FDA/CDC

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning about liver injury to fezolinetant (Veozah), a drug often prescribed for hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement.

The warning is based on data from a postmarketing report of an individual who experienced elevated liver blood test values as well as symptoms of liver injury after approximately 40 days of taking fezolinetant, according to the statement.

The boxed warning is in addition to the existing warning about elevated liver blood test values and requirements for liver blood testing in the prescribing information.

The updated information also includes recommendations to increase the frequency of liver blood testing to monthly testing for 2 months after starting fezolinetant, then following the previous recommendations for testing at 3, 6, and 9 months.

In addition, the new information advises patients to discontinue the drug immediately and contact their prescribing healthcare professional if signs of liver injury occur, according to the statement. These signs may include nausea, vomiting, unusual itching, light-colored stool, jaundice, dark urine, abdominal swelling, or pain in the right upper abdomen.

The risk for liver injury is real, but rare, said Kathryn Marko, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, in an interview.

Clinicians should advise patients that their liver function will be monitored closely if they take fezolinetant, Marko said. If elevations in liver function tests occur, they often return to normal after stopping the drug.

 

Clinical Implications and Research Gaps

The boxed warning may affect prescribing patterns in that patients or clinicians may fear the risk for liver injury, Marko said. “In addition, patients may be hesitant to start a medication that requires frequent blood test monitoring.” However, many alternative treatments are available for vasomotor symptoms of menopause, including hormonal and nonhormonal therapies, and patients and physicians should work together to come up with the best option for each individual.

“More research is needed to discover new therapies for menopause,” said Marko. “Veozah is unique in its mechanism of action, and it would be wonderful to see more new medications coming down the pipeline.”

Marko had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning about liver injury to fezolinetant (Veozah), a drug often prescribed for hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement.

The warning is based on data from a postmarketing report of an individual who experienced elevated liver blood test values as well as symptoms of liver injury after approximately 40 days of taking fezolinetant, according to the statement.

The boxed warning is in addition to the existing warning about elevated liver blood test values and requirements for liver blood testing in the prescribing information.

The updated information also includes recommendations to increase the frequency of liver blood testing to monthly testing for 2 months after starting fezolinetant, then following the previous recommendations for testing at 3, 6, and 9 months.

In addition, the new information advises patients to discontinue the drug immediately and contact their prescribing healthcare professional if signs of liver injury occur, according to the statement. These signs may include nausea, vomiting, unusual itching, light-colored stool, jaundice, dark urine, abdominal swelling, or pain in the right upper abdomen.

The risk for liver injury is real, but rare, said Kathryn Marko, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, in an interview.

Clinicians should advise patients that their liver function will be monitored closely if they take fezolinetant, Marko said. If elevations in liver function tests occur, they often return to normal after stopping the drug.

 

Clinical Implications and Research Gaps

The boxed warning may affect prescribing patterns in that patients or clinicians may fear the risk for liver injury, Marko said. “In addition, patients may be hesitant to start a medication that requires frequent blood test monitoring.” However, many alternative treatments are available for vasomotor symptoms of menopause, including hormonal and nonhormonal therapies, and patients and physicians should work together to come up with the best option for each individual.

“More research is needed to discover new therapies for menopause,” said Marko. “Veozah is unique in its mechanism of action, and it would be wonderful to see more new medications coming down the pipeline.”

Marko had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning about liver injury to fezolinetant (Veozah), a drug often prescribed for hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement.

The warning is based on data from a postmarketing report of an individual who experienced elevated liver blood test values as well as symptoms of liver injury after approximately 40 days of taking fezolinetant, according to the statement.

The boxed warning is in addition to the existing warning about elevated liver blood test values and requirements for liver blood testing in the prescribing information.

The updated information also includes recommendations to increase the frequency of liver blood testing to monthly testing for 2 months after starting fezolinetant, then following the previous recommendations for testing at 3, 6, and 9 months.

In addition, the new information advises patients to discontinue the drug immediately and contact their prescribing healthcare professional if signs of liver injury occur, according to the statement. These signs may include nausea, vomiting, unusual itching, light-colored stool, jaundice, dark urine, abdominal swelling, or pain in the right upper abdomen.

The risk for liver injury is real, but rare, said Kathryn Marko, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, in an interview.

Clinicians should advise patients that their liver function will be monitored closely if they take fezolinetant, Marko said. If elevations in liver function tests occur, they often return to normal after stopping the drug.

 

Clinical Implications and Research Gaps

The boxed warning may affect prescribing patterns in that patients or clinicians may fear the risk for liver injury, Marko said. “In addition, patients may be hesitant to start a medication that requires frequent blood test monitoring.” However, many alternative treatments are available for vasomotor symptoms of menopause, including hormonal and nonhormonal therapies, and patients and physicians should work together to come up with the best option for each individual.

“More research is needed to discover new therapies for menopause,” said Marko. “Veozah is unique in its mechanism of action, and it would be wonderful to see more new medications coming down the pipeline.”

Marko had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.

Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024. 

Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.

Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.

“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.

The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

 

Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline

IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.

The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.

To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024. 

The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs. 

IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.

Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.

“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.

 

Regional Differences

When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.

Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).

In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024. 

The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.

The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.” 

The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.

No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.

Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024. 

Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.

Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.

“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.

The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

 

Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline

IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.

The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.

To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024. 

The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs. 

IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.

Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.

“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.

 

Regional Differences

When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.

Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).

In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024. 

The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.

The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.” 

The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.

No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.

Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024. 

Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.

Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.

“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.

The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

 

Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline

IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.

The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.

To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024. 

The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs. 

IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.

Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.

“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.

 

Regional Differences

When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.

Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).

In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024. 

The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.

The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.” 

The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.

No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

US regulators’ use of a speedy clearance pathway for a new frontline indication for asciminib for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has raised questions due to the number of medications already available for this condition.

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to asciminib (Scemblix, Novartis AG) for adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive CML in chronic phase.

Asciminib is one of the six tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs used for CML, a class that began with the introduction of imatinib (Gleevec) in 2001. By 2016, researchers reported that TKIs had helped make life expectancy in patients with CML approach that of the general population. Physicians and patients now have several options of second-generation TKI drugs that also can be used in newly diagnosed patients, along with the option to begin with the more affordable option of imatinib.

The FDA in 1992 instituted the accelerated approval pathway to try to speed market drugs for serious conditions that fill unmet medical needs.

The agency and companies essentially make bets on promising study results, often using surrogate markers, to allow sales of medicines while waiting for evidence from confirmatory studies. For example, the FDA in August used the accelerated approval process to clear the first T-cell receptor gene therapy for certain advanced forms of sarcoma, a form of cancer with limited treatment options.

The next accelerated approval of a cancer drug was the indication for asciminib as a frontline therapy. The FDA also used accelerated approval for the initial clearance of asciminib in 2021 for use in CML previously treated with two or more TKIs. By 2022, Novartis presented sufficient evidence of the drug’s merit to win full approval for the drug in this use.

The timeline is longer for the expected confirmatory research for asciminib as a frontline therapy, with a 2028 deadline set for this work. The data presented to date on asciminib have not persuaded some oncologists on the need for the speedy approval of frontline use.

“This boils down to a drug that looks as if it’s just as good as other second-generation TKIs,” Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami. “I don’t know how they could use the accelerated approval mechanism to get this through.”

Sekeres, a former chair of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, explored concerns and challenges involved with the use of the accelerated approval process in his 2022 book, Drugs and the FDA: Safety, Efficacy, and the Public’s Trust.

“The intent of the accelerated approval mechanism is that you’re bringing a new therapy to treat a serious disease in a way that others haven’t previously, where there aren’t existing options,” Sekeres said.

This is a markedly different situation that exists for CML, where medicines have improved dramatically in the 21st century, unlike many other forms of cancer treated by hematologists.

“As someone who specializes in treating people with leukemia, I’d be happy every clinic day of my life if all of my patients came in with chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia,” instead of other cancers lacking these robust treatment options, he said.

With CML, physicians select among TKIs considering side effects and other health conditions patients have, including weighing the impact of financial toxicity in some cases, he said.

“If I have a patient with lower risk chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia, I’m treating them with imatinib,” Sekeres said.

 

Questions About Surrogate Endpoints

Sekeres is not alone in questioning the use of the speedier FDA pathway for a new indication for a TKI in CML.

“Where is the ‘unmet need’ justifying an accelerated approval in this setting?” Timothée Olivier, MD, who is affiliated with both the Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève and the VK Prasad Laboratory funded by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, wrote in a November 3 post on X.

Olivier, Prasad, and coauthors in a September correspondence to the American Journal of Hematology raised questions about the study design for a key asciminib study, ASC4FIRST. They noted what they consider a weakness with the endpoints used.

“Molecular milestones like the 48-week MMR [major molecular response] are often used in clinical trials due to their convenience and shorter timeline for assessment,” they wrote. “However, these milestones are not definitive indicators of long-term survival or overall clinical benefit.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the evidence gap between initial accelerated approvals and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Researchers including Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a Medscape Medical News contributor, also have questioned the degree of reliance on surrogate endpoints in accelerated approvals.

In response, the FDA’s Cancer Division and the US Congress have taken steps to try to force drugmakers to more quickly answer the key question in accelerated approvals: Does this medicine produce the expected benefits? For example, the FDA in March appears to have turned down a bid for accelerated approval of a lymphoma drug due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The use of accelerated approval will continue to be a balancing act, due in part to demand for newer agents, Ravi Bhatia, MD, of the O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“Accelerated approval of agents for up-front treatment of CML does not appear well justified, given the high degree of efficacy of existing agents,” said Bhatia, vice chair of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Panel for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

“On the other hand, there is greater urgency for developing agents for patients who have failed existing agents and patients with advanced phase disease, and the use of accelerated approval may be justified in this setting,” Bhatia said.

In an interview with this news organization, Richard A. Larson, MD, a professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at The University of Chicago, who is an ASC4FIRST investigator, noted the 96-week follow-up data from the trial will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December in San Diego.

Larson said data from this trial will show continued benefit with the frontline use of asciminib. Larson also is an author of a New England Journal of Medicine article in May about the ASC4FIRST trial.

“The data speak for themselves, that asciminib is at least as effective or more so and at least as well tolerated as what’s already on the market,” Larson said. “So their argument, at the end of the day, really boils down to the cost of a new drug and whether we need a new drug.”

From the point of view of patients with cancer, the answer to that is clear, he said.

“If you talk to cancer patients, they’d like to see new drugs become available as quickly as possible. And I think that was the original rationale for the accelerated approval pathway, that a drug that has been shown to be safe and effective in a prospective clinical trial could get accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint.”

The remarkable success seen in developing TKI drugs for CML creates difficulties in testing later entrants in this class due to their prolonged survival, Larson said.

“If you look on a population basis, the overall survival of newly diagnosed CML patients with all of these therapeutic options available to them now approximate that of the non-CML population.”

“For most anticancer drugs, the FDA would like to see an overall survival benefit, but patients with newly diagnosed CML are surviving 20 or 30 years, and they’re not dying at an accelerated rate the way they were. So it’d be impractical to require a clinical trial to show a survival benefit, a randomized trial.”

“That’s where the use of a surrogate endpoint, which is the major molecular response at 1 year, has been so valuable, gets the drugs approved, gets them into patients far earlier than if there was a survival end point requirement,” he said.

Larson reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, Cellectis, Curis, CVS Caremark, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmunoGen, Jazz, MorphoSys, Rigel, Servier, Forty Seven/Gilead, Novartis, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals. Sekeres disclosed relationships with BMS, Kurome, and Novartis Advisory Boards. Bhatia reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

US regulators’ use of a speedy clearance pathway for a new frontline indication for asciminib for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has raised questions due to the number of medications already available for this condition.

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to asciminib (Scemblix, Novartis AG) for adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive CML in chronic phase.

Asciminib is one of the six tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs used for CML, a class that began with the introduction of imatinib (Gleevec) in 2001. By 2016, researchers reported that TKIs had helped make life expectancy in patients with CML approach that of the general population. Physicians and patients now have several options of second-generation TKI drugs that also can be used in newly diagnosed patients, along with the option to begin with the more affordable option of imatinib.

The FDA in 1992 instituted the accelerated approval pathway to try to speed market drugs for serious conditions that fill unmet medical needs.

The agency and companies essentially make bets on promising study results, often using surrogate markers, to allow sales of medicines while waiting for evidence from confirmatory studies. For example, the FDA in August used the accelerated approval process to clear the first T-cell receptor gene therapy for certain advanced forms of sarcoma, a form of cancer with limited treatment options.

The next accelerated approval of a cancer drug was the indication for asciminib as a frontline therapy. The FDA also used accelerated approval for the initial clearance of asciminib in 2021 for use in CML previously treated with two or more TKIs. By 2022, Novartis presented sufficient evidence of the drug’s merit to win full approval for the drug in this use.

The timeline is longer for the expected confirmatory research for asciminib as a frontline therapy, with a 2028 deadline set for this work. The data presented to date on asciminib have not persuaded some oncologists on the need for the speedy approval of frontline use.

“This boils down to a drug that looks as if it’s just as good as other second-generation TKIs,” Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami. “I don’t know how they could use the accelerated approval mechanism to get this through.”

Sekeres, a former chair of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, explored concerns and challenges involved with the use of the accelerated approval process in his 2022 book, Drugs and the FDA: Safety, Efficacy, and the Public’s Trust.

“The intent of the accelerated approval mechanism is that you’re bringing a new therapy to treat a serious disease in a way that others haven’t previously, where there aren’t existing options,” Sekeres said.

This is a markedly different situation that exists for CML, where medicines have improved dramatically in the 21st century, unlike many other forms of cancer treated by hematologists.

“As someone who specializes in treating people with leukemia, I’d be happy every clinic day of my life if all of my patients came in with chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia,” instead of other cancers lacking these robust treatment options, he said.

With CML, physicians select among TKIs considering side effects and other health conditions patients have, including weighing the impact of financial toxicity in some cases, he said.

“If I have a patient with lower risk chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia, I’m treating them with imatinib,” Sekeres said.

 

Questions About Surrogate Endpoints

Sekeres is not alone in questioning the use of the speedier FDA pathway for a new indication for a TKI in CML.

“Where is the ‘unmet need’ justifying an accelerated approval in this setting?” Timothée Olivier, MD, who is affiliated with both the Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève and the VK Prasad Laboratory funded by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, wrote in a November 3 post on X.

Olivier, Prasad, and coauthors in a September correspondence to the American Journal of Hematology raised questions about the study design for a key asciminib study, ASC4FIRST. They noted what they consider a weakness with the endpoints used.

“Molecular milestones like the 48-week MMR [major molecular response] are often used in clinical trials due to their convenience and shorter timeline for assessment,” they wrote. “However, these milestones are not definitive indicators of long-term survival or overall clinical benefit.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the evidence gap between initial accelerated approvals and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Researchers including Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a Medscape Medical News contributor, also have questioned the degree of reliance on surrogate endpoints in accelerated approvals.

In response, the FDA’s Cancer Division and the US Congress have taken steps to try to force drugmakers to more quickly answer the key question in accelerated approvals: Does this medicine produce the expected benefits? For example, the FDA in March appears to have turned down a bid for accelerated approval of a lymphoma drug due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The use of accelerated approval will continue to be a balancing act, due in part to demand for newer agents, Ravi Bhatia, MD, of the O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“Accelerated approval of agents for up-front treatment of CML does not appear well justified, given the high degree of efficacy of existing agents,” said Bhatia, vice chair of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Panel for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

“On the other hand, there is greater urgency for developing agents for patients who have failed existing agents and patients with advanced phase disease, and the use of accelerated approval may be justified in this setting,” Bhatia said.

In an interview with this news organization, Richard A. Larson, MD, a professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at The University of Chicago, who is an ASC4FIRST investigator, noted the 96-week follow-up data from the trial will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December in San Diego.

Larson said data from this trial will show continued benefit with the frontline use of asciminib. Larson also is an author of a New England Journal of Medicine article in May about the ASC4FIRST trial.

“The data speak for themselves, that asciminib is at least as effective or more so and at least as well tolerated as what’s already on the market,” Larson said. “So their argument, at the end of the day, really boils down to the cost of a new drug and whether we need a new drug.”

From the point of view of patients with cancer, the answer to that is clear, he said.

“If you talk to cancer patients, they’d like to see new drugs become available as quickly as possible. And I think that was the original rationale for the accelerated approval pathway, that a drug that has been shown to be safe and effective in a prospective clinical trial could get accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint.”

The remarkable success seen in developing TKI drugs for CML creates difficulties in testing later entrants in this class due to their prolonged survival, Larson said.

“If you look on a population basis, the overall survival of newly diagnosed CML patients with all of these therapeutic options available to them now approximate that of the non-CML population.”

“For most anticancer drugs, the FDA would like to see an overall survival benefit, but patients with newly diagnosed CML are surviving 20 or 30 years, and they’re not dying at an accelerated rate the way they were. So it’d be impractical to require a clinical trial to show a survival benefit, a randomized trial.”

“That’s where the use of a surrogate endpoint, which is the major molecular response at 1 year, has been so valuable, gets the drugs approved, gets them into patients far earlier than if there was a survival end point requirement,” he said.

Larson reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, Cellectis, Curis, CVS Caremark, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmunoGen, Jazz, MorphoSys, Rigel, Servier, Forty Seven/Gilead, Novartis, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals. Sekeres disclosed relationships with BMS, Kurome, and Novartis Advisory Boards. Bhatia reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

US regulators’ use of a speedy clearance pathway for a new frontline indication for asciminib for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has raised questions due to the number of medications already available for this condition.

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to asciminib (Scemblix, Novartis AG) for adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive CML in chronic phase.

Asciminib is one of the six tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs used for CML, a class that began with the introduction of imatinib (Gleevec) in 2001. By 2016, researchers reported that TKIs had helped make life expectancy in patients with CML approach that of the general population. Physicians and patients now have several options of second-generation TKI drugs that also can be used in newly diagnosed patients, along with the option to begin with the more affordable option of imatinib.

The FDA in 1992 instituted the accelerated approval pathway to try to speed market drugs for serious conditions that fill unmet medical needs.

The agency and companies essentially make bets on promising study results, often using surrogate markers, to allow sales of medicines while waiting for evidence from confirmatory studies. For example, the FDA in August used the accelerated approval process to clear the first T-cell receptor gene therapy for certain advanced forms of sarcoma, a form of cancer with limited treatment options.

The next accelerated approval of a cancer drug was the indication for asciminib as a frontline therapy. The FDA also used accelerated approval for the initial clearance of asciminib in 2021 for use in CML previously treated with two or more TKIs. By 2022, Novartis presented sufficient evidence of the drug’s merit to win full approval for the drug in this use.

The timeline is longer for the expected confirmatory research for asciminib as a frontline therapy, with a 2028 deadline set for this work. The data presented to date on asciminib have not persuaded some oncologists on the need for the speedy approval of frontline use.

“This boils down to a drug that looks as if it’s just as good as other second-generation TKIs,” Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami. “I don’t know how they could use the accelerated approval mechanism to get this through.”

Sekeres, a former chair of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, explored concerns and challenges involved with the use of the accelerated approval process in his 2022 book, Drugs and the FDA: Safety, Efficacy, and the Public’s Trust.

“The intent of the accelerated approval mechanism is that you’re bringing a new therapy to treat a serious disease in a way that others haven’t previously, where there aren’t existing options,” Sekeres said.

This is a markedly different situation that exists for CML, where medicines have improved dramatically in the 21st century, unlike many other forms of cancer treated by hematologists.

“As someone who specializes in treating people with leukemia, I’d be happy every clinic day of my life if all of my patients came in with chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia,” instead of other cancers lacking these robust treatment options, he said.

With CML, physicians select among TKIs considering side effects and other health conditions patients have, including weighing the impact of financial toxicity in some cases, he said.

“If I have a patient with lower risk chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia, I’m treating them with imatinib,” Sekeres said.

 

Questions About Surrogate Endpoints

Sekeres is not alone in questioning the use of the speedier FDA pathway for a new indication for a TKI in CML.

“Where is the ‘unmet need’ justifying an accelerated approval in this setting?” Timothée Olivier, MD, who is affiliated with both the Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève and the VK Prasad Laboratory funded by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, wrote in a November 3 post on X.

Olivier, Prasad, and coauthors in a September correspondence to the American Journal of Hematology raised questions about the study design for a key asciminib study, ASC4FIRST. They noted what they consider a weakness with the endpoints used.

“Molecular milestones like the 48-week MMR [major molecular response] are often used in clinical trials due to their convenience and shorter timeline for assessment,” they wrote. “However, these milestones are not definitive indicators of long-term survival or overall clinical benefit.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the evidence gap between initial accelerated approvals and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Researchers including Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a Medscape Medical News contributor, also have questioned the degree of reliance on surrogate endpoints in accelerated approvals.

In response, the FDA’s Cancer Division and the US Congress have taken steps to try to force drugmakers to more quickly answer the key question in accelerated approvals: Does this medicine produce the expected benefits? For example, the FDA in March appears to have turned down a bid for accelerated approval of a lymphoma drug due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The use of accelerated approval will continue to be a balancing act, due in part to demand for newer agents, Ravi Bhatia, MD, of the O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“Accelerated approval of agents for up-front treatment of CML does not appear well justified, given the high degree of efficacy of existing agents,” said Bhatia, vice chair of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Panel for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

“On the other hand, there is greater urgency for developing agents for patients who have failed existing agents and patients with advanced phase disease, and the use of accelerated approval may be justified in this setting,” Bhatia said.

In an interview with this news organization, Richard A. Larson, MD, a professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at The University of Chicago, who is an ASC4FIRST investigator, noted the 96-week follow-up data from the trial will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December in San Diego.

Larson said data from this trial will show continued benefit with the frontline use of asciminib. Larson also is an author of a New England Journal of Medicine article in May about the ASC4FIRST trial.

“The data speak for themselves, that asciminib is at least as effective or more so and at least as well tolerated as what’s already on the market,” Larson said. “So their argument, at the end of the day, really boils down to the cost of a new drug and whether we need a new drug.”

From the point of view of patients with cancer, the answer to that is clear, he said.

“If you talk to cancer patients, they’d like to see new drugs become available as quickly as possible. And I think that was the original rationale for the accelerated approval pathway, that a drug that has been shown to be safe and effective in a prospective clinical trial could get accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint.”

The remarkable success seen in developing TKI drugs for CML creates difficulties in testing later entrants in this class due to their prolonged survival, Larson said.

“If you look on a population basis, the overall survival of newly diagnosed CML patients with all of these therapeutic options available to them now approximate that of the non-CML population.”

“For most anticancer drugs, the FDA would like to see an overall survival benefit, but patients with newly diagnosed CML are surviving 20 or 30 years, and they’re not dying at an accelerated rate the way they were. So it’d be impractical to require a clinical trial to show a survival benefit, a randomized trial.”

“That’s where the use of a surrogate endpoint, which is the major molecular response at 1 year, has been so valuable, gets the drugs approved, gets them into patients far earlier than if there was a survival end point requirement,” he said.

Larson reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, Cellectis, Curis, CVS Caremark, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmunoGen, Jazz, MorphoSys, Rigel, Servier, Forty Seven/Gilead, Novartis, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals. Sekeres disclosed relationships with BMS, Kurome, and Novartis Advisory Boards. Bhatia reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.