IBJNews

FDA says potential diabetes drug may cause cancer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and AstraZeneca Plc’s new diabetes pill may cause breast and bladder cancer, according to U.S. regulators weighing whether to clear sales of the medicine.

While Food and Drug Administration staff said the drug is effective, they focused on safety concerns in a review of dapagliflozin released Friday ahead of a FDA advisory panel meeting Tuesday in Silver Spring, Md. New York-based Bristol-Myers and AstraZeneca of London have said they expect a final decision on approval by Oct. 28.

Dapagliflozin would be the first in a new class of treatments called SGLT2-inhibitors that work by letting patients excrete excess blood sugar in their urine. Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co., Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH and Astellas Pharma Inc. are among the companies pursuing similar drugs.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca said in June that more bladder and breast cancers were seen in patients taking the new medicine instead of a placebo in studies. Regulators have increased scrutiny of diabetes pills since GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s top-selling Avandia was tied to heart attacks in 2007 and was ultimately forced off the market in Europe and severely restricted in the United States.

“Several unexpected safety issues identified in this clinical development program were of sufficient concern to FDA to merit discussion of their impact on the overall benefit-risk consideration of dapagliflozin,” agency reviewers said in the report.

Nine cases of bladder cancer occurred in male patients who took dapagliflozin, compared with one case among people treated with a placebo. Breast cancer occurred in nine patients who took dapagliflozin, and one patient in the control group. FDA staff also said the drug was less effective in patients with impaired kidney function.

“We believe pretty strongly that this will be an uphill battle for the panel and that FDA will almost definitely seek more information before approving dapagliflozin,” Seamus Fernandez, an analyst at Leerink Swann in Boston, said in a report to clients.

An estimated 25.8 million people in the U.S. have diabetes, mostly the Type 2 form tied to being overweight and sedentary, according to the National Institutes of Health. The disease is caused by an inability to use insulin to break down blood sugar into energy and can increase the risk of heart disease, stroke and kidney damage. Medicines are used to lower blood sugar.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT