Close

AstraZeneca Says Forxiga Approved In Japan For Heart Failure

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...
- Advertisement -

AstraZeneca’s Forxiga (dapagliflozin) has been approved in Japan for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) who are receiving standard of care.

HF is a life-threatening chronic disease that prevents the heart from pumping sufficient levels of blood around the body. It affects approximately 64 million people worldwide, at least half of whom have a reduced ejection fraction.1-3 This occurs when the left ventricle muscle is not able to contract adequately and therefore expels less oxygen-rich blood into the body.4-6

The approval by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) was based on positive results from the landmark DAPA-HF Phase III trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine.7

Masafumi Kitakaze, Director of Hanwa Daini Senboku Hospital, Guest Professor of the Graduate School of Medicine, University of Osaka and Investigator of the DAPA-HF Phase III trial in Japan, said: “Heart failure is a condition affecting 1.3 million people in Japan. Many patients have considerably reduced heart function, such as left ventricular reduced ejection fraction. Approximately half of patients will die within five years of diagnosis, which is worse than some cancers. With no known cure except for heart transplant, a new effective treatment option on top of the current standard of care may offer hope for people struggling with this disease and a new tool for cardiologists.”

Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “Forxiga’s efficacy in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure events could result in life-saving benefits for many heart failure patients in Japan. Today’s approval will shift the way we manage the disease by providing a treatment option that is urgently needed to improve outcomes and symptoms for these patients.”

Forxiga is the first sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to have shown a statistically significant reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening of HF events, including hospitalisation for HF (hHF). The DAPA-HF Phase III trial demonstrated that Forxiga, in addition to standard of care, reduced the risk of the composite outcome versus placebo by 26% and both components of the primary composite endpoint contributed benefit to the overall effect.

In the DAPA-HF Phase III trial, the safety profile of Forxiga was consistent with the well-established safety profile of the medicine. During the trial, one CV death or hHF or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy associated with HF could be avoided for every 21 patients treated.

Forxiga (known as Farxiga in the US) is approved in the US, Europe, and several other countries around the world for the treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Forxiga is advancing cardiorenal prevention as science continues to identify the underlying links between the heart, kidneys and pancreas. DAPA-HF is part of DapaCare, a robust clinical trial programme to assess the potential CV and renal benefits of Forxiga. The programme has also explored the treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ground-breaking DAPA-CKD Phase III trial. Additionally, Forxiga is currently being tested for HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the DELIVER Phase III trial with data readout anticipated in the second half of 2021.

In 2013, AstraZeneca K.K. (AZKK), a subsidiary in Japan of AstraZeneca, entered into an agreement with Ono Pharmaceutical for Forxiga. Based on this agreement, Ono is responsible for distribution and marketing of Forxiga tablets in Japan and has been co-promoting it with AZKK for the treatment of T2D and type-1 diabetes. Both companies will co-promote for the treatment of chronic heart failure.

Heart failure

HF affects approximately 64 million people worldwide (at least half of whom have a reduced ejection fraction), including 1.3 million in Japan, 15 million in the EU and six million in the US.2-3,8,9 It is a chronic disease where half of patients will die within five years of diagnosis.10 HFrEF and HFpEF are the two main categories of HF related to ejection fraction, a measurement of the percentage of blood leaving the heart each time it contracts.7 HFrEF occurs when the left ventricle muscle is not able to contract adequately and therefore, expels less oxygen-rich blood into the body.5,6 HF remains as fatal as some of the most common cancers in both men (prostate and bladder cancers) and women (breast cancer).11 It is the leading cause of hospitalisation for those over the age of 65 and represents a significant clinical and economic burden.12

DAPA-HF

DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure) is an international, multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised, double-blinded trial in 4,744 patients with HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 40%), with and without T2D, designed to evaluate the effect of Forxiga 10mg, compared with placebo, given once daily in addition to standard of care. The primary composite endpoint was time to the first occurrence of a worsening heart failure event (hospitalisation or equivalent event, i.e. an urgent heart failure visit), or CV death. The median duration of follow-up was 18.2 months.

Forxiga

Forxiga (dapagliflozin) is a first-in-class, oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor indicated in adults for the treatment of insufficiently controlled T2D as both monotherapy and as part of combination therapy as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycaemic control, with the additional benefits of weight loss and blood-pressure reduction.

Forxiga has been evaluated in patients with CKD in the Phase III DAPA-CKD trial, with the full results announced in August 2020 demonstrating that Forxiga met all primary and secondary endpoints, providing overwhelming efficacy. Forxiga is currently being tested for patients with HF in the DELIVER (HF with preserved ejection fraction, HFpEF) and DETERMINE (HFrEF and HFpEF) Phase III trials. Forxiga will also be tested in patients without T2D following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) or heart attack in the DAPA-MI trial – a first of its kind, indication-seeking registry-based randomised controlled trial. Forxiga has a robust programme of clinical trials that includes more than 35 completed and ongoing Phase IIb/III trials in more than 35,000 patients, as well as more than 2.5 million patient-years’ experience.

AstraZeneca in CVRM

Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolism (CVRM) together forms one of AstraZeneca’s three therapy areas and is a key growth driver for the Company. By following the science to understand more clearly the underlying links between the heart, kidneys and pancreas, AstraZeneca is investing in a portfolio of medicines to protect organs and improve outcomes by slowing disease progression, reducing risks and tackling comorbidities. The Company’s ambition is to modify or halt the natural course of CVRM diseases and potentially regenerate organs and restore function, by continuing to deliver transformative science that improves treatment practices and CV health for millions of patients worldwide.

AstraZeneca

AstraZeneca is a global, science-led biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery, development and commercialisation of prescription medicines, primarily for the treatment of diseases in three therapy areas – Oncology, Cardiovascular, Renal & Metabolism, and Respiratory & Immunology. Based in Cambridge, UK, AstraZeneca operates in over 100 countries and its innovative medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »