Hematology Times

Image by Betty Pace

Researchers say they have gained new insight that may help explain how vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) occur in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).

The team assessed how red blood cell (RBC) adhesion and polymerization of deoxygenated sickle hemoglobin affect the mechanisms underlying VOCs.

Experiments showed that hypoxia enhances sickle RBC adherence, and hemoglobin S polymerization enhances adherence for sickle reticulocytes and mature erythrocytes.

However, sickle reticulocytes have “unique adhesion dynamics” and therefore appear more likely to cause VOCs.

The researchers described these discoveries in an article set to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To investigate how RBCs interact with blood vessels to set off a VOC, the researchers built a microfluidic system that mimics post-capillary vessels. These vessels, which carry deoxygenated blood away from the capillaries, are where vaso-occlusions are most likely to occur.

The microfluidic system is designed to allow the researchers to control the oxygen level. The team used the system to test blood from eight SCD patients.

The researchers found that, under hypoxic conditions, sickle RBCs are two to four times more likely to adhere to the blood vessel walls than they are when oxygen levels are normal.

The team also found that hemoglobin S polymerization enhances the adherence of sickle reticulocytes and sickle mature erythrocytes. The hemoglobin S forms stiff fibers that grow and push the cell membrane outward, and these fibers help the cells adhere more firmly to the lining of the blood vessel.

“There has been little understanding of why, under hypoxia, there is much more adhesion,” said study author Subra Suresh, DSc, of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

“The experiments of this study provide some key insights into the processes and mechanisms responsible for increased adhesion.”

The researchers also found that, in SCD patients, reticulocytes are more likely than mature erythrocytes to adhere to blood vessels.

“We observed the growth of sickle hemoglobin fibers stretching reticulocytes within minutes,” said study author Dimitrios Papageorgiou, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

“It looks like they’re trying to grab more of the surface and adhere more strongly.”

The researchers said these and other findings suggest polymerization and adhesion stimulate each other.

The team now hopes to devise a more complete model of vaso-occlusion that combines their new findings with previous work. The previous work involved measuring how long it takes SCD patients’ blood cells to stiffen, making them more likely to block blood flow in tiny blood vessels.

The researchers also hope their findings might help them devise a way to predict VOCs in individual SCD patients.

Image by Betty Pace

Researchers say they have gained new insight that may help explain how vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) occur in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).

The team assessed how red blood cell (RBC) adhesion and polymerization of deoxygenated sickle hemoglobin affect the mechanisms underlying VOCs.

Experiments showed that hypoxia enhances sickle RBC adherence, and hemoglobin S polymerization enhances adherence for sickle reticulocytes and mature erythrocytes.

However, sickle reticulocytes have “unique adhesion dynamics” and therefore appear more likely to cause VOCs.

The researchers described these discoveries in an article set to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To investigate how RBCs interact with blood vessels to set off a VOC, the researchers built a microfluidic system that mimics post-capillary vessels. These vessels, which carry deoxygenated blood away from the capillaries, are where vaso-occlusions are most likely to occur.

The microfluidic system is designed to allow the researchers to control the oxygen level. The team used the system to test blood from eight SCD patients.

The researchers found that, under hypoxic conditions, sickle RBCs are two to four times more likely to adhere to the blood vessel walls than they are when oxygen levels are normal.

The team also found that hemoglobin S polymerization enhances the adherence of sickle reticulocytes and sickle mature erythrocytes. The hemoglobin S forms stiff fibers that grow and push the cell membrane outward, and these fibers help the cells adhere more firmly to the lining of the blood vessel.

“There has been little understanding of why, under hypoxia, there is much more adhesion,” said study author Subra Suresh, DSc, of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

“The experiments of this study provide some key insights into the processes and mechanisms responsible for increased adhesion.”

The researchers also found that, in SCD patients, reticulocytes are more likely than mature erythrocytes to adhere to blood vessels.

“We observed the growth of sickle hemoglobin fibers stretching reticulocytes within minutes,” said study author Dimitrios Papageorgiou, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

“It looks like they’re trying to grab more of the surface and adhere more strongly.”

The researchers said these and other findings suggest polymerization and adhesion stimulate each other.

The team now hopes to devise a more complete model of vaso-occlusion that combines their new findings with previous work. The previous work involved measuring how long it takes SCD patients’ blood cells to stiffen, making them more likely to block blood flow in tiny blood vessels.

The researchers also hope their findings might help them devise a way to predict VOCs in individual SCD patients.

Image by Betty Pace

Researchers say they have gained new insight that may help explain how vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) occur in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).

The team assessed how red blood cell (RBC) adhesion and polymerization of deoxygenated sickle hemoglobin affect the mechanisms underlying VOCs.

Experiments showed that hypoxia enhances sickle RBC adherence, and hemoglobin S polymerization enhances adherence for sickle reticulocytes and mature erythrocytes.

However, sickle reticulocytes have “unique adhesion dynamics” and therefore appear more likely to cause VOCs.

The researchers described these discoveries in an article set to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To investigate how RBCs interact with blood vessels to set off a VOC, the researchers built a microfluidic system that mimics post-capillary vessels. These vessels, which carry deoxygenated blood away from the capillaries, are where vaso-occlusions are most likely to occur.

The microfluidic system is designed to allow the researchers to control the oxygen level. The team used the system to test blood from eight SCD patients.

The researchers found that, under hypoxic conditions, sickle RBCs are two to four times more likely to adhere to the blood vessel walls than they are when oxygen levels are normal.

The team also found that hemoglobin S polymerization enhances the adherence of sickle reticulocytes and sickle mature erythrocytes. The hemoglobin S forms stiff fibers that grow and push the cell membrane outward, and these fibers help the cells adhere more firmly to the lining of the blood vessel.

“There has been little understanding of why, under hypoxia, there is much more adhesion,” said study author Subra Suresh, DSc, of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

“The experiments of this study provide some key insights into the processes and mechanisms responsible for increased adhesion.”

The researchers also found that, in SCD patients, reticulocytes are more likely than mature erythrocytes to adhere to blood vessels.

“We observed the growth of sickle hemoglobin fibers stretching reticulocytes within minutes,” said study author Dimitrios Papageorgiou, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

“It looks like they’re trying to grab more of the surface and adhere more strongly.”

The researchers said these and other findings suggest polymerization and adhesion stimulate each other.

The team now hopes to devise a more complete model of vaso-occlusion that combines their new findings with previous work. The previous work involved measuring how long it takes SCD patients’ blood cells to stiffen, making them more likely to block blood flow in tiny blood vessels.

The researchers also hope their findings might help them devise a way to predict VOCs in individual SCD patients.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests investigators involved in oncology trials sometimes fail to disclose payments from the pharmaceutical industry.

Researchers looked at clinical trials associated with cancer drugs recently approved in the United States and assessed whether funding was properly disclosed when the trial results were published in scientific journals.

The data showed that roughly a third of investigators failed to completely disclose payments from trial sponsors.

“We know that pharmaceutical companies sponsor trials of their own drugs. That’s not a surprise,” said Cole Wayant, a DO/PhD student at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa.

“But what is a surprise, and what warrants concern, is that this funding is often not disclosed in the publication of clinical trials that form the basis of FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approvals and clinical practice guidelines.”

Wayant and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the findings in a letter to JAMA Oncology.

The researchers began by searching the FDA Hematology/Oncology (Cancer) Approvals & Safety Notifications website for oncology drugs approved from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2017.

The team then identified the published trials supporting these drug approvals and searched the Open Payments website for industry payment data for each U.S.-based oncologist involved in the trials.

Finally, the researchers compared the Open Payments data to the disclosure statements from the publications.

There were 344 authors of clinical trials associated with oncology drugs approved during the period studied. Most authors (76.5%) received at least one industry payment, and the total amount they received exceeded $216 million.

Nearly a third of the authors (32%, n=110) did not fully disclose payments from a trial sponsor.

In all, the authors received about $6.3 million in general payments (e.g., speaking fees), and $1.7 million of that was undisclosed.

They received more than $500,000 in research payments (e.g., fees for study coordination), and more than $200,000 of that was undisclosed.

The authors received close to $210 million in associated research payments (e.g., grants), and about $78 million of that was undisclosed.

Wayant and his colleagues said these results suggest financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and oncology trial investigators “may be common, expensive, and frequently undisclosed.” However, the research also suggests Open Payments data could be used to ensure complete disclosure of industry payments.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests investigators involved in oncology trials sometimes fail to disclose payments from the pharmaceutical industry.

Researchers looked at clinical trials associated with cancer drugs recently approved in the United States and assessed whether funding was properly disclosed when the trial results were published in scientific journals.

The data showed that roughly a third of investigators failed to completely disclose payments from trial sponsors.

“We know that pharmaceutical companies sponsor trials of their own drugs. That’s not a surprise,” said Cole Wayant, a DO/PhD student at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa.

“But what is a surprise, and what warrants concern, is that this funding is often not disclosed in the publication of clinical trials that form the basis of FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approvals and clinical practice guidelines.”

Wayant and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the findings in a letter to JAMA Oncology.

The researchers began by searching the FDA Hematology/Oncology (Cancer) Approvals & Safety Notifications website for oncology drugs approved from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2017.

The team then identified the published trials supporting these drug approvals and searched the Open Payments website for industry payment data for each U.S.-based oncologist involved in the trials.

Finally, the researchers compared the Open Payments data to the disclosure statements from the publications.

There were 344 authors of clinical trials associated with oncology drugs approved during the period studied. Most authors (76.5%) received at least one industry payment, and the total amount they received exceeded $216 million.

Nearly a third of the authors (32%, n=110) did not fully disclose payments from a trial sponsor.

In all, the authors received about $6.3 million in general payments (e.g., speaking fees), and $1.7 million of that was undisclosed.

They received more than $500,000 in research payments (e.g., fees for study coordination), and more than $200,000 of that was undisclosed.

The authors received close to $210 million in associated research payments (e.g., grants), and about $78 million of that was undisclosed.

Wayant and his colleagues said these results suggest financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and oncology trial investigators “may be common, expensive, and frequently undisclosed.” However, the research also suggests Open Payments data could be used to ensure complete disclosure of industry payments.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests investigators involved in oncology trials sometimes fail to disclose payments from the pharmaceutical industry.

Researchers looked at clinical trials associated with cancer drugs recently approved in the United States and assessed whether funding was properly disclosed when the trial results were published in scientific journals.

The data showed that roughly a third of investigators failed to completely disclose payments from trial sponsors.

“We know that pharmaceutical companies sponsor trials of their own drugs. That’s not a surprise,” said Cole Wayant, a DO/PhD student at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa.

“But what is a surprise, and what warrants concern, is that this funding is often not disclosed in the publication of clinical trials that form the basis of FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approvals and clinical practice guidelines.”

Wayant and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the findings in a letter to JAMA Oncology.

The researchers began by searching the FDA Hematology/Oncology (Cancer) Approvals & Safety Notifications website for oncology drugs approved from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2017.

The team then identified the published trials supporting these drug approvals and searched the Open Payments website for industry payment data for each U.S.-based oncologist involved in the trials.

Finally, the researchers compared the Open Payments data to the disclosure statements from the publications.

There were 344 authors of clinical trials associated with oncology drugs approved during the period studied. Most authors (76.5%) received at least one industry payment, and the total amount they received exceeded $216 million.

Nearly a third of the authors (32%, n=110) did not fully disclose payments from a trial sponsor.

In all, the authors received about $6.3 million in general payments (e.g., speaking fees), and $1.7 million of that was undisclosed.

They received more than $500,000 in research payments (e.g., fees for study coordination), and more than $200,000 of that was undisclosed.

The authors received close to $210 million in associated research payments (e.g., grants), and about $78 million of that was undisclosed.

Wayant and his colleagues said these results suggest financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and oncology trial investigators “may be common, expensive, and frequently undisclosed.” However, the research also suggests Open Payments data could be used to ensure complete disclosure of industry payments.

Vials and a syringe

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi™), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Sanofi Genzyme said it will work with relevant local authorities to make caplacizumab available in countries across Europe.

“The approval of Cablivi provides an important addition to the standard-of-care treatment for patients with aTTP in Europe because it can significantly reduce time to platelet count normalization and induce a clinically meaningful reduction in recurrences,” said Marie Scully, MD, of University College Hospital in London, UK.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

TITAN

Results from the TITAN trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016.

The study included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n=36) or placebo (n=39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care—daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

The study’s primary endpoint was time to response, which was defined as platelet count normalization (150,000/mm³ or higher).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response compared to patients in the placebo arm (P=0.005).

Among the 69 patients who had not undergone a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to response was 3.0 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.9 days in the placebo arm.

Among the 6 patients who did undergo a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to a response was 2.4 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.3 days in the placebo arm.

The rate of confirmed response was 86.1% (n=31) in the caplacizumab arm and 71.8% (n=28) in the placebo arm.

There were 541 adverse events (AEs) in 34 of the 35 evaluable patients receiving caplacizumab (97%) and 522 AEs in all 37 evaluable patients receiving placebo (100%). TTP exacerbations and relapses were not included as AEs.

The rate of AEs thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was due to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was due to cerebral hemorrhage.

HERCULES

Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n=72) or placebo (n=73) in addition to standard care—plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as an initial platelet count of at least 150 x 10⁹/L with subsequent stop of daily plasma exchange within 5 days.

There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm compared to the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P<0.01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n=9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n=36) in the placebo arm (P<0.0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n=0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n=3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n=3) and 38.4% (n=28), respectively. The incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n=6) and 8.2% (n=6), respectively.

The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related AE was 57.7% in the caplacizumab arm and 43.8% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related serious AE was 14.1% (n=10) and 5.5% (n=4), respectively. The rate of discontinuation due to at least one AE was 7.0% and 12.3%, respectively.

During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.

Vials and a syringe

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi™), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Sanofi Genzyme said it will work with relevant local authorities to make caplacizumab available in countries across Europe.

“The approval of Cablivi provides an important addition to the standard-of-care treatment for patients with aTTP in Europe because it can significantly reduce time to platelet count normalization and induce a clinically meaningful reduction in recurrences,” said Marie Scully, MD, of University College Hospital in London, UK.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

TITAN

Results from the TITAN trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016.

The study included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n=36) or placebo (n=39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care—daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

The study’s primary endpoint was time to response, which was defined as platelet count normalization (150,000/mm³ or higher).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response compared to patients in the placebo arm (P=0.005).

Among the 69 patients who had not undergone a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to response was 3.0 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.9 days in the placebo arm.

Among the 6 patients who did undergo a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to a response was 2.4 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.3 days in the placebo arm.

The rate of confirmed response was 86.1% (n=31) in the caplacizumab arm and 71.8% (n=28) in the placebo arm.

There were 541 adverse events (AEs) in 34 of the 35 evaluable patients receiving caplacizumab (97%) and 522 AEs in all 37 evaluable patients receiving placebo (100%). TTP exacerbations and relapses were not included as AEs.

The rate of AEs thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was due to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was due to cerebral hemorrhage.

HERCULES

Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n=72) or placebo (n=73) in addition to standard care—plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as an initial platelet count of at least 150 x 10⁹/L with subsequent stop of daily plasma exchange within 5 days.

There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm compared to the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P<0.01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n=9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n=36) in the placebo arm (P<0.0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n=0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n=3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n=3) and 38.4% (n=28), respectively. The incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n=6) and 8.2% (n=6), respectively.

The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related AE was 57.7% in the caplacizumab arm and 43.8% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related serious AE was 14.1% (n=10) and 5.5% (n=4), respectively. The rate of discontinuation due to at least one AE was 7.0% and 12.3%, respectively.

During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.

Vials and a syringe

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi™), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Sanofi Genzyme said it will work with relevant local authorities to make caplacizumab available in countries across Europe.

“The approval of Cablivi provides an important addition to the standard-of-care treatment for patients with aTTP in Europe because it can significantly reduce time to platelet count normalization and induce a clinically meaningful reduction in recurrences,” said Marie Scully, MD, of University College Hospital in London, UK.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

TITAN

Results from the TITAN trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016.

The study included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n=36) or placebo (n=39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care—daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

The study’s primary endpoint was time to response, which was defined as platelet count normalization (150,000/mm³ or higher).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response compared to patients in the placebo arm (P=0.005).

Among the 69 patients who had not undergone a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to response was 3.0 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.9 days in the placebo arm.

Among the 6 patients who did undergo a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to a response was 2.4 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.3 days in the placebo arm.

The rate of confirmed response was 86.1% (n=31) in the caplacizumab arm and 71.8% (n=28) in the placebo arm.

There were 541 adverse events (AEs) in 34 of the 35 evaluable patients receiving caplacizumab (97%) and 522 AEs in all 37 evaluable patients receiving placebo (100%). TTP exacerbations and relapses were not included as AEs.

The rate of AEs thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was due to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was due to cerebral hemorrhage.

HERCULES

Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n=72) or placebo (n=73) in addition to standard care—plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as an initial platelet count of at least 150 x 10⁹/L with subsequent stop of daily plasma exchange within 5 days.

There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm compared to the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P<0.01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n=9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n=36) in the placebo arm (P<0.0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n=0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n=3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n=3) and 38.4% (n=28), respectively. The incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n=6) and 8.2% (n=6), respectively.

The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related AE was 57.7% in the caplacizumab arm and 43.8% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related serious AE was 14.1% (n=10) and 5.5% (n=4), respectively. The rate of discontinuation due to at least one AE was 7.0% and 12.3%, respectively.

During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto)

Both low-dose and full-dose rivaroxaban had superior benefit-risk profiles for extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment when compared to aspirin, according to investigators.

The team found the combined outcome of recurrent VTE and major bleeding was less likely to occur in patients treated with rivaroxaban at 20 mg or 10 mg than in patients treated with aspirin.

Paolo Prandoni, MD, of the University of Padua in Italy, and his colleagues reported these results in Thrombosis Research.

The investigators analyzed data from the EINSTEIN-CHOICE trial, a double-blind, randomized study of 3,365 patients age 18 or older with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) who had previously received anticoagulant treatment for 6 to 12 months.

Patients were given once-daily rivaroxaban at a low dose (10 mg), once-daily rivaroxaban at the full dose (20 mg), or once-daily aspirin at a dose of 100 mg.

The incidence of the combined outcome of recurrent VTE and major bleeding was 2.8% lower in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm and 3.4% lower in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm than in the aspirin arm.

The cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE was 1.9% in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm, 1.6% in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm, and 5.0% in the aspirin arm.

The cumulative incidence of major bleeding was 0.7%, 0.4%, and 0.5%, respectively.

Benefit-risk profile

Benefit and risk were calculated using “excess numbers of events,” or the difference in cumulative incidences in a hypothetical population of 10,000 VTE patients treated for 1 year.

Excess numbers of events were defined as the number of patients in this hypothetical population who would experience a particular event when treated with rivaroxaban (at either dose), minus that in the same population treated with aspirin.

In patients treated with 20 mg of rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 123 fewer episodes of PE (95% confidence interval [CI], 21-226) and 198 fewer episodes of DVT (95% CI, 62-333).

In patients given 10 mg of rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 121 fewer episodes of PE (95% CI, 4-238) and 217 fewer episodes of DVT (95% CI, 92-342).

Net clinical benefit was defined as the composite of symptomatic recurrent VTE and major bleeding events. It occurred in 23 patients in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm, 17 patients in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm, and 53 patients in the aspirin arm.

For 10,000 patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 284 fewer net clinical benefit outcomes for the 20 mg dose (95% CI, 106-462) and 339 fewer (95% CI, 165-512) for the 10 mg dose.

This means that one additional symptomatic recurrent VTE or major bleed would be avoided for every 36 patients treated with rivaroxaban at 20 mg or every 30 patients treated with rivaroxaban at 10 mg.

The investigators therefore concluded that rivaroxaban “provides a clinically important benefit in terms of reduction in recurrent VTE” and has a favorable benefit-risk profile relative to aspirin.

In fact, the team said there is “no longer a place” for extended VTE treatment with aspirin.

Bayer AG funded this study. Dr. Prandoni reported financial relationships with Bayer, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto)

Both low-dose and full-dose rivaroxaban had superior benefit-risk profiles for extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment when compared to aspirin, according to investigators.

The team found the combined outcome of recurrent VTE and major bleeding was less likely to occur in patients treated with rivaroxaban at 20 mg or 10 mg than in patients treated with aspirin.

Paolo Prandoni, MD, of the University of Padua in Italy, and his colleagues reported these results in Thrombosis Research.

The investigators analyzed data from the EINSTEIN-CHOICE trial, a double-blind, randomized study of 3,365 patients age 18 or older with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) who had previously received anticoagulant treatment for 6 to 12 months.

Patients were given once-daily rivaroxaban at a low dose (10 mg), once-daily rivaroxaban at the full dose (20 mg), or once-daily aspirin at a dose of 100 mg.

The incidence of the combined outcome of recurrent VTE and major bleeding was 2.8% lower in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm and 3.4% lower in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm than in the aspirin arm.

The cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE was 1.9% in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm, 1.6% in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm, and 5.0% in the aspirin arm.

The cumulative incidence of major bleeding was 0.7%, 0.4%, and 0.5%, respectively.

Benefit-risk profile

Benefit and risk were calculated using “excess numbers of events,” or the difference in cumulative incidences in a hypothetical population of 10,000 VTE patients treated for 1 year.

Excess numbers of events were defined as the number of patients in this hypothetical population who would experience a particular event when treated with rivaroxaban (at either dose), minus that in the same population treated with aspirin.

In patients treated with 20 mg of rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 123 fewer episodes of PE (95% confidence interval [CI], 21-226) and 198 fewer episodes of DVT (95% CI, 62-333).

In patients given 10 mg of rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 121 fewer episodes of PE (95% CI, 4-238) and 217 fewer episodes of DVT (95% CI, 92-342).

Net clinical benefit was defined as the composite of symptomatic recurrent VTE and major bleeding events. It occurred in 23 patients in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm, 17 patients in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm, and 53 patients in the aspirin arm.

For 10,000 patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 284 fewer net clinical benefit outcomes for the 20 mg dose (95% CI, 106-462) and 339 fewer (95% CI, 165-512) for the 10 mg dose.

This means that one additional symptomatic recurrent VTE or major bleed would be avoided for every 36 patients treated with rivaroxaban at 20 mg or every 30 patients treated with rivaroxaban at 10 mg.

The investigators therefore concluded that rivaroxaban “provides a clinically important benefit in terms of reduction in recurrent VTE” and has a favorable benefit-risk profile relative to aspirin.

In fact, the team said there is “no longer a place” for extended VTE treatment with aspirin.

Bayer AG funded this study. Dr. Prandoni reported financial relationships with Bayer, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto)

Both low-dose and full-dose rivaroxaban had superior benefit-risk profiles for extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment when compared to aspirin, according to investigators.

The team found the combined outcome of recurrent VTE and major bleeding was less likely to occur in patients treated with rivaroxaban at 20 mg or 10 mg than in patients treated with aspirin.

Paolo Prandoni, MD, of the University of Padua in Italy, and his colleagues reported these results in Thrombosis Research.

The investigators analyzed data from the EINSTEIN-CHOICE trial, a double-blind, randomized study of 3,365 patients age 18 or older with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) who had previously received anticoagulant treatment for 6 to 12 months.

Patients were given once-daily rivaroxaban at a low dose (10 mg), once-daily rivaroxaban at the full dose (20 mg), or once-daily aspirin at a dose of 100 mg.

The incidence of the combined outcome of recurrent VTE and major bleeding was 2.8% lower in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm and 3.4% lower in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm than in the aspirin arm.

The cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE was 1.9% in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm, 1.6% in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm, and 5.0% in the aspirin arm.

The cumulative incidence of major bleeding was 0.7%, 0.4%, and 0.5%, respectively.

Benefit-risk profile

Benefit and risk were calculated using “excess numbers of events,” or the difference in cumulative incidences in a hypothetical population of 10,000 VTE patients treated for 1 year.

Excess numbers of events were defined as the number of patients in this hypothetical population who would experience a particular event when treated with rivaroxaban (at either dose), minus that in the same population treated with aspirin.

In patients treated with 20 mg of rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 123 fewer episodes of PE (95% confidence interval [CI], 21-226) and 198 fewer episodes of DVT (95% CI, 62-333).

In patients given 10 mg of rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 121 fewer episodes of PE (95% CI, 4-238) and 217 fewer episodes of DVT (95% CI, 92-342).

Net clinical benefit was defined as the composite of symptomatic recurrent VTE and major bleeding events. It occurred in 23 patients in the 20 mg rivaroxaban arm, 17 patients in the 10 mg rivaroxaban arm, and 53 patients in the aspirin arm.

For 10,000 patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban instead of aspirin, there would be 284 fewer net clinical benefit outcomes for the 20 mg dose (95% CI, 106-462) and 339 fewer (95% CI, 165-512) for the 10 mg dose.

This means that one additional symptomatic recurrent VTE or major bleed would be avoided for every 36 patients treated with rivaroxaban at 20 mg or every 30 patients treated with rivaroxaban at 10 mg.

The investigators therefore concluded that rivaroxaban “provides a clinically important benefit in terms of reduction in recurrent VTE” and has a favorable benefit-risk profile relative to aspirin.

In fact, the team said there is “no longer a place” for extended VTE treatment with aspirin.

Bayer AG funded this study. Dr. Prandoni reported financial relationships with Bayer, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the EC for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is EC-approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE (MMY3007) study.

Results from this study were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P<0.0001). Rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the D-VMP arm and was 18.1 months in the VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 87% and 76%, respectively. The 18-month PFS was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (50% and 53%), thrombocytopenia (49% and 54%), anemia (28% and 38%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (28% and 34%), upper respiratory tract infection (26% and 14%), diarrhea (24% and 25%), pyrexia (23% and 21%), and nausea (21% and 22%).

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 28% of patients in the D-VMP arm and 0% of those in the VMP arm.

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. In both arms, most infections resolved.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 5% in the D-VMP arm and 9% in the VMP arm.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the EC for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is EC-approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE (MMY3007) study.

Results from this study were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P<0.0001). Rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the D-VMP arm and was 18.1 months in the VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 87% and 76%, respectively. The 18-month PFS was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (50% and 53%), thrombocytopenia (49% and 54%), anemia (28% and 38%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (28% and 34%), upper respiratory tract infection (26% and 14%), diarrhea (24% and 25%), pyrexia (23% and 21%), and nausea (21% and 22%).

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 28% of patients in the D-VMP arm and 0% of those in the VMP arm.

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. In both arms, most infections resolved.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 5% in the D-VMP arm and 9% in the VMP arm.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the EC for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is EC-approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE (MMY3007) study.

Results from this study were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P<0.0001). Rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the D-VMP arm and was 18.1 months in the VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 87% and 76%, respectively. The 18-month PFS was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (50% and 53%), thrombocytopenia (49% and 54%), anemia (28% and 38%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (28% and 34%), upper respiratory tract infection (26% and 14%), diarrhea (24% and 25%), pyrexia (23% and 21%), and nausea (21% and 22%).

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 28% of patients in the D-VMP arm and 0% of those in the VMP arm.

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. In both arms, most infections resolved.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 5% in the D-VMP arm and 9% in the VMP arm.

Photo from Bayer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Jivi® (antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027) is a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate approved for use in previously treated adults and adolescents (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A.

The product is approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The initial recommended prophylactic regimen is dosing twice weekly (30-40 IU/kg) with the ability to dose every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) and further individually adjust to less or more frequent dosing based on bleeding episodes.

The FDA’s approval of Jivi is based on results from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Jivi provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Jivi® (antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027) is a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate approved for use in previously treated adults and adolescents (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A.

The product is approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The initial recommended prophylactic regimen is dosing twice weekly (30-40 IU/kg) with the ability to dose every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) and further individually adjust to less or more frequent dosing based on bleeding episodes.

The FDA’s approval of Jivi is based on results from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Jivi provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Jivi® (antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027) is a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate approved for use in previously treated adults and adolescents (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A.

The product is approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The initial recommended prophylactic regimen is dosing twice weekly (30-40 IU/kg) with the ability to dose every 5 days (45-60 IU/kg) and further individually adjust to less or more frequent dosing based on bleeding episodes.

The FDA’s approval of Jivi is based on results from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Jivi provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Image by Lance Liotta

The European Commission has granted orphan drug designation to onvansertib for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Onvansertib (formerly PCM-075) is an oral adenosine triphosphate competitive inhibitor of the serine/threonine Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) enzyme, which is overexpressed in hematologic and solid tumor malignancies.

Trovagene, Inc., the company developing onvansertib, said the drug has a 24-hour half-life with reversible, on-target hematologic activity.

These factors, combined with an improved dose/scheduling protocol, could mean onvansertib will improve upon long-term outcomes observed in previous studies with a PLK inhibitor in AML.

This includes a phase 2 study in which AML patients who received a PLK inhibitor plus low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) had a higher response rate than patients who received LDAC alone—31% and 13.3%, respectively.

Trovagene said preclinical studies have shown that onvansertib synergizes with more than 10 drugs used to treat hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. This includes FLT3 and HDAC inhibitors, taxanes, and cytotoxins.

Trovagene is now conducting a phase 1b/2 trial of onvansertib in combination with standard care (LDAC or decitabine) in patients with AML (NCT03303339).

The company has already completed a phase 1 dose-escalation study of onvansertib in patients with advanced metastatic solid tumor malignancies. Results from this study were published in Investigational New Drugs.

About orphan designation

Orphan drug designation in Europe is available to companies developing products intended to treat a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition that affects fewer than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union (EU).

The designation allows for financial and regulatory incentives that include 10 years of marketing exclusivity in the EU after product approval, eligibility for conditional marketing authorization, protocol assistance from the European Medicines Agency at reduced fees during the product development phase, and direct access to centralized marketing authorization in the EU.

Image by Lance Liotta

The European Commission has granted orphan drug designation to onvansertib for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Onvansertib (formerly PCM-075) is an oral adenosine triphosphate competitive inhibitor of the serine/threonine Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) enzyme, which is overexpressed in hematologic and solid tumor malignancies.

Trovagene, Inc., the company developing onvansertib, said the drug has a 24-hour half-life with reversible, on-target hematologic activity.

These factors, combined with an improved dose/scheduling protocol, could mean onvansertib will improve upon long-term outcomes observed in previous studies with a PLK inhibitor in AML.

This includes a phase 2 study in which AML patients who received a PLK inhibitor plus low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) had a higher response rate than patients who received LDAC alone—31% and 13.3%, respectively.

Trovagene said preclinical studies have shown that onvansertib synergizes with more than 10 drugs used to treat hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. This includes FLT3 and HDAC inhibitors, taxanes, and cytotoxins.

Trovagene is now conducting a phase 1b/2 trial of onvansertib in combination with standard care (LDAC or decitabine) in patients with AML (NCT03303339).

The company has already completed a phase 1 dose-escalation study of onvansertib in patients with advanced metastatic solid tumor malignancies. Results from this study were published in Investigational New Drugs.

About orphan designation

Orphan drug designation in Europe is available to companies developing products intended to treat a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition that affects fewer than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union (EU).

The designation allows for financial and regulatory incentives that include 10 years of marketing exclusivity in the EU after product approval, eligibility for conditional marketing authorization, protocol assistance from the European Medicines Agency at reduced fees during the product development phase, and direct access to centralized marketing authorization in the EU.

Image by Lance Liotta

The European Commission has granted orphan drug designation to onvansertib for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Onvansertib (formerly PCM-075) is an oral adenosine triphosphate competitive inhibitor of the serine/threonine Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) enzyme, which is overexpressed in hematologic and solid tumor malignancies.

Trovagene, Inc., the company developing onvansertib, said the drug has a 24-hour half-life with reversible, on-target hematologic activity.

These factors, combined with an improved dose/scheduling protocol, could mean onvansertib will improve upon long-term outcomes observed in previous studies with a PLK inhibitor in AML.

This includes a phase 2 study in which AML patients who received a PLK inhibitor plus low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) had a higher response rate than patients who received LDAC alone—31% and 13.3%, respectively.

Trovagene said preclinical studies have shown that onvansertib synergizes with more than 10 drugs used to treat hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. This includes FLT3 and HDAC inhibitors, taxanes, and cytotoxins.

Trovagene is now conducting a phase 1b/2 trial of onvansertib in combination with standard care (LDAC or decitabine) in patients with AML (NCT03303339).

The company has already completed a phase 1 dose-escalation study of onvansertib in patients with advanced metastatic solid tumor malignancies. Results from this study were published in Investigational New Drugs.

About orphan designation

Orphan drug designation in Europe is available to companies developing products intended to treat a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition that affects fewer than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union (EU).

The designation allows for financial and regulatory incentives that include 10 years of marketing exclusivity in the EU after product approval, eligibility for conditional marketing authorization, protocol assistance from the European Medicines Agency at reduced fees during the product development phase, and direct access to centralized marketing authorization in the EU.

© Nevit Dilmen

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality in postmenopausal women who develop multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

They found that high fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death in postmenopausal females with MM, independent of other clinical risk factors.

Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus, and her colleagues reported these findings in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The researchers studied 362 subjects in the Women’s Health Initiative data set who developed MM but had no history of any cancer at baseline. The women were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal when they were originally recruited at 40 US centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for the women using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Ninety-eight of the subjects were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P=0.044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 72% (n=71) of women with high FRAX scores and 59% (n=155) of women with low FRAX scores.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop MM, according to Dr. Rosko and her coauthors.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” the researchers wrote.

This work was supported, in part, by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

© Nevit Dilmen

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality in postmenopausal women who develop multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

They found that high fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death in postmenopausal females with MM, independent of other clinical risk factors.

Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus, and her colleagues reported these findings in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The researchers studied 362 subjects in the Women’s Health Initiative data set who developed MM but had no history of any cancer at baseline. The women were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal when they were originally recruited at 40 US centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for the women using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Ninety-eight of the subjects were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P=0.044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 72% (n=71) of women with high FRAX scores and 59% (n=155) of women with low FRAX scores.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop MM, according to Dr. Rosko and her coauthors.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” the researchers wrote.

This work was supported, in part, by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

© Nevit Dilmen

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality in postmenopausal women who develop multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

They found that high fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death in postmenopausal females with MM, independent of other clinical risk factors.

Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus, and her colleagues reported these findings in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The researchers studied 362 subjects in the Women’s Health Initiative data set who developed MM but had no history of any cancer at baseline. The women were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal when they were originally recruited at 40 US centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for the women using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Ninety-eight of the subjects were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P=0.044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 72% (n=71) of women with high FRAX scores and 59% (n=155) of women with low FRAX scores.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop MM, according to Dr. Rosko and her coauthors.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” the researchers wrote.

This work was supported, in part, by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Photo from Business Wire

Results of a phase 3 trial showed that prophylaxis with emicizumab significantly reduced bleeds, compared to no prophylaxis, in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.

Emicizumab also reduced bleeds when compared to prior factor VIII prophylaxis.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were injection site reactions, arthralgia, nasopharyngitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and influenza.

Johnny Mahlangu, MBBCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand and NHLS in Johannesburg, South Africa, and his colleagues reported these results, from the HAVEN 3 trial, in NEJM.

The trial was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical.

“In the HAVEN 3 study, [emicizumab] showed a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in bleeds in people with hemophilia A without factor VIII inhibitors, while offering multiple subcutaneous dosing options,” Dr. Mahlangu said.

“The publication of these results . . . represents a major advance for hemophilia research and reinforces the potential of [emicizumab] to change the standard of care for people with hemophilia A.”

HAVEN 3 included 152 patients with hemophilia A (age 12 and older) who were previously treated with factor VIII therapy either on-demand or for prophylaxis.

Patients previously treated with on-demand factor VIII were randomized in a 2:2:1 fashion to receive:

• Emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg/wk for at least 24 weeks (arm A)
• Emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 3 mg/kg/2wks for at least 24 weeks (arm B)
• No prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (arm C).

Patients previously treated with factor VIII prophylaxis received emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg/wk until the end of study (arm D).

Episodic treatment of breakthrough bleeds with factor VIII therapy was allowed per protocol.

Efficacy

Emicizumab reduced treated bleeds by 96% (rate ratio [RR]=0.04; P<0.0001) when given every week and 97% (RR=0.03; P<0.001) when given every 2 weeks, compared to no prophylaxis. The annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 1.5, 1.3, and 38.2, respectively.

Emicizumab reduced all bleeds by 95% (RR=0.05; P<0.001) when given every week and 94% (RR=0.06; P<0.001) when given every 2 weeks, compared to no prophylaxis. The ABR was 2.5, 2.6, and 47.6, respectively.

There were zero treated bleeds in 55.6% of patients who received emicizumab every week and 60% of patients who received emicizumab every 2 weeks, compared to 0% of patients who did not receive prophylaxis.

In an intra-patient comparison of people who previously received factor VIII prophylaxis in a prospective non-interventional study and switched to emicizumab prophylaxis, emicizumab reduced treated bleeds by 68% (RR=0.32; P<0.001).

The ABR was 1.5 when patients were on emicizumab and 4.8 when they were on prior prophylaxis.

Safety

The most common AEs were injection site reactions (25%), upper respiratory tract infection (11%), nasopharyngitis (12%), arthralgia (19%), headache (11%), and influenza (6%).

One patient in group B stopped treatment due to multiple low-grade AEs considered related to emicizumab. The AEs were insomnia (grade 2), alopecia (grade 1), nightmare (grade 2), lethargy (grade 2), pruritus (grade 1), headache (grade 1), and depressed mood (grade 1).

Serious AEs included bleeding events (n=4), cardiac disorder (n=1), infection (n=3), musculoskeletal disorders (n=3), loosening of an orthopedic device (n=1), psychiatric disorder (n=1), and trauma (n=1). One patient experienced nephrolithiasis after a dose increase to 3 mg/kg/wk.

None of the serious AEs were considered related to emicizumab.

There were no deaths, cases of thrombotic microangiopathy, thrombotic events, or new cases of factor VIII inhibitors.

Two patients had detectable inhibitors at baseline, but titers declined spontaneously during the trial. Another patient had a detectable inhibitor titer at week 13 that spontaneously declined at week 25.

Photo from Business Wire

Results of a phase 3 trial showed that prophylaxis with emicizumab significantly reduced bleeds, compared to no prophylaxis, in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.

Emicizumab also reduced bleeds when compared to prior factor VIII prophylaxis.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were injection site reactions, arthralgia, nasopharyngitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and influenza.

Johnny Mahlangu, MBBCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand and NHLS in Johannesburg, South Africa, and his colleagues reported these results, from the HAVEN 3 trial, in NEJM.

The trial was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical.

“In the HAVEN 3 study, [emicizumab] showed a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in bleeds in people with hemophilia A without factor VIII inhibitors, while offering multiple subcutaneous dosing options,” Dr. Mahlangu said.

“The publication of these results . . . represents a major advance for hemophilia research and reinforces the potential of [emicizumab] to change the standard of care for people with hemophilia A.”

HAVEN 3 included 152 patients with hemophilia A (age 12 and older) who were previously treated with factor VIII therapy either on-demand or for prophylaxis.

Patients previously treated with on-demand factor VIII were randomized in a 2:2:1 fashion to receive:

• Emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg/wk for at least 24 weeks (arm A)
• Emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 3 mg/kg/2wks for at least 24 weeks (arm B)
• No prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (arm C).

Patients previously treated with factor VIII prophylaxis received emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg/wk until the end of study (arm D).

Episodic treatment of breakthrough bleeds with factor VIII therapy was allowed per protocol.

Efficacy

Emicizumab reduced treated bleeds by 96% (rate ratio [RR]=0.04; P<0.0001) when given every week and 97% (RR=0.03; P<0.001) when given every 2 weeks, compared to no prophylaxis. The annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 1.5, 1.3, and 38.2, respectively.

Emicizumab reduced all bleeds by 95% (RR=0.05; P<0.001) when given every week and 94% (RR=0.06; P<0.001) when given every 2 weeks, compared to no prophylaxis. The ABR was 2.5, 2.6, and 47.6, respectively.

There were zero treated bleeds in 55.6% of patients who received emicizumab every week and 60% of patients who received emicizumab every 2 weeks, compared to 0% of patients who did not receive prophylaxis.

In an intra-patient comparison of people who previously received factor VIII prophylaxis in a prospective non-interventional study and switched to emicizumab prophylaxis, emicizumab reduced treated bleeds by 68% (RR=0.32; P<0.001).

The ABR was 1.5 when patients were on emicizumab and 4.8 when they were on prior prophylaxis.

Safety

The most common AEs were injection site reactions (25%), upper respiratory tract infection (11%), nasopharyngitis (12%), arthralgia (19%), headache (11%), and influenza (6%).

One patient in group B stopped treatment due to multiple low-grade AEs considered related to emicizumab. The AEs were insomnia (grade 2), alopecia (grade 1), nightmare (grade 2), lethargy (grade 2), pruritus (grade 1), headache (grade 1), and depressed mood (grade 1).

Serious AEs included bleeding events (n=4), cardiac disorder (n=1), infection (n=3), musculoskeletal disorders (n=3), loosening of an orthopedic device (n=1), psychiatric disorder (n=1), and trauma (n=1). One patient experienced nephrolithiasis after a dose increase to 3 mg/kg/wk.

None of the serious AEs were considered related to emicizumab.

There were no deaths, cases of thrombotic microangiopathy, thrombotic events, or new cases of factor VIII inhibitors.

Two patients had detectable inhibitors at baseline, but titers declined spontaneously during the trial. Another patient had a detectable inhibitor titer at week 13 that spontaneously declined at week 25.

Photo from Business Wire

Results of a phase 3 trial showed that prophylaxis with emicizumab significantly reduced bleeds, compared to no prophylaxis, in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.

Emicizumab also reduced bleeds when compared to prior factor VIII prophylaxis.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were injection site reactions, arthralgia, nasopharyngitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and influenza.

Johnny Mahlangu, MBBCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand and NHLS in Johannesburg, South Africa, and his colleagues reported these results, from the HAVEN 3 trial, in NEJM.

The trial was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical.

“In the HAVEN 3 study, [emicizumab] showed a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in bleeds in people with hemophilia A without factor VIII inhibitors, while offering multiple subcutaneous dosing options,” Dr. Mahlangu said.

“The publication of these results . . . represents a major advance for hemophilia research and reinforces the potential of [emicizumab] to change the standard of care for people with hemophilia A.”

HAVEN 3 included 152 patients with hemophilia A (age 12 and older) who were previously treated with factor VIII therapy either on-demand or for prophylaxis.

Patients previously treated with on-demand factor VIII were randomized in a 2:2:1 fashion to receive:

• Emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg/wk for at least 24 weeks (arm A)
• Emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 3 mg/kg/2wks for at least 24 weeks (arm B)
• No prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (arm C).

Patients previously treated with factor VIII prophylaxis received emicizumab prophylaxis at 3 mg/kg/wk for 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg/wk until the end of study (arm D).

Episodic treatment of breakthrough bleeds with factor VIII therapy was allowed per protocol.

Efficacy

Emicizumab reduced treated bleeds by 96% (rate ratio [RR]=0.04; P<0.0001) when given every week and 97% (RR=0.03; P<0.001) when given every 2 weeks, compared to no prophylaxis. The annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 1.5, 1.3, and 38.2, respectively.

Emicizumab reduced all bleeds by 95% (RR=0.05; P<0.001) when given every week and 94% (RR=0.06; P<0.001) when given every 2 weeks, compared to no prophylaxis. The ABR was 2.5, 2.6, and 47.6, respectively.

There were zero treated bleeds in 55.6% of patients who received emicizumab every week and 60% of patients who received emicizumab every 2 weeks, compared to 0% of patients who did not receive prophylaxis.

In an intra-patient comparison of people who previously received factor VIII prophylaxis in a prospective non-interventional study and switched to emicizumab prophylaxis, emicizumab reduced treated bleeds by 68% (RR=0.32; P<0.001).

The ABR was 1.5 when patients were on emicizumab and 4.8 when they were on prior prophylaxis.

Safety

The most common AEs were injection site reactions (25%), upper respiratory tract infection (11%), nasopharyngitis (12%), arthralgia (19%), headache (11%), and influenza (6%).

One patient in group B stopped treatment due to multiple low-grade AEs considered related to emicizumab. The AEs were insomnia (grade 2), alopecia (grade 1), nightmare (grade 2), lethargy (grade 2), pruritus (grade 1), headache (grade 1), and depressed mood (grade 1).

Serious AEs included bleeding events (n=4), cardiac disorder (n=1), infection (n=3), musculoskeletal disorders (n=3), loosening of an orthopedic device (n=1), psychiatric disorder (n=1), and trauma (n=1). One patient experienced nephrolithiasis after a dose increase to 3 mg/kg/wk.

None of the serious AEs were considered related to emicizumab.

There were no deaths, cases of thrombotic microangiopathy, thrombotic events, or new cases of factor VIII inhibitors.

Two patients had detectable inhibitors at baseline, but titers declined spontaneously during the trial. Another patient had a detectable inhibitor titer at week 13 that spontaneously declined at week 25.

Photo courtesy of Amgen

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the approved indication for blinatumomab (Blincyto®), a bispecific, CD19-directed, CD3 T-cell engager immunotherapy.

Blinatumomab is now approved as monotherapy for pediatric patients age 1 year or older who have relapsed/refractory, Philadelphia chromosome-negative, CD19-positive B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The patients must have received at least two prior therapies, or they must have relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

This approval of blinatumomab extends to all countries in the European Union, as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC previously approved blinatumomab to treat adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.

’205 study

The EC’s approval of blinatumomab in pediatric patients is based on results from the phase 1/2 ’205 study, which were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016.

The study included 93 pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL. Patients received blinatumomab as a continuous intravenous infusion—49 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial and 44 in phase 2. The patients were followed for 2 years.

There were 4 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the phase 1 portion of the trial, and 2 DLTs were fatal. Three patients had grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), one had grade 5 cardiac failure (as well as grade 4 CRS), and one had grade 5 respiratory failure.

Recommended dose

Based on the DLTs, the maximum-tolerated dose of blinatumomab was 15 µg/m²/day, but a step-wise dosage was recommended to reduce the risk of CRS. The recommended dose was 5 μg/m²/day on days 1-7 and 15 μg/m²/day on days 8-28 for cycle 1, and 15 μg/m²/day on days 1-28 for subsequent cycles.

Dose adjustment was possible in case of adverse events (AEs). Patients who responded to blinatumomab but later relapsed had the option to be retreated with blinatumomab.

Seventy patients received at least one infusion of blinatumomab at the recommended dose. The median number of treatment cycles was 1 (range, 1 to 5).

The patients’ median age was 8 years (range, 7 months to 17 years). Forty patients (57%) had undergone allogeneic transplant prior to receiving blinatumomab, and 39 (56%) had refractory disease.

Safety

The most common AEs among patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab were pyrexia (80%), anemia (41%), nausea (33%), and headache (30%).

The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs were anemia (36%), thrombocytopenia (21%), febrile neutropenia (17%), hypokalemia (17%), and neutropenia (17%).

Eight patients developed CRS. Three had grade 3 and one had grade 4 CRS.

Ten patients (14%) had treatment interruptions due to AEs, and 4 (6%) discontinued treatment permanently because of AEs.

Six patients had fatal AEs. Three died after they went on to allogeneic transplant—one of multiorgan failure, one of sepsis, and one of respiratory failure. The three other deaths were due to fungal infection, multiorgan failure, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and follow-up

Among the 70 patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab, 27 (39%) achieved a complete response (CR) within the first 2 cycles. Fourteen of these patients (52%) achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

Thirteen of the 27 patients (48%) who achieved a CR went on to receive an allogeneic transplant.

At the end of the 2-year follow-up, 4 of the 27 complete responders were still in remission.

Two of the patients had relapsed but were still alive, three had withdrawn consent (one in CR and two after relapse), three had died in CR after transplant, and 15 had relapsed and died.

Of the 43 patients who did not achieve a CR within the first two treatment cycles, 8 were still alive at the end of the 2-year follow-up.

Photo courtesy of Amgen

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the approved indication for blinatumomab (Blincyto®), a bispecific, CD19-directed, CD3 T-cell engager immunotherapy.

Blinatumomab is now approved as monotherapy for pediatric patients age 1 year or older who have relapsed/refractory, Philadelphia chromosome-negative, CD19-positive B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The patients must have received at least two prior therapies, or they must have relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

This approval of blinatumomab extends to all countries in the European Union, as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC previously approved blinatumomab to treat adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.

’205 study

The EC’s approval of blinatumomab in pediatric patients is based on results from the phase 1/2 ’205 study, which were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016.

The study included 93 pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL. Patients received blinatumomab as a continuous intravenous infusion—49 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial and 44 in phase 2. The patients were followed for 2 years.

There were 4 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the phase 1 portion of the trial, and 2 DLTs were fatal. Three patients had grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), one had grade 5 cardiac failure (as well as grade 4 CRS), and one had grade 5 respiratory failure.

Recommended dose

Based on the DLTs, the maximum-tolerated dose of blinatumomab was 15 µg/m²/day, but a step-wise dosage was recommended to reduce the risk of CRS. The recommended dose was 5 μg/m²/day on days 1-7 and 15 μg/m²/day on days 8-28 for cycle 1, and 15 μg/m²/day on days 1-28 for subsequent cycles.

Dose adjustment was possible in case of adverse events (AEs). Patients who responded to blinatumomab but later relapsed had the option to be retreated with blinatumomab.

Seventy patients received at least one infusion of blinatumomab at the recommended dose. The median number of treatment cycles was 1 (range, 1 to 5).

The patients’ median age was 8 years (range, 7 months to 17 years). Forty patients (57%) had undergone allogeneic transplant prior to receiving blinatumomab, and 39 (56%) had refractory disease.

Safety

The most common AEs among patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab were pyrexia (80%), anemia (41%), nausea (33%), and headache (30%).

The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs were anemia (36%), thrombocytopenia (21%), febrile neutropenia (17%), hypokalemia (17%), and neutropenia (17%).

Eight patients developed CRS. Three had grade 3 and one had grade 4 CRS.

Ten patients (14%) had treatment interruptions due to AEs, and 4 (6%) discontinued treatment permanently because of AEs.

Six patients had fatal AEs. Three died after they went on to allogeneic transplant—one of multiorgan failure, one of sepsis, and one of respiratory failure. The three other deaths were due to fungal infection, multiorgan failure, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and follow-up

Among the 70 patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab, 27 (39%) achieved a complete response (CR) within the first 2 cycles. Fourteen of these patients (52%) achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

Thirteen of the 27 patients (48%) who achieved a CR went on to receive an allogeneic transplant.

At the end of the 2-year follow-up, 4 of the 27 complete responders were still in remission.

Two of the patients had relapsed but were still alive, three had withdrawn consent (one in CR and two after relapse), three had died in CR after transplant, and 15 had relapsed and died.

Of the 43 patients who did not achieve a CR within the first two treatment cycles, 8 were still alive at the end of the 2-year follow-up.

Photo courtesy of Amgen

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the approved indication for blinatumomab (Blincyto®), a bispecific, CD19-directed, CD3 T-cell engager immunotherapy.

Blinatumomab is now approved as monotherapy for pediatric patients age 1 year or older who have relapsed/refractory, Philadelphia chromosome-negative, CD19-positive B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The patients must have received at least two prior therapies, or they must have relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

This approval of blinatumomab extends to all countries in the European Union, as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC previously approved blinatumomab to treat adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.

’205 study

The EC’s approval of blinatumomab in pediatric patients is based on results from the phase 1/2 ’205 study, which were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016.

The study included 93 pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL. Patients received blinatumomab as a continuous intravenous infusion—49 patients in the phase 1 portion of the trial and 44 in phase 2. The patients were followed for 2 years.

There were 4 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the phase 1 portion of the trial, and 2 DLTs were fatal. Three patients had grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), one had grade 5 cardiac failure (as well as grade 4 CRS), and one had grade 5 respiratory failure.

Recommended dose

Based on the DLTs, the maximum-tolerated dose of blinatumomab was 15 µg/m²/day, but a step-wise dosage was recommended to reduce the risk of CRS. The recommended dose was 5 μg/m²/day on days 1-7 and 15 μg/m²/day on days 8-28 for cycle 1, and 15 μg/m²/day on days 1-28 for subsequent cycles.

Dose adjustment was possible in case of adverse events (AEs). Patients who responded to blinatumomab but later relapsed had the option to be retreated with blinatumomab.

Seventy patients received at least one infusion of blinatumomab at the recommended dose. The median number of treatment cycles was 1 (range, 1 to 5).

The patients’ median age was 8 years (range, 7 months to 17 years). Forty patients (57%) had undergone allogeneic transplant prior to receiving blinatumomab, and 39 (56%) had refractory disease.

Safety

The most common AEs among patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab were pyrexia (80%), anemia (41%), nausea (33%), and headache (30%).

The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs were anemia (36%), thrombocytopenia (21%), febrile neutropenia (17%), hypokalemia (17%), and neutropenia (17%).

Eight patients developed CRS. Three had grade 3 and one had grade 4 CRS.

Ten patients (14%) had treatment interruptions due to AEs, and 4 (6%) discontinued treatment permanently because of AEs.

Six patients had fatal AEs. Three died after they went on to allogeneic transplant—one of multiorgan failure, one of sepsis, and one of respiratory failure. The three other deaths were due to fungal infection, multiorgan failure, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and follow-up

Among the 70 patients who received the recommended dose of blinatumomab, 27 (39%) achieved a complete response (CR) within the first 2 cycles. Fourteen of these patients (52%) achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

Thirteen of the 27 patients (48%) who achieved a CR went on to receive an allogeneic transplant.

At the end of the 2-year follow-up, 4 of the 27 complete responders were still in remission.

Two of the patients had relapsed but were still alive, three had withdrawn consent (one in CR and two after relapse), three had died in CR after transplant, and 15 had relapsed and died.

Of the 43 patients who did not achieve a CR within the first two treatment cycles, 8 were still alive at the end of the 2-year follow-up.