User login
Teclistamab for MM: Lifesaver or 'cause of death'?
Following “unprecedented” results in a phase 1/2 study, teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration for adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four lines of therapy. Typically, patients in this situation have just a few weeks to live.
This is “unprecedented” said Nikhil Munshi, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the study. “Pomalidomide got approved with 30% response rate, carfilzomib got approved with 29% response rate, selinexor got approved with 31% response rate and so on and on. ... So here is teclistamab with [this] response rate in patients having five, six lines of treatment. ...[It’s] going to be so much in demand because it’s a great drug.”
The first cut of the data appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.
At the 6-month mark, 90.6% of patients who responded had no progression of their disease, and at 9 months, 66.5% of patients were still holding steady.
Senior investigator in the trial, Saad Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “What was most striking was the high response rates and the durability of response.”
Dr. Usmani said ease of administration was the other aspect of teclistamab that impressed him. The drug is given by subcutaneous injection weekly after a short ramp-up period.
He contrasted this regimen with that of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, the only alternative with similar efficacy in such sick patients: “I can prescribe [teclistamab] today, and my patient gets it tomorrow,” Dr. Usmani said. “With CAR T, I prescribe today and it will take 4-6 weeks for us to collect T cells and another 6-7 weeks for the product to come back.” Dr. Usmani said many patients die before CAR T reaches them.
Community oncology will benefit greatly from teclistamab, especially patients for whom CAR T isn’t feasible, said Kashyap Patel, MD, president of the Community Oncology Alliance. “My patients are most of them underserved minority-class populations with myeloma, and they cannot travel many miles to go to a CAR T center. With sub[cutaneous] injection, the patient can have [teclistamab] administered in their doctor’s office and continue to live their normal life.”
However, how should the wider oncology community make sense of a drug approval based solely on response in a single-arm, phase 1/2 study, with no survival data?
Dr. Patel said, “Phase 1 plus phase 2 data is probably a little bit quick, but time will tell eventually.” He cited melflufen as a cautionary tale: a product given accelerated approval for multiple myeloma, then withdrawn when new data showed that it increased the risk of death.
When Dr. Munshi was asked about trial design for accelerated approvals, he responded, “you are touching a topic very close to my heart, a topic of great significance currently.”
He went on to say that overall survival (OS) is no longer a viable trial endpoint in diseases like multiple myeloma for several reasons. Most significantly, he noted: “Survival has gone up to 10 or 15 years [so] today, if you randomize between one [drug] versus another, there are going to be seven or eight more treatments before the patient dies.”
Similarly, progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma is now as much as 5 years, Dr. Munshi said. “Do we want a patient to wait 5 years to get a very good new drug?”
For these reasons and others, Dr, Munshi observed, myeloma researchers are increasingly relying on a surrogate called “negative minimal residual disease” (negative MRD) – in other words, a situation in which myeloma cells can no longer be detected in the bone marrow. MRD is hunted out using next-generation flow or next-generation sequencing of myeloma-cell DNA from bone-marrow aspirate to levels as low as 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000 cells.
In 2020, Dr. Munshi and colleagues published a large meta-analysis showing that a negative MRD in a patient with multiple myeloma was significantly prognostic for both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.33; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.45; P < .001). The team concluded: “MRD can fulfill all the prerequisites to be a clinically valid surrogate biomarker for PFS and OS in [multiple myeloma].”
In MajesTEC-1 overall, 26.7% of patients on teclistamab had no signs of residual disease at a threshold of 1 in 100,000. Among patients who showed a “complete response” by International Myeloma Working Group criteria, 46% had no residual disease.
Dr. Munshi stressed that such patients are not necessarily “cured.” It will take a few more years to prove that. He noted: “Simply, physiologically, [negative MRD] means that if a patient has one [myeloma] cell in a million, that cell is going to take a much longer time to grow up to be myeloma.”
On Nov. 8 and 9, the FDA and the International Myeloma Society held a workshop to discuss the vexed question of surrogate endpoints and single-arm studies for drug approvals entitled the “Future of Drug Development in Multiple Myeloma.” Dr. Munshi was cochair.
A panelist at the meeting who was a senior investigator in the MajesTEC-1 trial, Ajai Chari, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, summed up the dilemma: “No one disagrees that randomized studies are the best way of doing things. The question is, if you’re a patient who’s exhausted all available therapies, do you have that time to wait? ... The role of accelerated approval is to get the drug to the patient faster. But what does it not pick up? How do we make these accelerated approvals more meaningful and not have to retract for safety?”
Jonathon Vallejo, also on the panel, agreed that safety was the key worry. The ideal scenario for accelerated approval would be a drug that was better than available therapy, and “in some sense, it’s much safer.” However, such situations are rare.
“Most of the time, we don’t have these products that come in that have no toxicity signals,” he said. “So one thing we have to think carefully about in the single-arm trial setting is, what are the toxicities? How do they stack up?”
Dr. Chari said that, for his part, he wanted to see more transparency around “cause of death” in all studies that lead to accelerated approvals. He said he was “tired” of seeing a death labeled as “not attributed” to the drug by the investigator or the drug company.
“Let me decide. Show me the deaths, and show me the myeloma status at that point,” Dr. Chari said. “That’s a signal – if you’re a responding patient and dying, then the FDA should be a little bit more cautious.”
The FDA has added a boxed warning to the teclistamab product information concerning cytokine-release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.
Cytokine-release syndrome, the most common side effect overall, showed up in 72% of patients, typically 2 days after the first step-up dose.
Neurologic toxicity occurred in 57% of patients, including headache (25%), motor dysfunction (16%), sensory neuropathy (15%) and encephalopathy (13%). About 6%of patients developed a serious, life-threatening neurologic condition called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome.
Overall, serious adverse reactions occurred in 54% of participants in MajesTEC-1, and 5% of people in the trial died from adverse reactions during the study, most commonly infections.
Because of its safety profile, teclistamab is available only through a restricted program called TECVAYLI Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.
The continued approval of teclistamab for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.
To that end, eight more studies of teclistamab are underway, aiming for approximately 1,300 multiple myeloma patients around the world. Three of these trials are in newly diagnosed patients. Four more studies are planned to come online in the next 3 months, raising the final tally of patients testing out teclistamab to approximately 4,700. The trials will look at teclistamab in sequence or in combination with standards such as bortezomib and pomalidomide. All studies are open label.
Dr. Patel believes that, until these trials say otherwise, the benefits of teclistamab outweigh the risks. “I’m very happy we have one more option in this space, particularly the fourth or fifth line for patients who want to continue to fight the disease,” Dr. Patel concluded.
Dr. Munshi disclosed advisory board/consultant work for Adaptive, Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend, Millennium, Novartis, Oncopep, and Pfizer and is the scientific founder of Oncopep and DCT. The 2020 meta-analysis by Dr. Munshi and colleagues was funded by Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Patel declared funding from Janssen for a diversity-equity initiative and membership of the South Carolina Medicaid P & T Committee. Dr. Usmani declared conflicts of interest with Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Genentech, Gilead, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SecuraBio, SkylineDX, Takeda, and TeneoBio.
Following “unprecedented” results in a phase 1/2 study, teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration for adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four lines of therapy. Typically, patients in this situation have just a few weeks to live.
This is “unprecedented” said Nikhil Munshi, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the study. “Pomalidomide got approved with 30% response rate, carfilzomib got approved with 29% response rate, selinexor got approved with 31% response rate and so on and on. ... So here is teclistamab with [this] response rate in patients having five, six lines of treatment. ...[It’s] going to be so much in demand because it’s a great drug.”
The first cut of the data appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.
At the 6-month mark, 90.6% of patients who responded had no progression of their disease, and at 9 months, 66.5% of patients were still holding steady.
Senior investigator in the trial, Saad Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “What was most striking was the high response rates and the durability of response.”
Dr. Usmani said ease of administration was the other aspect of teclistamab that impressed him. The drug is given by subcutaneous injection weekly after a short ramp-up period.
He contrasted this regimen with that of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, the only alternative with similar efficacy in such sick patients: “I can prescribe [teclistamab] today, and my patient gets it tomorrow,” Dr. Usmani said. “With CAR T, I prescribe today and it will take 4-6 weeks for us to collect T cells and another 6-7 weeks for the product to come back.” Dr. Usmani said many patients die before CAR T reaches them.
Community oncology will benefit greatly from teclistamab, especially patients for whom CAR T isn’t feasible, said Kashyap Patel, MD, president of the Community Oncology Alliance. “My patients are most of them underserved minority-class populations with myeloma, and they cannot travel many miles to go to a CAR T center. With sub[cutaneous] injection, the patient can have [teclistamab] administered in their doctor’s office and continue to live their normal life.”
However, how should the wider oncology community make sense of a drug approval based solely on response in a single-arm, phase 1/2 study, with no survival data?
Dr. Patel said, “Phase 1 plus phase 2 data is probably a little bit quick, but time will tell eventually.” He cited melflufen as a cautionary tale: a product given accelerated approval for multiple myeloma, then withdrawn when new data showed that it increased the risk of death.
When Dr. Munshi was asked about trial design for accelerated approvals, he responded, “you are touching a topic very close to my heart, a topic of great significance currently.”
He went on to say that overall survival (OS) is no longer a viable trial endpoint in diseases like multiple myeloma for several reasons. Most significantly, he noted: “Survival has gone up to 10 or 15 years [so] today, if you randomize between one [drug] versus another, there are going to be seven or eight more treatments before the patient dies.”
Similarly, progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma is now as much as 5 years, Dr. Munshi said. “Do we want a patient to wait 5 years to get a very good new drug?”
For these reasons and others, Dr, Munshi observed, myeloma researchers are increasingly relying on a surrogate called “negative minimal residual disease” (negative MRD) – in other words, a situation in which myeloma cells can no longer be detected in the bone marrow. MRD is hunted out using next-generation flow or next-generation sequencing of myeloma-cell DNA from bone-marrow aspirate to levels as low as 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000 cells.
In 2020, Dr. Munshi and colleagues published a large meta-analysis showing that a negative MRD in a patient with multiple myeloma was significantly prognostic for both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.33; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.45; P < .001). The team concluded: “MRD can fulfill all the prerequisites to be a clinically valid surrogate biomarker for PFS and OS in [multiple myeloma].”
In MajesTEC-1 overall, 26.7% of patients on teclistamab had no signs of residual disease at a threshold of 1 in 100,000. Among patients who showed a “complete response” by International Myeloma Working Group criteria, 46% had no residual disease.
Dr. Munshi stressed that such patients are not necessarily “cured.” It will take a few more years to prove that. He noted: “Simply, physiologically, [negative MRD] means that if a patient has one [myeloma] cell in a million, that cell is going to take a much longer time to grow up to be myeloma.”
On Nov. 8 and 9, the FDA and the International Myeloma Society held a workshop to discuss the vexed question of surrogate endpoints and single-arm studies for drug approvals entitled the “Future of Drug Development in Multiple Myeloma.” Dr. Munshi was cochair.
A panelist at the meeting who was a senior investigator in the MajesTEC-1 trial, Ajai Chari, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, summed up the dilemma: “No one disagrees that randomized studies are the best way of doing things. The question is, if you’re a patient who’s exhausted all available therapies, do you have that time to wait? ... The role of accelerated approval is to get the drug to the patient faster. But what does it not pick up? How do we make these accelerated approvals more meaningful and not have to retract for safety?”
Jonathon Vallejo, also on the panel, agreed that safety was the key worry. The ideal scenario for accelerated approval would be a drug that was better than available therapy, and “in some sense, it’s much safer.” However, such situations are rare.
“Most of the time, we don’t have these products that come in that have no toxicity signals,” he said. “So one thing we have to think carefully about in the single-arm trial setting is, what are the toxicities? How do they stack up?”
Dr. Chari said that, for his part, he wanted to see more transparency around “cause of death” in all studies that lead to accelerated approvals. He said he was “tired” of seeing a death labeled as “not attributed” to the drug by the investigator or the drug company.
“Let me decide. Show me the deaths, and show me the myeloma status at that point,” Dr. Chari said. “That’s a signal – if you’re a responding patient and dying, then the FDA should be a little bit more cautious.”
The FDA has added a boxed warning to the teclistamab product information concerning cytokine-release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.
Cytokine-release syndrome, the most common side effect overall, showed up in 72% of patients, typically 2 days after the first step-up dose.
Neurologic toxicity occurred in 57% of patients, including headache (25%), motor dysfunction (16%), sensory neuropathy (15%) and encephalopathy (13%). About 6%of patients developed a serious, life-threatening neurologic condition called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome.
Overall, serious adverse reactions occurred in 54% of participants in MajesTEC-1, and 5% of people in the trial died from adverse reactions during the study, most commonly infections.
Because of its safety profile, teclistamab is available only through a restricted program called TECVAYLI Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.
The continued approval of teclistamab for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.
To that end, eight more studies of teclistamab are underway, aiming for approximately 1,300 multiple myeloma patients around the world. Three of these trials are in newly diagnosed patients. Four more studies are planned to come online in the next 3 months, raising the final tally of patients testing out teclistamab to approximately 4,700. The trials will look at teclistamab in sequence or in combination with standards such as bortezomib and pomalidomide. All studies are open label.
Dr. Patel believes that, until these trials say otherwise, the benefits of teclistamab outweigh the risks. “I’m very happy we have one more option in this space, particularly the fourth or fifth line for patients who want to continue to fight the disease,” Dr. Patel concluded.
Dr. Munshi disclosed advisory board/consultant work for Adaptive, Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend, Millennium, Novartis, Oncopep, and Pfizer and is the scientific founder of Oncopep and DCT. The 2020 meta-analysis by Dr. Munshi and colleagues was funded by Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Patel declared funding from Janssen for a diversity-equity initiative and membership of the South Carolina Medicaid P & T Committee. Dr. Usmani declared conflicts of interest with Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Genentech, Gilead, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SecuraBio, SkylineDX, Takeda, and TeneoBio.
Following “unprecedented” results in a phase 1/2 study, teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration for adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four lines of therapy. Typically, patients in this situation have just a few weeks to live.
This is “unprecedented” said Nikhil Munshi, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the study. “Pomalidomide got approved with 30% response rate, carfilzomib got approved with 29% response rate, selinexor got approved with 31% response rate and so on and on. ... So here is teclistamab with [this] response rate in patients having five, six lines of treatment. ...[It’s] going to be so much in demand because it’s a great drug.”
The first cut of the data appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.
At the 6-month mark, 90.6% of patients who responded had no progression of their disease, and at 9 months, 66.5% of patients were still holding steady.
Senior investigator in the trial, Saad Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “What was most striking was the high response rates and the durability of response.”
Dr. Usmani said ease of administration was the other aspect of teclistamab that impressed him. The drug is given by subcutaneous injection weekly after a short ramp-up period.
He contrasted this regimen with that of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, the only alternative with similar efficacy in such sick patients: “I can prescribe [teclistamab] today, and my patient gets it tomorrow,” Dr. Usmani said. “With CAR T, I prescribe today and it will take 4-6 weeks for us to collect T cells and another 6-7 weeks for the product to come back.” Dr. Usmani said many patients die before CAR T reaches them.
Community oncology will benefit greatly from teclistamab, especially patients for whom CAR T isn’t feasible, said Kashyap Patel, MD, president of the Community Oncology Alliance. “My patients are most of them underserved minority-class populations with myeloma, and they cannot travel many miles to go to a CAR T center. With sub[cutaneous] injection, the patient can have [teclistamab] administered in their doctor’s office and continue to live their normal life.”
However, how should the wider oncology community make sense of a drug approval based solely on response in a single-arm, phase 1/2 study, with no survival data?
Dr. Patel said, “Phase 1 plus phase 2 data is probably a little bit quick, but time will tell eventually.” He cited melflufen as a cautionary tale: a product given accelerated approval for multiple myeloma, then withdrawn when new data showed that it increased the risk of death.
When Dr. Munshi was asked about trial design for accelerated approvals, he responded, “you are touching a topic very close to my heart, a topic of great significance currently.”
He went on to say that overall survival (OS) is no longer a viable trial endpoint in diseases like multiple myeloma for several reasons. Most significantly, he noted: “Survival has gone up to 10 or 15 years [so] today, if you randomize between one [drug] versus another, there are going to be seven or eight more treatments before the patient dies.”
Similarly, progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma is now as much as 5 years, Dr. Munshi said. “Do we want a patient to wait 5 years to get a very good new drug?”
For these reasons and others, Dr, Munshi observed, myeloma researchers are increasingly relying on a surrogate called “negative minimal residual disease” (negative MRD) – in other words, a situation in which myeloma cells can no longer be detected in the bone marrow. MRD is hunted out using next-generation flow or next-generation sequencing of myeloma-cell DNA from bone-marrow aspirate to levels as low as 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000 cells.
In 2020, Dr. Munshi and colleagues published a large meta-analysis showing that a negative MRD in a patient with multiple myeloma was significantly prognostic for both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.33; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.45; P < .001). The team concluded: “MRD can fulfill all the prerequisites to be a clinically valid surrogate biomarker for PFS and OS in [multiple myeloma].”
In MajesTEC-1 overall, 26.7% of patients on teclistamab had no signs of residual disease at a threshold of 1 in 100,000. Among patients who showed a “complete response” by International Myeloma Working Group criteria, 46% had no residual disease.
Dr. Munshi stressed that such patients are not necessarily “cured.” It will take a few more years to prove that. He noted: “Simply, physiologically, [negative MRD] means that if a patient has one [myeloma] cell in a million, that cell is going to take a much longer time to grow up to be myeloma.”
On Nov. 8 and 9, the FDA and the International Myeloma Society held a workshop to discuss the vexed question of surrogate endpoints and single-arm studies for drug approvals entitled the “Future of Drug Development in Multiple Myeloma.” Dr. Munshi was cochair.
A panelist at the meeting who was a senior investigator in the MajesTEC-1 trial, Ajai Chari, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, summed up the dilemma: “No one disagrees that randomized studies are the best way of doing things. The question is, if you’re a patient who’s exhausted all available therapies, do you have that time to wait? ... The role of accelerated approval is to get the drug to the patient faster. But what does it not pick up? How do we make these accelerated approvals more meaningful and not have to retract for safety?”
Jonathon Vallejo, also on the panel, agreed that safety was the key worry. The ideal scenario for accelerated approval would be a drug that was better than available therapy, and “in some sense, it’s much safer.” However, such situations are rare.
“Most of the time, we don’t have these products that come in that have no toxicity signals,” he said. “So one thing we have to think carefully about in the single-arm trial setting is, what are the toxicities? How do they stack up?”
Dr. Chari said that, for his part, he wanted to see more transparency around “cause of death” in all studies that lead to accelerated approvals. He said he was “tired” of seeing a death labeled as “not attributed” to the drug by the investigator or the drug company.
“Let me decide. Show me the deaths, and show me the myeloma status at that point,” Dr. Chari said. “That’s a signal – if you’re a responding patient and dying, then the FDA should be a little bit more cautious.”
The FDA has added a boxed warning to the teclistamab product information concerning cytokine-release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.
Cytokine-release syndrome, the most common side effect overall, showed up in 72% of patients, typically 2 days after the first step-up dose.
Neurologic toxicity occurred in 57% of patients, including headache (25%), motor dysfunction (16%), sensory neuropathy (15%) and encephalopathy (13%). About 6%of patients developed a serious, life-threatening neurologic condition called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome.
Overall, serious adverse reactions occurred in 54% of participants in MajesTEC-1, and 5% of people in the trial died from adverse reactions during the study, most commonly infections.
Because of its safety profile, teclistamab is available only through a restricted program called TECVAYLI Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.
The continued approval of teclistamab for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.
To that end, eight more studies of teclistamab are underway, aiming for approximately 1,300 multiple myeloma patients around the world. Three of these trials are in newly diagnosed patients. Four more studies are planned to come online in the next 3 months, raising the final tally of patients testing out teclistamab to approximately 4,700. The trials will look at teclistamab in sequence or in combination with standards such as bortezomib and pomalidomide. All studies are open label.
Dr. Patel believes that, until these trials say otherwise, the benefits of teclistamab outweigh the risks. “I’m very happy we have one more option in this space, particularly the fourth or fifth line for patients who want to continue to fight the disease,” Dr. Patel concluded.
Dr. Munshi disclosed advisory board/consultant work for Adaptive, Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend, Millennium, Novartis, Oncopep, and Pfizer and is the scientific founder of Oncopep and DCT. The 2020 meta-analysis by Dr. Munshi and colleagues was funded by Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Patel declared funding from Janssen for a diversity-equity initiative and membership of the South Carolina Medicaid P & T Committee. Dr. Usmani declared conflicts of interest with Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Genentech, Gilead, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SecuraBio, SkylineDX, Takeda, and TeneoBio.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
FDA puts REMS requirements on hold to ensure continuity of care
In a Nov. 2 notice on its website, the FDA said it is aware that health care professionals and patients continue to experience ongoing difficulties with the clozapine REMS program, including issues with patient access to clozapine following discharge from inpatient care.
A chief concern is that inpatient pharmacies are only allowed to dispense a 7-days’ supply of clozapine to the patient upon discharge.
To address this issue, the FDA said it will now (temporarily) not object if inpatient pharmacies dispense a days’ supply of clozapine that aligns with the patient’s monitoring frequency.
For example, a 7-days’ supply for weekly monitoring, a 14-days’ supply for twice-monthly monitoring, and a 30-days’ supply for monthly monitoring upon discharge from an inpatient facility.
Clozapine is a second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics.
While clozapine can be highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks, including a decrease in neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death.
As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
The FDA says it will continue to exercise earlier enforcement discretion regarding the clozapine REMS program announced back in November 2021. This includes allowing pharmacists to dispense clozapine without a REMS dispense authorization and allowing wholesalers to ship clozapine to pharmacies and health care settings without confirming enrollment in the REMS.
“We understand that difficulties with the clozapine REMS program have caused frustration and have led to problems with patient access to clozapine. FDA takes these concerns seriously. Continuity of care, patient access to clozapine, and patient safety are our highest priorities,” the FDA says.
The agency is working closely with the clozapine REMS program administrators to address these challenges and avoid interruptions in patient care.
The FDA encourages pharmacists and prescribers to continue working with the clozapine REMS to complete certification and prescribers to enroll patients in the program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a Nov. 2 notice on its website, the FDA said it is aware that health care professionals and patients continue to experience ongoing difficulties with the clozapine REMS program, including issues with patient access to clozapine following discharge from inpatient care.
A chief concern is that inpatient pharmacies are only allowed to dispense a 7-days’ supply of clozapine to the patient upon discharge.
To address this issue, the FDA said it will now (temporarily) not object if inpatient pharmacies dispense a days’ supply of clozapine that aligns with the patient’s monitoring frequency.
For example, a 7-days’ supply for weekly monitoring, a 14-days’ supply for twice-monthly monitoring, and a 30-days’ supply for monthly monitoring upon discharge from an inpatient facility.
Clozapine is a second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics.
While clozapine can be highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks, including a decrease in neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death.
As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
The FDA says it will continue to exercise earlier enforcement discretion regarding the clozapine REMS program announced back in November 2021. This includes allowing pharmacists to dispense clozapine without a REMS dispense authorization and allowing wholesalers to ship clozapine to pharmacies and health care settings without confirming enrollment in the REMS.
“We understand that difficulties with the clozapine REMS program have caused frustration and have led to problems with patient access to clozapine. FDA takes these concerns seriously. Continuity of care, patient access to clozapine, and patient safety are our highest priorities,” the FDA says.
The agency is working closely with the clozapine REMS program administrators to address these challenges and avoid interruptions in patient care.
The FDA encourages pharmacists and prescribers to continue working with the clozapine REMS to complete certification and prescribers to enroll patients in the program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a Nov. 2 notice on its website, the FDA said it is aware that health care professionals and patients continue to experience ongoing difficulties with the clozapine REMS program, including issues with patient access to clozapine following discharge from inpatient care.
A chief concern is that inpatient pharmacies are only allowed to dispense a 7-days’ supply of clozapine to the patient upon discharge.
To address this issue, the FDA said it will now (temporarily) not object if inpatient pharmacies dispense a days’ supply of clozapine that aligns with the patient’s monitoring frequency.
For example, a 7-days’ supply for weekly monitoring, a 14-days’ supply for twice-monthly monitoring, and a 30-days’ supply for monthly monitoring upon discharge from an inpatient facility.
Clozapine is a second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics.
While clozapine can be highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks, including a decrease in neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death.
As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
The FDA says it will continue to exercise earlier enforcement discretion regarding the clozapine REMS program announced back in November 2021. This includes allowing pharmacists to dispense clozapine without a REMS dispense authorization and allowing wholesalers to ship clozapine to pharmacies and health care settings without confirming enrollment in the REMS.
“We understand that difficulties with the clozapine REMS program have caused frustration and have led to problems with patient access to clozapine. FDA takes these concerns seriously. Continuity of care, patient access to clozapine, and patient safety are our highest priorities,” the FDA says.
The agency is working closely with the clozapine REMS program administrators to address these challenges and avoid interruptions in patient care.
The FDA encourages pharmacists and prescribers to continue working with the clozapine REMS to complete certification and prescribers to enroll patients in the program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New CDC guidance on prescribing opioids for pain
The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.
“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
How to taper safely
The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.
A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.
“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.
“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.
The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:
- In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
- Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
- Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
- Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
- Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
- Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
- Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
- For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.
Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”
He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.
“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.
“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.
“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
How to taper safely
The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.
A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.
“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.
“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.
The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:
- In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
- Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
- Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
- Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
- Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
- Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
- Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
- For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.
Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”
He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.
“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.
“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.
“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
How to taper safely
The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.
A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.
“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.
“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.
The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:
- In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
- Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
- Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
- Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
- Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
- Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
- Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
- For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.
Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”
He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.
“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.
“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA rejects bulevirtide for hepatitis D
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declined to approve bulevirtide, Gilead Sciences’ drug for the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection and compensated liver disease.
In a complete response letter, the FDA voiced concerns over the production and delivery of bulevirtide, an investigational, first-in-class HDV entry-inhibitor that received conditional approved in Europe in 2020.
The FDA did not request new studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bulevirtide.
As reported previously by this news organization, data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable HDV RNA levels and normalized alanine aminotransferase levels.
Chronic HDV infection is the most severe form of viral hepatitis. It is associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality rates.
There are currently no approved treatments for HDV in the United States. Bulevirtide was granted breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations by the FDA.
Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer, Gilead Sciences, wrote in a news release that the company looks forward to “continuing our active discussions with FDA so that we may bring bulevirtide to people living with HDV in the U.S. as soon as possible.”
This is the second manufacturing-related complete response letter Gilead has received in the past 8 months. In March, the FDA rejected the long-acting HIV drug lenacapavir. The drug was sanctioned in Europe and the United Kingdom in September.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declined to approve bulevirtide, Gilead Sciences’ drug for the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection and compensated liver disease.
In a complete response letter, the FDA voiced concerns over the production and delivery of bulevirtide, an investigational, first-in-class HDV entry-inhibitor that received conditional approved in Europe in 2020.
The FDA did not request new studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bulevirtide.
As reported previously by this news organization, data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable HDV RNA levels and normalized alanine aminotransferase levels.
Chronic HDV infection is the most severe form of viral hepatitis. It is associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality rates.
There are currently no approved treatments for HDV in the United States. Bulevirtide was granted breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations by the FDA.
Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer, Gilead Sciences, wrote in a news release that the company looks forward to “continuing our active discussions with FDA so that we may bring bulevirtide to people living with HDV in the U.S. as soon as possible.”
This is the second manufacturing-related complete response letter Gilead has received in the past 8 months. In March, the FDA rejected the long-acting HIV drug lenacapavir. The drug was sanctioned in Europe and the United Kingdom in September.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declined to approve bulevirtide, Gilead Sciences’ drug for the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection and compensated liver disease.
In a complete response letter, the FDA voiced concerns over the production and delivery of bulevirtide, an investigational, first-in-class HDV entry-inhibitor that received conditional approved in Europe in 2020.
The FDA did not request new studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bulevirtide.
As reported previously by this news organization, data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable HDV RNA levels and normalized alanine aminotransferase levels.
Chronic HDV infection is the most severe form of viral hepatitis. It is associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality rates.
There are currently no approved treatments for HDV in the United States. Bulevirtide was granted breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations by the FDA.
Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer, Gilead Sciences, wrote in a news release that the company looks forward to “continuing our active discussions with FDA so that we may bring bulevirtide to people living with HDV in the U.S. as soon as possible.”
This is the second manufacturing-related complete response letter Gilead has received in the past 8 months. In March, the FDA rejected the long-acting HIV drug lenacapavir. The drug was sanctioned in Europe and the United Kingdom in September.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs teclistamab for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
The results made the case for “teclistamab as a monotherapy for eligible patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, in need of new treatment options,” investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain) said in a June press release from drug maker Janssen/Johnson & Johnson.
The approval was based on the phase 1-2 single-arm MajesTEC-1 trial. The MajesTEC-1 findings, published in August in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 165 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least three therapy lines – including an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. These patients received a weekly subcutaneous 1.5 mg/kg injection of teclistamab after stepping up from 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg/kg doses.
According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was nearly 62%. And the estimated duration of response rate among responders was 90.6% at 6 months and 66.5% at 9 months.
The NEJM results also indicated that almost 40% of patients had a complete response to the therapy, over a median follow-up of 14.1 months. More than a quarter of patients (26.7%) had no minimal residual disease.
The study investigators concluded that “teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.”
In a press release, Michael Andreini, president and CEO of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, commented that “teclistamab is an important new treatment option for patients who have faced multiple relapses.”
The recommended dose for teclistamab is 0.06 mg/kg via subcutaneous injection on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 4, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 7, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The FDA noted, however, that the prescribing information for teclistamab comes with a Boxed warning for “life-threatening or fatal cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS).”
CRS was reported in 72.1% of patients (grade 3 in one patient but no grade 4 cases), neurologic toxicity in 57%, and ICANS in 6%. Other common adverse events in the NEJM report included neutropenia in 71% of subjects (grade 3 or 4 in 64%); anemia in 52% (grade 3 or 4 in 37%), and thrombocytopenia in 40% (grade 3 or 4 in 21%). Overall, 45% of patients developed grade 3 or 4 infections.
“Because of the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicity, including ICANS, teclistamab-cqyv is available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), called the Tecvayli REMS,” according to the FDA’s press release.
Teclistamab is a T-cell–bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) expressed on the surface of myeloma cells, activating T-cells to kill cancer cells that express the antigen.
Three BCMA-directed therapies are already on the market in the United States that carry teclistamab’s indication: the antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) and two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti).
The overall response rate is approximately 31% with belantamab mafodotin, 67% for idecabtagene vicleucel, and 83% for ciltacabtagene autoleucel.
Pfizer also has a bispecific BCMA-CD3–targeted antibody in development, elranatamab, for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma that is expected to compete with teclistamab.
MajesTEC-1 was funded by Janssen. Dr. Mateos is a paid speaker and consultant for the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results made the case for “teclistamab as a monotherapy for eligible patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, in need of new treatment options,” investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain) said in a June press release from drug maker Janssen/Johnson & Johnson.
The approval was based on the phase 1-2 single-arm MajesTEC-1 trial. The MajesTEC-1 findings, published in August in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 165 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least three therapy lines – including an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. These patients received a weekly subcutaneous 1.5 mg/kg injection of teclistamab after stepping up from 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg/kg doses.
According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was nearly 62%. And the estimated duration of response rate among responders was 90.6% at 6 months and 66.5% at 9 months.
The NEJM results also indicated that almost 40% of patients had a complete response to the therapy, over a median follow-up of 14.1 months. More than a quarter of patients (26.7%) had no minimal residual disease.
The study investigators concluded that “teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.”
In a press release, Michael Andreini, president and CEO of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, commented that “teclistamab is an important new treatment option for patients who have faced multiple relapses.”
The recommended dose for teclistamab is 0.06 mg/kg via subcutaneous injection on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 4, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 7, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The FDA noted, however, that the prescribing information for teclistamab comes with a Boxed warning for “life-threatening or fatal cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS).”
CRS was reported in 72.1% of patients (grade 3 in one patient but no grade 4 cases), neurologic toxicity in 57%, and ICANS in 6%. Other common adverse events in the NEJM report included neutropenia in 71% of subjects (grade 3 or 4 in 64%); anemia in 52% (grade 3 or 4 in 37%), and thrombocytopenia in 40% (grade 3 or 4 in 21%). Overall, 45% of patients developed grade 3 or 4 infections.
“Because of the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicity, including ICANS, teclistamab-cqyv is available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), called the Tecvayli REMS,” according to the FDA’s press release.
Teclistamab is a T-cell–bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) expressed on the surface of myeloma cells, activating T-cells to kill cancer cells that express the antigen.
Three BCMA-directed therapies are already on the market in the United States that carry teclistamab’s indication: the antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) and two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti).
The overall response rate is approximately 31% with belantamab mafodotin, 67% for idecabtagene vicleucel, and 83% for ciltacabtagene autoleucel.
Pfizer also has a bispecific BCMA-CD3–targeted antibody in development, elranatamab, for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma that is expected to compete with teclistamab.
MajesTEC-1 was funded by Janssen. Dr. Mateos is a paid speaker and consultant for the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results made the case for “teclistamab as a monotherapy for eligible patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, in need of new treatment options,” investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain) said in a June press release from drug maker Janssen/Johnson & Johnson.
The approval was based on the phase 1-2 single-arm MajesTEC-1 trial. The MajesTEC-1 findings, published in August in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 165 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least three therapy lines – including an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. These patients received a weekly subcutaneous 1.5 mg/kg injection of teclistamab after stepping up from 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg/kg doses.
According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was nearly 62%. And the estimated duration of response rate among responders was 90.6% at 6 months and 66.5% at 9 months.
The NEJM results also indicated that almost 40% of patients had a complete response to the therapy, over a median follow-up of 14.1 months. More than a quarter of patients (26.7%) had no minimal residual disease.
The study investigators concluded that “teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.”
In a press release, Michael Andreini, president and CEO of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, commented that “teclistamab is an important new treatment option for patients who have faced multiple relapses.”
The recommended dose for teclistamab is 0.06 mg/kg via subcutaneous injection on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 4, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 7, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The FDA noted, however, that the prescribing information for teclistamab comes with a Boxed warning for “life-threatening or fatal cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS).”
CRS was reported in 72.1% of patients (grade 3 in one patient but no grade 4 cases), neurologic toxicity in 57%, and ICANS in 6%. Other common adverse events in the NEJM report included neutropenia in 71% of subjects (grade 3 or 4 in 64%); anemia in 52% (grade 3 or 4 in 37%), and thrombocytopenia in 40% (grade 3 or 4 in 21%). Overall, 45% of patients developed grade 3 or 4 infections.
“Because of the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicity, including ICANS, teclistamab-cqyv is available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), called the Tecvayli REMS,” according to the FDA’s press release.
Teclistamab is a T-cell–bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) expressed on the surface of myeloma cells, activating T-cells to kill cancer cells that express the antigen.
Three BCMA-directed therapies are already on the market in the United States that carry teclistamab’s indication: the antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) and two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti).
The overall response rate is approximately 31% with belantamab mafodotin, 67% for idecabtagene vicleucel, and 83% for ciltacabtagene autoleucel.
Pfizer also has a bispecific BCMA-CD3–targeted antibody in development, elranatamab, for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma that is expected to compete with teclistamab.
MajesTEC-1 was funded by Janssen. Dr. Mateos is a paid speaker and consultant for the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves new immunotherapy combo for liver cancer
(HCC), the most common type of liver cancer.
The new combination comprises a single dose of tremelimumab (Imjudo, AstraZeneca) followed by treatment with durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in what is known as the STRIDE (single-tremelimumab regular-interval durvalumab) regimen.
This marks the first worldwide approval for tremelimumab, which is a CTLA-4 antibody.
The other drug in the combination, durvalumab, is an anti-PDL1 antibody and is already approved by the FDA for use in several tumor types, including lung cancer, bladder cancer, and biliary tract cancers.
The STRIDE regimen is composed of a single 300-mg dose of tremelimumab followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg given every 4 weeks.
This regimen was used in the HIMALAYA phase 3 trial, which was published in June 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Results from this trial showed that 30% of patients treated with that combination were still alive at 3 years, compared with 20% of patients who were treated with the standard regimen, sorafenib.
“In addition to this regimen demonstrating a favorable 3-year survival rate in the HIMALAYA trial, safety data showed no increase in severe liver toxicity or bleeding risk for the combination, important factors for patients with liver cancer who also have advanced liver disease,” commented the principal investigator of this trial, Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Patients with unresectable liver cancer are in need of well-tolerated treatments that can meaningfully extend overall survival,” he commented in a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, AstraZeneca.
When the results from this trial were presented earlier this year at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers meeting, the discussant for that abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, suggested that the STRIDE regimen offers a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC.
He also made several comments about the design of the HIMALAYA trial, which has a third treatment arm in which patients received durvalumab alone. Dr. El-Khoueiry noted that single-agent durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib, but he added that no conclusions could be drawn about the STRIDE regimen in comparison with durvalumab as a single agent, because the trial was not powered for that.
The STRIDE regimen showed a lower risk of bleeding in comparison with combinations that include VEGF inhibitors (such as bevacizumab), he said, but he also pointed out that this trial excluded patients with main portal vein thrombosis, who are at high risk of bleeding.
Details of adverse events
In the NEJM article, the trialists report that grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab alone, and 52.4% of patients with sorafenib.
The manufacturer noted that severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions may occur, including immune-mediated pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, dermatologic reactions, and others.
The company also noted that among the patients with unresectable HCC in the HIMALAYA study who received the STRIDE regimen, the most common adverse reactions (occurring in ≥ 20% of patients) were rash, diarrhea, fatigue, pruritus, musculoskeletal pain, and abdominal pain.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 41% of patients and included hemorrhage (6%), diarrhea (4%), sepsis (2.1%), pneumonia (2.1%), rash (1.5%), vomiting (1.3%), acute kidney injury (1.3%), and anemia (1.3%).
Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 8% of patients who received the combination, including death (1%), intracranial hemorrhage (0.5%), cardiac arrest (0.5%), pneumonitis (0.5%), hepatic failure (0.5%), and immune-mediated hepatitis (0.5%).
Permanent discontinuation of the treatment regimen because of an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(HCC), the most common type of liver cancer.
The new combination comprises a single dose of tremelimumab (Imjudo, AstraZeneca) followed by treatment with durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in what is known as the STRIDE (single-tremelimumab regular-interval durvalumab) regimen.
This marks the first worldwide approval for tremelimumab, which is a CTLA-4 antibody.
The other drug in the combination, durvalumab, is an anti-PDL1 antibody and is already approved by the FDA for use in several tumor types, including lung cancer, bladder cancer, and biliary tract cancers.
The STRIDE regimen is composed of a single 300-mg dose of tremelimumab followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg given every 4 weeks.
This regimen was used in the HIMALAYA phase 3 trial, which was published in June 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Results from this trial showed that 30% of patients treated with that combination were still alive at 3 years, compared with 20% of patients who were treated with the standard regimen, sorafenib.
“In addition to this regimen demonstrating a favorable 3-year survival rate in the HIMALAYA trial, safety data showed no increase in severe liver toxicity or bleeding risk for the combination, important factors for patients with liver cancer who also have advanced liver disease,” commented the principal investigator of this trial, Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Patients with unresectable liver cancer are in need of well-tolerated treatments that can meaningfully extend overall survival,” he commented in a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, AstraZeneca.
When the results from this trial were presented earlier this year at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers meeting, the discussant for that abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, suggested that the STRIDE regimen offers a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC.
He also made several comments about the design of the HIMALAYA trial, which has a third treatment arm in which patients received durvalumab alone. Dr. El-Khoueiry noted that single-agent durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib, but he added that no conclusions could be drawn about the STRIDE regimen in comparison with durvalumab as a single agent, because the trial was not powered for that.
The STRIDE regimen showed a lower risk of bleeding in comparison with combinations that include VEGF inhibitors (such as bevacizumab), he said, but he also pointed out that this trial excluded patients with main portal vein thrombosis, who are at high risk of bleeding.
Details of adverse events
In the NEJM article, the trialists report that grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab alone, and 52.4% of patients with sorafenib.
The manufacturer noted that severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions may occur, including immune-mediated pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, dermatologic reactions, and others.
The company also noted that among the patients with unresectable HCC in the HIMALAYA study who received the STRIDE regimen, the most common adverse reactions (occurring in ≥ 20% of patients) were rash, diarrhea, fatigue, pruritus, musculoskeletal pain, and abdominal pain.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 41% of patients and included hemorrhage (6%), diarrhea (4%), sepsis (2.1%), pneumonia (2.1%), rash (1.5%), vomiting (1.3%), acute kidney injury (1.3%), and anemia (1.3%).
Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 8% of patients who received the combination, including death (1%), intracranial hemorrhage (0.5%), cardiac arrest (0.5%), pneumonitis (0.5%), hepatic failure (0.5%), and immune-mediated hepatitis (0.5%).
Permanent discontinuation of the treatment regimen because of an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(HCC), the most common type of liver cancer.
The new combination comprises a single dose of tremelimumab (Imjudo, AstraZeneca) followed by treatment with durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in what is known as the STRIDE (single-tremelimumab regular-interval durvalumab) regimen.
This marks the first worldwide approval for tremelimumab, which is a CTLA-4 antibody.
The other drug in the combination, durvalumab, is an anti-PDL1 antibody and is already approved by the FDA for use in several tumor types, including lung cancer, bladder cancer, and biliary tract cancers.
The STRIDE regimen is composed of a single 300-mg dose of tremelimumab followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg given every 4 weeks.
This regimen was used in the HIMALAYA phase 3 trial, which was published in June 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Results from this trial showed that 30% of patients treated with that combination were still alive at 3 years, compared with 20% of patients who were treated with the standard regimen, sorafenib.
“In addition to this regimen demonstrating a favorable 3-year survival rate in the HIMALAYA trial, safety data showed no increase in severe liver toxicity or bleeding risk for the combination, important factors for patients with liver cancer who also have advanced liver disease,” commented the principal investigator of this trial, Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Patients with unresectable liver cancer are in need of well-tolerated treatments that can meaningfully extend overall survival,” he commented in a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, AstraZeneca.
When the results from this trial were presented earlier this year at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers meeting, the discussant for that abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, suggested that the STRIDE regimen offers a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC.
He also made several comments about the design of the HIMALAYA trial, which has a third treatment arm in which patients received durvalumab alone. Dr. El-Khoueiry noted that single-agent durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib, but he added that no conclusions could be drawn about the STRIDE regimen in comparison with durvalumab as a single agent, because the trial was not powered for that.
The STRIDE regimen showed a lower risk of bleeding in comparison with combinations that include VEGF inhibitors (such as bevacizumab), he said, but he also pointed out that this trial excluded patients with main portal vein thrombosis, who are at high risk of bleeding.
Details of adverse events
In the NEJM article, the trialists report that grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab alone, and 52.4% of patients with sorafenib.
The manufacturer noted that severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions may occur, including immune-mediated pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, dermatologic reactions, and others.
The company also noted that among the patients with unresectable HCC in the HIMALAYA study who received the STRIDE regimen, the most common adverse reactions (occurring in ≥ 20% of patients) were rash, diarrhea, fatigue, pruritus, musculoskeletal pain, and abdominal pain.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 41% of patients and included hemorrhage (6%), diarrhea (4%), sepsis (2.1%), pneumonia (2.1%), rash (1.5%), vomiting (1.3%), acute kidney injury (1.3%), and anemia (1.3%).
Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 8% of patients who received the combination, including death (1%), intracranial hemorrhage (0.5%), cardiac arrest (0.5%), pneumonitis (0.5%), hepatic failure (0.5%), and immune-mediated hepatitis (0.5%).
Permanent discontinuation of the treatment regimen because of an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for sixth indication
The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for adults with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who have objective signs of inflammation and who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, AbbVie.
The indication is the sixth in the United States for the JAK inhibitor. Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily is already approved in the United States for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). All these indications are for patients who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF inhibitors.
Upadacitinib is now the only JAK inhibitor that has been approved for both nr-axSpA and AS.
“Many patients living with nr-axSpA continue to experience symptoms and are unable to control disease with current treatments. In the SELECT-AXIS 2 trials, Rinvoq demonstrated efficacy in both nr-axSpA and AS with safety that was consistent across indications,” Atul Deodhar, MD, lead investigator of the trial, said in the announcement. “Today’s FDA approval offers an important new therapeutic option for patients and their caregivers to help take control of their symptoms and disease.”
Upadacitinib is also approved at a dose of 15 mg once daily for adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 40 kg and who have refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis that is not adequately controlled with other systemic drug products, including biologics, or when use of those therapies is inadvisable.
It is approved as well at 45 mg once daily for 8 weeks as an induction therapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF blockers. Following induction therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis, the recommended dose for maintenance treatment is 15 mg once daily, but a dose of 30 mg once daily may be considered for patients with refractory, severe, or extensive disease.
The FDA’s decision is supported by data from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of upadacitinib in adults with active nr-axSpA.
Nearly half of patients treated with upadacitinib had achieved 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), the primary endpoint, at week 14, compared with placebo (44.9% vs. 22.3%). These responses were observed as early as 2 weeks after initiation of therapy. The safety profile was consistent with what’s known in patients with RA, PsA, and AS.
Upadacitinib can lower the ability to fight infections. Serious infections, some fatal, have occurred, including tuberculosis and infections caused by bacteria, fungi, or viruses. It is associated with an increased risk of death and major cardiovascular events in people aged 50 and older who have at least one heart disease risk factor, and it is associated with an increased risk of some cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for adults with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who have objective signs of inflammation and who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, AbbVie.
The indication is the sixth in the United States for the JAK inhibitor. Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily is already approved in the United States for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). All these indications are for patients who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF inhibitors.
Upadacitinib is now the only JAK inhibitor that has been approved for both nr-axSpA and AS.
“Many patients living with nr-axSpA continue to experience symptoms and are unable to control disease with current treatments. In the SELECT-AXIS 2 trials, Rinvoq demonstrated efficacy in both nr-axSpA and AS with safety that was consistent across indications,” Atul Deodhar, MD, lead investigator of the trial, said in the announcement. “Today’s FDA approval offers an important new therapeutic option for patients and their caregivers to help take control of their symptoms and disease.”
Upadacitinib is also approved at a dose of 15 mg once daily for adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 40 kg and who have refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis that is not adequately controlled with other systemic drug products, including biologics, or when use of those therapies is inadvisable.
It is approved as well at 45 mg once daily for 8 weeks as an induction therapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF blockers. Following induction therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis, the recommended dose for maintenance treatment is 15 mg once daily, but a dose of 30 mg once daily may be considered for patients with refractory, severe, or extensive disease.
The FDA’s decision is supported by data from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of upadacitinib in adults with active nr-axSpA.
Nearly half of patients treated with upadacitinib had achieved 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), the primary endpoint, at week 14, compared with placebo (44.9% vs. 22.3%). These responses were observed as early as 2 weeks after initiation of therapy. The safety profile was consistent with what’s known in patients with RA, PsA, and AS.
Upadacitinib can lower the ability to fight infections. Serious infections, some fatal, have occurred, including tuberculosis and infections caused by bacteria, fungi, or viruses. It is associated with an increased risk of death and major cardiovascular events in people aged 50 and older who have at least one heart disease risk factor, and it is associated with an increased risk of some cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for adults with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who have objective signs of inflammation and who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, AbbVie.
The indication is the sixth in the United States for the JAK inhibitor. Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily is already approved in the United States for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). All these indications are for patients who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF inhibitors.
Upadacitinib is now the only JAK inhibitor that has been approved for both nr-axSpA and AS.
“Many patients living with nr-axSpA continue to experience symptoms and are unable to control disease with current treatments. In the SELECT-AXIS 2 trials, Rinvoq demonstrated efficacy in both nr-axSpA and AS with safety that was consistent across indications,” Atul Deodhar, MD, lead investigator of the trial, said in the announcement. “Today’s FDA approval offers an important new therapeutic option for patients and their caregivers to help take control of their symptoms and disease.”
Upadacitinib is also approved at a dose of 15 mg once daily for adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 40 kg and who have refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis that is not adequately controlled with other systemic drug products, including biologics, or when use of those therapies is inadvisable.
It is approved as well at 45 mg once daily for 8 weeks as an induction therapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF blockers. Following induction therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis, the recommended dose for maintenance treatment is 15 mg once daily, but a dose of 30 mg once daily may be considered for patients with refractory, severe, or extensive disease.
The FDA’s decision is supported by data from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of upadacitinib in adults with active nr-axSpA.
Nearly half of patients treated with upadacitinib had achieved 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), the primary endpoint, at week 14, compared with placebo (44.9% vs. 22.3%). These responses were observed as early as 2 weeks after initiation of therapy. The safety profile was consistent with what’s known in patients with RA, PsA, and AS.
Upadacitinib can lower the ability to fight infections. Serious infections, some fatal, have occurred, including tuberculosis and infections caused by bacteria, fungi, or viruses. It is associated with an increased risk of death and major cardiovascular events in people aged 50 and older who have at least one heart disease risk factor, and it is associated with an increased risk of some cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel recommends withdrawal of Makena for preterm birth
A federal advisory panel recommended the United States withdraw from the market an injection given to women at risk for giving birth prematurely. Many of its members argued this step is needed to allow further testing to see if this drug actually works.
The Food and Drug Administration has been seeking to pull the approval of hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena, Covis) since 2020, after the drug failed to show a benefit in the PROLONG study. This study was meant as a confirmatory trial for the accelerated approval the FDA granted Makena in 2011 based on promising results from an earlier small study, known as the Meis trial. The manufacturer, Covis, contends that the flaws in the PROLONG study made Makena appear ineffective.
The FDA asked its Obstetrics, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee to review the evidence gathered to date on Makena at a hearing that ran from Oct. 17 to Oct. 19. At the conclusion, the FDA asked the committee to vote on whether the agency should allow Makena to remain on the market while an appropriate confirmatory study is designed and conducted.
The vote was 14-1 against this plan.
There needs to be another study as a “tiebreaker” to determine which of the previous Makena trials was correct, said FDA panelist Michael K. Lindsay, MD, MPH, who is also director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine for Grady and Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta.
“I think there needs to be another trial,” Dr. Lindsay said. “If you can do the trial without the medication being FDA approved, then I am supportive of that.”
Members of the FDA panel noted the difficulties that would ensue if Covis attempted further study of Makena with the drug still approved, including difficulties in recruiting patients. Indeed, there were delays in recruiting patients for the PROLONG trial in part because Makena was perceived as the standard of care for pregnant women who had a prior spontaneous preterm birth. That led to efforts to enroll patients outside of the United States, particularly in Eastern European countries.
Panelist Cassandra E. Henderson, MD, of the New York-based Garden OB/GYN practice, was the dissenter in the 14-1 vote.
Withdrawing the approval of Makena may lead to increased use of pharmacy-compounded versions of this medicine, as women look for options to try to extend their pregnancies, she said.
“They may seek it in other ways and get something that we don’t have any control over, and we don’t know what the fetus may be exposed to,” Dr. Henderson said.
Dr. Henderson also said there should be greater discussion with patients about questions of potential “intergenerational risk” because of fetal exposure to the medicine. Covis could add a registry similar to the University of Chicago’s DES Program to its research program for Makena, she said.
Race-based argument
Covis has been fighting to keep the Makena approval by offering theories for why the PROLONG study failed to show a benefit for the drug.
Covis emphasizes the different racial make-up of patients in the two trials. Black women composed 59% of the Meis study population, compared with only 6.7% for the PROLONG study, Covis said in its briefing document for the hearing. The Luxembourg-based company also says that there may have been unreliable estimates of the gestational age in the PROLONG trial, which enrolled many subjects in Ukraine and Russia.
During deliberations among panelists on Oct. 19, Dr. Henderson emphasized a need to consider other factors that may have been involved and encouraged continued study of the drug in Black women. She dismissed the idea of a race-based difference being the explanation for the difference between the two trials, but instead stressed that race serves as a marker for inequities, which are known to increase risk for preterm birth.
“Targeting a population that is at risk, particularly Black women in the United States, may show something that would be beneficial” from Makena, Dr. Henderson said.
Other physicians have argued that this approach would actually put Black women and children at greater risk of an ineffective drug with potential side effects.
“The drug is not proven to work so keeping it on the market to be injected into Black women to see what subgroups it might work in essentially amounts to experimentation,” said Adam Urato, MD, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Framingham, Mass., during the public comment session of the hearing.
The vote marks the second time that the FDA’s advisers on reproductive health have told the agency that the evidence gathered on the drug does not support its use. An advisory committee also cast votes against the drug at a 2019 meeting.
The rate of preterm birth in Black women in 2020 was 14.4%, significantly higher than the rate of preterm birth in White or Hispanic women, 9.1% and 9.8%, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The potential for harm to children from premature birth led the FDA to clear Makena through the accelerated approval pathway, said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in the opening session of the hearing.
“We once thought Makena was likely to be part of the answer to that problem,” Dr. Cavazzoni said. “Unfortunately we no longer do, based on the evidence available.”
A federal advisory panel recommended the United States withdraw from the market an injection given to women at risk for giving birth prematurely. Many of its members argued this step is needed to allow further testing to see if this drug actually works.
The Food and Drug Administration has been seeking to pull the approval of hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena, Covis) since 2020, after the drug failed to show a benefit in the PROLONG study. This study was meant as a confirmatory trial for the accelerated approval the FDA granted Makena in 2011 based on promising results from an earlier small study, known as the Meis trial. The manufacturer, Covis, contends that the flaws in the PROLONG study made Makena appear ineffective.
The FDA asked its Obstetrics, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee to review the evidence gathered to date on Makena at a hearing that ran from Oct. 17 to Oct. 19. At the conclusion, the FDA asked the committee to vote on whether the agency should allow Makena to remain on the market while an appropriate confirmatory study is designed and conducted.
The vote was 14-1 against this plan.
There needs to be another study as a “tiebreaker” to determine which of the previous Makena trials was correct, said FDA panelist Michael K. Lindsay, MD, MPH, who is also director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine for Grady and Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta.
“I think there needs to be another trial,” Dr. Lindsay said. “If you can do the trial without the medication being FDA approved, then I am supportive of that.”
Members of the FDA panel noted the difficulties that would ensue if Covis attempted further study of Makena with the drug still approved, including difficulties in recruiting patients. Indeed, there were delays in recruiting patients for the PROLONG trial in part because Makena was perceived as the standard of care for pregnant women who had a prior spontaneous preterm birth. That led to efforts to enroll patients outside of the United States, particularly in Eastern European countries.
Panelist Cassandra E. Henderson, MD, of the New York-based Garden OB/GYN practice, was the dissenter in the 14-1 vote.
Withdrawing the approval of Makena may lead to increased use of pharmacy-compounded versions of this medicine, as women look for options to try to extend their pregnancies, she said.
“They may seek it in other ways and get something that we don’t have any control over, and we don’t know what the fetus may be exposed to,” Dr. Henderson said.
Dr. Henderson also said there should be greater discussion with patients about questions of potential “intergenerational risk” because of fetal exposure to the medicine. Covis could add a registry similar to the University of Chicago’s DES Program to its research program for Makena, she said.
Race-based argument
Covis has been fighting to keep the Makena approval by offering theories for why the PROLONG study failed to show a benefit for the drug.
Covis emphasizes the different racial make-up of patients in the two trials. Black women composed 59% of the Meis study population, compared with only 6.7% for the PROLONG study, Covis said in its briefing document for the hearing. The Luxembourg-based company also says that there may have been unreliable estimates of the gestational age in the PROLONG trial, which enrolled many subjects in Ukraine and Russia.
During deliberations among panelists on Oct. 19, Dr. Henderson emphasized a need to consider other factors that may have been involved and encouraged continued study of the drug in Black women. She dismissed the idea of a race-based difference being the explanation for the difference between the two trials, but instead stressed that race serves as a marker for inequities, which are known to increase risk for preterm birth.
“Targeting a population that is at risk, particularly Black women in the United States, may show something that would be beneficial” from Makena, Dr. Henderson said.
Other physicians have argued that this approach would actually put Black women and children at greater risk of an ineffective drug with potential side effects.
“The drug is not proven to work so keeping it on the market to be injected into Black women to see what subgroups it might work in essentially amounts to experimentation,” said Adam Urato, MD, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Framingham, Mass., during the public comment session of the hearing.
The vote marks the second time that the FDA’s advisers on reproductive health have told the agency that the evidence gathered on the drug does not support its use. An advisory committee also cast votes against the drug at a 2019 meeting.
The rate of preterm birth in Black women in 2020 was 14.4%, significantly higher than the rate of preterm birth in White or Hispanic women, 9.1% and 9.8%, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The potential for harm to children from premature birth led the FDA to clear Makena through the accelerated approval pathway, said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in the opening session of the hearing.
“We once thought Makena was likely to be part of the answer to that problem,” Dr. Cavazzoni said. “Unfortunately we no longer do, based on the evidence available.”
A federal advisory panel recommended the United States withdraw from the market an injection given to women at risk for giving birth prematurely. Many of its members argued this step is needed to allow further testing to see if this drug actually works.
The Food and Drug Administration has been seeking to pull the approval of hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena, Covis) since 2020, after the drug failed to show a benefit in the PROLONG study. This study was meant as a confirmatory trial for the accelerated approval the FDA granted Makena in 2011 based on promising results from an earlier small study, known as the Meis trial. The manufacturer, Covis, contends that the flaws in the PROLONG study made Makena appear ineffective.
The FDA asked its Obstetrics, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee to review the evidence gathered to date on Makena at a hearing that ran from Oct. 17 to Oct. 19. At the conclusion, the FDA asked the committee to vote on whether the agency should allow Makena to remain on the market while an appropriate confirmatory study is designed and conducted.
The vote was 14-1 against this plan.
There needs to be another study as a “tiebreaker” to determine which of the previous Makena trials was correct, said FDA panelist Michael K. Lindsay, MD, MPH, who is also director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine for Grady and Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta.
“I think there needs to be another trial,” Dr. Lindsay said. “If you can do the trial without the medication being FDA approved, then I am supportive of that.”
Members of the FDA panel noted the difficulties that would ensue if Covis attempted further study of Makena with the drug still approved, including difficulties in recruiting patients. Indeed, there were delays in recruiting patients for the PROLONG trial in part because Makena was perceived as the standard of care for pregnant women who had a prior spontaneous preterm birth. That led to efforts to enroll patients outside of the United States, particularly in Eastern European countries.
Panelist Cassandra E. Henderson, MD, of the New York-based Garden OB/GYN practice, was the dissenter in the 14-1 vote.
Withdrawing the approval of Makena may lead to increased use of pharmacy-compounded versions of this medicine, as women look for options to try to extend their pregnancies, she said.
“They may seek it in other ways and get something that we don’t have any control over, and we don’t know what the fetus may be exposed to,” Dr. Henderson said.
Dr. Henderson also said there should be greater discussion with patients about questions of potential “intergenerational risk” because of fetal exposure to the medicine. Covis could add a registry similar to the University of Chicago’s DES Program to its research program for Makena, she said.
Race-based argument
Covis has been fighting to keep the Makena approval by offering theories for why the PROLONG study failed to show a benefit for the drug.
Covis emphasizes the different racial make-up of patients in the two trials. Black women composed 59% of the Meis study population, compared with only 6.7% for the PROLONG study, Covis said in its briefing document for the hearing. The Luxembourg-based company also says that there may have been unreliable estimates of the gestational age in the PROLONG trial, which enrolled many subjects in Ukraine and Russia.
During deliberations among panelists on Oct. 19, Dr. Henderson emphasized a need to consider other factors that may have been involved and encouraged continued study of the drug in Black women. She dismissed the idea of a race-based difference being the explanation for the difference between the two trials, but instead stressed that race serves as a marker for inequities, which are known to increase risk for preterm birth.
“Targeting a population that is at risk, particularly Black women in the United States, may show something that would be beneficial” from Makena, Dr. Henderson said.
Other physicians have argued that this approach would actually put Black women and children at greater risk of an ineffective drug with potential side effects.
“The drug is not proven to work so keeping it on the market to be injected into Black women to see what subgroups it might work in essentially amounts to experimentation,” said Adam Urato, MD, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Framingham, Mass., during the public comment session of the hearing.
The vote marks the second time that the FDA’s advisers on reproductive health have told the agency that the evidence gathered on the drug does not support its use. An advisory committee also cast votes against the drug at a 2019 meeting.
The rate of preterm birth in Black women in 2020 was 14.4%, significantly higher than the rate of preterm birth in White or Hispanic women, 9.1% and 9.8%, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The potential for harm to children from premature birth led the FDA to clear Makena through the accelerated approval pathway, said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in the opening session of the hearing.
“We once thought Makena was likely to be part of the answer to that problem,” Dr. Cavazzoni said. “Unfortunately we no longer do, based on the evidence available.”
FDA OKs Medtronic lead for left bundle branch pacing
Labeling for a Medtronic pacing lead, already indicated for stimulation of the His bundle, has been expanded to include the left bundle branch (LBB), the company announced on Oct. 17.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously expanded the Medtronic SelectSecure MRI SureScan Model 3830 lead’s approval in 2018 to include His-bundle pacing. “Now this cardiac lead is approved for pacing and sensing at the bundle of His or in the left bundle branch area as an alternative to apical pacing in the right ventricle in a single- or dual-chamber pacing system,” Medtronic states in a press release.
The Model 3830 lead was initially approved for atrial or right ventricular pacing and sensing, the announcement says, and now “has more than 20 years of proven performance and reliability.”
The newly expanded conduction system pacing indication is “based on evidence from multiple sources spanning more than 20,000 treated patients,” for which the company cited “Medtronic data on file.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Labeling for a Medtronic pacing lead, already indicated for stimulation of the His bundle, has been expanded to include the left bundle branch (LBB), the company announced on Oct. 17.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously expanded the Medtronic SelectSecure MRI SureScan Model 3830 lead’s approval in 2018 to include His-bundle pacing. “Now this cardiac lead is approved for pacing and sensing at the bundle of His or in the left bundle branch area as an alternative to apical pacing in the right ventricle in a single- or dual-chamber pacing system,” Medtronic states in a press release.
The Model 3830 lead was initially approved for atrial or right ventricular pacing and sensing, the announcement says, and now “has more than 20 years of proven performance and reliability.”
The newly expanded conduction system pacing indication is “based on evidence from multiple sources spanning more than 20,000 treated patients,” for which the company cited “Medtronic data on file.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Labeling for a Medtronic pacing lead, already indicated for stimulation of the His bundle, has been expanded to include the left bundle branch (LBB), the company announced on Oct. 17.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously expanded the Medtronic SelectSecure MRI SureScan Model 3830 lead’s approval in 2018 to include His-bundle pacing. “Now this cardiac lead is approved for pacing and sensing at the bundle of His or in the left bundle branch area as an alternative to apical pacing in the right ventricle in a single- or dual-chamber pacing system,” Medtronic states in a press release.
The Model 3830 lead was initially approved for atrial or right ventricular pacing and sensing, the announcement says, and now “has more than 20 years of proven performance and reliability.”
The newly expanded conduction system pacing indication is “based on evidence from multiple sources spanning more than 20,000 treated patients,” for which the company cited “Medtronic data on file.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approved acalabrutinib tablet for MCL, CLL, SLL
These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.
The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.
The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.
The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.