Jennifer Smith

Preclinical research indicates that TYK2 inhibitors could be effective in treating anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

Courtesy M.Bernkopf/Vetmeduni Vienna

Researchers found evidence to suggest that TYK2 “is highly expressed in all cases of human ALCL.”

The team also discovered that TYK2 inhibition induces apoptosis in human ALCL cells, and it delays tumor onset, and prolongs survival in a mouse model of ALCL.

Olaf Merkel, PhD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, and his colleagues detailed these findings in Leukemia.

The researchers said their analyses suggest TYK2 is expressed in all types of ALCL, regardless of ALK status, and TYK2 mediates the same anti-apoptotic response across ALCLs.

“Therefore, we could consider TYK2 signaling as the Achilles’ heel of ALCL, as, in all patients we have analyzed, the tumor cells relied on this activity to support the essential survival signal,” Dr. Merkel said in a statement.

He and his colleagues found that disrupting TYK2 – either via gene knockdown or with small-molecule TYK2 inhibitors – induced apoptosis in human ALCL cells in vitro.

In a mouse model of NPM-ALK-induced lymphoma, Tyk2 deletion slowed the rate of tumor growth and significantly prolonged survival. The median survival was 53.3 weeks in mice with Tyk2 deletion and 16.0 weeks in control mice (P less than .0001).

Additional experiments in human ALCL cell lines showed that “TYK2 is activated by autocrine production of IL-10 and IL-22 and by interaction with specific receptors expressed by the cells,” the researchers said.

They also found that “activated TYK2 leads to STAT1 and STAT3 phosphorylation, activated expression of MCL1, and aberrant ALCL cell survival.”

Taking these findings together, the researchers concluded that TYK2 inhibitors could be effective for treating ALCL.

“We are looking forward to TYK2 inhibitors becoming available,” said study coauthor Lukas Kenner, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna. “[I]n the more rare lymphomas, we urgently need better therapies.”

The researchers received grant funding from various organizations but reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Prutsch N et al. Leukemia. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0239-1.

Preclinical research indicates that TYK2 inhibitors could be effective in treating anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

Courtesy M.Bernkopf/Vetmeduni Vienna

Researchers found evidence to suggest that TYK2 “is highly expressed in all cases of human ALCL.”

The team also discovered that TYK2 inhibition induces apoptosis in human ALCL cells, and it delays tumor onset, and prolongs survival in a mouse model of ALCL.

Olaf Merkel, PhD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, and his colleagues detailed these findings in Leukemia.

The researchers said their analyses suggest TYK2 is expressed in all types of ALCL, regardless of ALK status, and TYK2 mediates the same anti-apoptotic response across ALCLs.

“Therefore, we could consider TYK2 signaling as the Achilles’ heel of ALCL, as, in all patients we have analyzed, the tumor cells relied on this activity to support the essential survival signal,” Dr. Merkel said in a statement.

He and his colleagues found that disrupting TYK2 – either via gene knockdown or with small-molecule TYK2 inhibitors – induced apoptosis in human ALCL cells in vitro.

In a mouse model of NPM-ALK-induced lymphoma, Tyk2 deletion slowed the rate of tumor growth and significantly prolonged survival. The median survival was 53.3 weeks in mice with Tyk2 deletion and 16.0 weeks in control mice (P less than .0001).

Additional experiments in human ALCL cell lines showed that “TYK2 is activated by autocrine production of IL-10 and IL-22 and by interaction with specific receptors expressed by the cells,” the researchers said.

They also found that “activated TYK2 leads to STAT1 and STAT3 phosphorylation, activated expression of MCL1, and aberrant ALCL cell survival.”

Taking these findings together, the researchers concluded that TYK2 inhibitors could be effective for treating ALCL.

“We are looking forward to TYK2 inhibitors becoming available,” said study coauthor Lukas Kenner, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna. “[I]n the more rare lymphomas, we urgently need better therapies.”

The researchers received grant funding from various organizations but reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Prutsch N et al. Leukemia. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0239-1.

Preclinical research indicates that TYK2 inhibitors could be effective in treating anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

Courtesy M.Bernkopf/Vetmeduni Vienna

Researchers found evidence to suggest that TYK2 “is highly expressed in all cases of human ALCL.”

The team also discovered that TYK2 inhibition induces apoptosis in human ALCL cells, and it delays tumor onset, and prolongs survival in a mouse model of ALCL.

Olaf Merkel, PhD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, and his colleagues detailed these findings in Leukemia.

The researchers said their analyses suggest TYK2 is expressed in all types of ALCL, regardless of ALK status, and TYK2 mediates the same anti-apoptotic response across ALCLs.

“Therefore, we could consider TYK2 signaling as the Achilles’ heel of ALCL, as, in all patients we have analyzed, the tumor cells relied on this activity to support the essential survival signal,” Dr. Merkel said in a statement.

He and his colleagues found that disrupting TYK2 – either via gene knockdown or with small-molecule TYK2 inhibitors – induced apoptosis in human ALCL cells in vitro.

In a mouse model of NPM-ALK-induced lymphoma, Tyk2 deletion slowed the rate of tumor growth and significantly prolonged survival. The median survival was 53.3 weeks in mice with Tyk2 deletion and 16.0 weeks in control mice (P less than .0001).

Additional experiments in human ALCL cell lines showed that “TYK2 is activated by autocrine production of IL-10 and IL-22 and by interaction with specific receptors expressed by the cells,” the researchers said.

They also found that “activated TYK2 leads to STAT1 and STAT3 phosphorylation, activated expression of MCL1, and aberrant ALCL cell survival.”

Taking these findings together, the researchers concluded that TYK2 inhibitors could be effective for treating ALCL.

“We are looking forward to TYK2 inhibitors becoming available,” said study coauthor Lukas Kenner, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna. “[I]n the more rare lymphomas, we urgently need better therapies.”

The researchers received grant funding from various organizations but reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Prutsch N et al. Leukemia. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0239-1.

New research suggests that investigators involved in oncology trials sometimes fail to disclose payments from the pharmaceutical industry.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers looked at clinical trials associated with cancer drugs recently approved in the United States and assessed whether funding was properly disclosed when the trial results were published in scientific journals.

The data showed that roughly a third of investigators failed to completely disclose payments from trial sponsors.

“We know that pharmaceutical companies sponsor trials of their own drugs. That’s not a surprise,” Cole Wayant, a DO/PhD student at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa, said in a statement. “But what is a surprise, and what warrants concern, is that this funding is often not disclosed in the publication of clinical trials that form the basis of FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approvals and clinical practice guidelines.”

Mr. Wayant and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the findings in a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers began by searching the FDA Hematology/Oncology Approvals & Safety Notifications website for oncology drugs approved from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2017.

The team then identified the published trials supporting these drug approvals and searched the Open Payments Database for industry payment data for each U.S.-based oncologist involved in the trials. Finally, the researchers compared the Open Payments data to the disclosure statements from the publications.

There were 344 authors of clinical trials associated with oncology drugs approved during the period studied. Most authors (76.5%) received at least one industry payment, and the total amount they received exceeded $216 million.

Nearly a third of the authors (32%, n = 110) did not fully disclose payments from a trial sponsor.

In all, the authors received about $6.3 million in general payments, such as speaking fees, and $1.7 million of that was undisclosed.

They received more than $500,000 in research payments, such as fees for study coordination, and more than $200,000 of that was undisclosed.

The authors received close to $210 million in associated research payments, such as grants, and about $78 million of that was undisclosed.

Mr. Wayant and his colleagues said these results suggest financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and oncology trial investigators “may be common, expensive, and frequently undisclosed.”

However, the research also suggests that Open Payments data could be used to ensure complete disclosure of industry payments.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wayant C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3738.

New research suggests that investigators involved in oncology trials sometimes fail to disclose payments from the pharmaceutical industry.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers looked at clinical trials associated with cancer drugs recently approved in the United States and assessed whether funding was properly disclosed when the trial results were published in scientific journals.

The data showed that roughly a third of investigators failed to completely disclose payments from trial sponsors.

“We know that pharmaceutical companies sponsor trials of their own drugs. That’s not a surprise,” Cole Wayant, a DO/PhD student at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa, said in a statement. “But what is a surprise, and what warrants concern, is that this funding is often not disclosed in the publication of clinical trials that form the basis of FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approvals and clinical practice guidelines.”

Mr. Wayant and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the findings in a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers began by searching the FDA Hematology/Oncology Approvals & Safety Notifications website for oncology drugs approved from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2017.

The team then identified the published trials supporting these drug approvals and searched the Open Payments Database for industry payment data for each U.S.-based oncologist involved in the trials. Finally, the researchers compared the Open Payments data to the disclosure statements from the publications.

There were 344 authors of clinical trials associated with oncology drugs approved during the period studied. Most authors (76.5%) received at least one industry payment, and the total amount they received exceeded $216 million.

Nearly a third of the authors (32%, n = 110) did not fully disclose payments from a trial sponsor.

In all, the authors received about $6.3 million in general payments, such as speaking fees, and $1.7 million of that was undisclosed.

They received more than $500,000 in research payments, such as fees for study coordination, and more than $200,000 of that was undisclosed.

The authors received close to $210 million in associated research payments, such as grants, and about $78 million of that was undisclosed.

Mr. Wayant and his colleagues said these results suggest financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and oncology trial investigators “may be common, expensive, and frequently undisclosed.”

However, the research also suggests that Open Payments data could be used to ensure complete disclosure of industry payments.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wayant C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3738.

New research suggests that investigators involved in oncology trials sometimes fail to disclose payments from the pharmaceutical industry.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers looked at clinical trials associated with cancer drugs recently approved in the United States and assessed whether funding was properly disclosed when the trial results were published in scientific journals.

The data showed that roughly a third of investigators failed to completely disclose payments from trial sponsors.

“We know that pharmaceutical companies sponsor trials of their own drugs. That’s not a surprise,” Cole Wayant, a DO/PhD student at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa, said in a statement. “But what is a surprise, and what warrants concern, is that this funding is often not disclosed in the publication of clinical trials that form the basis of FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approvals and clinical practice guidelines.”

Mr. Wayant and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the findings in a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers began by searching the FDA Hematology/Oncology Approvals & Safety Notifications website for oncology drugs approved from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2017.

The team then identified the published trials supporting these drug approvals and searched the Open Payments Database for industry payment data for each U.S.-based oncologist involved in the trials. Finally, the researchers compared the Open Payments data to the disclosure statements from the publications.

There were 344 authors of clinical trials associated with oncology drugs approved during the period studied. Most authors (76.5%) received at least one industry payment, and the total amount they received exceeded $216 million.

Nearly a third of the authors (32%, n = 110) did not fully disclose payments from a trial sponsor.

In all, the authors received about $6.3 million in general payments, such as speaking fees, and $1.7 million of that was undisclosed.

They received more than $500,000 in research payments, such as fees for study coordination, and more than $200,000 of that was undisclosed.

The authors received close to $210 million in associated research payments, such as grants, and about $78 million of that was undisclosed.

Mr. Wayant and his colleagues said these results suggest financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and oncology trial investigators “may be common, expensive, and frequently undisclosed.”

However, the research also suggests that Open Payments data could be used to ensure complete disclosure of industry payments.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wayant C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3738.

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The drug has been accepted for priority review in the United States and the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision by Feb. 6, 2019.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

The TITAN trial included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n = 36) or placebo (n = 39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care – daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy (N Engl J Med. 2016;374:511-22).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response, compared with patients in the placebo arm (P = .005).

The rate of adverse events (AEs) thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was attributable to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was attributable to cerebral hemorrhage.Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n = 72) or placebo (n = 73) in addition to standard care – plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization). There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm, compared with the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P less than .01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n = 9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n = 36) in the placebo arm (P less than .0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n = 0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n = 3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n = 3) in the caplacizumab arm and 38.4% in the placebo arm (n = 28), and the incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n = 6) and 8.2% (n = 6), respectively.

[email protected]

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The drug has been accepted for priority review in the United States and the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision by Feb. 6, 2019.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

The TITAN trial included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n = 36) or placebo (n = 39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care – daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy (N Engl J Med. 2016;374:511-22).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response, compared with patients in the placebo arm (P = .005).

The rate of adverse events (AEs) thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was attributable to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was attributable to cerebral hemorrhage.Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n = 72) or placebo (n = 73) in addition to standard care – plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization). There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm, compared with the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P less than .01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n = 9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n = 36) in the placebo arm (P less than .0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n = 0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n = 3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n = 3) in the caplacizumab arm and 38.4% in the placebo arm (n = 28), and the incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n = 6) and 8.2% (n = 6), respectively.

[email protected]

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The drug has been accepted for priority review in the United States and the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision by Feb. 6, 2019.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

The TITAN trial included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n = 36) or placebo (n = 39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care – daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy (N Engl J Med. 2016;374:511-22).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response, compared with patients in the placebo arm (P = .005).

The rate of adverse events (AEs) thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was attributable to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was attributable to cerebral hemorrhage.Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n = 72) or placebo (n = 73) in addition to standard care – plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization). There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm, compared with the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P less than .01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n = 9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n = 36) in the placebo arm (P less than .0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n = 0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n = 3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n = 3) in the caplacizumab arm and 38.4% in the placebo arm (n = 28), and the incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n = 6) and 8.2% (n = 6), respectively.

[email protected]

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the United States and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as do urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said in a statement.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr. Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

A minority of patients (19.4%, n = 7,184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than were urban patients to be 65 years or older (P less than .001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs. all other races; P less than .001).

However, there was no significant between-group differences in sex, and all major U.S. geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-–negative, progesterone receptor–negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as did their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.51; P = .008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P = .02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers said this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML, but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL.

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL.

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drives the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr. Unger said.

The National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation supported the study. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Unger JM et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181235. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1235.

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the United States and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as do urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said in a statement.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr. Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

A minority of patients (19.4%, n = 7,184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than were urban patients to be 65 years or older (P less than .001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs. all other races; P less than .001).

However, there was no significant between-group differences in sex, and all major U.S. geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-–negative, progesterone receptor–negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as did their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.51; P = .008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P = .02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers said this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML, but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL.

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL.

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drives the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr. Unger said.

The National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation supported the study. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Unger JM et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181235. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1235.

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the United States and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as do urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said in a statement.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr. Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

A minority of patients (19.4%, n = 7,184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than were urban patients to be 65 years or older (P less than .001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs. all other races; P less than .001).

However, there was no significant between-group differences in sex, and all major U.S. geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-–negative, progesterone receptor–negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as did their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.51; P = .008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P = .02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers said this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML, but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL.

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL.

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drives the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr. Unger said.

The National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation supported the study. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Unger JM et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181235. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1235.

The European Commission has expanded the approved indication for blinatumomab (Blincyto), a bispecific, CD19-directed, CD3 T-cell engager immunotherapy.

Blinatumomab is now approved as monotherapy for children aged 1 year or older who have relapsed/refractory, Philadelphia chromosome–negative, CD19-positive B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The patients must have received at least two prior therapies, or they must have relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The European Commission’s (EC) new approval of blinatumomab extends to all countries in the European Union, as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

In 2015, the EC approved blinatumomab to treat adults with Philadelphia chromosome–negative, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.The EC’s approval of blinatumomab in pediatric patients is based on results from a phase 1/2 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016. The study included 93 pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL. Patients received blinatumomab as a continuous intravenous infusion – 49 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial and 44 in phase 2. The patients were followed for 2 years.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities during the phase 1 portion of the trial, two of which were fatal. Three patients had grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), one had grade 5 cardiac failure (as well as grade 4 CRS), and one had grade 5 respiratory failure. Based on the dose-limiting toxicities, the maximum tolerated dose of blinatumomab was 15 mcg/m2 per day, but a stepwise dosage was recommended to reduce the risk of CRS.

The recommended dose was 5 mcg/m² per day on days 1-7 and 15 mcg/m² per day on days 8-28 for cycle 1, and 15 mcg/m² per day on days 1-28 for subsequent cycles, according to the study results.Among the 70 patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab, 27 (39%) achieved a complete response within the first two cycles. A total of 14 of these patients (52%) achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

[email protected]

The European Commission has expanded the approved indication for blinatumomab (Blincyto), a bispecific, CD19-directed, CD3 T-cell engager immunotherapy.

Blinatumomab is now approved as monotherapy for children aged 1 year or older who have relapsed/refractory, Philadelphia chromosome–negative, CD19-positive B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The patients must have received at least two prior therapies, or they must have relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The European Commission’s (EC) new approval of blinatumomab extends to all countries in the European Union, as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

In 2015, the EC approved blinatumomab to treat adults with Philadelphia chromosome–negative, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.The EC’s approval of blinatumomab in pediatric patients is based on results from a phase 1/2 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016. The study included 93 pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL. Patients received blinatumomab as a continuous intravenous infusion – 49 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial and 44 in phase 2. The patients were followed for 2 years.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities during the phase 1 portion of the trial, two of which were fatal. Three patients had grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), one had grade 5 cardiac failure (as well as grade 4 CRS), and one had grade 5 respiratory failure. Based on the dose-limiting toxicities, the maximum tolerated dose of blinatumomab was 15 mcg/m2 per day, but a stepwise dosage was recommended to reduce the risk of CRS.

The recommended dose was 5 mcg/m² per day on days 1-7 and 15 mcg/m² per day on days 8-28 for cycle 1, and 15 mcg/m² per day on days 1-28 for subsequent cycles, according to the study results.Among the 70 patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab, 27 (39%) achieved a complete response within the first two cycles. A total of 14 of these patients (52%) achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

[email protected]

The European Commission has expanded the approved indication for blinatumomab (Blincyto), a bispecific, CD19-directed, CD3 T-cell engager immunotherapy.

Blinatumomab is now approved as monotherapy for children aged 1 year or older who have relapsed/refractory, Philadelphia chromosome–negative, CD19-positive B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The patients must have received at least two prior therapies, or they must have relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The European Commission’s (EC) new approval of blinatumomab extends to all countries in the European Union, as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

In 2015, the EC approved blinatumomab to treat adults with Philadelphia chromosome–negative, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.The EC’s approval of blinatumomab in pediatric patients is based on results from a phase 1/2 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016. The study included 93 pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL. Patients received blinatumomab as a continuous intravenous infusion – 49 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial and 44 in phase 2. The patients were followed for 2 years.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities during the phase 1 portion of the trial, two of which were fatal. Three patients had grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), one had grade 5 cardiac failure (as well as grade 4 CRS), and one had grade 5 respiratory failure. Based on the dose-limiting toxicities, the maximum tolerated dose of blinatumomab was 15 mcg/m2 per day, but a stepwise dosage was recommended to reduce the risk of CRS.

The recommended dose was 5 mcg/m² per day on days 1-7 and 15 mcg/m² per day on days 8-28 for cycle 1, and 15 mcg/m² per day on days 1-28 for subsequent cycles, according to the study results.Among the 70 patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab, 27 (39%) achieved a complete response within the first two cycles. A total of 14 of these patients (52%) achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

[email protected]

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted fast-track designation to CX-01 as a treatment for patients older than 60 years receiving induction therapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

CX-01 also has orphan drug designation from the FDA.

CX-01 is a polysaccharide derived from heparin thought to enhance chemotherapy by disrupting leukemia cell adhesion in bone marrow. Cantex Pharmaceuticals is conducting a randomized, phase 2b study to determine whether CX-01 can improve the efficacy of frontline chemotherapy in patients with AML.

This study builds upon results of a pilot study, which were published in Blood Advances (Blood Adv. 2018 Feb 27;2[4]:381-9). The pilot study enrolled 12 adults with newly diagnosed AML who received CX-01 as a continuous infusion for 7 days, along with standard induction chemotherapy (cytarabine and idarubicin).

The FDA’s fast-track development program is designed to expedite clinical development and submission of applications for products with the potential to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical needs.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted fast-track designation to CX-01 as a treatment for patients older than 60 years receiving induction therapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

CX-01 also has orphan drug designation from the FDA.

CX-01 is a polysaccharide derived from heparin thought to enhance chemotherapy by disrupting leukemia cell adhesion in bone marrow. Cantex Pharmaceuticals is conducting a randomized, phase 2b study to determine whether CX-01 can improve the efficacy of frontline chemotherapy in patients with AML.

This study builds upon results of a pilot study, which were published in Blood Advances (Blood Adv. 2018 Feb 27;2[4]:381-9). The pilot study enrolled 12 adults with newly diagnosed AML who received CX-01 as a continuous infusion for 7 days, along with standard induction chemotherapy (cytarabine and idarubicin).

The FDA’s fast-track development program is designed to expedite clinical development and submission of applications for products with the potential to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical needs.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted fast-track designation to CX-01 as a treatment for patients older than 60 years receiving induction therapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

CX-01 also has orphan drug designation from the FDA.

CX-01 is a polysaccharide derived from heparin thought to enhance chemotherapy by disrupting leukemia cell adhesion in bone marrow. Cantex Pharmaceuticals is conducting a randomized, phase 2b study to determine whether CX-01 can improve the efficacy of frontline chemotherapy in patients with AML.

This study builds upon results of a pilot study, which were published in Blood Advances (Blood Adv. 2018 Feb 27;2[4]:381-9). The pilot study enrolled 12 adults with newly diagnosed AML who received CX-01 as a continuous infusion for 7 days, along with standard induction chemotherapy (cytarabine and idarubicin).

The FDA’s fast-track development program is designed to expedite clinical development and submission of applications for products with the potential to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical needs.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Jivi (antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027), a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate, is now approved for use in previously treated adults and adolescents – aged 12 years and older – with hemophilia A.

The product is also approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The initial recommended prophylactic regimen is dosing twice weekly (30-40 IU/kg) with the ability to dose every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) and to further individually adjust to less or more frequent dosing based on bleeding episodes.

The FDA’s approval of Jivi is based on results from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (2017 Mar;15[3]:411-419). Additional results are available in the prescribing information for Jivi. The product is marketed by Bayer.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents with severe hemophilia A. In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A. In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population – 112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30-40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n = 13) improved after their dose increase. Their median ABR decreased from 17.4 to 4.1.

The median ABR for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n = 43) was 1.9. The median ABR was also 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n = 11). The median ABR for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43) was 0.96. The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group.

The safety data in the prescribing information includes 221 patients from three studies. The 17 patients who received Jivi for perioperative management were excluded from the pooled safety analysis but included in the analysis for inhibitor development.

In the 148 patients aged 12 years and older who were exposed to Jivi, adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, injection site reactions, pyrexia, hypersensitivity, dizziness, headache, insomnia, cough, erythema, pruritus, rash, and flushing.

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult patient with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Jivi (antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027), a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate, is now approved for use in previously treated adults and adolescents – aged 12 years and older – with hemophilia A.

The product is also approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The initial recommended prophylactic regimen is dosing twice weekly (30-40 IU/kg) with the ability to dose every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) and to further individually adjust to less or more frequent dosing based on bleeding episodes.

The FDA’s approval of Jivi is based on results from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (2017 Mar;15[3]:411-419). Additional results are available in the prescribing information for Jivi. The product is marketed by Bayer.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents with severe hemophilia A. In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A. In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population – 112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30-40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n = 13) improved after their dose increase. Their median ABR decreased from 17.4 to 4.1.

The median ABR for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n = 43) was 1.9. The median ABR was also 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n = 11). The median ABR for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43) was 0.96. The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group.

The safety data in the prescribing information includes 221 patients from three studies. The 17 patients who received Jivi for perioperative management were excluded from the pooled safety analysis but included in the analysis for inhibitor development.

In the 148 patients aged 12 years and older who were exposed to Jivi, adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, injection site reactions, pyrexia, hypersensitivity, dizziness, headache, insomnia, cough, erythema, pruritus, rash, and flushing.

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult patient with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Jivi (antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027), a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate, is now approved for use in previously treated adults and adolescents – aged 12 years and older – with hemophilia A.

The product is also approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The initial recommended prophylactic regimen is dosing twice weekly (30-40 IU/kg) with the ability to dose every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) and to further individually adjust to less or more frequent dosing based on bleeding episodes.

The FDA’s approval of Jivi is based on results from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (2017 Mar;15[3]:411-419). Additional results are available in the prescribing information for Jivi. The product is marketed by Bayer.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents with severe hemophilia A. In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A. In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population – 112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30-40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n = 13) improved after their dose increase. Their median ABR decreased from 17.4 to 4.1.

The median ABR for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n = 43) was 1.9. The median ABR was also 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n = 11). The median ABR for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43) was 0.96. The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group.

The safety data in the prescribing information includes 221 patients from three studies. The 17 patients who received Jivi for perioperative management were excluded from the pooled safety analysis but included in the analysis for inhibitor development.

In the 148 patients aged 12 years and older who were exposed to Jivi, adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, injection site reactions, pyrexia, hypersensitivity, dizziness, headache, insomnia, cough, erythema, pruritus, rash, and flushing.

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult patient with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

[email protected]

The European Commission (EC) has granted approval for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies.

Tisagenlecleucel is now approved for use in pediatric and young adult patients up to 25 years of age with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post transplant, or in second or later relapse.

Tisagenlecleucel is also approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel is approved for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. The treatment is marketed by Kite, a Gilead company.

The axicabtagene ciloleucel approval is based on results from the single arm, ZUMA-1 trial. During the study of 101 patients who received a single infusion, 72% responded to therapy and 51% achieved a complete response. At 1 year, median overall survival had not been reached.

Novartis expects to launch tisagenlecleucel initially for pediatric ALL. The company said timing for tisagenlecleucel availability in each country will depend on multiple factors, including the onboarding of qualified treatment centers for the appropriate indications, as well as the completion of national reimbursement procedures.

The EC’s approval of tisagenlecleucel is based on results from the phase 2 JULIET and ELIANA trials.

Updated results from JULIET were presented at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in June 2018. The trial enrolled 165 adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, and 111 of them received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel. Most of the patients who discontinued before dosing did so because of disease progression or clinical deterioration.

The median time from infusion to data cutoff was 13.9 months.

The overall response rate was 52%, and the complete response (CR) rate was 40%. At the time of data cutoff, none of the responders had gone on to receive a stem cell transplant.

Updated results from ELIANA were published in New England Journal of Medicine (2018;378:439-48).

The trial included 75 children and young adults with relapsed/refractory ALL. The overall remission rate was 81% (61/75), with 60% of patients (n = 45) achieving a complete remission (CR) and 21% (n = 16) achieving a CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi).

All patients whose best response was CR/CRi were negative for minimal residual disease. The median duration of response was not met.

[email protected]

The European Commission (EC) has granted approval for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies.

Tisagenlecleucel is now approved for use in pediatric and young adult patients up to 25 years of age with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post transplant, or in second or later relapse.

Tisagenlecleucel is also approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel is approved for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. The treatment is marketed by Kite, a Gilead company.

The axicabtagene ciloleucel approval is based on results from the single arm, ZUMA-1 trial. During the study of 101 patients who received a single infusion, 72% responded to therapy and 51% achieved a complete response. At 1 year, median overall survival had not been reached.

Novartis expects to launch tisagenlecleucel initially for pediatric ALL. The company said timing for tisagenlecleucel availability in each country will depend on multiple factors, including the onboarding of qualified treatment centers for the appropriate indications, as well as the completion of national reimbursement procedures.

The EC’s approval of tisagenlecleucel is based on results from the phase 2 JULIET and ELIANA trials.

Updated results from JULIET were presented at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in June 2018. The trial enrolled 165 adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, and 111 of them received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel. Most of the patients who discontinued before dosing did so because of disease progression or clinical deterioration.

The median time from infusion to data cutoff was 13.9 months.

The overall response rate was 52%, and the complete response (CR) rate was 40%. At the time of data cutoff, none of the responders had gone on to receive a stem cell transplant.

Updated results from ELIANA were published in New England Journal of Medicine (2018;378:439-48).

The trial included 75 children and young adults with relapsed/refractory ALL. The overall remission rate was 81% (61/75), with 60% of patients (n = 45) achieving a complete remission (CR) and 21% (n = 16) achieving a CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi).

All patients whose best response was CR/CRi were negative for minimal residual disease. The median duration of response was not met.

[email protected]

The European Commission (EC) has granted approval for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies.

Tisagenlecleucel is now approved for use in pediatric and young adult patients up to 25 years of age with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post transplant, or in second or later relapse.

Tisagenlecleucel is also approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel is approved for adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. The treatment is marketed by Kite, a Gilead company.

The axicabtagene ciloleucel approval is based on results from the single arm, ZUMA-1 trial. During the study of 101 patients who received a single infusion, 72% responded to therapy and 51% achieved a complete response. At 1 year, median overall survival had not been reached.

Novartis expects to launch tisagenlecleucel initially for pediatric ALL. The company said timing for tisagenlecleucel availability in each country will depend on multiple factors, including the onboarding of qualified treatment centers for the appropriate indications, as well as the completion of national reimbursement procedures.

The EC’s approval of tisagenlecleucel is based on results from the phase 2 JULIET and ELIANA trials.

Updated results from JULIET were presented at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in June 2018. The trial enrolled 165 adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, and 111 of them received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel. Most of the patients who discontinued before dosing did so because of disease progression or clinical deterioration.

The median time from infusion to data cutoff was 13.9 months.

The overall response rate was 52%, and the complete response (CR) rate was 40%. At the time of data cutoff, none of the responders had gone on to receive a stem cell transplant.

Updated results from ELIANA were published in New England Journal of Medicine (2018;378:439-48).

The trial included 75 children and young adults with relapsed/refractory ALL. The overall remission rate was 81% (61/75), with 60% of patients (n = 45) achieving a complete remission (CR) and 21% (n = 16) achieving a CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi).

All patients whose best response was CR/CRi were negative for minimal residual disease. The median duration of response was not met.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrutinib (Imbruvica) for use in combination with rituximab to treat adults with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM).

Ibrutinib was approved for use as a single agent in adults with WM in January 2015.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrutinib (Imbruvica) for use in combination with rituximab to treat adults with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM).

Ibrutinib was approved for use as a single agent in adults with WM in January 2015.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrutinib (Imbruvica) for use in combination with rituximab to treat adults with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM).

Ibrutinib was approved for use as a single agent in adults with WM in January 2015.

[email protected]