User login
FDA rejects poziotinib for certain types of lung cancer
The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.
The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.
Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”
“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals.
However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
Drug development criticized
At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”
The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.
To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.
The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.
Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.
“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.
Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.
Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.
Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.
“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.
The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.
Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”
“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals.
However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
Drug development criticized
At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”
The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.
To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.
The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.
Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.
“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.
Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.
Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.
Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.
“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.
The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.
Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”
“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals.
However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
Drug development criticized
At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”
The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.
To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.
The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.
Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.
“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.
Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.
Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.
Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.
“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) bladder cancer indication withdrawn in United States
The drug is an anti–PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy, and continues to be approved for use in lung and liver cancer and melanoma.
The manufacturer, Genentech, announced that it was voluntarily withdrawing the U.S. indication for atezolizumab that covered its use in adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (bladder cancer) who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1 or are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status.
The company said that it made the decision after consultation with the Food and Drug Administration.
“While we are disappointed with this withdrawal, we understand the need to uphold the principles of the FDA’s Accelerated Approval Program, which brings innovative medicines to patients sooner,” said Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, Genentech chief medical officer and head of Global Product Development.
Atezolizumab had been granted an accelerated approval for this indication back in 2016, based on response rate data from the IMvigor210 trial.
The company was obliged to conduct a follow-up trial to show clinical benefit, and launched IMvigor130, which it described as “the designated postmarketing requirement to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval.”
The bladder cancer indication for atezolizumab was discussed (alongside several other indications for different immunotherapy drugs) at a historic 3-day meeting of the FDA’s oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee in April 2021. At the time, ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.
Genentech has now said that this trial “did not meet the coprimary endpoint of overall survival for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone” when used for the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated advanced bladder cancer.
These data will be presented at an upcoming medical meeting, the company added.
“There is a considerable unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments for people living with advanced bladder cancer and so we regret that the IMvigor130 trial did not cross the statistical threshold for overall survival,” Dr. Garraway commented.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The drug is an anti–PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy, and continues to be approved for use in lung and liver cancer and melanoma.
The manufacturer, Genentech, announced that it was voluntarily withdrawing the U.S. indication for atezolizumab that covered its use in adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (bladder cancer) who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1 or are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status.
The company said that it made the decision after consultation with the Food and Drug Administration.
“While we are disappointed with this withdrawal, we understand the need to uphold the principles of the FDA’s Accelerated Approval Program, which brings innovative medicines to patients sooner,” said Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, Genentech chief medical officer and head of Global Product Development.
Atezolizumab had been granted an accelerated approval for this indication back in 2016, based on response rate data from the IMvigor210 trial.
The company was obliged to conduct a follow-up trial to show clinical benefit, and launched IMvigor130, which it described as “the designated postmarketing requirement to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval.”
The bladder cancer indication for atezolizumab was discussed (alongside several other indications for different immunotherapy drugs) at a historic 3-day meeting of the FDA’s oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee in April 2021. At the time, ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.
Genentech has now said that this trial “did not meet the coprimary endpoint of overall survival for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone” when used for the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated advanced bladder cancer.
These data will be presented at an upcoming medical meeting, the company added.
“There is a considerable unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments for people living with advanced bladder cancer and so we regret that the IMvigor130 trial did not cross the statistical threshold for overall survival,” Dr. Garraway commented.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The drug is an anti–PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy, and continues to be approved for use in lung and liver cancer and melanoma.
The manufacturer, Genentech, announced that it was voluntarily withdrawing the U.S. indication for atezolizumab that covered its use in adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (bladder cancer) who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1 or are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status.
The company said that it made the decision after consultation with the Food and Drug Administration.
“While we are disappointed with this withdrawal, we understand the need to uphold the principles of the FDA’s Accelerated Approval Program, which brings innovative medicines to patients sooner,” said Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, Genentech chief medical officer and head of Global Product Development.
Atezolizumab had been granted an accelerated approval for this indication back in 2016, based on response rate data from the IMvigor210 trial.
The company was obliged to conduct a follow-up trial to show clinical benefit, and launched IMvigor130, which it described as “the designated postmarketing requirement to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval.”
The bladder cancer indication for atezolizumab was discussed (alongside several other indications for different immunotherapy drugs) at a historic 3-day meeting of the FDA’s oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee in April 2021. At the time, ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.
Genentech has now said that this trial “did not meet the coprimary endpoint of overall survival for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone” when used for the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated advanced bladder cancer.
These data will be presented at an upcoming medical meeting, the company added.
“There is a considerable unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments for people living with advanced bladder cancer and so we regret that the IMvigor130 trial did not cross the statistical threshold for overall survival,” Dr. Garraway commented.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs first fecal transplant therapy for recurrent C. difficile
Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.
“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.
As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.
A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.
The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
A vicious cycle
Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.
Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.
Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.
The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.
In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.
The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.
Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.
The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.
“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.
However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.
Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.
Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.
“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.
As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.
A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.
The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
A vicious cycle
Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.
Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.
Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.
The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.
In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.
The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.
Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.
The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.
“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.
However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.
Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.
Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.
“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.
As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.
A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.
The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
A vicious cycle
Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.
Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.
Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.
The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.
In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.
The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.
Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.
The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.
“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.
However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.
Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.
Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With type 1 diabetes delay possible, focus now on screening
The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.
The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.
It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.
But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.
During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.”
Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”
During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.
Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
How would screening happen?
While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.
Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.
Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.
However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.
“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.
He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.
And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.
“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”
A two-pronged approach to screening could work best
Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.
“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”
Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.
“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”
He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”
While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”
But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”
During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.
Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.
The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.
It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.
But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.
During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.”
Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”
During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.
Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
How would screening happen?
While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.
Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.
Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.
However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.
“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.
He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.
And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.
“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”
A two-pronged approach to screening could work best
Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.
“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”
Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.
“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”
He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”
While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”
But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”
During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.
Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.
The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.
It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.
But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.
During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.”
Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”
During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.
Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
How would screening happen?
While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.
Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.
Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.
However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.
“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.
He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.
And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.
“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”
A two-pronged approach to screening could work best
Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.
“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”
Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.
“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”
He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”
While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”
But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”
During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.
Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA alert: ‘Substantial’ hypocalcemia risk with denosumab use in dialysis patients
The Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on Nov. 22 that cited preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia and serious outcomes related to abnormally low calcium levels in people being treated with dialysis and receiving the osteoporosis medication denosumab (Prolia), including hospitalization and death.
In its alert, the FDA advised clinicians to make sure that people on dialysis who receive Prolia ingest adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation and undergo frequent blood calcium monitoring, “possibly more often than is already being conducted,” which “may help decrease the likelihood or severity of these risks.”
The agency also called on clinicians to “advise patients on dialysis to immediately seek help if they experience symptoms of hypocalcemia,” such as unusual tingling or numbness in the hands, arms, legs, or feet; painful muscle spasms or cramps; voice box or lung spasms causing difficulty breathing; vomiting; seizures; or irregular heart rhythm.
The FDA had a similar message for people being treated with dialysis who are also receiving Prolia. The alert advised patients to watch for these symptoms and to tell their health care provider if they occur. The agency also advised patients who are undergoing dialysis and receiving Prolia to not stop the agent on their own, without first discussing this step with their care provider.
The FDA also advised providers and patients to contact the agency about episodes of side effects from Prolia (or other medications) via the FDA’s MedWatch program.
Frequent and serious
The FDA explained it issued the alert because of “the frequency and seriousness” of the risk for hypocalcemia and resulting complications. The agency noted that the risk seems most acute for people on dialysis who also receive Prolia, but the risk may also extend to people with advanced kidney disease who are not being treated with hemodialysis.
The alert stemmed from “interim results” in an ongoing safety study of Prolia that the FDA required the agent’s manufacturer, Amgen, to run when the agency first approved denosumab for U.S. marketing in 2010. The FDA said its review of these interim results suggested an increased risk of hypocalcemia with Prolia in patients with advanced kidney disease.
In addition, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA suggested in a separate, internal study that patients on dialysis treated with Prolia are at “substantial risk for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia, including hospitalization and death.”
The alert explained that “because of the frequency and seriousness of these risks, we are alerting healthcare professionals and patients about them and that we are continuing to evaluate this potential safety issue with Prolia use in patients with advanced kidney disease, particularly those on dialysis.” The FDA added that “we will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review or have more information to share.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on Nov. 22 that cited preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia and serious outcomes related to abnormally low calcium levels in people being treated with dialysis and receiving the osteoporosis medication denosumab (Prolia), including hospitalization and death.
In its alert, the FDA advised clinicians to make sure that people on dialysis who receive Prolia ingest adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation and undergo frequent blood calcium monitoring, “possibly more often than is already being conducted,” which “may help decrease the likelihood or severity of these risks.”
The agency also called on clinicians to “advise patients on dialysis to immediately seek help if they experience symptoms of hypocalcemia,” such as unusual tingling or numbness in the hands, arms, legs, or feet; painful muscle spasms or cramps; voice box or lung spasms causing difficulty breathing; vomiting; seizures; or irregular heart rhythm.
The FDA had a similar message for people being treated with dialysis who are also receiving Prolia. The alert advised patients to watch for these symptoms and to tell their health care provider if they occur. The agency also advised patients who are undergoing dialysis and receiving Prolia to not stop the agent on their own, without first discussing this step with their care provider.
The FDA also advised providers and patients to contact the agency about episodes of side effects from Prolia (or other medications) via the FDA’s MedWatch program.
Frequent and serious
The FDA explained it issued the alert because of “the frequency and seriousness” of the risk for hypocalcemia and resulting complications. The agency noted that the risk seems most acute for people on dialysis who also receive Prolia, but the risk may also extend to people with advanced kidney disease who are not being treated with hemodialysis.
The alert stemmed from “interim results” in an ongoing safety study of Prolia that the FDA required the agent’s manufacturer, Amgen, to run when the agency first approved denosumab for U.S. marketing in 2010. The FDA said its review of these interim results suggested an increased risk of hypocalcemia with Prolia in patients with advanced kidney disease.
In addition, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA suggested in a separate, internal study that patients on dialysis treated with Prolia are at “substantial risk for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia, including hospitalization and death.”
The alert explained that “because of the frequency and seriousness of these risks, we are alerting healthcare professionals and patients about them and that we are continuing to evaluate this potential safety issue with Prolia use in patients with advanced kidney disease, particularly those on dialysis.” The FDA added that “we will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review or have more information to share.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on Nov. 22 that cited preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia and serious outcomes related to abnormally low calcium levels in people being treated with dialysis and receiving the osteoporosis medication denosumab (Prolia), including hospitalization and death.
In its alert, the FDA advised clinicians to make sure that people on dialysis who receive Prolia ingest adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation and undergo frequent blood calcium monitoring, “possibly more often than is already being conducted,” which “may help decrease the likelihood or severity of these risks.”
The agency also called on clinicians to “advise patients on dialysis to immediately seek help if they experience symptoms of hypocalcemia,” such as unusual tingling or numbness in the hands, arms, legs, or feet; painful muscle spasms or cramps; voice box or lung spasms causing difficulty breathing; vomiting; seizures; or irregular heart rhythm.
The FDA had a similar message for people being treated with dialysis who are also receiving Prolia. The alert advised patients to watch for these symptoms and to tell their health care provider if they occur. The agency also advised patients who are undergoing dialysis and receiving Prolia to not stop the agent on their own, without first discussing this step with their care provider.
The FDA also advised providers and patients to contact the agency about episodes of side effects from Prolia (or other medications) via the FDA’s MedWatch program.
Frequent and serious
The FDA explained it issued the alert because of “the frequency and seriousness” of the risk for hypocalcemia and resulting complications. The agency noted that the risk seems most acute for people on dialysis who also receive Prolia, but the risk may also extend to people with advanced kidney disease who are not being treated with hemodialysis.
The alert stemmed from “interim results” in an ongoing safety study of Prolia that the FDA required the agent’s manufacturer, Amgen, to run when the agency first approved denosumab for U.S. marketing in 2010. The FDA said its review of these interim results suggested an increased risk of hypocalcemia with Prolia in patients with advanced kidney disease.
In addition, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA suggested in a separate, internal study that patients on dialysis treated with Prolia are at “substantial risk for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia, including hospitalization and death.”
The alert explained that “because of the frequency and seriousness of these risks, we are alerting healthcare professionals and patients about them and that we are continuing to evaluate this potential safety issue with Prolia use in patients with advanced kidney disease, particularly those on dialysis.” The FDA added that “we will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review or have more information to share.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves first gene therapy for hemophilia B
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
Blenrep for multiple myeloma withdrawn from U.S. market
A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.
The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).
The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.
The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.
“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.
The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”
Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.
The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.
However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
For relapsed/refractory disease
Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.
Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.
“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
Details of DREAMM-3 results
DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.
The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).
At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.
The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).
The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.
The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.
“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.
The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”
Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.
The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.
However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
For relapsed/refractory disease
Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.
Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.
“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
Details of DREAMM-3 results
DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.
The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).
At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.
The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).
The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.
The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.
“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.
The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”
Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.
The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.
However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
For relapsed/refractory disease
Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.
Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.
“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
Details of DREAMM-3 results
DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.
The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).
At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At-home births rose during the pandemic, CDC reports
More women gave birth at home in America last year, continuing a pandemic trend and reaching the highest level in decades, according to figures released by the CDC.
The report said that almost 52,000 births occurred at home in 2021, out of 4 million total births in the country. This was an increase of 12% from 2020. The figure rose by 22% in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, over 2019.
There were several possible reasons for the increase in home births. Infection rates and hospitalizations were high. Vaccinations were not available or were not widely used, and many people avoided going to hospitals or the doctor, said Elizabeth Gregory, the report’s lead author.
Also, some women didn’t have health insurance, lived far from a medical facility, or could not get to a hospital fast enough. About 25% of home births are not planned, the Associated Press reported.
Increases in home births occurred across all races, but home births were less common among Hispanics.
The AP reported that home births are riskier than hospital births, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The organization advises against home births for women carrying multiple babies or who have previously had a cesarean section.
“Hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest places to give birth, because although serious complications associated with labor and delivery are rare, they can be catastrophic,” said Jeffrey Ecker, M.D., chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
More women gave birth at home in America last year, continuing a pandemic trend and reaching the highest level in decades, according to figures released by the CDC.
The report said that almost 52,000 births occurred at home in 2021, out of 4 million total births in the country. This was an increase of 12% from 2020. The figure rose by 22% in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, over 2019.
There were several possible reasons for the increase in home births. Infection rates and hospitalizations were high. Vaccinations were not available or were not widely used, and many people avoided going to hospitals or the doctor, said Elizabeth Gregory, the report’s lead author.
Also, some women didn’t have health insurance, lived far from a medical facility, or could not get to a hospital fast enough. About 25% of home births are not planned, the Associated Press reported.
Increases in home births occurred across all races, but home births were less common among Hispanics.
The AP reported that home births are riskier than hospital births, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The organization advises against home births for women carrying multiple babies or who have previously had a cesarean section.
“Hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest places to give birth, because although serious complications associated with labor and delivery are rare, they can be catastrophic,” said Jeffrey Ecker, M.D., chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
More women gave birth at home in America last year, continuing a pandemic trend and reaching the highest level in decades, according to figures released by the CDC.
The report said that almost 52,000 births occurred at home in 2021, out of 4 million total births in the country. This was an increase of 12% from 2020. The figure rose by 22% in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, over 2019.
There were several possible reasons for the increase in home births. Infection rates and hospitalizations were high. Vaccinations were not available or were not widely used, and many people avoided going to hospitals or the doctor, said Elizabeth Gregory, the report’s lead author.
Also, some women didn’t have health insurance, lived far from a medical facility, or could not get to a hospital fast enough. About 25% of home births are not planned, the Associated Press reported.
Increases in home births occurred across all races, but home births were less common among Hispanics.
The AP reported that home births are riskier than hospital births, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The organization advises against home births for women carrying multiple babies or who have previously had a cesarean section.
“Hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest places to give birth, because although serious complications associated with labor and delivery are rare, they can be catastrophic,” said Jeffrey Ecker, M.D., chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA approves first-ever agent to delay type 1 diabetes onset
“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”
The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.
Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.
Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
T1D onset delayed by 2 years
In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.
Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).
C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).
“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.
The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.
This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.
Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.
In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”
The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.
Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.
Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
T1D onset delayed by 2 years
In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.
Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).
C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).
“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.
The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.
This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.
Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.
In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”
The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.
Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.
Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
T1D onset delayed by 2 years
In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.
Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).
C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).
“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.
The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.
This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.
Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.
In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA grants accelerated approval for new treatment of female cancers
The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) for use in pretreated patients with folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. These patients can have received one to three prior lines of treatment.
“ according to labeling.
Mirvetuximab soravtansine is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) with an antibody directed against FR alpha that is linked to a microtubule inhibitor conjugate.
This product is a first-in-class ADC directed against FR alpha, a cell-surface protein highly expressed in ovarian cancer, and is the first FDA-approved ADC for platinum-resistant disease, said the manufacturer, ImmunoGen.
Patients are selected for treatment with this drug using a diagnostic test that the FDA approved along with the agent: the VENTANA FOLR1 (FOLR-2.1) RxDx Assay.
FR alpha–positive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is characterized by limited treatment options and poor outcomes, commented Ursula Matulonis, MD, chief of the division of gynecologic oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and co–principal investigator of the SORAYA trial that led to the approval. In a company press release, she said results from this trial show that mirvetuximab soravtansine has “impressive antitumor activity, durability of response, and overall tolerability ... [which] demonstrate the benefit of this new therapeutic option.”
The SORAYA trial (also known as Study 0417 [NCT04296890]) was a single-arm trial of 106 patients with FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.
These patients were identified as FR alpha positive by using the assay. They were permitted to receive up to three prior lines of systemic therapy, and all patients were required to have received bevacizumab.
All patients received mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx 6 mg/kg (based on adjusted ideal body weight) as an intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The approval was based on an investigator-assessed overall response rate of 31.7%, which included five complete responses, and a median duration of response of 6.9 months.
Safety was evaluated in a pooled analysis from three studies among a total of 464 patients with FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who received at least one dose of the drug.
The most common adverse events, occurring in 20% or more of study participants, were vision impairment, fatigue, increased AST level, nausea, increased alanine aminotransferase level, keratopathy, abdominal pain, decreased lymphocytes, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, decreased albumin, constipation, increased alkaline phosphatase level, dry eye, decreased magnesium level, decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, and decreased hemoglobin level.
Potential participants were excluded if they had corneal disorders, ocular conditions requiring ongoing treatment, peripheral neuropathy above grade 1, or noninfectious interstitial lung disease.
The product labeling contains a boxed warning of ocular toxicity. Full prescribing information is available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) for use in pretreated patients with folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. These patients can have received one to three prior lines of treatment.
“ according to labeling.
Mirvetuximab soravtansine is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) with an antibody directed against FR alpha that is linked to a microtubule inhibitor conjugate.
This product is a first-in-class ADC directed against FR alpha, a cell-surface protein highly expressed in ovarian cancer, and is the first FDA-approved ADC for platinum-resistant disease, said the manufacturer, ImmunoGen.
Patients are selected for treatment with this drug using a diagnostic test that the FDA approved along with the agent: the VENTANA FOLR1 (FOLR-2.1) RxDx Assay.
FR alpha–positive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is characterized by limited treatment options and poor outcomes, commented Ursula Matulonis, MD, chief of the division of gynecologic oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and co–principal investigator of the SORAYA trial that led to the approval. In a company press release, she said results from this trial show that mirvetuximab soravtansine has “impressive antitumor activity, durability of response, and overall tolerability ... [which] demonstrate the benefit of this new therapeutic option.”
The SORAYA trial (also known as Study 0417 [NCT04296890]) was a single-arm trial of 106 patients with FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.
These patients were identified as FR alpha positive by using the assay. They were permitted to receive up to three prior lines of systemic therapy, and all patients were required to have received bevacizumab.
All patients received mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx 6 mg/kg (based on adjusted ideal body weight) as an intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The approval was based on an investigator-assessed overall response rate of 31.7%, which included five complete responses, and a median duration of response of 6.9 months.
Safety was evaluated in a pooled analysis from three studies among a total of 464 patients with FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who received at least one dose of the drug.
The most common adverse events, occurring in 20% or more of study participants, were vision impairment, fatigue, increased AST level, nausea, increased alanine aminotransferase level, keratopathy, abdominal pain, decreased lymphocytes, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, decreased albumin, constipation, increased alkaline phosphatase level, dry eye, decreased magnesium level, decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, and decreased hemoglobin level.
Potential participants were excluded if they had corneal disorders, ocular conditions requiring ongoing treatment, peripheral neuropathy above grade 1, or noninfectious interstitial lung disease.
The product labeling contains a boxed warning of ocular toxicity. Full prescribing information is available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) for use in pretreated patients with folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. These patients can have received one to three prior lines of treatment.
“ according to labeling.
Mirvetuximab soravtansine is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) with an antibody directed against FR alpha that is linked to a microtubule inhibitor conjugate.
This product is a first-in-class ADC directed against FR alpha, a cell-surface protein highly expressed in ovarian cancer, and is the first FDA-approved ADC for platinum-resistant disease, said the manufacturer, ImmunoGen.
Patients are selected for treatment with this drug using a diagnostic test that the FDA approved along with the agent: the VENTANA FOLR1 (FOLR-2.1) RxDx Assay.
FR alpha–positive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is characterized by limited treatment options and poor outcomes, commented Ursula Matulonis, MD, chief of the division of gynecologic oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and co–principal investigator of the SORAYA trial that led to the approval. In a company press release, she said results from this trial show that mirvetuximab soravtansine has “impressive antitumor activity, durability of response, and overall tolerability ... [which] demonstrate the benefit of this new therapeutic option.”
The SORAYA trial (also known as Study 0417 [NCT04296890]) was a single-arm trial of 106 patients with FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.
These patients were identified as FR alpha positive by using the assay. They were permitted to receive up to three prior lines of systemic therapy, and all patients were required to have received bevacizumab.
All patients received mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx 6 mg/kg (based on adjusted ideal body weight) as an intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The approval was based on an investigator-assessed overall response rate of 31.7%, which included five complete responses, and a median duration of response of 6.9 months.
Safety was evaluated in a pooled analysis from three studies among a total of 464 patients with FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who received at least one dose of the drug.
The most common adverse events, occurring in 20% or more of study participants, were vision impairment, fatigue, increased AST level, nausea, increased alanine aminotransferase level, keratopathy, abdominal pain, decreased lymphocytes, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, decreased albumin, constipation, increased alkaline phosphatase level, dry eye, decreased magnesium level, decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, and decreased hemoglobin level.
Potential participants were excluded if they had corneal disorders, ocular conditions requiring ongoing treatment, peripheral neuropathy above grade 1, or noninfectious interstitial lung disease.
The product labeling contains a boxed warning of ocular toxicity. Full prescribing information is available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.