User login
EC approves BV plus AVD for Hodgkin lymphoma
The to treat adults with previously untreated, CD30+, stage IV Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).
This is the fifth approved indication for BV (adults with CD30+ HL at increased risk of relapse or progression after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); relapsed or refractory, CD30+ HL after ASCT or at least two prior therapies when ASCT or multi-agent chemotherapy is not an option; relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; and CD30+ cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.
The EC’s approval of BV plus AVD is supported by the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:331-44).
ECHELON-1 included 1,334 patients with advanced HL who received BV plus AVD (n = 664) or doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD, n = 670) as frontline treatment.
The study's primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival (PFS), which was defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.
According to an independent review committee, BV plus AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS. The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82% in the BV-AVD arm and 77% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio = 0.77; P = .04).
There was no significant difference between the treatment arms in response rates or overall survival.
The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the BV-AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.
Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with BV-AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.
The ECHELON-1 trial was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals (a Takeda company) in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
The to treat adults with previously untreated, CD30+, stage IV Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).
This is the fifth approved indication for BV (adults with CD30+ HL at increased risk of relapse or progression after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); relapsed or refractory, CD30+ HL after ASCT or at least two prior therapies when ASCT or multi-agent chemotherapy is not an option; relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; and CD30+ cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.
The EC’s approval of BV plus AVD is supported by the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:331-44).
ECHELON-1 included 1,334 patients with advanced HL who received BV plus AVD (n = 664) or doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD, n = 670) as frontline treatment.
The study's primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival (PFS), which was defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.
According to an independent review committee, BV plus AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS. The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82% in the BV-AVD arm and 77% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio = 0.77; P = .04).
There was no significant difference between the treatment arms in response rates or overall survival.
The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the BV-AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.
Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with BV-AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.
The ECHELON-1 trial was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals (a Takeda company) in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
The to treat adults with previously untreated, CD30+, stage IV Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).
This is the fifth approved indication for BV (adults with CD30+ HL at increased risk of relapse or progression after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); relapsed or refractory, CD30+ HL after ASCT or at least two prior therapies when ASCT or multi-agent chemotherapy is not an option; relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; and CD30+ cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.
The EC’s approval of BV plus AVD is supported by the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:331-44).
ECHELON-1 included 1,334 patients with advanced HL who received BV plus AVD (n = 664) or doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD, n = 670) as frontline treatment.
The study's primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival (PFS), which was defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.
According to an independent review committee, BV plus AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS. The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82% in the BV-AVD arm and 77% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio = 0.77; P = .04).
There was no significant difference between the treatment arms in response rates or overall survival.
The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the BV-AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.
Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with BV-AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.
The ECHELON-1 trial was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals (a Takeda company) in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.
FDA panel tackles mesh for anterior repair of POP
Patient-reported outcomes should be the priority consideration for determining whether the three synthetic mesh devices currently available for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in the anterior vaginal compartment should remain on the market, according to the Food and Drug Administration Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices panel.
The panel was convened in February 2019 to advise the Food and Drug Administration on how it should evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the three currently marketed devices – each of which has ongoing postmarket surveillance studies – as well as any other similar devices that come up for premarket approval in the future.
The panel’s main messages: Subjective outcomes are what really matter – even more so than anatomic or objective outcomes – as does long-term follow-up.
“ “compared to native tissue repair,” said panel chair Keith Isaacson, MD, medical director of the Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass. “But we feel that, if we had to score [each category of outcome], about 75% should be subjective.”
The three devices currently marketed for transvaginal repair of POP (Boston Scientific’s Uphold LITE and Xenform, as well as Coloplast’s Restorelle DirectFix Anterior) are being scrutinized under a new regulatory paradigm and amid a charged backdrop of safety warnings and years of lawsuits regarding debilitating complications following surgeries that involved the implantation of synthetic vaginal mesh.
The two manufacturers of the currently available devices launched postmarket surveillance studies, called 522 studies, after the FDA issued postmarket surveillance study orders in 2012 to all manufacturers of surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP. (Most companies chose at the time to pull their products from the market.) This FDA action, along with a reclassification of the devices from class II to the high-risk class III, had been recommended at a 2011 meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices panel.
In anticipation of a future reclassification, the 522 studies were designed at the time to support future premarket approval (PMA) applications, as advised by the FDA. Now, as a result of the 2016 reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal POP repair to class III – and the companies’ subsequent PMA applications – the FDA is reviewing the ongoing postmarket study results with a PMA lens to determine each device’s benefit/risk profile.
It’s a challenging assessment to make, FDA officials said.
The agency reported to the panel that a search of medical device reports from 2008 to 2018 identified 11,274 adverse events associated with mesh placed in the anterior vaginal compartment to treat POP. These included 10,391 reports of serious injury, 806 reports of device malfunctions, and 77 reports of death.
Findings from an FDA literature review covering the same period and also focusing on anterior and/or apical repair show that synthetic mesh may have some advantage over native tissue repair for objective effectiveness outcomes – but not necessarily subjective outcomes – over 1-3 years of follow-up. And the risks of using mesh are greater, particularly with respect to reoperation for recurrence and mesh complications, the latter of which continued beyond the first year of follow-up and through 5 years, the agency said.
Although the review may help the FDA frame its questions moving forward, it has limited utility beyond that, according to urogynecologic surgeons who testified on behalf of three professional societies. The review does not delineate differences between the newer materials used today and older mesh materials that were of heavier weight/higher mesh density and often placed using more invasive delivery systems. Nor does it offer any insight on the use of mesh for secondary repair.
“Much of the existing data on the use of transvaginal mesh in POP surgery comes from low to moderate quality, short-term studies of synthetic mesh that is no longer used in clinical practice,” said Cheryl Iglesia, MD, a Washington-based ob.gyn. who spoke to the advisory panel on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “There’s a critical need for data from high-quality studies on the use of the newer, lightweight type 1 transvaginal meshes used in POP surgery.”
The FDA’s 522 orders requested that manufacturers conduct a randomized, controlled study or parallel cohort study comparing their device to native tissue repair. Requested effectiveness endpoints included anatomic success, subjective success, and retreatment for prolapse. For safety endpoints, the agency requested all device- and procedure-related adverse events, as well as the rate of individual adverse events, such as mesh erosion and de novo dyspareunia and urinary dysfunction. The FDA asked for all endpoints at 6-month intervals out to 24 months and at 36 months.
The panel advised that superiority should be the standard for the general population of women with POP – that mesh used in the anterior/apical vaginal compartment should be shown to be superior to native tissue repair at each time point. In specific patient populations for whom native tissue repair is not deemed feasible or appropriate, demonstrating equivalence is sufficient, they advised.
They called for “more diligent” presurgical assessments of sexual function and activity, as well as other symptoms that will be assessed later. And the panel agreed with the FDA that concomitant procedures (for example, hysterectomy and sling placement) and certain preexisting medical conditions and patient characteristics (such as obesity and diabetes) can affect outcomes and should be delineated and considered in the FDA’s evaluations and interpretation of study results.
Regarding surgeon characteristics, the panel’s biostatisticians and physicians (largely urogynecologists, but also one community ob.gyn.) advised the FDA to pay attention to surgeon training, experience, and volume, but they declined to offer any specific recommendations. Discussions often came back to the value of a registry that would capture both surgeon data and patient experience. And throughout the panel’s discussion, surgeons stepped away from the main questions at hand and emphasized the individualized nature of risk-benefit ratios and decision making.
Registries have been successfully used for cardiology and orthopedic implants and, within obstetrics and gynecology, for assisted reproductive technologies, Dr. Iglesia said in an interview after the meeting. “We have models … we just need to make it easy for physicians, using our EMRs. But I’m hopeful.”
The American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) operates a quality improvement registry (AQUIRE) that is collecting information on surgical and nonsurgical treatment of POP and stress urinary incontinence – including surgical complications – from a diverse group of physicians, not just those at academic medical centers. AUGS is growing its registry this year to include device identifiers and patient-reported outcomes that are sent directly to the registry by the patient.
The panel generally agreed that postmarket follow-up of synthetic mesh for transvaginal anterior repair of POP should extend up to 5 years, Dr. Isaacson said, though “from the patients’ perspective, 10 years of experience [is meaningful].”
Geoffrey Cundiff, MD, who is AUGS president, told the committee that there are lessons to be gleaned from the CARE trial, which looked at outcomes up to 7 years after abdominal sacrocolpopexy (JAMA. 2013 May 15;309[19]:2016-24). “At 7 years, the complications [including rates of mesh erosion] had increased,” he said. “It’s a different procedure, but it’s a good example.”
Prior to its deliberations, the panel heard preliminary results of the ongoing SUPeR trial (Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jul-Aug;22[4]:182-9), a randomized, controlled superiority trial of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension versus uterine conservation with vaginal mesh (Boston Scientific’s Uphold LITE) hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Researchers have found comparable rates of primary outcome success – no objective prolapse beyond the hymen, no retreatment, and no bulge symptoms – through 36 months and no differences in patient-reported outcomes thus far.
Hysteroplexy mesh exposure rates were approximately 8% at 36 months, and suture exposure and excessive granulation were 11%-20% in the hysterectomy group. None of these exposure cases has required reoperation. Both groups have shown improvements in sexual function and decreases in dyspareunia, said Charles W. Nager, MD, a San Diego ob.gyn. who is primary investigator of the trial.
The trial is sponsored by the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as was the CARE trial of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. It is following patients for 60 months and collecting data every 6 months, including data from validated functional and quality of life assessments. Patients were masked to their treatment assignment to eliminate patient reporting bias. At 36 months, approximately three-quarters of the patients in each group remained masked.
In addition to the ongoing 522 studies for anterior/apical prolapse, there is another 522 study underway of a mesh device designed for transvaginal repair of total prolapse (the Acell Matristem Pelvic Floor Repair Matrix). In addition, Coloplast is studying a mesh device designed for posterior/apical prolapse (Restorelle DirectFix) as part of its 522 study. Neither device is being marketed currently, however.
Patient-reported outcomes should be the priority consideration for determining whether the three synthetic mesh devices currently available for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in the anterior vaginal compartment should remain on the market, according to the Food and Drug Administration Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices panel.
The panel was convened in February 2019 to advise the Food and Drug Administration on how it should evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the three currently marketed devices – each of which has ongoing postmarket surveillance studies – as well as any other similar devices that come up for premarket approval in the future.
The panel’s main messages: Subjective outcomes are what really matter – even more so than anatomic or objective outcomes – as does long-term follow-up.
“ “compared to native tissue repair,” said panel chair Keith Isaacson, MD, medical director of the Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass. “But we feel that, if we had to score [each category of outcome], about 75% should be subjective.”
The three devices currently marketed for transvaginal repair of POP (Boston Scientific’s Uphold LITE and Xenform, as well as Coloplast’s Restorelle DirectFix Anterior) are being scrutinized under a new regulatory paradigm and amid a charged backdrop of safety warnings and years of lawsuits regarding debilitating complications following surgeries that involved the implantation of synthetic vaginal mesh.
The two manufacturers of the currently available devices launched postmarket surveillance studies, called 522 studies, after the FDA issued postmarket surveillance study orders in 2012 to all manufacturers of surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP. (Most companies chose at the time to pull their products from the market.) This FDA action, along with a reclassification of the devices from class II to the high-risk class III, had been recommended at a 2011 meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices panel.
In anticipation of a future reclassification, the 522 studies were designed at the time to support future premarket approval (PMA) applications, as advised by the FDA. Now, as a result of the 2016 reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal POP repair to class III – and the companies’ subsequent PMA applications – the FDA is reviewing the ongoing postmarket study results with a PMA lens to determine each device’s benefit/risk profile.
It’s a challenging assessment to make, FDA officials said.
The agency reported to the panel that a search of medical device reports from 2008 to 2018 identified 11,274 adverse events associated with mesh placed in the anterior vaginal compartment to treat POP. These included 10,391 reports of serious injury, 806 reports of device malfunctions, and 77 reports of death.
Findings from an FDA literature review covering the same period and also focusing on anterior and/or apical repair show that synthetic mesh may have some advantage over native tissue repair for objective effectiveness outcomes – but not necessarily subjective outcomes – over 1-3 years of follow-up. And the risks of using mesh are greater, particularly with respect to reoperation for recurrence and mesh complications, the latter of which continued beyond the first year of follow-up and through 5 years, the agency said.
Although the review may help the FDA frame its questions moving forward, it has limited utility beyond that, according to urogynecologic surgeons who testified on behalf of three professional societies. The review does not delineate differences between the newer materials used today and older mesh materials that were of heavier weight/higher mesh density and often placed using more invasive delivery systems. Nor does it offer any insight on the use of mesh for secondary repair.
“Much of the existing data on the use of transvaginal mesh in POP surgery comes from low to moderate quality, short-term studies of synthetic mesh that is no longer used in clinical practice,” said Cheryl Iglesia, MD, a Washington-based ob.gyn. who spoke to the advisory panel on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “There’s a critical need for data from high-quality studies on the use of the newer, lightweight type 1 transvaginal meshes used in POP surgery.”
The FDA’s 522 orders requested that manufacturers conduct a randomized, controlled study or parallel cohort study comparing their device to native tissue repair. Requested effectiveness endpoints included anatomic success, subjective success, and retreatment for prolapse. For safety endpoints, the agency requested all device- and procedure-related adverse events, as well as the rate of individual adverse events, such as mesh erosion and de novo dyspareunia and urinary dysfunction. The FDA asked for all endpoints at 6-month intervals out to 24 months and at 36 months.
The panel advised that superiority should be the standard for the general population of women with POP – that mesh used in the anterior/apical vaginal compartment should be shown to be superior to native tissue repair at each time point. In specific patient populations for whom native tissue repair is not deemed feasible or appropriate, demonstrating equivalence is sufficient, they advised.
They called for “more diligent” presurgical assessments of sexual function and activity, as well as other symptoms that will be assessed later. And the panel agreed with the FDA that concomitant procedures (for example, hysterectomy and sling placement) and certain preexisting medical conditions and patient characteristics (such as obesity and diabetes) can affect outcomes and should be delineated and considered in the FDA’s evaluations and interpretation of study results.
Regarding surgeon characteristics, the panel’s biostatisticians and physicians (largely urogynecologists, but also one community ob.gyn.) advised the FDA to pay attention to surgeon training, experience, and volume, but they declined to offer any specific recommendations. Discussions often came back to the value of a registry that would capture both surgeon data and patient experience. And throughout the panel’s discussion, surgeons stepped away from the main questions at hand and emphasized the individualized nature of risk-benefit ratios and decision making.
Registries have been successfully used for cardiology and orthopedic implants and, within obstetrics and gynecology, for assisted reproductive technologies, Dr. Iglesia said in an interview after the meeting. “We have models … we just need to make it easy for physicians, using our EMRs. But I’m hopeful.”
The American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) operates a quality improvement registry (AQUIRE) that is collecting information on surgical and nonsurgical treatment of POP and stress urinary incontinence – including surgical complications – from a diverse group of physicians, not just those at academic medical centers. AUGS is growing its registry this year to include device identifiers and patient-reported outcomes that are sent directly to the registry by the patient.
The panel generally agreed that postmarket follow-up of synthetic mesh for transvaginal anterior repair of POP should extend up to 5 years, Dr. Isaacson said, though “from the patients’ perspective, 10 years of experience [is meaningful].”
Geoffrey Cundiff, MD, who is AUGS president, told the committee that there are lessons to be gleaned from the CARE trial, which looked at outcomes up to 7 years after abdominal sacrocolpopexy (JAMA. 2013 May 15;309[19]:2016-24). “At 7 years, the complications [including rates of mesh erosion] had increased,” he said. “It’s a different procedure, but it’s a good example.”
Prior to its deliberations, the panel heard preliminary results of the ongoing SUPeR trial (Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jul-Aug;22[4]:182-9), a randomized, controlled superiority trial of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension versus uterine conservation with vaginal mesh (Boston Scientific’s Uphold LITE) hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Researchers have found comparable rates of primary outcome success – no objective prolapse beyond the hymen, no retreatment, and no bulge symptoms – through 36 months and no differences in patient-reported outcomes thus far.
Hysteroplexy mesh exposure rates were approximately 8% at 36 months, and suture exposure and excessive granulation were 11%-20% in the hysterectomy group. None of these exposure cases has required reoperation. Both groups have shown improvements in sexual function and decreases in dyspareunia, said Charles W. Nager, MD, a San Diego ob.gyn. who is primary investigator of the trial.
The trial is sponsored by the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as was the CARE trial of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. It is following patients for 60 months and collecting data every 6 months, including data from validated functional and quality of life assessments. Patients were masked to their treatment assignment to eliminate patient reporting bias. At 36 months, approximately three-quarters of the patients in each group remained masked.
In addition to the ongoing 522 studies for anterior/apical prolapse, there is another 522 study underway of a mesh device designed for transvaginal repair of total prolapse (the Acell Matristem Pelvic Floor Repair Matrix). In addition, Coloplast is studying a mesh device designed for posterior/apical prolapse (Restorelle DirectFix) as part of its 522 study. Neither device is being marketed currently, however.
Patient-reported outcomes should be the priority consideration for determining whether the three synthetic mesh devices currently available for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in the anterior vaginal compartment should remain on the market, according to the Food and Drug Administration Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices panel.
The panel was convened in February 2019 to advise the Food and Drug Administration on how it should evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the three currently marketed devices – each of which has ongoing postmarket surveillance studies – as well as any other similar devices that come up for premarket approval in the future.
The panel’s main messages: Subjective outcomes are what really matter – even more so than anatomic or objective outcomes – as does long-term follow-up.
“ “compared to native tissue repair,” said panel chair Keith Isaacson, MD, medical director of the Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass. “But we feel that, if we had to score [each category of outcome], about 75% should be subjective.”
The three devices currently marketed for transvaginal repair of POP (Boston Scientific’s Uphold LITE and Xenform, as well as Coloplast’s Restorelle DirectFix Anterior) are being scrutinized under a new regulatory paradigm and amid a charged backdrop of safety warnings and years of lawsuits regarding debilitating complications following surgeries that involved the implantation of synthetic vaginal mesh.
The two manufacturers of the currently available devices launched postmarket surveillance studies, called 522 studies, after the FDA issued postmarket surveillance study orders in 2012 to all manufacturers of surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP. (Most companies chose at the time to pull their products from the market.) This FDA action, along with a reclassification of the devices from class II to the high-risk class III, had been recommended at a 2011 meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices panel.
In anticipation of a future reclassification, the 522 studies were designed at the time to support future premarket approval (PMA) applications, as advised by the FDA. Now, as a result of the 2016 reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal POP repair to class III – and the companies’ subsequent PMA applications – the FDA is reviewing the ongoing postmarket study results with a PMA lens to determine each device’s benefit/risk profile.
It’s a challenging assessment to make, FDA officials said.
The agency reported to the panel that a search of medical device reports from 2008 to 2018 identified 11,274 adverse events associated with mesh placed in the anterior vaginal compartment to treat POP. These included 10,391 reports of serious injury, 806 reports of device malfunctions, and 77 reports of death.
Findings from an FDA literature review covering the same period and also focusing on anterior and/or apical repair show that synthetic mesh may have some advantage over native tissue repair for objective effectiveness outcomes – but not necessarily subjective outcomes – over 1-3 years of follow-up. And the risks of using mesh are greater, particularly with respect to reoperation for recurrence and mesh complications, the latter of which continued beyond the first year of follow-up and through 5 years, the agency said.
Although the review may help the FDA frame its questions moving forward, it has limited utility beyond that, according to urogynecologic surgeons who testified on behalf of three professional societies. The review does not delineate differences between the newer materials used today and older mesh materials that were of heavier weight/higher mesh density and often placed using more invasive delivery systems. Nor does it offer any insight on the use of mesh for secondary repair.
“Much of the existing data on the use of transvaginal mesh in POP surgery comes from low to moderate quality, short-term studies of synthetic mesh that is no longer used in clinical practice,” said Cheryl Iglesia, MD, a Washington-based ob.gyn. who spoke to the advisory panel on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “There’s a critical need for data from high-quality studies on the use of the newer, lightweight type 1 transvaginal meshes used in POP surgery.”
The FDA’s 522 orders requested that manufacturers conduct a randomized, controlled study or parallel cohort study comparing their device to native tissue repair. Requested effectiveness endpoints included anatomic success, subjective success, and retreatment for prolapse. For safety endpoints, the agency requested all device- and procedure-related adverse events, as well as the rate of individual adverse events, such as mesh erosion and de novo dyspareunia and urinary dysfunction. The FDA asked for all endpoints at 6-month intervals out to 24 months and at 36 months.
The panel advised that superiority should be the standard for the general population of women with POP – that mesh used in the anterior/apical vaginal compartment should be shown to be superior to native tissue repair at each time point. In specific patient populations for whom native tissue repair is not deemed feasible or appropriate, demonstrating equivalence is sufficient, they advised.
They called for “more diligent” presurgical assessments of sexual function and activity, as well as other symptoms that will be assessed later. And the panel agreed with the FDA that concomitant procedures (for example, hysterectomy and sling placement) and certain preexisting medical conditions and patient characteristics (such as obesity and diabetes) can affect outcomes and should be delineated and considered in the FDA’s evaluations and interpretation of study results.
Regarding surgeon characteristics, the panel’s biostatisticians and physicians (largely urogynecologists, but also one community ob.gyn.) advised the FDA to pay attention to surgeon training, experience, and volume, but they declined to offer any specific recommendations. Discussions often came back to the value of a registry that would capture both surgeon data and patient experience. And throughout the panel’s discussion, surgeons stepped away from the main questions at hand and emphasized the individualized nature of risk-benefit ratios and decision making.
Registries have been successfully used for cardiology and orthopedic implants and, within obstetrics and gynecology, for assisted reproductive technologies, Dr. Iglesia said in an interview after the meeting. “We have models … we just need to make it easy for physicians, using our EMRs. But I’m hopeful.”
The American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) operates a quality improvement registry (AQUIRE) that is collecting information on surgical and nonsurgical treatment of POP and stress urinary incontinence – including surgical complications – from a diverse group of physicians, not just those at academic medical centers. AUGS is growing its registry this year to include device identifiers and patient-reported outcomes that are sent directly to the registry by the patient.
The panel generally agreed that postmarket follow-up of synthetic mesh for transvaginal anterior repair of POP should extend up to 5 years, Dr. Isaacson said, though “from the patients’ perspective, 10 years of experience [is meaningful].”
Geoffrey Cundiff, MD, who is AUGS president, told the committee that there are lessons to be gleaned from the CARE trial, which looked at outcomes up to 7 years after abdominal sacrocolpopexy (JAMA. 2013 May 15;309[19]:2016-24). “At 7 years, the complications [including rates of mesh erosion] had increased,” he said. “It’s a different procedure, but it’s a good example.”
Prior to its deliberations, the panel heard preliminary results of the ongoing SUPeR trial (Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jul-Aug;22[4]:182-9), a randomized, controlled superiority trial of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension versus uterine conservation with vaginal mesh (Boston Scientific’s Uphold LITE) hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Researchers have found comparable rates of primary outcome success – no objective prolapse beyond the hymen, no retreatment, and no bulge symptoms – through 36 months and no differences in patient-reported outcomes thus far.
Hysteroplexy mesh exposure rates were approximately 8% at 36 months, and suture exposure and excessive granulation were 11%-20% in the hysterectomy group. None of these exposure cases has required reoperation. Both groups have shown improvements in sexual function and decreases in dyspareunia, said Charles W. Nager, MD, a San Diego ob.gyn. who is primary investigator of the trial.
The trial is sponsored by the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as was the CARE trial of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. It is following patients for 60 months and collecting data every 6 months, including data from validated functional and quality of life assessments. Patients were masked to their treatment assignment to eliminate patient reporting bias. At 36 months, approximately three-quarters of the patients in each group remained masked.
In addition to the ongoing 522 studies for anterior/apical prolapse, there is another 522 study underway of a mesh device designed for transvaginal repair of total prolapse (the Acell Matristem Pelvic Floor Repair Matrix). In addition, Coloplast is studying a mesh device designed for posterior/apical prolapse (Restorelle DirectFix) as part of its 522 study. Neither device is being marketed currently, however.
FDA approves daratumumab split-dosing regimen in MM
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
FDA panels back intranasal esketamine for refractory depression
ROCKVILLE, MD – If approved for treatment-resistant depression, intranasal esketamine will be strictly regulated in the clinic, with federal monitoring requirements designed to prevent misuse, abuse, or diversion of the drug.
Managed under a Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), such a program would establish a stringent post-administration protocol of observation and blood pressure monitoring and require every provider – whether a large health care center or a single clinician – to obtain federal certification to dispense the medication.
At a joint meeting of FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory committees, some members offered a more tempered view while still supporting the approval pathway of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. By a vote of 14-2, with one abstention, they agreed Feb. 12 that the benefits outweigh the risks of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression.
“I think it has the potential to be a game changer in treatment-resistant depression,” said Walter Dunn, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. “We may someday talk about 2019 in the same way we now talk about the late ’80s, when the first [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors] were approved.”
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the drug, incorporated concerns about misuse from the beginning. Even the delivery device is designed to prevent such issues, a company spokesman said.
Each disposable intranasal delivery device contains 28 mg esketamine; it will come in prepackaged units of one, two, or three devices to deliver the prescribed doses of 28 mg, 56 mg, or 84 mg, respectively. The device does not require priming and, after use, contains only about 30 microliters of residual medication. Its interlocking design, with a glass vial inside the plastic outer assembly, would make it very difficult to pull apart, should anyone want to obtain the residue.
The proposed REMS – the key requirement for approval at this point – would include the following measures:
- Prescriber training on the risks of esketamine and importance of monitoring patients after their dose is administered and the need to register patients
- Administration of esketamine only in certain health care settings that ensure patient monitoring by a health care clinician for 2 hours after administration
- Pharmacies, clinicians, or health care settings that dispense the drug are specially certified to ensure that esketamine is not dispensed directly to patients and that patients are monitored
- Enrollment of patients who are treated with esketamine in a registry to better characterize the risks associated with esketamine administration and inform risk mitigation strategies
After administration, patients would be monitored for at least 2 hours for the common side effects, sedation and dissociation that typically clear within that time. Transient blood pressure fluctuations also can occur shortly after administration and would be monitored until stable. Patients should also be counseled not to drive the day of treatment, and to bring a companion along to drive them home.
Dr. Dunn, however, suggested that some facets of the proposed REMS might create unnecessary barriers for some patients and that stringent monitoring after every single dose – potentially for years – might not be necessary for everyone.
“The REM is certainly important to address the potential for diversion and misuse and adverse effects, but there needs to be a pathway to reduce monitoring requirements” on an individual basis. “If a patient is doing well for a year or so, in remission with no side effects, we should have a way to reduce the need for monitoring. If we make it too much of a burden to go in, get the medication, stay for a couple of hours for monitoring, it’s easy to skip a dose. And we know the number one predictor of relapse is medication nonadherence.”
The facility certification requirement also could curtail access to esketamine, said Steven B. Meisel, PharmD, of Minneapolis.
“How do we define a medically supervised center? Is it somewhere with a nurse onsite? A physician onsite? Does it have to have access to emergency services? This issue of access vs. control and safety is a very important one.”
He posed a clinical conundrum: A patient doing well on regular esketamine who wants to go on an extended trip. Under the proposed REMS, that patient would not be able to access his regular dose, which could only be handled, sorted, and administered by a certified health care clinician. “How are we going to deal with this? There will be great pressure to loosen this up in some manner. But if we allow a patient who’s been doing well on regular treatment with no relapse to have this at home, do we open the way for a teenager to take a bottle or two to a party? Those are real-world issues and must be considered when we establish a REM in a real world that demands access to needed therapy.”
Erring on the side of caution is the responsibility of policymakers, argued Kim Witczak, executive director of Woodymatters, a consumer-driven, nonprofit drug safety organization dedicated to FDA reform. Ms. Witczak was one of two dissenting voices on the vote.
“This has so much potential for so many people who just want a quick fix [for their mood disorders], and the marketing side will see this,” she predicted. “I would want to be very cautious. Once it gets out there into the real world, there will be a lot of people trying to get it. We don’t want to have ‘Esketamines “R” Us’ clinics popping up everywhere.”
The FDA usually follows its panels’ recommendations, which are not binding.
“The REMS program that was proposed by the company and seemingly endorsed by the FDA provides adequate protection,” Sanjay J. Mathew, MD, said in an interview. “I think that was one of the reasons it sailed through the panels.”
An important aspect of intranasal ketamine is that, as an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, it is “an entirely new class” for treating depression, said Dr. Mathew. “This is the first approval that does not work on serotonin or norepinephrine or dopamine. This is a big, big development. We can’t overstate that.”
Also, the nasal spray had to beat a placebo and a newly administered antidepressant. “There was a relatively high bar for showing convincing efficacy,” he said. “So if approved, this drug would be prescribed with an oral antidepressant. Intranasal esketamine represents 20 years’ worth of effort. Today was an important day for psychiatry,” he said. “It was an important day for patients with depression.”
Dr. Mathew is the Marjorie Bintliff Johnson and Raleigh White Johnson Jr. Vice Chair for Research and professor in the Menninger department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. He has served as a consultant for and has had research funded by Janssen.
“The REMS program that was proposed by the company and seemingly endorsed by the FDA provides adequate protection,” Sanjay J. Mathew, MD, said in an interview. “I think that was one of the reasons it sailed through the panels.”
An important aspect of intranasal ketamine is that, as an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, it is “an entirely new class” for treating depression, said Dr. Mathew. “This is the first approval that does not work on serotonin or norepinephrine or dopamine. This is a big, big development. We can’t overstate that.”
Also, the nasal spray had to beat a placebo and a newly administered antidepressant. “There was a relatively high bar for showing convincing efficacy,” he said. “So if approved, this drug would be prescribed with an oral antidepressant. Intranasal esketamine represents 20 years’ worth of effort. Today was an important day for psychiatry,” he said. “It was an important day for patients with depression.”
Dr. Mathew is the Marjorie Bintliff Johnson and Raleigh White Johnson Jr. Vice Chair for Research and professor in the Menninger department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. He has served as a consultant for and has had research funded by Janssen.
“The REMS program that was proposed by the company and seemingly endorsed by the FDA provides adequate protection,” Sanjay J. Mathew, MD, said in an interview. “I think that was one of the reasons it sailed through the panels.”
An important aspect of intranasal ketamine is that, as an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, it is “an entirely new class” for treating depression, said Dr. Mathew. “This is the first approval that does not work on serotonin or norepinephrine or dopamine. This is a big, big development. We can’t overstate that.”
Also, the nasal spray had to beat a placebo and a newly administered antidepressant. “There was a relatively high bar for showing convincing efficacy,” he said. “So if approved, this drug would be prescribed with an oral antidepressant. Intranasal esketamine represents 20 years’ worth of effort. Today was an important day for psychiatry,” he said. “It was an important day for patients with depression.”
Dr. Mathew is the Marjorie Bintliff Johnson and Raleigh White Johnson Jr. Vice Chair for Research and professor in the Menninger department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. He has served as a consultant for and has had research funded by Janssen.
ROCKVILLE, MD – If approved for treatment-resistant depression, intranasal esketamine will be strictly regulated in the clinic, with federal monitoring requirements designed to prevent misuse, abuse, or diversion of the drug.
Managed under a Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), such a program would establish a stringent post-administration protocol of observation and blood pressure monitoring and require every provider – whether a large health care center or a single clinician – to obtain federal certification to dispense the medication.
At a joint meeting of FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory committees, some members offered a more tempered view while still supporting the approval pathway of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. By a vote of 14-2, with one abstention, they agreed Feb. 12 that the benefits outweigh the risks of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression.
“I think it has the potential to be a game changer in treatment-resistant depression,” said Walter Dunn, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. “We may someday talk about 2019 in the same way we now talk about the late ’80s, when the first [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors] were approved.”
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the drug, incorporated concerns about misuse from the beginning. Even the delivery device is designed to prevent such issues, a company spokesman said.
Each disposable intranasal delivery device contains 28 mg esketamine; it will come in prepackaged units of one, two, or three devices to deliver the prescribed doses of 28 mg, 56 mg, or 84 mg, respectively. The device does not require priming and, after use, contains only about 30 microliters of residual medication. Its interlocking design, with a glass vial inside the plastic outer assembly, would make it very difficult to pull apart, should anyone want to obtain the residue.
The proposed REMS – the key requirement for approval at this point – would include the following measures:
- Prescriber training on the risks of esketamine and importance of monitoring patients after their dose is administered and the need to register patients
- Administration of esketamine only in certain health care settings that ensure patient monitoring by a health care clinician for 2 hours after administration
- Pharmacies, clinicians, or health care settings that dispense the drug are specially certified to ensure that esketamine is not dispensed directly to patients and that patients are monitored
- Enrollment of patients who are treated with esketamine in a registry to better characterize the risks associated with esketamine administration and inform risk mitigation strategies
After administration, patients would be monitored for at least 2 hours for the common side effects, sedation and dissociation that typically clear within that time. Transient blood pressure fluctuations also can occur shortly after administration and would be monitored until stable. Patients should also be counseled not to drive the day of treatment, and to bring a companion along to drive them home.
Dr. Dunn, however, suggested that some facets of the proposed REMS might create unnecessary barriers for some patients and that stringent monitoring after every single dose – potentially for years – might not be necessary for everyone.
“The REM is certainly important to address the potential for diversion and misuse and adverse effects, but there needs to be a pathway to reduce monitoring requirements” on an individual basis. “If a patient is doing well for a year or so, in remission with no side effects, we should have a way to reduce the need for monitoring. If we make it too much of a burden to go in, get the medication, stay for a couple of hours for monitoring, it’s easy to skip a dose. And we know the number one predictor of relapse is medication nonadherence.”
The facility certification requirement also could curtail access to esketamine, said Steven B. Meisel, PharmD, of Minneapolis.
“How do we define a medically supervised center? Is it somewhere with a nurse onsite? A physician onsite? Does it have to have access to emergency services? This issue of access vs. control and safety is a very important one.”
He posed a clinical conundrum: A patient doing well on regular esketamine who wants to go on an extended trip. Under the proposed REMS, that patient would not be able to access his regular dose, which could only be handled, sorted, and administered by a certified health care clinician. “How are we going to deal with this? There will be great pressure to loosen this up in some manner. But if we allow a patient who’s been doing well on regular treatment with no relapse to have this at home, do we open the way for a teenager to take a bottle or two to a party? Those are real-world issues and must be considered when we establish a REM in a real world that demands access to needed therapy.”
Erring on the side of caution is the responsibility of policymakers, argued Kim Witczak, executive director of Woodymatters, a consumer-driven, nonprofit drug safety organization dedicated to FDA reform. Ms. Witczak was one of two dissenting voices on the vote.
“This has so much potential for so many people who just want a quick fix [for their mood disorders], and the marketing side will see this,” she predicted. “I would want to be very cautious. Once it gets out there into the real world, there will be a lot of people trying to get it. We don’t want to have ‘Esketamines “R” Us’ clinics popping up everywhere.”
The FDA usually follows its panels’ recommendations, which are not binding.
ROCKVILLE, MD – If approved for treatment-resistant depression, intranasal esketamine will be strictly regulated in the clinic, with federal monitoring requirements designed to prevent misuse, abuse, or diversion of the drug.
Managed under a Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), such a program would establish a stringent post-administration protocol of observation and blood pressure monitoring and require every provider – whether a large health care center or a single clinician – to obtain federal certification to dispense the medication.
At a joint meeting of FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory committees, some members offered a more tempered view while still supporting the approval pathway of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. By a vote of 14-2, with one abstention, they agreed Feb. 12 that the benefits outweigh the risks of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression.
“I think it has the potential to be a game changer in treatment-resistant depression,” said Walter Dunn, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. “We may someday talk about 2019 in the same way we now talk about the late ’80s, when the first [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors] were approved.”
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the drug, incorporated concerns about misuse from the beginning. Even the delivery device is designed to prevent such issues, a company spokesman said.
Each disposable intranasal delivery device contains 28 mg esketamine; it will come in prepackaged units of one, two, or three devices to deliver the prescribed doses of 28 mg, 56 mg, or 84 mg, respectively. The device does not require priming and, after use, contains only about 30 microliters of residual medication. Its interlocking design, with a glass vial inside the plastic outer assembly, would make it very difficult to pull apart, should anyone want to obtain the residue.
The proposed REMS – the key requirement for approval at this point – would include the following measures:
- Prescriber training on the risks of esketamine and importance of monitoring patients after their dose is administered and the need to register patients
- Administration of esketamine only in certain health care settings that ensure patient monitoring by a health care clinician for 2 hours after administration
- Pharmacies, clinicians, or health care settings that dispense the drug are specially certified to ensure that esketamine is not dispensed directly to patients and that patients are monitored
- Enrollment of patients who are treated with esketamine in a registry to better characterize the risks associated with esketamine administration and inform risk mitigation strategies
After administration, patients would be monitored for at least 2 hours for the common side effects, sedation and dissociation that typically clear within that time. Transient blood pressure fluctuations also can occur shortly after administration and would be monitored until stable. Patients should also be counseled not to drive the day of treatment, and to bring a companion along to drive them home.
Dr. Dunn, however, suggested that some facets of the proposed REMS might create unnecessary barriers for some patients and that stringent monitoring after every single dose – potentially for years – might not be necessary for everyone.
“The REM is certainly important to address the potential for diversion and misuse and adverse effects, but there needs to be a pathway to reduce monitoring requirements” on an individual basis. “If a patient is doing well for a year or so, in remission with no side effects, we should have a way to reduce the need for monitoring. If we make it too much of a burden to go in, get the medication, stay for a couple of hours for monitoring, it’s easy to skip a dose. And we know the number one predictor of relapse is medication nonadherence.”
The facility certification requirement also could curtail access to esketamine, said Steven B. Meisel, PharmD, of Minneapolis.
“How do we define a medically supervised center? Is it somewhere with a nurse onsite? A physician onsite? Does it have to have access to emergency services? This issue of access vs. control and safety is a very important one.”
He posed a clinical conundrum: A patient doing well on regular esketamine who wants to go on an extended trip. Under the proposed REMS, that patient would not be able to access his regular dose, which could only be handled, sorted, and administered by a certified health care clinician. “How are we going to deal with this? There will be great pressure to loosen this up in some manner. But if we allow a patient who’s been doing well on regular treatment with no relapse to have this at home, do we open the way for a teenager to take a bottle or two to a party? Those are real-world issues and must be considered when we establish a REM in a real world that demands access to needed therapy.”
Erring on the side of caution is the responsibility of policymakers, argued Kim Witczak, executive director of Woodymatters, a consumer-driven, nonprofit drug safety organization dedicated to FDA reform. Ms. Witczak was one of two dissenting voices on the vote.
“This has so much potential for so many people who just want a quick fix [for their mood disorders], and the marketing side will see this,” she predicted. “I would want to be very cautious. Once it gets out there into the real world, there will be a lot of people trying to get it. We don’t want to have ‘Esketamines “R” Us’ clinics popping up everywhere.”
The FDA usually follows its panels’ recommendations, which are not binding.
FDA: 246 new reports on breast implant-associated lymphoma
The Food and Drug Administration has identified 457 unique cases of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and 9 related deaths since 2010, and received 246 new medical device reports (MDRs) regarding BIA-ALCL between September 2017 and September 2018, according to an update from the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
That brings the total number of reports to 660; however, that number reflects duplicative cases, Binita Ashar, MD, a general surgeon and the director of the division of surgical devices at the center, said in a statement.
“These types of increases in the MDRs are to be expected and may include past cases that were not previously reported to the FDA,” Dr. Ashar said, addressing the high number of new reports. “The increased number of MDRs contributes to our evolving understanding of BIA-ALCL and represents a more thorough and comprehensive analysis.”
BIA-ALCL is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a known risk from breast implants that was first communicated by the FDA in 2011. Regular updates have been provided with respect to related medical device reports, cases, deaths, and known risks.
“We hope that this information prompts providers and patients to have important, informed conversations about breast implants and the risk of BIA-ALCL. At the same time, we remain committed to working in partnership with all stakeholders to continue to study, understand, and provide updates about this important public health issue,” Dr. Ashar said.
To that end, the center also issued a Letter to Health Care Providers to “encourage those who regularly treat patients, including primary care physicians and gynecologists, to learn about BIA-ALCL in patients with breast implants.”
Patients and providers are encouraged to file MDRs with the FDA via MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program, she said.
The Food and Drug Administration has identified 457 unique cases of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and 9 related deaths since 2010, and received 246 new medical device reports (MDRs) regarding BIA-ALCL between September 2017 and September 2018, according to an update from the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
That brings the total number of reports to 660; however, that number reflects duplicative cases, Binita Ashar, MD, a general surgeon and the director of the division of surgical devices at the center, said in a statement.
“These types of increases in the MDRs are to be expected and may include past cases that were not previously reported to the FDA,” Dr. Ashar said, addressing the high number of new reports. “The increased number of MDRs contributes to our evolving understanding of BIA-ALCL and represents a more thorough and comprehensive analysis.”
BIA-ALCL is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a known risk from breast implants that was first communicated by the FDA in 2011. Regular updates have been provided with respect to related medical device reports, cases, deaths, and known risks.
“We hope that this information prompts providers and patients to have important, informed conversations about breast implants and the risk of BIA-ALCL. At the same time, we remain committed to working in partnership with all stakeholders to continue to study, understand, and provide updates about this important public health issue,” Dr. Ashar said.
To that end, the center also issued a Letter to Health Care Providers to “encourage those who regularly treat patients, including primary care physicians and gynecologists, to learn about BIA-ALCL in patients with breast implants.”
Patients and providers are encouraged to file MDRs with the FDA via MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program, she said.
The Food and Drug Administration has identified 457 unique cases of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and 9 related deaths since 2010, and received 246 new medical device reports (MDRs) regarding BIA-ALCL between September 2017 and September 2018, according to an update from the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
That brings the total number of reports to 660; however, that number reflects duplicative cases, Binita Ashar, MD, a general surgeon and the director of the division of surgical devices at the center, said in a statement.
“These types of increases in the MDRs are to be expected and may include past cases that were not previously reported to the FDA,” Dr. Ashar said, addressing the high number of new reports. “The increased number of MDRs contributes to our evolving understanding of BIA-ALCL and represents a more thorough and comprehensive analysis.”
BIA-ALCL is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a known risk from breast implants that was first communicated by the FDA in 2011. Regular updates have been provided with respect to related medical device reports, cases, deaths, and known risks.
“We hope that this information prompts providers and patients to have important, informed conversations about breast implants and the risk of BIA-ALCL. At the same time, we remain committed to working in partnership with all stakeholders to continue to study, understand, and provide updates about this important public health issue,” Dr. Ashar said.
To that end, the center also issued a Letter to Health Care Providers to “encourage those who regularly treat patients, including primary care physicians and gynecologists, to learn about BIA-ALCL in patients with breast implants.”
Patients and providers are encouraged to file MDRs with the FDA via MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program, she said.
Impella RP shows higher mortality in postapproval study
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter on Feb. 4, 2019, to health care providers regarding interim results from a postapproval study for Abiomed’s Impella RP System because these results appear to have a higher mortality rate than was seen in premarket clinical studies.
As a condition of its approval, the FDA mandated Abiomed to perform a postapproval study (PAS); this study reflects use in a broader population than the premarket studies, which adhered to stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Earlier in January, Abiomed submitted data to the FDA suggesting that differences in preimplant characteristics between patients in the PAS and those in the premarket clinical studies may explain the difference in mortality. Specifically, 16 of the 23 patients enrolled in the PAS would not have met the enrollment criteria for the premarket clinical studies because they were in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest, were treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event.
“Although the FDA is concerned about the high mortality rate from the interim PAS results,” they wrote in the letter, which is available on the FDA website, “we believe that, when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP system continue to outweigh the risks.”
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter on Feb. 4, 2019, to health care providers regarding interim results from a postapproval study for Abiomed’s Impella RP System because these results appear to have a higher mortality rate than was seen in premarket clinical studies.
As a condition of its approval, the FDA mandated Abiomed to perform a postapproval study (PAS); this study reflects use in a broader population than the premarket studies, which adhered to stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Earlier in January, Abiomed submitted data to the FDA suggesting that differences in preimplant characteristics between patients in the PAS and those in the premarket clinical studies may explain the difference in mortality. Specifically, 16 of the 23 patients enrolled in the PAS would not have met the enrollment criteria for the premarket clinical studies because they were in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest, were treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event.
“Although the FDA is concerned about the high mortality rate from the interim PAS results,” they wrote in the letter, which is available on the FDA website, “we believe that, when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP system continue to outweigh the risks.”
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter on Feb. 4, 2019, to health care providers regarding interim results from a postapproval study for Abiomed’s Impella RP System because these results appear to have a higher mortality rate than was seen in premarket clinical studies.
As a condition of its approval, the FDA mandated Abiomed to perform a postapproval study (PAS); this study reflects use in a broader population than the premarket studies, which adhered to stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Earlier in January, Abiomed submitted data to the FDA suggesting that differences in preimplant characteristics between patients in the PAS and those in the premarket clinical studies may explain the difference in mortality. Specifically, 16 of the 23 patients enrolled in the PAS would not have met the enrollment criteria for the premarket clinical studies because they were in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest, were treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event.
“Although the FDA is concerned about the high mortality rate from the interim PAS results,” they wrote in the letter, which is available on the FDA website, “we believe that, when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP system continue to outweigh the risks.”
FDA approves caplacizumab for aTTP
The Food and Drug Administration has approved caplacizumab (Cablivi) in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy for the treatment of adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP).
Caplacizumab is an anti–von Willebrand factor nanobody designed to inhibit the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets. The injection previously received orphan drug designation from the FDA and was approved under priority review.
The FDA’s approval of caplacizumab was based on results from the phase 3 HERCULES trial (N Engl J Med 2019 Jan 24;380:335-46).
The trial (NCT02553317) included 145 adults with aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n = 72) or placebo (n = 73), in addition to plasma exchange and immunosuppression.
The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as a 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 with the placebo arm – 2.69 days and 2.88 days, respectively. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P less than .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% in the caplacizumab arm and 49% in the placebo arm (P less than .001).
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring in at least 15% of patients in the caplacizumab and placebo arms, respectively) were epistaxis (32% and 3%), headache (23% and 8%), urticaria (17% and 7%), and hypokalemia (9% and 19%).
During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death (from cerebral ischemia) in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.
For more details on caplacizumab, see the full prescribing information.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved caplacizumab (Cablivi) in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy for the treatment of adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP).
Caplacizumab is an anti–von Willebrand factor nanobody designed to inhibit the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets. The injection previously received orphan drug designation from the FDA and was approved under priority review.
The FDA’s approval of caplacizumab was based on results from the phase 3 HERCULES trial (N Engl J Med 2019 Jan 24;380:335-46).
The trial (NCT02553317) included 145 adults with aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n = 72) or placebo (n = 73), in addition to plasma exchange and immunosuppression.
The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as a 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 with the placebo arm – 2.69 days and 2.88 days, respectively. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P less than .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% in the caplacizumab arm and 49% in the placebo arm (P less than .001).
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring in at least 15% of patients in the caplacizumab and placebo arms, respectively) were epistaxis (32% and 3%), headache (23% and 8%), urticaria (17% and 7%), and hypokalemia (9% and 19%).
During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death (from cerebral ischemia) in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.
For more details on caplacizumab, see the full prescribing information.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved caplacizumab (Cablivi) in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy for the treatment of adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP).
Caplacizumab is an anti–von Willebrand factor nanobody designed to inhibit the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets. The injection previously received orphan drug designation from the FDA and was approved under priority review.
The FDA’s approval of caplacizumab was based on results from the phase 3 HERCULES trial (N Engl J Med 2019 Jan 24;380:335-46).
The trial (NCT02553317) included 145 adults with aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n = 72) or placebo (n = 73), in addition to plasma exchange and immunosuppression.
The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as a 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 with the placebo arm – 2.69 days and 2.88 days, respectively. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P less than .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% in the caplacizumab arm and 49% in the placebo arm (P less than .001).
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring in at least 15% of patients in the caplacizumab and placebo arms, respectively) were epistaxis (32% and 3%), headache (23% and 8%), urticaria (17% and 7%), and hypokalemia (9% and 19%).
During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death (from cerebral ischemia) in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.
For more details on caplacizumab, see the full prescribing information.
New recall for CoaguChek test strips issued
According to a release, the Food and Drug Administration has identified this recall as Class I, which is the most serious type of recall and indicates that “use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death.”
These strips are used by patients taking warfarin to help determine the patients’ international normalized ratio, which doctors and patients then use to decide whether the dose is appropriate. Roche Diagnostics, the strips’ manufacturer, issued a recall in September 2018; the test strips distributed by Terrific Care and Medex, however, were not labeled or authorized for sale in the United States and were therefore not included in that original recall. According to the release, the strips in this recall, which was initiated Dec. 21, 2018, were purchased by Terrific Care and Medex from an unknown source and then distributed in the United States. On Jan. 28, 2019, Terrific Care sent an Urgent Medical Device Recall Notification Letter to customers.
The full recall is described on the FDA website.
According to a release, the Food and Drug Administration has identified this recall as Class I, which is the most serious type of recall and indicates that “use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death.”
These strips are used by patients taking warfarin to help determine the patients’ international normalized ratio, which doctors and patients then use to decide whether the dose is appropriate. Roche Diagnostics, the strips’ manufacturer, issued a recall in September 2018; the test strips distributed by Terrific Care and Medex, however, were not labeled or authorized for sale in the United States and were therefore not included in that original recall. According to the release, the strips in this recall, which was initiated Dec. 21, 2018, were purchased by Terrific Care and Medex from an unknown source and then distributed in the United States. On Jan. 28, 2019, Terrific Care sent an Urgent Medical Device Recall Notification Letter to customers.
The full recall is described on the FDA website.
According to a release, the Food and Drug Administration has identified this recall as Class I, which is the most serious type of recall and indicates that “use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death.”
These strips are used by patients taking warfarin to help determine the patients’ international normalized ratio, which doctors and patients then use to decide whether the dose is appropriate. Roche Diagnostics, the strips’ manufacturer, issued a recall in September 2018; the test strips distributed by Terrific Care and Medex, however, were not labeled or authorized for sale in the United States and were therefore not included in that original recall. According to the release, the strips in this recall, which was initiated Dec. 21, 2018, were purchased by Terrific Care and Medex from an unknown source and then distributed in the United States. On Jan. 28, 2019, Terrific Care sent an Urgent Medical Device Recall Notification Letter to customers.
The full recall is described on the FDA website.
Stryker issues voluntary field action for Lifepak 15 defibrillators
Stryker has announced a voluntary field action for its Lifepak 15 monitor/defibrillators, according to a safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration.
The company is notifying certain Lifepak 15 customers of an issue causing the device to lock up after a defibrillation shock is delivered. The lockup displays as a blank monitor with the LED lights on, indicating that the power is on, but the keypad and device become nonfunctional, the FDA said. This lockup can delay delivery of therapy, which can cause injury or death.
Since the introduction of the device in 2009, 58 complaints regarding the issue have been reported, including 6 that resulted in death. In all, 13,003 devices are included in the field action.
Customers should continue to use their devices if they have been affected until a correction can be completed. If the lockup occurs, the user should press and hold the “on” button until the LED turns off, then hit the “on” button again. If this does not reset the device, the batteries should be removed and reinserted, or the device should be removed and reconnected to its power adapter, the FDA said.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
Stryker has announced a voluntary field action for its Lifepak 15 monitor/defibrillators, according to a safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration.
The company is notifying certain Lifepak 15 customers of an issue causing the device to lock up after a defibrillation shock is delivered. The lockup displays as a blank monitor with the LED lights on, indicating that the power is on, but the keypad and device become nonfunctional, the FDA said. This lockup can delay delivery of therapy, which can cause injury or death.
Since the introduction of the device in 2009, 58 complaints regarding the issue have been reported, including 6 that resulted in death. In all, 13,003 devices are included in the field action.
Customers should continue to use their devices if they have been affected until a correction can be completed. If the lockup occurs, the user should press and hold the “on” button until the LED turns off, then hit the “on” button again. If this does not reset the device, the batteries should be removed and reinserted, or the device should be removed and reconnected to its power adapter, the FDA said.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
Stryker has announced a voluntary field action for its Lifepak 15 monitor/defibrillators, according to a safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration.
The company is notifying certain Lifepak 15 customers of an issue causing the device to lock up after a defibrillation shock is delivered. The lockup displays as a blank monitor with the LED lights on, indicating that the power is on, but the keypad and device become nonfunctional, the FDA said. This lockup can delay delivery of therapy, which can cause injury or death.
Since the introduction of the device in 2009, 58 complaints regarding the issue have been reported, including 6 that resulted in death. In all, 13,003 devices are included in the field action.
Customers should continue to use their devices if they have been affected until a correction can be completed. If the lockup occurs, the user should press and hold the “on” button until the LED turns off, then hit the “on” button again. If this does not reset the device, the batteries should be removed and reinserted, or the device should be removed and reconnected to its power adapter, the FDA said.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
FDA grants BI-1206 orphan designation for MCL
The Food and Drug Administration has granted orphan designation to BI-1206 for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
BI-1206 is a monoclonal antibody being developed by BioInvent International.
The company says BI-1206 works by inhibiting FcgRIIB (CD32B), which is associated with poor prognosis in MCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas. By inhibiting FcgRIIB, BI-1206 is expected to enhance the activity of rituximab or other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies.
BioInvent is conducting a phase 1/2a study (NCT03571568) of BI-1206 in combination with rituximab in patients with indolent, relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including MCL. The first patient began receiving treatment with BI-1206 in September 2018.
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases or disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted orphan designation to BI-1206 for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
BI-1206 is a monoclonal antibody being developed by BioInvent International.
The company says BI-1206 works by inhibiting FcgRIIB (CD32B), which is associated with poor prognosis in MCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas. By inhibiting FcgRIIB, BI-1206 is expected to enhance the activity of rituximab or other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies.
BioInvent is conducting a phase 1/2a study (NCT03571568) of BI-1206 in combination with rituximab in patients with indolent, relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including MCL. The first patient began receiving treatment with BI-1206 in September 2018.
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases or disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted orphan designation to BI-1206 for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
BI-1206 is a monoclonal antibody being developed by BioInvent International.
The company says BI-1206 works by inhibiting FcgRIIB (CD32B), which is associated with poor prognosis in MCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas. By inhibiting FcgRIIB, BI-1206 is expected to enhance the activity of rituximab or other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies.
BioInvent is conducting a phase 1/2a study (NCT03571568) of BI-1206 in combination with rituximab in patients with indolent, relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including MCL. The first patient began receiving treatment with BI-1206 in September 2018.
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases or disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.