Dear Editors,
The article by Mazer-Amirshahi et al. [1] discusses the approval process and data regarding intranasal epinephrine spray, neffy (ARS Pharmaceuticals, California) being developed as a treatment for severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis.
We would like to correct the claim that the application submitted to the FDA was an Abbreviated New Drug Application as it was filed as New Drug Applications (NDA) under Sect. 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Approval of a change in route of administration for a known drug is routinely supported by pharmacokinetic data alone, with a long-standing precedence of approving 505(b)(2) NDA without efficacy studies. Where a drug’s mechanism of action (MOA) relies on systemic exposure, comparable pharmacokinetics is usually accepted given the route of administration should not impact the clinical outcomes. In neffy’s® case, the FDA also requested pharmacodynamic measures, based upon well-established MOA [2–3]. Additionally, the FDA required self-administration [4], repeat dose [2], and nasal allergen challenge (NAC) studies. The FDA Pulmonary Allergy Drug Advisory Committee (PADAC) reviewed the data and recommended neffy’s approval for pediatric patients with a vote of 17 to 5 [5].
ARS and the FDA agreed on a strategy to establish a scientific bridge between epinephrine injections and neffy, as conducting a randomized controlled study in patients experiencing anaphylaxis is deemed unethical or impractical [6–11]. ARS received feedback from the FDA indicating that Oral Food Challenge (OFC) or model anaphylaxis-type study would not offer additional valuable insights beyond the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies agreed as part of the development program. The aim of these studies was to demonstrate pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile within the range or similar to that of approved injection products, which has already been demonstrated.
Since the PADAC meeting, ARS has completed additional clinical trials, including twice the dose after NAC, resulting in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile greater than or similar to intramuscular injection as well as a study in pediatric patients experiencing anaphylaxis symptoms following OFC [5], demonstrating a 100% response to a single dose within 15 min. To further study the clinical benefits of a common symptom of anaphylaxis, urticaria, patients with chronic urticaria received neffy® and demonstrated a rapid resolution of lesions [5]. These two studies demonstrate pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics data are sufficient to predict clinical effectiveness.
Finally, the authors seem to have an impression that the regulatory process was abbreviated/expedited. ARS has conducted more than 20 studies with > 750 participants, over 8-years to address all of the FDA’s requests and optimize neffy® dosing. Patients often fail to fill prescriptions or use injectable epinephrine in a timely manner due to a variety of reasons including and especially a fear of needles. It is hoped that neffy® will overcome this patients’ hesitation offering a needle-free safe and effective therapeutic option for the management of anaphylaxis.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Mazer-Amirshahi M, Cole JB, Stolbach AI, Perrone J, Nelson LS. Ensuring the efficacy and safety of approved medications. J Med Toxicol. 2024;20(2):81-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 2.Casale TB, Ellis AK, Nowak-Węgrzyn A, Kaliner M, Lowenthal R, Tanimoto S. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of epinephrine after single and repeat administration of neffy®, EpiPen, and manual intramuscular injection. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2023;152(6). 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 3.Tanimoto S, Kaliner M, Lockey RF, Ebisawa M, Koplowitz LP, Koplowitz B, Lowenthal R. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparison of epinephrine, administered intranasally and intramuscularly: an integrated analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023;130(4):508–14. 10.1016/j.anai.2022.10.024. 10.1016/j.anai.2022.10.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Casale TB, Oppenheimer J, Kaliner M, Lieberman JA, Lowenthal R, Tanimoto S. Adult pharmacokinetics of self-administration of Epinephrine Nasal Spray 2.0 mg Versus Manual Intramuscular (IM) Epinephrine 0.3 mg by Health Care Provider (HCP). J Allergy Clin Immunology: Pract. 2023;2024(122):500–2. 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 5.ARS Pharmaceutical press release. Accessed 28 March 2024. https://ir.ars-pharma.com/press-releases
- 6.Fisher M. Clinical observations on the pathophysiology and treatment of Anaphylactic Cardiovascular Collapse. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1986;14:17–21. 10.1177/0310057X8601400105. 10.1177/0310057X8601400105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Dinakar C. Anaphylaxis in Children: current understanding and Key issues in diagnosis and treatment. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2012;12:641–9. 10.1007/s11882-012-0284-1. 10.1007/s11882-012-0284-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lieberman P, Simons FE. Anaphylaxis - a practice parameter update 2015. Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. 2015; 115:341–384. 10.1016/j.anai.2015.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 9.Brown JC, Simons E, Rudders SA. Epinephrine in the management of Anaphylaxis. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Pract. 2020;8(4):1186–95. 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.12.015. 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.12.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Simons FE, Anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(2 Suppl 2):S161–81. 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.12.981. 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.12.981 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sheikh A, Shehata YA, Brown SGA, Simons FER. Adrenaline (epinephrine) for the treatment of anaphylaxis with and without shock (review). Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2008;4:1–17. 10.1002/14651858.CD006312.pub2. 10.1002/14651858.CD006312.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]