FDA/CDC

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Portico with FlexNav (Abbott) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for patients with “symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis who are at high or extreme risk for open-heart surgery,” the company has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval indication is in line with the entry criteria of PORTICO IDE, the investigational device exemption trial from which the FDA largely made its decision.

With the self-expanding Portico valve, Abbott joins two other companies with TAVR valves on the U.S. market: Medtronic with the self-expanding Corevalve Evolut (Medtronic) line, and Edwards Lifesciences with its Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences) valves, both of which can be used in patients at low surgical risk.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Portico with FlexNav (Abbott) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for patients with “symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis who are at high or extreme risk for open-heart surgery,” the company has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval indication is in line with the entry criteria of PORTICO IDE, the investigational device exemption trial from which the FDA largely made its decision.

With the self-expanding Portico valve, Abbott joins two other companies with TAVR valves on the U.S. market: Medtronic with the self-expanding Corevalve Evolut (Medtronic) line, and Edwards Lifesciences with its Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences) valves, both of which can be used in patients at low surgical risk.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Portico with FlexNav (Abbott) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for patients with “symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis who are at high or extreme risk for open-heart surgery,” the company has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval indication is in line with the entry criteria of PORTICO IDE, the investigational device exemption trial from which the FDA largely made its decision.

With the self-expanding Portico valve, Abbott joins two other companies with TAVR valves on the U.S. market: Medtronic with the self-expanding Corevalve Evolut (Medtronic) line, and Edwards Lifesciences with its Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences) valves, both of which can be used in patients at low surgical risk.

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

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

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

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

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

Use of enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), which was approved less than 2 years ago for the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer, has been associated with cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), some of which were fatal.

The cases came to light during routine surveillance, say staff from the division of pharmacovigilance of the Food and Drug Administration in a research letter published online Sept. 8, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology.

Eight cases of serious skin reactions characterized as SJS/TEN were identified from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). In five of these cases, the diagnosis of SJS/TEN was confirmed by a dermatologist and/or biopsy findings.

The median time to onset of SJS/TEN was 11 days (range, 9-21 days) from the start of treatment.

In the eight cases, serious outcomes were reported. In four cases, deaths that were attributed to SJS/TEN occurred. “Other serious outcomes included admission to the burn unit in four cases,” the researchers wrote.
 

First-in-class agent

Enfortumab vedotin is a first-in-class agent directed against cell adhesion molecule nectin-4, which is located on the surface of cells and is highly expressed in bladder cancer. The product is an antibody conjugate, in which the antibody directs the product to these cells and then releases the cytoxic monomethyl auristantin E. It is administered intravenously.

The product was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in December 2019. This approval was based on response data from the EV-201 study, a phase 2 clinical trial that involved 125 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who received prior treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor and platinum-based chemotherapy.

The results were presented in June 2019 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The overall response rate was 44%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 32% had a partial response. The median duration of response was 7.6 months.

At the meeting, Daniel P. Petrylak, MD, professor of medicine (medical oncology) and urology at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., noted that there is a “high unmet need” among patients with advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer. There has been a flurry of new drug approvals for this disease. Five immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs have been approved in recent years. Most patients (75%-80%) experience disease progression after receiving immunotherapy.

Enfortumab vedotin is the “first novel therapeutic to demonstrate substantial clinical activity” in patients whose disease has progressed after platinum chemotherapy and immunotherapies, commented Dr. Petrylak.

At the time, maculopapular rash of grade 3 or higher was reported in 4% of the cohort. That was the only serious dermatologic adverse event noted.
 

Clinically significant findings

The cases of severe skin reactions now being reported come from postmarketing surveillance, noted the authors, led by Michelle Nadeau Nguyen, PharmD, BCOP, BCPS. They reviewed data from FAERS, PubMed, and Embase from Dec. 18, 2019, the date the product was approved, to Oct. 7, 2020.

Other than the eight cases reported to FAERS, no additional cases were identified from PubMed or Embase.

The authors noted that, because cases of SJS/TEN are rare but serious, these well-documented postmarketing reports are clinically significant. “Moreover, we find the rapid accumulation of cases over an approximate 12-month marketing period a concerning observation,” they wrote.

The rate at which these reactions were reported is higher than would be expected, they commented.

The annual incidence of locally advanced urothelial cancer, the disease most likely to be treated with this drug, is around 12,494-40,000 cases per year in the United States. The expected incidence rate of SJS/TEN is about 1-7 cases per 1,000,000 patients. The team calculated from the reports that, among patients who received enfortumab vedotin, the rate was 20 cases per 1,000,000 patients.

This reporting rate is likely to be underestimated, inasmuch as underreporting is known to be a limitation of spontaneous reporting systems such as FAERS, the authors noted.

The mechanism for toxic skin effects with enfortumab vedotin is as yet unknown, but it may be related to the inhibitory effects of the drug on nectin-4 expression, they suggest. Nectin-4 is expressed by epithelial tissues, including skin.

Dr. Nguyen and colleagues noted that, on approval, the U.S. prescribing information for the drug noted that skin reactions were seen in 55% of patients in clinical trials.

The prescribing information was recently revised to include SJS/TEN and to recommend permanent discontinuance of the drug if cases of SJS/TEN are suspected.

“This revision is intended to increase clinicians’ awareness of the risk for SJS/TEN and mitigate serious outcomes by improving the likelihood of early identification and intervention,” they added.

The authors also encouraged continued reporting of adverse events with enfortumab vedotin to the FDA via the MedWatch portal.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), which was approved less than 2 years ago for the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer, has been associated with cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), some of which were fatal.

The cases came to light during routine surveillance, say staff from the division of pharmacovigilance of the Food and Drug Administration in a research letter published online Sept. 8, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology.

Eight cases of serious skin reactions characterized as SJS/TEN were identified from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). In five of these cases, the diagnosis of SJS/TEN was confirmed by a dermatologist and/or biopsy findings.

The median time to onset of SJS/TEN was 11 days (range, 9-21 days) from the start of treatment.

In the eight cases, serious outcomes were reported. In four cases, deaths that were attributed to SJS/TEN occurred. “Other serious outcomes included admission to the burn unit in four cases,” the researchers wrote.
 

First-in-class agent

Enfortumab vedotin is a first-in-class agent directed against cell adhesion molecule nectin-4, which is located on the surface of cells and is highly expressed in bladder cancer. The product is an antibody conjugate, in which the antibody directs the product to these cells and then releases the cytoxic monomethyl auristantin E. It is administered intravenously.

The product was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in December 2019. This approval was based on response data from the EV-201 study, a phase 2 clinical trial that involved 125 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who received prior treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor and platinum-based chemotherapy.

The results were presented in June 2019 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The overall response rate was 44%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 32% had a partial response. The median duration of response was 7.6 months.

At the meeting, Daniel P. Petrylak, MD, professor of medicine (medical oncology) and urology at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., noted that there is a “high unmet need” among patients with advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer. There has been a flurry of new drug approvals for this disease. Five immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs have been approved in recent years. Most patients (75%-80%) experience disease progression after receiving immunotherapy.

Enfortumab vedotin is the “first novel therapeutic to demonstrate substantial clinical activity” in patients whose disease has progressed after platinum chemotherapy and immunotherapies, commented Dr. Petrylak.

At the time, maculopapular rash of grade 3 or higher was reported in 4% of the cohort. That was the only serious dermatologic adverse event noted.
 

Clinically significant findings

The cases of severe skin reactions now being reported come from postmarketing surveillance, noted the authors, led by Michelle Nadeau Nguyen, PharmD, BCOP, BCPS. They reviewed data from FAERS, PubMed, and Embase from Dec. 18, 2019, the date the product was approved, to Oct. 7, 2020.

Other than the eight cases reported to FAERS, no additional cases were identified from PubMed or Embase.

The authors noted that, because cases of SJS/TEN are rare but serious, these well-documented postmarketing reports are clinically significant. “Moreover, we find the rapid accumulation of cases over an approximate 12-month marketing period a concerning observation,” they wrote.

The rate at which these reactions were reported is higher than would be expected, they commented.

The annual incidence of locally advanced urothelial cancer, the disease most likely to be treated with this drug, is around 12,494-40,000 cases per year in the United States. The expected incidence rate of SJS/TEN is about 1-7 cases per 1,000,000 patients. The team calculated from the reports that, among patients who received enfortumab vedotin, the rate was 20 cases per 1,000,000 patients.

This reporting rate is likely to be underestimated, inasmuch as underreporting is known to be a limitation of spontaneous reporting systems such as FAERS, the authors noted.

The mechanism for toxic skin effects with enfortumab vedotin is as yet unknown, but it may be related to the inhibitory effects of the drug on nectin-4 expression, they suggest. Nectin-4 is expressed by epithelial tissues, including skin.

Dr. Nguyen and colleagues noted that, on approval, the U.S. prescribing information for the drug noted that skin reactions were seen in 55% of patients in clinical trials.

The prescribing information was recently revised to include SJS/TEN and to recommend permanent discontinuance of the drug if cases of SJS/TEN are suspected.

“This revision is intended to increase clinicians’ awareness of the risk for SJS/TEN and mitigate serious outcomes by improving the likelihood of early identification and intervention,” they added.

The authors also encouraged continued reporting of adverse events with enfortumab vedotin to the FDA via the MedWatch portal.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), which was approved less than 2 years ago for the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer, has been associated with cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), some of which were fatal.

The cases came to light during routine surveillance, say staff from the division of pharmacovigilance of the Food and Drug Administration in a research letter published online Sept. 8, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology.

Eight cases of serious skin reactions characterized as SJS/TEN were identified from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). In five of these cases, the diagnosis of SJS/TEN was confirmed by a dermatologist and/or biopsy findings.

The median time to onset of SJS/TEN was 11 days (range, 9-21 days) from the start of treatment.

In the eight cases, serious outcomes were reported. In four cases, deaths that were attributed to SJS/TEN occurred. “Other serious outcomes included admission to the burn unit in four cases,” the researchers wrote.
 

First-in-class agent

Enfortumab vedotin is a first-in-class agent directed against cell adhesion molecule nectin-4, which is located on the surface of cells and is highly expressed in bladder cancer. The product is an antibody conjugate, in which the antibody directs the product to these cells and then releases the cytoxic monomethyl auristantin E. It is administered intravenously.

The product was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in December 2019. This approval was based on response data from the EV-201 study, a phase 2 clinical trial that involved 125 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who received prior treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor and platinum-based chemotherapy.

The results were presented in June 2019 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The overall response rate was 44%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 32% had a partial response. The median duration of response was 7.6 months.

At the meeting, Daniel P. Petrylak, MD, professor of medicine (medical oncology) and urology at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., noted that there is a “high unmet need” among patients with advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer. There has been a flurry of new drug approvals for this disease. Five immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs have been approved in recent years. Most patients (75%-80%) experience disease progression after receiving immunotherapy.

Enfortumab vedotin is the “first novel therapeutic to demonstrate substantial clinical activity” in patients whose disease has progressed after platinum chemotherapy and immunotherapies, commented Dr. Petrylak.

At the time, maculopapular rash of grade 3 or higher was reported in 4% of the cohort. That was the only serious dermatologic adverse event noted.
 

Clinically significant findings

The cases of severe skin reactions now being reported come from postmarketing surveillance, noted the authors, led by Michelle Nadeau Nguyen, PharmD, BCOP, BCPS. They reviewed data from FAERS, PubMed, and Embase from Dec. 18, 2019, the date the product was approved, to Oct. 7, 2020.

Other than the eight cases reported to FAERS, no additional cases were identified from PubMed or Embase.

The authors noted that, because cases of SJS/TEN are rare but serious, these well-documented postmarketing reports are clinically significant. “Moreover, we find the rapid accumulation of cases over an approximate 12-month marketing period a concerning observation,” they wrote.

The rate at which these reactions were reported is higher than would be expected, they commented.

The annual incidence of locally advanced urothelial cancer, the disease most likely to be treated with this drug, is around 12,494-40,000 cases per year in the United States. The expected incidence rate of SJS/TEN is about 1-7 cases per 1,000,000 patients. The team calculated from the reports that, among patients who received enfortumab vedotin, the rate was 20 cases per 1,000,000 patients.

This reporting rate is likely to be underestimated, inasmuch as underreporting is known to be a limitation of spontaneous reporting systems such as FAERS, the authors noted.

The mechanism for toxic skin effects with enfortumab vedotin is as yet unknown, but it may be related to the inhibitory effects of the drug on nectin-4 expression, they suggest. Nectin-4 is expressed by epithelial tissues, including skin.

Dr. Nguyen and colleagues noted that, on approval, the U.S. prescribing information for the drug noted that skin reactions were seen in 55% of patients in clinical trials.

The prescribing information was recently revised to include SJS/TEN and to recommend permanent discontinuance of the drug if cases of SJS/TEN are suspected.

“This revision is intended to increase clinicians’ awareness of the risk for SJS/TEN and mitigate serious outcomes by improving the likelihood of early identification and intervention,” they added.

The authors also encouraged continued reporting of adverse events with enfortumab vedotin to the FDA via the MedWatch portal.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Accelerated approvals of oncology drugs based on response data are controversial, because subsequent trials have often failed to show a clinical benefit. This has led to a spate of withdrawals of such accelerated approvals, including those for nivolumab in liver cancer and pembrolizumab in small cell lung cancer.

But one such accelerated approval has now been converted to a full approval, with a small label change, by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new full approval is for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line use for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy. (The small label change is that mention of PD-L1 status and testing for this have been removed.)

The move is in accordance with recommendations by experts at a recent meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. They voted 5-3 in favor of this accelerated approval staying. They also voted 10-1 in favor of another immunotherapy, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), for the same indication.

One of the arguments put forward to support these accelerated approvals staying in place is that there is an unmet need in this population of patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy.

But this argument doesn’t hold water – the mere existence of one of these negates the “unmet need” argument for the other, wrote Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., in a commentary on why the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is broken.

“Even if there is a genuine ‘unmet need’ in a particular setting, these drugs did not meet the standard of improving survival. An unmet need doesn’t imply that the treatment void should be filled with a drug that provides nothing of value to patients,” Dr. Gyawali wrote.

“When we talk about an unmet need, we are speaking of drugs that provide a clinical benefit; any true unmet needs will continue to exist despite maintaining these approvals,” he argued.

After obtaining the accelerated approval for pembrolizumab for patients with bladder cancer who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, the manufacturer (Merck) carried out a subsequent clinical trial but conducted it in patients who were eligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-361). However, this trial did not meet its prespecified dual primary endpoints of overall survival or progression-free survival in comparison with standard of care chemotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

“We are working with urgency to advance studies to help more patients living with bladder and other types of cancer,” commented Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories. The company said it has “an extensive clinical development in bladder cancer” and is exploring pembrolizumab use in many settings.

In addition to the new full approval for the first-line indication for patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy, pembrolizumab has two other approved indications in this therapeutic area: the treatment of patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma or mUC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy; and the treatment of patients with bacillus Calmette-Guérin–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ, with or without papillary tumors, who are ineligible for or have elected not to undergo cystectomy.

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

Accelerated approvals of oncology drugs based on response data are controversial, because subsequent trials have often failed to show a clinical benefit. This has led to a spate of withdrawals of such accelerated approvals, including those for nivolumab in liver cancer and pembrolizumab in small cell lung cancer.

But one such accelerated approval has now been converted to a full approval, with a small label change, by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new full approval is for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line use for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy. (The small label change is that mention of PD-L1 status and testing for this have been removed.)

The move is in accordance with recommendations by experts at a recent meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. They voted 5-3 in favor of this accelerated approval staying. They also voted 10-1 in favor of another immunotherapy, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), for the same indication.

One of the arguments put forward to support these accelerated approvals staying in place is that there is an unmet need in this population of patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy.

But this argument doesn’t hold water – the mere existence of one of these negates the “unmet need” argument for the other, wrote Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., in a commentary on why the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is broken.

“Even if there is a genuine ‘unmet need’ in a particular setting, these drugs did not meet the standard of improving survival. An unmet need doesn’t imply that the treatment void should be filled with a drug that provides nothing of value to patients,” Dr. Gyawali wrote.

“When we talk about an unmet need, we are speaking of drugs that provide a clinical benefit; any true unmet needs will continue to exist despite maintaining these approvals,” he argued.

After obtaining the accelerated approval for pembrolizumab for patients with bladder cancer who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, the manufacturer (Merck) carried out a subsequent clinical trial but conducted it in patients who were eligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-361). However, this trial did not meet its prespecified dual primary endpoints of overall survival or progression-free survival in comparison with standard of care chemotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

“We are working with urgency to advance studies to help more patients living with bladder and other types of cancer,” commented Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories. The company said it has “an extensive clinical development in bladder cancer” and is exploring pembrolizumab use in many settings.

In addition to the new full approval for the first-line indication for patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy, pembrolizumab has two other approved indications in this therapeutic area: the treatment of patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma or mUC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy; and the treatment of patients with bacillus Calmette-Guérin–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ, with or without papillary tumors, who are ineligible for or have elected not to undergo cystectomy.

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

Accelerated approvals of oncology drugs based on response data are controversial, because subsequent trials have often failed to show a clinical benefit. This has led to a spate of withdrawals of such accelerated approvals, including those for nivolumab in liver cancer and pembrolizumab in small cell lung cancer.

But one such accelerated approval has now been converted to a full approval, with a small label change, by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new full approval is for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line use for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy. (The small label change is that mention of PD-L1 status and testing for this have been removed.)

The move is in accordance with recommendations by experts at a recent meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. They voted 5-3 in favor of this accelerated approval staying. They also voted 10-1 in favor of another immunotherapy, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), for the same indication.

One of the arguments put forward to support these accelerated approvals staying in place is that there is an unmet need in this population of patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy.

But this argument doesn’t hold water – the mere existence of one of these negates the “unmet need” argument for the other, wrote Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., in a commentary on why the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is broken.

“Even if there is a genuine ‘unmet need’ in a particular setting, these drugs did not meet the standard of improving survival. An unmet need doesn’t imply that the treatment void should be filled with a drug that provides nothing of value to patients,” Dr. Gyawali wrote.

“When we talk about an unmet need, we are speaking of drugs that provide a clinical benefit; any true unmet needs will continue to exist despite maintaining these approvals,” he argued.

After obtaining the accelerated approval for pembrolizumab for patients with bladder cancer who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, the manufacturer (Merck) carried out a subsequent clinical trial but conducted it in patients who were eligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-361). However, this trial did not meet its prespecified dual primary endpoints of overall survival or progression-free survival in comparison with standard of care chemotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

“We are working with urgency to advance studies to help more patients living with bladder and other types of cancer,” commented Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories. The company said it has “an extensive clinical development in bladder cancer” and is exploring pembrolizumab use in many settings.

In addition to the new full approval for the first-line indication for patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy, pembrolizumab has two other approved indications in this therapeutic area: the treatment of patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma or mUC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy; and the treatment of patients with bacillus Calmette-Guérin–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ, with or without papillary tumors, who are ineligible for or have elected not to undergo cystectomy.

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

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered millions of e-cigarette products off the public market while saying it needs more time to review vape products sold by leading retailers like Juul, the country’s largest e-cigarette maker.

The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.

The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.

Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.

The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”

No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.

The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.

“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.

“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.

E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered millions of e-cigarette products off the public market while saying it needs more time to review vape products sold by leading retailers like Juul, the country’s largest e-cigarette maker.

The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.

The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.

Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.

The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”

No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.

The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.

“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.

“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.

E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered millions of e-cigarette products off the public market while saying it needs more time to review vape products sold by leading retailers like Juul, the country’s largest e-cigarette maker.

The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.

The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.

Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.

The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”

No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.

The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.

“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.

“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.

E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.

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

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on Sept. 8 on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) against the Food and Drug Administration for the agency’s failure to act on a petition submitted by the foundation 4 years ago.

The September 2017 petition requested that the FDA take the popular hair-loss drug (1 mg finasteride, Propecia) off the market because of evidence of serious risk of patient injury, including depression and suicidal ideation. 

As an alternative, PFSF requested that the FDA require the drug’s manufacturers revise the safety information on the labeling and add boxed warnings to disclose the potential for side effects, another of which is erectile dysfunction.

Public Citizen points to a recent analysis of the VigiBase global database, which tracks adverse effects from global pharmacovigilance agencies, lists 356 reports of suicidality and 2,926 reports of psychological adverse events in finasteride users. Yet, 4 years after submitting the petition, the FDA has neither granted nor denied it.

The lawsuit claims that FDA has acted unlawfully in failing to act on PFSF’s petition, and further cites “88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use” per data from the VigiBase database.

“On the same day that PFSF submitted the petition, FDA’s docket management division acknowledged receipt and assigned the petition a docket number,” Michael Kirkpatrick, the Public Citizen attorney serving as lead counsel for PFSF, told this news organization.

Yet, to date, “there has been no substantive response to the petition. The lawsuit filed today seeks to force FDA to issue a decision on PFSF’s petition,” Mr. Kirkpatrick said.

“The FDA needs to act in a timely way to protect the public from the risks associated with use of Propecia. The FDA’s failure to act exposes consumers to potentially life-threatening harm,” he added in a statement.

The complaint filed today by Public Citizen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is available online. 

This news organization reached out to the FDA for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
 

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

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on Sept. 8 on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) against the Food and Drug Administration for the agency’s failure to act on a petition submitted by the foundation 4 years ago.

The September 2017 petition requested that the FDA take the popular hair-loss drug (1 mg finasteride, Propecia) off the market because of evidence of serious risk of patient injury, including depression and suicidal ideation. 

As an alternative, PFSF requested that the FDA require the drug’s manufacturers revise the safety information on the labeling and add boxed warnings to disclose the potential for side effects, another of which is erectile dysfunction.

Public Citizen points to a recent analysis of the VigiBase global database, which tracks adverse effects from global pharmacovigilance agencies, lists 356 reports of suicidality and 2,926 reports of psychological adverse events in finasteride users. Yet, 4 years after submitting the petition, the FDA has neither granted nor denied it.

The lawsuit claims that FDA has acted unlawfully in failing to act on PFSF’s petition, and further cites “88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use” per data from the VigiBase database.

“On the same day that PFSF submitted the petition, FDA’s docket management division acknowledged receipt and assigned the petition a docket number,” Michael Kirkpatrick, the Public Citizen attorney serving as lead counsel for PFSF, told this news organization.

Yet, to date, “there has been no substantive response to the petition. The lawsuit filed today seeks to force FDA to issue a decision on PFSF’s petition,” Mr. Kirkpatrick said.

“The FDA needs to act in a timely way to protect the public from the risks associated with use of Propecia. The FDA’s failure to act exposes consumers to potentially life-threatening harm,” he added in a statement.

The complaint filed today by Public Citizen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is available online. 

This news organization reached out to the FDA for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
 

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

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on Sept. 8 on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) against the Food and Drug Administration for the agency’s failure to act on a petition submitted by the foundation 4 years ago.

The September 2017 petition requested that the FDA take the popular hair-loss drug (1 mg finasteride, Propecia) off the market because of evidence of serious risk of patient injury, including depression and suicidal ideation. 

As an alternative, PFSF requested that the FDA require the drug’s manufacturers revise the safety information on the labeling and add boxed warnings to disclose the potential for side effects, another of which is erectile dysfunction.

Public Citizen points to a recent analysis of the VigiBase global database, which tracks adverse effects from global pharmacovigilance agencies, lists 356 reports of suicidality and 2,926 reports of psychological adverse events in finasteride users. Yet, 4 years after submitting the petition, the FDA has neither granted nor denied it.

The lawsuit claims that FDA has acted unlawfully in failing to act on PFSF’s petition, and further cites “88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use” per data from the VigiBase database.

“On the same day that PFSF submitted the petition, FDA’s docket management division acknowledged receipt and assigned the petition a docket number,” Michael Kirkpatrick, the Public Citizen attorney serving as lead counsel for PFSF, told this news organization.

Yet, to date, “there has been no substantive response to the petition. The lawsuit filed today seeks to force FDA to issue a decision on PFSF’s petition,” Mr. Kirkpatrick said.

“The FDA needs to act in a timely way to protect the public from the risks associated with use of Propecia. The FDA’s failure to act exposes consumers to potentially life-threatening harm,” he added in a statement.

The complaint filed today by Public Citizen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is available online. 

This news organization reached out to the FDA for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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