective.
`
`Patient Population
`Given the rarity of this condition, the sample size in the pivotal trial was only 50 which is a
`limitation for evaluating efficacy and safety for chronic use but not unexpected for orphan
`indications. FDA has approved other therapies for rare disease with similar sample sizes
`(NDA for Increlex included 71 pediatric patients with severe Primary IGF-1 deficiency).
`
`It should be noted that despite the limited patient numbers in the pivotal trial, other clinical
`data of mifepristone in Cushing’s patients from published literature served as supportive
`evidence for efficacy and informed us in the design of the Phase 3 trial. None of these studies,
`which are summarized under Section 6.1.10, 7.7.2, and 9.1 of Dr. Zemskova’s review, will be
`included in labeling.
`
`Efficacy in Diabetes (DM) Cohort
`There were 29 out of 50 patients enrolled in Study 400 who were evaluated under the DM
`Cohort. Twenty-four (83%) had Cushing’s disease; 3 had ectopic ACTH and 2 had adrenal
`carcinoma. Twelve of the 24 patients with Cushing’s disease had prior radiation therapy
`whose data were reviewed separately by Dr. Zemskova to determine whether this previous
`treatment could account for any observed efficacy associated with Korlym. In her review, she
`pointed out that ACTH levels remained elevated in these patients despite radiation therapy.
`This would be evidence that radiation therapy was not successful and unlikely contributory to
`any efficacy observed in Study 400.
`
`Patients in this cohort underwent a 75-g oGTT at screening, on Day 1, Wks 6, 10, 16, and 24
`or on early termination visits. A patient was considered a responder if he/she had a 25% or
`more decrease in AUCglu at Wk 24 or early termination visit from baseline. A statistically
`significant reduction in AUCglu was defined by a responder analysis in which the lower bound
`of the 95% CI of this response rate had to exceed 20%. Approximately 60% of patients were
`responders and the lower bound of the 95% CI was 42%. From the cumulative distribution
`function curve provided by the applicant it is evident that the majority of patients had a
`reduction in AUCglu from baseline. The following table from Dr. Zemskova’s review
`summarizes the individual response for the 24 patients included in this analysis.
`
`
`Page 9 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`
`
`
`In those patients who responded to treatment, a reduction in AUCglu was observed by Week 6
`in most patients and was sustained for the duration of treatment out to Week 24 (see Figure 3
`in Dr. Zemskova’s review).
`
`As stated above, AUCglu is not a standard efficacy endpoint for anti-diabetic medications and
`was accepted only for the unusual circumstances of evaluating glycemic control in Cushing’s
`patients treated with Korlym. However, the applicant also provided data on HbA1c reduction
`in 21 patients who had baseline and post-baseline values. The mean reduction from baseline
`in these patients was 1.14% (2-sided 95% CI: -1.56, -0.65; p=0.0001). This magnitude of
`reduction has been observed in currently approved anti-diabetic applications and considered to
`be clinically relevant. Dr. Zemskova further evaluated those patients with HbA1c levels above
`normal at baseline (6.5% - recall that trial enrolled patients with glucose intolerance or could
`have enrolled a diabetic patient with adequate control). In 14 patients with elevated HbA1c
`levels at baseline, all had a reduction from baseline including some with robust reductions of 2
`to 4% accompanied by reductions in anti-diabetic medications or doses.
`
`In conclusion, while this trial employed an untraditional measure of glycemic control and was
`uncontrolled, a correlation of AUCglu to clinically meaningful endpoints such as HbA1c
`reduction and dose reduction of antidiabetic medications could be established including
`several very robust effects (e.g., reduction from 10.4 to 6.0% in HbA1c level in one patient or
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`~ 50% reduction in insulin requirements). These data constituted substantial evidence that
`Korlym would treat hyperglycemia associated with diabetes or glucose intolerance in
`Cushing’s syndrome. However, the observed effects should not be extrapolated beyond this
`patient population and it would be inappropriate to consider the use of Korlym in the
`management of diabetes unrelated to hypercortisolism due to Cushing’s syndrome. Labeling
`should indicate this as a Limitation of Use.
`
`Efficacy in Hypertension (HTN) Cohort
`Unlike the effect observed in the DM-cohort, the response rate in the HTN cohort was
`equivocal. Drs. Zemskova and Roman discuss some of the design flaws which might have
`contributed to the difficulty in establishing a robust effect and I will not reiterate them here. I
`believe that some aspect of the results reflect the pharmacologic effect of mifepristone.
`Hypertension in Cushing’s syndrome is partly due to high circulating levels of cortisol which
`can bind to the mineralocorticoid receptor. Acting like aldosterone, patients can present with
`hypokalemia and hypertension. Since mifepristone blocks the glucocorticoid receptor but does
`not cause a reduction in circulating cortisol levels, these patients are still prone to
`mineralocorticoid effects of hypercortisolism.
`
`Effects on Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Cushing’s Syndrome in Overall Cohort
`It should be noted that no plan was submitted to FDA for review by the Study Endpoints and
`Labeling of Drugs (SEALD) review team with respect to patient reported outcome measures.
`FDA reviewers have determined that while these endpoints should be evaluated in a clinical
`trial, the limitations of the assessments in an open-label, uncontrolled trial should preclude any
`quantitative statements in labeling.
`
` A
`
` Data Review Board (DRB) comprised of 3 experts on Cushing’s syndrome performed a
`review of 8 categories of clinical parameters to evaluate whether a patient’s signs and
`symptoms of Cushing’s had changed. These categories included:
`
`
`1. assessment of glucose homeostasis
`2. assessment of blood pressure
`3. assessment of lipids
`4. changes in weight and body composition
`5. clinical scoring and appearance (e.g., acne, hirsutism (in women only), Cushingoid
`appearance)
`6. strength assessments
`7. psychiatric and quality of life assessments
`8. metabolic bone assessments
`
`
`The DRB reviewed adverse events, concomitant medication data, and all efficacy assessments
`obtained at baseline, Weeks 6, 10, 16 and 24 or end of treatment, and at the follow-up visit.
`Baseline and follow-up evaluations were identified, but data from other visits were reviewed in
`a blinded fashion with respect to visit. The DRB did not know the dose of drug or the
`sequence in which the visit occurred. It should be noted that while the DRB reviewers are
`blinded to the sequence of visits, some of the assessments at each visit were evaluated by a
`
`Page 11 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Division Director Review
`
`clinical investigator who was NOT blinded. After reviewing the data, each DRB member
`assigned an overall score for each visit as follows:
`
`
` -1: worse than baseline
` 0: unchanged from baseline
`+1: clinically significant improvement
`
`
`The median of the 3 scores was calculated and a score of +1 was considered evidence of
`clinical improvement. A responder was defined as a subject whose median score was +1 at
`any visit after the baseline visit. Based on the applicant’s definition of responders, they report
`that 87% of patients (40/46) in the mITT population had a clinical improvement at any point in
`time and deemed the findings statistically significant based on a calculated 95% CI yielding a
`lower bound of > 30%, an arbitrary cut point considered by applicant as adequate to account
`for variability in response.
`
`Drs. Zemskova and Choudury appropriately point out the limitations of this endpoint
`assessment. The open-label nature of the trial is always problematic in evaluating subjective
`measures such as quality of life where patient reports may be perceptions based on
`expectations of clinical improvements or side effects based on knowledge that he/she is
`receiving an investigational agent. This is further compounded by the absence of a control
`group for comparison of response for the less subjective measures. In addition, declaring a
`patient as a responder at any visit also allows the applicant many opportunities for concluding
`success on this endpoint.
`
`Finally, it is not clear how the reviewers ranked the clinical relevance of the 8 clinical
`parameters in their scoring. The form for this scoring is provided below.
`
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`Reference ID: 3089695
`
`

`

`Corcept Therapeutics
`
`Data Revnew Board Evaluation
`
`Study: C1073-400
`
`
`
`
`Scoring:
`
`-l = Worse than Baseline
`
`
`
`
`[:I NlA-No dam
`
`'1 N/A- No data
`
`
`
`
`
`+0 = Unchanged from Baseline
`=Clinicall
`si-
`lficant irn rovement from
`
`IRESULT.
`Imeclurkone Won '0»: box rm}:
`
`
`
`V'S'TA
`
`El
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`
`VlSl'] D m +1
`Cl
`
`Reviewer Signature:
`
`
`
`
`month
`
`year
`
`There is no breakdown of how response in categories such as blood pressure or metabolic
`parameters might have conhibuted to the scores or if there was worsening in one and
`improvement in another, how these components wer

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket