User login
FDA Approves Second Gene Therapy for Hemophilia B
Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes.
Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022.
Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector.
Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.
Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector.
The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.
Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred.
Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes.
Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022.
Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector.
Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.
Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector.
The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.
Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred.
Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes.
Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022.
Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector.
Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.
Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector.
The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.
Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred.
Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves New Bladder Cancer Drug
Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease.
The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.
The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience.
Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2.
Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months.
According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.
The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.
The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.
The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease.
The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.
The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience.
Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2.
Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months.
According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.
The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.
The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.
The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease.
The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.
The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience.
Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2.
Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months.
According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.
The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.
The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.
The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most Targeted Cancer Drugs Lack Substantial Clinical Benefit
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC Investigating Adverse Events Related to Counterfeit, Mishandled Botulinum Toxin
, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.
Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.
Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.
The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.
States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.
Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.
The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.
For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”
This ‘Should Never Happen’
“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.
These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”
Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.
, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.
Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.
Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.
The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.
States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.
Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.
The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.
For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”
This ‘Should Never Happen’
“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.
These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”
Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.
, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.
Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.
Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.
The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.
States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.
Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.
The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.
For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”
This ‘Should Never Happen’
“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.
These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”
Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.
Panel: MRD Tests May Speed Myeloma Tx Approvals
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.
ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.
There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).
“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”
“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.
Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.
The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.
Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.
These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.
In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.
The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.
The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.
The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.
Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.
The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.
Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.
“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”
Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.
“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.
ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.
There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).
“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”
“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.
Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.
The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.
Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.
These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.
In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.
The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.
The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.
The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.
Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.
The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.
Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.
“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”
Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.
“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.
ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.
There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).
“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”
“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.
Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.
The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.
Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.
These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.
In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.
The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.
The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.
The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.
Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.
The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.
Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.
“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”
Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.
“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”
Bimekizumab Under FDA Review for Hidradenitis Suppurativa
On April 4, 2024, the US .
The agency also accepted a second sBLA for a bimekizumab-bkzx 2-mL device.
The developments were announced in a press release from UCB, the manufacturer of bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx), which was first approved in the United States in October 2023 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
According to the press release, acceptance of the sBLA was based on results from two phase 3 studies known as BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, which found that bimekizumab-bkzx showed clinically meaningful improvements compared with placebo at week 16 and were sustained to week 48. If approved, this would be the first HS approval for bimekizumab-bkzx worldwide. In the European Union, it is approved for treating adults with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis, in addition to moderate to severe psoriasis.
According to the company, approval of the 2-mL injection device would mean that patients would have an alternative one-injection regimen option; currently, one dose for psoriasis is administered as two 1-mL injections. Full US prescribing information for bimekizumab-bkzx can be found here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On April 4, 2024, the US .
The agency also accepted a second sBLA for a bimekizumab-bkzx 2-mL device.
The developments were announced in a press release from UCB, the manufacturer of bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx), which was first approved in the United States in October 2023 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
According to the press release, acceptance of the sBLA was based on results from two phase 3 studies known as BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, which found that bimekizumab-bkzx showed clinically meaningful improvements compared with placebo at week 16 and were sustained to week 48. If approved, this would be the first HS approval for bimekizumab-bkzx worldwide. In the European Union, it is approved for treating adults with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis, in addition to moderate to severe psoriasis.
According to the company, approval of the 2-mL injection device would mean that patients would have an alternative one-injection regimen option; currently, one dose for psoriasis is administered as two 1-mL injections. Full US prescribing information for bimekizumab-bkzx can be found here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On April 4, 2024, the US .
The agency also accepted a second sBLA for a bimekizumab-bkzx 2-mL device.
The developments were announced in a press release from UCB, the manufacturer of bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx), which was first approved in the United States in October 2023 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
According to the press release, acceptance of the sBLA was based on results from two phase 3 studies known as BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, which found that bimekizumab-bkzx showed clinically meaningful improvements compared with placebo at week 16 and were sustained to week 48. If approved, this would be the first HS approval for bimekizumab-bkzx worldwide. In the European Union, it is approved for treating adults with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis, in addition to moderate to severe psoriasis.
According to the company, approval of the 2-mL injection device would mean that patients would have an alternative one-injection regimen option; currently, one dose for psoriasis is administered as two 1-mL injections. Full US prescribing information for bimekizumab-bkzx can be found here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Less Than 50% of Accelerated Approvals Show Clinical Benefit
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Enhertu Indication to HER2-Positive Solid Tumors
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Abecma Approved for Earlier Lines in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs Danicopan Add-On for Extravascular Hemolysis in Adults With PNH
PNH is a rare blood disorder affecting 1-10 individuals per million. The condition, which eliminates red blood cells and leads to blood clots and impaired bone marrow function, can cause life-threatening anemia, thrombosis, and bone marrow dysfunction. About half of people with the condition die from thrombotic complications.
Ravulizumab and eculizumab, also both made by AstraZeneca, inhibit the destruction of red blood cells. However, 10%-20% of patients treated with the antibody infusions experience significant extravascular hemolysis, in which these surviving red blood cells are eliminated by the spleen and liver. Extravascular hemolysis can lead to ongoing anemia, which can lead patients to require blood transfusions.
Danicopan, an investigational, first-in-class, oral complement factor D inhibitor, is designed to control intravascular hemolysis and prevent extravascular hemolysis.
Approval of the oral medication was based on the phase 3 ALPHA trial in 63 patients with PNH who received ravulizumab or eculizumab and experienced significant extravascular hemolysis. These patients were randomized 2:1 to either danicopan or placebo.
Danicopan add-on significantly improved hemoglobin concentrations at 12 weeks (least squares mean improvement from baseline: 2.94 g/dL with danicopan vs 0.50 g/dL with placebo) and made transfusions less likely.
Headache, nausea, arthralgia, and diarrhea were the most common treatment-emergent side effects. Serious adverse events in the danicopan group included cholecystitis and COVID-19 in one patient each.
Danicopan carries a boxed warning of serious infections and is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PNH is a rare blood disorder affecting 1-10 individuals per million. The condition, which eliminates red blood cells and leads to blood clots and impaired bone marrow function, can cause life-threatening anemia, thrombosis, and bone marrow dysfunction. About half of people with the condition die from thrombotic complications.
Ravulizumab and eculizumab, also both made by AstraZeneca, inhibit the destruction of red blood cells. However, 10%-20% of patients treated with the antibody infusions experience significant extravascular hemolysis, in which these surviving red blood cells are eliminated by the spleen and liver. Extravascular hemolysis can lead to ongoing anemia, which can lead patients to require blood transfusions.
Danicopan, an investigational, first-in-class, oral complement factor D inhibitor, is designed to control intravascular hemolysis and prevent extravascular hemolysis.
Approval of the oral medication was based on the phase 3 ALPHA trial in 63 patients with PNH who received ravulizumab or eculizumab and experienced significant extravascular hemolysis. These patients were randomized 2:1 to either danicopan or placebo.
Danicopan add-on significantly improved hemoglobin concentrations at 12 weeks (least squares mean improvement from baseline: 2.94 g/dL with danicopan vs 0.50 g/dL with placebo) and made transfusions less likely.
Headache, nausea, arthralgia, and diarrhea were the most common treatment-emergent side effects. Serious adverse events in the danicopan group included cholecystitis and COVID-19 in one patient each.
Danicopan carries a boxed warning of serious infections and is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PNH is a rare blood disorder affecting 1-10 individuals per million. The condition, which eliminates red blood cells and leads to blood clots and impaired bone marrow function, can cause life-threatening anemia, thrombosis, and bone marrow dysfunction. About half of people with the condition die from thrombotic complications.
Ravulizumab and eculizumab, also both made by AstraZeneca, inhibit the destruction of red blood cells. However, 10%-20% of patients treated with the antibody infusions experience significant extravascular hemolysis, in which these surviving red blood cells are eliminated by the spleen and liver. Extravascular hemolysis can lead to ongoing anemia, which can lead patients to require blood transfusions.
Danicopan, an investigational, first-in-class, oral complement factor D inhibitor, is designed to control intravascular hemolysis and prevent extravascular hemolysis.
Approval of the oral medication was based on the phase 3 ALPHA trial in 63 patients with PNH who received ravulizumab or eculizumab and experienced significant extravascular hemolysis. These patients were randomized 2:1 to either danicopan or placebo.
Danicopan add-on significantly improved hemoglobin concentrations at 12 weeks (least squares mean improvement from baseline: 2.94 g/dL with danicopan vs 0.50 g/dL with placebo) and made transfusions less likely.
Headache, nausea, arthralgia, and diarrhea were the most common treatment-emergent side effects. Serious adverse events in the danicopan group included cholecystitis and COVID-19 in one patient each.
Danicopan carries a boxed warning of serious infections and is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.