The goal of this analysis, according to Vanda's own poster, was to confirm that night time total sleep -- the endpoint already chosen for the ongoing phase III study -- was an appropriate measure for assessing the clinical benefit of a drug to treat non-24.
And here is how Vanda presented the results of this endpoint analysis:
Nightime total sleep time (nTST) measures the total amount of time an individual is asleep over the entire sleep opportunity. Individuals with N24HSWD
Did you catch the bait and switch? Vanda doesn't present data on nighttime total sleep, even though this information was collected for all patients. Instead, Vanda only discloses sleep time for 25 percent of nights when sleep times were lowest (the worst quartile.)This suggests there was no discernible difference in nighttime total sleep between those blind patients deemed to have non-24 and blind patients with a normal circadian rhythm. If there was a significant difference, why not disclose? Vanda doesn't, even though nighttime total sleep is the primary endpoint of the phase III study. Vanda presented a poster on this endpoint analysis in June 2012. That same month, Vanda eliminated nighttime total sleep as the primary endpoint of the tasimelteon phase III study. Coincidence? Seems unlikely. Changing the endpoints of an ongoing clinical trial -- especially without the FDA's blessing -- is a sign of trouble. Speaking at an investor conference in July 2012, right after the tasimelteon study was changed, Vanda Chief Commercial Officer Robert Repella said, "We do not, at this point, have concurrence with the FDA on the primary and secondary endpoints for the study. We've been in active dialogue with the agency now for some time and we continue to move in the direction of clarification around how the endpoints will be characterized for the filing." Even worse for Vanda: The "entrainment" co-primary endpoint finally selected for the tasimelteon phase III study was a urine-based laboratory measurement which couldn't be used on its own for an FDA drug approval. The second co-primary endpoint of the tasimelteon study relied on a "non-24 clinical response scale" created by Vanda and never validated or used by any other company or sleep expert conducting clinical trials. In the phase III study, Vanda counted patients as responders if they passed three of four sleep-performance tests that made up the "non-24 clinical response scale." Why wasn't passing all four tests required for a response? Vanda has never explained. Everything about the "non-24 clinical response scale" was arbitrary. As an example, one of the four tests measured patient quality of life or global functioning known as CGI-C. A positive score was defined by Vanda as "less than or equal to 2 from the average of Day 112 and Day 183 compared to baseline." The significance of measuring quality of life only from days 112 to 183 of the study has not been explained. Vanda announced "positive" results from the phase III "SET" study of tasimelteon on Dec. 18, 2012. The study was designed originally to enroll 160 totally blind people (self reported, by the way) diagnosed with non-24. In August 2011, enrollment was reduced from 160 to 100 patients. In January 2012, enrollment was cut again from 100 patients to 84 patients. Of the 84 patients enrolled into the study, 22 patients (26 percent) dropped out. By Vanda's own admission, a majority of the patients enrolled in the tasimelteon study did not suffer from non-24, according to the "textbook definition" of the disease. "Less than 5% of individuals matched the traditional textbook definition of N24HSWD with a clearly non-24 hour sleep period," Vanda states in a scientific poster presented in June 2012 which characterized patients screened for entry into the phase III study. The Vanda poster states further: "Only 30% of participants exhibited cyclic sleep-wake patterns despite all participants having confirmed non-24 melatonin rhythm. A minority (less than 10%) of individuals exhibited no evidence of sleep disturbance and the majority exhibited sleep complaints but with no evidence of a cyclic disturbance." The slide below is Vanda's characterization of the "positive" results from the "SET" study. Check out the footnote attached to the clinical response co-primary endpoint. It reads, "Entrainment status from the randomized portion of the SET study and/or the screening portion of the RESET study." In other words, the SET study only achieved one of its two co-primary endpoints by adding in patients who participated in the second phase III trial. Without these extra patients, the SET study likely failed. The story Vanda tells of its sleep-disorder drug doesn't have a happy ending. -- Reported by Adam Feuerstein in Boston. Follow @AdamFeuerstein