FDA/CDC

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting laboratories and providers to a class I recall on Beckman Coulter hematology analyzers because of the potential for inaccurate platelet count results.

A class I recall indicates reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death associated with use, according to the FDA.

The recall is related to the devices’ platelet analyzing function; among other uses, these devices help assess patients fitness for surgery, so a faulty reading on platelet counts could result in increased risk for life-threatening bleeding during a procedure in patients who have unidentified severe thrombocytopenia, according to a statement from the agency.

“Because this may cause serious injury, or even death, to a patient, we are urging health care professionals to be aware of the potential for inaccurate diagnostic results with these analyzers and to take appropriate actions including the use of alternative diagnostic testing or confirming analyzer results with manual scanning or estimate of platelets,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

The recall applies to the UniCel DxH 800 Coulter Cellular Analysis System, UniCel DxH 600 Coulter Cellular Analysis System, and UniCel DxH 900 Coulter Cellular Analysis System. The faulty devices were first identified in 2018, and the manufacturer released an urgent medical device correction letter at that time. The company has more recently released a software patch for the devices, but the FDA has not yet assessed whether it resolves the problem. The agency has released detailed actions and recommendations related to these devices.

At this time, the FDA is unaware of any serious adverse events that have been directly linked to these devices, but the agency recommends that any events be reported through its MedWatch reporting system.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting laboratories and providers to a class I recall on Beckman Coulter hematology analyzers because of the potential for inaccurate platelet count results.

A class I recall indicates reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death associated with use, according to the FDA.

The recall is related to the devices’ platelet analyzing function; among other uses, these devices help assess patients fitness for surgery, so a faulty reading on platelet counts could result in increased risk for life-threatening bleeding during a procedure in patients who have unidentified severe thrombocytopenia, according to a statement from the agency.

“Because this may cause serious injury, or even death, to a patient, we are urging health care professionals to be aware of the potential for inaccurate diagnostic results with these analyzers and to take appropriate actions including the use of alternative diagnostic testing or confirming analyzer results with manual scanning or estimate of platelets,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

The recall applies to the UniCel DxH 800 Coulter Cellular Analysis System, UniCel DxH 600 Coulter Cellular Analysis System, and UniCel DxH 900 Coulter Cellular Analysis System. The faulty devices were first identified in 2018, and the manufacturer released an urgent medical device correction letter at that time. The company has more recently released a software patch for the devices, but the FDA has not yet assessed whether it resolves the problem. The agency has released detailed actions and recommendations related to these devices.

At this time, the FDA is unaware of any serious adverse events that have been directly linked to these devices, but the agency recommends that any events be reported through its MedWatch reporting system.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting laboratories and providers to a class I recall on Beckman Coulter hematology analyzers because of the potential for inaccurate platelet count results.

A class I recall indicates reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death associated with use, according to the FDA.

The recall is related to the devices’ platelet analyzing function; among other uses, these devices help assess patients fitness for surgery, so a faulty reading on platelet counts could result in increased risk for life-threatening bleeding during a procedure in patients who have unidentified severe thrombocytopenia, according to a statement from the agency.

“Because this may cause serious injury, or even death, to a patient, we are urging health care professionals to be aware of the potential for inaccurate diagnostic results with these analyzers and to take appropriate actions including the use of alternative diagnostic testing or confirming analyzer results with manual scanning or estimate of platelets,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

The recall applies to the UniCel DxH 800 Coulter Cellular Analysis System, UniCel DxH 600 Coulter Cellular Analysis System, and UniCel DxH 900 Coulter Cellular Analysis System. The faulty devices were first identified in 2018, and the manufacturer released an urgent medical device correction letter at that time. The company has more recently released a software patch for the devices, but the FDA has not yet assessed whether it resolves the problem. The agency has released detailed actions and recommendations related to these devices.

At this time, the FDA is unaware of any serious adverse events that have been directly linked to these devices, but the agency recommends that any events be reported through its MedWatch reporting system.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

A Zika virus test initially authorized only for emergency use has now been approved for use in nonemergency situations, according to a statement from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) is now authorized for use in patients with clinical signs and symptoms consistent with Zika virus infection, as well as those who meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologic criteria, including residence in or travel to a region deemed high risk because of active Zika transmission.

The test is designed to identify Zika antibodies in the blood, and the FDA cited a review of clinical trial data and analytic data to support the test’s safety and effectiveness.

“Results of this test are intended to be used in conjunction with clinical observations, patient history, epidemiological information, and other laboratory evidence to make patient management decisions,” the FDA stated.

The ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA, initially approved in 2016, had been authorized by the FDA only for emergency use, along with other tests for detecting Zika virus, under the under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority.

The FDA granted marketing authorization to test manufacturer InBios International.

The FDA is communicating with four EUA holders to gather information to evaluate whether the FDA should revoke the EUAs for these specific tests. The marketing authorization of ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA does not impact the availability of the other 14 Zika nucleic acid diagnostics available under EUAs.

The Zika virus, typically transmitted by an infected mosquito, is especially a risk for pregnant women as the fetus may experience neurologic complications and microcephaly as a result of infection.

A Zika virus test initially authorized only for emergency use has now been approved for use in nonemergency situations, according to a statement from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) is now authorized for use in patients with clinical signs and symptoms consistent with Zika virus infection, as well as those who meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologic criteria, including residence in or travel to a region deemed high risk because of active Zika transmission.

The test is designed to identify Zika antibodies in the blood, and the FDA cited a review of clinical trial data and analytic data to support the test’s safety and effectiveness.

“Results of this test are intended to be used in conjunction with clinical observations, patient history, epidemiological information, and other laboratory evidence to make patient management decisions,” the FDA stated.

The ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA, initially approved in 2016, had been authorized by the FDA only for emergency use, along with other tests for detecting Zika virus, under the under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority.

The FDA granted marketing authorization to test manufacturer InBios International.

The FDA is communicating with four EUA holders to gather information to evaluate whether the FDA should revoke the EUAs for these specific tests. The marketing authorization of ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA does not impact the availability of the other 14 Zika nucleic acid diagnostics available under EUAs.

The Zika virus, typically transmitted by an infected mosquito, is especially a risk for pregnant women as the fetus may experience neurologic complications and microcephaly as a result of infection.

A Zika virus test initially authorized only for emergency use has now been approved for use in nonemergency situations, according to a statement from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) is now authorized for use in patients with clinical signs and symptoms consistent with Zika virus infection, as well as those who meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologic criteria, including residence in or travel to a region deemed high risk because of active Zika transmission.

The test is designed to identify Zika antibodies in the blood, and the FDA cited a review of clinical trial data and analytic data to support the test’s safety and effectiveness.

“Results of this test are intended to be used in conjunction with clinical observations, patient history, epidemiological information, and other laboratory evidence to make patient management decisions,” the FDA stated.

The ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA, initially approved in 2016, had been authorized by the FDA only for emergency use, along with other tests for detecting Zika virus, under the under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority.

The FDA granted marketing authorization to test manufacturer InBios International.

The FDA is communicating with four EUA holders to gather information to evaluate whether the FDA should revoke the EUAs for these specific tests. The marketing authorization of ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA does not impact the availability of the other 14 Zika nucleic acid diagnostics available under EUAs.

The Zika virus, typically transmitted by an infected mosquito, is especially a risk for pregnant women as the fetus may experience neurologic complications and microcephaly as a result of infection.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted its first marketing clearance for extragenital diagnostic tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

The new tests, the Aptima Combo 2 Assay and Xpert CT/NG, use samples from the throat and rectum to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea, according to a statement from the FDA.

“It is best for patients if both [chlamydia and gonorrhea] are caught and treated right away, as significant complications can occur if left untreated,” noted Tim Stenzel, MD, in the statement.

“Today’s clearances provide a mechanism for more easily diagnosing these infections,” said Dr. Stenzel, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

The two tests were reviewed through the premarket notification – or 510(k) – pathway, which seeks to demonstrate to the FDA that the device to be marketed is equivalent or better in safety and effectiveness to the legally marketed device.

In the FDA’s evaluation of the tests, it reviewed clinical data from a multisite study of more than 2,500 patients. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of multiple commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis from throat and rectal sites. The results of this study and other information reviewed by the FDA demonstrated that the two tests “are safe and effective for extragenital testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea,” according to the statement.

The data were collected through a cross-sectional study coordinated by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group, which is funded and supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The FDA granted marketing clearance to Hologic and Cepheid for the Aptima Combo 2 Assay and the Xpert CT/NG, respectively.
 

klennon@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has granted its first marketing clearance for extragenital diagnostic tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

The new tests, the Aptima Combo 2 Assay and Xpert CT/NG, use samples from the throat and rectum to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea, according to a statement from the FDA.

“It is best for patients if both [chlamydia and gonorrhea] are caught and treated right away, as significant complications can occur if left untreated,” noted Tim Stenzel, MD, in the statement.

“Today’s clearances provide a mechanism for more easily diagnosing these infections,” said Dr. Stenzel, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

The two tests were reviewed through the premarket notification – or 510(k) – pathway, which seeks to demonstrate to the FDA that the device to be marketed is equivalent or better in safety and effectiveness to the legally marketed device.

In the FDA’s evaluation of the tests, it reviewed clinical data from a multisite study of more than 2,500 patients. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of multiple commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis from throat and rectal sites. The results of this study and other information reviewed by the FDA demonstrated that the two tests “are safe and effective for extragenital testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea,” according to the statement.

The data were collected through a cross-sectional study coordinated by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group, which is funded and supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The FDA granted marketing clearance to Hologic and Cepheid for the Aptima Combo 2 Assay and the Xpert CT/NG, respectively.
 

klennon@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has granted its first marketing clearance for extragenital diagnostic tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

The new tests, the Aptima Combo 2 Assay and Xpert CT/NG, use samples from the throat and rectum to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea, according to a statement from the FDA.

“It is best for patients if both [chlamydia and gonorrhea] are caught and treated right away, as significant complications can occur if left untreated,” noted Tim Stenzel, MD, in the statement.

“Today’s clearances provide a mechanism for more easily diagnosing these infections,” said Dr. Stenzel, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

The two tests were reviewed through the premarket notification – or 510(k) – pathway, which seeks to demonstrate to the FDA that the device to be marketed is equivalent or better in safety and effectiveness to the legally marketed device.

In the FDA’s evaluation of the tests, it reviewed clinical data from a multisite study of more than 2,500 patients. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of multiple commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis from throat and rectal sites. The results of this study and other information reviewed by the FDA demonstrated that the two tests “are safe and effective for extragenital testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea,” according to the statement.

The data were collected through a cross-sectional study coordinated by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group, which is funded and supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The FDA granted marketing clearance to Hologic and Cepheid for the Aptima Combo 2 Assay and the Xpert CT/NG, respectively.
 

klennon@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved midazolam (Nayzilam) nasal spray for the acute treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity – seizure clusters or acute repetitive seizures – that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The treatment is approved for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older, according to a news release from UCB, the company that markets the drug.

Nayzilam is the first FDA-approved nasal option for treating seizure clusters, and the nasally administered formulation may allow for people other than healthcare professionals to administer the benzodiazepine in patients who are actively seizing when a seizure cluster occurs, according to the news release.

Nayzilam is designed as a single-use treatment that can be carried with a patient. The drug is a Schedule IV controlled substance.

Nayzilam’s efficacy was studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients with epilepsy who had intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that were distinct from the patient’s usual seizure pattern.

During an open-label phase, 292 patients in the absence of seizure received two 5-mg doses of Nayzilam 10 minutes apart. During the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, 201 patients treated a single seizure cluster episode in an outpatient setting with Nayzilam (134 patients) or placebo (67 patients). If the seizure activity persisted or recurred, patients in both groups had the option to receive a subsequent unblinded dose of Nayzilam between 10 minutes and 6 hours after the initial blinded dose of study drug.

Compared with patients who received placebo, significantly more patients who received Nayzilam had termination of seizures within 10 minutes after the initial blinded dose of study drug (80.6% vs. 70.1%) and the absence of a recurrence of seizures within 6 hours of the initial blinded dose of study drug (58.2% vs. 37.3%). Adverse reactions that occurred in 5% or more of patients who received Nayzilam were somnolence, headache, nasal discomfort, throat irritation, and rhinorrhea.

Respiratory depression was observed with the administration of Nayzilam during clinical trials. Cardiac or respiratory arrest have occurred after administration of midazolam, and midazolam is associated with a high incidence of partial or complete impairment of recall for several hours following an administered dose. Nayzilam is contraindicated in patients with acute narrow-angle glaucoma. In addition, concomitant use of opioids, moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, or other CNS depressants entails risks. Antiepileptic drugs, including Nayzilam, increase the risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior, according to the announcement.




 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved midazolam (Nayzilam) nasal spray for the acute treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity – seizure clusters or acute repetitive seizures – that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The treatment is approved for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older, according to a news release from UCB, the company that markets the drug.

Nayzilam is the first FDA-approved nasal option for treating seizure clusters, and the nasally administered formulation may allow for people other than healthcare professionals to administer the benzodiazepine in patients who are actively seizing when a seizure cluster occurs, according to the news release.

Nayzilam is designed as a single-use treatment that can be carried with a patient. The drug is a Schedule IV controlled substance.

Nayzilam’s efficacy was studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients with epilepsy who had intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that were distinct from the patient’s usual seizure pattern.

During an open-label phase, 292 patients in the absence of seizure received two 5-mg doses of Nayzilam 10 minutes apart. During the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, 201 patients treated a single seizure cluster episode in an outpatient setting with Nayzilam (134 patients) or placebo (67 patients). If the seizure activity persisted or recurred, patients in both groups had the option to receive a subsequent unblinded dose of Nayzilam between 10 minutes and 6 hours after the initial blinded dose of study drug.

Compared with patients who received placebo, significantly more patients who received Nayzilam had termination of seizures within 10 minutes after the initial blinded dose of study drug (80.6% vs. 70.1%) and the absence of a recurrence of seizures within 6 hours of the initial blinded dose of study drug (58.2% vs. 37.3%). Adverse reactions that occurred in 5% or more of patients who received Nayzilam were somnolence, headache, nasal discomfort, throat irritation, and rhinorrhea.

Respiratory depression was observed with the administration of Nayzilam during clinical trials. Cardiac or respiratory arrest have occurred after administration of midazolam, and midazolam is associated with a high incidence of partial or complete impairment of recall for several hours following an administered dose. Nayzilam is contraindicated in patients with acute narrow-angle glaucoma. In addition, concomitant use of opioids, moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, or other CNS depressants entails risks. Antiepileptic drugs, including Nayzilam, increase the risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior, according to the announcement.




 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved midazolam (Nayzilam) nasal spray for the acute treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity – seizure clusters or acute repetitive seizures – that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The treatment is approved for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older, according to a news release from UCB, the company that markets the drug.

Nayzilam is the first FDA-approved nasal option for treating seizure clusters, and the nasally administered formulation may allow for people other than healthcare professionals to administer the benzodiazepine in patients who are actively seizing when a seizure cluster occurs, according to the news release.

Nayzilam is designed as a single-use treatment that can be carried with a patient. The drug is a Schedule IV controlled substance.

Nayzilam’s efficacy was studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients with epilepsy who had intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that were distinct from the patient’s usual seizure pattern.

During an open-label phase, 292 patients in the absence of seizure received two 5-mg doses of Nayzilam 10 minutes apart. During the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, 201 patients treated a single seizure cluster episode in an outpatient setting with Nayzilam (134 patients) or placebo (67 patients). If the seizure activity persisted or recurred, patients in both groups had the option to receive a subsequent unblinded dose of Nayzilam between 10 minutes and 6 hours after the initial blinded dose of study drug.

Compared with patients who received placebo, significantly more patients who received Nayzilam had termination of seizures within 10 minutes after the initial blinded dose of study drug (80.6% vs. 70.1%) and the absence of a recurrence of seizures within 6 hours of the initial blinded dose of study drug (58.2% vs. 37.3%). Adverse reactions that occurred in 5% or more of patients who received Nayzilam were somnolence, headache, nasal discomfort, throat irritation, and rhinorrhea.

Respiratory depression was observed with the administration of Nayzilam during clinical trials. Cardiac or respiratory arrest have occurred after administration of midazolam, and midazolam is associated with a high incidence of partial or complete impairment of recall for several hours following an administered dose. Nayzilam is contraindicated in patients with acute narrow-angle glaucoma. In addition, concomitant use of opioids, moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, or other CNS depressants entails risks. Antiepileptic drugs, including Nayzilam, increase the risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior, according to the announcement.




 

The Food and Drug Administration has reported that the higher postapproval mortality rates seen with Abiomed’s Impella RP System seem concentrated in a certain subgroup of patients only, according to a letter to health care providers.

The letter updates one from February regarding the observation of higher postapproval mortality rates with the temporary right heart pump.

This subgroup, which did not qualify for premarket clinical studies, was more likely to have been in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced a cardiac arrest, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event prior to receiving the device, the FDA suggested in this new letter to health care providers. The 30-day survival rate in this subgroup within a postapproval study (PAS) was 10.7% (3 out of 28), while that among patients who would have qualified for the premarket clinical studies was 64.3% (9 of 14), according to the most recent interim results of that study. The rate among patients who would have qualified for premarket studies is similar to that seen among those premarket studies (73.4%); the overall 30-day survival rate in this PAS was 28.6%.

The FDA said that, based on these analyses, it still believes the benefits outweigh the risks when the Impella RP System is “used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients.”

The FDA advises that health care providers review the device’s revised labeling, which now includes a checklist to help understand which patients could benefit the most. It also advises providers to promptly report any adverse events through MedWatch, which can help the FDA identify and understand the risks associated with the Impella RP System.

More information can be found in the FDA’s letter to health care providers, which is available on the FDA website.
 

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has reported that the higher postapproval mortality rates seen with Abiomed’s Impella RP System seem concentrated in a certain subgroup of patients only, according to a letter to health care providers.

The letter updates one from February regarding the observation of higher postapproval mortality rates with the temporary right heart pump.

This subgroup, which did not qualify for premarket clinical studies, was more likely to have been in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced a cardiac arrest, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event prior to receiving the device, the FDA suggested in this new letter to health care providers. The 30-day survival rate in this subgroup within a postapproval study (PAS) was 10.7% (3 out of 28), while that among patients who would have qualified for the premarket clinical studies was 64.3% (9 of 14), according to the most recent interim results of that study. The rate among patients who would have qualified for premarket studies is similar to that seen among those premarket studies (73.4%); the overall 30-day survival rate in this PAS was 28.6%.

The FDA said that, based on these analyses, it still believes the benefits outweigh the risks when the Impella RP System is “used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients.”

The FDA advises that health care providers review the device’s revised labeling, which now includes a checklist to help understand which patients could benefit the most. It also advises providers to promptly report any adverse events through MedWatch, which can help the FDA identify and understand the risks associated with the Impella RP System.

More information can be found in the FDA’s letter to health care providers, which is available on the FDA website.
 

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has reported that the higher postapproval mortality rates seen with Abiomed’s Impella RP System seem concentrated in a certain subgroup of patients only, according to a letter to health care providers.

The letter updates one from February regarding the observation of higher postapproval mortality rates with the temporary right heart pump.

This subgroup, which did not qualify for premarket clinical studies, was more likely to have been in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced a cardiac arrest, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event prior to receiving the device, the FDA suggested in this new letter to health care providers. The 30-day survival rate in this subgroup within a postapproval study (PAS) was 10.7% (3 out of 28), while that among patients who would have qualified for the premarket clinical studies was 64.3% (9 of 14), according to the most recent interim results of that study. The rate among patients who would have qualified for premarket studies is similar to that seen among those premarket studies (73.4%); the overall 30-day survival rate in this PAS was 28.6%.

The FDA said that, based on these analyses, it still believes the benefits outweigh the risks when the Impella RP System is “used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients.”

The FDA advises that health care providers review the device’s revised labeling, which now includes a checklist to help understand which patients could benefit the most. It also advises providers to promptly report any adverse events through MedWatch, which can help the FDA identify and understand the risks associated with the Impella RP System.

More information can be found in the FDA’s letter to health care providers, which is available on the FDA website.
 

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety communication about the risks associated with the use of unauthorized diabetes management devices.

This safety communication applies to continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and automated insulin-dosing systems and is intended for both patients who manage their diabetes with any of various devices and the health care providers who treat and manage those patients.

The agency’s concerns were underscored by a recent report it received about a patient who used a combination of unauthorized devices and who needed medical intervention as a result.

“Because of the complexity of these devices and the life-saving care they provide, it’s important that patients are aware of the risks that arise when they’re not used as intended, or when [patients] use devices not authorized for sale in the [United States],” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a news release. “[This] warning is part of our ongoing public health commitment to protect patients and communicate with the public when we become aware of issues stemming from the use, or misuse, of medical devices.”

The release noted that the agency reviews some of the diabetes management devices as an entity, or system, or as being compatible with other approved components, such as integrated continuous glucose-monitoring systems. “This is known as interoperability, which allows patients to safely tailor their diabetes management to their individual preferences by choosing devices that are authorized by the FDA to work together,” it said.

However, the agency said it is aware that some manufacturers are illegally marketing devices that it hasn’t reviewed for safety and effectiveness and that some patients combine devices or components that are not intended for use with each other in an effort to cut costs or because of personal preferences. When patients do that, it introduces new risks that “could result in inaccurate glucose level readings or unsafe insulin dosing, which can lead to risks requiring medical intervention, such as severe low blood sugar, coma, diabetic ketoacidosis, and death,” it warned.

The agency said it realized that patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes preferred having a range of options so that they could tailor their treatment and management to their specific needs, but that it was important that they were fully aware of the risks of doing so.

It recommended that patients speak to their doctor about their device and component needs and use only those that the FDA has reviewed for safety and effectiveness. In addition, any concerns about the cost or availability of approved systems should be taken up with the treating doctor and insurance provider, who can advise on coverage and acceptable, alternative options.

Any adverse events should be reported to the agency through its MedWatch reporting system.

More information about safety in diabetes management devices and components is available at safety communication and the agency’s news release.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety communication about the risks associated with the use of unauthorized diabetes management devices.

This safety communication applies to continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and automated insulin-dosing systems and is intended for both patients who manage their diabetes with any of various devices and the health care providers who treat and manage those patients.

The agency’s concerns were underscored by a recent report it received about a patient who used a combination of unauthorized devices and who needed medical intervention as a result.

“Because of the complexity of these devices and the life-saving care they provide, it’s important that patients are aware of the risks that arise when they’re not used as intended, or when [patients] use devices not authorized for sale in the [United States],” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a news release. “[This] warning is part of our ongoing public health commitment to protect patients and communicate with the public when we become aware of issues stemming from the use, or misuse, of medical devices.”

The release noted that the agency reviews some of the diabetes management devices as an entity, or system, or as being compatible with other approved components, such as integrated continuous glucose-monitoring systems. “This is known as interoperability, which allows patients to safely tailor their diabetes management to their individual preferences by choosing devices that are authorized by the FDA to work together,” it said.

However, the agency said it is aware that some manufacturers are illegally marketing devices that it hasn’t reviewed for safety and effectiveness and that some patients combine devices or components that are not intended for use with each other in an effort to cut costs or because of personal preferences. When patients do that, it introduces new risks that “could result in inaccurate glucose level readings or unsafe insulin dosing, which can lead to risks requiring medical intervention, such as severe low blood sugar, coma, diabetic ketoacidosis, and death,” it warned.

The agency said it realized that patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes preferred having a range of options so that they could tailor their treatment and management to their specific needs, but that it was important that they were fully aware of the risks of doing so.

It recommended that patients speak to their doctor about their device and component needs and use only those that the FDA has reviewed for safety and effectiveness. In addition, any concerns about the cost or availability of approved systems should be taken up with the treating doctor and insurance provider, who can advise on coverage and acceptable, alternative options.

Any adverse events should be reported to the agency through its MedWatch reporting system.

More information about safety in diabetes management devices and components is available at safety communication and the agency’s news release.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety communication about the risks associated with the use of unauthorized diabetes management devices.

This safety communication applies to continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and automated insulin-dosing systems and is intended for both patients who manage their diabetes with any of various devices and the health care providers who treat and manage those patients.

The agency’s concerns were underscored by a recent report it received about a patient who used a combination of unauthorized devices and who needed medical intervention as a result.

“Because of the complexity of these devices and the life-saving care they provide, it’s important that patients are aware of the risks that arise when they’re not used as intended, or when [patients] use devices not authorized for sale in the [United States],” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a news release. “[This] warning is part of our ongoing public health commitment to protect patients and communicate with the public when we become aware of issues stemming from the use, or misuse, of medical devices.”

The release noted that the agency reviews some of the diabetes management devices as an entity, or system, or as being compatible with other approved components, such as integrated continuous glucose-monitoring systems. “This is known as interoperability, which allows patients to safely tailor their diabetes management to their individual preferences by choosing devices that are authorized by the FDA to work together,” it said.

However, the agency said it is aware that some manufacturers are illegally marketing devices that it hasn’t reviewed for safety and effectiveness and that some patients combine devices or components that are not intended for use with each other in an effort to cut costs or because of personal preferences. When patients do that, it introduces new risks that “could result in inaccurate glucose level readings or unsafe insulin dosing, which can lead to risks requiring medical intervention, such as severe low blood sugar, coma, diabetic ketoacidosis, and death,” it warned.

The agency said it realized that patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes preferred having a range of options so that they could tailor their treatment and management to their specific needs, but that it was important that they were fully aware of the risks of doing so.

It recommended that patients speak to their doctor about their device and component needs and use only those that the FDA has reviewed for safety and effectiveness. In addition, any concerns about the cost or availability of approved systems should be taken up with the treating doctor and insurance provider, who can advise on coverage and acceptable, alternative options.

Any adverse events should be reported to the agency through its MedWatch reporting system.

More information about safety in diabetes management devices and components is available at safety communication and the agency’s news release.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

U.S. health care personnel no longer need to undergo routine tuberculosis testing in the absence of known exposure, according to new screening guidelines from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC.

The revised guidelines on tuberculosis screening, testing, and treatment of U.S. health care personnel, published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first update since 2005. The new recommendations reflect a reduction in concern about U.S. health care personnel’s risk of occupational exposure to latent and active tuberculosis infection.

Lynn E. Sosa, MD, from the Connecticut Department of Public Health and National Tuberculosis Controllers Association, and coauthors wrote that rates of tuberculosis infection in the United States have declined by 73% since 1991, from 10.4/100,000 population in 1991 to 2.8/100,000 in 2017. This has been matched by similar declines among health care workers, which the authors said raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of the previously recommended routine serial occupational testing.

“In addition, a recent retrospective cohort study of approximately 40,000 health care personnel at a tertiary U.S. medical center in a low TB-incidence state found an extremely low rate of TST conversion (0.3%) during 1998-2014, with a limited proportion attributable to occupational exposure,” they wrote.

The new guidelines recommend health care personnel undergo baseline or preplacement tuberculosis testing with an interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) or a tuberculin skin test (TST), as well as individual risk assessment and symptom evaluation.

The individual risk assessment considers whether the person has lived in a country with a high tuberculosis rate, whether they are immunosuppressed, or whether they have had close contact with someone with infectious tuberculosis.

This risk assessment can help decide how to interpret an initial positive test result, the authors said.

“For example, health care personnel with a positive test who are asymptomatic, unlikely to be infected with M. [Mycobacterium] tuberculosis, and at low risk for progression on the basis of their risk assessment should have a second test (either an IGRA or a TST) as recommended in the 2017 TB diagnostic guidelines of the American Thoracic Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and CDC,” they wrote. “In this example, the health care personnel should be considered infected with M. tuberculosis only if both the first and second tests are positive.”

After that baseline testing, personnel do not need to undergo routine serial testing except in the case of known exposure or ongoing transmission. The guideline authors suggested serial screening might be considered for health care workers whose work puts them at greater risk – for example, pulmonologists or respiratory therapists – or for those working in settings in which transmission has happened in the past.

For personnel with latent tuberculosis infection, the guidelines recommend “encouragement of treatment” unless it is contraindicated, and annual symptom screening in those not undergoing treatment.

The guideline committee also advocated for annual tuberculosis education for all health care workers.

The new recommendations were based on a systematic review of 36 studies of tuberculosis screening and testing among health care per­sonnel, 16 of which were performed in the United States, and all but two of which were conducted in a hospital setting.

The authors stressed that recommendations from the 2005 CDC guidelines – which do not pertain to health care personnel screening, testing, treatment and education – remain unchanged.

One author declared personal fees from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association during the conduct of the study. Two others reported unrelated grants and personal fees from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Sosa L et al. MMWR. 2019;68:439-43.

U.S. health care personnel no longer need to undergo routine tuberculosis testing in the absence of known exposure, according to new screening guidelines from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC.

The revised guidelines on tuberculosis screening, testing, and treatment of U.S. health care personnel, published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first update since 2005. The new recommendations reflect a reduction in concern about U.S. health care personnel’s risk of occupational exposure to latent and active tuberculosis infection.

Lynn E. Sosa, MD, from the Connecticut Department of Public Health and National Tuberculosis Controllers Association, and coauthors wrote that rates of tuberculosis infection in the United States have declined by 73% since 1991, from 10.4/100,000 population in 1991 to 2.8/100,000 in 2017. This has been matched by similar declines among health care workers, which the authors said raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of the previously recommended routine serial occupational testing.

“In addition, a recent retrospective cohort study of approximately 40,000 health care personnel at a tertiary U.S. medical center in a low TB-incidence state found an extremely low rate of TST conversion (0.3%) during 1998-2014, with a limited proportion attributable to occupational exposure,” they wrote.

The new guidelines recommend health care personnel undergo baseline or preplacement tuberculosis testing with an interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) or a tuberculin skin test (TST), as well as individual risk assessment and symptom evaluation.

The individual risk assessment considers whether the person has lived in a country with a high tuberculosis rate, whether they are immunosuppressed, or whether they have had close contact with someone with infectious tuberculosis.

This risk assessment can help decide how to interpret an initial positive test result, the authors said.

“For example, health care personnel with a positive test who are asymptomatic, unlikely to be infected with M. [Mycobacterium] tuberculosis, and at low risk for progression on the basis of their risk assessment should have a second test (either an IGRA or a TST) as recommended in the 2017 TB diagnostic guidelines of the American Thoracic Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and CDC,” they wrote. “In this example, the health care personnel should be considered infected with M. tuberculosis only if both the first and second tests are positive.”

After that baseline testing, personnel do not need to undergo routine serial testing except in the case of known exposure or ongoing transmission. The guideline authors suggested serial screening might be considered for health care workers whose work puts them at greater risk – for example, pulmonologists or respiratory therapists – or for those working in settings in which transmission has happened in the past.

For personnel with latent tuberculosis infection, the guidelines recommend “encouragement of treatment” unless it is contraindicated, and annual symptom screening in those not undergoing treatment.

The guideline committee also advocated for annual tuberculosis education for all health care workers.

The new recommendations were based on a systematic review of 36 studies of tuberculosis screening and testing among health care per­sonnel, 16 of which were performed in the United States, and all but two of which were conducted in a hospital setting.

The authors stressed that recommendations from the 2005 CDC guidelines – which do not pertain to health care personnel screening, testing, treatment and education – remain unchanged.

One author declared personal fees from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association during the conduct of the study. Two others reported unrelated grants and personal fees from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Sosa L et al. MMWR. 2019;68:439-43.

U.S. health care personnel no longer need to undergo routine tuberculosis testing in the absence of known exposure, according to new screening guidelines from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC.

The revised guidelines on tuberculosis screening, testing, and treatment of U.S. health care personnel, published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first update since 2005. The new recommendations reflect a reduction in concern about U.S. health care personnel’s risk of occupational exposure to latent and active tuberculosis infection.

Lynn E. Sosa, MD, from the Connecticut Department of Public Health and National Tuberculosis Controllers Association, and coauthors wrote that rates of tuberculosis infection in the United States have declined by 73% since 1991, from 10.4/100,000 population in 1991 to 2.8/100,000 in 2017. This has been matched by similar declines among health care workers, which the authors said raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of the previously recommended routine serial occupational testing.

“In addition, a recent retrospective cohort study of approximately 40,000 health care personnel at a tertiary U.S. medical center in a low TB-incidence state found an extremely low rate of TST conversion (0.3%) during 1998-2014, with a limited proportion attributable to occupational exposure,” they wrote.

The new guidelines recommend health care personnel undergo baseline or preplacement tuberculosis testing with an interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) or a tuberculin skin test (TST), as well as individual risk assessment and symptom evaluation.

The individual risk assessment considers whether the person has lived in a country with a high tuberculosis rate, whether they are immunosuppressed, or whether they have had close contact with someone with infectious tuberculosis.

This risk assessment can help decide how to interpret an initial positive test result, the authors said.

“For example, health care personnel with a positive test who are asymptomatic, unlikely to be infected with M. [Mycobacterium] tuberculosis, and at low risk for progression on the basis of their risk assessment should have a second test (either an IGRA or a TST) as recommended in the 2017 TB diagnostic guidelines of the American Thoracic Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and CDC,” they wrote. “In this example, the health care personnel should be considered infected with M. tuberculosis only if both the first and second tests are positive.”

After that baseline testing, personnel do not need to undergo routine serial testing except in the case of known exposure or ongoing transmission. The guideline authors suggested serial screening might be considered for health care workers whose work puts them at greater risk – for example, pulmonologists or respiratory therapists – or for those working in settings in which transmission has happened in the past.

For personnel with latent tuberculosis infection, the guidelines recommend “encouragement of treatment” unless it is contraindicated, and annual symptom screening in those not undergoing treatment.

The guideline committee also advocated for annual tuberculosis education for all health care workers.

The new recommendations were based on a systematic review of 36 studies of tuberculosis screening and testing among health care per­sonnel, 16 of which were performed in the United States, and all but two of which were conducted in a hospital setting.

The authors stressed that recommendations from the 2005 CDC guidelines – which do not pertain to health care personnel screening, testing, treatment and education – remain unchanged.

One author declared personal fees from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association during the conduct of the study. Two others reported unrelated grants and personal fees from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Sosa L et al. MMWR. 2019;68:439-43.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the combination of venetoclax (Venclexta) plus obinutuzumab (Gazyva) for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma.

The approval provides a chemotherapy-free, fixed duration treatment. The FDA based the approval on the results of the phase 3 CLL14 trial, which will be presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers randomized 432 patients to either a 12-month duration of venetoclax with a 6-month duration of obinutuzumab or to a 6-month duration of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil and another 6-month duration of chlorambucil.

The newly approved combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death (progression-free survival as assessed by an independent review committee) by 67%, compared with obinutuzumab/chlorambucil (hazard ratio, 0.33; P less than .0001).

Venetoclax/obinutuzumab also had a higher rate of minimal residual disease negativity in bone marrow and peripheral blood, compared to the other combination, according to Genentech.

The most common adverse reactions of any grade reported for venetoclax/obinutuzumab were neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infection.

mschneider@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the combination of venetoclax (Venclexta) plus obinutuzumab (Gazyva) for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma.

The approval provides a chemotherapy-free, fixed duration treatment. The FDA based the approval on the results of the phase 3 CLL14 trial, which will be presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers randomized 432 patients to either a 12-month duration of venetoclax with a 6-month duration of obinutuzumab or to a 6-month duration of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil and another 6-month duration of chlorambucil.

The newly approved combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death (progression-free survival as assessed by an independent review committee) by 67%, compared with obinutuzumab/chlorambucil (hazard ratio, 0.33; P less than .0001).

Venetoclax/obinutuzumab also had a higher rate of minimal residual disease negativity in bone marrow and peripheral blood, compared to the other combination, according to Genentech.

The most common adverse reactions of any grade reported for venetoclax/obinutuzumab were neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infection.

mschneider@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the combination of venetoclax (Venclexta) plus obinutuzumab (Gazyva) for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma.

The approval provides a chemotherapy-free, fixed duration treatment. The FDA based the approval on the results of the phase 3 CLL14 trial, which will be presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers randomized 432 patients to either a 12-month duration of venetoclax with a 6-month duration of obinutuzumab or to a 6-month duration of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil and another 6-month duration of chlorambucil.

The newly approved combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death (progression-free survival as assessed by an independent review committee) by 67%, compared with obinutuzumab/chlorambucil (hazard ratio, 0.33; P less than .0001).

Venetoclax/obinutuzumab also had a higher rate of minimal residual disease negativity in bone marrow and peripheral blood, compared to the other combination, according to Genentech.

The most common adverse reactions of any grade reported for venetoclax/obinutuzumab were neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infection.

mschneider@mdedge.com

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted to support approval of the small molecule kinase inhibitor pexidartinib for the treatment of adults with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and is not amenable to improvement with surgery.

The drug was favored by a 12-3 margin (no abstentions), with the majority of panel members agreeing that it offers clinical benefits that outweigh significant risk for elevated liver enzymes and small but real potential for serious or even fatal liver injury.

The FDA usually follows the recommendation of advisory committees in deciding final approval. Daiichi Sankyo plans to market the drug under the trade name Turalio.

Final approval and marketing of the drug will hinge on a mandatory Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy that will require certification of prescribers, patient participation in education about the need for frequent liver function testing and the signs and symptoms of liver injury, and distribution of the drug only to certified pharmacies.

Both the ODAC panel members and pexidartinib’s manufacturer, Daiichi Sankyo, agreed that the drug is effective, but opinions about the degree of clinical benefit and the risk-benefit ratio differed.

TGCT is a rare, nonmalignant, and nonlethal tumor of the synovium, bursae, or tendon sheath that can be locally aggressive, and for some patients completely disabling. Surgery is the primary mode of treatment, but less than 10% of patients have disease that is not amenable to resection; for these patients treatment options are limited, because there are no approved systemic therapies for the disease.

ENLIVEN

Evidence submitted to support the application comes from the phase 3 ENLIVEN trial, in which patients with TGCT not amenable to surgery were randomly assigned to receive pexidartinib or placebo. The trial was designed to enroll 126 patients to provide 90% power to detect a difference in objective response rate at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, assuming an overall response rate of 10% with placebo, and 35% with pexidartinib.

The actual trial enrollment, however, fell a little short, with a total of 120 patients randomized.

The ORR at week 25 as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers, the primary endpoint, was 39% for the 61 patients in the pexidartinib group, compared with 0% for the 59 patients in the placebo group (P less than .0001).

There were also statistically significant improvements in the pexidartinib arm at week 25 in the secondary endpoints of mean change in range of motion (ROM), ORR by tumor-volume score at week 25, mean change from baseline in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information physical function scale, and mean change in the Worst Stiffness numeric rating scale item. There were no significant differences between the groups for worst pain, however.

The FDA briefing document notes that “interpretation of the results of the secondary endpoints should be viewed with caution as there was a high proportion of missing data at week 25 for ROM, physical function, and worst stiffness (27%, 43% 43%, respectively); the proportion of patients with missing data was similar across study arms.”

Risk and benefits

The major issues before the ODAC included the validity of clinical outcome assessment given the large chunks of missing data and the major adverse event of liver injury, with a majority of patients on pexidartinib experiencing transaminase elevations. The potential for liver injury may be exacerbated by chronic use of the drug or by drugs used to treat comorbidities such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, several panel members noted.

During the clinical development program for the drug, 2 of 768 patients who received the drug developed irreversible liver injury leading to liver transplant in 1 patient and death in the other.

Many of the panelists who voted to support approval did so with some reluctance about the adverse events. For example, Karin Anton Calis, PharmD, of the National Institutes of Health voted yes because of the efficacy of the drug in a disabling condition.

“Hopefully it will be used in a restricted system so that there can be adequate monitoring, but I’m still concerned about those patients that may have this unpredictable liver toxicity, “ he said.

Victor M. Villalobos MD, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also voted yes.

“This is an ultra-rare disease with no good therapies available to patients and it can be highly morbid, and I feel that getting real-world data on how we can use this drug in a safe and effective manner will be really important to the academic community going forward,” he said.

Other panel members who also voted to support approval expressed concerns about the hepatotoxicity, but noted that the drug has the potential to change lives, as attested by TCGT patients who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting.

However, panelist Doris Strader, MD, from the University of Vermont, Burlington, said that she voted no because, while she was sensitive to the potential benefits of the drug for some patients, “I was concerned about the missing data and was not convinced that there was clinically meaningful benefit. Likewise, while I understand that the hepatic injury is not liver failure, I am concerned that this may be persistent for a long time, and I worry that there is not enough to suggest that there is going to be rigorous monitoring of patients over their lifetimes.”

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted to support approval of the small molecule kinase inhibitor pexidartinib for the treatment of adults with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and is not amenable to improvement with surgery.

The drug was favored by a 12-3 margin (no abstentions), with the majority of panel members agreeing that it offers clinical benefits that outweigh significant risk for elevated liver enzymes and small but real potential for serious or even fatal liver injury.

The FDA usually follows the recommendation of advisory committees in deciding final approval. Daiichi Sankyo plans to market the drug under the trade name Turalio.

Final approval and marketing of the drug will hinge on a mandatory Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy that will require certification of prescribers, patient participation in education about the need for frequent liver function testing and the signs and symptoms of liver injury, and distribution of the drug only to certified pharmacies.

Both the ODAC panel members and pexidartinib’s manufacturer, Daiichi Sankyo, agreed that the drug is effective, but opinions about the degree of clinical benefit and the risk-benefit ratio differed.

TGCT is a rare, nonmalignant, and nonlethal tumor of the synovium, bursae, or tendon sheath that can be locally aggressive, and for some patients completely disabling. Surgery is the primary mode of treatment, but less than 10% of patients have disease that is not amenable to resection; for these patients treatment options are limited, because there are no approved systemic therapies for the disease.

ENLIVEN

Evidence submitted to support the application comes from the phase 3 ENLIVEN trial, in which patients with TGCT not amenable to surgery were randomly assigned to receive pexidartinib or placebo. The trial was designed to enroll 126 patients to provide 90% power to detect a difference in objective response rate at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, assuming an overall response rate of 10% with placebo, and 35% with pexidartinib.

The actual trial enrollment, however, fell a little short, with a total of 120 patients randomized.

The ORR at week 25 as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers, the primary endpoint, was 39% for the 61 patients in the pexidartinib group, compared with 0% for the 59 patients in the placebo group (P less than .0001).

There were also statistically significant improvements in the pexidartinib arm at week 25 in the secondary endpoints of mean change in range of motion (ROM), ORR by tumor-volume score at week 25, mean change from baseline in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information physical function scale, and mean change in the Worst Stiffness numeric rating scale item. There were no significant differences between the groups for worst pain, however.

The FDA briefing document notes that “interpretation of the results of the secondary endpoints should be viewed with caution as there was a high proportion of missing data at week 25 for ROM, physical function, and worst stiffness (27%, 43% 43%, respectively); the proportion of patients with missing data was similar across study arms.”

Risk and benefits

The major issues before the ODAC included the validity of clinical outcome assessment given the large chunks of missing data and the major adverse event of liver injury, with a majority of patients on pexidartinib experiencing transaminase elevations. The potential for liver injury may be exacerbated by chronic use of the drug or by drugs used to treat comorbidities such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, several panel members noted.

During the clinical development program for the drug, 2 of 768 patients who received the drug developed irreversible liver injury leading to liver transplant in 1 patient and death in the other.

Many of the panelists who voted to support approval did so with some reluctance about the adverse events. For example, Karin Anton Calis, PharmD, of the National Institutes of Health voted yes because of the efficacy of the drug in a disabling condition.

“Hopefully it will be used in a restricted system so that there can be adequate monitoring, but I’m still concerned about those patients that may have this unpredictable liver toxicity, “ he said.

Victor M. Villalobos MD, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also voted yes.

“This is an ultra-rare disease with no good therapies available to patients and it can be highly morbid, and I feel that getting real-world data on how we can use this drug in a safe and effective manner will be really important to the academic community going forward,” he said.

Other panel members who also voted to support approval expressed concerns about the hepatotoxicity, but noted that the drug has the potential to change lives, as attested by TCGT patients who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting.

However, panelist Doris Strader, MD, from the University of Vermont, Burlington, said that she voted no because, while she was sensitive to the potential benefits of the drug for some patients, “I was concerned about the missing data and was not convinced that there was clinically meaningful benefit. Likewise, while I understand that the hepatic injury is not liver failure, I am concerned that this may be persistent for a long time, and I worry that there is not enough to suggest that there is going to be rigorous monitoring of patients over their lifetimes.”

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted to support approval of the small molecule kinase inhibitor pexidartinib for the treatment of adults with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and is not amenable to improvement with surgery.

The drug was favored by a 12-3 margin (no abstentions), with the majority of panel members agreeing that it offers clinical benefits that outweigh significant risk for elevated liver enzymes and small but real potential for serious or even fatal liver injury.

The FDA usually follows the recommendation of advisory committees in deciding final approval. Daiichi Sankyo plans to market the drug under the trade name Turalio.

Final approval and marketing of the drug will hinge on a mandatory Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy that will require certification of prescribers, patient participation in education about the need for frequent liver function testing and the signs and symptoms of liver injury, and distribution of the drug only to certified pharmacies.

Both the ODAC panel members and pexidartinib’s manufacturer, Daiichi Sankyo, agreed that the drug is effective, but opinions about the degree of clinical benefit and the risk-benefit ratio differed.

TGCT is a rare, nonmalignant, and nonlethal tumor of the synovium, bursae, or tendon sheath that can be locally aggressive, and for some patients completely disabling. Surgery is the primary mode of treatment, but less than 10% of patients have disease that is not amenable to resection; for these patients treatment options are limited, because there are no approved systemic therapies for the disease.

ENLIVEN

Evidence submitted to support the application comes from the phase 3 ENLIVEN trial, in which patients with TGCT not amenable to surgery were randomly assigned to receive pexidartinib or placebo. The trial was designed to enroll 126 patients to provide 90% power to detect a difference in objective response rate at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, assuming an overall response rate of 10% with placebo, and 35% with pexidartinib.

The actual trial enrollment, however, fell a little short, with a total of 120 patients randomized.

The ORR at week 25 as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers, the primary endpoint, was 39% for the 61 patients in the pexidartinib group, compared with 0% for the 59 patients in the placebo group (P less than .0001).

There were also statistically significant improvements in the pexidartinib arm at week 25 in the secondary endpoints of mean change in range of motion (ROM), ORR by tumor-volume score at week 25, mean change from baseline in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information physical function scale, and mean change in the Worst Stiffness numeric rating scale item. There were no significant differences between the groups for worst pain, however.

The FDA briefing document notes that “interpretation of the results of the secondary endpoints should be viewed with caution as there was a high proportion of missing data at week 25 for ROM, physical function, and worst stiffness (27%, 43% 43%, respectively); the proportion of patients with missing data was similar across study arms.”

Risk and benefits

The major issues before the ODAC included the validity of clinical outcome assessment given the large chunks of missing data and the major adverse event of liver injury, with a majority of patients on pexidartinib experiencing transaminase elevations. The potential for liver injury may be exacerbated by chronic use of the drug or by drugs used to treat comorbidities such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, several panel members noted.

During the clinical development program for the drug, 2 of 768 patients who received the drug developed irreversible liver injury leading to liver transplant in 1 patient and death in the other.

Many of the panelists who voted to support approval did so with some reluctance about the adverse events. For example, Karin Anton Calis, PharmD, of the National Institutes of Health voted yes because of the efficacy of the drug in a disabling condition.

“Hopefully it will be used in a restricted system so that there can be adequate monitoring, but I’m still concerned about those patients that may have this unpredictable liver toxicity, “ he said.

Victor M. Villalobos MD, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also voted yes.

“This is an ultra-rare disease with no good therapies available to patients and it can be highly morbid, and I feel that getting real-world data on how we can use this drug in a safe and effective manner will be really important to the academic community going forward,” he said.

Other panel members who also voted to support approval expressed concerns about the hepatotoxicity, but noted that the drug has the potential to change lives, as attested by TCGT patients who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting.

However, panelist Doris Strader, MD, from the University of Vermont, Burlington, said that she voted no because, while she was sensitive to the potential benefits of the drug for some patients, “I was concerned about the missing data and was not convinced that there was clinically meaningful benefit. Likewise, while I understand that the hepatic injury is not liver failure, I am concerned that this may be persistent for a long time, and I worry that there is not enough to suggest that there is going to be rigorous monitoring of patients over their lifetimes.”

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.