Novartis : Two years safety findings from CATT study favor Lucentis and Eylea, but do pharmacoeconomics justify?
The recent two year safety findings from the CATT study in conjunction with the existing evidence from retrospective analysis and the adverse event reporting database of regulators do favor Lucentis and also Eylea in the AMD market, but due to no efficacy difference and pharmacoeconomics weighing heavily against these drugs, we do not see the safety benefits translating into market share gains for either of the drugs. The rate of adverse events at two years, are similar to that observed at the end of first year, which shows that there has been no major increase in adverse events in the Avastin arm after one year. A prominently higher number of GI safety concerns (1.8% vs. 4.8%) and Injury/procedural complications (3.8% vs. 6.0%) primarily distinguish the safety of Lucentis and Avastin, which in our view should not warrant major concerns for ophthalmologists. These safety benefits also need to be validated over the duration of treatment.
COMPANIES MENTIONED
NOVARTIS, REGENERON, ROCHE
NOVARTIS, REGENERON, ROCHE
