User login
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.