Pharmacy

Photo by Patrick Pelletier

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended granting marketing authorization for Imatinib Teva B.V., a generic of Glivec.

The recommendation is that Imatinib Teva B.V. be approved to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP).

The European Commission typically adheres to the CHMP’s recommendations and delivers its final decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The European Commission’s decision will be applicable to the entire European Economic Area—all member states of the European Union plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

If approved, Imatinib Teva B.V. will be available as capsules and film-coated tablets (100 mg and 400 mg). And it will be authorized:

• As monotherapy for pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML for whom bone marrow transplant is not considered the first line of treatment.
• As monotherapy for pediatric patients with Ph+ CML in chronic phase after failure of interferon-alpha therapy or in accelerated phase or blast crisis.
• As monotherapy for adults with Ph+ CML in blast crisis.
• Integrated with chemotherapy to treat adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Ph+ ALL.
• As monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory Ph+ ALL.
• As monotherapy for adults with MDS/MPNs associated with platelet-derived growth factor receptor gene re-arrangements.
• As monotherapy for adults with advanced HES and/or CEL with FIP1L1-PDGFRα rearrangement.
• As monotherapy for adults with Kit- (CD117-) positive, unresectable and/or metastatic malignant GISTs.
• For the adjuvant treatment of adults who are at significant risk of relapse following resection of Kit-positive GIST. Patients who have a low or very low risk of recurrence should not receive adjuvant treatment.
• As monotherapy for adults with unresectable DFSP and adults with recurrent and/or metastatic DFSP who are not eligible for surgery.

The CHMP said studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Imatinib Teva B.V. and its bioequivalence to the reference product, Glivec.

In adult and pediatric patients, the effectiveness of imatinib is based on:

• Overall hematologic and cytogenetic response rates and progression-free survival in CML
• Hematologic and cytogenetic response rates in Ph+ ALL and MDS/MPNs
• Hematologic response rates in HES/CEL
• Objective response rates in adults with unresectable and/or metastatic GIST and DFSP
• Recurrence-free survival in adjuvant GIST.

The experience with imatinib in patients with MDS/MPNs associated with PDGFR gene re-arrangements is very limited. There are no controlled trials demonstrating a clinical benefit or increased survival for these diseases.

Photo by Patrick Pelletier

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended granting marketing authorization for Imatinib Teva B.V., a generic of Glivec.

The recommendation is that Imatinib Teva B.V. be approved to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP).

The European Commission typically adheres to the CHMP’s recommendations and delivers its final decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The European Commission’s decision will be applicable to the entire European Economic Area—all member states of the European Union plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

If approved, Imatinib Teva B.V. will be available as capsules and film-coated tablets (100 mg and 400 mg). And it will be authorized:

• As monotherapy for pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML for whom bone marrow transplant is not considered the first line of treatment.
• As monotherapy for pediatric patients with Ph+ CML in chronic phase after failure of interferon-alpha therapy or in accelerated phase or blast crisis.
• As monotherapy for adults with Ph+ CML in blast crisis.
• Integrated with chemotherapy to treat adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Ph+ ALL.
• As monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory Ph+ ALL.
• As monotherapy for adults with MDS/MPNs associated with platelet-derived growth factor receptor gene re-arrangements.
• As monotherapy for adults with advanced HES and/or CEL with FIP1L1-PDGFRα rearrangement.
• As monotherapy for adults with Kit- (CD117-) positive, unresectable and/or metastatic malignant GISTs.
• For the adjuvant treatment of adults who are at significant risk of relapse following resection of Kit-positive GIST. Patients who have a low or very low risk of recurrence should not receive adjuvant treatment.
• As monotherapy for adults with unresectable DFSP and adults with recurrent and/or metastatic DFSP who are not eligible for surgery.

The CHMP said studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Imatinib Teva B.V. and its bioequivalence to the reference product, Glivec.

In adult and pediatric patients, the effectiveness of imatinib is based on:

• Overall hematologic and cytogenetic response rates and progression-free survival in CML
• Hematologic and cytogenetic response rates in Ph+ ALL and MDS/MPNs
• Hematologic response rates in HES/CEL
• Objective response rates in adults with unresectable and/or metastatic GIST and DFSP
• Recurrence-free survival in adjuvant GIST.

The experience with imatinib in patients with MDS/MPNs associated with PDGFR gene re-arrangements is very limited. There are no controlled trials demonstrating a clinical benefit or increased survival for these diseases.

Photo by Patrick Pelletier

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended granting marketing authorization for Imatinib Teva B.V., a generic of Glivec.

The recommendation is that Imatinib Teva B.V. be approved to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP).

The European Commission typically adheres to the CHMP’s recommendations and delivers its final decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The European Commission’s decision will be applicable to the entire European Economic Area—all member states of the European Union plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

If approved, Imatinib Teva B.V. will be available as capsules and film-coated tablets (100 mg and 400 mg). And it will be authorized:

• As monotherapy for pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML for whom bone marrow transplant is not considered the first line of treatment.
• As monotherapy for pediatric patients with Ph+ CML in chronic phase after failure of interferon-alpha therapy or in accelerated phase or blast crisis.
• As monotherapy for adults with Ph+ CML in blast crisis.
• Integrated with chemotherapy to treat adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Ph+ ALL.
• As monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory Ph+ ALL.
• As monotherapy for adults with MDS/MPNs associated with platelet-derived growth factor receptor gene re-arrangements.
• As monotherapy for adults with advanced HES and/or CEL with FIP1L1-PDGFRα rearrangement.
• As monotherapy for adults with Kit- (CD117-) positive, unresectable and/or metastatic malignant GISTs.
• For the adjuvant treatment of adults who are at significant risk of relapse following resection of Kit-positive GIST. Patients who have a low or very low risk of recurrence should not receive adjuvant treatment.
• As monotherapy for adults with unresectable DFSP and adults with recurrent and/or metastatic DFSP who are not eligible for surgery.

The CHMP said studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Imatinib Teva B.V. and its bioequivalence to the reference product, Glivec.

In adult and pediatric patients, the effectiveness of imatinib is based on:

• Overall hematologic and cytogenetic response rates and progression-free survival in CML
• Hematologic and cytogenetic response rates in Ph+ ALL and MDS/MPNs
• Hematologic response rates in HES/CEL
• Objective response rates in adults with unresectable and/or metastatic GIST and DFSP
• Recurrence-free survival in adjuvant GIST.

The experience with imatinib in patients with MDS/MPNs associated with PDGFR gene re-arrangements is very limited. There are no controlled trials demonstrating a clinical benefit or increased survival for these diseases.

Mast cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended refusal of the marketing authorization for masitinib (Masipro).

Masitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor being developed by AB Science to treat adults with smoldering or indolent severe systemic mastocytosis (SM).

To support the application for masitinib, AB Science presented data from a study involving 135 SM patients who had severe symptoms, including at least one of the following: itching, hot flashes, depression, and tiredness.

Researchers compared masitinib to placebo in these patients, looking for improvements in any of the symptoms during the first 24 weeks of treatment.

The CHMP said it was concerned about the reliability of the study results because a routine good clinical practice inspection at the study sites revealed serious failings in the way the study had been conducted.

In addition, major changes were made to the study design while the study was underway, which made the results difficult to interpret.

Finally, data on the safety of masitinib were limited. And the CHMP was concerned about side effects, including neutropenia and harmful effects on the skin and liver, which were particularly relevant because masitinib was intended to be used long-term.

Therefore, the CHMP concluded the benefits of masitinib do not appear to outweigh the risks, and the committee recommended the drug be refused marketing authorization.

The CHMP informed AB Science of this negative opinion in May, and the company asked the committee to re-examine its opinion. However, the CHMP ultimately concluded that masitinib should be refused marketing authorization.

AB Science said this decision does not have any consequences for patients in clinical trials or compassionate use programs of masitinib.

The company also said it intends to initiate a confirmatory study in patients with smoldering or indolent severe SM that is unresponsive to optimal symptomatic treatment in order to confirm the results from the first pivotal study.

Mast cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended refusal of the marketing authorization for masitinib (Masipro).

Masitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor being developed by AB Science to treat adults with smoldering or indolent severe systemic mastocytosis (SM).

To support the application for masitinib, AB Science presented data from a study involving 135 SM patients who had severe symptoms, including at least one of the following: itching, hot flashes, depression, and tiredness.

Researchers compared masitinib to placebo in these patients, looking for improvements in any of the symptoms during the first 24 weeks of treatment.

The CHMP said it was concerned about the reliability of the study results because a routine good clinical practice inspection at the study sites revealed serious failings in the way the study had been conducted.

In addition, major changes were made to the study design while the study was underway, which made the results difficult to interpret.

Finally, data on the safety of masitinib were limited. And the CHMP was concerned about side effects, including neutropenia and harmful effects on the skin and liver, which were particularly relevant because masitinib was intended to be used long-term.

Therefore, the CHMP concluded the benefits of masitinib do not appear to outweigh the risks, and the committee recommended the drug be refused marketing authorization.

The CHMP informed AB Science of this negative opinion in May, and the company asked the committee to re-examine its opinion. However, the CHMP ultimately concluded that masitinib should be refused marketing authorization.

AB Science said this decision does not have any consequences for patients in clinical trials or compassionate use programs of masitinib.

The company also said it intends to initiate a confirmatory study in patients with smoldering or indolent severe SM that is unresponsive to optimal symptomatic treatment in order to confirm the results from the first pivotal study.

Mast cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended refusal of the marketing authorization for masitinib (Masipro).

Masitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor being developed by AB Science to treat adults with smoldering or indolent severe systemic mastocytosis (SM).

To support the application for masitinib, AB Science presented data from a study involving 135 SM patients who had severe symptoms, including at least one of the following: itching, hot flashes, depression, and tiredness.

Researchers compared masitinib to placebo in these patients, looking for improvements in any of the symptoms during the first 24 weeks of treatment.

The CHMP said it was concerned about the reliability of the study results because a routine good clinical practice inspection at the study sites revealed serious failings in the way the study had been conducted.

In addition, major changes were made to the study design while the study was underway, which made the results difficult to interpret.

Finally, data on the safety of masitinib were limited. And the CHMP was concerned about side effects, including neutropenia and harmful effects on the skin and liver, which were particularly relevant because masitinib was intended to be used long-term.

Therefore, the CHMP concluded the benefits of masitinib do not appear to outweigh the risks, and the committee recommended the drug be refused marketing authorization.

The CHMP informed AB Science of this negative opinion in May, and the company asked the committee to re-examine its opinion. However, the CHMP ultimately concluded that masitinib should be refused marketing authorization.

AB Science said this decision does not have any consequences for patients in clinical trials or compassionate use programs of masitinib.

The company also said it intends to initiate a confirmatory study in patients with smoldering or indolent severe SM that is unresponsive to optimal symptomatic treatment in order to confirm the results from the first pivotal study.

Vials of drug

Mylan S.A.S. has withdrawn the European marketing authorization application for its pegfilgrastim biosimilar Fulphila, according to the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP).

Fulphila was intended to be used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic therapy for malignancy (except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

Fulphila was intended to be highly similar to Neulasta, a solution for injection that contains the active substance pegfilgrastim.

To support the application for Fulphila, Mylan S.A.S. presented results of studies designed to show that Fulphila is highly similar to Neulasta in terms of chemical structure, purity, mechanism, safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity.

Mylan S.A.S withdrew the application for Fulphila after the CHMP had evaluated the initial documentation the company provided on the drug and formulated a list of questions. The CHMP was assessing the company’s responses to the questions when the application was withdrawn.

At the time of the withdrawal, the CHMP had some concerns and was of the provisional opinion that Fulphila could not have been approved.

One of the CHMP’s main concerns was the lack of a certificate of Good Manufacturing Practice for the manufacturing site of the product. Other concerns related to the description of the manufacturing process, the control of impurities in the active substance, and the sterilization of the final product.

In a letter to the European Medicines Agency, Mylan S.A.S said it withdrew the application for Fulphila because a Good Manufacturing Practice certificate for the manufacturing site could not be obtained in the time available.

The application withdrawal does not impact ongoing clinical trials of Fulphila, and there are no compassionate use programs for the drug.

Mylan S.A.S said it plans to resubmit the application for Fulphila as soon as possible. The company is working to ensure “inspection readiness” at the Fulphila manufacturing site by October 2017.

Vials of drug

Mylan S.A.S. has withdrawn the European marketing authorization application for its pegfilgrastim biosimilar Fulphila, according to the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP).

Fulphila was intended to be used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic therapy for malignancy (except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

Fulphila was intended to be highly similar to Neulasta, a solution for injection that contains the active substance pegfilgrastim.

To support the application for Fulphila, Mylan S.A.S. presented results of studies designed to show that Fulphila is highly similar to Neulasta in terms of chemical structure, purity, mechanism, safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity.

Mylan S.A.S withdrew the application for Fulphila after the CHMP had evaluated the initial documentation the company provided on the drug and formulated a list of questions. The CHMP was assessing the company’s responses to the questions when the application was withdrawn.

At the time of the withdrawal, the CHMP had some concerns and was of the provisional opinion that Fulphila could not have been approved.

One of the CHMP’s main concerns was the lack of a certificate of Good Manufacturing Practice for the manufacturing site of the product. Other concerns related to the description of the manufacturing process, the control of impurities in the active substance, and the sterilization of the final product.

In a letter to the European Medicines Agency, Mylan S.A.S said it withdrew the application for Fulphila because a Good Manufacturing Practice certificate for the manufacturing site could not be obtained in the time available.

The application withdrawal does not impact ongoing clinical trials of Fulphila, and there are no compassionate use programs for the drug.

Mylan S.A.S said it plans to resubmit the application for Fulphila as soon as possible. The company is working to ensure “inspection readiness” at the Fulphila manufacturing site by October 2017.

Vials of drug

Mylan S.A.S. has withdrawn the European marketing authorization application for its pegfilgrastim biosimilar Fulphila, according to the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP).

Fulphila was intended to be used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic therapy for malignancy (except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

Fulphila was intended to be highly similar to Neulasta, a solution for injection that contains the active substance pegfilgrastim.

To support the application for Fulphila, Mylan S.A.S. presented results of studies designed to show that Fulphila is highly similar to Neulasta in terms of chemical structure, purity, mechanism, safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity.

Mylan S.A.S withdrew the application for Fulphila after the CHMP had evaluated the initial documentation the company provided on the drug and formulated a list of questions. The CHMP was assessing the company’s responses to the questions when the application was withdrawn.

At the time of the withdrawal, the CHMP had some concerns and was of the provisional opinion that Fulphila could not have been approved.

One of the CHMP’s main concerns was the lack of a certificate of Good Manufacturing Practice for the manufacturing site of the product. Other concerns related to the description of the manufacturing process, the control of impurities in the active substance, and the sterilization of the final product.

In a letter to the European Medicines Agency, Mylan S.A.S said it withdrew the application for Fulphila because a Good Manufacturing Practice certificate for the manufacturing site could not be obtained in the time available.

The application withdrawal does not impact ongoing clinical trials of Fulphila, and there are no compassionate use programs for the drug.

Mylan S.A.S said it plans to resubmit the application for Fulphila as soon as possible. The company is working to ensure “inspection readiness” at the Fulphila manufacturing site by October 2017.

Photo from Novartis

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the authorized use for nilotinib (Tasigna) to include pediatric patients.

At present, nilotinib is approved for use in the European Economic Area to treat adults with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

The drug is used to treat adults with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+), chronic phase CML and adults with chronic or accelerated phase, Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib.

The CHMP has recommended expanding the marketing authorization of nilotinib to include pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Ph+, chronic phase CML and pediatric patients with chronic phase, Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib.

Detailed recommendations for the use of nilotinib will be described in the updated summary of product characteristics, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report. It will be available in all official European Union languages after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission (EC).

The EC typically adheres to the CHMP’s recommendations and delivers its final decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The EC’s decision will be applicable to the entire European Economic Area—all member states of the European Union plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

Photo from Novartis

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the authorized use for nilotinib (Tasigna) to include pediatric patients.

At present, nilotinib is approved for use in the European Economic Area to treat adults with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

The drug is used to treat adults with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+), chronic phase CML and adults with chronic or accelerated phase, Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib.

The CHMP has recommended expanding the marketing authorization of nilotinib to include pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Ph+, chronic phase CML and pediatric patients with chronic phase, Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib.

Detailed recommendations for the use of nilotinib will be described in the updated summary of product characteristics, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report. It will be available in all official European Union languages after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission (EC).

The EC typically adheres to the CHMP’s recommendations and delivers its final decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The EC’s decision will be applicable to the entire European Economic Area—all member states of the European Union plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

Photo from Novartis

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the authorized use for nilotinib (Tasigna) to include pediatric patients.

At present, nilotinib is approved for use in the European Economic Area to treat adults with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

The drug is used to treat adults with newly diagnosed, Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+), chronic phase CML and adults with chronic or accelerated phase, Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib.

The CHMP has recommended expanding the marketing authorization of nilotinib to include pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, Ph+, chronic phase CML and pediatric patients with chronic phase, Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy, including imatinib.

Detailed recommendations for the use of nilotinib will be described in the updated summary of product characteristics, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report. It will be available in all official European Union languages after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission (EC).

The EC typically adheres to the CHMP’s recommendations and delivers its final decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The EC’s decision will be applicable to the entire European Economic Area—all member states of the European Union plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

PRNewsfoto/Bayer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to copanlisib (Aliqopa), an intravenous PI3K inhibitor developed by Bayer.

The drug is now approved to treat adults with relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) who have received at least 2 prior systemic therapies.

Copanlisib received accelerated approval from the FDA because it has not yet shown a clinical benefit in these patients.

The FDA’s accelerated approval program allows conditional approval of a drug that fills an unmet medical need for a serious condition.

Accelerated approval is based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint—in this case, overall response rate—that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Continued approval of copanlisib for the aforementioned indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The FDA previously granted copanlisib priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation.

According to Bayer, copanlisib is now available. The prescribing information is available for download here.

In addition, Bayer has created the Aliqopa™ Resource Connections (ARC^TM) Program, which includes resources to help patients navigate the insurance process and identify sources of financial assistance.

The program offers free medication to patients who are uninsured or underinsured and meet the eligibility criteria. It includes a $0 co-pay program for covered patients.

Phase 2 results

The FDA’s approval of copanlisib is based on data from the phase 2 CHRONOS-1 trial. Data from this trial were presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 and the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The trial included 104 patients with FL who had relapsed after at least 2 prior systemic therapies.

The median duration of treatment with copanlisib was 22 weeks (range, 1-105). Thirty-three patients (32%) were still on treatment at last follow-up.

The overall response rate was 59%, with 14% of patients achieving a complete response. The median duration of response was 12.2 months (range, 0+ to 22.6).

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in ≥25% of patients) were diarrhea (34% all grades, 5% ≥grade 3), reduced neutrophil count (30% all grades, 24% ≥grade 3), fatigue (30% all grades, 2% ≥grade 3), and fever (25% all grades, 4% ≥grade 3).

There were 6 deaths, and 3 of them were attributed to copanlisib. One patient died of lung infection, 1 died of respiratory failure, and 1 died of a thromboembolic event.

PRNewsfoto/Bayer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to copanlisib (Aliqopa), an intravenous PI3K inhibitor developed by Bayer.

The drug is now approved to treat adults with relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) who have received at least 2 prior systemic therapies.

Copanlisib received accelerated approval from the FDA because it has not yet shown a clinical benefit in these patients.

The FDA’s accelerated approval program allows conditional approval of a drug that fills an unmet medical need for a serious condition.

Accelerated approval is based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint—in this case, overall response rate—that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Continued approval of copanlisib for the aforementioned indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The FDA previously granted copanlisib priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation.

According to Bayer, copanlisib is now available. The prescribing information is available for download here.

In addition, Bayer has created the Aliqopa™ Resource Connections (ARC^TM) Program, which includes resources to help patients navigate the insurance process and identify sources of financial assistance.

The program offers free medication to patients who are uninsured or underinsured and meet the eligibility criteria. It includes a $0 co-pay program for covered patients.

Phase 2 results

The FDA’s approval of copanlisib is based on data from the phase 2 CHRONOS-1 trial. Data from this trial were presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 and the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The trial included 104 patients with FL who had relapsed after at least 2 prior systemic therapies.

The median duration of treatment with copanlisib was 22 weeks (range, 1-105). Thirty-three patients (32%) were still on treatment at last follow-up.

The overall response rate was 59%, with 14% of patients achieving a complete response. The median duration of response was 12.2 months (range, 0+ to 22.6).

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in ≥25% of patients) were diarrhea (34% all grades, 5% ≥grade 3), reduced neutrophil count (30% all grades, 24% ≥grade 3), fatigue (30% all grades, 2% ≥grade 3), and fever (25% all grades, 4% ≥grade 3).

There were 6 deaths, and 3 of them were attributed to copanlisib. One patient died of lung infection, 1 died of respiratory failure, and 1 died of a thromboembolic event.

PRNewsfoto/Bayer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to copanlisib (Aliqopa), an intravenous PI3K inhibitor developed by Bayer.

The drug is now approved to treat adults with relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) who have received at least 2 prior systemic therapies.

Copanlisib received accelerated approval from the FDA because it has not yet shown a clinical benefit in these patients.

The FDA’s accelerated approval program allows conditional approval of a drug that fills an unmet medical need for a serious condition.

Accelerated approval is based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint—in this case, overall response rate—that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Continued approval of copanlisib for the aforementioned indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The FDA previously granted copanlisib priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation.

According to Bayer, copanlisib is now available. The prescribing information is available for download here.

In addition, Bayer has created the Aliqopa™ Resource Connections (ARC^TM) Program, which includes resources to help patients navigate the insurance process and identify sources of financial assistance.

The program offers free medication to patients who are uninsured or underinsured and meet the eligibility criteria. It includes a $0 co-pay program for covered patients.

Phase 2 results

The FDA’s approval of copanlisib is based on data from the phase 2 CHRONOS-1 trial. Data from this trial were presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 and the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The trial included 104 patients with FL who had relapsed after at least 2 prior systemic therapies.

The median duration of treatment with copanlisib was 22 weeks (range, 1-105). Thirty-three patients (32%) were still on treatment at last follow-up.

The overall response rate was 59%, with 14% of patients achieving a complete response. The median duration of response was 12.2 months (range, 0+ to 22.6).

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in ≥25% of patients) were diarrhea (34% all grades, 5% ≥grade 3), reduced neutrophil count (30% all grades, 24% ≥grade 3), fatigue (30% all grades, 2% ≥grade 3), and fever (25% all grades, 4% ≥grade 3).

There were 6 deaths, and 3 of them were attributed to copanlisib. One patient died of lung infection, 1 died of respiratory failure, and 1 died of a thromboembolic event.

Institute of Pathology

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for arsenic trioxide (TRISENOX®) injection.

With this sNDA, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is seeking approval for arsenic trioxide to be used in combination with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) for induction of remission and consolidation in patients with newly diagnosed, low- or intermediate-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) characterized by the presence of the t(15;17) translocation or PML/RAR-alpha gene expression.

Currently, arsenic trioxide is FDA-approved as monotherapy for induction of remission and consolidation in patients with APL who are refractory to, or have relapsed from, retinoid and anthracycline chemotherapy, and whose APL is characterized by the presence of the t(15;17) translocation or PML/RAR-alpha gene expression.

For more details, see the full prescribing information.

The FDA has accepted the arsenic trioxide sNDA for priority review and expects to make a decision on the application in the first quarter of 2018.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

Phase 3 study results

The sNDA for arsenic trioxide is supported by results from the APL0406 study. Updated results from this phase 3 study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in February.

The study included 276 adults (ages 18 to 71) with newly diagnosed, low- or intermediate-risk APL. Patients were randomized to receive ATRA plus arsenic trioxide or ATRA plus chemotherapy.

A total of 263 patients were evaluable for response to induction. One hundred percent of patients in the arsenic trioxide arm (127/127) achieved a complete response (CR), as did 97% (132/136) of patients in the chemotherapy arm (P=0.12).

After a median follow-up of 40.6 months, the event-free survival was 97.3% in the arsenic trioxide arm and 80% in the chemotherapy arm (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of relapse was 1.9% and 13.9%, respectively (P=0.0013).

At 50 months, the overall survival was 99.2% in the arsenic trioxide arm and 92.6% in the chemotherapy arm (P=0.0073).

After induction, there were 2 relapses and 1 death in CR in the arsenic trioxide arm.

In the chemotherapy arm, there were 2 instances of molecular resistance after third consolidation, 15 relapses, 5 deaths in CR, and 2 patients who developed a therapy-related myeloid neoplasm.

Institute of Pathology

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for arsenic trioxide (TRISENOX®) injection.

With this sNDA, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is seeking approval for arsenic trioxide to be used in combination with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) for induction of remission and consolidation in patients with newly diagnosed, low- or intermediate-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) characterized by the presence of the t(15;17) translocation or PML/RAR-alpha gene expression.

Currently, arsenic trioxide is FDA-approved as monotherapy for induction of remission and consolidation in patients with APL who are refractory to, or have relapsed from, retinoid and anthracycline chemotherapy, and whose APL is characterized by the presence of the t(15;17) translocation or PML/RAR-alpha gene expression.

For more details, see the full prescribing information.

The FDA has accepted the arsenic trioxide sNDA for priority review and expects to make a decision on the application in the first quarter of 2018.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

Phase 3 study results

The sNDA for arsenic trioxide is supported by results from the APL0406 study. Updated results from this phase 3 study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in February.

The study included 276 adults (ages 18 to 71) with newly diagnosed, low- or intermediate-risk APL. Patients were randomized to receive ATRA plus arsenic trioxide or ATRA plus chemotherapy.

A total of 263 patients were evaluable for response to induction. One hundred percent of patients in the arsenic trioxide arm (127/127) achieved a complete response (CR), as did 97% (132/136) of patients in the chemotherapy arm (P=0.12).

After a median follow-up of 40.6 months, the event-free survival was 97.3% in the arsenic trioxide arm and 80% in the chemotherapy arm (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of relapse was 1.9% and 13.9%, respectively (P=0.0013).

At 50 months, the overall survival was 99.2% in the arsenic trioxide arm and 92.6% in the chemotherapy arm (P=0.0073).

After induction, there were 2 relapses and 1 death in CR in the arsenic trioxide arm.

In the chemotherapy arm, there were 2 instances of molecular resistance after third consolidation, 15 relapses, 5 deaths in CR, and 2 patients who developed a therapy-related myeloid neoplasm.

Institute of Pathology

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for arsenic trioxide (TRISENOX®) injection.

With this sNDA, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is seeking approval for arsenic trioxide to be used in combination with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) for induction of remission and consolidation in patients with newly diagnosed, low- or intermediate-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) characterized by the presence of the t(15;17) translocation or PML/RAR-alpha gene expression.

Currently, arsenic trioxide is FDA-approved as monotherapy for induction of remission and consolidation in patients with APL who are refractory to, or have relapsed from, retinoid and anthracycline chemotherapy, and whose APL is characterized by the presence of the t(15;17) translocation or PML/RAR-alpha gene expression.

For more details, see the full prescribing information.

The FDA has accepted the arsenic trioxide sNDA for priority review and expects to make a decision on the application in the first quarter of 2018.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

Phase 3 study results

The sNDA for arsenic trioxide is supported by results from the APL0406 study. Updated results from this phase 3 study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in February.

The study included 276 adults (ages 18 to 71) with newly diagnosed, low- or intermediate-risk APL. Patients were randomized to receive ATRA plus arsenic trioxide or ATRA plus chemotherapy.

A total of 263 patients were evaluable for response to induction. One hundred percent of patients in the arsenic trioxide arm (127/127) achieved a complete response (CR), as did 97% (132/136) of patients in the chemotherapy arm (P=0.12).

After a median follow-up of 40.6 months, the event-free survival was 97.3% in the arsenic trioxide arm and 80% in the chemotherapy arm (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of relapse was 1.9% and 13.9%, respectively (P=0.0013).

At 50 months, the overall survival was 99.2% in the arsenic trioxide arm and 92.6% in the chemotherapy arm (P=0.0073).

After induction, there were 2 relapses and 1 death in CR in the arsenic trioxide arm.

In the chemotherapy arm, there were 2 instances of molecular resistance after third consolidation, 15 relapses, 5 deaths in CR, and 2 patients who developed a therapy-related myeloid neoplasm.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

New research has provided an updated estimate of the spending needed to bring a cancer drug to the US market.

In analyzing data from 10 companies bringing a cancer drug to market, researchers found that sales revenue from these drugs was roughly 7 times higher than the research and development (R&D) costs.

The total sales revenue for the drugs—during a median follow-up of 4 years—was $67.0 billion, and the total R&D spending was $9.1 billion (including 7% opportunity costs).

Researchers reported these figures in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“[T]he price of cancer drugs is currently rising higher and higher each year,” said study author Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

“The cost of 1 drug for 1 year of treatment is now routinely in excess of $100,000 . . . . One of the often-cited reasons why cancer drugs cost so much—one of the justifications for the high price—is that the outlay by the biopharmaceutical industry to bring these drugs to market is sizable, and there have been a wide range of estimates for what that R&D outlay is.”

“The most-cited estimate is one that comes out of the Tufts Medical Group¹ that puts the cost to bring a cancer drug to market, when adjusted for 2017 dollars, at $2.7 billion. Another estimate is from the group Public Citizen.² And that is a much lower estimate, finding the cost to bring a drug to market of $320 million.”

“Both of these estimates have limitations in the methods for how they estimated the cost to bring a drug to market. Notably, the Tufts group is rather non-transparent. Because of confidentiality agreements, we don’t know what drugs and what companies they’re looking at, and we can’t independently verify their analysis.”

“The Public Citizen group, in contrast, is comparing expenditures over a period of time against the number of drugs in a different period of time to make an estimate of the cost to bring a drug to market, but this isn’t exactly the cost of bringing those particular drugs to market.”

These issues prompted Dr Prasad and Sham Mailankody, MBBS, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, to conduct the current study.

Analysis

The researchers analyzed US Securities and Exchange Commission filings for 10 drug companies that received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for a cancer drug from 2006 through 2015.

Prior to this, none of the companies had any drugs approved for use in the US. However, the companies had a median of 3.5 (range, 2-11) drugs in development during the study period.

The researchers said the fact that these companies had no prior drug approvals eliminated biases that may be present when analyzing larger drug companies, such as redundancies in R&D development and tax incentives for listing different endeavors as R&D spending.

In addition, the fact that the 10 companies were developing other drugs during the study period means this study takes into account the cost of failure in bringing a drug to market.

Results

For the 10 companies and drugs analyzed, the median duration of drug development was 7.3 years (range, 5.8 to 15.2 years).

The median cost of drug development (in 2017 US dollars) was $648.0 million (range, $157.3 to $1950.8 million). For a 7% per annum cost of capital (or opportunity costs), the median cost was $757.4 million (range, $203.6 to $2601.7 million).

The median time from approval to analysis in December 2016 (or until the company sold or licensed the compound to another company) was 4.0 years (range, 0.8 years to 8.8 years).

The total revenue from sales of the 10 drugs during this time was $67.0 billion.

The total R&D spending was $7.2 billion, or $9.1 billion when including 7% opportunity costs.

The following table includes data broken down by drug.

*Received accelerated approval. (The other 5 drugs received regular approval.)

**Did not receive orphan designation. (Nine of the 10 drugs received orphan designation.)

“So I think what we’re showing is . . .  a transparent analysis of cancer drugs and companies, looking at the cost to bring a drug to market,” Dr Mailankody said. “And our estimate of $648 million is substantially lower than the often-cited number of $2.7 billion.”

“We’re also showing that, for these 10 drugs, revenue since approval is quite a bit higher than the R&D spending, almost 7-fold higher, and some of these companies have already had revenue of 10-fold or higher, compared to the R&D expenses.”

The researchers acknowledged that this study is limited by a small data set and the fact that the findings cannot be extrapolated to other types of drugs.

1. DiMasi JA et al. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20-33.

2. Young B et al. Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D “Scare Card.” Washington, DC: Public Citizen’s Congress Watch; 2001. https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/rdmyths.pdf.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

New research has provided an updated estimate of the spending needed to bring a cancer drug to the US market.

In analyzing data from 10 companies bringing a cancer drug to market, researchers found that sales revenue from these drugs was roughly 7 times higher than the research and development (R&D) costs.

The total sales revenue for the drugs—during a median follow-up of 4 years—was $67.0 billion, and the total R&D spending was $9.1 billion (including 7% opportunity costs).

Researchers reported these figures in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“[T]he price of cancer drugs is currently rising higher and higher each year,” said study author Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

“The cost of 1 drug for 1 year of treatment is now routinely in excess of $100,000 . . . . One of the often-cited reasons why cancer drugs cost so much—one of the justifications for the high price—is that the outlay by the biopharmaceutical industry to bring these drugs to market is sizable, and there have been a wide range of estimates for what that R&D outlay is.”

“The most-cited estimate is one that comes out of the Tufts Medical Group¹ that puts the cost to bring a cancer drug to market, when adjusted for 2017 dollars, at $2.7 billion. Another estimate is from the group Public Citizen.² And that is a much lower estimate, finding the cost to bring a drug to market of $320 million.”

“Both of these estimates have limitations in the methods for how they estimated the cost to bring a drug to market. Notably, the Tufts group is rather non-transparent. Because of confidentiality agreements, we don’t know what drugs and what companies they’re looking at, and we can’t independently verify their analysis.”

“The Public Citizen group, in contrast, is comparing expenditures over a period of time against the number of drugs in a different period of time to make an estimate of the cost to bring a drug to market, but this isn’t exactly the cost of bringing those particular drugs to market.”

These issues prompted Dr Prasad and Sham Mailankody, MBBS, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, to conduct the current study.

Analysis

The researchers analyzed US Securities and Exchange Commission filings for 10 drug companies that received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for a cancer drug from 2006 through 2015.

Prior to this, none of the companies had any drugs approved for use in the US. However, the companies had a median of 3.5 (range, 2-11) drugs in development during the study period.

The researchers said the fact that these companies had no prior drug approvals eliminated biases that may be present when analyzing larger drug companies, such as redundancies in R&D development and tax incentives for listing different endeavors as R&D spending.

In addition, the fact that the 10 companies were developing other drugs during the study period means this study takes into account the cost of failure in bringing a drug to market.

Results

For the 10 companies and drugs analyzed, the median duration of drug development was 7.3 years (range, 5.8 to 15.2 years).

The median cost of drug development (in 2017 US dollars) was $648.0 million (range, $157.3 to $1950.8 million). For a 7% per annum cost of capital (or opportunity costs), the median cost was $757.4 million (range, $203.6 to $2601.7 million).

The median time from approval to analysis in December 2016 (or until the company sold or licensed the compound to another company) was 4.0 years (range, 0.8 years to 8.8 years).

The total revenue from sales of the 10 drugs during this time was $67.0 billion.

The total R&D spending was $7.2 billion, or $9.1 billion when including 7% opportunity costs.

The following table includes data broken down by drug.

*Received accelerated approval. (The other 5 drugs received regular approval.)

**Did not receive orphan designation. (Nine of the 10 drugs received orphan designation.)

“So I think what we’re showing is . . .  a transparent analysis of cancer drugs and companies, looking at the cost to bring a drug to market,” Dr Mailankody said. “And our estimate of $648 million is substantially lower than the often-cited number of $2.7 billion.”

“We’re also showing that, for these 10 drugs, revenue since approval is quite a bit higher than the R&D spending, almost 7-fold higher, and some of these companies have already had revenue of 10-fold or higher, compared to the R&D expenses.”

The researchers acknowledged that this study is limited by a small data set and the fact that the findings cannot be extrapolated to other types of drugs.

1. DiMasi JA et al. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20-33.

2. Young B et al. Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D “Scare Card.” Washington, DC: Public Citizen’s Congress Watch; 2001. https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/rdmyths.pdf.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

New research has provided an updated estimate of the spending needed to bring a cancer drug to the US market.

In analyzing data from 10 companies bringing a cancer drug to market, researchers found that sales revenue from these drugs was roughly 7 times higher than the research and development (R&D) costs.

The total sales revenue for the drugs—during a median follow-up of 4 years—was $67.0 billion, and the total R&D spending was $9.1 billion (including 7% opportunity costs).

Researchers reported these figures in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“[T]he price of cancer drugs is currently rising higher and higher each year,” said study author Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

“The cost of 1 drug for 1 year of treatment is now routinely in excess of $100,000 . . . . One of the often-cited reasons why cancer drugs cost so much—one of the justifications for the high price—is that the outlay by the biopharmaceutical industry to bring these drugs to market is sizable, and there have been a wide range of estimates for what that R&D outlay is.”

“The most-cited estimate is one that comes out of the Tufts Medical Group¹ that puts the cost to bring a cancer drug to market, when adjusted for 2017 dollars, at $2.7 billion. Another estimate is from the group Public Citizen.² And that is a much lower estimate, finding the cost to bring a drug to market of $320 million.”

“Both of these estimates have limitations in the methods for how they estimated the cost to bring a drug to market. Notably, the Tufts group is rather non-transparent. Because of confidentiality agreements, we don’t know what drugs and what companies they’re looking at, and we can’t independently verify their analysis.”

“The Public Citizen group, in contrast, is comparing expenditures over a period of time against the number of drugs in a different period of time to make an estimate of the cost to bring a drug to market, but this isn’t exactly the cost of bringing those particular drugs to market.”

These issues prompted Dr Prasad and Sham Mailankody, MBBS, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, to conduct the current study.

Analysis

The researchers analyzed US Securities and Exchange Commission filings for 10 drug companies that received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for a cancer drug from 2006 through 2015.

Prior to this, none of the companies had any drugs approved for use in the US. However, the companies had a median of 3.5 (range, 2-11) drugs in development during the study period.

The researchers said the fact that these companies had no prior drug approvals eliminated biases that may be present when analyzing larger drug companies, such as redundancies in R&D development and tax incentives for listing different endeavors as R&D spending.

In addition, the fact that the 10 companies were developing other drugs during the study period means this study takes into account the cost of failure in bringing a drug to market.

Results

For the 10 companies and drugs analyzed, the median duration of drug development was 7.3 years (range, 5.8 to 15.2 years).

The median cost of drug development (in 2017 US dollars) was $648.0 million (range, $157.3 to $1950.8 million). For a 7% per annum cost of capital (or opportunity costs), the median cost was $757.4 million (range, $203.6 to $2601.7 million).

The median time from approval to analysis in December 2016 (or until the company sold or licensed the compound to another company) was 4.0 years (range, 0.8 years to 8.8 years).

The total revenue from sales of the 10 drugs during this time was $67.0 billion.

The total R&D spending was $7.2 billion, or $9.1 billion when including 7% opportunity costs.

The following table includes data broken down by drug.

*Received accelerated approval. (The other 5 drugs received regular approval.)

**Did not receive orphan designation. (Nine of the 10 drugs received orphan designation.)

“So I think what we’re showing is . . .  a transparent analysis of cancer drugs and companies, looking at the cost to bring a drug to market,” Dr Mailankody said. “And our estimate of $648 million is substantially lower than the often-cited number of $2.7 billion.”

“We’re also showing that, for these 10 drugs, revenue since approval is quite a bit higher than the R&D spending, almost 7-fold higher, and some of these companies have already had revenue of 10-fold or higher, compared to the R&D expenses.”

The researchers acknowledged that this study is limited by a small data set and the fact that the findings cannot be extrapolated to other types of drugs.

1. DiMasi JA et al. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20-33.

2. Young B et al. Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D “Scare Card.” Washington, DC: Public Citizen’s Congress Watch; 2001. https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/rdmyths.pdf.

Image by Betty Pace

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted rare pediatric disease designation to GBT440 for the treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD).

GBT440 is being developed by Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc. as a potentially disease-modifying therapy for SCD.

The drug works by increasing hemoglobin’s affinity for oxygen. Since oxygenated sickle hemoglobin does not polymerize, it is believed that GBT440 blocks polymerization and the resultant sickling of red blood cells.

If GBT440 can restore normal hemoglobin function and improve oxygen delivery, the therapy may be capable of modifying the progression of SCD.

The FDA previously granted GBT440 fast track and orphan drug designations.

About rare pediatric disease designation

Rare pediatric disease designation is granted to drugs that show promise to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the US, primarily patients age 18 or younger.

The designation provides incentives to advance the development of drugs for rare disease, including access to the FDA’s expedited review and approval programs.

Under the FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program, if a drug with rare pediatric disease designation is approved, the drug’s developer may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to obtain priority review for any subsequent marketing application.

GBT440 trials

GBT440 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 trial (GBT440-001) of healthy subjects and adults with SCD. Data from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

At that time, there were 41 SCD patients who had been receiving GBT440 for up to 6 months.

All of these patients experienced a “profound and durable” reduction in hemolysis, as assessed by hemoglobin, reticulocytes, and/or bilirubin, according to Global Blood Therapeutics.

Patients treated with GBT440 for at least 90 days demonstrated a “clinically significant” increase in hemoglobin (greater than 1 g/dL increase) when compared with placebo-treated patients (46% vs 0%; P=0.006).

Patients treated with GBT440 also had a sustained reduction in irreversibly sickled cells when compared with placebo-treated patients (-76.6% vs +9.7%; P<0.001).

The most common treatment-related adverse events were grade 1/2 headache and gastrointestinal disorders. These events occurred in similar rates in the placebo and GBT440 arms. There were no drug-related serious or severe adverse events.

No sickle cell crises events occurred while participants were on GBT440. Exercise testing data showed normal tissue oxygen delivery (no change in oxygen consumption compared to placebo).

GBT440 is also under investigation in the phase 3 HOPE study, which includes SCD patients age 12 and older. And the drug is being tested in the phase 2 HOPE-KIDS 1 study, which includes pediatric patients (ages 6 to 17) with SCD.

Image by Betty Pace

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted rare pediatric disease designation to GBT440 for the treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD).

GBT440 is being developed by Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc. as a potentially disease-modifying therapy for SCD.

The drug works by increasing hemoglobin’s affinity for oxygen. Since oxygenated sickle hemoglobin does not polymerize, it is believed that GBT440 blocks polymerization and the resultant sickling of red blood cells.

If GBT440 can restore normal hemoglobin function and improve oxygen delivery, the therapy may be capable of modifying the progression of SCD.

The FDA previously granted GBT440 fast track and orphan drug designations.

About rare pediatric disease designation

Rare pediatric disease designation is granted to drugs that show promise to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the US, primarily patients age 18 or younger.

The designation provides incentives to advance the development of drugs for rare disease, including access to the FDA’s expedited review and approval programs.

Under the FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program, if a drug with rare pediatric disease designation is approved, the drug’s developer may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to obtain priority review for any subsequent marketing application.

GBT440 trials

GBT440 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 trial (GBT440-001) of healthy subjects and adults with SCD. Data from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

At that time, there were 41 SCD patients who had been receiving GBT440 for up to 6 months.

All of these patients experienced a “profound and durable” reduction in hemolysis, as assessed by hemoglobin, reticulocytes, and/or bilirubin, according to Global Blood Therapeutics.

Patients treated with GBT440 for at least 90 days demonstrated a “clinically significant” increase in hemoglobin (greater than 1 g/dL increase) when compared with placebo-treated patients (46% vs 0%; P=0.006).

Patients treated with GBT440 also had a sustained reduction in irreversibly sickled cells when compared with placebo-treated patients (-76.6% vs +9.7%; P<0.001).

The most common treatment-related adverse events were grade 1/2 headache and gastrointestinal disorders. These events occurred in similar rates in the placebo and GBT440 arms. There were no drug-related serious or severe adverse events.

No sickle cell crises events occurred while participants were on GBT440. Exercise testing data showed normal tissue oxygen delivery (no change in oxygen consumption compared to placebo).

GBT440 is also under investigation in the phase 3 HOPE study, which includes SCD patients age 12 and older. And the drug is being tested in the phase 2 HOPE-KIDS 1 study, which includes pediatric patients (ages 6 to 17) with SCD.

Image by Betty Pace

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted rare pediatric disease designation to GBT440 for the treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD).

GBT440 is being developed by Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc. as a potentially disease-modifying therapy for SCD.

The drug works by increasing hemoglobin’s affinity for oxygen. Since oxygenated sickle hemoglobin does not polymerize, it is believed that GBT440 blocks polymerization and the resultant sickling of red blood cells.

If GBT440 can restore normal hemoglobin function and improve oxygen delivery, the therapy may be capable of modifying the progression of SCD.

The FDA previously granted GBT440 fast track and orphan drug designations.

About rare pediatric disease designation

Rare pediatric disease designation is granted to drugs that show promise to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the US, primarily patients age 18 or younger.

The designation provides incentives to advance the development of drugs for rare disease, including access to the FDA’s expedited review and approval programs.

Under the FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program, if a drug with rare pediatric disease designation is approved, the drug’s developer may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to obtain priority review for any subsequent marketing application.

GBT440 trials

GBT440 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 trial (GBT440-001) of healthy subjects and adults with SCD. Data from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

At that time, there were 41 SCD patients who had been receiving GBT440 for up to 6 months.

All of these patients experienced a “profound and durable” reduction in hemolysis, as assessed by hemoglobin, reticulocytes, and/or bilirubin, according to Global Blood Therapeutics.

Patients treated with GBT440 for at least 90 days demonstrated a “clinically significant” increase in hemoglobin (greater than 1 g/dL increase) when compared with placebo-treated patients (46% vs 0%; P=0.006).

Patients treated with GBT440 also had a sustained reduction in irreversibly sickled cells when compared with placebo-treated patients (-76.6% vs +9.7%; P<0.001).

The most common treatment-related adverse events were grade 1/2 headache and gastrointestinal disorders. These events occurred in similar rates in the placebo and GBT440 arms. There were no drug-related serious or severe adverse events.

No sickle cell crises events occurred while participants were on GBT440. Exercise testing data showed normal tissue oxygen delivery (no change in oxygen consumption compared to placebo).

GBT440 is also under investigation in the phase 3 HOPE study, which includes SCD patients age 12 and older. And the drug is being tested in the phase 2 HOPE-KIDS 1 study, which includes pediatric patients (ages 6 to 17) with SCD.

Photo by Bill Branson

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg), a treatment that was initially approved by the agency in 2000 but later pulled from the US market.

GO is an antibody-drug conjugate that consists of the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin attached to a monoclonal antibody targeting CD33.

GO is now approved to treat adults with newly diagnosed, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and patients age 2 and older with CD33-positive, relapsed or refractory AML.

GO can be given alone or in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine.

The prescribing information for GO includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of hepatotoxicity, including veno-occlusive disease or sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, associated with GO.

GO originates from a collaboration between Pfizer and Celltech, now UCB. Pfizer has sole responsibility for all manufacturing, clinical development, and commercialization activities for this molecule.

Market withdrawal and subsequent trials

GO was originally approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program in 2000 for use as a single agent in patients with CD33-positive AML who had experienced their first relapse and were 60 years of age or older.

In 2010, Pfizer voluntarily withdrew GO from the US market due to the results of a confirmatory phase 3 trial, SWOG S0106.

This trial showed there was no clinical benefit for patients who received GO plus daunorubicin and cytarabine over patients who received only daunorubicin and cytarabine.

In addition, the rate of fatal, treatment-related toxicity was significantly higher in the GO arm of the study.

Because of the unmet need for effective treatments in AML, investigators expressed an interest in evaluating different doses and schedules of GO.

These independent investigators, with Pfizer’s support, conducted clinical trials that yielded more information on the efficacy and safety of GO.

The trials—ALFA-0701, AML-19, and MyloFrance-1—supported the new approval of GO. Updated data from these trials are included in the prescribing information, which is available for download at www.mylotarg.com.

Photo by Bill Branson

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg), a treatment that was initially approved by the agency in 2000 but later pulled from the US market.

GO is an antibody-drug conjugate that consists of the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin attached to a monoclonal antibody targeting CD33.

GO is now approved to treat adults with newly diagnosed, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and patients age 2 and older with CD33-positive, relapsed or refractory AML.

GO can be given alone or in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine.

The prescribing information for GO includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of hepatotoxicity, including veno-occlusive disease or sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, associated with GO.

GO originates from a collaboration between Pfizer and Celltech, now UCB. Pfizer has sole responsibility for all manufacturing, clinical development, and commercialization activities for this molecule.

Market withdrawal and subsequent trials

GO was originally approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program in 2000 for use as a single agent in patients with CD33-positive AML who had experienced their first relapse and were 60 years of age or older.

In 2010, Pfizer voluntarily withdrew GO from the US market due to the results of a confirmatory phase 3 trial, SWOG S0106.

This trial showed there was no clinical benefit for patients who received GO plus daunorubicin and cytarabine over patients who received only daunorubicin and cytarabine.

In addition, the rate of fatal, treatment-related toxicity was significantly higher in the GO arm of the study.

Because of the unmet need for effective treatments in AML, investigators expressed an interest in evaluating different doses and schedules of GO.

These independent investigators, with Pfizer’s support, conducted clinical trials that yielded more information on the efficacy and safety of GO.

The trials—ALFA-0701, AML-19, and MyloFrance-1—supported the new approval of GO. Updated data from these trials are included in the prescribing information, which is available for download at www.mylotarg.com.

Photo by Bill Branson

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg), a treatment that was initially approved by the agency in 2000 but later pulled from the US market.

GO is an antibody-drug conjugate that consists of the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin attached to a monoclonal antibody targeting CD33.

GO is now approved to treat adults with newly diagnosed, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and patients age 2 and older with CD33-positive, relapsed or refractory AML.

GO can be given alone or in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine.

The prescribing information for GO includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of hepatotoxicity, including veno-occlusive disease or sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, associated with GO.

GO originates from a collaboration between Pfizer and Celltech, now UCB. Pfizer has sole responsibility for all manufacturing, clinical development, and commercialization activities for this molecule.

Market withdrawal and subsequent trials

GO was originally approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program in 2000 for use as a single agent in patients with CD33-positive AML who had experienced their first relapse and were 60 years of age or older.

In 2010, Pfizer voluntarily withdrew GO from the US market due to the results of a confirmatory phase 3 trial, SWOG S0106.

This trial showed there was no clinical benefit for patients who received GO plus daunorubicin and cytarabine over patients who received only daunorubicin and cytarabine.

In addition, the rate of fatal, treatment-related toxicity was significantly higher in the GO arm of the study.

Because of the unmet need for effective treatments in AML, investigators expressed an interest in evaluating different doses and schedules of GO.

These independent investigators, with Pfizer’s support, conducted clinical trials that yielded more information on the efficacy and safety of GO.

The trials—ALFA-0701, AML-19, and MyloFrance-1—supported the new approval of GO. Updated data from these trials are included in the prescribing information, which is available for download at www.mylotarg.com.

Image by Difu Wu

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted priority review to a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) bosutinib (Bosulif®).

If approved, the sNDA would expand the use of bosutinib to include patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently FDA-approved to treat adults with chronic, accelerated, or blast phase Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA plans to make a decision on the sNDA for bosutinib by the end of this year.

Meanwhile, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has validated for review a type II variation application for bosutinib in patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase Ph+ CML.

Bosutinib already has conditional marketing authorization in the European Economic Area for the treatment of adults with Ph+ CML who previously received at least 1 TKI and adults with Ph+ CML for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate.

Phase 3 trial

The applications submitted to the EMA and FDA are both supported by early results from the phase 3 BFORE trial. Results from this trial were presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting in May.

In this ongoing study, researchers are comparing bosutinib and imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic phase CML.

As of the ASCO presentation, the trial had enrolled 536 patients who were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The presentation included results in a modified intent-to-treat population of 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.

Most of the patients were still on therapy at the 12-month mark or beyond—78% in the bosutinib arm and 73.2% in the imatinib arm. The median treatment duration was 14.1 months and 13.8 months, respectively.

At 12 months, the rate of major molecular response 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).

One patient in the bosutinib arm and 4 in the imatinib arm discontinued treatment due to disease progression, while 12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, discontinued treatment 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 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted priority review to a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) bosutinib (Bosulif®).

If approved, the sNDA would expand the use of bosutinib to include patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently FDA-approved to treat adults with chronic, accelerated, or blast phase Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA plans to make a decision on the sNDA for bosutinib by the end of this year.

Meanwhile, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has validated for review a type II variation application for bosutinib in patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase Ph+ CML.

Bosutinib already has conditional marketing authorization in the European Economic Area for the treatment of adults with Ph+ CML who previously received at least 1 TKI and adults with Ph+ CML for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate.

Phase 3 trial

The applications submitted to the EMA and FDA are both supported by early results from the phase 3 BFORE trial. Results from this trial were presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting in May.

In this ongoing study, researchers are comparing bosutinib and imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic phase CML.

As of the ASCO presentation, the trial had enrolled 536 patients who were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The presentation included results in a modified intent-to-treat population of 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.

Most of the patients were still on therapy at the 12-month mark or beyond—78% in the bosutinib arm and 73.2% in the imatinib arm. The median treatment duration was 14.1 months and 13.8 months, respectively.

At 12 months, the rate of major molecular response 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).

One patient in the bosutinib arm and 4 in the imatinib arm discontinued treatment due to disease progression, while 12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, discontinued treatment 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 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted priority review to a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) bosutinib (Bosulif®).

If approved, the sNDA would expand the use of bosutinib to include patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently FDA-approved to treat adults with chronic, accelerated, or blast phase Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA plans to make a decision on the sNDA for bosutinib by the end of this year.

Meanwhile, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has validated for review a type II variation application for bosutinib in patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase Ph+ CML.

Bosutinib already has conditional marketing authorization in the European Economic Area for the treatment of adults with Ph+ CML who previously received at least 1 TKI and adults with Ph+ CML for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate.

Phase 3 trial

The applications submitted to the EMA and FDA are both supported by early results from the phase 3 BFORE trial. Results from this trial were presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting in May.

In this ongoing study, researchers are comparing bosutinib and imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic phase CML.

As of the ASCO presentation, the trial had enrolled 536 patients who were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The presentation included results in a modified intent-to-treat population of 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.

Most of the patients were still on therapy at the 12-month mark or beyond—78% in the bosutinib arm and 73.2% in the imatinib arm. The median treatment duration was 14.1 months and 13.8 months, respectively.

At 12 months, the rate of major molecular response 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).

One patient in the bosutinib arm and 4 in the imatinib arm discontinued treatment due to disease progression, while 12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, discontinued treatment 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).