Chemical Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Chemical Engineering
RESEARCH
APPLICATION NUMBER:
206316Orig1Orig2s000
CHEMISTRY REVIEW(S)
NDA 206316
15 December 2014
Daiichi-Sankyo
Edoxaban Tablets, 15 mg, 30 mg and 60 mg
OC recommendation
Dr. Akm Khairuzzaman
HFD-/Division File
HFD-120
Akm Khairuzzaman, Ph.D.
Chemistry Reviewer
Olen Stephens, Ph.D.
Acting Branch Chief, ONDQA
NDA 206-316
Page 2
Attachment
(b) (4)
Applicant:
Daichii Sankyo.
US Agent: Doreen V. Morgan
399 Thornall Street, 10th Floor
Edison
NJ 08837
Indication:
1
Reference ID: 3640230
Post-Approval Agreements: The biopharmaceutics reviewer recommends PostMarketing Commitment from the company to develop an improved discriminating and
canonical method and set the final dissolution acceptance criteria for the product using
the new method.
Drug Substance:
The drug substance, edoxaban tosylate, a new molecular entity, is a white to pale
yellowish crystalline powder. Edoxaban tosylate can exist in
(b) (4)
The drug substance quality is ensured through quality control of all starting materials, inprocess controls throughout the manufacturing process, appropriate quality control of the
isolated intermediates and the appropriate final drug substance specification. The drug
substance acceptance specification includes tests and acceptance criteria for drug
substance critical quality attributes, e.g., appearance, identification, assay, organic
(b) (4)
impurities,
heavy metals, residue on ignition, water content, residual
solvents and particle size distribution. The analytical procedures have been adequately
described and validated to control the quality of the drug substance. The stability of the
drug substance (b)
has
been demonstrated through appropriate stability studies to support a
(4)
(b) (4)
retest period of
months when stored
Drug product:
Savaysa (edoxaban) tablets are an immediate release product to be marketed in 15 mg, 30
mg and 60 mg strengths. The three strengths are dose proportional that use standard
compendial excipients, e.g., mannitol, pregelatinized starch, crospovidone,
(b) (4)
hydroxypropyl cellulose, and magnesium stearate. The manufacturing process is a
The manufacturing process has appropriate inprocess controls to ensure the quality of the drug product. The product release testing is
(b) (4)
done through
for most of the attributes. The product specification
includes testing for appearance, identification, assay, uniformity of dosage units, related
substances, and dissolution. All analytical procedures for the drug product are adequately
described and validated. The provided stability data support the proposed 36-month
expiration period for this product.
The drug product is stored at 25C with excursions permitted 15-30C (59-86F).
Conclusion: Adequate from CMC perspective.
Additional Items:
2
Reference ID: 3640230
All associated Drug Master Files are acceptable or the pertinent information has been
adequately provided in the application.
Overall Conclusion: The application is recommended for Approval from CMC
perspective pending a final overall Acceptable recommendation from the Office of
Compliance about the manufacturing facilities.
Ramesh K. Sood, Ph.D.
Acting Director, DPA I/ONDQA
3
Reference ID: 3640230
Memorandum
Date:
21-Aug-2014
From:
Through:
To:
NDA 206316
Edoxaban Tablets
Subject:
Risk Assessment
As per a new policy, each NDA with GRMP dates on or after August 1, 2014 will include
a risk assessment in the Executive summary. This will be based on an initial risk
assessment that would be captured in all IQAs written for NDAs received on or after June
1, 2014. It was decided that the CMC Lead would perform a retrospective risk
assessment for those NDAs received prior to June 1, 2014 that had GRMP dates after
August 1, 2014.
The following IQA template was provided:
In an email dated 30-May-2014, Dr. Ramesh Sood provided follow-up guidance on how
to fill out the required IQA template that is used to populate the NDA template. The
guidance provided templates for the most common dosage forms.
1
Reference ID: 3614785
This memo captures both the table that would normally be in the IQA and populates the
first three columns of the NDA template that will be filled in by the primary CMC
reviewer.
IQA RISK ASSESSMENT
Product
attribute/CQA
Assay, stability
Formulation
Container closure
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Formulation
Raw materials
Exclude major
reformulations
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Physical stability
(solid state)
Content
Uniformity
Microbial limits
Dissolution
Probability
(O)
Severity
of Effect
(S)
2
Detectability
(D)
3
(Crystalline)
3
(BCS
IV)
36
12
10
32
(b) (4)
Release (1)
Stability (3)
FMECA
RPN
Number
Release (6)
stability
(18)
Comment
Moderately Stable Drug:
Single impurity > (b) (4)
Total impurities <
Risk
L
The evaluation from the IQA table was transferred to the following NDA table that can
be used by the primary reviewer as a part of the NDA review.
2
Reference ID: 3614785
Physical stability
(solid state)
Content Uniformity
Microbial limits
Dissolution
Formulation
Container closure
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Formulation
Raw materials
Exclude major reformulations
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Review Assessment
Risk
Mitigation
approach
Risk
Evaluation
Lifecycle
Considerations
/ Comments
3
Reference ID: 3614785
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
Submission Type: Standard; Type 1 submission
Recommendation: Pending
NDA 206316
Review 1
Review Date Sept 8, 2014
Drug Name/Dosage Form
Strength
Route of Administration
Rx/OTC Dispensed
Applicant
US agent, if applicable
Submission Reviewed
Original NDA Submission
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Quality/Response To Information Request
Received Date
08-Jan-2014
22-Jan-14
14-Feb-2014
03-Apr-2014
18-Apr-2014
23-Apr-2014
29-Apr-2014
30-Apr-2014
05-May-2014
09-May-2014
16-Jun-2014
07-Jul-2014
10-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014
01-Aug-2014
18-Aug-2014
REVIEWER
Debasis Ghosh
Akm Khairuzzaman
Yubing Tang
Steve Donald
Vibhakar Shah, Vipul Dholakia
Sandra Suarez
Kasturi Srinivasachar (DCRP),
Janice Brown (DHP)
Yvonne Knight
BRANCH/DIVISION
Branch II/ Division I
Branch I/ Division I
Branch VI/ Division II
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
Technical Lead
Laboratory (OTR)
ORA Lead
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Sharmista Chatterjee
John Kauffman, Jason Rodriguez
OTR/DPA
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
DMF #
CODE1
STATUS2
DATE REVIEW
COMPLETED
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
III
N/A
TYPE
ITEM
REFERENCED
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
HOLDER
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
2 Type 1 DMF
3 Reviewed previously and no revision since last review
4 Sufficient information in application
5 Authority to reference not granted
6 DMF not available
7 Other (explain under "Comments")
2
Adequate, Inadequate, or N/A (There is enough data in the application, therefore the DMF did not
need to be reviewed)
APPLICATION NUMBER
IND 63266
IND 63266
DATE
01-Jul-2010
24-Sep-2013
3. CONSULTS:
DISCIPLINE
Division of
Pharmaceutical
Analysis/OTR
STATUS
Completed
RECOMMENDATION
Methods are suitable for their
intended use
DATE
5-Sep-2014
REVIEWER
Dr. Jason
Rodriguez
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
Executive Summary
I.
Recommendations
A. Recommendation and Conclusion on Approvability
a. Summary of Complete Response issues
Recommendation pending EES recommendation and response from the firm
(b) (4)
regarding concerns with dissolution method and
proposal.
Additionally, the applicant has committed to several changes in the drug
substance specifications and change management of the drug product design
spaces, but has not formally updated the NDA. These amendments will be
captured in following reviews.
b. Action letter language, related to critical issues such as expiration date
These will be communicated with the final recommendation
B. Recommendation on Phase 4 (Post-Marketing) Commitments, Agreements, and/or
Risk Management Steps, if Approvable
The biopharmaceutics reviewer is in negotiations regarding a post-marketing
commitment to develop a more discriminating dissolution method and associated
acceptance criteria within one year of approval. This commitment has not yet been
finalized.
II.
(b) (4)
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
e. Process
(b) (4)
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
Release and stability specification included tests for: appearance, identification,
(b) (4)
organic impurities,
heavy metals, residue on ignition, water
content, residual solvent, assay, particle size distribution. Though
(b) (4)
is important to drug product quality, supporting batch data was
(b) (4)
presented to show consistent generation of
The justification for the
(b) (4)
exclusion of
in the release and stability
specifications is provided. It is acceptable.
g. Container Closure System
The drug substance is packaged in double low density polyethylene (LDPE)
bags with twist ties and placed in a high density polyethylene (HDPE) drum.
h. Retest Period &(b)Storage Conditions
The proposed (4) months of retest period, when stored at long-term storage
(b) (4)
conditions
in the proposed container closure system, is acceptable
(b) (4)
d. List of Excipients:
Mannitol, pregelatinized starch, crospovidone, hydroxypropyl cellulose,
(b) (4)
magnesium stearate, and film coating materials
orange, pink and
yellow). All ingredients are of USP grade and IIG limits of all excipients are
well within limits used for commercial product manufacture.
e. Process Selection (Unit Operations Summary)
The drug product is manufacturing process by
(b) (4)
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
h. Expiration Date & Storage Conditions
Proposed shelf life is 36 months at long term storage conditions of
25C/60%RH. This is supported by 24 months of registration stability batch
data and 48 months of clinical (phase 3) batch stability data. Batches used in the
registration stability program were manufactured by the final commercial
process at pilot-scale.
i. List of co-packaged components
NA
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
Savaysa TM
Edoxaban Tosylate
Reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in
patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (DCRP)
Treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary
embolism (DHP)
(b) (4)
Duration of Treatment
Maximum Daily Dose
Alternative Methods of Administration
60 mg
NA
Biopharmaceutics Considerations
(For additional details regarding biopharmaceutics considerations refer to the review by
Sandra Suarez)
a. BCS Classification: (b)lass IV
b. Specification: NLT (4)% in 30 min
c. Biowaivers/Biostudies
Biowaiver Requests : NA
PK studies
IVIVC : None
Novel Approaches
(b) (4)
Following
(b) (4)
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
(b) (4)
However, this approach was found to be inadequate upon review. Also, change control protocols
(b) (4)
were included for managing post approval changes to
. Upon review, the
applicant was asked to modify and resubmit the reporting categories for some potential changes
as a protocol. The applicant agreed to the information request, and a comparability protocol was
submitted in Amendment 08/01/2014 in Section 3.2.R. This only includes changes and
(b) (4)
maintenance of the
the applicant has not yet sent a similar protocol for the drug
product design spaces. No comparability protocol for design space is submitted in Section 3.2.R.
Any Special Product Quality Labeling Recommendations NA
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
Lifecycle Knowledge Management
a) Drug Substance
From Initial Risk Identification
Attribute/
CQA
Initial Risk
Ranking*
Justification
Organic
impurities
including
genotoxic
impurities
Review Assessment
Lifecycle
Final Risk
Considerations/
Evaluation
Comments**
Acceptable
Elemental
impurities/residual
solvents
Acceptable
Particle size
distribution
Acceptable
Assay
Acceptable
Water content
Acceptable
Stability
Acceptable
Note: Since initial risk ranking was not done for the drug substance, these cells are greyed out
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
a) Drug Product
From Initial Risk Identification
Initial
Factors that
Attribute/
Risk
can impact the
CQA
Ranking
CQA
*
Assay, stability
Formulation
Container closure
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Physical stability
(solid state)
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Content
Uniformity
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Microbial limits
Formulation
Raw materials
Process parameters
Scale/equipment
Site
Dissolution
Review Assessment
Risk Mitigation
Approach
Final Risk
Evaluation
Date:
September 5, 2014
From:
To:
Through:
Subject:
Background
(b) (4)
The Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis reviewed the
methods for
NDA206316 with emphasis on the questions raised in the consult request from Yvonne Knight
(b) (4)
dated January 18, 2014 The methods described in the application employ both
Conclusion
(b) (4)
In general the
are well-described and seem to be appropriate for their application
and use and we find the methods adequate as amended. The applicant has placed emphasis on
several different hazards that are important in determining the performance of the methods. In
(b) (4)
general, the hazards cited are commonly known for
and have been documented in literature
(b) (4)
for several decades. The models developed are based on well-known
and references are provided throughout the document when necessary. Specific areas
where more information would be helpful are identified in Attachment 1 in red and summarized
below.
Areas Needing Clarification
(b) (4)
DPATR-FY14-060
Reference ID: 3622844
2. For figures 1.136 through 1.138 in section 3.2.P.2.3, provide the measured
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
3. Clarify whether batch samples used in method validations were representative of the
expected process and material variability, and these samples were different from those
used in the calibration set.
On July 7, 2014 the applicant submitted an amendment addressing these areas as follows:
(b) (4)
1.
(b) (4)
2. The
for the figures 1.136 through 1.138 are not given due to limitations of
(b) (4)
the software used for these identification tests. The Applicant provides a
3. The information from the Applicant clearly shows that the batch samples used in the
validation are both different from the calibration samples and representative of
expected material variability.
Evaluation:
Adequate as Amended
The Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis has found the responses by the Applicant to the
information request to be adequate.
DPATR-FY14-060
Reference ID: 3622844
FROM: FDA
Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis
Michael Trehy, MVP Coordinator
645 S Newstead Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
Phone: (314) 539-3815
Through: John Kauffman, Deputy Director
Phone: (314) 539-2168
SUBJECT: Methods Validation Report Summary
Application Number: 206316
Name of Product: Savaysa (edoxaban), Tablets 15, 30 amd 60 mg
Applicant: Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.
Applicants Contact Person: Doreen V. Morgan, Pharm.D.; Executive Director, Regulatory Affairs
th
DPATR-FY14-055
Page 1 of 5
Version: 2/6/2013
Date:
From:
To:
Through:
Subject:
The following methods were evaluated and are acceptable for quality control and regulatory purposes:
1.
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
The following method was not evaluated due to lack of the required sampling unit at DPA:
(b) (4)
Page 2 of 5
Version: 2/6/2013
2 Page(s) has been Withheld in Full as B4 (CCI/TS) immediately following this page
DPATR-FY14-055
Page 3 of 5
Version: 2/6/2013
INSPECTIONAL ASSIGNMENT
(EMAIL TRANSMITTAL)
Date:
To:
International
Division of Medical Products and Tobacco Inspections
Office of Regulatory Affairs
Facility(ies):
Drug Name
(dosage form,
strength/concentration):
Profile Class:
(b) (4)
A/NDA No.:
NDA 206-316
Chemistry Reviewer
N/A
OC Compliance Officer
CDER has identified specific area(s) for inspectional focus for drug substance
manufacturing in connection with the NDA 206-316. In accordance with the API Process
Inspection Compliance Program 7356.002F, PAIs provide for continuity in our premarket review of drug product by focusing on areas in which data is questionable; drug
Edoxaban is a new molecular entity indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic
embolic events in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and the treatment of venous
thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary
(b) (4)
embolism (PE),
Manufacturing Process:
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
The
tosylate are summarized below:
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
The following is a brief explanation of product or process specific issues that should
receive follow-up during the inspection.
I. Chemistry Review
The chemistry reviewer, Debasis Ghosh did not have any major issue for inspectional
coverage.
III. Manufacturing
Edoxaban Tosylate (Daiichi Sankyo Propharma Co. Ltd.)
(b) (4)
a.
(b) (4)
b.
(b) (4)
c.
a. Quality System:
i.
b. Validation:
i. Review the process performance qualification protocol (if available),
which specifies the procedures (and tests) to be conducted and the data to
be collected. Determine if the validation protocol includes equipment
qualification, an evaluation of the suitability of materials and evaluation of
consistent adherence to pre-established process parameters and quality
attributes. If process validation batches have been manufactured, review
the data generated from these batches.
ii. Determine if the firm has integrated this drug into its
(b) (4)
approach for
equipment and evaluate the
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
program.
c. Stability
i. Review the stability data generated by the firm for this product to
determine if the testing was conducted in accordance with the submitted
stability protocol, whether stability samples were stored under appropriate
storage conditions, whether the testing was conducted appropriately, and
whether the stability test results meet all specifications. Include a review
of pertinent raw test data.
d. Raw Materials:
i. Determine if there were any OOS results for any incoming raw materials
used in the formulation. If so, verify the adequacy of investigations, and
determine what corrective/preventive actions are implemented to address
these OOS results.
(b) (4)
ii.
i.
APPENDIX I
In-Process Controls for the Manufacturing of Edoxaban Tosylate
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
APPENDIX II
Specifications for
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
APPENDIX III
Release and Shelf-Life Specifications for Edoxaban Tosylate Drug Substance
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b)
(4)
(b)
(4)
(b)
(4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b)
(4)
(b) (4)
(b)
(4)
2. NDA/BLA Number:
Submission Date:
21st C. Review Goal Date:
PDUFA Goal Date:
206316
01/08/2014
09/09/2014
01/08/2015
3. PRODUCT PROPERTIES:
Trade or Proprietary Name:
Savaysa (Proposed)
Established or Non-Proprietary
Name (USAN) and strength:
Dosage Form:
Tablet
4. SUBMISSION PROPERTIES:
Review Priority :
STANDARD
Applicant Name:
Responsible Organization
(OND Divisions):
Page 1 of 11
Reference ID: 3465358
2. ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION:
Oral
3. STRENGTH/POTENCY:
15 mg, 30 mg and 60 mg
4. Rx/OTC DISPENSED:
Rx
OTC
Yes
No
6. PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS:
Parameter
1. NME / PDUFA V
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Yes
X
Breakthrough Therapy
Designation
Orphan Drug
Designation
Unapproved New Drug
Medically Necessary
Determination
Potential Shortage
Issues [either alleviating
or non-approval may
cause a shortage]
Rolling Submission
Drug/device
combination product
with consult
No
Unk
Comment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QbD and
approaches are indicated for the
manufacture, control and release of the DP
(b) (4)
9. Complex manufacturing
10.
X
X
Page 2 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
Page 3 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
16.
Parameter
Does this application fit one of the
17.
EES Product Specific Categories?
Have EERs been cross referenced
against the 356h and product
specific profile for accuracy and
18.
completion?
Have all EERs been updated with
final PAI recommendation?
From a CGMP/facilities
perspective, is the application
fileable?
19.
IMA CONCLUSION
Yes No
X
Comment
NME
Page 4 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
Design Space
Other (explain):
Drug/Device Combo
Continuous Mfg
Manufacturing Highlights
1. Drug Substance
Parameter
Yes
Is manufacturing process
considered complex (e.g.,
unusual unit operations,
innovative manufacturing
technology, unusual control
strategy)?
No
Comment
(b) (4)
is manufactured at
Daiichi Sankyo chemical pharma site.
2. Drug Product
Parameter
Is manufacturing process
considered complex (e.g.,
unusual unit operations,
innovative manufacturing
technology, unusual control
strategy)?
Yes
No
Comment
Applicant has proposed implementation of
(b) (4)
Page 5 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
(b) (4)
Manufacturing Stages
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
Page 6 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
Refer to the process flow chart for in-process controls and critical in-process controls relating to
(b) (4)
.
Additional information on Manufacturing issues or Complexities:
Drug Product Manufacturing Process (see eCTD Section 3.2.P.3.2.3)
(b) (4)
Page 7 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
(b) (4)
Page 8 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
(b) (4)
Page 9 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
Establishment
Name
FEI
Num
District
Short
Country
Code
Responsibilities
Profile
Code
Inspection
History, Dates,
Classifications
Facts
Assignment
ID
Inspection
Start -End
Date
Most
Recent
Milestone
Most
Recent EER
Compliance
Status
Comment
CSN
CSN
[AC, 07/30/2009]
9168316
6/2-6/2014
INSPECTION
Scheduled
PN
DS is NME
(b) (4)
Daiichi
Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd.
Daiichi Sankyo
Chemical Pharma
Co., Ltd.
Daiichi Sankyo
3002806777
ROW
JPN
(b) (4)
3003279188
3003673570
ROW
PHI
JPN
USA
CSN
TCM
No prior GMP
history
TCM, (b)
(4)
[AC, 04/20/2012]
(b) (4)
9216817
6/1620/2014
INSPECTION
Scheduled
OC
Recommendation
PN
AC
[AC, 04/14/2009]
Daiichi Sankyo
Propharma Co.,
Ltd. (DSPP)
Hiratsuka Plant
(b) (4)
3010164826
ROW
JPN
TCM
No prior GMP
history
9168315
6/9-13/2014
INSPECTION
Scheduled
PN
DS: Drug Substance, DP: Drug Product; AC: Acceptable; NA: Not Applicable; TBD: To be determined; PN; Pending; NME: New Molecular Entity
Based on
Profile
23-Jan-2014
EER-ReEval by:
20-APR-2016
Page 10 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
Yes
Yes
To facilitate the pre-approval inspections of both the drug substance and the drug product
manufacturing facilities, Knowledge Transfer Memoranda are recommended.
Are there comments/issues to be included in the 74 day letter, including appropriate
identification of facilities?
No
Comments for 74 Day Letter
None
1.
2.
3.
Page 11 of 11
NDA206316IMA.Doc
FDA
Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis
Attn: Michael Trehy
Suite 1002
1114 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
Fax: 732-906-5562
Paper
X Electronic
Mixed
We request suitability evaluation of the proposed manufacturing controls/analytical methods as descr bed in the subject application. Please submit a
letter to the applicant requesting the samples identified in the attached Methods Validation Request. Upon receipt of the samples, perform the tests
indicated in Item 3 of the attached Methods Validation Request as described in the NDA. We request your report to be submitted in DARRTS promptly
upon completion, but no later than 45 days from date of receipt of the required samples, laboratory safety information, equipment, components, etc.
We request that you notify the ONDQA Methods Validation Requestor and the ONDQA Methods Validation Project Manager of the date that the
validation process begins. If the requested completion date cannot be met, please promptly notify the ONDQA Methods Validation Requestor and the
ONDQA Methods Validation Project Manager.
Upon completion of the requested evaluation, please assemble the necessary documentation (i.e., original work sheets, spectra, graphs, curves,
calculations, conclusions, and accompanying Methods Validation Report Summary). The Methods Validation Report Summary should include a
statement of your conclusions as to the suitability of the proposed methodology for control and regulatory purposes and be electronically signed by the
laboratory director or by someone designated by the director via DARRTS. The ONDQA CMC Reviewer, ONDQA Methods Validation Project Manager,
and ONDQA CMC Lead/Branch Chief should be included as cc: recipients for this document.
All information relative to this application is to be held confidential as required by 21 CFR 314.430.
Page 1 of 4
Version: 02/06/2013
ATTACHMENT(S): Methods Validation Request Sheet, NDA Methods Validation Package (if not available in the EDR).
MVP Reference #
METHODS VALIDATION REQUEST
NDA #
206316
ITEM
QUANTITY
Volume/Page Number(s)
3.2.P.1.
3.2.S.4.1 / 3.2.S.4.2
3.2.P.5.1 / 3.2.P.5.2
3.2.S.4.3 / 3.2.P.5.3
3.2.S.4.4 / 3.2.P.5.4
Other: MVP
3.2.R.
Method ID
Drug Substance
EDX_QB06
MV Request
Category
Volume/Page
(see
attached)
Method Title
(b) (4)
3.2.S.4.2
Drug Substance
EDX_QB12
3.2.S.4.2
Drug Substance
EDX_QB12
3.2.S.4.2
Drug Substance
EDX_QB11
3.2.S.4.2
0,4
Drug Product
400081-5 (15 mg
400082-5 (30 mg)
400083-5 (60 mg)
Drug Product
400081-6 (15 mg)
400082-6 (30 mg)
400083-6 (60 mg)
3.2.P.5.2
3.2.P.5.2
Page 2 of 4
Comments
(b) (4)
Version: 02/06/2013
3.2.P.5.2
(b) (4)
MV
Request
Category
Description
Page 3 of 4
Version: 02/06/2013
Page 4 of 4
Version: 02/06/2013
3. PRODUCT PROPERTIES:
Trade or Proprietary Name:
Established or Non-Proprietary
Name (USAN):
Dosage Form:
Route of Administration
Strength/Potency
Rx/OTC Dispensed:
Savaysa (proposed)
Edoxaban
Tablets, immediate release
Oral
15, 30 and 60 mg
Rx
(b) (4)
Page 1 of 22
7. SUBMISSION PROPERTIES:
Review Priority:
Standard
Submission Classification
(Chemical Classification
Code):
Type 1, NME
Application Type:
505(b)(1)
Breakthrough Therapy
No
Responsible Organization
(Clinical Division):
8. CONSULTS:
CONSULT
Biometrics
Clinical Pharmacology
Establishment Evaluation
Request (EER)
Pharmacology/Toxicology
Methods Validation
Environmental Assessment
CDRH
Other
YES
NO
X
X
X
X
X
Microbiology
Page 2 of 22
Biopharmaceutics:
Is the Product Quality Section of the application fileable from a Biopharmaceutics
perspective?
Yes
Biopharmaceutics Filing Issues:
1.
Are there potential Biopharmaceutics review issues to be forwarded to the Applicant with
the 74-Day letter?
Yes
Biopharmaceutics Comments for 74-Day Letter:
Refer to page 12.
Microbiology:
Is the Product Quality Section of the application fileable from a Microbiology perspective?
Yes
Steven Donald: Micro Reviewer
1. Based on the information provided, the application is fillable from a microbiology
point of concern. However, issues remain that must be addressed by the applicant.
2. The applicant proposes to perform
for microbial limits testing
(bioburden) for product release. The applicant proposes to perform
of drug product at release.
(b) (4)
3.
tests must be performed for every lot.
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
All release
4. However, Microbial Limits Testing may be omitted from the product release
specifications if process control is demonstrated, from a microbiological
standpoint. The reviewer has determined that adequate information is most likely
available to qualify the application for reduced microbial limits testing, if the
applicant so chooses.
Page 3 of 22
Page 4 of 22
proposed
A team with a
(b) (4)
drug substance reviewer trained in
and a drug product reviewer with a
(b) (4)
thorough understanding of QbD concepts is recommended. In addition, since the
someone with expertise in this area should also be included in the team.
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
Page 5 of 22
Drug Product
Since it is claimed that an enhanced QbD approach was used for the drug product, all
aspects of formulation and manufacturing process development need to be critically
evaluated:
(b) (4)
o Are design spaces for
acceptable? This is not in
accordance with ICH Q8 as discussed with the Applicant at meetings
during drug development. It is claimed that using this approach the
(b) (4)
Page 6 of 22
The Pre-NDA meeting in 2013 included a comprehensive discussion of drug substance, drug
product and dissolution issues. Regarding the drug substance, the most controversial issue was
(b) (4)
the designation of
as a starting material in the synthesis of edoxaban tosylate.
Daiichi had misinterpreted the Agency advice at the EOP2 meeting as agreement with this
(b) (4)
designation and were surprised that the Agencys current response was an unequivocal no
Post-meeting, Daiichi filed an official protest to re-iterate
(b) (4)
that the Agency was not consistent in its response regarding
The Applicant was
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
overruled and
was deemed by the Agency
Daiichi
(b) (4)
proposed that they could designate
The Agency agreed to this
(b) (4)
proposal but Daiichi decided not to avail of this offer and has designated
as a starting
material in the original NDA.
Other drug substance issues related to the completeness and acceptability of the specification.
(b) (4)
The Agency recommended the inclusion of an
or
justification for their exclusion. The pharm./tox reviewer provided input on the control strategy
for potential genotoxic impurities.
(b) (4)
Concerning drug product stability, the Option 2
proposal was deemed
reasonable and also recommended for the annual stability batches. Acceptance of the proposal
(b) (4)
was considered a review
Page 7 of 22
Since an
extensive QbD program is proposed, the Agency indicated that definitive answers to many of the
questions posed could only be give after in-depth review of all supporting data in the NDA.
(b) (4)
However, some general guidelines and concerns were provided to Daiichi
(b) (4)
Page 8 of 22
Drug Product: Edoxaban tosylate drug product is an immediate release, round- shaped , film
coated, unscored debossed tablet in 3 strengths, 15, 30 and 60 mg. The tablet strengths are based
on edoxaban free base and are differentiated by size, weight, color and debossed information.
Standard compendial excipients are used in the manufacture of the tablets mannitol,
pregelatinized starch, crospovidone, hydroxypropyl cellulose, and magnesium stearate. The film
(b) (4)
coating agents,
orange, pink and yellow are non-compendial but comprised of
compendial ingredients. The proposed commercial formulations of edoxaban 15 and 30 mg
tablets are identical to the Phase 3 clinical formulation with the exception of colors. It is claimed
that bioequivalence has been demonstrated between the 60 mg tablet and two 30 mg tablets. All
(b) (4)
3 strengths are manufactured from
and are dose proportional.
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
The commercial manufacture of the
requires the manufacture o
. This commercial batch size yields
tablets for the 15 mg strength,
(b) (4)
tablets of the 30 mg strength and
60 mg tablets. The manufacturing process consists of
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
The Applicant claims to have developed edoxaban tablets using an enhanced QbD approach
based on the principles of experimental design, quality risk management, prior knowledge and
(b) (4)
manufacturing experience. This was implemented by
Page 9 of 22
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
Page 10 of 22
Biopharmaceutics Assessment
Biopharmaceutics Critical Issues or Complexities
Submission: Edoxaban tosylate drug product is an immediate release, round-shaped, filmcoated, unscored, debossed tablet. The tablets are available in three strengths, 15mg, 30mg, and
(b) (4)
60mg. The three strengths of edoxaban tablets are manufactured from
and
are dose proportional to one another.
The pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE)
indications used 15 and 30 mg strength tablets. The proposed commercial strengths include 15,
30 and 60 mg tablets to provide maximum flexibility for dose adjustment. A BE Study (A-U142)
was conducted to bridge between the 30 mg and 60 mg tablets.
Product Manufacturing: According to the Applicant, the manufacturing process development of
(b) (4)
edoxaban tablets was conducted according to a QbD approach
Review: The Biopharmaceutics review will focus on the evaluation and acceptability of the
following:
- The conventional dissolution method
- The proposed dissolution acceptance criterion
(b) (4)
- The proposed
- The BE study A-U-142 conducted to bridge the 30 mg and 60 mg tablets
Page 11 of 22
Page 12 of 22
1.
2.
3.
4.
Parameter
Is the CMC section organized
adequately?
Is the CMC section indexed and
paginated (including all PDF
files) adequately?
Are all the pages in the CMC
section legible?
Has all information requested
during the IND phase, and at the
pre-NDA meetings been
included?
A. GENERAL
Yes No
Comment
X
X
X
X
B. FACILITIES*
If any information regarding the facilities is omitted, this should be addressed ASAP with the
applicant and can be a potential filing issue or a potential review issue.
Parameter
Yes No
Comment
Is a single, comprehensive list of
5. all involved facilities available in
X
one location in the application?
For a naturally-derived API only,
NA
are the facilities responsible for
critical intermediate or crude API
manufacturing, or performing
upstream steps, specified in the
6.
application? If not, has a
justification been provided for
this omission? This question is
not applicable for synthesized
API.
*
Page 13 of 22
7.
Name of facility,
Full address of facility including
street, city, state, country
FEI number for facility (if previously
registered with FDA)
Full name and title, telephone, fax
number and email for on-site contact
person.
Is the manufacturing responsibility
and function identified for each
facility?, and
DMF number (if applicable)
Yes
No
Comment
8.
Name of facility,
Full address of facility including
street, city, state, country
FEI number for facility (if previously
registered with FDA)
Full name and title, telephone, fax
number and email for on-site contact
person.
Is the manufacturing responsibility
and function identified for each
facility?, and
DMF number (if applicable)
Page 14 of 22
Name of facility,
Full address of facility including
street, city, state, country
FEI number for facility (if
previously registered with FDA)
Full name and title, telephone, fax
number and email for on-site
contact person.
Is the manufacturing
responsibility and function
identified for each facility?, and
DMF number (if applicable)
Yes
No
Comment
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT
Parameter
Yes No
Comment
Has an environmental assessment
Categorical exclusion
11. or claim of categorical exclusion
X
been provided?
Page 15 of 22
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Page 16 of 22
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
(b) (4)
Page 17 of 22
30.
31.
Parameter
If appropriate, is a separate
microbiological section included
assuring sterility of the drug
product
G. MICROBIOLOGY
Yes No
Comment
NA
TYPE
IV
HOLDER
ITEM REFERENCED
(b) (4)
Comment
LOA DATE
COMMENTS
2-23-2011
IV
4-9-2013
III
3-20-2012
III
5-7-2013
III
5-8-2013
III
2-12-2013
III
6-4-2013
III
5-3-2013
III
2-7-2013
III
5-2-2013
III
4-20-2012
III
3-30-2012
Page 18 of 22
32.
33.
(b) (4)
III
5-3-2013
III
3-20-2012
III
4-9-2012
Parameter
Has the draft package insert been
provided?
Have the immediate container
and carton labels been provided?
I. LABELING
Yes No
Comment
X
X
J. BIOPHARMACEUTICS
Yes No Comment
The following dissolution method was found
acceptable during the IND stage:
USP 11, 50 rpm, citrate/phosphate buffer pH
Does the application contain
6. (refer to
dissolution data?
\\cdsesub1\evsprod\NDA206316\0000\m2\27clin-sum under summary-biopharm, section
1.4
Parameter
34.
(b)
36.
37.
38.
Page 19 of 22
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Is the to-be-marketed
formulation the same as that
used in pivotal clinical trials?
Page 20 of 22
49.
50.
N/A (fileable)
N/A (fileable)
The dissolution acceptance criterion
is not supported by the data
(requesting additional information)
The discriminating ability of the
dissolution method is uncertain
(requesting additional information)
(b) (4)
The
steps for
the dissolution model did not include
data to demonstrate the ability of the
(b) (4)
model to
(requesting additional data).
Need additional data to support the
approval of the 15 mg strength
51.
52.
53.
Page 21 of 22
Page 22 of 22