Multiple Myeloma

Prescription drugs

Photo courtesy of CDC

England’s National Health Service (NHS) plans to remove several drugs used to treat hematologic malignancies from the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF).

The plan is that, as of November 4, 2015, pomalidomide, lenalidomide, ibrutinib, dasatinib, brentuximab, bosutinib, and bendamustine will no longer be funded via the CDF for certain indications.

Ofatumumab was removed from the CDF list yesterday but is now available through the NHS.

Drugs used to treat solid tumor malignancies are set to be de-funded through CDF in November as well.

However, the NHS said the proposal to remove a drug from the CDF is not necessarily a final decision.

In cases where a drug offers enough clinical benefit, the pharmaceutical company developing that drug has the opportunity to reduce the price they are asking the NHS to pay to ensure that it achieves a satisfactory level of value for money. The NHS said a number of such negotiations are underway.

In addition, patients who are currently receiving the drugs set to be removed from the CDF will continue to have access to those drugs.

About the CDF and the NHS

The CDF—set up in 2010 and currently due to run until March 2016—is money the government has set aside to pay for cancer drugs that haven’t been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and aren’t available within the NHS in England. Most cancer drugs are routinely funded outside of the CDF.

NHS England and NICE are planning to consult on a proposed new system for commissioning cancer drugs. The NHS said the new system will be designed to provide the agency with a more systematic approach to getting the best price for cancer drugs.

Reason for drug removals

The NHS previously increased the budget for the CDF from £200 million in 2013/14, to £280 million in 2014/15, and £340 million from April 2015. This represents a total increase of 70% since August 2014.

However, current projections suggest that spending would rise to around £410 million for this year, an over-spend of £70 million, in the absence of further prioritization. The NHS said this money could be used for other aspects of cancer treatment or NHS services for other patient groups.

Therefore, some drugs are set to be removed from the CDF. The NHS said all decisions on drugs to be maintained in the CDF were based on the advice of clinicians, the best available evidence, and the cost of the treatment.

“There is no escaping the fact that we face a difficult set of choices, but it is our duty to ensure we get maximum value from every penny available on behalf of patients,” said Peter Clark, chair of the CDF.

“We must ensure we invest in those treatments that offer the most benefit, based on rigorous evidence-based clinical analysis and an assessment of the cost of those treatments.”

While de-funding certain drugs will reduce costs, the CDF is not expected to be back on budget this financial year. The NHS does expect the CDF will be operating within its budget during 2016/17.

Blood cancer drugs to be removed

The following drugs are currently on the CDF list for the following indications, but they are set to be de-listed on November 4, 2015.

Bendamustine

For the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• CLL (not licensed in this indication)
• Second-line indication, third-line indication, or fourth-line indication
• To be used within the treating Trust’s governance framework, as bendamustine is not licensed in this indication

For the treatment of relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• MCL
• Option for second- or subsequent-line chemotherapy
• No previous treatment with bendamustine
• To be used within the treating Trust’s governance framework, as bendamustine is not licensed in this indication

*Bendamustine will remain on the CDF for other indications.

Bosutinib

For the treatment of refractory, chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Chronic phase CML
• Refractory to nilotinib or dasatinib (if dasatinib accessed via a clinical trial or via its current approved CDF indication)

For the treatment of refractory, accelerated phase CML where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Accelerated phase CML
• Refractory to nilotinib or dasatinib (if dasatinib accessed via a clinical trial or via its current approved CDF indication)
• Significant intolerance to nilotinib (grade 3 or 4 events)

For the treatment of accelerated phase CML where there is intolerance of treatments and where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Accelerated phase CML
• Significant intolerance to dasatinib (grade 3 or 4 adverse events; if dasatinib accessed via its current approved CDF indication)
• Significant intolerance to nilotinib (grade 3 or 4 events)

*Bosutinib will still be available through the CDF for patients with chronic phase CML that is intolerant of other treatments.

Brentuximab

For the treatment of refractory, systemic anaplastic lymphoma where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma

For the treatment of relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma
• Following autologous stem cell transplant or following at least 2 prior therapies when autologous stem cell transplant or multi-agent chemotherapy is not an option

Dasatinib

For the treatment of Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Refractory or significant intolerance or resistance to prior therapy including imatinib (grade 3 or 4 adverse events)
• Second-line indication or third-line indication

*Dasatinib will still be available for chronic phase and accelerated phase CML.

Ibrutinib

For the treatment of relapsed/refractory CLL where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Confirmed CLL
• Must have received at least 1 prior therapy for CLL
• Considered not appropriate for treatment or retreatment with purine-analogue-based therapy due to:

  • Failure to respond to chemo-immunotherapy or
  • A progression-free interval of less than 3 years or
  • Age of 70 years or more or
  • Age of 65 years or more plus the presence of comorbidities or
  • A 17p or TP53 deletion

• ECOG performance status of 0-2
• A neutrophil count of ≥0.75 x 10⁹/L
• A platelet count of ≥30 x 10⁹/L
• Patient not on warfarin or CYP3A4/5 inhibitors
• No prior treatment with idelalisib

For the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Confirmed MCL with cyclin D1 overexpression or translocation breakpoints at t(11;14)
• Failure to achieve at least partial response with, or documented disease progression disease after, the most recent treatment regimen
• ECOG performance status of 0-2
• At least 1 but no more than 5 previous lines of treatment

Lenalidomide

For the second-line treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• MM
• Second-line indication
• Contraindication to bortezomib or previously received bortezomib in the first-line setting

*Lenalidomide will still be available for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes with 5q deletion.

Pomalidomide

For the treatment of relapsed and refractory MM where the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically
• MM
• Performance status of 0-2
• Previously received treatment with adequate trials of at least all of the following options of therapy: bortezomib, lenalidomide, and alkylating agents
• Failed treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide, as defined by: progression on or before 60 days of treatment, progressive disease 6 months or less after achieving a partial response, or intolerance to bortezomib
• Refractory disease to previous treatment
• No resistance to high-dose dexamethasone used in the last line of therapy
• No peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or more

A complete list of proposed changes to the CDF, as well as the drugs that were de-listed on March 12, 2015, is available on the NHS website.

Prescription drugs

Photo courtesy of CDC

England’s National Health Service (NHS) plans to remove several drugs used to treat hematologic malignancies from the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF).

The plan is that, as of November 4, 2015, pomalidomide, lenalidomide, ibrutinib, dasatinib, brentuximab, bosutinib, and bendamustine will no longer be funded via the CDF for certain indications.

Ofatumumab was removed from the CDF list yesterday but is now available through the NHS.

Drugs used to treat solid tumor malignancies are set to be de-funded through CDF in November as well.

However, the NHS said the proposal to remove a drug from the CDF is not necessarily a final decision.

In cases where a drug offers enough clinical benefit, the pharmaceutical company developing that drug has the opportunity to reduce the price they are asking the NHS to pay to ensure that it achieves a satisfactory level of value for money. The NHS said a number of such negotiations are underway.

In addition, patients who are currently receiving the drugs set to be removed from the CDF will continue to have access to those drugs.

About the CDF and the NHS

The CDF—set up in 2010 and currently due to run until March 2016—is money the government has set aside to pay for cancer drugs that haven’t been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and aren’t available within the NHS in England. Most cancer drugs are routinely funded outside of the CDF.

NHS England and NICE are planning to consult on a proposed new system for commissioning cancer drugs. The NHS said the new system will be designed to provide the agency with a more systematic approach to getting the best price for cancer drugs.

Reason for drug removals

The NHS previously increased the budget for the CDF from £200 million in 2013/14, to £280 million in 2014/15, and £340 million from April 2015. This represents a total increase of 70% since August 2014.

However, current projections suggest that spending would rise to around £410 million for this year, an over-spend of £70 million, in the absence of further prioritization. The NHS said this money could be used for other aspects of cancer treatment or NHS services for other patient groups.

Therefore, some drugs are set to be removed from the CDF. The NHS said all decisions on drugs to be maintained in the CDF were based on the advice of clinicians, the best available evidence, and the cost of the treatment.

“There is no escaping the fact that we face a difficult set of choices, but it is our duty to ensure we get maximum value from every penny available on behalf of patients,” said Peter Clark, chair of the CDF.

“We must ensure we invest in those treatments that offer the most benefit, based on rigorous evidence-based clinical analysis and an assessment of the cost of those treatments.”

While de-funding certain drugs will reduce costs, the CDF is not expected to be back on budget this financial year. The NHS does expect the CDF will be operating within its budget during 2016/17.

Blood cancer drugs to be removed

The following drugs are currently on the CDF list for the following indications, but they are set to be de-listed on November 4, 2015.

Bendamustine

For the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• CLL (not licensed in this indication)
• Second-line indication, third-line indication, or fourth-line indication
• To be used within the treating Trust’s governance framework, as bendamustine is not licensed in this indication

For the treatment of relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• MCL
• Option for second- or subsequent-line chemotherapy
• No previous treatment with bendamustine
• To be used within the treating Trust’s governance framework, as bendamustine is not licensed in this indication

*Bendamustine will remain on the CDF for other indications.

Bosutinib

For the treatment of refractory, chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Chronic phase CML
• Refractory to nilotinib or dasatinib (if dasatinib accessed via a clinical trial or via its current approved CDF indication)

For the treatment of refractory, accelerated phase CML where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Accelerated phase CML
• Refractory to nilotinib or dasatinib (if dasatinib accessed via a clinical trial or via its current approved CDF indication)
• Significant intolerance to nilotinib (grade 3 or 4 events)

For the treatment of accelerated phase CML where there is intolerance of treatments and where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Accelerated phase CML
• Significant intolerance to dasatinib (grade 3 or 4 adverse events; if dasatinib accessed via its current approved CDF indication)
• Significant intolerance to nilotinib (grade 3 or 4 events)

*Bosutinib will still be available through the CDF for patients with chronic phase CML that is intolerant of other treatments.

Brentuximab

For the treatment of refractory, systemic anaplastic lymphoma where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma

For the treatment of relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma
• Following autologous stem cell transplant or following at least 2 prior therapies when autologous stem cell transplant or multi-agent chemotherapy is not an option

Dasatinib

For the treatment of Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Refractory or significant intolerance or resistance to prior therapy including imatinib (grade 3 or 4 adverse events)
• Second-line indication or third-line indication

*Dasatinib will still be available for chronic phase and accelerated phase CML.

Ibrutinib

For the treatment of relapsed/refractory CLL where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Confirmed CLL
• Must have received at least 1 prior therapy for CLL
• Considered not appropriate for treatment or retreatment with purine-analogue-based therapy due to:

  • Failure to respond to chemo-immunotherapy or
  • A progression-free interval of less than 3 years or
  • Age of 70 years or more or
  • Age of 65 years or more plus the presence of comorbidities or
  • A 17p or TP53 deletion

• ECOG performance status of 0-2
• A neutrophil count of ≥0.75 x 10⁹/L
• A platelet count of ≥30 x 10⁹/L
• Patient not on warfarin or CYP3A4/5 inhibitors
• No prior treatment with idelalisib

For the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Confirmed MCL with cyclin D1 overexpression or translocation breakpoints at t(11;14)
• Failure to achieve at least partial response with, or documented disease progression disease after, the most recent treatment regimen
• ECOG performance status of 0-2
• At least 1 but no more than 5 previous lines of treatment

Lenalidomide

For the second-line treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• MM
• Second-line indication
• Contraindication to bortezomib or previously received bortezomib in the first-line setting

*Lenalidomide will still be available for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes with 5q deletion.

Pomalidomide

For the treatment of relapsed and refractory MM where the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically
• MM
• Performance status of 0-2
• Previously received treatment with adequate trials of at least all of the following options of therapy: bortezomib, lenalidomide, and alkylating agents
• Failed treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide, as defined by: progression on or before 60 days of treatment, progressive disease 6 months or less after achieving a partial response, or intolerance to bortezomib
• Refractory disease to previous treatment
• No resistance to high-dose dexamethasone used in the last line of therapy
• No peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or more

A complete list of proposed changes to the CDF, as well as the drugs that were de-listed on March 12, 2015, is available on the NHS website.

Prescription drugs

Photo courtesy of CDC

England’s National Health Service (NHS) plans to remove several drugs used to treat hematologic malignancies from the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF).

The plan is that, as of November 4, 2015, pomalidomide, lenalidomide, ibrutinib, dasatinib, brentuximab, bosutinib, and bendamustine will no longer be funded via the CDF for certain indications.

Ofatumumab was removed from the CDF list yesterday but is now available through the NHS.

Drugs used to treat solid tumor malignancies are set to be de-funded through CDF in November as well.

However, the NHS said the proposal to remove a drug from the CDF is not necessarily a final decision.

In cases where a drug offers enough clinical benefit, the pharmaceutical company developing that drug has the opportunity to reduce the price they are asking the NHS to pay to ensure that it achieves a satisfactory level of value for money. The NHS said a number of such negotiations are underway.

In addition, patients who are currently receiving the drugs set to be removed from the CDF will continue to have access to those drugs.

About the CDF and the NHS

The CDF—set up in 2010 and currently due to run until March 2016—is money the government has set aside to pay for cancer drugs that haven’t been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and aren’t available within the NHS in England. Most cancer drugs are routinely funded outside of the CDF.

NHS England and NICE are planning to consult on a proposed new system for commissioning cancer drugs. The NHS said the new system will be designed to provide the agency with a more systematic approach to getting the best price for cancer drugs.

Reason for drug removals

The NHS previously increased the budget for the CDF from £200 million in 2013/14, to £280 million in 2014/15, and £340 million from April 2015. This represents a total increase of 70% since August 2014.

However, current projections suggest that spending would rise to around £410 million for this year, an over-spend of £70 million, in the absence of further prioritization. The NHS said this money could be used for other aspects of cancer treatment or NHS services for other patient groups.

Therefore, some drugs are set to be removed from the CDF. The NHS said all decisions on drugs to be maintained in the CDF were based on the advice of clinicians, the best available evidence, and the cost of the treatment.

“There is no escaping the fact that we face a difficult set of choices, but it is our duty to ensure we get maximum value from every penny available on behalf of patients,” said Peter Clark, chair of the CDF.

“We must ensure we invest in those treatments that offer the most benefit, based on rigorous evidence-based clinical analysis and an assessment of the cost of those treatments.”

While de-funding certain drugs will reduce costs, the CDF is not expected to be back on budget this financial year. The NHS does expect the CDF will be operating within its budget during 2016/17.

Blood cancer drugs to be removed

The following drugs are currently on the CDF list for the following indications, but they are set to be de-listed on November 4, 2015.

Bendamustine

For the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• CLL (not licensed in this indication)
• Second-line indication, third-line indication, or fourth-line indication
• To be used within the treating Trust’s governance framework, as bendamustine is not licensed in this indication

For the treatment of relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• MCL
• Option for second- or subsequent-line chemotherapy
• No previous treatment with bendamustine
• To be used within the treating Trust’s governance framework, as bendamustine is not licensed in this indication

*Bendamustine will remain on the CDF for other indications.

Bosutinib

For the treatment of refractory, chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Chronic phase CML
• Refractory to nilotinib or dasatinib (if dasatinib accessed via a clinical trial or via its current approved CDF indication)

For the treatment of refractory, accelerated phase CML where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Accelerated phase CML
• Refractory to nilotinib or dasatinib (if dasatinib accessed via a clinical trial or via its current approved CDF indication)
• Significant intolerance to nilotinib (grade 3 or 4 events)

For the treatment of accelerated phase CML where there is intolerance of treatments and where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Accelerated phase CML
• Significant intolerance to dasatinib (grade 3 or 4 adverse events; if dasatinib accessed via its current approved CDF indication)
• Significant intolerance to nilotinib (grade 3 or 4 events)

*Bosutinib will still be available through the CDF for patients with chronic phase CML that is intolerant of other treatments.

Brentuximab

For the treatment of refractory, systemic anaplastic lymphoma where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma

For the treatment of relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma
• Following autologous stem cell transplant or following at least 2 prior therapies when autologous stem cell transplant or multi-agent chemotherapy is not an option

Dasatinib

For the treatment of Philadelphia-chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Refractory or significant intolerance or resistance to prior therapy including imatinib (grade 3 or 4 adverse events)
• Second-line indication or third-line indication

*Dasatinib will still be available for chronic phase and accelerated phase CML.

Ibrutinib

For the treatment of relapsed/refractory CLL where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Confirmed CLL
• Must have received at least 1 prior therapy for CLL
• Considered not appropriate for treatment or retreatment with purine-analogue-based therapy due to:

  • Failure to respond to chemo-immunotherapy or
  • A progression-free interval of less than 3 years or
  • Age of 70 years or more or
  • Age of 65 years or more plus the presence of comorbidities or
  • A 17p or TP53 deletion

• ECOG performance status of 0-2
• A neutrophil count of ≥0.75 x 10⁹/L
• A platelet count of ≥30 x 10⁹/L
• Patient not on warfarin or CYP3A4/5 inhibitors
• No prior treatment with idelalisib

For the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• Confirmed MCL with cyclin D1 overexpression or translocation breakpoints at t(11;14)
• Failure to achieve at least partial response with, or documented disease progression disease after, the most recent treatment regimen
• ECOG performance status of 0-2
• At least 1 but no more than 5 previous lines of treatment

Lenalidomide

For the second-line treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) where all the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically trained and accredited in the use of systemic anticancer therapy
• MM
• Second-line indication
• Contraindication to bortezomib or previously received bortezomib in the first-line setting

*Lenalidomide will still be available for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes with 5q deletion.

Pomalidomide

For the treatment of relapsed and refractory MM where the following criteria are met:

• Application made by and first cycle of systemic anticancer therapy to be prescribed by a consultant specialist specifically
• MM
• Performance status of 0-2
• Previously received treatment with adequate trials of at least all of the following options of therapy: bortezomib, lenalidomide, and alkylating agents
• Failed treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide, as defined by: progression on or before 60 days of treatment, progressive disease 6 months or less after achieving a partial response, or intolerance to bortezomib
• Refractory disease to previous treatment
• No resistance to high-dose dexamethasone used in the last line of therapy
• No peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or more

A complete list of proposed changes to the CDF, as well as the drugs that were de-listed on March 12, 2015, is available on the NHS website.

Panobinostat (Farydak)

Photo courtesy of Novartis

The European Commission has approved panobinostat (Farydak) for use in combination with other agents to treat patients with relapsed and/or refractory

multiple myeloma (MM).

The histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor is now approved, in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least 2 prior treatment regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD).

The approval marks the first time an HDAC inhibitor with epigenetic activity is available in the European Union (EU). The approval applies to all 28 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission approved panobinostat based on results of a subgroup analysis of 147 patients in the phase 3 PANORAMA-1 trial.

PANORAMA-1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 768 MM patients. The study showed that, overall, panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone increased progression-free survival (PFS) by about 4 months when compared to placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone.

Full results of the PANORAMA-1 study were published in The Lancet Oncology last year.  Results from the substudy of 147 patients were presented at ASCO 2015.

The 147 patients had relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM and had received 2 or more prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD.

The median PFS benefit in this subgroup increased by 7.8 months in the panobinostat arm compared to the placebo arm. The median PFS was 12.5 months (n=73) and 4.7 months (n=74), respectively (hazard ratio=0.47).

Common grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events in the panobinostat arm and placebo arm, respectively, included diarrhea (33.3% vs 15.1%), asthenia/fatigue (26.4% vs 13.7%), and peripheral neuropathy (16.7% vs 6.8%).

The most common grade 3/4 hematologic events in the panobinostat arm and placebo arm, respectively, were thrombocytopenia (68.1% vs 44.4%), lymphopenia (48.6% vs 49.3%), and neutropenia (40.3% vs 16.4%).

Cardiac events (most frequently atrial fibrillation, tachycardia, palpitation, and sinus tachycardia) were reported in 17.6% of panobinostat-treated patients and 9.8% of placebo-treated patients. Syncope was reported in 6.0% and 2.4%, respectively.

The percentage of on-treatment deaths was similar in the panobinostat and placebo arms—6.9% and 6.8%, respectively. But on-treatment deaths not due to the study indication (MM) were reported in 6.8% and 3.2% of patients, respectively.

Panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone is also approved in the US, Chile, and Japan for certain patients with previously treated MM. The exact indication for panobinostat varies by country.

Panobinostat (Farydak)

Photo courtesy of Novartis

The European Commission has approved panobinostat (Farydak) for use in combination with other agents to treat patients with relapsed and/or refractory

multiple myeloma (MM).

The histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor is now approved, in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least 2 prior treatment regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD).

The approval marks the first time an HDAC inhibitor with epigenetic activity is available in the European Union (EU). The approval applies to all 28 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission approved panobinostat based on results of a subgroup analysis of 147 patients in the phase 3 PANORAMA-1 trial.

PANORAMA-1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 768 MM patients. The study showed that, overall, panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone increased progression-free survival (PFS) by about 4 months when compared to placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone.

Full results of the PANORAMA-1 study were published in The Lancet Oncology last year.  Results from the substudy of 147 patients were presented at ASCO 2015.

The 147 patients had relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM and had received 2 or more prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD.

The median PFS benefit in this subgroup increased by 7.8 months in the panobinostat arm compared to the placebo arm. The median PFS was 12.5 months (n=73) and 4.7 months (n=74), respectively (hazard ratio=0.47).

Common grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events in the panobinostat arm and placebo arm, respectively, included diarrhea (33.3% vs 15.1%), asthenia/fatigue (26.4% vs 13.7%), and peripheral neuropathy (16.7% vs 6.8%).

The most common grade 3/4 hematologic events in the panobinostat arm and placebo arm, respectively, were thrombocytopenia (68.1% vs 44.4%), lymphopenia (48.6% vs 49.3%), and neutropenia (40.3% vs 16.4%).

Cardiac events (most frequently atrial fibrillation, tachycardia, palpitation, and sinus tachycardia) were reported in 17.6% of panobinostat-treated patients and 9.8% of placebo-treated patients. Syncope was reported in 6.0% and 2.4%, respectively.

The percentage of on-treatment deaths was similar in the panobinostat and placebo arms—6.9% and 6.8%, respectively. But on-treatment deaths not due to the study indication (MM) were reported in 6.8% and 3.2% of patients, respectively.

Panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone is also approved in the US, Chile, and Japan for certain patients with previously treated MM. The exact indication for panobinostat varies by country.

Panobinostat (Farydak)

Photo courtesy of Novartis

The European Commission has approved panobinostat (Farydak) for use in combination with other agents to treat patients with relapsed and/or refractory

multiple myeloma (MM).

The histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor is now approved, in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least 2 prior treatment regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD).

The approval marks the first time an HDAC inhibitor with epigenetic activity is available in the European Union (EU). The approval applies to all 28 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission approved panobinostat based on results of a subgroup analysis of 147 patients in the phase 3 PANORAMA-1 trial.

PANORAMA-1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 768 MM patients. The study showed that, overall, panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone increased progression-free survival (PFS) by about 4 months when compared to placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone.

Full results of the PANORAMA-1 study were published in The Lancet Oncology last year.  Results from the substudy of 147 patients were presented at ASCO 2015.

The 147 patients had relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM and had received 2 or more prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD.

The median PFS benefit in this subgroup increased by 7.8 months in the panobinostat arm compared to the placebo arm. The median PFS was 12.5 months (n=73) and 4.7 months (n=74), respectively (hazard ratio=0.47).

Common grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events in the panobinostat arm and placebo arm, respectively, included diarrhea (33.3% vs 15.1%), asthenia/fatigue (26.4% vs 13.7%), and peripheral neuropathy (16.7% vs 6.8%).

The most common grade 3/4 hematologic events in the panobinostat arm and placebo arm, respectively, were thrombocytopenia (68.1% vs 44.4%), lymphopenia (48.6% vs 49.3%), and neutropenia (40.3% vs 16.4%).

Cardiac events (most frequently atrial fibrillation, tachycardia, palpitation, and sinus tachycardia) were reported in 17.6% of panobinostat-treated patients and 9.8% of placebo-treated patients. Syncope was reported in 6.0% and 2.4%, respectively.

The percentage of on-treatment deaths was similar in the panobinostat and placebo arms—6.9% and 6.8%, respectively. But on-treatment deaths not due to the study indication (MM) were reported in 6.8% and 3.2% of patients, respectively.

Panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone is also approved in the US, Chile, and Japan for certain patients with previously treated MM. The exact indication for panobinostat varies by country.

Blood samples

Photo by Graham Colm

Researchers studying stored blood samples from Vietnam War veterans found that exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange was associated with a more than 2-fold increased risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS).

The team studied samples from US Air Force personnel who conducted aerial herbicide spray missions of Agent Orange during the war and compared them to blood samples from other Air Force vets.

The incidence of MGUS among the vets exposed to Agent Orange was low, at about 7%. But they still had twice the rate of MGUS as the other vets.

The researchers said this finding supports the previously discovered link between pesticides and myelomagenesis.

While the cause of MGUS and multiple myeloma (MM) remains largely unclear, studies have reported an elevated risk of MM among farmers and other agricultural workers. And pesticides have been thought to be the basis for these associations.

To further investigate the link, Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, and his colleagues conducted their study of Vietnam vets. The team reported the results in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers studied store blood samples from 958 male vets—479 Operation Ranch Hand vets who were involved in aerial herbicide spray missions and 479 Air Force vets who had similar duties in Southeast Asia during the same time period (1962 to 1971) but were not involved in herbicide spray missions.

The overall prevalence of MGUS was 7.1% in the Operation Ranch Hand vets and 3.1% in the comparison vets, which translates to a 2.4-fold increased risk for MGUS in Operation Ranch Hand vets.

The odds ratio—after the researchers adjusted for confounding factors such as race, age, and body mass index—was 2.37 (P=0.007).

Dr Landgren and his colleagues conceded that this study has limitations, including a lack of women and the potential for unknown confounding factors such as family medical history and civilian occupation.

Still, the researchers said their findings support an association between Agent Orange exposure and myelomagenesis.

In a related editorial, Niklhil C. Munshi, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said this study has implications beyond MGUS and MM.

“It also highlights the importance of tissue banking that allows investigation of a number of unanswered questions using modern methods,” Dr Munshi wrote. “The emphasis now is to store samples from almost every major study with correlative science in mind, and this is essential if we are to understand disease biology, mechanism of response, and resistance to therapy in the era of targeted therapy and precision medicine.”

Blood samples

Photo by Graham Colm

Researchers studying stored blood samples from Vietnam War veterans found that exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange was associated with a more than 2-fold increased risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS).

The team studied samples from US Air Force personnel who conducted aerial herbicide spray missions of Agent Orange during the war and compared them to blood samples from other Air Force vets.

The incidence of MGUS among the vets exposed to Agent Orange was low, at about 7%. But they still had twice the rate of MGUS as the other vets.

The researchers said this finding supports the previously discovered link between pesticides and myelomagenesis.

While the cause of MGUS and multiple myeloma (MM) remains largely unclear, studies have reported an elevated risk of MM among farmers and other agricultural workers. And pesticides have been thought to be the basis for these associations.

To further investigate the link, Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, and his colleagues conducted their study of Vietnam vets. The team reported the results in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers studied store blood samples from 958 male vets—479 Operation Ranch Hand vets who were involved in aerial herbicide spray missions and 479 Air Force vets who had similar duties in Southeast Asia during the same time period (1962 to 1971) but were not involved in herbicide spray missions.

The overall prevalence of MGUS was 7.1% in the Operation Ranch Hand vets and 3.1% in the comparison vets, which translates to a 2.4-fold increased risk for MGUS in Operation Ranch Hand vets.

The odds ratio—after the researchers adjusted for confounding factors such as race, age, and body mass index—was 2.37 (P=0.007).

Dr Landgren and his colleagues conceded that this study has limitations, including a lack of women and the potential for unknown confounding factors such as family medical history and civilian occupation.

Still, the researchers said their findings support an association between Agent Orange exposure and myelomagenesis.

In a related editorial, Niklhil C. Munshi, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said this study has implications beyond MGUS and MM.

“It also highlights the importance of tissue banking that allows investigation of a number of unanswered questions using modern methods,” Dr Munshi wrote. “The emphasis now is to store samples from almost every major study with correlative science in mind, and this is essential if we are to understand disease biology, mechanism of response, and resistance to therapy in the era of targeted therapy and precision medicine.”

Blood samples

Photo by Graham Colm

Researchers studying stored blood samples from Vietnam War veterans found that exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange was associated with a more than 2-fold increased risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS).

The team studied samples from US Air Force personnel who conducted aerial herbicide spray missions of Agent Orange during the war and compared them to blood samples from other Air Force vets.

The incidence of MGUS among the vets exposed to Agent Orange was low, at about 7%. But they still had twice the rate of MGUS as the other vets.

The researchers said this finding supports the previously discovered link between pesticides and myelomagenesis.

While the cause of MGUS and multiple myeloma (MM) remains largely unclear, studies have reported an elevated risk of MM among farmers and other agricultural workers. And pesticides have been thought to be the basis for these associations.

To further investigate the link, Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, and his colleagues conducted their study of Vietnam vets. The team reported the results in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers studied store blood samples from 958 male vets—479 Operation Ranch Hand vets who were involved in aerial herbicide spray missions and 479 Air Force vets who had similar duties in Southeast Asia during the same time period (1962 to 1971) but were not involved in herbicide spray missions.

The overall prevalence of MGUS was 7.1% in the Operation Ranch Hand vets and 3.1% in the comparison vets, which translates to a 2.4-fold increased risk for MGUS in Operation Ranch Hand vets.

The odds ratio—after the researchers adjusted for confounding factors such as race, age, and body mass index—was 2.37 (P=0.007).

Dr Landgren and his colleagues conceded that this study has limitations, including a lack of women and the potential for unknown confounding factors such as family medical history and civilian occupation.

Still, the researchers said their findings support an association between Agent Orange exposure and myelomagenesis.

In a related editorial, Niklhil C. Munshi, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said this study has implications beyond MGUS and MM.

“It also highlights the importance of tissue banking that allows investigation of a number of unanswered questions using modern methods,” Dr Munshi wrote. “The emphasis now is to store samples from almost every major study with correlative science in mind, and this is essential if we are to understand disease biology, mechanism of response, and resistance to therapy in the era of targeted therapy and precision medicine.”

Prefilled syringes of Zarxio

© Sandoz Inc. 2015

The leukocyte growth factor Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), the first biosimilar product to gain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is now available in the US.

Zarxio was approved by the FDA on March 6. The product, made by Sandoz, Inc., is biosimilar to Amgen Inc.’s Neupogen, which was originally licensed in 1991.

Zarxio is marketed as Zarzio outside the US. The biosimilar is available in more than 60 countries worldwide.

In the US, Zarxio is approved for the same indications as Neupogen. So Zarxio can be prescribed for the following 5 indications.

Patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs associated with a significant incidence of severe neutropenia with fever.

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy: to reduce the time to neutrophil recovery and the duration of fever, following induction or consolidation chemotherapy.

Patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplant: to reduce the duration of neutropenia and neutropenia-related clinical sequelae—eg, febrile neutropenia—in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies undergoing myeloablative chemotherapy followed by bone marrow transplant.

Patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy: for the mobilization of autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells into the peripheral blood for collection by leukapheresis.

Patients with severe chronic neutropenia: for chronic administration to reduce the incidence and duration of sequelae of neutropenia—eg, fever, infections, oropharyngeal ulcers—in symptomatic patients with congenital neutropenia, cyclic neutropenia, or idiopathic neutropenia.

PIONEER trial

The FDA’s approval of Zarxio was based on data showing that Zarxio is highly similar to Neupogen, with no clinically meaningful differences between the products.

The head-to-head PIONEER study was the final piece of evidence the FDA used to approve Zarxio as biosimilar to Neupogen. Results of the trial were presented at ASH 2014.

Zarxio and Neupogen both produced the expected reduction in the duration of severe neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy—1.17 ± 1.11 and 1.20 ±1.02 days, respectively.

The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery in cycle 1 was also similar—1.8 ± 0.97 days in the Zarxio arm and 1.7 ± 0.81 days in the Neupogen arm. No immunogenicity or antibodies against rhG-CSF were detected throughout the study.

The researchers said there were no obvious differences between Zarxio and Neupogen with regard to treatment-emergent adverse events.

The most common side effects observed with Zarxio are aching bones/muscles and redness, swelling, or itching at the injection site. Serious side effects may include spleen rupture; serious allergic reactions that may cause rash, shortness of breath, wheezing and/or swelling around the mouth and eyes; fast pulse and sweating; and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

For more details on Zarxio, see the full prescribing information or visit www.zarxio.com.

Prefilled syringes of Zarxio

© Sandoz Inc. 2015

The leukocyte growth factor Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), the first biosimilar product to gain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is now available in the US.

Zarxio was approved by the FDA on March 6. The product, made by Sandoz, Inc., is biosimilar to Amgen Inc.’s Neupogen, which was originally licensed in 1991.

Zarxio is marketed as Zarzio outside the US. The biosimilar is available in more than 60 countries worldwide.

In the US, Zarxio is approved for the same indications as Neupogen. So Zarxio can be prescribed for the following 5 indications.

Patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs associated with a significant incidence of severe neutropenia with fever.

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy: to reduce the time to neutrophil recovery and the duration of fever, following induction or consolidation chemotherapy.

Patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplant: to reduce the duration of neutropenia and neutropenia-related clinical sequelae—eg, febrile neutropenia—in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies undergoing myeloablative chemotherapy followed by bone marrow transplant.

Patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy: for the mobilization of autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells into the peripheral blood for collection by leukapheresis.

Patients with severe chronic neutropenia: for chronic administration to reduce the incidence and duration of sequelae of neutropenia—eg, fever, infections, oropharyngeal ulcers—in symptomatic patients with congenital neutropenia, cyclic neutropenia, or idiopathic neutropenia.

PIONEER trial

The FDA’s approval of Zarxio was based on data showing that Zarxio is highly similar to Neupogen, with no clinically meaningful differences between the products.

The head-to-head PIONEER study was the final piece of evidence the FDA used to approve Zarxio as biosimilar to Neupogen. Results of the trial were presented at ASH 2014.

Zarxio and Neupogen both produced the expected reduction in the duration of severe neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy—1.17 ± 1.11 and 1.20 ±1.02 days, respectively.

The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery in cycle 1 was also similar—1.8 ± 0.97 days in the Zarxio arm and 1.7 ± 0.81 days in the Neupogen arm. No immunogenicity or antibodies against rhG-CSF were detected throughout the study.

The researchers said there were no obvious differences between Zarxio and Neupogen with regard to treatment-emergent adverse events.

The most common side effects observed with Zarxio are aching bones/muscles and redness, swelling, or itching at the injection site. Serious side effects may include spleen rupture; serious allergic reactions that may cause rash, shortness of breath, wheezing and/or swelling around the mouth and eyes; fast pulse and sweating; and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

For more details on Zarxio, see the full prescribing information or visit www.zarxio.com.

Prefilled syringes of Zarxio

© Sandoz Inc. 2015

The leukocyte growth factor Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), the first biosimilar product to gain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is now available in the US.

Zarxio was approved by the FDA on March 6. The product, made by Sandoz, Inc., is biosimilar to Amgen Inc.’s Neupogen, which was originally licensed in 1991.

Zarxio is marketed as Zarzio outside the US. The biosimilar is available in more than 60 countries worldwide.

In the US, Zarxio is approved for the same indications as Neupogen. So Zarxio can be prescribed for the following 5 indications.

Patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs associated with a significant incidence of severe neutropenia with fever.

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy: to reduce the time to neutrophil recovery and the duration of fever, following induction or consolidation chemotherapy.

Patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplant: to reduce the duration of neutropenia and neutropenia-related clinical sequelae—eg, febrile neutropenia—in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies undergoing myeloablative chemotherapy followed by bone marrow transplant.

Patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy: for the mobilization of autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells into the peripheral blood for collection by leukapheresis.

Patients with severe chronic neutropenia: for chronic administration to reduce the incidence and duration of sequelae of neutropenia—eg, fever, infections, oropharyngeal ulcers—in symptomatic patients with congenital neutropenia, cyclic neutropenia, or idiopathic neutropenia.

PIONEER trial

The FDA’s approval of Zarxio was based on data showing that Zarxio is highly similar to Neupogen, with no clinically meaningful differences between the products.

The head-to-head PIONEER study was the final piece of evidence the FDA used to approve Zarxio as biosimilar to Neupogen. Results of the trial were presented at ASH 2014.

Zarxio and Neupogen both produced the expected reduction in the duration of severe neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy—1.17 ± 1.11 and 1.20 ±1.02 days, respectively.

The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery in cycle 1 was also similar—1.8 ± 0.97 days in the Zarxio arm and 1.7 ± 0.81 days in the Neupogen arm. No immunogenicity or antibodies against rhG-CSF were detected throughout the study.

The researchers said there were no obvious differences between Zarxio and Neupogen with regard to treatment-emergent adverse events.

The most common side effects observed with Zarxio are aching bones/muscles and redness, swelling, or itching at the injection site. Serious side effects may include spleen rupture; serious allergic reactions that may cause rash, shortness of breath, wheezing and/or swelling around the mouth and eyes; fast pulse and sweating; and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

For more details on Zarxio, see the full prescribing information or visit www.zarxio.com.

Patient receiving chemotherapy

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rolapitant (Varubi) for use in adult cancer patients receiving initial and repeat courses of emetogenic chemotherapy.

Rolapitant is to be used in combination with other antiemetic agents to prevent delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Tesaro, Inc., the company developing rolapitant, plans to launch the drug in the fourth quarter of this year.

Rolapitant is a selective and competitive antagonist of human substance P/neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptors, with a plasma half-life of approximately 7 days. Activation of NK-1 receptors plays a central role in CINV, particularly in the delayed phase (the 25- to 120-hour period after chemotherapy administration).

Rolapitant comes in tablet form. The recommended dose is 180 mg, given approximately 1 to 2 hours prior to chemotherapy administration in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. No dosage adjustment is required for dexamethasone when administering rolapitant.

Rolapitant inhibits the CYP2D6 enzyme, so it is contraindicated with the use of thioridazine, a drug metabolized by the CYP2D6 enzyme. Use of these drugs together may increase the amount of thioridazine in the blood and cause an abnormal heart rhythm that can be serious.

Rolapitant clinical trials

Results from three phase 3 trials suggested that rolapitant (at 180 mg) in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone was more effective than the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone on their own (active control).

The 3-drug combination demonstrated a significant reduction in episodes of vomiting or use of rescue medication during the 25- to 120-hour period following administration of highly emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

In addition, patients who received rolapitant reported experiencing less nausea that interfered with normal daily life and fewer episodes of vomiting or retching over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy

The clinical profile of rolapitant in cisplatin-based, highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) was confirmed in two phase 3 studies: HEC1 and HEC2. Results from these trials were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

Both trials met their primary endpoint of complete response (CR) and demonstrated statistical superiority of the rolapitant combination compared to active control.

In HEC1, 264 patients received the rolapitant combination, and 262 received active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 72.7% and 58.4%, respectively (P<0.001).

In HEC2, 271 patients received the rolapitant combination, and 273 received active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 70.1% and 61.9%, respectively (P=0.043).

The most common adverse events (≥3%) were neutropenia (9% rolapitant and 8% control), hiccups (5% and 4%), and abdominal pain (3% and 2%).

Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Researchers conducted another phase 3 trial to compare the rolapitant combination with active control in 1332 patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Results from this trial were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

This trial met its primary endpoint of CR and demonstrated statistical superiority of the rolapitant combination compared to active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 71.3% and 61.6%, respectively (P<0.001).

The most common adverse events (≥3%) were decreased appetite (9% rolapitant and 7% control), neutropenia (7% and 6%), dizziness (6% and 4%), dyspepsia (4% and 2%), urinary tract infection (4% and 3%), stomatitis (4% and 2%), and anemia (3% and 2%).

The full prescribing information for rolapitant is available at www.varubirx.com.

Patient receiving chemotherapy

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rolapitant (Varubi) for use in adult cancer patients receiving initial and repeat courses of emetogenic chemotherapy.

Rolapitant is to be used in combination with other antiemetic agents to prevent delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Tesaro, Inc., the company developing rolapitant, plans to launch the drug in the fourth quarter of this year.

Rolapitant is a selective and competitive antagonist of human substance P/neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptors, with a plasma half-life of approximately 7 days. Activation of NK-1 receptors plays a central role in CINV, particularly in the delayed phase (the 25- to 120-hour period after chemotherapy administration).

Rolapitant comes in tablet form. The recommended dose is 180 mg, given approximately 1 to 2 hours prior to chemotherapy administration in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. No dosage adjustment is required for dexamethasone when administering rolapitant.

Rolapitant inhibits the CYP2D6 enzyme, so it is contraindicated with the use of thioridazine, a drug metabolized by the CYP2D6 enzyme. Use of these drugs together may increase the amount of thioridazine in the blood and cause an abnormal heart rhythm that can be serious.

Rolapitant clinical trials

Results from three phase 3 trials suggested that rolapitant (at 180 mg) in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone was more effective than the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone on their own (active control).

The 3-drug combination demonstrated a significant reduction in episodes of vomiting or use of rescue medication during the 25- to 120-hour period following administration of highly emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

In addition, patients who received rolapitant reported experiencing less nausea that interfered with normal daily life and fewer episodes of vomiting or retching over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy

The clinical profile of rolapitant in cisplatin-based, highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) was confirmed in two phase 3 studies: HEC1 and HEC2. Results from these trials were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

Both trials met their primary endpoint of complete response (CR) and demonstrated statistical superiority of the rolapitant combination compared to active control.

In HEC1, 264 patients received the rolapitant combination, and 262 received active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 72.7% and 58.4%, respectively (P<0.001).

In HEC2, 271 patients received the rolapitant combination, and 273 received active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 70.1% and 61.9%, respectively (P=0.043).

The most common adverse events (≥3%) were neutropenia (9% rolapitant and 8% control), hiccups (5% and 4%), and abdominal pain (3% and 2%).

Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Researchers conducted another phase 3 trial to compare the rolapitant combination with active control in 1332 patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Results from this trial were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

This trial met its primary endpoint of CR and demonstrated statistical superiority of the rolapitant combination compared to active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 71.3% and 61.6%, respectively (P<0.001).

The most common adverse events (≥3%) were decreased appetite (9% rolapitant and 7% control), neutropenia (7% and 6%), dizziness (6% and 4%), dyspepsia (4% and 2%), urinary tract infection (4% and 3%), stomatitis (4% and 2%), and anemia (3% and 2%).

The full prescribing information for rolapitant is available at www.varubirx.com.

Patient receiving chemotherapy

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rolapitant (Varubi) for use in adult cancer patients receiving initial and repeat courses of emetogenic chemotherapy.

Rolapitant is to be used in combination with other antiemetic agents to prevent delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Tesaro, Inc., the company developing rolapitant, plans to launch the drug in the fourth quarter of this year.

Rolapitant is a selective and competitive antagonist of human substance P/neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptors, with a plasma half-life of approximately 7 days. Activation of NK-1 receptors plays a central role in CINV, particularly in the delayed phase (the 25- to 120-hour period after chemotherapy administration).

Rolapitant comes in tablet form. The recommended dose is 180 mg, given approximately 1 to 2 hours prior to chemotherapy administration in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. No dosage adjustment is required for dexamethasone when administering rolapitant.

Rolapitant inhibits the CYP2D6 enzyme, so it is contraindicated with the use of thioridazine, a drug metabolized by the CYP2D6 enzyme. Use of these drugs together may increase the amount of thioridazine in the blood and cause an abnormal heart rhythm that can be serious.

Rolapitant clinical trials

Results from three phase 3 trials suggested that rolapitant (at 180 mg) in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone was more effective than the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone on their own (active control).

The 3-drug combination demonstrated a significant reduction in episodes of vomiting or use of rescue medication during the 25- to 120-hour period following administration of highly emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

In addition, patients who received rolapitant reported experiencing less nausea that interfered with normal daily life and fewer episodes of vomiting or retching over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy

The clinical profile of rolapitant in cisplatin-based, highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) was confirmed in two phase 3 studies: HEC1 and HEC2. Results from these trials were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

Both trials met their primary endpoint of complete response (CR) and demonstrated statistical superiority of the rolapitant combination compared to active control.

In HEC1, 264 patients received the rolapitant combination, and 262 received active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 72.7% and 58.4%, respectively (P<0.001).

In HEC2, 271 patients received the rolapitant combination, and 273 received active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 70.1% and 61.9%, respectively (P=0.043).

The most common adverse events (≥3%) were neutropenia (9% rolapitant and 8% control), hiccups (5% and 4%), and abdominal pain (3% and 2%).

Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Researchers conducted another phase 3 trial to compare the rolapitant combination with active control in 1332 patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Results from this trial were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

This trial met its primary endpoint of CR and demonstrated statistical superiority of the rolapitant combination compared to active control. The proportion of patients achieving a CR was 71.3% and 61.6%, respectively (P<0.001).

The most common adverse events (≥3%) were decreased appetite (9% rolapitant and 7% control), neutropenia (7% and 6%), dizziness (6% and 4%), dyspepsia (4% and 2%), urinary tract infection (4% and 3%), stomatitis (4% and 2%), and anemia (3% and 2%).

The full prescribing information for rolapitant is available at www.varubirx.com.

Cancer patient

receiving chemotherapy

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Results of a new survey suggest many adults in the UK may be uninformed about cancer treatment options, despite broad media coverage of these therapies.

Personalized drug treatment, immunotherapy, and proton beam therapy have all been covered by the lay media and featured in news stories across the globe.

But a survey of more than 2000 UK adults showed that most respondents were not aware of these treatment types.

Only 19% of respondents said they had heard about immunotherapy, 29% had heard of personalized drug treatment, and 30% had heard of proton beam therapy.

The survey, which included 2081 adults, was conducted online by YouGov in June. It was commissioned by Cancer Research UK and other members of the Radiotherapy Awareness Programme.

The primary goal of the survey was to examine public awareness of radiotherapy. And the results showed that many respondents were unaware of newer, more targeted radiotherapy options.

Respondents were largely uninformed about other types of cancer treatment as well. However, of the respondents who elected to give their opinion (n=1877), most said the National Health Service (NHS) should fund chemotherapy and other drug treatments over radiotherapy.

Survey questions and responses were as follows.

Radiotherapy

Before taking this survey, which, if any, of the following types of radiotherapy had you heard of?

Other cancer treatments

Which, if any, of the following specific types of cancer treatments/tests had you heard of before taking this survey?

NHS funding

What level of priority do you think the NHS should give to funding each of the following 4 types of cancer treatments?

Cancer patient

receiving chemotherapy

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Results of a new survey suggest many adults in the UK may be uninformed about cancer treatment options, despite broad media coverage of these therapies.

Personalized drug treatment, immunotherapy, and proton beam therapy have all been covered by the lay media and featured in news stories across the globe.

But a survey of more than 2000 UK adults showed that most respondents were not aware of these treatment types.

Only 19% of respondents said they had heard about immunotherapy, 29% had heard of personalized drug treatment, and 30% had heard of proton beam therapy.

The survey, which included 2081 adults, was conducted online by YouGov in June. It was commissioned by Cancer Research UK and other members of the Radiotherapy Awareness Programme.

The primary goal of the survey was to examine public awareness of radiotherapy. And the results showed that many respondents were unaware of newer, more targeted radiotherapy options.

Respondents were largely uninformed about other types of cancer treatment as well. However, of the respondents who elected to give their opinion (n=1877), most said the National Health Service (NHS) should fund chemotherapy and other drug treatments over radiotherapy.

Survey questions and responses were as follows.

Radiotherapy

Before taking this survey, which, if any, of the following types of radiotherapy had you heard of?

Other cancer treatments

Which, if any, of the following specific types of cancer treatments/tests had you heard of before taking this survey?

NHS funding

What level of priority do you think the NHS should give to funding each of the following 4 types of cancer treatments?

Cancer patient

receiving chemotherapy

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Results of a new survey suggest many adults in the UK may be uninformed about cancer treatment options, despite broad media coverage of these therapies.

Personalized drug treatment, immunotherapy, and proton beam therapy have all been covered by the lay media and featured in news stories across the globe.

But a survey of more than 2000 UK adults showed that most respondents were not aware of these treatment types.

Only 19% of respondents said they had heard about immunotherapy, 29% had heard of personalized drug treatment, and 30% had heard of proton beam therapy.

The survey, which included 2081 adults, was conducted online by YouGov in June. It was commissioned by Cancer Research UK and other members of the Radiotherapy Awareness Programme.

The primary goal of the survey was to examine public awareness of radiotherapy. And the results showed that many respondents were unaware of newer, more targeted radiotherapy options.

Respondents were largely uninformed about other types of cancer treatment as well. However, of the respondents who elected to give their opinion (n=1877), most said the National Health Service (NHS) should fund chemotherapy and other drug treatments over radiotherapy.

Survey questions and responses were as follows.

Radiotherapy

Before taking this survey, which, if any, of the following types of radiotherapy had you heard of?

Other cancer treatments

Which, if any, of the following specific types of cancer treatments/tests had you heard of before taking this survey?

NHS funding

What level of priority do you think the NHS should give to funding each of the following 4 types of cancer treatments?

DNA coiled around histones

Image by Eric Smith

Researchers say they have discovered critical details that explain how a cellular response system tells the difference between damage to the body’s own DNA and the foreign DNA of an invading virus.

The team believes this discovery could aid the development of new cancer-selective viral therapies, and it may help explain why aging, cancers, and other diseases

seem to open the door to viral infections.

“Our study reveals fundamental mechanisms that distinguish DNA breaks at cellular and viral genomes to trigger different responses that protect the host,” said Clodagh O’Shea, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.

“The findings may also explain why certain conditions like aging, cancer chemotherapy, and inflammation make us more susceptible to viral infection.”

Dr O’Shea and Govind Shah, PhD, also of the Salk Institute, reported these findings in Cell.

The pair described how a cluster of proteins known as the MRN complex detects DNA breaks and amplifies its response through histones.

MRN starts a domino effect, activating histones on surrounding chromosomes, which summons a cascade of additional proteins and results in a cell-wide, all-hands-on-deck alarm to help mend the DNA.

If the cell can’t fix the DNA break, it will induce apoptosis—a self-destruct mechanism that helps to prevent mutated cells from replicating and therefore prevents tumor growth.

“What’s interesting is that even a single break transmits a global signal through the cell, halting cell division and growth,” Dr O’Shea said. “This response prevents replication so the cell doesn’t pass on a break.”

Drs O’Shea and Shah also found that, when it comes to defending against DNA viruses, the cell’s response system begins the same way—with MRN detecting breaks. But it never progresses to the global alarm signal in the case of the virus.

Typically, a common DNA virus enters the cell’s nucleus and turns on genes to replicate its own DNA. The cell detects the unauthorized replication, and the MRN complex grabs and selectively neutralizes viral DNA without triggering a global response that would arrest or kill the cell.

So the MRN response to the virus stays localized and only selectively prevents viral, but not cellular, replication.

When both threats to the genome are present, MRN will activate the massive response at the DNA break, and no MRN is left to respond to the virus. This means the virus is effectively ignored while the cell responds to the more massive alarm.

“The requirement of MRN for sensing both cellular and viral genome breaks has profound consequences,” Dr O’Shea said.

“When MRN is recruited to cellular DNA breaks, it can no longer sense and respond to incoming viral genomes. Thus, the act of responding to cellular genome breaks inactivates the host’s defenses to viral replication.”

Dr O’Shea said this may explain why people who have high levels of cellular DNA damage—such as cancer patients—are more susceptible to viral infections.

“Having damaged DNA compromises our cells’ ability to fight viral infection, while having healthy DNA boosts our cells’ ability to catch viral DNA,” Dr Shah said. “Our work implies that we may be able to engineer viruses that selectively kill cancer cells.”

The researchers aim to use this new knowledge to create viruses that are destroyed in normal cells but replicate specifically in cancer cells.

Unlike normal cells, cancer cells almost always have very high levels of DNA damage. In cancer cells, MRN is already so preoccupied with responding to DNA breaks that an engineered virus could sneak in undetected.

“Cancer cells, by definition, have high mutation rates and genomic instability even at the very earliest stages,” Dr O’Shea said. “So you could imagine building a virus that could destroy even the earliest lesions and be used as a prophylactic.”

DNA coiled around histones

Image by Eric Smith

Researchers say they have discovered critical details that explain how a cellular response system tells the difference between damage to the body’s own DNA and the foreign DNA of an invading virus.

The team believes this discovery could aid the development of new cancer-selective viral therapies, and it may help explain why aging, cancers, and other diseases

seem to open the door to viral infections.

“Our study reveals fundamental mechanisms that distinguish DNA breaks at cellular and viral genomes to trigger different responses that protect the host,” said Clodagh O’Shea, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.

“The findings may also explain why certain conditions like aging, cancer chemotherapy, and inflammation make us more susceptible to viral infection.”

Dr O’Shea and Govind Shah, PhD, also of the Salk Institute, reported these findings in Cell.

The pair described how a cluster of proteins known as the MRN complex detects DNA breaks and amplifies its response through histones.

MRN starts a domino effect, activating histones on surrounding chromosomes, which summons a cascade of additional proteins and results in a cell-wide, all-hands-on-deck alarm to help mend the DNA.

If the cell can’t fix the DNA break, it will induce apoptosis—a self-destruct mechanism that helps to prevent mutated cells from replicating and therefore prevents tumor growth.

“What’s interesting is that even a single break transmits a global signal through the cell, halting cell division and growth,” Dr O’Shea said. “This response prevents replication so the cell doesn’t pass on a break.”

Drs O’Shea and Shah also found that, when it comes to defending against DNA viruses, the cell’s response system begins the same way—with MRN detecting breaks. But it never progresses to the global alarm signal in the case of the virus.

Typically, a common DNA virus enters the cell’s nucleus and turns on genes to replicate its own DNA. The cell detects the unauthorized replication, and the MRN complex grabs and selectively neutralizes viral DNA without triggering a global response that would arrest or kill the cell.

So the MRN response to the virus stays localized and only selectively prevents viral, but not cellular, replication.

When both threats to the genome are present, MRN will activate the massive response at the DNA break, and no MRN is left to respond to the virus. This means the virus is effectively ignored while the cell responds to the more massive alarm.

“The requirement of MRN for sensing both cellular and viral genome breaks has profound consequences,” Dr O’Shea said.

“When MRN is recruited to cellular DNA breaks, it can no longer sense and respond to incoming viral genomes. Thus, the act of responding to cellular genome breaks inactivates the host’s defenses to viral replication.”

Dr O’Shea said this may explain why people who have high levels of cellular DNA damage—such as cancer patients—are more susceptible to viral infections.

“Having damaged DNA compromises our cells’ ability to fight viral infection, while having healthy DNA boosts our cells’ ability to catch viral DNA,” Dr Shah said. “Our work implies that we may be able to engineer viruses that selectively kill cancer cells.”

The researchers aim to use this new knowledge to create viruses that are destroyed in normal cells but replicate specifically in cancer cells.

Unlike normal cells, cancer cells almost always have very high levels of DNA damage. In cancer cells, MRN is already so preoccupied with responding to DNA breaks that an engineered virus could sneak in undetected.

“Cancer cells, by definition, have high mutation rates and genomic instability even at the very earliest stages,” Dr O’Shea said. “So you could imagine building a virus that could destroy even the earliest lesions and be used as a prophylactic.”

DNA coiled around histones

Image by Eric Smith

Researchers say they have discovered critical details that explain how a cellular response system tells the difference between damage to the body’s own DNA and the foreign DNA of an invading virus.

The team believes this discovery could aid the development of new cancer-selective viral therapies, and it may help explain why aging, cancers, and other diseases

seem to open the door to viral infections.

“Our study reveals fundamental mechanisms that distinguish DNA breaks at cellular and viral genomes to trigger different responses that protect the host,” said Clodagh O’Shea, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.

“The findings may also explain why certain conditions like aging, cancer chemotherapy, and inflammation make us more susceptible to viral infection.”

Dr O’Shea and Govind Shah, PhD, also of the Salk Institute, reported these findings in Cell.

The pair described how a cluster of proteins known as the MRN complex detects DNA breaks and amplifies its response through histones.

MRN starts a domino effect, activating histones on surrounding chromosomes, which summons a cascade of additional proteins and results in a cell-wide, all-hands-on-deck alarm to help mend the DNA.

If the cell can’t fix the DNA break, it will induce apoptosis—a self-destruct mechanism that helps to prevent mutated cells from replicating and therefore prevents tumor growth.

“What’s interesting is that even a single break transmits a global signal through the cell, halting cell division and growth,” Dr O’Shea said. “This response prevents replication so the cell doesn’t pass on a break.”

Drs O’Shea and Shah also found that, when it comes to defending against DNA viruses, the cell’s response system begins the same way—with MRN detecting breaks. But it never progresses to the global alarm signal in the case of the virus.

Typically, a common DNA virus enters the cell’s nucleus and turns on genes to replicate its own DNA. The cell detects the unauthorized replication, and the MRN complex grabs and selectively neutralizes viral DNA without triggering a global response that would arrest or kill the cell.

So the MRN response to the virus stays localized and only selectively prevents viral, but not cellular, replication.

When both threats to the genome are present, MRN will activate the massive response at the DNA break, and no MRN is left to respond to the virus. This means the virus is effectively ignored while the cell responds to the more massive alarm.

“The requirement of MRN for sensing both cellular and viral genome breaks has profound consequences,” Dr O’Shea said.

“When MRN is recruited to cellular DNA breaks, it can no longer sense and respond to incoming viral genomes. Thus, the act of responding to cellular genome breaks inactivates the host’s defenses to viral replication.”

Dr O’Shea said this may explain why people who have high levels of cellular DNA damage—such as cancer patients—are more susceptible to viral infections.

“Having damaged DNA compromises our cells’ ability to fight viral infection, while having healthy DNA boosts our cells’ ability to catch viral DNA,” Dr Shah said. “Our work implies that we may be able to engineer viruses that selectively kill cancer cells.”

The researchers aim to use this new knowledge to create viruses that are destroyed in normal cells but replicate specifically in cancer cells.

Unlike normal cells, cancer cells almost always have very high levels of DNA damage. In cancer cells, MRN is already so preoccupied with responding to DNA breaks that an engineered virus could sneak in undetected.

“Cancer cells, by definition, have high mutation rates and genomic instability even at the very earliest stages,” Dr O’Shea said. “So you could imagine building a virus that could destroy even the earliest lesions and be used as a prophylactic.”

Monoclonal antibodies

Photo by Linda Bartlett

The anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab has demonstrated a “favorable safety profile” and “encouraging efficacy” in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

Results of a phase 1/2 study suggested the drug was most effective at a dose of 16 mg/kg. At this dose, the overall response rate was 36%.

Most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2, although serious AEs did occur.

“As a single-agent therapy, daratumumab showed significant promise against difficult-to-treat disease in our patients with advanced myeloma who have few other therapeutic options,” said Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Because it targets a key receptor and works through different mechanisms than other available agents, it clearly has merited comprehensive testing in larger clinical trials. Preliminary results from these studies have been very encouraging.”

Dr Richardson and his colleagues reported results of the phase 1/2 study in NEJM. The research was previously presented at the 18th Congress of the EHA in 2013. It was sponsored by Janssen Research and Development and Genmab.

Another phase 2 study of single-agent daratumumab in MM was recently presented at the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting.

Patients and treatment

The current study enrolled patients with relapsed MM or relapsed MM that was refractory to 2 or more prior lines of therapy. The study consisted of 2 parts.

In part 1 (n=30), researchers administered daratumumab in 10 different dosing cohorts at doses ranging from 0.005 to 24 mg/kg of body weight.

In part 2 (n=72), patients received 2 different doses of daratumumab on varying schedules. In schedules A (n=16), B (n=8), and C (n=6), patients received daratumumab at 8 mg/kg in 8 once-weekly infusions and then in twice-monthly infusions for 16 weeks.

In schedules D (n=20) and E (n=22), patients received daratumumab at 16 mg/kg, and, after the first infusion, they had a 3-week washout period to allow for the collection of pharmacokinetic data. They then received weekly treatment for 7 weeks, followed by twice-monthly treatment for 14 weeks.

Safety

There was no maximum tolerated dose identified in part 1 of the study. Infusion-related AEs occurred in 20 patients (63%), serious AEs occurred in 12 patients (37%), and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 5 patients (16%).

In part 2, 71% of patients had infusion-related AEs. The most common AEs among patients in both dosing cohorts (8 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) were fatigue (42%), allergic rhinitis (31%), pyrexia (28%), diarrhea (21%), upper respiratory tract infection (21%), and dyspnea (19%). The most frequent hematologic AE was neutropenia (12%).

Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 53% of patients in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 26% in the 16 mg/kg cohort. Grade 3/4 AEs that were reported in 2 or more patients included pneumonia (n=5), thrombocytopenia (n=4), neutropenia (n=2), leukopenia (n=2), anemia (n=2), and hyperglycemia (n=2).

Serious AEs occurred in 40% of patients in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 33% in the 16 mg/kg cohort. The most frequent serious AEs were infection-related events.

Efficacy

In part 1, there were no responses among patients who received daratumumab at 2 mg/kg or less (n=18), but responses did occur in patients treated at doses of 4 mg/kg or higher (n=12).

There were 4 partial responses—1 in the 4 mg/kg group, 1 in the 16 mg/kg group, and 2 in the 24 mg/kg group. And there were 3 minimal responses—2 in the 4 mg/kg group and 1 in the 8 mg/kg group.

Three patients had stable disease—1 each in the 8 mg/kg, 16 mg/kg, and 24 mg/kg groups. One patient progressed (16 mg/kg), and 1 was not evaluable (8 mg/kg).

In part 2, the overall response rate was 10% in the 8 mg/kg cohort (3/30) and 36% (15/42) in the 16 mg/kg cohort.

There were 2 complete responses (16 mg/kg), 2 very good partial responses (16 mg/kg), 14 partial responses (3 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 11 in the 16 mg/kg), and 10 minimal responses (6 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 4 in the 16 mg/kg cohort).

Thirty-six patients had stable disease (14 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 22 in the 16 mg/kg cohort). Six patients progressed (all in the 8 mg/kg cohort), and 2 patients were not evaluable (1 in each cohort).

The estimated median progression-free survival was 2.4 months in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 5.6 months in the 16 mg/kg cohort. The overall survival rate at 12 months was 77% in both cohorts.

Monoclonal antibodies

Photo by Linda Bartlett

The anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab has demonstrated a “favorable safety profile” and “encouraging efficacy” in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

Results of a phase 1/2 study suggested the drug was most effective at a dose of 16 mg/kg. At this dose, the overall response rate was 36%.

Most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2, although serious AEs did occur.

“As a single-agent therapy, daratumumab showed significant promise against difficult-to-treat disease in our patients with advanced myeloma who have few other therapeutic options,” said Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Because it targets a key receptor and works through different mechanisms than other available agents, it clearly has merited comprehensive testing in larger clinical trials. Preliminary results from these studies have been very encouraging.”

Dr Richardson and his colleagues reported results of the phase 1/2 study in NEJM. The research was previously presented at the 18th Congress of the EHA in 2013. It was sponsored by Janssen Research and Development and Genmab.

Another phase 2 study of single-agent daratumumab in MM was recently presented at the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting.

Patients and treatment

The current study enrolled patients with relapsed MM or relapsed MM that was refractory to 2 or more prior lines of therapy. The study consisted of 2 parts.

In part 1 (n=30), researchers administered daratumumab in 10 different dosing cohorts at doses ranging from 0.005 to 24 mg/kg of body weight.

In part 2 (n=72), patients received 2 different doses of daratumumab on varying schedules. In schedules A (n=16), B (n=8), and C (n=6), patients received daratumumab at 8 mg/kg in 8 once-weekly infusions and then in twice-monthly infusions for 16 weeks.

In schedules D (n=20) and E (n=22), patients received daratumumab at 16 mg/kg, and, after the first infusion, they had a 3-week washout period to allow for the collection of pharmacokinetic data. They then received weekly treatment for 7 weeks, followed by twice-monthly treatment for 14 weeks.

Safety

There was no maximum tolerated dose identified in part 1 of the study. Infusion-related AEs occurred in 20 patients (63%), serious AEs occurred in 12 patients (37%), and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 5 patients (16%).

In part 2, 71% of patients had infusion-related AEs. The most common AEs among patients in both dosing cohorts (8 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) were fatigue (42%), allergic rhinitis (31%), pyrexia (28%), diarrhea (21%), upper respiratory tract infection (21%), and dyspnea (19%). The most frequent hematologic AE was neutropenia (12%).

Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 53% of patients in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 26% in the 16 mg/kg cohort. Grade 3/4 AEs that were reported in 2 or more patients included pneumonia (n=5), thrombocytopenia (n=4), neutropenia (n=2), leukopenia (n=2), anemia (n=2), and hyperglycemia (n=2).

Serious AEs occurred in 40% of patients in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 33% in the 16 mg/kg cohort. The most frequent serious AEs were infection-related events.

Efficacy

In part 1, there were no responses among patients who received daratumumab at 2 mg/kg or less (n=18), but responses did occur in patients treated at doses of 4 mg/kg or higher (n=12).

There were 4 partial responses—1 in the 4 mg/kg group, 1 in the 16 mg/kg group, and 2 in the 24 mg/kg group. And there were 3 minimal responses—2 in the 4 mg/kg group and 1 in the 8 mg/kg group.

Three patients had stable disease—1 each in the 8 mg/kg, 16 mg/kg, and 24 mg/kg groups. One patient progressed (16 mg/kg), and 1 was not evaluable (8 mg/kg).

In part 2, the overall response rate was 10% in the 8 mg/kg cohort (3/30) and 36% (15/42) in the 16 mg/kg cohort.

There were 2 complete responses (16 mg/kg), 2 very good partial responses (16 mg/kg), 14 partial responses (3 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 11 in the 16 mg/kg), and 10 minimal responses (6 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 4 in the 16 mg/kg cohort).

Thirty-six patients had stable disease (14 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 22 in the 16 mg/kg cohort). Six patients progressed (all in the 8 mg/kg cohort), and 2 patients were not evaluable (1 in each cohort).

The estimated median progression-free survival was 2.4 months in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 5.6 months in the 16 mg/kg cohort. The overall survival rate at 12 months was 77% in both cohorts.

Monoclonal antibodies

Photo by Linda Bartlett

The anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab has demonstrated a “favorable safety profile” and “encouraging efficacy” in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

Results of a phase 1/2 study suggested the drug was most effective at a dose of 16 mg/kg. At this dose, the overall response rate was 36%.

Most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2, although serious AEs did occur.

“As a single-agent therapy, daratumumab showed significant promise against difficult-to-treat disease in our patients with advanced myeloma who have few other therapeutic options,” said Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Because it targets a key receptor and works through different mechanisms than other available agents, it clearly has merited comprehensive testing in larger clinical trials. Preliminary results from these studies have been very encouraging.”

Dr Richardson and his colleagues reported results of the phase 1/2 study in NEJM. The research was previously presented at the 18th Congress of the EHA in 2013. It was sponsored by Janssen Research and Development and Genmab.

Another phase 2 study of single-agent daratumumab in MM was recently presented at the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting.

Patients and treatment

The current study enrolled patients with relapsed MM or relapsed MM that was refractory to 2 or more prior lines of therapy. The study consisted of 2 parts.

In part 1 (n=30), researchers administered daratumumab in 10 different dosing cohorts at doses ranging from 0.005 to 24 mg/kg of body weight.

In part 2 (n=72), patients received 2 different doses of daratumumab on varying schedules. In schedules A (n=16), B (n=8), and C (n=6), patients received daratumumab at 8 mg/kg in 8 once-weekly infusions and then in twice-monthly infusions for 16 weeks.

In schedules D (n=20) and E (n=22), patients received daratumumab at 16 mg/kg, and, after the first infusion, they had a 3-week washout period to allow for the collection of pharmacokinetic data. They then received weekly treatment for 7 weeks, followed by twice-monthly treatment for 14 weeks.

Safety

There was no maximum tolerated dose identified in part 1 of the study. Infusion-related AEs occurred in 20 patients (63%), serious AEs occurred in 12 patients (37%), and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 5 patients (16%).

In part 2, 71% of patients had infusion-related AEs. The most common AEs among patients in both dosing cohorts (8 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) were fatigue (42%), allergic rhinitis (31%), pyrexia (28%), diarrhea (21%), upper respiratory tract infection (21%), and dyspnea (19%). The most frequent hematologic AE was neutropenia (12%).

Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 53% of patients in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 26% in the 16 mg/kg cohort. Grade 3/4 AEs that were reported in 2 or more patients included pneumonia (n=5), thrombocytopenia (n=4), neutropenia (n=2), leukopenia (n=2), anemia (n=2), and hyperglycemia (n=2).

Serious AEs occurred in 40% of patients in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 33% in the 16 mg/kg cohort. The most frequent serious AEs were infection-related events.

Efficacy

In part 1, there were no responses among patients who received daratumumab at 2 mg/kg or less (n=18), but responses did occur in patients treated at doses of 4 mg/kg or higher (n=12).

There were 4 partial responses—1 in the 4 mg/kg group, 1 in the 16 mg/kg group, and 2 in the 24 mg/kg group. And there were 3 minimal responses—2 in the 4 mg/kg group and 1 in the 8 mg/kg group.

Three patients had stable disease—1 each in the 8 mg/kg, 16 mg/kg, and 24 mg/kg groups. One patient progressed (16 mg/kg), and 1 was not evaluable (8 mg/kg).

In part 2, the overall response rate was 10% in the 8 mg/kg cohort (3/30) and 36% (15/42) in the 16 mg/kg cohort.

There were 2 complete responses (16 mg/kg), 2 very good partial responses (16 mg/kg), 14 partial responses (3 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 11 in the 16 mg/kg), and 10 minimal responses (6 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 4 in the 16 mg/kg cohort).

Thirty-six patients had stable disease (14 in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 22 in the 16 mg/kg cohort). Six patients progressed (all in the 8 mg/kg cohort), and 2 patients were not evaluable (1 in each cohort).

The estimated median progression-free survival was 2.4 months in the 8 mg/kg cohort and 5.6 months in the 16 mg/kg cohort. The overall survival rate at 12 months was 77% in both cohorts.