User login
New Cancer Surgical Tech Gets Positive Vote, But Some Cite Safety Concerns
A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.
LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.
Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.
“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.
However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.
In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.
“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”
The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.
On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.
“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”
Is the Technology Safe?
Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.
After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.
If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.
In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.
Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.
Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.
“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”
During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.
Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.
David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.
“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.
Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.
She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.
MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.
Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.
“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”
During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.
“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
Committee Expresses Support
During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.
Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.
Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.
“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”
Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.
“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”
Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.
The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.
If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.
Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.
The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.
A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.
LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.
Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.
“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.
However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.
In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.
“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”
The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.
On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.
“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”
Is the Technology Safe?
Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.
After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.
If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.
In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.
Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.
Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.
“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”
During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.
Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.
David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.
“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.
Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.
She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.
MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.
Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.
“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”
During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.
“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
Committee Expresses Support
During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.
Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.
Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.
“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”
Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.
“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”
Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.
The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.
If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.
Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.
The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.
A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.
LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.
Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.
“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.
However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.
In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.
“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”
The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.
On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.
“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”
Is the Technology Safe?
Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.
After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.
If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.
In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.
Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.
Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.
“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”
During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.
Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.
David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.
“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.
Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.
She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.
MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.
Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.
“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”
During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.
“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
Committee Expresses Support
During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.
Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.
Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.
“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”
Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.
“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”
Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.
The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.
If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.
Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.
The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.
Zanubrutinib Label Expands to Include RR Follicular Lymphoma
Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11.
The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.
Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.
The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.
According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11.
The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.
Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.
The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.
According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11.
The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.
Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.
The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.
According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Nivolumab Wins First-Line Indication in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
TIL for Melanoma: What Are the Costs and Other Challenges to Getting It to Patients?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
Pfizer Antibody-Drug Conjugate Picks Up Pediatric ALL Indication
The CD22-directed antibody and cytotoxic drug conjugate was previously approved only for adults with the condition.
Pediatric approval was based on a single-arm study of 53 children, of whom 12 were treated with an initial dose of 1.4 mg/m2 per cycle and the rest with an initial dose of 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for a median of two cycles and a range of one to four cycles.
Premedications included methylprednisolone plus an antipyretic and antihistamine.
Overall, 22 children (42%) had a complete remission, defined as < 5% blasts in the bone marrow, no leukemia blasts in peripheral blood, full recovery of peripheral blood counts, and resolution of extramedullary disease. The median duration of complete remission was 8.2 months.
All but one child who went into complete remission (95.5%) had no minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, and 19 (86.4%) were MRD negative by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Adverse events in ≥ 20% of participants included thrombocytopenia, pyrexia, anemia, vomiting, infection, hemorrhage, neutropenia, nausea, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, increased transaminases, abdominal pain, and headache.
The antibody-drug conjugate carries a black box warning of hepatotoxicity, including hepatic veno-occlusive and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant mortality.
The initial recommended dose is 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle, divided into 0.8 mg/m2 on day 1, followed by 0.5 mg/m2 on day 9 and 0.5 mg/m2 on day 15. The initial 3-week cycle can be extended to 4 weeks for patients who have a complete remission or a complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery and/or to recover from toxicities.
According to drugs.com, 0.9 mg costs $23,423.47.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The CD22-directed antibody and cytotoxic drug conjugate was previously approved only for adults with the condition.
Pediatric approval was based on a single-arm study of 53 children, of whom 12 were treated with an initial dose of 1.4 mg/m2 per cycle and the rest with an initial dose of 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for a median of two cycles and a range of one to four cycles.
Premedications included methylprednisolone plus an antipyretic and antihistamine.
Overall, 22 children (42%) had a complete remission, defined as < 5% blasts in the bone marrow, no leukemia blasts in peripheral blood, full recovery of peripheral blood counts, and resolution of extramedullary disease. The median duration of complete remission was 8.2 months.
All but one child who went into complete remission (95.5%) had no minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, and 19 (86.4%) were MRD negative by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Adverse events in ≥ 20% of participants included thrombocytopenia, pyrexia, anemia, vomiting, infection, hemorrhage, neutropenia, nausea, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, increased transaminases, abdominal pain, and headache.
The antibody-drug conjugate carries a black box warning of hepatotoxicity, including hepatic veno-occlusive and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant mortality.
The initial recommended dose is 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle, divided into 0.8 mg/m2 on day 1, followed by 0.5 mg/m2 on day 9 and 0.5 mg/m2 on day 15. The initial 3-week cycle can be extended to 4 weeks for patients who have a complete remission or a complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery and/or to recover from toxicities.
According to drugs.com, 0.9 mg costs $23,423.47.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The CD22-directed antibody and cytotoxic drug conjugate was previously approved only for adults with the condition.
Pediatric approval was based on a single-arm study of 53 children, of whom 12 were treated with an initial dose of 1.4 mg/m2 per cycle and the rest with an initial dose of 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for a median of two cycles and a range of one to four cycles.
Premedications included methylprednisolone plus an antipyretic and antihistamine.
Overall, 22 children (42%) had a complete remission, defined as < 5% blasts in the bone marrow, no leukemia blasts in peripheral blood, full recovery of peripheral blood counts, and resolution of extramedullary disease. The median duration of complete remission was 8.2 months.
All but one child who went into complete remission (95.5%) had no minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, and 19 (86.4%) were MRD negative by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Adverse events in ≥ 20% of participants included thrombocytopenia, pyrexia, anemia, vomiting, infection, hemorrhage, neutropenia, nausea, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, increased transaminases, abdominal pain, and headache.
The antibody-drug conjugate carries a black box warning of hepatotoxicity, including hepatic veno-occlusive and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant mortality.
The initial recommended dose is 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle, divided into 0.8 mg/m2 on day 1, followed by 0.5 mg/m2 on day 9 and 0.5 mg/m2 on day 15. The initial 3-week cycle can be extended to 4 weeks for patients who have a complete remission or a complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery and/or to recover from toxicities.
According to drugs.com, 0.9 mg costs $23,423.47.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Amivantamab First-line Indication for NSCLC
Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw.
The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).
Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.
Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw.
The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).
Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.
Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw.
The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).
Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.
Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Removes Harmful Chemicals From Food Packaging
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Withdraws Melflufen Approval, but EMA Still Allows Its Use
But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):
“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?
Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA
But approval by @EMA_News stays.
How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?
Modern day miracle?”
EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks
The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:
“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.
Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.
“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.
As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.
The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.
“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’
David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.
“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”
Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”
“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks
In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.
OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.
In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.
Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:
“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”
“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.
But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):
“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?
Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA
But approval by @EMA_News stays.
How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?
Modern day miracle?”
EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks
The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:
“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.
Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.
“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.
As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.
The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.
“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’
David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.
“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”
Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”
“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks
In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.
OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.
In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.
Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:
“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”
“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.
But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):
“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?
Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA
But approval by @EMA_News stays.
How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?
Modern day miracle?”
EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks
The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:
“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.
Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.
“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.
As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.
The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.
“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’
David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.
“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”
Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”
“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks
In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.
OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.
In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.
Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:
“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”
“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.
FDA Clears Medical Grade Over-the-Counter Pulse Oximeter
The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.
The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.
According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."
Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.
However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.
Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."
"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."
Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.
Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.
MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.
The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.
The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.
According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."
Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.
However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.
Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."
"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."
Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.
Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.
MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.
The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.
The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.
According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."
Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.
However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.
Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."
"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."
Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.
Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.
MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.
The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Democratic Lawmakers Press Pfizer on Chemotherapy Drug Shortages
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.