User login
FDA Expands Darzalex Faspro Indication in Myeloma
Approval followed priority review and was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label PERSEUS trial involving 709 patients under age 70 years who were randomized to receive bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone or in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, according to the FDA.
Compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone, the addition of daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj resulted in a 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.40). Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group.
Adverse reactions occurring in ≥ 20% of patients were peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, edema, pyrexia, upper respiratory infection, constipation, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and rash.
The recommended dosage for this indication is 1800 mg daratumumab and 30,000 units hyaluronidase, according to the full prescribing information.
Daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, which was first approved in 2020, has a range of other indications in multiple myeloma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Approval followed priority review and was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label PERSEUS trial involving 709 patients under age 70 years who were randomized to receive bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone or in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, according to the FDA.
Compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone, the addition of daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj resulted in a 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.40). Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group.
Adverse reactions occurring in ≥ 20% of patients were peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, edema, pyrexia, upper respiratory infection, constipation, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and rash.
The recommended dosage for this indication is 1800 mg daratumumab and 30,000 units hyaluronidase, according to the full prescribing information.
Daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, which was first approved in 2020, has a range of other indications in multiple myeloma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Approval followed priority review and was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label PERSEUS trial involving 709 patients under age 70 years who were randomized to receive bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone or in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, according to the FDA.
Compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone, the addition of daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj resulted in a 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.40). Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group.
Adverse reactions occurring in ≥ 20% of patients were peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, edema, pyrexia, upper respiratory infection, constipation, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and rash.
The recommended dosage for this indication is 1800 mg daratumumab and 30,000 units hyaluronidase, according to the full prescribing information.
Daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, which was first approved in 2020, has a range of other indications in multiple myeloma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Compounded Semaglutide Overdoses Tied to Hospitalizations
Patients are overdosing on compounded semaglutide due to errors in measuring and self-administering the drug and due to clinicians miscalculating doses that may differ from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved products.
The FDA published an alert on July 26 after receiving reports of dosing errors involving compounded semaglutide injectable products dispensed in multidose vials. Adverse events included gastrointestinal effects, fainting, dehydration, headache, gallstones, and acute pancreatitis. Some patients required hospitalization.
Why the Risks?
FDA-approved semaglutide injectable products are dosed in milligrams, have standard concentrations, and are currently only available in prefilled pens.
Compounded semaglutide products may differ from approved products in ways that contribute to potential errors — for example, in multidose vials and prefilled syringes. In addition, product concentrations may vary depending on the compounder, and even a single compounder may offer multiple concentrations of semaglutide.
Instructions for a compounded drug, if provided, may tell users to administer semaglutide injections in “units,” the volume of which may vary depending on the concentration — rather than in milligrams. In some instances, patients received syringes significantly larger than the prescribed volume.
Common Errors
The FDA has received reports related to patients mistakenly taking more than the prescribed dose from a multidose vial — sometimes 5-20 times more than the intended dose.
Several reports described clinicians incorrectly calculating the intended dose when converting from milligrams to units or milliliters. In one case, a patient couldn’t get clarity on dosing instructions from the telemedicine provider who prescribed the compounded semaglutide, leading the patient to search online for medical advice. This resulted in the patient taking five times the intended dose.
In another example, one clinician prescribed 20 units instead of two units, affecting three patients who, after receiving 10 times the intended dose, experienced nausea and vomiting.
Another clinician, who also takes semaglutide himself, tried to recalculate his own dose in units and ended up self-administering a dose 10 times higher than intended.
The FDA previously warned about potential risks from the use of compounded drugs during a shortage as is the case with semaglutide. While compounded drugs can “sometimes” be helpful, according to the agency, “compounded drugs pose a higher risk to patients than FDA-approved drugs because compounded drugs do not undergo FDA premarket review for safety, effectiveness, or quality.”
Patients are overdosing on compounded semaglutide due to errors in measuring and self-administering the drug and due to clinicians miscalculating doses that may differ from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved products.
The FDA published an alert on July 26 after receiving reports of dosing errors involving compounded semaglutide injectable products dispensed in multidose vials. Adverse events included gastrointestinal effects, fainting, dehydration, headache, gallstones, and acute pancreatitis. Some patients required hospitalization.
Why the Risks?
FDA-approved semaglutide injectable products are dosed in milligrams, have standard concentrations, and are currently only available in prefilled pens.
Compounded semaglutide products may differ from approved products in ways that contribute to potential errors — for example, in multidose vials and prefilled syringes. In addition, product concentrations may vary depending on the compounder, and even a single compounder may offer multiple concentrations of semaglutide.
Instructions for a compounded drug, if provided, may tell users to administer semaglutide injections in “units,” the volume of which may vary depending on the concentration — rather than in milligrams. In some instances, patients received syringes significantly larger than the prescribed volume.
Common Errors
The FDA has received reports related to patients mistakenly taking more than the prescribed dose from a multidose vial — sometimes 5-20 times more than the intended dose.
Several reports described clinicians incorrectly calculating the intended dose when converting from milligrams to units or milliliters. In one case, a patient couldn’t get clarity on dosing instructions from the telemedicine provider who prescribed the compounded semaglutide, leading the patient to search online for medical advice. This resulted in the patient taking five times the intended dose.
In another example, one clinician prescribed 20 units instead of two units, affecting three patients who, after receiving 10 times the intended dose, experienced nausea and vomiting.
Another clinician, who also takes semaglutide himself, tried to recalculate his own dose in units and ended up self-administering a dose 10 times higher than intended.
The FDA previously warned about potential risks from the use of compounded drugs during a shortage as is the case with semaglutide. While compounded drugs can “sometimes” be helpful, according to the agency, “compounded drugs pose a higher risk to patients than FDA-approved drugs because compounded drugs do not undergo FDA premarket review for safety, effectiveness, or quality.”
Patients are overdosing on compounded semaglutide due to errors in measuring and self-administering the drug and due to clinicians miscalculating doses that may differ from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved products.
The FDA published an alert on July 26 after receiving reports of dosing errors involving compounded semaglutide injectable products dispensed in multidose vials. Adverse events included gastrointestinal effects, fainting, dehydration, headache, gallstones, and acute pancreatitis. Some patients required hospitalization.
Why the Risks?
FDA-approved semaglutide injectable products are dosed in milligrams, have standard concentrations, and are currently only available in prefilled pens.
Compounded semaglutide products may differ from approved products in ways that contribute to potential errors — for example, in multidose vials and prefilled syringes. In addition, product concentrations may vary depending on the compounder, and even a single compounder may offer multiple concentrations of semaglutide.
Instructions for a compounded drug, if provided, may tell users to administer semaglutide injections in “units,” the volume of which may vary depending on the concentration — rather than in milligrams. In some instances, patients received syringes significantly larger than the prescribed volume.
Common Errors
The FDA has received reports related to patients mistakenly taking more than the prescribed dose from a multidose vial — sometimes 5-20 times more than the intended dose.
Several reports described clinicians incorrectly calculating the intended dose when converting from milligrams to units or milliliters. In one case, a patient couldn’t get clarity on dosing instructions from the telemedicine provider who prescribed the compounded semaglutide, leading the patient to search online for medical advice. This resulted in the patient taking five times the intended dose.
In another example, one clinician prescribed 20 units instead of two units, affecting three patients who, after receiving 10 times the intended dose, experienced nausea and vomiting.
Another clinician, who also takes semaglutide himself, tried to recalculate his own dose in units and ended up self-administering a dose 10 times higher than intended.
The FDA previously warned about potential risks from the use of compounded drugs during a shortage as is the case with semaglutide. While compounded drugs can “sometimes” be helpful, according to the agency, “compounded drugs pose a higher risk to patients than FDA-approved drugs because compounded drugs do not undergo FDA premarket review for safety, effectiveness, or quality.”
Breakthrough Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Gets Green Light
The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.
The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.
While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.
In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.
If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.
“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.
The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.
While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.
In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.
If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.
“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.
The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.
While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.
In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.
If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.
“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA Calls AstraZeneca’s NSCLC Trial Design Into Question
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs Voquezna for Heartburn Relief in Nonerosive Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
It represents the third indication for the potassium-competitive acid blocker, which is already approved to treat all severities of erosive esophagitis and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in combination with antibiotics.
The approval in nonerosive GERD was supported by results of the PHALCON-nonerosive GERD-301 study, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of once-daily Voquezna in more than 700 adults with nonerosive GERD experiencing at least 4 days of heartburn per week.
“Vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with [nonerosive GERD], with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy. This treatment effect persisted after the initial 4-week placebo-controlled period throughout the 20-week extension period,” the study team wrote in a paper published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , and reported on by this news organization.
Voquezna “provides physicians with a novel, first-in-class treatment that can quickly and significantly reduce heartburn for many adult patients” with nonerosive GERD, Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, professor emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Medicine in Memphis, said in a news release. 
The most common adverse events reported in patients treated with Voquezna during the 4-week placebo-controlled period were abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and urinary tract infection.
Upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis were also reported in patients who taking Voquezna in the 20-week extension phase of the trial.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It represents the third indication for the potassium-competitive acid blocker, which is already approved to treat all severities of erosive esophagitis and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in combination with antibiotics.
The approval in nonerosive GERD was supported by results of the PHALCON-nonerosive GERD-301 study, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of once-daily Voquezna in more than 700 adults with nonerosive GERD experiencing at least 4 days of heartburn per week.
“Vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with [nonerosive GERD], with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy. This treatment effect persisted after the initial 4-week placebo-controlled period throughout the 20-week extension period,” the study team wrote in a paper published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , and reported on by this news organization.
Voquezna “provides physicians with a novel, first-in-class treatment that can quickly and significantly reduce heartburn for many adult patients” with nonerosive GERD, Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, professor emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Medicine in Memphis, said in a news release.
The most common adverse events reported in patients treated with Voquezna during the 4-week placebo-controlled period were abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and urinary tract infection.
Upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis were also reported in patients who taking Voquezna in the 20-week extension phase of the trial.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It represents the third indication for the potassium-competitive acid blocker, which is already approved to treat all severities of erosive esophagitis and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in combination with antibiotics.
The approval in nonerosive GERD was supported by results of the PHALCON-nonerosive GERD-301 study, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of once-daily Voquezna in more than 700 adults with nonerosive GERD experiencing at least 4 days of heartburn per week.
“Vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with [nonerosive GERD], with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy. This treatment effect persisted after the initial 4-week placebo-controlled period throughout the 20-week extension period,” the study team wrote in a paper published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , and reported on by this news organization.
Voquezna “provides physicians with a novel, first-in-class treatment that can quickly and significantly reduce heartburn for many adult patients” with nonerosive GERD, Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, professor emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Medicine in Memphis, said in a news release.
The most common adverse events reported in patients treated with Voquezna during the 4-week placebo-controlled period were abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and urinary tract infection.
Upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis were also reported in patients who taking Voquezna in the 20-week extension phase of the trial.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pyzchiva Receives FDA Approval as Third Ustekinumab Biosimilar
The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-ttwe (Pyzchiva) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions.
In addition, the agency “provisionally determined” that the medication would be interchangeable with the reference product but that designation would not take hold until the interchangeability exclusivity period for the first approved biosimilar ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) expires, according to a press release. This designation would, depending on state law, allow a pharmacist to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. It’s unclear when ustekinumab-auub’s interchangeability exclusivity ends.
Ustekinumab-ttwe, a human interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of:
- Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
- Active psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis
It is administered via subcutaneous injection in 45 mg/0.5 mL and 90 mg/mL prefilled syringes or via intravenous infusion in 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) single-dose vial.
Developed by Samsung Bioepis, ustekinumab-ttwe will be commercialized by Sandoz in the United States. Besides ustekinumab-auub, the other ustekinumab biosimilar is ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi).
Ustekinumab-ttwe is expected to launch in February 2025 “in accordance with the settlement and license agreement with Janssen Biotech,” which manufacturers the reference product, Sandoz said. The other approved ustekinumab biosimilars will launch within a similar time frame.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-ttwe (Pyzchiva) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions.
In addition, the agency “provisionally determined” that the medication would be interchangeable with the reference product but that designation would not take hold until the interchangeability exclusivity period for the first approved biosimilar ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) expires, according to a press release. This designation would, depending on state law, allow a pharmacist to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. It’s unclear when ustekinumab-auub’s interchangeability exclusivity ends.
Ustekinumab-ttwe, a human interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of:
- Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
- Active psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis
It is administered via subcutaneous injection in 45 mg/0.5 mL and 90 mg/mL prefilled syringes or via intravenous infusion in 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) single-dose vial.
Developed by Samsung Bioepis, ustekinumab-ttwe will be commercialized by Sandoz in the United States. Besides ustekinumab-auub, the other ustekinumab biosimilar is ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi).
Ustekinumab-ttwe is expected to launch in February 2025 “in accordance with the settlement and license agreement with Janssen Biotech,” which manufacturers the reference product, Sandoz said. The other approved ustekinumab biosimilars will launch within a similar time frame.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-ttwe (Pyzchiva) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions.
In addition, the agency “provisionally determined” that the medication would be interchangeable with the reference product but that designation would not take hold until the interchangeability exclusivity period for the first approved biosimilar ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) expires, according to a press release. This designation would, depending on state law, allow a pharmacist to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. It’s unclear when ustekinumab-auub’s interchangeability exclusivity ends.
Ustekinumab-ttwe, a human interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of:
- Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
- Active psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis
It is administered via subcutaneous injection in 45 mg/0.5 mL and 90 mg/mL prefilled syringes or via intravenous infusion in 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) single-dose vial.
Developed by Samsung Bioepis, ustekinumab-ttwe will be commercialized by Sandoz in the United States. Besides ustekinumab-auub, the other ustekinumab biosimilar is ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi).
Ustekinumab-ttwe is expected to launch in February 2025 “in accordance with the settlement and license agreement with Janssen Biotech,” which manufacturers the reference product, Sandoz said. The other approved ustekinumab biosimilars will launch within a similar time frame.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Adagrasib for KRAS G12C–Mutated CRC
More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.
The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.
The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients.
All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.
Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m2 dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2. Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.
The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.
“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.
“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.
The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.
The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients.
All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.
Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m2 dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2. Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.
The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.
“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.
“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.
The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.
The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients.
All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.
Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m2 dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2. Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.
The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.
“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.
“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Skyrizi for Ulcerative Colitis
This approval makes it the first specific anti-interleukin 23 monoclonal antibody indicated for both ulcerative colitis and moderate to severe Crohn’s disease.
The drug is also approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
The safety and efficacy of Skyrizi for ulcerative colitis is supported by data from two phase 3 clinical trials: a 12-week induction study (INSPIRE) and a 52-week maintenance study (COMMAND).
The data showed that clinical remission, the primary endpoint in both the induction and maintenance studies, was achieved along with endoscopic improvement, which was a key secondary endpoint.
“When treating patients with ulcerative colitis, it’s important to prioritize both early and sustained clinical remission as well as endoscopic improvement,” Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release. “This approval for Skyrizi is an important step toward addressing these treatment goals.”
For the treatment of ulcerative colitis, dosing includes a 12-week induction period with three 1200-mg doses delivered every 4 weeks followed by maintenance therapy of either 180 mg or 360 mg delivered every 8 weeks.
After the induction period, Skyrizi treatment can be maintained at home using an on-body injector (OBI). “The OBI is a hands-free device designed with patients in mind that adheres to the body and takes about 5 minutes to deliver the medication following preparation steps,” according to the news release.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This approval makes it the first specific anti-interleukin 23 monoclonal antibody indicated for both ulcerative colitis and moderate to severe Crohn’s disease.
The drug is also approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
The safety and efficacy of Skyrizi for ulcerative colitis is supported by data from two phase 3 clinical trials: a 12-week induction study (INSPIRE) and a 52-week maintenance study (COMMAND).
The data showed that clinical remission, the primary endpoint in both the induction and maintenance studies, was achieved along with endoscopic improvement, which was a key secondary endpoint.
“When treating patients with ulcerative colitis, it’s important to prioritize both early and sustained clinical remission as well as endoscopic improvement,” Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release. “This approval for Skyrizi is an important step toward addressing these treatment goals.”
For the treatment of ulcerative colitis, dosing includes a 12-week induction period with three 1200-mg doses delivered every 4 weeks followed by maintenance therapy of either 180 mg or 360 mg delivered every 8 weeks.
After the induction period, Skyrizi treatment can be maintained at home using an on-body injector (OBI). “The OBI is a hands-free device designed with patients in mind that adheres to the body and takes about 5 minutes to deliver the medication following preparation steps,” according to the news release.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This approval makes it the first specific anti-interleukin 23 monoclonal antibody indicated for both ulcerative colitis and moderate to severe Crohn’s disease.
The drug is also approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
The safety and efficacy of Skyrizi for ulcerative colitis is supported by data from two phase 3 clinical trials: a 12-week induction study (INSPIRE) and a 52-week maintenance study (COMMAND).
The data showed that clinical remission, the primary endpoint in both the induction and maintenance studies, was achieved along with endoscopic improvement, which was a key secondary endpoint.
“When treating patients with ulcerative colitis, it’s important to prioritize both early and sustained clinical remission as well as endoscopic improvement,” Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release. “This approval for Skyrizi is an important step toward addressing these treatment goals.”
For the treatment of ulcerative colitis, dosing includes a 12-week induction period with three 1200-mg doses delivered every 4 weeks followed by maintenance therapy of either 180 mg or 360 mg delivered every 8 weeks.
After the induction period, Skyrizi treatment can be maintained at home using an on-body injector (OBI). “The OBI is a hands-free device designed with patients in mind that adheres to the body and takes about 5 minutes to deliver the medication following preparation steps,” according to the news release.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Durvalumab Label to Endometrial Cancer
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs Iqirvo, First-in-Class PPAR Treatment for Primary Biliary Cholangitis
in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who do not respond adequately to UDCA or as monotherapy in patients unable to tolerate UDCA.
PBC is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease that destroys interlobular bile ducts and leads to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Left untreated, the disease can worsen over time, leading to cirrhosis and liver transplant and, in some cases, premature death. PBC also harms quality of life, with patients often experiencing severe fatigue and pruritus.
Iqirvo, an oral dual peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) alpha and delta agonist, is the first new drug approved in nearly a decade for treatment of PBC.
Accelerated approval of Iqirvo for PBC was based on data from the phase 3 ELATIVE trial published last year in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial randomly assigned patients with PBC who had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with UDCA to receive either once-daily elafibranor (80 mg) or placebo.
The primary endpoint was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction ≥ 15% from baseline, as well as normal total bilirubin levels.
Among 161 patients, a biochemical response was seen in 55 of 108 (51%) who received elafibranor vs 2 of 53 (4%) who received placebo.
At week 52, the ALP level normalized in 15% of patients in the elafibranor group and none of the patients in the placebo group.
In a news release announcing approval of Iqirvo, the company notes that improvement in survival and prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated and that continued approval for PBC may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The most common adverse effects with Iqirvo, reported in ≥ 10% of study participants, were weight gain, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Iqirvo is not recommended for people who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis. Full prescribing information is available online.
The data show that Iqirvo is “an effective second-line treatment for patients with PBC with favorable benefit and risk data,” Kris Kowdley, MD, AGAF, director of the Liver Institute Northwest in Seattle, Washington, and a primary investigator on the ELATIVE study, said in the news release.
The approval of Iqirvo “will allow healthcare providers in the US to address an unmet need with the potential to significantly reduce ALP levels for our patients with PBC,” Dr. Kowdley said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who do not respond adequately to UDCA or as monotherapy in patients unable to tolerate UDCA.
PBC is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease that destroys interlobular bile ducts and leads to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Left untreated, the disease can worsen over time, leading to cirrhosis and liver transplant and, in some cases, premature death. PBC also harms quality of life, with patients often experiencing severe fatigue and pruritus.
Iqirvo, an oral dual peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) alpha and delta agonist, is the first new drug approved in nearly a decade for treatment of PBC.
Accelerated approval of Iqirvo for PBC was based on data from the phase 3 ELATIVE trial published last year in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial randomly assigned patients with PBC who had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with UDCA to receive either once-daily elafibranor (80 mg) or placebo.
The primary endpoint was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction ≥ 15% from baseline, as well as normal total bilirubin levels.
Among 161 patients, a biochemical response was seen in 55 of 108 (51%) who received elafibranor vs 2 of 53 (4%) who received placebo.
At week 52, the ALP level normalized in 15% of patients in the elafibranor group and none of the patients in the placebo group.
In a news release announcing approval of Iqirvo, the company notes that improvement in survival and prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated and that continued approval for PBC may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The most common adverse effects with Iqirvo, reported in ≥ 10% of study participants, were weight gain, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Iqirvo is not recommended for people who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis. Full prescribing information is available online.
The data show that Iqirvo is “an effective second-line treatment for patients with PBC with favorable benefit and risk data,” Kris Kowdley, MD, AGAF, director of the Liver Institute Northwest in Seattle, Washington, and a primary investigator on the ELATIVE study, said in the news release.
The approval of Iqirvo “will allow healthcare providers in the US to address an unmet need with the potential to significantly reduce ALP levels for our patients with PBC,” Dr. Kowdley said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who do not respond adequately to UDCA or as monotherapy in patients unable to tolerate UDCA.
PBC is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease that destroys interlobular bile ducts and leads to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Left untreated, the disease can worsen over time, leading to cirrhosis and liver transplant and, in some cases, premature death. PBC also harms quality of life, with patients often experiencing severe fatigue and pruritus.
Iqirvo, an oral dual peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) alpha and delta agonist, is the first new drug approved in nearly a decade for treatment of PBC.
Accelerated approval of Iqirvo for PBC was based on data from the phase 3 ELATIVE trial published last year in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial randomly assigned patients with PBC who had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with UDCA to receive either once-daily elafibranor (80 mg) or placebo.
The primary endpoint was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction ≥ 15% from baseline, as well as normal total bilirubin levels.
Among 161 patients, a biochemical response was seen in 55 of 108 (51%) who received elafibranor vs 2 of 53 (4%) who received placebo.
At week 52, the ALP level normalized in 15% of patients in the elafibranor group and none of the patients in the placebo group.
In a news release announcing approval of Iqirvo, the company notes that improvement in survival and prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated and that continued approval for PBC may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The most common adverse effects with Iqirvo, reported in ≥ 10% of study participants, were weight gain, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Iqirvo is not recommended for people who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis. Full prescribing information is available online.
The data show that Iqirvo is “an effective second-line treatment for patients with PBC with favorable benefit and risk data,” Kris Kowdley, MD, AGAF, director of the Liver Institute Northwest in Seattle, Washington, and a primary investigator on the ELATIVE study, said in the news release.
The approval of Iqirvo “will allow healthcare providers in the US to address an unmet need with the potential to significantly reduce ALP levels for our patients with PBC,” Dr. Kowdley said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.