Pharmacy

Syringe

Health Canada has approved a subcutaneous (SC) formulation of rituximab (Rituxan®) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

The product is now approved for use in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide to treat patients with previously treated or untreated CLL, Binet Stage B or C.

The SC formulation is intended to provide a more convenient delivery method than intravenous (IV) rituximab. The SC formulation enables administration of the drug in large volumes under the skin.

“The approval of Rituxan SC is exciting news and a meaningful advancement for those living with CLL, as intravenous treatments can take around 4 hours to receive, requiring patients to spend up to a half day sitting in the chemo suite,” said Robin Markowitz, chief executive officer of Lymphoma Canada.

“The administration of Rituxan SC only takes 7 minutes, giving patients valuable time back in their day.”

SAWYER study

Health Canada’s approval of SC rituximab is based on data from the phase 1b SAWYER study. This randomized study was conducted in patients with previously untreated CLL to investigate the pharmacokinetic profile, safety, and efficacy of SC rituximab in combination with chemotherapy.

Results from this study were published in The Lancet Haematology in March 2016.

The trial included 176 patients who were randomized to receive SC rituximab (1600 mg, n=88) or IV rituximab (500 mg/m², n=88) on day 1 from cycles 2 to 6. In cycle 1, both groups received IV rituximab (375 mg/m²) on day 0.

All patients also received fludarabine (IV 25 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles or orally at either 25 mg/m² on days 1-5 of all cycles or 30-40 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles) and cyclophosphamide (IV at 250 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles or orally at either 150 mg/m² on days 1-5 of all cycles or 200-250 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles) every 4 weeks for up to 6 cycles.

The primary endpoint was pharmacokinetic noninferiority of SC to IV rituximab assessed at cycle 5. At that time, the geometric mean trough serum concentration in the SC rituximab arm was noninferior to that in the IV arm—97.5 µg/mL and 61.5 µg/mL, respectively—with an adjusted geometric mean ratio of 1.53 (90% CI, 1.27 to 1.85).

Safety was a secondary endpoint, and efficacy was an exploratory endpoint.

The overall response rate was 85% in the SC arm and 81% in the IV arm. Complete response rates were 26% and 33%, respectively.

Rates of adverse events (AEs) were 96% in the SC arm and 91% in the IV arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were 69% and 71%, respectively, and rates of serious AEs were 29% and 33%, respectively.

The most common serious AE overall was febrile neutropenia, which occurred in 11% of patients in the SC arm and 4% in the IV arm.

The most common AEs of any grade (occurring in >20% of patients in either arm) were:

• Neutropenia—65% with SC and 58% with IV
• Thrombocytopenia—24% with SC and 26% with IV
• Anemia—13% with SC and 24% with IV
• Nausea—38% with SC and 35% with IV
• Vomiting—21% with SC and 22% with IV
• Pyrexia—32% with SC and 25% with IV
• Injection-site erythema—26% with SC and 0% with IV.

Local cutaneous reactions were reported in 42% of patients in the SC arm. The most common of these were injection-site erythema (26%) and injection-site pain (16%).

Syringe

Health Canada has approved a subcutaneous (SC) formulation of rituximab (Rituxan®) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

The product is now approved for use in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide to treat patients with previously treated or untreated CLL, Binet Stage B or C.

The SC formulation is intended to provide a more convenient delivery method than intravenous (IV) rituximab. The SC formulation enables administration of the drug in large volumes under the skin.

“The approval of Rituxan SC is exciting news and a meaningful advancement for those living with CLL, as intravenous treatments can take around 4 hours to receive, requiring patients to spend up to a half day sitting in the chemo suite,” said Robin Markowitz, chief executive officer of Lymphoma Canada.

“The administration of Rituxan SC only takes 7 minutes, giving patients valuable time back in their day.”

SAWYER study

Health Canada’s approval of SC rituximab is based on data from the phase 1b SAWYER study. This randomized study was conducted in patients with previously untreated CLL to investigate the pharmacokinetic profile, safety, and efficacy of SC rituximab in combination with chemotherapy.

Results from this study were published in The Lancet Haematology in March 2016.

The trial included 176 patients who were randomized to receive SC rituximab (1600 mg, n=88) or IV rituximab (500 mg/m², n=88) on day 1 from cycles 2 to 6. In cycle 1, both groups received IV rituximab (375 mg/m²) on day 0.

All patients also received fludarabine (IV 25 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles or orally at either 25 mg/m² on days 1-5 of all cycles or 30-40 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles) and cyclophosphamide (IV at 250 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles or orally at either 150 mg/m² on days 1-5 of all cycles or 200-250 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles) every 4 weeks for up to 6 cycles.

The primary endpoint was pharmacokinetic noninferiority of SC to IV rituximab assessed at cycle 5. At that time, the geometric mean trough serum concentration in the SC rituximab arm was noninferior to that in the IV arm—97.5 µg/mL and 61.5 µg/mL, respectively—with an adjusted geometric mean ratio of 1.53 (90% CI, 1.27 to 1.85).

Safety was a secondary endpoint, and efficacy was an exploratory endpoint.

The overall response rate was 85% in the SC arm and 81% in the IV arm. Complete response rates were 26% and 33%, respectively.

Rates of adverse events (AEs) were 96% in the SC arm and 91% in the IV arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were 69% and 71%, respectively, and rates of serious AEs were 29% and 33%, respectively.

The most common serious AE overall was febrile neutropenia, which occurred in 11% of patients in the SC arm and 4% in the IV arm.

The most common AEs of any grade (occurring in >20% of patients in either arm) were:

• Neutropenia—65% with SC and 58% with IV
• Thrombocytopenia—24% with SC and 26% with IV
• Anemia—13% with SC and 24% with IV
• Nausea—38% with SC and 35% with IV
• Vomiting—21% with SC and 22% with IV
• Pyrexia—32% with SC and 25% with IV
• Injection-site erythema—26% with SC and 0% with IV.

Local cutaneous reactions were reported in 42% of patients in the SC arm. The most common of these were injection-site erythema (26%) and injection-site pain (16%).

Syringe

Health Canada has approved a subcutaneous (SC) formulation of rituximab (Rituxan®) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

The product is now approved for use in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide to treat patients with previously treated or untreated CLL, Binet Stage B or C.

The SC formulation is intended to provide a more convenient delivery method than intravenous (IV) rituximab. The SC formulation enables administration of the drug in large volumes under the skin.

“The approval of Rituxan SC is exciting news and a meaningful advancement for those living with CLL, as intravenous treatments can take around 4 hours to receive, requiring patients to spend up to a half day sitting in the chemo suite,” said Robin Markowitz, chief executive officer of Lymphoma Canada.

“The administration of Rituxan SC only takes 7 minutes, giving patients valuable time back in their day.”

SAWYER study

Health Canada’s approval of SC rituximab is based on data from the phase 1b SAWYER study. This randomized study was conducted in patients with previously untreated CLL to investigate the pharmacokinetic profile, safety, and efficacy of SC rituximab in combination with chemotherapy.

Results from this study were published in The Lancet Haematology in March 2016.

The trial included 176 patients who were randomized to receive SC rituximab (1600 mg, n=88) or IV rituximab (500 mg/m², n=88) on day 1 from cycles 2 to 6. In cycle 1, both groups received IV rituximab (375 mg/m²) on day 0.

All patients also received fludarabine (IV 25 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles or orally at either 25 mg/m² on days 1-5 of all cycles or 30-40 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles) and cyclophosphamide (IV at 250 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles or orally at either 150 mg/m² on days 1-5 of all cycles or 200-250 mg/m² on days 1-3 of all cycles) every 4 weeks for up to 6 cycles.

The primary endpoint was pharmacokinetic noninferiority of SC to IV rituximab assessed at cycle 5. At that time, the geometric mean trough serum concentration in the SC rituximab arm was noninferior to that in the IV arm—97.5 µg/mL and 61.5 µg/mL, respectively—with an adjusted geometric mean ratio of 1.53 (90% CI, 1.27 to 1.85).

Safety was a secondary endpoint, and efficacy was an exploratory endpoint.

The overall response rate was 85% in the SC arm and 81% in the IV arm. Complete response rates were 26% and 33%, respectively.

Rates of adverse events (AEs) were 96% in the SC arm and 91% in the IV arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were 69% and 71%, respectively, and rates of serious AEs were 29% and 33%, respectively.

The most common serious AE overall was febrile neutropenia, which occurred in 11% of patients in the SC arm and 4% in the IV arm.

The most common AEs of any grade (occurring in >20% of patients in either arm) were:

• Neutropenia—65% with SC and 58% with IV
• Thrombocytopenia—24% with SC and 26% with IV
• Anemia—13% with SC and 24% with IV
• Nausea—38% with SC and 35% with IV
• Vomiting—21% with SC and 22% with IV
• Pyrexia—32% with SC and 25% with IV
• Injection-site erythema—26% with SC and 0% with IV.

Local cutaneous reactions were reported in 42% of patients in the SC arm. The most common of these were injection-site erythema (26%) and injection-site pain (16%).

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved brentuximab vedotin (ADCETRIS) in combination with chemotherapy for adults with previously untreated, stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL).

This is the fifth approved indication for BV in the US and the first regimen approved for frontline, stage III/IV cHL in the US in more than 40 years.

“The standard of care for treating newly diagnosed, advanced Hodgkin lymphoma has not changed in more than 4 decades,” said Joseph M. Connors, MD, of BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

“For years, the physician community has been conducting clinical trials to identify improved regimens that are both less toxic and more effective—to no avail.”

The ECHELON-1 study changed that, according to Dr Connors.

“The ECHELON-1 study results demonstrated superior efficacy of the ADCETRIS plus chemotherapy regimen, when compared to the standard of care, while removing bleomycin—an agent that can cause unpredictable and sometimes fatal lung toxicity—completely from the regimen,” he said. “This represents a meaningful advance for this often younger patient population.”

In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial, researchers compared BV plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD).

In addition to supporting the new approval for BV in cHL, ECHELON-1 results also served to convert an accelerated approval of BV to standard approval. The drug now has standard FDA approval for the treatment of adults with systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) who have failed at least 1 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen.

BV also has standard FDA approval for:

• Adults with cHL who have failed autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) or, in those who are not auto-HSCT candidates, have failed at least 2 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens
• Post-auto-HSCT consolidation in adults with cHL at high risk of relapse or progression
• Adults with primary cutaneous ALCL or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides who have received prior systemic therapy.

ECHELON-1

Result from ECHELON-1 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in NEJM.

In this trial, researchers compared A+AVD to ABVD as frontline treatment for 1334 patients with advanced cHL. The primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival (PFS), which was defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.

According to an independent review facility, A+AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS compared to ABVD. The hazard ratio was 0.77 (P=0.035), which corresponds to a 23% reduction in the risk of progression, death, or the need for additional anticancer therapy.

The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the A+AVD arm and 77.2% in the ABVD arm.

There was no significant difference between the treatment arms when it came to response rates or overall survival.

The objective response rate was 86% in the A+AVD arm and 83% in the ABVD arm (P=0.12). The complete response rate was 73% and 70%, respectively (P=0.22).

The interim 2-year overall survival rate was 97% in the A+AVD arm and 95% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio=0.72; P=0.19).

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the A+AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.

Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with A+AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved brentuximab vedotin (ADCETRIS) in combination with chemotherapy for adults with previously untreated, stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL).

This is the fifth approved indication for BV in the US and the first regimen approved for frontline, stage III/IV cHL in the US in more than 40 years.

“The standard of care for treating newly diagnosed, advanced Hodgkin lymphoma has not changed in more than 4 decades,” said Joseph M. Connors, MD, of BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

“For years, the physician community has been conducting clinical trials to identify improved regimens that are both less toxic and more effective—to no avail.”

The ECHELON-1 study changed that, according to Dr Connors.

“The ECHELON-1 study results demonstrated superior efficacy of the ADCETRIS plus chemotherapy regimen, when compared to the standard of care, while removing bleomycin—an agent that can cause unpredictable and sometimes fatal lung toxicity—completely from the regimen,” he said. “This represents a meaningful advance for this often younger patient population.”

In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial, researchers compared BV plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD).

In addition to supporting the new approval for BV in cHL, ECHELON-1 results also served to convert an accelerated approval of BV to standard approval. The drug now has standard FDA approval for the treatment of adults with systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) who have failed at least 1 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen.

BV also has standard FDA approval for:

• Adults with cHL who have failed autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) or, in those who are not auto-HSCT candidates, have failed at least 2 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens
• Post-auto-HSCT consolidation in adults with cHL at high risk of relapse or progression
• Adults with primary cutaneous ALCL or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides who have received prior systemic therapy.

ECHELON-1

Result from ECHELON-1 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in NEJM.

In this trial, researchers compared A+AVD to ABVD as frontline treatment for 1334 patients with advanced cHL. The primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival (PFS), which was defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.

According to an independent review facility, A+AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS compared to ABVD. The hazard ratio was 0.77 (P=0.035), which corresponds to a 23% reduction in the risk of progression, death, or the need for additional anticancer therapy.

The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the A+AVD arm and 77.2% in the ABVD arm.

There was no significant difference between the treatment arms when it came to response rates or overall survival.

The objective response rate was 86% in the A+AVD arm and 83% in the ABVD arm (P=0.12). The complete response rate was 73% and 70%, respectively (P=0.22).

The interim 2-year overall survival rate was 97% in the A+AVD arm and 95% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio=0.72; P=0.19).

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the A+AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.

Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with A+AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved brentuximab vedotin (ADCETRIS) in combination with chemotherapy for adults with previously untreated, stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL).

This is the fifth approved indication for BV in the US and the first regimen approved for frontline, stage III/IV cHL in the US in more than 40 years.

“The standard of care for treating newly diagnosed, advanced Hodgkin lymphoma has not changed in more than 4 decades,” said Joseph M. Connors, MD, of BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

“For years, the physician community has been conducting clinical trials to identify improved regimens that are both less toxic and more effective—to no avail.”

The ECHELON-1 study changed that, according to Dr Connors.

“The ECHELON-1 study results demonstrated superior efficacy of the ADCETRIS plus chemotherapy regimen, when compared to the standard of care, while removing bleomycin—an agent that can cause unpredictable and sometimes fatal lung toxicity—completely from the regimen,” he said. “This represents a meaningful advance for this often younger patient population.”

In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial, researchers compared BV plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD).

In addition to supporting the new approval for BV in cHL, ECHELON-1 results also served to convert an accelerated approval of BV to standard approval. The drug now has standard FDA approval for the treatment of adults with systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) who have failed at least 1 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen.

BV also has standard FDA approval for:

• Adults with cHL who have failed autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) or, in those who are not auto-HSCT candidates, have failed at least 2 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens
• Post-auto-HSCT consolidation in adults with cHL at high risk of relapse or progression
• Adults with primary cutaneous ALCL or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides who have received prior systemic therapy.

ECHELON-1

Result from ECHELON-1 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in NEJM.

In this trial, researchers compared A+AVD to ABVD as frontline treatment for 1334 patients with advanced cHL. The primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival (PFS), which was defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.

According to an independent review facility, A+AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS compared to ABVD. The hazard ratio was 0.77 (P=0.035), which corresponds to a 23% reduction in the risk of progression, death, or the need for additional anticancer therapy.

The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the A+AVD arm and 77.2% in the ABVD arm.

There was no significant difference between the treatment arms when it came to response rates or overall survival.

The objective response rate was 86% in the A+AVD arm and 83% in the ABVD arm (P=0.12). The complete response rate was 73% and 70%, respectively (P=0.22).

The interim 2-year overall survival rate was 97% in the A+AVD arm and 95% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio=0.72; P=0.19).

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the A+AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.

Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with A+AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) may sometimes be supported by low-quality evidence or no evidence at all.

Researchers compared NCCN recommendations for cancer drugs to US cancer drug approvals over a 5-year period.

Thirty-nine percent of NCCN’s treatment recommendations did not coincide with uses approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

For most of these recommendations (84%), NCCN did not provide supporting data from randomized, phase 3 trials.

For 36% of the recommendations, NCCN gave no supporting evidence.

Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and his colleagues reported these findings in The BMJ.

Dr Prasad and his colleagues compared FDA approvals of cancer drugs between 2011 and 2015 with NCCN recommendations as of March 25, 2016.

When NCCN made recommendations beyond FDA approvals, the researchers evaluated the evidence used to support those recommendations.

Forty-seven new cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 69 indications between 2011 and 2015. NCCN recommended the 47 drugs for 113 indications, including the 69 FDA-approved indications.

So 39% (n=44) of NCCN’s recommendations were not approved by the FDA, and NCCN gave the following evidence to support these recommendations:

• No evidence—36% (n=16)
• Phase 2 trial without randomization—30% (n=13)
• Randomized, phase 3 trial—16% (n=7)
• Phase 2 trial with randomization—7% (n=3)
• Case report or series of less than 5 patients—5% (n=2)
• Book chapter or review article—2% (n=1)
• Phase 1 trial—2% (n=1)
• Ongoing trial—2% (n=1).

Dr Prasad and his colleagues did point out that not all FDA approvals are supported by randomized, phase 3 trials.

And when the team followed-up 21 months after their initial analysis, they found that 6 of the 44 (14%) additional recommendations by NCCN had received FDA approval.

The researchers also noted that they did not search for independent evidence to support NCCN recommendations beyond the references NCCN provided. So some of the recommendations may have had more or better supporting evidence than what was provided.

Still, the team said these results suggest NCCN “frequently” makes recommendations that go beyond FDA approvals and “often fails to cite evidence or relies on low levels of evidence.” Therefore, NCCN should cite all evidence used to formulate its recommendations.

NCCN argues that it does provide ample evidence to support the recommendations in its guidelines.

“The NCCN guidelines contain more than 24,500 references to inform users of the evidence used in making its decisions,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“These data are supplemented by the analysis of the available evidence by expert clinician researchers and patient advocates who evaluate each recommendation and come to consensus. Each recommendation is labeled with a Category of Evidence, and the vast majority of those for systemic therapies are accompanied by Evidence Blocks, which outline, on 1-5 scales, the efficacy, safety, quality of the evidence, consistency of the evidence, and affordability of the treatment.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) may sometimes be supported by low-quality evidence or no evidence at all.

Researchers compared NCCN recommendations for cancer drugs to US cancer drug approvals over a 5-year period.

Thirty-nine percent of NCCN’s treatment recommendations did not coincide with uses approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

For most of these recommendations (84%), NCCN did not provide supporting data from randomized, phase 3 trials.

For 36% of the recommendations, NCCN gave no supporting evidence.

Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and his colleagues reported these findings in The BMJ.

Dr Prasad and his colleagues compared FDA approvals of cancer drugs between 2011 and 2015 with NCCN recommendations as of March 25, 2016.

When NCCN made recommendations beyond FDA approvals, the researchers evaluated the evidence used to support those recommendations.

Forty-seven new cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 69 indications between 2011 and 2015. NCCN recommended the 47 drugs for 113 indications, including the 69 FDA-approved indications.

So 39% (n=44) of NCCN’s recommendations were not approved by the FDA, and NCCN gave the following evidence to support these recommendations:

• No evidence—36% (n=16)
• Phase 2 trial without randomization—30% (n=13)
• Randomized, phase 3 trial—16% (n=7)
• Phase 2 trial with randomization—7% (n=3)
• Case report or series of less than 5 patients—5% (n=2)
• Book chapter or review article—2% (n=1)
• Phase 1 trial—2% (n=1)
• Ongoing trial—2% (n=1).

Dr Prasad and his colleagues did point out that not all FDA approvals are supported by randomized, phase 3 trials.

And when the team followed-up 21 months after their initial analysis, they found that 6 of the 44 (14%) additional recommendations by NCCN had received FDA approval.

The researchers also noted that they did not search for independent evidence to support NCCN recommendations beyond the references NCCN provided. So some of the recommendations may have had more or better supporting evidence than what was provided.

Still, the team said these results suggest NCCN “frequently” makes recommendations that go beyond FDA approvals and “often fails to cite evidence or relies on low levels of evidence.” Therefore, NCCN should cite all evidence used to formulate its recommendations.

NCCN argues that it does provide ample evidence to support the recommendations in its guidelines.

“The NCCN guidelines contain more than 24,500 references to inform users of the evidence used in making its decisions,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“These data are supplemented by the analysis of the available evidence by expert clinician researchers and patient advocates who evaluate each recommendation and come to consensus. Each recommendation is labeled with a Category of Evidence, and the vast majority of those for systemic therapies are accompanied by Evidence Blocks, which outline, on 1-5 scales, the efficacy, safety, quality of the evidence, consistency of the evidence, and affordability of the treatment.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) may sometimes be supported by low-quality evidence or no evidence at all.

Researchers compared NCCN recommendations for cancer drugs to US cancer drug approvals over a 5-year period.

Thirty-nine percent of NCCN’s treatment recommendations did not coincide with uses approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

For most of these recommendations (84%), NCCN did not provide supporting data from randomized, phase 3 trials.

For 36% of the recommendations, NCCN gave no supporting evidence.

Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and his colleagues reported these findings in The BMJ.

Dr Prasad and his colleagues compared FDA approvals of cancer drugs between 2011 and 2015 with NCCN recommendations as of March 25, 2016.

When NCCN made recommendations beyond FDA approvals, the researchers evaluated the evidence used to support those recommendations.

Forty-seven new cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 69 indications between 2011 and 2015. NCCN recommended the 47 drugs for 113 indications, including the 69 FDA-approved indications.

So 39% (n=44) of NCCN’s recommendations were not approved by the FDA, and NCCN gave the following evidence to support these recommendations:

• No evidence—36% (n=16)
• Phase 2 trial without randomization—30% (n=13)
• Randomized, phase 3 trial—16% (n=7)
• Phase 2 trial with randomization—7% (n=3)
• Case report or series of less than 5 patients—5% (n=2)
• Book chapter or review article—2% (n=1)
• Phase 1 trial—2% (n=1)
• Ongoing trial—2% (n=1).

Dr Prasad and his colleagues did point out that not all FDA approvals are supported by randomized, phase 3 trials.

And when the team followed-up 21 months after their initial analysis, they found that 6 of the 44 (14%) additional recommendations by NCCN had received FDA approval.

The researchers also noted that they did not search for independent evidence to support NCCN recommendations beyond the references NCCN provided. So some of the recommendations may have had more or better supporting evidence than what was provided.

Still, the team said these results suggest NCCN “frequently” makes recommendations that go beyond FDA approvals and “often fails to cite evidence or relies on low levels of evidence.” Therefore, NCCN should cite all evidence used to formulate its recommendations.

NCCN argues that it does provide ample evidence to support the recommendations in its guidelines.

“The NCCN guidelines contain more than 24,500 references to inform users of the evidence used in making its decisions,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“These data are supplemented by the analysis of the available evidence by expert clinician researchers and patient advocates who evaluate each recommendation and come to consensus. Each recommendation is labeled with a Category of Evidence, and the vast majority of those for systemic therapies are accompanied by Evidence Blocks, which outline, on 1-5 scales, the efficacy, safety, quality of the evidence, consistency of the evidence, and affordability of the treatment.”

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has updated the label for nivolumab (Opdivo®) to include new dosing and administration information.

Nivolumab can now be given at 480 mg infused every 4 weeks for most approved indications, in addition to the previously approved dosing schedule of 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The FDA also approved a shorter 30-minute infusion across all approved indications of nivolumab.

The 480 mg dose option can be used for nearly all approved indications of nivolumab. The exceptions are patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer.

Nivolumab is FDA-approved for the following indications:

• To treat adults with classical Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or progressed after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and brentuximab vedotin or after 3 or more lines of systemic therapy that includes autologous HSCT.
• As monotherapy for patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma as well as BRAF V600 wild-type unresectable or metastatic melanoma.
• In combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.
• To treat patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients with EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations should have disease progression on FDA-approved therapy for these aberrations prior to receiving nivolumab.
• For patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy.
• To treat patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck with disease progression on or after platinum-based therapy.
• For patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or after platinum-containing chemotherapy or have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• To treat adult and pediatric (12 years and older) patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
• For the adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma with involvement of lymph nodes or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection.

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has updated the label for nivolumab (Opdivo®) to include new dosing and administration information.

Nivolumab can now be given at 480 mg infused every 4 weeks for most approved indications, in addition to the previously approved dosing schedule of 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The FDA also approved a shorter 30-minute infusion across all approved indications of nivolumab.

The 480 mg dose option can be used for nearly all approved indications of nivolumab. The exceptions are patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer.

Nivolumab is FDA-approved for the following indications:

• To treat adults with classical Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or progressed after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and brentuximab vedotin or after 3 or more lines of systemic therapy that includes autologous HSCT.
• As monotherapy for patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma as well as BRAF V600 wild-type unresectable or metastatic melanoma.
• In combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.
• To treat patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients with EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations should have disease progression on FDA-approved therapy for these aberrations prior to receiving nivolumab.
• For patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy.
• To treat patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck with disease progression on or after platinum-based therapy.
• For patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or after platinum-containing chemotherapy or have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• To treat adult and pediatric (12 years and older) patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
• For the adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma with involvement of lymph nodes or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection.

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has updated the label for nivolumab (Opdivo®) to include new dosing and administration information.

Nivolumab can now be given at 480 mg infused every 4 weeks for most approved indications, in addition to the previously approved dosing schedule of 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The FDA also approved a shorter 30-minute infusion across all approved indications of nivolumab.

The 480 mg dose option can be used for nearly all approved indications of nivolumab. The exceptions are patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer.

Nivolumab is FDA-approved for the following indications:

• To treat adults with classical Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or progressed after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and brentuximab vedotin or after 3 or more lines of systemic therapy that includes autologous HSCT.
• As monotherapy for patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma as well as BRAF V600 wild-type unresectable or metastatic melanoma.
• In combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.
• To treat patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients with EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations should have disease progression on FDA-approved therapy for these aberrations prior to receiving nivolumab.
• For patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy.
• To treat patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck with disease progression on or after platinum-based therapy.
• For patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or after platinum-containing chemotherapy or have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• To treat adult and pediatric (12 years and older) patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
• For the adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma with involvement of lymph nodes or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection.

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.

Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.

“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.

Trial results

The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.

The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.

Patients were randomized to receive:

• Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
• 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
• Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).

In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.

The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.

Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.

Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.

“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.

Trial results

The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.

The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.

Patients were randomized to receive:

• Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
• 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
• Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).

In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.

The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.

Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.

Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.

“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.

Trial results

The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.

The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.

Patients were randomized to receive:

• Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
• 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
• Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).

In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.

The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.

Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.

Photo from Business Wire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for emicizumab (Hemlibra®), a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.

This means emicizumab is approved for use in the European Union for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in patients of all ages who have hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors.

The recommended dose of emicizumab is 3 mg/kg once a week for the first 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once a week.

Emicizumab is designed to bring together factor IXa and factor X, proteins required to activate the natural coagulation cascade and restore the blood clotting process for patients with hemophilia A.

Emicizumab was created by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and is being co-developed by Chugai, Roche, and Genentech.

The EC’s decision to authorize marketing of emicizumab is based on results from a pair of phase 3 studies—HAVEN 1 and HAVEN 2.

Results from HAVEN 1 were published in NEJM and presented at the 26th ISTH Congress in July 2017. Updated results from HAVEN 2 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

HAVEN 1

This study enrolled 109 patients (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors who were previously treated with bypassing agents (BPAs) on-demand or as prophylaxis.

The patients were randomized to receive emicizumab prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. On-demand treatment of breakthrough bleeds with BPAs was allowed.

There was a significant reduction in treated bleeds of 87% with emicizumab prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis (95% CI: 72.3; 94.3, P<0.0001). And there was an 80% reduction in all bleeds with emicizumab (95% CI: 62.5; 89.8, P<0.0001).

Adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients treated with emicizumab were local injection site reactions, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, and arthralgia.

Two patients experienced thromboembolic events (TEs), and 3 had thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) while receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and more than 100 u/kg/day of activated prothrombin complex concentrate, on average, for 24 hours or more before the event. Two of these patients had also received recombinant factor VIIa.

Neither TE required anticoagulation therapy, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab. The cases of TMA observed were transient, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab.

HAVEN 2

In this single-arm trial, researchers evaluated emicizumab prophylaxis in 60 patients, ages 1 to 17, who had hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.

The efficacy analysis included 57 patients who were younger than 12. The 3 older patients were only included in the safety analysis.

Of the 57 patients, 64.9% had 0 bleeds, 94.7% had 0 treated bleeds, and 98.2% had 0 treated spontaneous bleeds and 0 treated joint bleeds. None of the patients had treated target joint bleeds.

Forty patients had a total of 201 AEs. The most common of these were viral upper respiratory tract infections (16.7%) and injection site reactions (16.7%).

There were no TEs or TMA events, and none of the patients tested positive for anti-drug antibodies. None of the 7 serious AEs in this trial were considered treatment-related.

Photo from Business Wire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for emicizumab (Hemlibra®), a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.

This means emicizumab is approved for use in the European Union for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in patients of all ages who have hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors.

The recommended dose of emicizumab is 3 mg/kg once a week for the first 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once a week.

Emicizumab is designed to bring together factor IXa and factor X, proteins required to activate the natural coagulation cascade and restore the blood clotting process for patients with hemophilia A.

Emicizumab was created by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and is being co-developed by Chugai, Roche, and Genentech.

The EC’s decision to authorize marketing of emicizumab is based on results from a pair of phase 3 studies—HAVEN 1 and HAVEN 2.

Results from HAVEN 1 were published in NEJM and presented at the 26th ISTH Congress in July 2017. Updated results from HAVEN 2 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

HAVEN 1

This study enrolled 109 patients (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors who were previously treated with bypassing agents (BPAs) on-demand or as prophylaxis.

The patients were randomized to receive emicizumab prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. On-demand treatment of breakthrough bleeds with BPAs was allowed.

There was a significant reduction in treated bleeds of 87% with emicizumab prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis (95% CI: 72.3; 94.3, P<0.0001). And there was an 80% reduction in all bleeds with emicizumab (95% CI: 62.5; 89.8, P<0.0001).

Adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients treated with emicizumab were local injection site reactions, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, and arthralgia.

Two patients experienced thromboembolic events (TEs), and 3 had thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) while receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and more than 100 u/kg/day of activated prothrombin complex concentrate, on average, for 24 hours or more before the event. Two of these patients had also received recombinant factor VIIa.

Neither TE required anticoagulation therapy, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab. The cases of TMA observed were transient, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab.

HAVEN 2

In this single-arm trial, researchers evaluated emicizumab prophylaxis in 60 patients, ages 1 to 17, who had hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.

The efficacy analysis included 57 patients who were younger than 12. The 3 older patients were only included in the safety analysis.

Of the 57 patients, 64.9% had 0 bleeds, 94.7% had 0 treated bleeds, and 98.2% had 0 treated spontaneous bleeds and 0 treated joint bleeds. None of the patients had treated target joint bleeds.

Forty patients had a total of 201 AEs. The most common of these were viral upper respiratory tract infections (16.7%) and injection site reactions (16.7%).

There were no TEs or TMA events, and none of the patients tested positive for anti-drug antibodies. None of the 7 serious AEs in this trial were considered treatment-related.

Photo from Business Wire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for emicizumab (Hemlibra®), a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.

This means emicizumab is approved for use in the European Union for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in patients of all ages who have hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors.

The recommended dose of emicizumab is 3 mg/kg once a week for the first 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once a week.

Emicizumab is designed to bring together factor IXa and factor X, proteins required to activate the natural coagulation cascade and restore the blood clotting process for patients with hemophilia A.

Emicizumab was created by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and is being co-developed by Chugai, Roche, and Genentech.

The EC’s decision to authorize marketing of emicizumab is based on results from a pair of phase 3 studies—HAVEN 1 and HAVEN 2.

Results from HAVEN 1 were published in NEJM and presented at the 26th ISTH Congress in July 2017. Updated results from HAVEN 2 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

HAVEN 1

This study enrolled 109 patients (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors who were previously treated with bypassing agents (BPAs) on-demand or as prophylaxis.

The patients were randomized to receive emicizumab prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. On-demand treatment of breakthrough bleeds with BPAs was allowed.

There was a significant reduction in treated bleeds of 87% with emicizumab prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis (95% CI: 72.3; 94.3, P<0.0001). And there was an 80% reduction in all bleeds with emicizumab (95% CI: 62.5; 89.8, P<0.0001).

Adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients treated with emicizumab were local injection site reactions, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, and arthralgia.

Two patients experienced thromboembolic events (TEs), and 3 had thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) while receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and more than 100 u/kg/day of activated prothrombin complex concentrate, on average, for 24 hours or more before the event. Two of these patients had also received recombinant factor VIIa.

Neither TE required anticoagulation therapy, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab. The cases of TMA observed were transient, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab.

HAVEN 2

In this single-arm trial, researchers evaluated emicizumab prophylaxis in 60 patients, ages 1 to 17, who had hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.

The efficacy analysis included 57 patients who were younger than 12. The 3 older patients were only included in the safety analysis.

Of the 57 patients, 64.9% had 0 bleeds, 94.7% had 0 treated bleeds, and 98.2% had 0 treated spontaneous bleeds and 0 treated joint bleeds. None of the patients had treated target joint bleeds.

Forty patients had a total of 201 AEs. The most common of these were viral upper respiratory tract infections (16.7%) and injection site reactions (16.7%).

There were no TEs or TMA events, and none of the patients tested positive for anti-drug antibodies. None of the 7 serious AEs in this trial were considered treatment-related.

AML cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg™).

The recommendation is for GO to be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine to treat patients age 15 years and older with previously untreated, de novo, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but not acute promyelocytic leukemia.

The CHMP’s opinion on GO will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Previous rejection

The CHMP previously issued a negative opinion of GO (first in 2007, confirmed in 2008), saying the drug should not receive marketing authorization.

The proposed indication for GO at that time was as re-induction treatment in adults with CD33-positive AML in first relapse who were not candidates for other intensive re-induction chemotherapy regimens and were either older than 60 or had a duration of first remission lasting less than 12 months.

The CHMP said there was insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of GO in AML, and the drug’s benefits did not outweigh its risks.

Phase 3 trial

The current marketing authorization application for GO is supported by data from an investigator-led, phase 3, randomized trial known as ALFA-0701. Updated results from this trial are available in the US prescribing information for GO.

Patients and treatment

ALFA-0701 included 271 patients with newly diagnosed, de novo AML who were 50 to 70 years of age.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive induction consisting of daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on days 1 to 3) and cytarabine (200 mg/m² on days 1 to 7) with (n=135) or without (n=136) GO at 3 mg/m² (up to maximum of 1 vial) on days 1, 4, and 7. Patients who did not achieve a response after first induction could receive a second induction with daunorubicin and cytarabine alone.

Patients with a response received consolidation therapy with 2 courses of treatment including daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on day 1 of first consolidation course; 60 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of second consolidation course) and cytarabine (1 g/m² every 12 hours on days 1 to 4) with or without GO at 3 mg/m² (up to a maximum of 1 vial) on day 1 according to their initial randomization.

Patients who achieved remission were also eligible for allogeneic transplant. An interval of at least 2 months between the last dose of GO and transplant was recommended.

Baseline characteristics were largely well balanced between the treatment arms, but there was a higher percentage of males in the GO arm than the control arm—55% and 44%, respectively.

Results

The study’s primary endpoint was event-free survival. The median event-free survival was 17.3 months in the GO arm and 9.5 months in the control arm (hazard ratio=0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.76; P<0.001).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. (Updated overall survival data have not been provided).

All patients in this trial developed severe neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. However, the incidence of prolonged, grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in the absence of active leukemia was higher in the GO arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) considered most important for understanding the safety profile of GO were hemorrhage, veno-occlusive liver disease (VOD), and severe infections.

Treatment discontinuation due to any AE occurred in 31% of patients in the GO arm and 7% of those in the control arm. The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation for patients on GO were thrombocytopenia (15%), VOD (3%), and septic shock (2%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 8 patients (6%) in the GO arm and 3 (2%) in the control arm. In the GO arm, 3 patients died of VOD, 4 died of hemorrhage-related events, and 1 died of a suspected cardiac cause. All 3 fatal AEs in the control arm were sepsis.

AML cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg™).

The recommendation is for GO to be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine to treat patients age 15 years and older with previously untreated, de novo, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but not acute promyelocytic leukemia.

The CHMP’s opinion on GO will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Previous rejection

The CHMP previously issued a negative opinion of GO (first in 2007, confirmed in 2008), saying the drug should not receive marketing authorization.

The proposed indication for GO at that time was as re-induction treatment in adults with CD33-positive AML in first relapse who were not candidates for other intensive re-induction chemotherapy regimens and were either older than 60 or had a duration of first remission lasting less than 12 months.

The CHMP said there was insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of GO in AML, and the drug’s benefits did not outweigh its risks.

Phase 3 trial

The current marketing authorization application for GO is supported by data from an investigator-led, phase 3, randomized trial known as ALFA-0701. Updated results from this trial are available in the US prescribing information for GO.

Patients and treatment

ALFA-0701 included 271 patients with newly diagnosed, de novo AML who were 50 to 70 years of age.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive induction consisting of daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on days 1 to 3) and cytarabine (200 mg/m² on days 1 to 7) with (n=135) or without (n=136) GO at 3 mg/m² (up to maximum of 1 vial) on days 1, 4, and 7. Patients who did not achieve a response after first induction could receive a second induction with daunorubicin and cytarabine alone.

Patients with a response received consolidation therapy with 2 courses of treatment including daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on day 1 of first consolidation course; 60 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of second consolidation course) and cytarabine (1 g/m² every 12 hours on days 1 to 4) with or without GO at 3 mg/m² (up to a maximum of 1 vial) on day 1 according to their initial randomization.

Patients who achieved remission were also eligible for allogeneic transplant. An interval of at least 2 months between the last dose of GO and transplant was recommended.

Baseline characteristics were largely well balanced between the treatment arms, but there was a higher percentage of males in the GO arm than the control arm—55% and 44%, respectively.

Results

The study’s primary endpoint was event-free survival. The median event-free survival was 17.3 months in the GO arm and 9.5 months in the control arm (hazard ratio=0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.76; P<0.001).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. (Updated overall survival data have not been provided).

All patients in this trial developed severe neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. However, the incidence of prolonged, grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in the absence of active leukemia was higher in the GO arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) considered most important for understanding the safety profile of GO were hemorrhage, veno-occlusive liver disease (VOD), and severe infections.

Treatment discontinuation due to any AE occurred in 31% of patients in the GO arm and 7% of those in the control arm. The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation for patients on GO were thrombocytopenia (15%), VOD (3%), and septic shock (2%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 8 patients (6%) in the GO arm and 3 (2%) in the control arm. In the GO arm, 3 patients died of VOD, 4 died of hemorrhage-related events, and 1 died of a suspected cardiac cause. All 3 fatal AEs in the control arm were sepsis.

AML cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg™).

The recommendation is for GO to be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine to treat patients age 15 years and older with previously untreated, de novo, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but not acute promyelocytic leukemia.

The CHMP’s opinion on GO will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Previous rejection

The CHMP previously issued a negative opinion of GO (first in 2007, confirmed in 2008), saying the drug should not receive marketing authorization.

The proposed indication for GO at that time was as re-induction treatment in adults with CD33-positive AML in first relapse who were not candidates for other intensive re-induction chemotherapy regimens and were either older than 60 or had a duration of first remission lasting less than 12 months.

The CHMP said there was insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of GO in AML, and the drug’s benefits did not outweigh its risks.

Phase 3 trial

The current marketing authorization application for GO is supported by data from an investigator-led, phase 3, randomized trial known as ALFA-0701. Updated results from this trial are available in the US prescribing information for GO.

Patients and treatment

ALFA-0701 included 271 patients with newly diagnosed, de novo AML who were 50 to 70 years of age.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive induction consisting of daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on days 1 to 3) and cytarabine (200 mg/m² on days 1 to 7) with (n=135) or without (n=136) GO at 3 mg/m² (up to maximum of 1 vial) on days 1, 4, and 7. Patients who did not achieve a response after first induction could receive a second induction with daunorubicin and cytarabine alone.

Patients with a response received consolidation therapy with 2 courses of treatment including daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on day 1 of first consolidation course; 60 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of second consolidation course) and cytarabine (1 g/m² every 12 hours on days 1 to 4) with or without GO at 3 mg/m² (up to a maximum of 1 vial) on day 1 according to their initial randomization.

Patients who achieved remission were also eligible for allogeneic transplant. An interval of at least 2 months between the last dose of GO and transplant was recommended.

Baseline characteristics were largely well balanced between the treatment arms, but there was a higher percentage of males in the GO arm than the control arm—55% and 44%, respectively.

Results

The study’s primary endpoint was event-free survival. The median event-free survival was 17.3 months in the GO arm and 9.5 months in the control arm (hazard ratio=0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.76; P<0.001).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. (Updated overall survival data have not been provided).

All patients in this trial developed severe neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. However, the incidence of prolonged, grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in the absence of active leukemia was higher in the GO arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) considered most important for understanding the safety profile of GO were hemorrhage, veno-occlusive liver disease (VOD), and severe infections.

Treatment discontinuation due to any AE occurred in 31% of patients in the GO arm and 7% of those in the control arm. The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation for patients on GO were thrombocytopenia (15%), VOD (3%), and septic shock (2%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 8 patients (6%) in the GO arm and 3 (2%) in the control arm. In the GO arm, 3 patients died of VOD, 4 died of hemorrhage-related events, and 1 died of a suspected cardiac cause. All 3 fatal AEs in the control arm were sepsis.

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Gilead Sciences International Ltd. recently withdrew its application for European approval of idelalisib (Zydelig) in combination with rituximab and bendamustine for the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Idelalisib is currently approved in the European Union for use in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab or ofatumumab) to treat adults with CLL who have received at least 1 prior therapy or as first-line treatment of CLL in the presence of 17p deletion or TP53 mutation in patients who are not eligible for any other therapies.

Idelalisib is also approved as monotherapy for adults with follicular lymphoma that is refractory to 2 prior lines of treatment.

In seeking expanded approval for idelalisib, Gilead submitted data from a study (NCT01569295) comparing idelalisib plus bendamustine and rituximab to placebo plus bendamustine and rituximab.

Interim results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in March 2017.

Gilead withdrew the application for idelalisib after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) had evaluated documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

Gilead had not responded to the last round of questions at the time of the withdrawal.

At that point, the CHMP was of the provisional opinion that idelalisib should not be approved for use in combination with rituximab and bendamustine in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL.

The CHMP said additional, longer-term data are needed to show the benefits of idelalisib plus rituximab and bendamustine outweigh the risks.

Gilead said its withdrawal of the application was based on the CHMP’s opinion that there was insufficient evidence of a favorable benefit-risk profile.

The company also said the withdrawal does not impact ongoing trials of idelalisib.

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Gilead Sciences International Ltd. recently withdrew its application for European approval of idelalisib (Zydelig) in combination with rituximab and bendamustine for the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Idelalisib is currently approved in the European Union for use in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab or ofatumumab) to treat adults with CLL who have received at least 1 prior therapy or as first-line treatment of CLL in the presence of 17p deletion or TP53 mutation in patients who are not eligible for any other therapies.

Idelalisib is also approved as monotherapy for adults with follicular lymphoma that is refractory to 2 prior lines of treatment.

In seeking expanded approval for idelalisib, Gilead submitted data from a study (NCT01569295) comparing idelalisib plus bendamustine and rituximab to placebo plus bendamustine and rituximab.

Interim results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in March 2017.

Gilead withdrew the application for idelalisib after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) had evaluated documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

Gilead had not responded to the last round of questions at the time of the withdrawal.

At that point, the CHMP was of the provisional opinion that idelalisib should not be approved for use in combination with rituximab and bendamustine in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL.

The CHMP said additional, longer-term data are needed to show the benefits of idelalisib plus rituximab and bendamustine outweigh the risks.

Gilead said its withdrawal of the application was based on the CHMP’s opinion that there was insufficient evidence of a favorable benefit-risk profile.

The company also said the withdrawal does not impact ongoing trials of idelalisib.

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Gilead Sciences International Ltd. recently withdrew its application for European approval of idelalisib (Zydelig) in combination with rituximab and bendamustine for the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Idelalisib is currently approved in the European Union for use in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab or ofatumumab) to treat adults with CLL who have received at least 1 prior therapy or as first-line treatment of CLL in the presence of 17p deletion or TP53 mutation in patients who are not eligible for any other therapies.

Idelalisib is also approved as monotherapy for adults with follicular lymphoma that is refractory to 2 prior lines of treatment.

In seeking expanded approval for idelalisib, Gilead submitted data from a study (NCT01569295) comparing idelalisib plus bendamustine and rituximab to placebo plus bendamustine and rituximab.

Interim results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in March 2017.

Gilead withdrew the application for idelalisib after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) had evaluated documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

Gilead had not responded to the last round of questions at the time of the withdrawal.

At that point, the CHMP was of the provisional opinion that idelalisib should not be approved for use in combination with rituximab and bendamustine in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL.

The CHMP said additional, longer-term data are needed to show the benefits of idelalisib plus rituximab and bendamustine outweigh the risks.

Gilead said its withdrawal of the application was based on the CHMP’s opinion that there was insufficient evidence of a favorable benefit-risk profile.

The company also said the withdrawal does not impact ongoing trials of idelalisib.

Photo from Amgen

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended a label variation for Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) to include the Neulasta® Onpro® Kit.

The Neulasta Onpro Kit is an on-body injector (OBI) delivery system for Neulasta, which is approved in the European Union to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancy (with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The Neulasta Onpro Kit includes a specifically designed Neulasta pre-filled syringe along with a single-use OBI. The small, lightweight OBI is applied to a patient’s skin on the same day of chemotherapy.

The OBI is intended to facilitate timed delivery of the correct dose of Neulasta and eliminate the need for patients to return to a healthcare setting the day after they receive chemotherapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on the Neulasta Onpro Kit will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the centralized marketing authorization of Neulasta will be updated to include information on the Neulasta Onpro Kit in the drug’s label.

This change will be valid throughout the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions about Neulasta’s label on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Photo from Amgen

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended a label variation for Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) to include the Neulasta® Onpro® Kit.

The Neulasta Onpro Kit is an on-body injector (OBI) delivery system for Neulasta, which is approved in the European Union to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancy (with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The Neulasta Onpro Kit includes a specifically designed Neulasta pre-filled syringe along with a single-use OBI. The small, lightweight OBI is applied to a patient’s skin on the same day of chemotherapy.

The OBI is intended to facilitate timed delivery of the correct dose of Neulasta and eliminate the need for patients to return to a healthcare setting the day after they receive chemotherapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on the Neulasta Onpro Kit will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the centralized marketing authorization of Neulasta will be updated to include information on the Neulasta Onpro Kit in the drug’s label.

This change will be valid throughout the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions about Neulasta’s label on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Photo from Amgen

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended a label variation for Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) to include the Neulasta® Onpro® Kit.

The Neulasta Onpro Kit is an on-body injector (OBI) delivery system for Neulasta, which is approved in the European Union to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancy (with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The Neulasta Onpro Kit includes a specifically designed Neulasta pre-filled syringe along with a single-use OBI. The small, lightweight OBI is applied to a patient’s skin on the same day of chemotherapy.

The OBI is intended to facilitate timed delivery of the correct dose of Neulasta and eliminate the need for patients to return to a healthcare setting the day after they receive chemotherapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on the Neulasta Onpro Kit will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the centralized marketing authorization of Neulasta will be updated to include information on the Neulasta Onpro Kit in the drug’s label.

This change will be valid throughout the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions about Neulasta’s label on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of bosutinib (BOSULIF) to include treatment of patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently approved in Europe to treat patients with Ph+ CML in chronic, accelerated, or blast phase who have received one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate treatment options.

The CHMP’s opinion on bosutinib will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for bosutinib is based on results from the BFORE trial, which were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The publication included data on 536 patients newly diagnosed with chronic phase CML. They were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The modified intent-to-treat population included Ph+ patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts who had at least 12 months of follow-up. In this group, there were 246 patients in the bosutinib arm and 241 in the imatinib arm.

In the modified intent-to-treat population, the rate of major molecular response at 12 months was 47.2% in the bosutinib arm and 36.9% in the imatinib arm (P=0.02). The rate of complete cytogenetic response was 77.2% and 66.4%, respectively (P<0.008).

In the entire study population, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of those receiving imatinib discontinued treatment—12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, due to drug-related toxicity.

Adverse events that were more common in the bosutinib arm than the imatinib arm included grade 3 or higher diarrhea (7.8% vs 0.8%), increased alanine levels (19% vs 1.5%), increased aspartate levels (9.7% vs 1.9%), cardiovascular events (3% vs 0.4%), and peripheral vascular events (1.5% vs 1.1%).

Cerebrovascular events were more common with imatinib than bosutinib (0.4% and 0%, respectively).

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of bosutinib (BOSULIF) to include treatment of patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently approved in Europe to treat patients with Ph+ CML in chronic, accelerated, or blast phase who have received one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate treatment options.

The CHMP’s opinion on bosutinib will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for bosutinib is based on results from the BFORE trial, which were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The publication included data on 536 patients newly diagnosed with chronic phase CML. They were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The modified intent-to-treat population included Ph+ patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts who had at least 12 months of follow-up. In this group, there were 246 patients in the bosutinib arm and 241 in the imatinib arm.

In the modified intent-to-treat population, the rate of major molecular response at 12 months was 47.2% in the bosutinib arm and 36.9% in the imatinib arm (P=0.02). The rate of complete cytogenetic response was 77.2% and 66.4%, respectively (P<0.008).

In the entire study population, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of those receiving imatinib discontinued treatment—12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, due to drug-related toxicity.

Adverse events that were more common in the bosutinib arm than the imatinib arm included grade 3 or higher diarrhea (7.8% vs 0.8%), increased alanine levels (19% vs 1.5%), increased aspartate levels (9.7% vs 1.9%), cardiovascular events (3% vs 0.4%), and peripheral vascular events (1.5% vs 1.1%).

Cerebrovascular events were more common with imatinib than bosutinib (0.4% and 0%, respectively).

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of bosutinib (BOSULIF) to include treatment of patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently approved in Europe to treat patients with Ph+ CML in chronic, accelerated, or blast phase who have received one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate treatment options.

The CHMP’s opinion on bosutinib will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for bosutinib is based on results from the BFORE trial, which were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The publication included data on 536 patients newly diagnosed with chronic phase CML. They were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The modified intent-to-treat population included Ph+ patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts who had at least 12 months of follow-up. In this group, there were 246 patients in the bosutinib arm and 241 in the imatinib arm.

In the modified intent-to-treat population, the rate of major molecular response at 12 months was 47.2% in the bosutinib arm and 36.9% in the imatinib arm (P=0.02). The rate of complete cytogenetic response was 77.2% and 66.4%, respectively (P<0.008).

In the entire study population, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of those receiving imatinib discontinued treatment—12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, due to drug-related toxicity.

Adverse events that were more common in the bosutinib arm than the imatinib arm included grade 3 or higher diarrhea (7.8% vs 0.8%), increased alanine levels (19% vs 1.5%), increased aspartate levels (9.7% vs 1.9%), cardiovascular events (3% vs 0.4%), and peripheral vascular events (1.5% vs 1.1%).

Cerebrovascular events were more common with imatinib than bosutinib (0.4% and 0%, respectively).