DOCSLIB.ORG

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Blinatumomab Vs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Blinatumomab Vs Adv Ther (2019) 36:950–961 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-0873-7 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Blinatumomab vs. Inotuzumab Ozogamicin for Adults with Relapsed/Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Jinlin Song . Qiufei Ma . Wei Gao . Ze Cong . Jipan Xie . Zachary Zimmerman . Laura Belton . Janet Franklin . Stephen Palmer Received: December 10, 2018 / Published online: February 13, 2019 Ó The Author(s) 2019 ABSTRACT 2? prior salvage therapies from TOWER were excluded because such patients were not inclu- Introduction: In the absence of head-to-head ded in INO-VATE-ALL. To ensure balance in the trials, this analysis aimed to provide a fair remaining patients, baseline characteristics for indirect comparison of the efficacy between the TOWER patients were weighted to match the blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin average baseline characteristics in INO-VATE- (InO), two treatments for adult patients with ALL, including sex, age, race, performance status, relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leu- bone marrow blast, previous salvage therapy, kemia (R/R ALL) who received no more than previous allogeneic transplantation, complete one prior salvage therapy, by adjusting for cross- remission with complete hematologic recovery trial differences. (CR) to most recent induction therapy, and Methods: Patient-level data from the Phase 3 duration of first remission. Overall survival (OS), blinatumomab trial TOWER and published including median and restricted mean survival aggregated data from the Phase 3 InO trial INO- time (RMST) at 12 and 20.7 months, and CR were VATE-ALL were used to conduct matching-ad- estimated and compared. justed indirect comparisons. Patients with Results: A total of 310 patients in TOWER were included (blinatumomab, n = 203; standard of Enhanced Digital Features To view enhanced digital care chemotherapy, n = 107). After matching features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/ the listed baseline characteristics, the median m9.figshare.7571138. OS was 9.3 months for blinatumomab and 7.7 months for InO (weighted log-rank test J. Song Á J. Xie p = 0.4). The relative RMST at 12 months was Analysis Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA 1.6 months longer for blinatumomab than for Q. Ma Á Z. Cong Á Z. Zimmerman Á J. Franklin InO [95% CI (0.1, 3.2); p = 0.04]; at 20.7 months Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA the RMST was not significantly different. The W. Gao (&) CR rates were similar [anchor-based differ- Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA ence = - 2.8%, 95% CI (- 17.5%, 11.9%); e-mail: [email protected] p = 0.71]. L. Belton Conclusions: After adjusting for cross-trial dif- LB Biostatistics, London, UK ferences, blinatumomab demonstrated a similar CR rate and potential OS benefit versus InO S. Palmer among adult patients with R/R ALL who Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK received no more than one prior salvage Adv Ther (2019) 36:950–961 951 therapy. Further studies are suggested to con- precursor B cell R/R ALL by the United States firm this finding. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July Funding: Amgen. 2017 (accelerated approval was granted in 2014) [11], and by the European Medicines Agency in Keywords: Blinatumomab; Complete remis- November 2015 (conditional approval) [12]. sion; Inotuzumab ozogamicin; Matching- A Phase III trial (TOWER) compared blinatu- adjusted indirect comparison; Overall survival; momab with standard of care (SOC) Relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic chemotherapy among patients with Ph- R/R leukemia B-cell ALL [13–16], and reported that the median OS was significantly higher for patients receiving blinatumomab (7.7 months) versus SOC INTRODUCTION chemotherapy (4.0 months), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is a rare of 0.55–0.93 (p = 0.01). Furthermore, 33.6% of but aggressive type of leukemia characterized by patients receiving blinatumomab achieved the proliferation of immature lymphoid cells in complete remission with full hematologic the bone marrow, peripheral blood, and other recovery (CR) within 12 weeks after the initia- organs [1]. Approximately 20% of ALL cases are tion, compared with 15.7% of patients receiving in adults (aged C 18 years) [2]. In Europe, the SOC chemotherapy (p \ 0.001). overall prevalence of ALL was approximately 1 InO is a humanized anti-CD22 antibody in 10,000 people in 2014 [3]. conjugated to calicheamicin (a potent cytotoxic Current treatments for ALL include antibiotic), which received FDA approval for chemotherapy, often with the intent of adult R/R B-cell precursor ALL in August 2017 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). [17]. In the Phase III trial INO-VATE-ALL, the There are usually three phases to chemother- CR rate in the intention-to-treat population was apy: induction, consolidation, and mainte- 33.5% in the InO arm compared to 16.0% in the nance. More than 80% of adults with ALL SOC chemotherapy arm [14]. There was not a achieve complete remission with intensive statistically significant improvement in the induction chemotherapy [2, 4–8]. Patients who median OS for InO compared to the chosen fail to respond to induction therapy are con- chemotherapy regimen. The median OS as of sidered to have refractory ALL. More than half January 5, 2017 was 7.7 (95% CI 6.0–9.2) of the patients who initially responded will months for InO versus 6.2 (4.7–8.3) months for ultimately relapse [2, 4–8], i.e., leukemia cells SOC chemotherapy patients, with a HR of 0.75 reappear in the bone marrow or peripheral (97.5% CI 0.57–0.99; p = 0.04, above the pre- blood after attaining complete remission. The specified two-sided significance level boundary prognosis of relapsed or refractory (R/R) ALL for of p = 0.0208) [16, 18]. adult patients is very poor, with a median Currently, there are no randomized head-to- overall survival (OS) of 3–6 months [9]. For head trials that have compared the effects of patients receiving first-line salvage chemother- blinatumomab versus InO. These two Phase III apy, 49% were alive after 6 months, 26% at trials have substantial differences in design and 1 year, and just 11% at 3 years [9]. patient characteristics, which make direct Blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin comparisons of treatment efficacy challenging. (InO) are two recently approved treatment For example, TOWER included patients with options recommended by the latest National more than one previous salvage therapy while Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for INO-VATE-ALL did not. In addition, higher adult patients with R/R ALL [10]. Blinatu- proportions of patients in the TOWER popula- momab is a bi-specific T cell engager antibody tion had C 50% blasts in the bone marrow and that targets the CD19 antigen present on B had previous HSCT compared to the INO-VATE- cells. It received full approval for the treatment ALL population. Based on the literature, all of of Philadelphia-chromosome-negative (Ph-) these three disease characteristics are important 952 Adv Ther (2019) 36:950–961 factors impacting patients’ outcomes [8, 19, 20]. R/R precursor B-cell ALL (untreated first relapse Therefore, conclusions based on a naı¨ve com- with first remission duration \ 12 months, parison without adjusting for patient charac- untreated second or greater relapse, or relapse at teristics differences between trials would be any time after allogeneic HSCT) [11]. Patients biased and can be misleading. Additionally, the were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to receive bli- two trials assessed complete remission differ- natumomab or SOC chemotherapy regimens. ently. CR, complete remission with partial Patients in the blinatumomab arm received two hematologic recovery (CRh) and complete induction cycles, with up to three consolidation remission with incomplete hematologic recov- cycles and up to 12 months of maintenance, if ery (CRi) were assessed as key secondary efficacy patients achieved a bone marrow response endpoints in TOWER, but only CR and CRi were (B 5% bone marrow blasts) or CR/CRh/CRi. assessed in INO-VATE-ALL. Aggregated data for the InO and SOC arms of Matching-adjusted indirect comparison the Phase III trial INO-VATE-ALL as of January (MAIC) is a credible and widely-used method 5, 2017 were extracted from the literature for comparing outcomes of interventions in the [14, 16, 18]. INO-VATE-ALL was a randomized, absence of head-to-head trials, and uses indi- open-label study of InO compared to SOC vidual patient data from trial(s) of one treat- chemotherapy in adult patients with R/R CD22- ment to match the baseline summary statistics positive ALL. The trial enrolled 326 patients reported from trial(s) of a comparator [21]. After who were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive matching, treatment outcomes are compared InO or SOC chemotherapy. Patients in the InO across balanced trial populations using an arm could receive up to 6 cycles with no approach similar to propensity score weighting. maintenance phase. It is one of the population-adjusted indirect As this was a post hoc analysis of previously comparison approaches recognized by the Uni- published data, no institutional board review ted Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and was required. This analysis followed the princi- Care Excellence and is well accepted across ples of the Declaration of Helsinki. various health technology assessment (HTA) bodies [22, 23]. To adjust for heterogeneity in Sample Selection enrollment criteria and baseline characteristics between the trial populations and to provide a The study populations of the INO-VATE-ALL fair comparison between blinatumomab and and TOWER trials were adults (aged C 18 years) InO, this analysis used MAIC to indirectly with R/R ALL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology compare efficacy (OS and CR) between these Group (ECOG) performance status B 2, and therapies for R/R ALL.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Monoclonal Antibody: a New Treatment Strategy Against Multiple Myeloma
    antibodies Review Monoclonal Antibody: A New Treatment Strategy against Multiple Myeloma Shih-Feng Cho 1,2,3, Liang Lin 3, Lijie Xing 3,4, Tengteng Yu 3, Kenneth Wen 3, Kenneth C. Anderson 3 and Yu-Tzu Tai 3,* 1 Division of Hematology & Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan 3 LeBow Institute for Myeloma Therapeutics and Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA; [email protected] (L.L.); [email protected] (L.X.); [email protected] (T.Y.); [email protected] (K.W.); [email protected] (K.C.A.) 4 Department of Hematology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No. 324, Jingwu Road, Jinan 250021, China * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-617-632-3875; Fax: +1-617-632-2140 Received: 20 October 2017; Accepted: 10 November 2017; Published: 14 November 2017 Abstract: 2015 was a groundbreaking year for the multiple myeloma community partly due to the breakthrough approval of the first two monoclonal antibodies in the treatment for patients with relapsed and refractory disease. Despite early disappointments, monoclonal antibodies targeting CD38 (daratumumab) and signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) (elotuzumab) have become available for patients with multiple myeloma in the same year. Specifically, phase 3 clinical trials of combination therapies incorporating daratumumab or elotuzumab indicate both efficacy and a very favorable toxicity profile. These therapeutic monoclonal antibodies for multiple myeloma can kill target cells via antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, complement-dependent cytotoxicity, and antibody-dependent phagocytosis, as well as by direct blockade of signaling cascades.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacologic Considerations in the Disposition of Antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Preclinical Models and in Patients
    antibodies Review Pharmacologic Considerations in the Disposition of Antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Preclinical Models and in Patients Andrew T. Lucas 1,2,3,*, Ryan Robinson 3, Allison N. Schorzman 2, Joseph A. Piscitelli 1, Juan F. Razo 1 and William C. Zamboni 1,2,3 1 University of North Carolina (UNC), Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; [email protected] (J.A.P.); [email protected] (J.F.R.); [email protected] (W.C.Z.) 2 Division of Pharmacotherapy and Experimental Therapeutics, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; [email protected] 3 Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-919-966-5242; Fax: +1-919-966-5863 Received: 30 November 2018; Accepted: 22 December 2018; Published: 1 January 2019 Abstract: The rapid advancement in the development of therapeutic proteins, including monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), has created a novel mechanism to selectively deliver highly potent cytotoxic agents in the treatment of cancer. These agents provide numerous benefits compared to traditional small molecule drugs, though their clinical use still requires optimization. The pharmacology of mAbs/ADCs is complex and because ADCs are comprised of multiple components, individual agent characteristics and patient variables can affect their disposition. To further improve the clinical use and rational development of these agents, it is imperative to comprehend the complex mechanisms employed by antibody-based agents in traversing numerous biological barriers and how agent/patient factors affect tumor delivery, toxicities, efficacy, and ultimately, biodistribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Blincyto Pi Hcp English.Pdf
    HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION These highlights do not include all the information needed to use BLINCYTO® safely and effectively. See full prescribing information for BLINCYTO. - Premedicate with dexamethasone. (2.2) BLINCYTO® (blinatumomab) for injection, for intravenous use • Refer to Full Prescribing Information for important preparation and Initial U.S. Approval: 2014 administration information. (2.4, 2.5, 2.6) • Administer as a continuous intravenous infusion at a constant flow rate using an infusion pump. (2.5, 2.6) WARNING: CYTOKINE RELEASE SYNDROME and - See Section 2.5 for infusion over 24 hours or 48 hours. NEUROLOGICAL TOXICITIES - See Section 2.6 for infusion over 7 days using Bacteriostatic 0.9% See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning. Sodium Chloride Injection, USP (containing 0.9% benzyl alcohol). This option is not recommended for patients weighing less than 22 kg. • Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS), which may be life-threatening or fatal, occurred in patients receiving BLINCYTO. Interrupt or ---------------------DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS---------------------- discontinue BLINCYTO and treat with corticosteroids as For injection: 35 mcg of lyophilized powder in a single-dose vial for recommended. (2.3, 5.1) reconstitution. (3) • Neurological toxicities, which may be severe, life-threatening, or fatal, occurred in patients receiving BLINCYTO. Interrupt or discontinue -------------------------------CONTRAINDICATIONS------------------------------ BLINCYTO as recommended. (2.3, 5.2) Known hypersensitivity
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential of Adoptive Transfer of Γ9δ2 T Cells to Enhance
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN The potential of adoptive transfer of γ9δ2 T cells to enhance blinatumomab’s antitumor activity against B‑cell malignancy Yun‑Hsiang Chen1, Yun Wang2, Cheng‑Hao Liao3 & Shu‑Ching Hsu4,5,6,7,8,9* Blinatumomab, a bispecifc T cell engager (BiTE) antibody targeting CD19 and CD3ε, can redirect T cells toward CD19‑positive tumor cells and has been approved to treat relapsed/refractory B‑cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B‑ALL). However, chemotherapeutic regimens can severely reduce T cells’ number and cytotoxic function, leading to an inadequate response to blinatumomab treatment in patients. In addition, it was reported that a substantial portion of R/R B‑ALL patients failing blinatumomab treatment had the extramedullary disease, indicating the poor ability of blinatumomab in treating extramedullary disease. In this study, we investigated whether the adoptive transfer of ex vivo expanded γ9δ2 T cells could act as the efector of blinatumomab to enhance blinatumomab’s antitumor activity against B‑cell malignancies in vivo. Repeated infusion of blinatumomab and human γ9δ2 T cells led to more prolonged survival than that of blinatumomab or human γ9δ2 T cells alone in the mice xenografted with Raji cells. Furthermore, adoptive transfer of γ9δ2 T cells reduced tumor mass outside the bone marrow, indicating the potential of γ9δ2 T cells to eradicate the extramedullary disease. Our results suggest that the addition of γ9δ2 T cells to the blinatumomab treatment regimens could be an efective approach to enhancing blinatumomab’s therapeutic efcacy. The concept of this strategy may also be applied to other antigen‑specifc BiTE therapies for other malignancies.
    [Show full text]
  • 1826 ALL FINAL 2[2].Pptx
    7/17/18 Treatment Challenges in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Pharmacists’ Key Roles in Ensuring Best Practices This educational activity is sponsored by Postgraduate Healthcare Education, LLC and supported by an educational grant from Pfizer. 1 7/17/18 Faculty Christopher A. Fausel, PharmD, MHA, BCOP Clinical Manager, Oncology Pharmacy Indiana University Health Chairman, Hoosier Cancer Research Network Indianapolis, Indiana Dr. Fausel is the Clinical Manager of the Oncology Pharmacy at the Indiana University, Simon Cancer Center in Indianapolis and oversees clinical and dispensing activities for oncology pharmacy services at Indiana University Health. He also serves as Chairman of the Board of the Hoosier Cancer Research Network, a non-profit organization that conducts clinical trials and translational research in cancer and is the administrative center of the Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium. Dr. Fausel is the Chair of a biomedical IRB and serves on the IRB Executive Committee for Indiana University. He is a long standing member of ASHP, ASCO and HOPA. He has authored numerous academic writings and is a nationally invited speaker on topics of oncology therapeutics and oncology pharmacy practice. Disclosures Dr. Fausel has no relevant affiliations or financial relationships with a commercial interest to disclose. The clinical reviewer, Megan May, PharmD, BCOP, has no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this program. Susanne Batesko, RN, BSN, Robin Soboti, RPh, and Susan R. Grady, MSN, RN-BC, as well as the planners, managers, and other individuals, not previously disclosed, who are in a position to control the content of Postgraduate Healthcare Education (PHE) continuing education activities hereby state that they have no relevant conflicts of interest and no financial relationships or relationships to products or devices during the past 12 months to disclose in relation to this activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Inotuzumab Ozogamicin) for Injection, for Intravenous Use for Injection: 0.9 Mg Lyophilized Powder in a Single-Dose Vial for Initial U.S
    HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION • See full prescribing information for instructions on reconstitution of These highlights do not include all the information needed to use lyophilized powder, and preparation and administration of reconstituted BESPONSA™ safely and effectively. See full prescribing information for drug. (2.4) BESPONSA. --------------------- DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS---------------------­ BESPONSA (inotuzumab ozogamicin) for injection, for intravenous use For injection: 0.9 mg lyophilized powder in a single-dose vial for Initial U.S. Approval: 2017 reconstitution and further dilution. (3) WARNING: HEPATOTOXICITY, INCLUDING HEPATIC VENO­ ------------------------------ CONTRAINDICATIONS -----------------------------­ OCCLUSIVE DISEASE (VOD) (ALSO KNOWN AS SINUSOIDAL None (4) OBSTRUCTION SYNDROME and INCREASED RISK OF POST­ HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANT (HSCT) NON­ ----------------------- WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS ----------------------­ RELAPSE MORTALITY • Myelosuppression: Monitor complete blood counts; for signs and See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning. symptoms of infection; bleeding/hemorrhage; or other effects of myelosuppression during treatment; manage appropriately. (5.3) • Hepatotoxicity, including fatal and life-threatening VOD occurred in • Infusion related reactions: Monitor for infusion related reactions during and patients who received BESPONSA. (5.1) for at least 1 hour after infusion ends. (5.4) • A higher post-HSCT non-relapse mortality rate occurred in patients • QT interval
    [Show full text]
  • High Risk Therapy Made Easy: Supporting High Risk Patients Through Complex Therapy
    8/21/2018 High Risk Therapy Made Easy: Supporting high risk patients through complex therapy Lori Ranney, MSN, APRN, CPNP, CPHON Mylynda Livingston, MSN, APRN, AC PC-PNP, CPON Teresa Herriage, DNP, APRN, CPNP, CPHON Children’s Minnesota Disclaimers and Confidentiality Protections Children’s Minnesota makes no representations or warranties about the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the content. Content is provided “as is” and is for informational use only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Children’s disclaims all warranties, express or implied, statutory or otherwise, including without limitation the implied warranties of merchantability, non-infringement of third parties’ rights, and fitness for a particular purpose. This content was developed for use in Children’s patient care environment and may not be suitable for use in other patient care environments. Children’s does not endorse, certify, or assess third parties’ competency. You hold all responsibility for your use or nonuse of the content. Children’s shall not be liable for claims, losses, or damages arising from or related to any use or misuse of the content. This content and its related discussions are privileged and confidential under Minnesota’s peer review statute (Minn. Stat. § 145.61 et. seq.). Do not disclose unless appropriately authorized. Notwithstanding the foregoing, content may be subject to copyright or trademark law; use of such information requires Children’s permission. This content may include patient protected health information. You agree to comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting patient privacy and security including the Minnesota Health Records Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its implementing regulations as amended from time to time.
    [Show full text]
  • Antibody-Drug Conjugates of Calicheamicin Derivative: Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin and Inotuzumab Ozogamicin
    CCR FOCUS Antibody-Drug Conjugates of Calicheamicin Derivative: Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin and Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Alejandro D. Ricart Abstract Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) are an attractive approach for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, which in most cases, are inherently sensitive to cytotoxic agents. CD33 and CD22 are specific markers of myeloid leukemias and B-cell malignancies, respectively. These endocytic receptors are ideal for an ADC strategy because they can effectively carry the cytotoxic payload into the cell. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg) and inotuzumab ozogamicin consist of a derivative of calichea- micin (a potent DNA-binding cytotoxic antibiotic) linked to a humanized monoclonal IgG4 antibody directed against CD33 or CD22, respectively. Both of these ADCs have a target-mediated pharmacokinetic disposition. GO was the first drug to prove the ADC concept in the clinic, specifically in phase II studies that included substantial proportions of older patients with relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. In contrast, in phase III studies, it has thus far failed to show clinical benefit in first-line treatment in combination with standard chemotherapy. Inotuzumab ozogamicin has shown remarkable clinical activity in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and it has started phase III evaluation. The safety profile of these ADCs includes reversible myelosuppression (especially neutropenia and thrombocyto- penia), elevated hepatic transaminases, and hyperbilirubinemia. There have been postmarketing reports of hepatotoxicity, especially veno-occlusive disease, associated with GO. The incidence is 2%, but patients who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have an increased risk. As we steadily move toward the goal of personalized medicine, these kinds of agents will provide a unique opportunity to treat selected patient subpopulations based on the expression of their specific tumor targets.
    [Show full text]
  • CDER Breakthrough Therapy Designation Approvals Data As of December 31, 2020 Total of 190 Approvals
    CDER Breakthrough Therapy Designation Approvals Data as of December 31, 2020 Total of 190 Approvals Submission Application Type and Proprietary Approval Use Number Number Name Established Name Applicant Date Treatment of patients with previously BLA 125486 ORIGINAL-1 GAZYVA OBINUTUZUMAB GENENTECH INC 01-Nov-2013 untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia in combination with chlorambucil Treatment of patients with mantle cell NDA 205552 ORIGINAL-1 IMBRUVICA IBRUTINIB PHARMACYCLICS LLC 13-Nov-2013 lymphoma (MCL) Treatment of chronic hepatitis C NDA 204671 ORIGINAL-1 SOVALDI SOFOSBUVIR GILEAD SCIENCES INC 06-Dec-2013 infection Treatment of cystic fibrosis patients age VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS NDA 203188 SUPPLEMENT-4 KALYDECO IVACAFTOR 21-Feb-2014 6 years and older who have mutations INC in the CFTR gene Treatment of previously untreated NOVARTIS patients with chronic lymphocytic BLA 125326 SUPPLEMENT-60 ARZERRA OFATUMUMAB PHARMACEUTICALS 17-Apr-2014 leukemia (CLL) for whom fludarabine- CORPORATION based therapy is considered inappropriate Treatment of patients with anaplastic NOVARTIS lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive NDA 205755 ORIGINAL-1 ZYKADIA CERITINIB 29-Apr-2014 PHARMACEUTICALS CORP metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on or are intolerant to crizotinib Treatment of relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), in combination with rituximab, in patients NDA 206545 ORIGINAL-1 ZYDELIG IDELALISIB GILEAD SCIENCES INC 23-Jul-2014 for whom rituximab alone would be considered appropriate therapy due to other co-morbidities
    [Show full text]
  • Immunotherapies Shape the Treatment Landscape for Hematologic Malignancies Jane De Lartigue, Phd
    Feature Immunotherapies shape the treatment landscape for hematologic malignancies Jane de Lartigue, PhD he treatment landscape for hematologic of TIL therapy has been predominantly limited to malignancies is evolving faster than ever melanoma.1,3,4 before, with a range of available therapeutic Most recently, there has been a substantial buzz Toptions that is now almost as diverse as this group around the idea of genetically engineering T cells of tumors. Immunotherapy in particular is front and before they are reintroduced into the patient, to center in the battle to control these diseases. Here, increase their anti-tumor efficacy and minimize we describe the latest promising developments. damage to healthy tissue. This is achieved either by manipulating the antigen binding portion of the Exploiting T cells T-cell receptor to alter its specificity (TCR T cells) The treatment landscape for hematologic malig- or by generating artificial fusion receptors known as nancies is diverse, but one particular type of therapy chimeric antigen receptors (CAR T cells; Figure 1). has led the charge in improving patient outcomes. The former is limited by the need for the TCR to be Several features of hematologic malignancies may genetically matched to the patient’s immune type, make them particularly amenable to immunother- whereas the latter is more flexible in this regard and apy, including the fact that they are derived from has proved most successful. corrupt immune cells and come into constant con- CARs are formed by fusing part of the single- tact with other immune cells within the hemato- chain variable fragment of a monoclonal antibody poietic environment in which they reside.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.01.582 Antibody-Drug Conjugates
    MEDICAL POLICY – 5.01.582 Antibody-Drug Conjugates Effective Date: June 1, 2021 RELATED MEDICAL POLICIES: Last Revised: May 11, 2021 None Replaces: N/A Select a hyperlink below to be directed to that section. POLICY CRITERIA | CODING | RELATED INFORMATION EVIDENCE REVIEW | REFERENCES | HISTORY ∞ Clicking this icon returns you to the hyperlinks menu above. Introduction An antibody is a blood protein. When the immune system detects an unhealthy cell, antibodies link to a molecule, known as an antigen, on the unhealthy cell. Monoclonal antibodies are produced in a laboratory. They are made to link to antigens usually found in high numbers on cancer cells. Antibody-drug conjugates combine monoclonal antibodies with certain chemotherapy drugs. The monoclonal antibodies find the cancer cells and the chemotherapy drug is released directly into those cells. The goal with this treatment is to target only cancer cells and spare nearby healthy cells. This policy describes when specific antibody-drug conjugates may be considered medically necessary. Note: The Introduction section is for your general knowledge and is not to be taken as policy coverage criteria. The rest of the policy uses specific words and concepts familiar to medical professionals. It is intended for providers. A provider can be a person, such as a doctor, nurse, psychologist, or dentist. A provider also can be a place where medical care is given, like a hospital, clinic, or lab. This policy informs them about when a service may be covered. Policy Coverage Criteria Drug Medical
    [Show full text]
  • Antibody-Drug Conjugate Resurgence Continues with Lumoxiti
    September 14, 2018 Antibody-drug conjugate resurgence continues with Lumoxiti Jacob Plieth With today’s approval of Astrazeneca’s Lumoxiti the US market has two antibody-drug conjugates against the CD22 antigen. While the first, Pfizer’s Besponsa, was approved a year ago for treating relapsed adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), Astra has positioned Lumoxiti against hairy cell leukaemia, a relatively rare malignancy. Both these haematological cancers affect B cells, hence the relevance of hitting CD22, an antigen present on this cell lineage. An important difference between Besponsa and Lumoxiti is the cytotoxic payload each carries – respectively calicheamicin, the same as that used in Pfizer’s Mylotarg, and Pseudomonas exotoxin A. And both drugs’ labels carry boxed warnings, respectively for liver damage and capillary leak syndrome, the toxicity that briefly derailed Stemline’s anti-CD123 conjugate SL-401. The next anti-CD22 asset to test the regulators could be Immunomedics’ epratuzumab, though as this is a standard “naked” antibody it is unlikely to match the efficacy of more advanced constructs like conjugates and bispecifics. The big competitor could emerge in the form of CD22-directed CAR-T therapy, though this is still some way off being commercialised. Anti-CD22 antibody-drug conjugates 2024e Lead Project Pharmacology class Company sales indication ($m) Approved Besponsa Anti-CD22 MAb-calicheamicin conjugate Pfizer/ UCB ALL 519 (inotuzumab ozogamicin) Lumoxiti (moxetumomab Hairy cell Anti-CD22 MAb-PE38 conjugate Astrazeneca 218 pasudotox) leukaemia Phase II Anti-CD22 MAb-monomethyl auristatin E Roche/ Seattle Pinatuzumab vedotin NHL NA conjugate Genetics Phase I Immunomedics/ BAY1862864 Anti-CD22 MAb-thorium 227 conjugate NHL NA Bayer Preclinical Anti-CD22 MAb-pyrrolobenzodiazepine ADC ASCT-602 NHL, ALL NA conjugate Therapeutics Triphase TRPH-222 Anti-CD22 MAb-4AP drug conjugate Accelerator/ NHL NA Celgene ALL=acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; NHL=non-Hodgkin lymphoma; NA=not available.
    [Show full text]