ZGNX: Zogenix Analysis and Research Report
2018-04-30 - by Asif , Contributing Analyst - 111 views
The company currently own and control worldwide development and commercialization rights to ZX008, its lead Phase 3 product candidate. ZX008 is low-dose fenfluramine for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and catastrophic forms of childhood-onset epilepsy: Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (“LGS”).
Dravet syndrome is a rare form of pediatric-onset epilepsy with life threatening consequences for patients and for which current treatment options are very limited. ZX008 has received orphan drug designation in the United States and the European Union (“the EU”) for the treatment of Dravet syndrome. In addition, ZX008 for the treatment of Dravet syndrome received Fast Track designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) in January 2016 and Breakthrough Therapy designation in February 2018.
The company initiated its Phase 3 clinical trials in North America (Study 1501) in January 2016 and in Europe and Australia in June 2016 (Study 1502). Study 1501 and Study 1502 are each identical randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of ZX008 as adjunctive therapy for patients with uncontrolled seizures who have Dravet syndrome. In January 2017, the company announced its plan to report top-line results from Study 1501 and Study 1502 via a prospective merged study analysis approach whereby top-line results from the first approximately 120 subjects randomized into either Study 1501 or 1502 would have their study results analyzed and be reported initially as “Study 1.” In April 2017, the company completed enrollment of Study 1 and, in September 2017, the company announced positive top-line results for the 119 patients included in the Study 1 Phase 3 trial. The Study 1 trial met its primary objective of demonstrating that ZX008, at a dose of 0.8 mg/kg/day, is superior to placebo as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of Dravet syndrome in children and young adults based on change in the frequency of convulsive seizures between the 6-week baseline observation period and the 14-week treatment period (p<0.001). In the trial, ZX008 at a dose of 0.8 mg/kg/day also demonstrated statistically significant improvements versus placebo in all key secondary measures, including the proportion of patients with clinically meaningful reductions in seizure frequency (50% or greater) and longest seizure-free interval. The same analyses comparing a 0.2 mg/kg/day ZX008 dose versus placebo also demonstrated statistically significant improvement compared with placebo. ZX008 was generally well tolerated without any signs or symptoms of valvulopathy or pulmonary hypertension.
In September 2016, the company initiated Part 1 of Study 1504, a two-part, double blind, randomized, two arm pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of ZX008 in Dravet syndrome patients who are taking stiripentol, valproate and/or clobazam as part of their baseline standard care. Part 1 investigated the pharmacokinetic profile and safety of ZX008 when co-administered with the stiripentol regimen (stiripentol, valproate and clobazam). Based on the results of the pharmacokinetic and safety portion of the trial, in February 2017 the company initiated the safety and efficacy portion of Study 1504, a two-arm study that compares ZX008 versus placebo across the titration and 12-week maintenance periods at multiple sites, which currently includes sites in France, the Netherlands, United States, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. Study 1504 is targeted to enroll approximately 40 patients per treatment group. In January 2018, the company completed enrollment of this study and expect to report top-line results from the trial in the second quarter of 2018. The company believe Zogenix is on track to submit applications for regulatory approvals for ZX008 in the United States and Europe in the fourth quarter of 2018.
LGS is another rare, refractory, debilitating pediatric-onset epilepsy with life threatening consequences for patients and for which current treatment options are very limited and suboptimal. Beginning in first quarter of 2016, the company funded an open-label, dose-finding, investigator-initiated study of the effectiveness and tolerability of ZX008 as an adjunctive therapy in patients with LGS. In December 2016, the company presented initial data from an interim analysis of the first 13 patients to have completed at least 12 weeks of this Phase 2 clinical trial at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. These data demonstrated that ZX008 provided clinically meaningful improvement in major motor seizure frequency in patients with severe refractory LGS, with 7 out of 13 patients (54%) achieving at least a 50% reduction in the number of major motor seizures, at doses below the 0.8 mg/kg/day maximum allowed dose. In addition, ZX008 was generally well tolerated without any observed signs or symptoms of valvulopathy or pulmonary hypertension. The company believe these data indicate that ZX008 has the potential to be a safe and effective adjunctive treatment of major motor seizures for patients with LGS. Based on the strength of the LGS data generated, in the first quarter of 2017, the company submitted an investigational new drug, or IND, application to the FDA to initiate a Phase 3 program of ZX008 in LGS, which became effective in April 2017. In November 2017, the company announced the initiation of its multicenter global Phase 3 clinical trial of ZX008 as an adjunctive treatment for seizures in patients with LGS (Study 1601) with the enrollment of the first patient into the study. In the first half of 2017, ZX008 received orphan drug designation for the treatment of LGS from the FDA in the United States and the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) in the EU.
In April 2015, the company sold its Zohydro ER business to enable it to focus on development of its CNS rare disease product candidates and to enhance its financial strength. Zohydro ER (hydrocodone bitartrate) is an extended-release capsule oral formulation of hydrocodone without acetaminophen.
In May 2014, the company sold its Sumavel DosePro (sumatriptan injection) Needle-free Delivery System business to affiliates of Endo International plc, or Endo. In connection with the sale, the company entered into a supply agreement to manufacture and supply Sumavel DosePro to Endo (the “Endo Supply Agreement”). Under this agreement, the company provided contract manufacturing services and supplied Sumavel DosePro to Endo through April 2017. The supply agreement was terminated in September 2017.
Zogenix is committed to developing and commercializing therapeutic solutions for people living with serious and life-threatening rare CNS disorders and medical conditions. The company's strategy centers on developing and advancing its lead therapeutic product candidate, ZX008, low-dose fenfluramine for the treatment of Dravet syndrome, LGS, and potentially other rare and catastrophic epilepsy disorders. In addition to ZX008, the company aim to identify, develop, and advance other innovative therapeutic product candidates with the potential to treat patients living with serious and life-threating rare CNS disorders.
The key elements of its strategy are:
- Rapidly advancing ZX008 for the treatment of Dravet syndrome through clinical development and regulatory approval. In September 2017, the company announced positive top-line results for its first Phase 3 trial (Study 1) studying ZX008 as adjunctive therapy for patients with uncontrolled convulsive seizures who have Dravet syndrome. Zogenix is currently conducting a second double-blind, randomized, two-arm pivotal Phase 3 trial for ZX008 as an adjunctive treatment in Dravet syndrome, Study 1504, in which all patients will be taking stiripentol, valproate and/or clobazam as part of their baseline standard care. The company expect to report top-line results from Study 1504 in the second quarter of 2018, and if positive, submit applications for regulatory approvals in the U.S. and Europe in the fourth quarter of 2018.
- Developing ZX008 for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. In November 2017, the company announced the initiation of its multicenter global Phase 3 clinical trial for ZX008 as an adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with LGS with the enrollment of the first patient into the study. In the first half of 2017, ZX008 received orphan drug designation for the treatment of LGS from the FDA in the United States and the European Medicines Agency in the EU.
- Evaluating ZX008 for potential treatment of other forms of orphan pediatric epilepsy. In addition to Dravet syndrome and LGS, the company believe that the unique mechanism of action of ZX008 has the potential to treat other epileptic encephalopathies where there is a significant unmet medical need. The company expect to continue to evaluate its potential in additional orphan pediatric-onset epilepsy indications where there is a significant unmet medical need.
- Identifying innovative, differentiated product development candidates in the therapeutic area of rare CNS disorders for acquisition and further development. The company's business development team focuses on identifying and evaluating differentiated, high-value licensing and product acquisition opportunities that would build its CNS product candidate pipeline and effectively leverage its capabilities in the United States and Europe.
Clinical Product Candidate
The company currently have one product candidate in clinical development for differentiated therapies treating CNS disorders.
ZX008 (Low-Dose Fenfluramine) for the Treatment of Dravet Syndrome
Dravet syndrome is a rare childhood-onset channelopathy in which intractable epilepsy is one of the most significant and devastating symptoms. Children and young adults with Dravet syndrome experience debilitating, persistent and potentially life-threatening seizures beginning in the first year of life. Seizures continue throughout their lifetime and are most often treatment resistant, meaning that currently available medications and therapies are not able to achieve complete or clinically meaningful seizure control and, in some cases, worsen the condition. Individuals with Dravet syndrome face a higher incidence of Status Epilepticus and Sudden Unexplained Death in Epilepsy, or SUDEP. These patients suffer from severe cognitive and other developmental impairment throughout life, as well as neurobehavioral disorders such as autistic-like behavior and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and motor abnormalities. The prognosis for patients with Dravet syndrome to become seizure free is poor. A recent study by Wu et. al. published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2015 reported an incidence rate for Dravet syndrome of approximately 1 per 16,000 live births with onset occurring within the first year of life.
There are currently no FDA-approved treatments indicated for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome. The standard of care usually involves a combination of the following anticonvulsant drugs: clobazam, clonazepam, levetiracetam, topiramate, valproic acid, ethosuximide and zonisamide. Stiripentol is approved in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome in conjunction with valproate and/or clobazam. In Europe, stiripentol was granted an orphan drug designation for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in 2001. In the United States, stiripentol is not FDA-approved and can only be obtained via the FDA’s Personal Importation Policy (“PIP”) or under an Expanded Access IND. Sodium channel blocking anticonvulsant drugs often used to treat most other epilepsy conditions increase seizure frequency in patients with Dravet syndrome. Management of this disease may also include a nonpharmacologic treatments, including ketogenic diet and vagal nerve stimulation.
Fenfluramine was originally developed and approved as an anorectic agent for the treatment of adult obesity. Pre-clinical and clinical evidence of the drug’s ability to treat refractory pediatric epileptic seizures was first described in the 1980s. Fenfluramine was withdrawn from the market in 1997 because the risk outweighed the benefit in this adult obese population, after cases of heart valve defects and pulmonary hypertension were reported in adults who had taken fenfluramine, most often with phentermine. However, at this time, academic pediatric neurologists in Belgium continued to evaluate low doses of fenfluramine in a small number of refractory patients under a government approved compassionate use protocol. Their open-label study, which continues today, evaluated the safety and effectiveness of low-dose fenfluramine to reduce seizures in refractory Dravet syndrome patients.
In December 2016, the company presented the most recent analyses of the original Dravet syndrome patients being treated in Belgium under this government approved protocol at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. At that time ten original patients who started treatment with fenfluramine prior to 2010 had been treated with low-dose fenfluramine for a mean of 17.5 years (range: 7-28 years) From the analysis, low-dose fenfluramine, as an adjunctive therapy to standard antiepileptic drugs, was providing these difficult to treat patients with long-term, durable seizure control. As reported at the meeting, for the most immediate past six years of treatment leading up to the analysis, three patients were seizure-free for the entire six years and four patients experienced seizure-free intervals of at least two years. None of these patients developed any clinically meaningful signs or symptoms of cardiac valvulopathy or pulmonary hypertension, while two patients had mild and stable cardiac valve thickening on the most recent cardiac echocardiogram that was deemed to be clinically unimportant. After 2010, an additional 11 Dravet syndrome patients started adjuvant treatment with low-dose fenfluramine under the Belgium government approved protocol and data on this cohort was presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The mean age at start of fenfluramine in this cohort was 12.5 years (range, 1- 30 years) and treatment with fenfluramine was for a median duration of 3.0 years (range, 1- 7 years). Ninety-one percent of these patients had a clinically meaningful reduction (≥50%) and 73% had substantial reductions (≥75%) in major motor seizure frequency at the prior visit. Fenfluramine was generally well tolerated with no clinical and/or echocardiographic signs of cardiac valvulopathy or pulmonary hypertension. In this ongoing Belgian study of low dose fenfluramine treating refractory Dravet syndrome patients, no patient has stopped treatment for any adverse event.
Because of the known cardiac side effects of fenfluramine reported when prescribed in higher doses for the treatment of adult obesity (without baseline cardiac data), the ongoing Belgian study requires ongoing periodic evaluations of the heart and, in particular, the heart valves and measures assessing for the presence of pulmonary hypertension using echocardiography. Overall, low-dose fenfluramine has been shown to be well tolerated and side-effects of treatment have been mild and transient over the entire 29-year study period. There have been no clinically significant findings related to cardiac valvulopathy and no reports of pulmonary hypertension in any ZX008 or low-dose fenfluramine studies to date.
Formal meetings have been held with the regulatory agencies in the United States and EU to obtain concurrence on remaining pre-clinical and clinical requirements for regulatory approval. Based upon this information, the company believe its two pivotal placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in Dravet syndrome, if successful, will support regulatory approval of ZX008 in the United States and in Europe. The company's investigational new drug (“IND”) application for ZX008 for the treatment of Dravet syndrome became effective in December 2015. The company initiated its Phase 3 clinical trials in North America (Study 1501) in January 2016 and in Europe and Australia in June 2016 (Study 1502). Study 1501 and Study 1502 are each identical randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of ZX008 as adjunctive therapy for patients with uncontrolled seizures who have Dravet syndrome. In January 2017, the company announced its plan to report top-line results from Study 1501 and Study 1502 via a prospective merged study analysis approach whereby top-line results from the first approximately 120 subjects randomized into either Study 1501 or 1502 would have their study results analyzed and be reported initially as “Study 1.” In April 2017, the company completed enrollment of Study 1 and, in September 2017, the company announced positive top-line results for the 119 patients included in the Study 1 Phase 3 trial. The Study 1 trial met its primary objective of demonstrating that ZX008, at a dose of 0.8 mg/kg/day, is superior to placebo as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of Dravet syndrome in children and young adults based on change in the frequency of convulsive seizures between the 6-week baseline observation period and the 14-week treatment period (p<0.001). In the trial ZX008 0.8 mg/kg/day also demonstrated statistically significant improvements versus placebo in all key secondary measures, including the proportion of patients with clinically meaningful reductions (50% or greater) in convulsive seizure frequency and longest seizure-free interval. The same analyses comparing a 0.2 mg/kg/day ZX008 dose versus placebo also demonstrated statistically significant improvement compared with placebo. Patients completing the Phase 3 trials are given the opportunity to enroll in an open label long-term extension safety study (Study 1503).
Zogenix is conducting Study 1504 in Dravet syndrome patients who are incomplete responders to a stiripentol treatment regimen. In September 2016, the company initiated Part 1 of Study 1504, a two-part, double blind, randomized, two arm pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of ZX008 in Dravet syndrome patients who are taking stiripentol, valproate and/or clobazam as part of their baseline standard care. Part 1 investigated the pharmacokinetic profile and safety of ZX008 when co-administered with the stiripentol regimen (stiripentol, valproate and clobazam). Based on the results of the pharmacokinetic and safety portion of the trial, in February 2017, the company initiated the safety and efficacy portion of Study 1504, a two-arm study that compares ZX008 versus placebo across the titration and 12-week maintenance periods at multiple sites, which currently includes sites in France, the Netherlands, United States, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. Study 1504 is targeted to enroll approximately 40 patients per treatment group. The company completed enrollment of this study in January 2018 and expect to report top-line results from Study 1504 in the second quarter of 2018. The company believe in addition to Study 1504 being a pivotal Phase 3 trial, it may also demonstrate the potential incremental benefit of ZX008 over the background stiripentol regimen, which is required to maintain ZX008 orphan drug status in the EU. The company also expect the results of Study 1504 will be important for future market positioning and reimbursement of ZX008 in Europe.
In the event that the FDA requires a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks, Zogenix is currently developing the appropriate elements of a specific REMS to support and maintain a long-term favorable benefit-risk profile for ZX008 in the United States, as well as a similar risk mitigation plan, or RMP for Europe. This is consistent with other drugs with known safety issues that are approved for serious diseases with high unmet need. The company intend to submit a new drug application (“NDA”) and a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) for ZX008 for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in the fourth quarter of 2018.
ZX008 for the Treatment of Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome LGS is a severe, refractory and debilitating form of epilepsy that typically becomes apparent during early childhood. Affected children experience generalized tonic-clonic seizures, tonic seizures, atonic seizures, and tonic/atonic seizures, all of which can result in “drop attacks.” Other seizure types that occur in some LGS patients include non-convulsive seizures, such as atypical absences, focal seizures, and myoclonic seizures. Children with LGS most often also develop cognitive dysfunction, delays in reaching developmental milestones and behavioral problems. LGS can be caused by a variety of underlying conditions, but in some cases no cause can be identified.
LGS makes up 1% to 4% of all pediatric epilepsies. There is no specific therapy for LGS that is effective in all cases and the disorder has proven particularly resistant to most currently available therapeutic options. The three main therapeutic options for the treatment of LGS are anti-epileptic drugs (“AEDs”), dietary therapy (typically the ketogenic diet) or surgery (VNS therapy or corpus callosotomy). AEDs are usually prescribed to individuals with LGS, but the individual response is highly variable. However, because individuals with LGS rarely respond successfully to one AED, they most often require polypharmacotherapy with multiple AEDs, and yet still most continue to have refractory seizures. Although a variety of specific drugs have been approved by the FDA and/or EMA for the treatment of LGS including topiramate, lamotrigine, clobazam, rufinamide, felbamate and clonazepam, these medications typically have limited success and in addition, are often associated with intolerable side effects, especially in individuals who receive multidrug, high-dose regimens. Furthermore, all current AEDs can also become less effective over time.
Beginning in first quarter of 2016, the company funded an open-label dose-ranging investigator-initiated study of the effectiveness and tolerability of ZX008 as an adjunctive therapy in patients with LGS. Refractory LGS patients were treated with ZX008 as an adjunctive therapy for seizures associated with LGS. In December 2016, the company presented initial data from an interim analysis of the first 13 patients to have completed at least 12 weeks of this Phase 2 open-label, dose-finding study at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. These data demonstrated that ZX008 provided clinically meaningful improvement in major motor seizure frequency in patients with severely refractory LGS, despite not attempting to dose to maximal efficacy as per protocol, with 7 of 13 patients (54%) achieving at least a 50% reduction in the number of major motor seizures, at doses below the 0.8 mg/kg/day maximum allowed dose. In addition, ZX008 was generally well tolerated without any observed signs or symptoms of valvulopathy or pulmonary hypertension. The company believe these data indicate that ZX008 has the potential to be a safe and effective adjunctive treatment for LGS.
Based on the strength of the LGS data generated in the investigator-initiated study, in November 2017 the company announced the initiation of its global Phase 3 clinical trial for ZX008 as an adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with LGS, Study 1601. Study 1601 is divided in two parts. Part 1 is a double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation to assess the safety, tolerability and efficacy of ZX008, low-dose fenfluramine, when added to a patient’s current anti-epileptic therapy. The trial will include two dose levels of ZX008 (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.8 mg/kg/day, up to a maximum daily dose of 30 mg), as well as placebo. After establishing baseline seizure frequency for 4 weeks, randomized patients will be titrated to their dose over a 2-week titration period, followed by a 12-week fixed dose maintenance period. The Company is targeting a total of 225 randomized patients (75 per treatment arm) in the trial. The primary endpoint of Study 1601 is change in the number of seizures that result in drops between baseline and the combined titration and maintenance periods at the 0.8 mg/kg/day dose as compared to placebo. The key secondary endpoints include change in the number of seizures that result in drops between baseline and the combined titration and maintenance periods at the 0.2 mg/kg/day dose, and the proportion of patients achieving at least a 50% reduction in drop seizures. Part 2 of Study 1601 will be a 12-month open-label extension to evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability and effectiveness of ZX008. ZX008 for the treatment of LGS has been designated as an orphan drug by both the FDA and the European Commission. Study 1601 is planned for up to 85 sites in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, South Africa and Australia.
Beyond Dravet syndrome and LGS, the company also intend to evaluate ZX008’s potential to treat additional indications in other rare pediatric-onset epileptic encephalopathies and related medical conditions in the future.
The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary therapeutics. The company face competition from a number of sources, some of which may target the same indications as its product candidates, including large pharmaceutical companies, smaller biopharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions, many of which have greater financial resources, research and development capabilities, sales and marketing capabilities, manufacturing capabilities, experience in obtaining regulatory approvals for product candidates and/or other resources than it. The company will face competition not only in the commercialization of any product candidates for which the company obtain marketing approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities, but also for the in-licensing or acquisition of additional product candidates.
There are currently no FDA-approved treatments indicated for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome. The standard of care usually involves a combination of the following anticonvulsant drugs: clobazam, clonazepam, levetiracetam, topiramate, valproic acid, ethosuximide and zonisamide. Stiripentol is approved in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan for the treatment of Dravet syndrome when used in conjunction with valproate and/or clobazam. In Europe, stiripentol was granted an orphan drug designation for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in 2001. In the United States, stiripentol is not FDA approved and can only be obtained via the FDA’s Personal Importation Policy, or PIP, or under an Expanded Access IND. The FDA’s PIP is intended to make available, through the exercise of enforcement discretion, unapproved drugs used to treat serious medical conditions for which no equivalent treatment exists in the United States, and unapproved drugs used to continue treatment begun in a foreign country. All new patients obtaining stiripentol must have a patient specific IND application submitted to the FDA by the prescribing physician, who is most often an academic pediatric neurologist. The manufacturer of stiripentol, Biocodex, may in the future seek and receive FDA approval for stiripentol for the treatment of Dravet syndrome.
ZX008 has a novel mechanism of action (selective serotonin activity and possibly sigma-1 activity) that is different from the other antiepileptic drugs currently available and in clinical development in the United States and EU for the treatment of epileptic encephalopathies like Dravet syndrome. Two other drug candidates in clinical development for the treatment of Dravet syndrome are both cannabinoids which have a different distinct mechanism of action from ZX008. The company do not expect that their successful development and approval in the United States or Europe would block the FDA or EMA from granting approval of ZX008 even if they are approved prior to ZX008.
One cannabinoid product candidate in clinical development for Dravet syndrome is GW Pharmaceuticals’ Epidiolex, a liquid drug formulation of plant-derived purified cannabidiol, or CBD, a component of marijuana. Published open-label clinical data and anecdotal evidence has suggested that patients with Dravet syndrome experience a reduction in seizures when CBD is prescribed to them. In March 2016, GW Pharmaceuticals announced positive results from its first Phase 3 clinical trial for Epidiolex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome, and in June and September 2016 announced positive results from its two Phase 3 clinical trials for Epidiolex for the treatment of LGS, with Epidiolex achieving its primary study endpoints in all three trials. GW Pharmaceuticals is currently conducting an additional Phase 3 study in Dravet syndrome and in December 2017 announced data from the second Phase 3 study in Dravet syndrome is expected in the second half of 2018. Also in December 2017, GW Pharmaceuticals announced FDA acceptance of its NDA filing for Epidiolex in the treatment of LGS and Dravet syndrome and that an MAA for Epidiolex in both indications had been filed in Europe.
Insys Therapeutics, or Insys, is developing a synthetic cannabidiol, or CBD, for the treatment of pediatric epilepsies, including Dravet syndrome. Insys previously advanced its synthetic CBD program, which has received orphan drug designation and Fast Track status by the FDA for use of CBD as a potential treatment for Dravet syndrome, into a Phase 1/2 clinical trial. Insys initiated Phase 2 development of its CBD product candidate for childhood absence epilepsy in December of 2017, and plans to initiate a Phase 3 trial in infantile spasms, a pediatric epilepsy syndrome, in the first quarter of 2018.
Several other companies, including Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. have disclosed that they are developing preclinical drug candidates for the potential treatment of Dravet syndrome.
Manufacturing and Supply
In September 2017, its agreement to manufacture and supply Sumavel DosePro to Endo was terminated. The company do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish or own any manufacturing facilities with respect to the manufacture of ZX008 or any future product candidates. The company currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of its product candidates and their component raw materials for use in its internal research efforts and clinical trials and in relation to any future commercialization of its product candidates. The company's third-party manufacturers are responsible for obtaining the raw materials necessary to manufacture its product candidates, which the company believe are readily available from more than one source. Additional third-party manufacturers are and will be used to formulate, fill, label, package and distribute investigational drug products. This approach allows it to maintain a more efficient infrastructure while enabling it to focus its expertise on developing and commercializing its product candidates. Although the company believe Zogenix has multiple potential sources for the manufacture of its product candidates and their related raw materials, the company currently rely on single manufacturers for different aspects of ZX008.
Zogenix International Limited Sales and Purchase Agreement (ZX008)
Under the terms of its agreement to acquire Zogenix International Limited, pursuant to a sale and purchase agreement with Brabant Pharma Limited (Brabant), the company agreed to make future milestone payments to the former principals of Brabant of up to $95.0 million in the event the company achieve contractually specified regulatory and sales milestones with respect to ZX008. The company agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize ZX008 and to achieve the milestones.
In addition, in October 2014, Zogenix International Limited has a collaboration and license agreement with the Universities of Antwerp and Leuven in Belgium (the “Universities”), which runs through September 2045. Under the terms of the agreement, the Universities granted Zogenix International Limited an exclusive worldwide license to use the data obtained from the study, as well as certain intellectual property related to fenfluramine for the treatment of Dravet syndrome. Zogenix International Limited is required to pay a mid-single-digit percentage royalty on net sales of fenfluramine for the treatment of Dravet syndrome or, in the case of a sublicense of fenfluramine for the treatment of Dravet syndrome, a percentage in the mid-twenties of the sub-licensing revenues. The agreement may be terminated by the Universities if Zogenix International Limited: (a) does not use commercially reasonable efforts to (i) develop and commercialize fenfluramine for the treatment of Dravet syndrome or related conditions stemming from infantile epilepsy, or (ii) seek approval of fenfluramine for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in the United States; or (b) if Zogenix International Limited becomes insolvent, shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or shall have a petition in bankruptcy filed for or against it or if a petition for any similar relief has been filed against it. The Company can terminate the agreement upon specified prior written notice to the Universities.
The company's success will depend to a significant extent on its ability to obtain, expand and protect its intellectual property estate, enforce patents, maintain trade secret and trademark protection and operate without infringing the proprietary rights of other parties.
As of December 31, 2017, Zogenix has rights to 4 issued U.S. patents. These patents, entitled “Method for the Treatment of Dravet Syndrome,” cover claims related to a method for adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome with ZX008 and are expected to provide protection of the associated claims through 2033. There are currently 21 pending U.S. patent applications (which includes nine provisional applications); and 33 pending foreign applications (which includes one allowed European application and five Patent Cooperation Treaty applications) in the ZX008 series of patent cases. The company's pending patent applications may not result in the issuance of any additional patents.
As of December 31, 2017, the company employed 68 full-time employees. Of the full-time employees, 43 were engaged in product development, quality assurance and clinical and regulatory activities, 6 were engaged in sales and marketing and 19 were engaged in general and administrative activities (including business and corporate development).
None of its employees are represented by a labor union, and the company consider its employee relations to be good. The company currently utilize two employer services companies to provide human resource services. These service companies are the employer of record for payroll, benefits, employee relations and other employment-related administration.
Research and Development
The company invested $67.4 million, $41.8 million and $27.9 million in research and development in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
FDA Approval Process
In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, a clinical hold, warning letters, recall or seizure of products, partial or total suspension of production, withdrawal of the product from the market, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.
FDA approval is required before any new drug or dosage form, including a new use of a previously approved drug, can be marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves:
- completion of pre-clinical laboratory and animal testing and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s current good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations;
- submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin in the United States;
- performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with current good clinical practice, or GCP, regulations, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each intended use;
- submission, review and approval to the FDA of an NDA; and
- satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the product is produced to assess compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, requirements.
The pre-clinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and the company cannot be certain that any approvals for its product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, stability and toxicity, as well as animal studies to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The results of pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and a proposed clinical trial protocol and other information, are submitted as part of an IND to the FDA. Some pre-clinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions relating to one or more proposed clinical trials and places a trial on clinical hold, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, its submission of an IND may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development.
Clinical trials involve the administration of an investigational drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. For purposes of an NDA submission and approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in the following sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:
- Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients and tested for safety, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness.
- Phase 2: The drug is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted indications and to determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage.
- Phase 3: When Phase 2 evaluations demonstrate that a dose range of the product appears to be effective and has an acceptable safety profile, Phase 3 “pivotal” trials are undertaken in large patient populations to obtain additional evidence of clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at multiple, geographically-dispersed clinical trial sites.
In some cases, the FDA may condition the approval of the NDA on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional pre-clinical and clinical studies to further assess the drug’s safety and effectiveness after NDA approval. Such post-approval studies are typically referred to as Post-Marketing or Phase 4 studies.
The results of product development, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA. NDAs must also contain extensive information relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (“CMC”) and proposed labeling, among other things. For some drugs, the FDA may determine that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks of the drug, and may require submission of a REMS as a condition of approval. The submission of an NDA is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, and the manufacturer and/or sponsor under an approved NDA are also subject to annual program user fees. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission has been accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review.
During the FDA’s review of an NDA the FDA may inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP, and if applicable, quality system regulation (“QSR”) requirements (for medical device components), and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements before approving an NDA. The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
Once the FDA’s NDA review process is substantially complete, it may issue an approval letter, or it may issue a complete response letter (“CRL”) to indicate that the review cycle for an application is complete and that the application is not ready for approval. CRLs generally outline the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when the deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.
Once issued, the FDA may withdraw product approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems are identified after the product reaches the market. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label, and, even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product or impose other conditions, including labeling or distribution restrictions or a post-market REMS requirement. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, the sponsor may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new or supplemental NDA, which may require the development of additional data or conduct of additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials.
Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to drug/device listing, recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. There also are extensive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, regulations applicable to marketed controlled substances.
Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP or QSR requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP or QSR and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon it and any third-party manufacturers that the company may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP or QSR compliance.
Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market, though the FDA must provide an application holder with notice and an opportunity for a hearing in order to withdraw its approval of an application. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:
- restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;
- fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;
- refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;
- product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or
- injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug and device products that are placed on the market. While physicians may prescribe drugs and devices for off label uses, manufacturers may only promote for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off label uses may be subject to significant liability.
In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, and associated FDA regulations, which governs the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution, including a drug pedigree which tracks the distribution of prescription drugs. With the enactment of the Drug Quality and Security Act in November 2013, drug manufacturers will also be subject to requirements for identifying and tracking prescription drugs as they are distributed in the United States. The requirements of this law will be phased in over a ten-year period, including requirements for unique product identifiers and provision of product handling information to the FDA.
The FDA may require post-approval studies and clinical trials if the FDA finds they are appropriate based on available data, including information regarding related drugs. The purpose of such studies would be to assess a known serious risk or signals of serious risk related to the drug or to identify an unexpected serious risk when available data indicate the potential for a serious risk. The FDA may also require a labeling change if it becomes aware of new safety information that it believes should be included in the labeling of a drug. The FDA also has the authority to require a REMS to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. In determining whether a REMS is necessary, the FDA must consider the size of the population likely to use the drug, the seriousness of the disease or condition to be treated, the expected benefit of the drug, the duration of treatment, the seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the drug is a new molecular entity. If the FDA determines a REMS is necessary for a new drug, the drug sponsor must submit a proposed REMS as part of its NDA prior to approval. The FDA may also impose a REMS requirement on a drug already on the market if the FDA determines, based on new safety information, that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the drug’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks. A REMS may be required to include various elements, such as a medication guide or patient package insert, a communication plan to educate health care providers of the drug’s risks, limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, requirements that patients enroll in a registry or undergo certain health evaluations and other measures that the FDA deems necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. In addition, the REMS must include a timetable to assess the strategy, at a minimum, at 18 months, three years, and seven years after the strategy’s approval.
Concurrently with its clinical development program for ZX008, the company plan to develop the appropriate elements of a REMS program to support and monitor the long-term favorable benefit-risk profile for ZX008. The company expect that the FDA will require a REMS for ZX008 including elements to assure safe use, among other requirements, as a condition of approval, consistent with other drugs with known safety issues and that are approved for serious diseases with high unmet need. The company will be solely responsible for the costs of development of any REMS for ZX008 and will continue to be responsible for all costs associated with implementation and operation of the REMS if ZX008 is approved.
With respect to post-market product advertising and promotion, the FDA imposes a number of complex requirements on entities that advertise and promote pharmaceuticals, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet and social media. The FDA has very broad enforcement authority under the FFDCA, and failure to abide by these regulations can result in penalties, including the issuance of a warning letter directing entities to correct deviations from FDA standards, a requirement that future advertising and promotional materials be pre-cleared by the FDA, and state and federal civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions.
Orphan Drug Designation
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000, there is no reasonable expectation that sales of the drug in the United States will be sufficient to offset the costs of developing and making the drug available in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
If the FDA approves a sponsor’s marketing application for a designated orphan drug for use in the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the sponsor is eligible for a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, during which the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for a drug with the same active moiety and intended for the same use or indication as the approved orphan drug, except in limited circumstances, such as if a subsequent sponsor demonstrates its product is clinically superior. During a sponsor’s orphan drug exclusivity period, competitors, however, may receive approval for drugs with different active moieties for the same indication as the approved orphan drug, or for drugs with the same active moiety as the approved orphan drug, but for different indications. Orphan drug exclusivity could block the approval of one of its products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for a drug with the same active moiety intended for the same indication before the company do, unless Zogenix is able to demonstrate that grounds for withdrawal of the orphan drug exclusivity exist, or that its product is clinically superior. Further, if a designated orphan drug receives marketing approval for an indication broader than the rare disease or condition for which it received orphan drug designation, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.
ZX008 has received orphan drug designation in the United States and the EU for ZX008 in the treatment of Dravet syndrome and LGS. The company may seek orphan drug designation for ZX008 for a different indication, or other product candidates, but the FDA may disagree with its analysis of the prevalence of the particular disease or condition or other criteria for designation and refuse to grant orphan status. The company cannot guarantee that the company will obtain orphan drug designation or approval for any product candidate, or that the company will be able to secure orphan drug exclusivity if the company do obtain approval.
Section 505(b)(2) New Drug Applications
An applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA to seek approval for modifications or new uses of products previously approved by the FDA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The applicant may rely upon published literature and the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved product based on the prior pre-clinical or clinical trials conducted for the approved product. The FDA may also require companies to perform new studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.
To the extent that a Section 505(b)(2) NDA relies on studies conducted for a previously approved drug product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s current list of “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” known as the Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify for each listed patent that (1) the required patent information has not been filed; (2) the listed patent has expired; (3) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the new product. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patent or that such patent is invalid is known as a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents through a Paragraph IV certification, the Section 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. The Section 505(b)(2) NDA application also will not be accepted or approved until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a New Chemical Entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product, has expired.
If the 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the referenced NDA and patent holders once the 505(b)(2) NDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a legal challenge based on the Paragraph IV certification. Under the FFDCA, if a patent infringement lawsuit is filed against the 505(b)(2) NDA applicant within 45 days of receipt of the Paragraph IV certification notice, an automatic stay of approval is imposed, which prevents the FDA from approving the Section 505(b)(2) NDA for 30 months, or until a court decision or settlement finding that the patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed, whichever is earlier. The court also has the ability to shorten or lengthen the 30 month stay if either party is found not to be reasonably cooperating in expediting the litigation. Thus, the 505(b)(2) NDA applicant may invest a significant amount of time and expense in the development of its product only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before its product may be commercialized.
The 505(b)(2) NDA applicant may be eligible for its own regulatory exclusivity period, such as three-year new product exclusivity. The first approved 505(b)(2) applicant for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new extended-release formulation for a previously approved product, may be granted three-year Hatch-Waxman exclusivity if one or more clinical trials, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant. Should this occur, the FDA is precluded from making effective any other application for the same condition of use or for a change to the drug product that was granted exclusivity until after that three-year exclusivity period has expired. Additional exclusivities may also apply, such as an added six-month pediatric exclusivity period based on studies conducted in pediatric patients under a written request from the FDA.
Additionally, the 505(b)(2) NDA applicant may list its own relevant patents in the Orange Book, and if it does, it can initiate patent infringement litigation against subsequent applicants that challenge such patents, which could result in a 30-month stay delaying those applicants.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (“CSA”) establishes registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution and other requirements administered by the DEA. The DEA is concerned with the control of handlers of controlled substances, and with the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging, in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce.
The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use, and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances.
Fenfluramine, the active ingredient in ZX008, is currently regulated as a Schedule IV drug in the United States. Substances in Schedule IV are considered to have a low potential for abuse relative to substances in Schedule III. A prescription for controlled substances in Schedules III, IV, and V issued by a practitioner, may be communicated either orally, in writing, or by facsimile to the pharmacist, and may be refilled if so authorized on the prescription or by call-in. Many commonly prescribed sleep aids (e.g., Ambien®, Sonata®), most benzodiazepines (e.g., Ativan®, Valium®, Versed®, Diastat®, Onfi®) and some weight loss drugs (e.g., Belviq®, Qsymia®) are also regulated as Schedule IV drugs.
Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized.
The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as cages, surveillance cameras and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and authorization must be obtained to destroy any controlled substance. In addition, special authorization and notification requirements apply to imports and exports.
To meet its responsibilities, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could eventuate in criminal proceedings.
Individual states also regulate controlled substances, and the company and its contract manufacturers will be subject to state regulation on distribution of these products.
In addition to regulations in the United States, Zogenix is subject to a variety of foreign regulations regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of its products. Whether or not the company obtain FDA approval for a product, the company must obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable and respective regulatory authorities of foreign countries before the company can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional review periods, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required to obtain FDA approval and, if applicable, DEA classification. The requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.
Under EU regulatory systems, marketing authorizations may be submitted either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU member states. The decentralized procedure provides for mutual recognition of national approval decisions. Under this procedure, the holder of a national marketing authorization may submit an application to the remaining member states. Within 90 days of receiving the applications and assessment report, each member state must decide whether to recognize approval.
In addition to regulations in Europe and the United States, Zogenix is subject to a variety of other foreign regulations governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, pricing and reimbursement and commercial distribution of its products. If the company fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, the company may be subject to fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.
Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws
Zogenix is subject to various federal, state and local laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws are applicable to manufacturers of products regulated by the FDA, such as it, and hospitals, physicians and other potential purchasers of such products.
In particular, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program such as the TRICARE, Medicare and Medicaid programs. The term “remuneration” is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example, gifts, discounts, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payments, ownership interests and providing anything at less than its fair market value. Moreover, the lack of uniform court interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute makes compliance with the law difficult. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act (discussed below) or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented claims to a federal health care program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.
Additionally, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs in at least some cases, and do not contain safe harbors or statutory exceptions. Government officials have focused their enforcement efforts on marketing of healthcare services and products, among other activities, and have brought cases against numerous pharmaceutical and medical device companies, and certain sales and marketing personnel for allegedly offering unlawful inducements to potential or existing customers in an attempt to procure their business or reward past purchases or recommendations.
Another development affecting the healthcare industry is the increased use of the federal civil False Claims Act and, in particular, actions brought pursuant to the False Claims Act’s “whistleblower” or “qui tam” provisions. The civil False Claims Act imposes liability on any person or entity who, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government, and to share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, the number of suits brought by private individuals has increased dramatically. When an entity is determined to have violated the False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil penalties of $11,181 to $22,363 for each separate false claim. The False Claims Act has been used to assert liability on the basis of inadequate care, kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price and improper promotion of off-label uses (i.e., uses not expressly approved by FDA in a drug’s label). In addition, various states have enacted false claim laws analogous to the False Claims Act. Many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payor and not merely a federal healthcare program.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created several new federal crimes, including health care fraud, and false statements relating to health care matters. The health care fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private third-party payors. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the PPACA, also imposes new reporting and disclosure requirements on drug manufacturers for any “transfer of value” made or distributed to prescribers and other healthcare providers, and any ownership or investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members during the preceding calendar year. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $165,786 per year (and up to an aggregate of $1.1 million per year for “knowing failures”), for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests not reported in an annual submission. Manufacturers are required to report such data to the government by the 90th day of each calendar year.
Under California law, pharmaceutical companies must adopt a comprehensive compliance program that is in accordance with both the Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, or OIG Guidance, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals, or the PhRMA Code. The PhRMA Code seeks to promote transparency in relationships between health care professionals and the pharmaceutical industry and to ensure that pharmaceutical marketing activities comport with the highest ethical standards. The PhRMA Code contains strict limitations on certain interactions between health care professionals and the pharmaceutical industry relating to gifts, meals, entertainment and speaker programs, among others. Also, certain states have imposed restrictions on the types of interactions that pharmaceutical companies or their agents (e.g., sales representatives) may have with health care professionals, including bans or strict limitations on the provision of meals, entertainment, hospitality, travel and lodging expenses, and other financial support, including funding for continuing medical education activities.
Healthcare Privacy and Security Laws
The company may be subject to, or its marketing activities may be limited by, HIPAA, and its implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, which established uniform standards for certain “covered entities” (healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses) governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and protecting the security and privacy of protected health information. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly referred to as the economic stimulus package, included sweeping expansion of HIPAA’s privacy and security standards called the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, which became effective on February 17, 2010. Among other things, the new law makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates” — independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.
Third-Party Payor Coverage and Reimbursement
The commercial success of its product candidates, if and when commercialized, will depend, in part, upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors at the federal, state and private levels. Third-party payors include governmental programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, private insurance plans and managed care plans. These third-party payors may deny coverage or reimbursement for a product or therapy in whole or in part if they determine that the product or therapy was not medically appropriate or necessary. Also, third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage through the use of formularies and other cost-containment mechanisms and the amount of reimbursement for particular procedures or drug treatments.
Changes in third-party payor coverage and reimbursement rules can impact its business. For example, the PPACA changes include increased rebates a manufacturer must pay to the Medicaid program, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, and established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must provide 50% point-of-sale discounts on products covered under Part D. Further, the law imposes a significant annual, nondeductible fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. Substantial new provisions affecting compliance have also been enacted, which may require it to modify its business practices with health care practitioners. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 increased the point-of-sale discount manufacturers must agree to offer under the Medicare part D coverage gap discount program from 50% to 70%, starting in 2019. PPACA and other healthcare reform measures continue to put pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, as well as increase its regulatory burdens and operating costs.
Other legislative changes have also been proposed and adopted in the United States since the PPACA was enacted. For example, in August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.
Recently, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Individual states have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, and to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could have a material adverse effect on its customers and accordingly, its financial operations.
In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. There can be no assurance that its products will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, that its products will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be established even if coverage is available or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect its ability to sell its products profitably.
The company and its third-party manufacturers must comply with applicable FDA regulations relating to FDA’s cGMP regulations and, if applicable, QSR requirements. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to, among other things, organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for its products must meet cGMP requirements to the satisfaction of the FDA pursuant to a pre-approval inspection before the company can use them to manufacture its products. The company and its third-party manufacturers are also subject to periodic unannounced inspections of facilities by the FDA and other authorities, including procedures and operations used in the testing and manufacture of its products to assess its compliance with applicable regulations. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements subjects a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, including, among other things, warning letters, the seizure or recall of products, injunctions, consent decrees placing significant restrictions on or suspending manufacturing operations and civil and criminal penalties.
Other Regulatory Requirements
Zogenix is also subject to various laws and regulations regarding laboratory practices, the experimental use of animals, and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in connection with its research. In each of these areas, as above, the FDA has broad regulatory and enforcement powers, including, among other things, the ability to levy fines and civil penalties, suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize or recall products, and withdraw approvals, any one or more of which could have a material adverse effect on it.
CommentsAdd a Comment
Asif - 2018-04-30
Recent Presentations:- https://zogenixinc.gcs-web.com/static-files/96af363a-40ac-414c-84a5-203be61504b3