ANAVIP Powder for solution for injection Ref.[10413] Active ingredients:

Fourteen healthy volunteers each received one vial of intravenous (IV) doses (one vial = 81.86 mg) of an antivenin comparable to ANAVIP both in composition and manufacturing. On the first day of antivenin administration, blood samples were collected from all subjects at 16 specific time points: 0 (prior to drug infusion), 5, 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 120, and 480 minutes after drug infusion. Additional samples were drawn just prior to discharge (Day 1), and on days 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 21. A two-compartment model best described the concentration-time data. The pharmacokinetic parameters of the antivenin are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Pharmacokinetic Parameters of ANAVIP Antivenin Following a Single IV Dose to Healthy Volunteers (n=13):

In a published non-GLP study³, ANAVIP and another licensed pit viper antivenin were tested and cross-reactivity to the venoms of multiple different pit vipers including rattlesnakes was demonstrated in rabbits and mice. Animal studies to determine a NOAEL were unsuccessful due to technical limitations that prevented determination of a systematically toxic dose.

Study 1 was a randomized, prospective, open-label, controlled, comparative, multicenter study was conducted in 12 patients aged 18 to 70 years of age with signs of pit viper envenomation⁶. The subjects received either a licensed pit viper antivenin as an active control, or ANAVIP. The subjects were dosed until initial control was achieved, followed by maintenance doses. All patients in both treatment groups achieved initial control of local injury and coagulopathy following early antivenin treatment.

In the active control group, at the end of maintenance dosing, 5 of 6 subjects had platelet counts above 150,000/mm³, and all 6 had fibrinogen levels above 150 mg/dL. During the follow-up phase two patients exhibited platelets below 150,000/mm³ and fibrinogen below 150 mg/dL, leading to inpatient management with administration of additional doses (one subject received an additional 6 doses (12 vials) and one subject received an additional 4 doses (8 vials).

In the ANAVIP arm, at the end of maintenance dosing, 5 of 6 subjects had platelet counts above 150,000/mm³. One subject’s platelets were 114,000/mm³ and were trending upward and all 6 had fibrinogen levels above 150 mg/dL. During the follow-up phase, 5 of 6 subjects had platelet counts above 150,000/mm³, with no downward trend; 1 subject’s platelet counts was 127,000/mm³ on follow-up Day 1, reached 160,000/mm³ on Day 4 and continued trending upward. All 6 subjects in the ANAVIP group had fibrinogen levels above 150 mg/dL during the follow-up phase. None in the ANAVIP group required rehospitalization or retreatment with ANAVIP.

Study 2 was a randomized, prospective, blinded, controlled, comparative, multicenter study, comparing two ANAVIP regimens with a licensed pit viper antivenin (comparator) conducted in patients with pit viper envenomation at 16 sites in the United States. The study had an in-hospital Acute Treatment Phase that included screening and baseline assessments, initial and maintenance dosing, and an outpatient Follow-up Phase that included 4 follow-up visits on Days 5, 8, 15 and 22.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: ANAVIP with ANAVIP maintenance therapy (Group 1), ANAVIP with placebo maintenance therapy (Group 2), or Comparator product with Comparator product maintenance therapy (Group 3).

Initial dosing consisted of sequential intravenous (IV) doses infused to achieve initial control. If initial control of envenomation was not achieved, treatment was repeated until initial control was attained. Maintenance dosing (4 vials of ANAVIP or placebo [normal saline (0.9% NaCl)], or 2 vials of comparator product) was initiated 6 hours after the start of the last dose required to achieve initial control, and continued every 6 hours for 3 doses.

The Follow-up Phase began immediately after the third maintenance dose. Patients returned to the clinical site on Days 5, 8, and 15 for scheduled follow-up visits. Patients with ongoing signs of envenomation received 4 vials of ANAVIP or 2 vials of Comparator product. Dosing was provided as needed until the patient was stabilized. One hundred twenty-one (121) patients received blinded study drug and were analyzed for safety and efficacy.

The efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing coagulopathic effect as measured on Study Day 5 or 8. Patients were assessed as experiencing a coagulopathic effect if they had any one of the following: absolute platelet levels < 150,000/mm³ as measured on either Study Day 5 (±1 day) or 8 (±1 day); absolute fibrinogen levels <150 mg/dL as measured on either Study Day 5 (±1 day) or 8 (±1 day); or clinical coagulopathy between end of maintenance dosing and Study Day 5 requiring additional antivenin. The comparison of coagulopathic effect proportions between treatment groups was tested using an exact logistic regression model with terms for treatment and region. Comparisons of the proportion of coagulopathic effect for two levels of ANAVIP versus Comparator product were performed in the following order: ANAVIP with ANAVIP maintenance dose versus Comparator product; then ANAVIP with Placebo maintenance dose versus Comparator product. The number and percentage of patients who experienced coagulopathic effect is summarized by treatment group in Table 3. The efficacy analysis did not meet the pre-specified statistically defined superiority criterion. However, the percentages of subjects showing prespecified criteria for coagulopathic effect on either Day 5 and/or Day 8 were 10.3% and 5.3% in the Groups 1 and 2 when compared to 29.7% in Group 3 indicating efficacy of ANAVIP in management of coagulopathic effect in patients with North American rattlesnake envenomation.

Table 3. Comparison of Coagulopathic Effect Rates on Study Day 5 or Study Day 8

Cl= confidence interval

FDA conducted a post hoc analysis to assess the outcomes of the patients who presented with or without baseline coagulopathic effect in the three treatment groups. Using the pre-specified criteria for coagulopathic effect, it was found that ANAVIP/ANAVIP (Group 1) had the highest percentage of baseline coagulopathic subjects among the three groups [41.5% compared with 17.5% and 32.5% for the ANAVIP/Placebo (Group 2) and Comparator product (Group 3), respectively]. Thirty-three percent (33%) of all baseline coagulopathic subjects also experienced coagulopathic effect on either Day 5 or 8, compared to only 6% for baseline non-coagulopathic subjects. Only 18% of the subjects with baseline coagulopathic effect in Group 1 continued to remain coagulopathic at Days 5 or 8 compared to 58% in Group 3 (Table 4).

Table 4. Coagulopathy by Treatment Group and Baseline Coagulopathy:

An exact logistic regression analysis adjusting for baseline coagulopathic effect and region was conducted and showed that treatment effect for both Groups 1 and 2 is statistically significant (Table 5). This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy of ANAVIP.

Table 5. Comparison Coagulopathic Effect Rates Adjusted for Baseline Coagulopathy:

¹ Cl = confidence interval

Analysis by snakebite type was performed but was limited due to the number of unknown snakebite types (N=43). However, 57 subjects who were envenomated by rattlesnakes showed more severe coagulopathic effects and resolution of these effects after treatment with ANAVIP as compared to 21 subjects who were envenomated by copperhead snakes. Efficacy outcomes could not be evaluated in the copperhead snake bite subgroup due to these limited coagulopathic effects.