Target Product Profiles for Drug-Drug and Drug-Device MPT Products Joe Romano, Ph.D. NWJ Group, LLC Microbicide Trials Network January 10, 2012
Genesis of the Drug-Drug/Drug Device Working Group May 5, 2011 Think Tank USAID, CAMI, AVAC Think Tank Description of a TPP: How a proposed candidate product addresses critical attributes Outline framework for development via target specification range Why a TPP? To define attributes/parameters for MPT products with highest potential public health impact (i.e., prioritization) To Guide donor investment and sponsor development strategies Two working groups formed Drug-Drug/Drug Device Vaccines
Can a Single TPP for Drug-Drug or Drug-Device MPT Products Be Built? Non- HC Anti- Microbial HC Pro-Biotic Anti- Viral Barrier Anti- Fungal HIV Chlamydia BV HSV Pregnancy Gonorrhea Candida HPV Syphilis Trichomonas Vaginal Film Vaginal Tablets Topical Daily Topical Peri-Coital Oral Tablet Vaginal Ring Non-IVR Device Vaginal Gel Systemic Sustained Topical Sustained Injectable Implantable Oral Daily Oral Peri- Coital
Working Group Approach: Address General Concepts (not specific product configurations) Build/populate TPP component tables based on general product concepts (n=5) Other Survey Input Solicit detailed expert review and comment (n= 8-14, R&D/provider/user experts) Consolidate consensus views around concepts; capture outlier positions Report Results for Comment
Table 1: Prioritization of Multipurpose Prevention Technology Indications Indication Description Magnitude of priority; public health impact in target populations; definition of most relevant target populations; other HIV Prevention/ Contraception HIV/STI Prevention STI Prevention/ Contraception Single product preventing HIV transmission/ pregnancy Single product preventing HIV/STI transmission Single product preventing STI transmission/ pregnancy Highest Priority: Highest potential for impact to prevent both pregnancy and HIV in low resource settings Medium Priority, determined largely by the specific STI, and relevance to HIV transmission Medium priority, determined largely by the specific STI, and consequent disease burden for women
Table 2: Prioritization of STI Indications for MPT Product Development Target STI in MPT Proposed Priority Rationale HSV Very High High Incidence, HIV co-factor HPV Very High High incidence, burden of disease BV High Incidence, potential enhancement of HIV infection Chlamydia Moderate Incidence, disease burden syndromic management potential Trichomonas Moderate Incidence, disease burden, syndromic management potential Gonorrhea Low Incidence, disease burden Syphilis Low Incidence, disease burden
Tables 1 and 2: Consensus Responses HIV/Contraception slightly higher priority than HIV/STI STI/Contraception not a priority HSV: high priority given role in HIV infection, feasibility prospects, and marketing potential worldwide HPV: moderate to high priority given oncogenic potential Seen addressable via vaccine; availability needs to be increased Possible MPT product to cover all HPV types and bridge gap to vaccine availability BV: high priority given relevance of vaginal health to HIV and other infections
Tables 1 and 2: Consensus Responses (continued) Chlamydia: moderate priority given high prevalence in certain settings; high disease burden potential Curable with cheap antibiotic course Age specific screening and treatment is effective Trichomoniasis: moderate priority given high disease burden, induced inflammation and enhanced HIV shedding Product feasibility challenges recognized for prevention Gonorrhea and Syphilis: low priority Prevalence and curability cited Key factors: Relevance to HIV; technical feasibility; prevalence; treatability; public health burden
Table 3: Routes of Administration and Dosage Forms Route of Administration Topical: Daily Dosage Form(s) Gels, tablets films, etc. Development Priority 2.1 Adherence Potential 3.0 Topical: Peri-coital Gels, tablets, films, etc. 1.3 1.8 Sustained Release Device Injectable Implantable Oral: Daily IVR, barrier device with drug release Single product/ Dual indication Single product/ Dual indication Single pill/ Dual Indication 1.2 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 2.4 Oral: Peri-coital Single pill/ dual indication 2.0 1.8 Scale: 1= highest priority/potential; 3= lowest priority/potential
Tables 3: Consensus Responses Adherence! Vaginal rings: Highest development priority/highest adherence potential Technical feasibility high; cheap; proven contraception technology Use in menses? User removal? Peri-coital products were higher priority than daily products Adherence burden too high for daily Peri-coital cheaper than daily Peri-coital must be fast acting; technical challenge Component elements for oral daily are available; technically feasible Topical products were higher priority than oral products Topical contraceptives have technical challenges
Tables 3: Consensus Responses (Continued) Injectable: High adherence potential (pending dosing interval) Reversibility issues Long term systemic exposure concerns Technically challenging Skilled provider? Implantable: High adherence potential Technically challenging/low feasibility More reversible than injectable Potentially low uptake in target populations; skilled provider required Other key points: No mention of HC issue and dosage form linkage Efficacy cited as relevant to dosage form preference Side effects via systemic exposure repeatedly cited Peri-coital definition ranged from +/- 30 min to +/- 24 hr
Were the Results Consistent? Priority Indication by Ad Hoc epolls MPT Symposium Nov, 2011 n= ~120 32% 11% 57% Contraception & HIV Contraception & STI HIV & STI ICFP Dec, 2011 n= ~300 6% 25% 66% ARHP Meeting Sept, 2011 n= ~600 40% 66% 17% 25% 43%
Were the Results Consistent? Priority STI Ad Hoc epolls 28% Indication MPT Symp ICFP ARHP BV Not asked 4% 19% Candida 0% 4% Not asked CT 66% 7% 13% Not asked Gonorrhea 2% 9% Not asked HPV 31% 38% 54% HSV 57% 8% 27% Syphilis 2% 23% Not asked Trichomonas 1% 1% Not asked
Were the Results Consistent? Priority Dosage Forms Ad Hoc epolls Dosage Form MPT Symp ICFP ARHP 28% Implant 4% 17% 41% Injection 66% 9% 22% IUD Not asked 18% Not asked Oral Pills 3% 12% 19% Sustained Release 59% 20% 25% Topicals 25% 11% 15%
Table 4: Product Attributes & Parameters Parameter Range Dosage Forms Topical Sustained Injectable Implantable Oral Release Shelf Life Min 24 mos 24 mos 24 mos 24 mos 24 mos Pref >36 mos >36 mos >36 mos > 36 mos >36 mos Storage Conditions Min 15-30 o C/65% RH 15-30 o C/65% RH 4 o C 4 o C 15-30 o C/65% RH Pref >30 o C/75% RH >30 o C/75% RH >30 o C/75% RH 40 o C/75% RH 15-40 o C/75% RH Schedule/ Dosing Min Daily or Pericoital Monthly 2 mos 3 mos Daily or Pericoital Regimen Pref +/-24 hr of sex Yearly 12 mos >12 mos +/- 24 hr of sex Infrastructure Needs Min Clinic w/medical support Clinic w/medical support Clinic w/medical support Clinic w/ medical support Clinic w/medical support Pref Local Healthcare Provider Local Healthcare Provider Local Healthcare Provider Clinic w/ medical support Local Healthcare Provider
Table 4: Product Attributes & Parameters (Continued) Parameter Range Dosage Forms Topical Sustained Injectable Implantable Oral Release Provision Min Clinic/User Clinic/User Clinic/Phys Clinic/Physician Clinic/User Source and Administration Pref Reversibility timing Local Healthcare Provider or Pharmacy/User Packaging Min Controlled disposal Local Healthcare Provider or Pharmacy/User Trained Healthcare Provider Trained Healthcare Provider Local Healthcare Provider or Pharmacy/User Min 14 days 30 days 90 days 90 days 14 days Pref Immediate <24 hours 14 days?? Feasible? 14 Days?? Feasible? <24 hours Controlled Controlled disposal disposal Pref Concealable, user disposal Concealable, user disposal With all necessary materials for administration With all necessary materials for administration??? Biodegradable? Removable? Responders raised the issue of uptake potential for specific products Concealable, user disposal
Table 4: Consensus Summary Generally accepting of parameters as posed All attributes considered high priority except: Reversibility timing (medium) and packaging (low)- no consensus Strong preference for 40 o C storage temp 4 o C seen as potentially not feasible Preference for 36 month shelf life Resupply issues, access to testing/monitoring, cold chain storage needs all cited as relevant Concerns re: Packaging (sterility) and storage (temperature) for injectable and implantable Dosing interval also of concern
Table 5: General Issues Parameter Minimally Acceptable Preferred Target Efficacy HIV 40%-70% pending product >80% type/indication Contraception Current levels w/ recommended use >current levels per contraceptive form STI 40% >80% Side Effects Contraindications, warnings, use w/ pregnancy, etc OTC with no pregnancy or major systems warnings or contraindication with other vaginal products Time to licensure 8-12 years 5 years R&D costs <$400M <$150M Yearly MPT product cost per user <$100/year <$50/year
Tables 5: Consensus Summary HIV Efficacy: Minimally acceptable- 40-50%; Typical use- 60%; Perfect use >80% Contraception Efficacy: Current levels with recommended use Efficacy-STI: Minimally acceptable- 40-50%; no comments on posed >80% preferred target Side Effect Issues: Acceptable to most women and generally no worse than comparable single use products No effects on daily activities Difficult to answer in the absence of other details (e.g., product efficacy) Continued concerns expressed regarding systemic exposure/resistance
Summary TPP Findings from the Drug-Drug and Drug-Device MPT Working Group Priority Indications: HIV/Contraception followed closely by HIV/HSV Other STI with contraception not a priority Dosage Forms Major determining factor is PRODUCT ADHERENCE Highest development priority: Vaginal Rings Key Attributes and Parameters: Shelf life: 36 months Storage temperature: 40 o C epolls? Other attributes are all in the context of safety, efficacy, and each other!
Summary Findings from the TPP Survey for Drug-Drug and Drug-Device MPT Products Efficacy Targets: HIV: 40-80% Contraception: Current levels with recommended use STI: at least 40% Side Effects: No worse than individual indication products Needs evaluation in the context of acceptability and efficacy No significant input on cost of R&D, time to market, user costs, IP Results can vary depending on who is asked
Conclusions of the TPP Survey Exercise Defining broadly applicable attributes and parameters for all drug-drug or drug-device MPT products is challenging The interplay of different attributes is complex and unique per product concept and design It is possible to create general development priorities and fundamental design targets for such MPT products Useful to funders in terms of investment prioritization Useful to developers in terms of R&D focus
Outstanding Issues/Questions/Challenges Regarding Drug-Drug or Drug-Device MPT Products Complete collection of input (Regional studies?) Evaluate specific product concepts against key attributes and parameters of the (evolving) TPP Foster/manage collaborative funding and development of high priority/high impact products to achieve maximum efficiency Pursue the developed world potential of MPT products Build and deliver high impact MPT products to the primary target populations
Discussion & Questions Thank You