HT Staff

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.

Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.

“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.

Trial results

The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.

The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.

Patients were randomized to receive:

• Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
• 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
• Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).

In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.

The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.

Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.

Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.

“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.

Trial results

The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.

The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.

Patients were randomized to receive:

• Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
• 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
• Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).

In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.

The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.

Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.

Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.

“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.

Trial results

The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.

The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.

Patients were randomized to receive:

• Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
• 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
• Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).

In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.

The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.

Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.

Image by Kevin MacKenzie

People with varicose veins may have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), according to a new study.

The data suggested patients with varicose veins had a 5-fold higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and roughly twice the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) and PAD as patients without varicose veins.

Investigators said these results suggest an increased risk of DVT among patients with varicose veins, but “the findings for PE and PAD are less clear due to the potential for confounding.”

Pei-Chun Chen, PhD, of China Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan, and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

The team conducted this research using claims data in Taiwan’s National Health Insurance program. They assessed the risk of DVT, PE, and PAD in 212,984 patients with varicose veins and 212,984 control subjects. Patients and controls were matched by age, sex, and calendar year.

All study subjects were enrolled from 2001 to 2013 and followed through 2014.

Among the patients with varicose veins, the median duration of follow-up was 7.5 years for DVT, 7.8 years for PE, and 7.3 years for PAD. For controls, the median follow-up was 7.6 years for DVT, 7.7 years for PE, and 7.4 years for PAD.

Results

The incidence rate for DVT was 6.55 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=10,360) and 1.23 per 1000 person-years for controls (n=1980). The absolute risk difference (ARD) was 5.32.

The incidence rate for PE was 0.48 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=793) and 0.28 per 1000 person-years for controls (n=451). The ARD was 0.20.

The incidence rate for PAD was 10.73 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=16,615) and 6.22 for controls (n=9709). The ARD was 4.51.

The hazard ratios (for the varicose-veins group compared to controls) were 5.30 for DVT, 1.73 for PE, and 1.72 for PAD.

The investigators also calculated hazard ratios in a model adjusted for sex, age, index year, number of outpatient visits during the year before index date, and comorbidities. Comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, malignancy, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and chronic renal insufficiency.

In this adjusted model, the hazard ratios were 5.39 for DVT, 1.75 for PE, and 1.76 for PAD.

Limitations

The investigators said this study had several limitations.

First, the data did not include information for patients who didn’t seek medical care for varicose veins. Therefore, the results may reflect only the risk of VTE and PAD among patients with more severe varicose veins.

And the investigators were not able to examine whether the severity of varicose veins played a role in the risk of VTE or PAD.

In addition, information on some potential confounders, such as smoking and obesity, was not available. And the magnitude of the association between varicose veins and PE/PAD was small, so the association the investigators observed could be due to residual or unmeasured confounding.

The investigators also noted that diagnostic evaluations for PAD are more likely to occur in patients with varicose veins, which could partially explain the observed association between varicose veins and PAD.

Furthermore, cases of DVT, PE, and PAD could have been misclassified.

Image by Kevin MacKenzie

People with varicose veins may have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), according to a new study.

The data suggested patients with varicose veins had a 5-fold higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and roughly twice the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) and PAD as patients without varicose veins.

Investigators said these results suggest an increased risk of DVT among patients with varicose veins, but “the findings for PE and PAD are less clear due to the potential for confounding.”

Pei-Chun Chen, PhD, of China Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan, and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

The team conducted this research using claims data in Taiwan’s National Health Insurance program. They assessed the risk of DVT, PE, and PAD in 212,984 patients with varicose veins and 212,984 control subjects. Patients and controls were matched by age, sex, and calendar year.

All study subjects were enrolled from 2001 to 2013 and followed through 2014.

Among the patients with varicose veins, the median duration of follow-up was 7.5 years for DVT, 7.8 years for PE, and 7.3 years for PAD. For controls, the median follow-up was 7.6 years for DVT, 7.7 years for PE, and 7.4 years for PAD.

Results

The incidence rate for DVT was 6.55 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=10,360) and 1.23 per 1000 person-years for controls (n=1980). The absolute risk difference (ARD) was 5.32.

The incidence rate for PE was 0.48 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=793) and 0.28 per 1000 person-years for controls (n=451). The ARD was 0.20.

The incidence rate for PAD was 10.73 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=16,615) and 6.22 for controls (n=9709). The ARD was 4.51.

The hazard ratios (for the varicose-veins group compared to controls) were 5.30 for DVT, 1.73 for PE, and 1.72 for PAD.

The investigators also calculated hazard ratios in a model adjusted for sex, age, index year, number of outpatient visits during the year before index date, and comorbidities. Comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, malignancy, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and chronic renal insufficiency.

In this adjusted model, the hazard ratios were 5.39 for DVT, 1.75 for PE, and 1.76 for PAD.

Limitations

The investigators said this study had several limitations.

First, the data did not include information for patients who didn’t seek medical care for varicose veins. Therefore, the results may reflect only the risk of VTE and PAD among patients with more severe varicose veins.

And the investigators were not able to examine whether the severity of varicose veins played a role in the risk of VTE or PAD.

In addition, information on some potential confounders, such as smoking and obesity, was not available. And the magnitude of the association between varicose veins and PE/PAD was small, so the association the investigators observed could be due to residual or unmeasured confounding.

The investigators also noted that diagnostic evaluations for PAD are more likely to occur in patients with varicose veins, which could partially explain the observed association between varicose veins and PAD.

Furthermore, cases of DVT, PE, and PAD could have been misclassified.

Image by Kevin MacKenzie

People with varicose veins may have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), according to a new study.

The data suggested patients with varicose veins had a 5-fold higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and roughly twice the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) and PAD as patients without varicose veins.

Investigators said these results suggest an increased risk of DVT among patients with varicose veins, but “the findings for PE and PAD are less clear due to the potential for confounding.”

Pei-Chun Chen, PhD, of China Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan, and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

The team conducted this research using claims data in Taiwan’s National Health Insurance program. They assessed the risk of DVT, PE, and PAD in 212,984 patients with varicose veins and 212,984 control subjects. Patients and controls were matched by age, sex, and calendar year.

All study subjects were enrolled from 2001 to 2013 and followed through 2014.

Among the patients with varicose veins, the median duration of follow-up was 7.5 years for DVT, 7.8 years for PE, and 7.3 years for PAD. For controls, the median follow-up was 7.6 years for DVT, 7.7 years for PE, and 7.4 years for PAD.

Results

The incidence rate for DVT was 6.55 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=10,360) and 1.23 per 1000 person-years for controls (n=1980). The absolute risk difference (ARD) was 5.32.

The incidence rate for PE was 0.48 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=793) and 0.28 per 1000 person-years for controls (n=451). The ARD was 0.20.

The incidence rate for PAD was 10.73 per 1000 person-years for patients with varicose veins (n=16,615) and 6.22 for controls (n=9709). The ARD was 4.51.

The hazard ratios (for the varicose-veins group compared to controls) were 5.30 for DVT, 1.73 for PE, and 1.72 for PAD.

The investigators also calculated hazard ratios in a model adjusted for sex, age, index year, number of outpatient visits during the year before index date, and comorbidities. Comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, malignancy, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and chronic renal insufficiency.

In this adjusted model, the hazard ratios were 5.39 for DVT, 1.75 for PE, and 1.76 for PAD.

Limitations

The investigators said this study had several limitations.

First, the data did not include information for patients who didn’t seek medical care for varicose veins. Therefore, the results may reflect only the risk of VTE and PAD among patients with more severe varicose veins.

And the investigators were not able to examine whether the severity of varicose veins played a role in the risk of VTE or PAD.

In addition, information on some potential confounders, such as smoking and obesity, was not available. And the magnitude of the association between varicose veins and PE/PAD was small, so the association the investigators observed could be due to residual or unmeasured confounding.

The investigators also noted that diagnostic evaluations for PAD are more likely to occur in patients with varicose veins, which could partially explain the observed association between varicose veins and PAD.

Furthermore, cases of DVT, PE, and PAD could have been misclassified.

Photo from Business Wire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for emicizumab (Hemlibra®), a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.

This means emicizumab is approved for use in the European Union for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in patients of all ages who have hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors.

The recommended dose of emicizumab is 3 mg/kg once a week for the first 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once a week.

Emicizumab is designed to bring together factor IXa and factor X, proteins required to activate the natural coagulation cascade and restore the blood clotting process for patients with hemophilia A.

Emicizumab was created by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and is being co-developed by Chugai, Roche, and Genentech.

The EC’s decision to authorize marketing of emicizumab is based on results from a pair of phase 3 studies—HAVEN 1 and HAVEN 2.

Results from HAVEN 1 were published in NEJM and presented at the 26th ISTH Congress in July 2017. Updated results from HAVEN 2 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

HAVEN 1

This study enrolled 109 patients (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors who were previously treated with bypassing agents (BPAs) on-demand or as prophylaxis.

The patients were randomized to receive emicizumab prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. On-demand treatment of breakthrough bleeds with BPAs was allowed.

There was a significant reduction in treated bleeds of 87% with emicizumab prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis (95% CI: 72.3; 94.3, P<0.0001). And there was an 80% reduction in all bleeds with emicizumab (95% CI: 62.5; 89.8, P<0.0001).

Adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients treated with emicizumab were local injection site reactions, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, and arthralgia.

Two patients experienced thromboembolic events (TEs), and 3 had thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) while receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and more than 100 u/kg/day of activated prothrombin complex concentrate, on average, for 24 hours or more before the event. Two of these patients had also received recombinant factor VIIa.

Neither TE required anticoagulation therapy, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab. The cases of TMA observed were transient, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab.

HAVEN 2

In this single-arm trial, researchers evaluated emicizumab prophylaxis in 60 patients, ages 1 to 17, who had hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.

The efficacy analysis included 57 patients who were younger than 12. The 3 older patients were only included in the safety analysis.

Of the 57 patients, 64.9% had 0 bleeds, 94.7% had 0 treated bleeds, and 98.2% had 0 treated spontaneous bleeds and 0 treated joint bleeds. None of the patients had treated target joint bleeds.

Forty patients had a total of 201 AEs. The most common of these were viral upper respiratory tract infections (16.7%) and injection site reactions (16.7%).

There were no TEs or TMA events, and none of the patients tested positive for anti-drug antibodies. None of the 7 serious AEs in this trial were considered treatment-related.

Photo from Business Wire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for emicizumab (Hemlibra®), a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.

This means emicizumab is approved for use in the European Union for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in patients of all ages who have hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors.

The recommended dose of emicizumab is 3 mg/kg once a week for the first 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once a week.

Emicizumab is designed to bring together factor IXa and factor X, proteins required to activate the natural coagulation cascade and restore the blood clotting process for patients with hemophilia A.

Emicizumab was created by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and is being co-developed by Chugai, Roche, and Genentech.

The EC’s decision to authorize marketing of emicizumab is based on results from a pair of phase 3 studies—HAVEN 1 and HAVEN 2.

Results from HAVEN 1 were published in NEJM and presented at the 26th ISTH Congress in July 2017. Updated results from HAVEN 2 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

HAVEN 1

This study enrolled 109 patients (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors who were previously treated with bypassing agents (BPAs) on-demand or as prophylaxis.

The patients were randomized to receive emicizumab prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. On-demand treatment of breakthrough bleeds with BPAs was allowed.

There was a significant reduction in treated bleeds of 87% with emicizumab prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis (95% CI: 72.3; 94.3, P<0.0001). And there was an 80% reduction in all bleeds with emicizumab (95% CI: 62.5; 89.8, P<0.0001).

Adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients treated with emicizumab were local injection site reactions, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, and arthralgia.

Two patients experienced thromboembolic events (TEs), and 3 had thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) while receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and more than 100 u/kg/day of activated prothrombin complex concentrate, on average, for 24 hours or more before the event. Two of these patients had also received recombinant factor VIIa.

Neither TE required anticoagulation therapy, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab. The cases of TMA observed were transient, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab.

HAVEN 2

In this single-arm trial, researchers evaluated emicizumab prophylaxis in 60 patients, ages 1 to 17, who had hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.

The efficacy analysis included 57 patients who were younger than 12. The 3 older patients were only included in the safety analysis.

Of the 57 patients, 64.9% had 0 bleeds, 94.7% had 0 treated bleeds, and 98.2% had 0 treated spontaneous bleeds and 0 treated joint bleeds. None of the patients had treated target joint bleeds.

Forty patients had a total of 201 AEs. The most common of these were viral upper respiratory tract infections (16.7%) and injection site reactions (16.7%).

There were no TEs or TMA events, and none of the patients tested positive for anti-drug antibodies. None of the 7 serious AEs in this trial were considered treatment-related.

Photo from Business Wire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for emicizumab (Hemlibra®), a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.

This means emicizumab is approved for use in the European Union for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in patients of all ages who have hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors.

The recommended dose of emicizumab is 3 mg/kg once a week for the first 4 weeks, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once a week.

Emicizumab is designed to bring together factor IXa and factor X, proteins required to activate the natural coagulation cascade and restore the blood clotting process for patients with hemophilia A.

Emicizumab was created by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and is being co-developed by Chugai, Roche, and Genentech.

The EC’s decision to authorize marketing of emicizumab is based on results from a pair of phase 3 studies—HAVEN 1 and HAVEN 2.

Results from HAVEN 1 were published in NEJM and presented at the 26th ISTH Congress in July 2017. Updated results from HAVEN 2 were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

HAVEN 1

This study enrolled 109 patients (age 12 and older) with hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors who were previously treated with bypassing agents (BPAs) on-demand or as prophylaxis.

The patients were randomized to receive emicizumab prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. On-demand treatment of breakthrough bleeds with BPAs was allowed.

There was a significant reduction in treated bleeds of 87% with emicizumab prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis (95% CI: 72.3; 94.3, P<0.0001). And there was an 80% reduction in all bleeds with emicizumab (95% CI: 62.5; 89.8, P<0.0001).

Adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients treated with emicizumab were local injection site reactions, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, and arthralgia.

Two patients experienced thromboembolic events (TEs), and 3 had thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) while receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and more than 100 u/kg/day of activated prothrombin complex concentrate, on average, for 24 hours or more before the event. Two of these patients had also received recombinant factor VIIa.

Neither TE required anticoagulation therapy, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab. The cases of TMA observed were transient, and 1 patient restarted emicizumab.

HAVEN 2

In this single-arm trial, researchers evaluated emicizumab prophylaxis in 60 patients, ages 1 to 17, who had hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.

The efficacy analysis included 57 patients who were younger than 12. The 3 older patients were only included in the safety analysis.

Of the 57 patients, 64.9% had 0 bleeds, 94.7% had 0 treated bleeds, and 98.2% had 0 treated spontaneous bleeds and 0 treated joint bleeds. None of the patients had treated target joint bleeds.

Forty patients had a total of 201 AEs. The most common of these were viral upper respiratory tract infections (16.7%) and injection site reactions (16.7%).

There were no TEs or TMA events, and none of the patients tested positive for anti-drug antibodies. None of the 7 serious AEs in this trial were considered treatment-related.

Photo from UAB Hospital

A study of US hospital discharges revealed a decrease in the use of red blood cell (RBC) and plasma transfusions—but not platelet transfusions—in recent years.

Researchers examined a sample of US hospital inpatient discharges from 1993 to 2014.

Overall, platelet, plasma, and RBC transfusions increased from 1993 to 2010.

However, from 2011 to 2014, there was a significant decrease in both plasma and RBC transfusions. Platelet transfusions remained stable over that period.

Aaron A. R. Tobian, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these findings in a letter to JAMA.

The researchers analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample, which uses a stratified probability sample of 20% of all inpatient discharges in the US.

The team looked at transfusion trends from 1993 to 2014 but focused on trends from 2011 to 2014 because there was an inflection point in RBC transfusion in 2011. They used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) comparing the risk of transfusion in 2011 and 2014.

The researchers found that RBC transfusions decreased from 6.8% in 2011 to 5.7% in 2014 (aRR=0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.88; P<0.001).

Plasma transfusions decreased from 1.0% to 0.87% (aRR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95; P=0.003). And platelet transfusions remained stable (aRR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.10; P=0.93).

The researchers also conducted subgroup analyses to explore trends in RBC transfusion. They found that, from 2011 to 2014, there were significant reductions in RBC transfusions regardless of patients’ sex, race/ethnicity, risk severity, payer type, and admission type.

However, there was no significant reduction in RBC transfusions among patients younger than 18 years of age or in private investor–owned hospitals.

The researchers said the diagnostic coding used for this study was carried out primarily for billing purposes, and it was not possible to verify its accuracy. They also noted that the study only covered inpatient transfusions, so the results may not be generalizable to outpatient transfusions.

Photo from UAB Hospital

A study of US hospital discharges revealed a decrease in the use of red blood cell (RBC) and plasma transfusions—but not platelet transfusions—in recent years.

Researchers examined a sample of US hospital inpatient discharges from 1993 to 2014.

Overall, platelet, plasma, and RBC transfusions increased from 1993 to 2010.

However, from 2011 to 2014, there was a significant decrease in both plasma and RBC transfusions. Platelet transfusions remained stable over that period.

Aaron A. R. Tobian, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these findings in a letter to JAMA.

The researchers analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample, which uses a stratified probability sample of 20% of all inpatient discharges in the US.

The team looked at transfusion trends from 1993 to 2014 but focused on trends from 2011 to 2014 because there was an inflection point in RBC transfusion in 2011. They used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) comparing the risk of transfusion in 2011 and 2014.

The researchers found that RBC transfusions decreased from 6.8% in 2011 to 5.7% in 2014 (aRR=0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.88; P<0.001).

Plasma transfusions decreased from 1.0% to 0.87% (aRR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95; P=0.003). And platelet transfusions remained stable (aRR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.10; P=0.93).

The researchers also conducted subgroup analyses to explore trends in RBC transfusion. They found that, from 2011 to 2014, there were significant reductions in RBC transfusions regardless of patients’ sex, race/ethnicity, risk severity, payer type, and admission type.

However, there was no significant reduction in RBC transfusions among patients younger than 18 years of age or in private investor–owned hospitals.

The researchers said the diagnostic coding used for this study was carried out primarily for billing purposes, and it was not possible to verify its accuracy. They also noted that the study only covered inpatient transfusions, so the results may not be generalizable to outpatient transfusions.

Photo from UAB Hospital

A study of US hospital discharges revealed a decrease in the use of red blood cell (RBC) and plasma transfusions—but not platelet transfusions—in recent years.

Researchers examined a sample of US hospital inpatient discharges from 1993 to 2014.

Overall, platelet, plasma, and RBC transfusions increased from 1993 to 2010.

However, from 2011 to 2014, there was a significant decrease in both plasma and RBC transfusions. Platelet transfusions remained stable over that period.

Aaron A. R. Tobian, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these findings in a letter to JAMA.

The researchers analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample, which uses a stratified probability sample of 20% of all inpatient discharges in the US.

The team looked at transfusion trends from 1993 to 2014 but focused on trends from 2011 to 2014 because there was an inflection point in RBC transfusion in 2011. They used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) comparing the risk of transfusion in 2011 and 2014.

The researchers found that RBC transfusions decreased from 6.8% in 2011 to 5.7% in 2014 (aRR=0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.88; P<0.001).

Plasma transfusions decreased from 1.0% to 0.87% (aRR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95; P=0.003). And platelet transfusions remained stable (aRR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.10; P=0.93).

The researchers also conducted subgroup analyses to explore trends in RBC transfusion. They found that, from 2011 to 2014, there were significant reductions in RBC transfusions regardless of patients’ sex, race/ethnicity, risk severity, payer type, and admission type.

However, there was no significant reduction in RBC transfusions among patients younger than 18 years of age or in private investor–owned hospitals.

The researchers said the diagnostic coding used for this study was carried out primarily for billing purposes, and it was not possible to verify its accuracy. They also noted that the study only covered inpatient transfusions, so the results may not be generalizable to outpatient transfusions.

AML cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg™).

The recommendation is for GO to be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine to treat patients age 15 years and older with previously untreated, de novo, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but not acute promyelocytic leukemia.

The CHMP’s opinion on GO will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Previous rejection

The CHMP previously issued a negative opinion of GO (first in 2007, confirmed in 2008), saying the drug should not receive marketing authorization.

The proposed indication for GO at that time was as re-induction treatment in adults with CD33-positive AML in first relapse who were not candidates for other intensive re-induction chemotherapy regimens and were either older than 60 or had a duration of first remission lasting less than 12 months.

The CHMP said there was insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of GO in AML, and the drug’s benefits did not outweigh its risks.

Phase 3 trial

The current marketing authorization application for GO is supported by data from an investigator-led, phase 3, randomized trial known as ALFA-0701. Updated results from this trial are available in the US prescribing information for GO.

Patients and treatment

ALFA-0701 included 271 patients with newly diagnosed, de novo AML who were 50 to 70 years of age.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive induction consisting of daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on days 1 to 3) and cytarabine (200 mg/m² on days 1 to 7) with (n=135) or without (n=136) GO at 3 mg/m² (up to maximum of 1 vial) on days 1, 4, and 7. Patients who did not achieve a response after first induction could receive a second induction with daunorubicin and cytarabine alone.

Patients with a response received consolidation therapy with 2 courses of treatment including daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on day 1 of first consolidation course; 60 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of second consolidation course) and cytarabine (1 g/m² every 12 hours on days 1 to 4) with or without GO at 3 mg/m² (up to a maximum of 1 vial) on day 1 according to their initial randomization.

Patients who achieved remission were also eligible for allogeneic transplant. An interval of at least 2 months between the last dose of GO and transplant was recommended.

Baseline characteristics were largely well balanced between the treatment arms, but there was a higher percentage of males in the GO arm than the control arm—55% and 44%, respectively.

Results

The study’s primary endpoint was event-free survival. The median event-free survival was 17.3 months in the GO arm and 9.5 months in the control arm (hazard ratio=0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.76; P<0.001).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. (Updated overall survival data have not been provided).

All patients in this trial developed severe neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. However, the incidence of prolonged, grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in the absence of active leukemia was higher in the GO arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) considered most important for understanding the safety profile of GO were hemorrhage, veno-occlusive liver disease (VOD), and severe infections.

Treatment discontinuation due to any AE occurred in 31% of patients in the GO arm and 7% of those in the control arm. The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation for patients on GO were thrombocytopenia (15%), VOD (3%), and septic shock (2%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 8 patients (6%) in the GO arm and 3 (2%) in the control arm. In the GO arm, 3 patients died of VOD, 4 died of hemorrhage-related events, and 1 died of a suspected cardiac cause. All 3 fatal AEs in the control arm were sepsis.

AML cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg™).

The recommendation is for GO to be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine to treat patients age 15 years and older with previously untreated, de novo, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but not acute promyelocytic leukemia.

The CHMP’s opinion on GO will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Previous rejection

The CHMP previously issued a negative opinion of GO (first in 2007, confirmed in 2008), saying the drug should not receive marketing authorization.

The proposed indication for GO at that time was as re-induction treatment in adults with CD33-positive AML in first relapse who were not candidates for other intensive re-induction chemotherapy regimens and were either older than 60 or had a duration of first remission lasting less than 12 months.

The CHMP said there was insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of GO in AML, and the drug’s benefits did not outweigh its risks.

Phase 3 trial

The current marketing authorization application for GO is supported by data from an investigator-led, phase 3, randomized trial known as ALFA-0701. Updated results from this trial are available in the US prescribing information for GO.

Patients and treatment

ALFA-0701 included 271 patients with newly diagnosed, de novo AML who were 50 to 70 years of age.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive induction consisting of daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on days 1 to 3) and cytarabine (200 mg/m² on days 1 to 7) with (n=135) or without (n=136) GO at 3 mg/m² (up to maximum of 1 vial) on days 1, 4, and 7. Patients who did not achieve a response after first induction could receive a second induction with daunorubicin and cytarabine alone.

Patients with a response received consolidation therapy with 2 courses of treatment including daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on day 1 of first consolidation course; 60 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of second consolidation course) and cytarabine (1 g/m² every 12 hours on days 1 to 4) with or without GO at 3 mg/m² (up to a maximum of 1 vial) on day 1 according to their initial randomization.

Patients who achieved remission were also eligible for allogeneic transplant. An interval of at least 2 months between the last dose of GO and transplant was recommended.

Baseline characteristics were largely well balanced between the treatment arms, but there was a higher percentage of males in the GO arm than the control arm—55% and 44%, respectively.

Results

The study’s primary endpoint was event-free survival. The median event-free survival was 17.3 months in the GO arm and 9.5 months in the control arm (hazard ratio=0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.76; P<0.001).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. (Updated overall survival data have not been provided).

All patients in this trial developed severe neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. However, the incidence of prolonged, grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in the absence of active leukemia was higher in the GO arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) considered most important for understanding the safety profile of GO were hemorrhage, veno-occlusive liver disease (VOD), and severe infections.

Treatment discontinuation due to any AE occurred in 31% of patients in the GO arm and 7% of those in the control arm. The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation for patients on GO were thrombocytopenia (15%), VOD (3%), and septic shock (2%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 8 patients (6%) in the GO arm and 3 (2%) in the control arm. In the GO arm, 3 patients died of VOD, 4 died of hemorrhage-related events, and 1 died of a suspected cardiac cause. All 3 fatal AEs in the control arm were sepsis.

AML cells

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg™).

The recommendation is for GO to be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine to treat patients age 15 years and older with previously untreated, de novo, CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but not acute promyelocytic leukemia.

The CHMP’s opinion on GO will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Previous rejection

The CHMP previously issued a negative opinion of GO (first in 2007, confirmed in 2008), saying the drug should not receive marketing authorization.

The proposed indication for GO at that time was as re-induction treatment in adults with CD33-positive AML in first relapse who were not candidates for other intensive re-induction chemotherapy regimens and were either older than 60 or had a duration of first remission lasting less than 12 months.

The CHMP said there was insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of GO in AML, and the drug’s benefits did not outweigh its risks.

Phase 3 trial

The current marketing authorization application for GO is supported by data from an investigator-led, phase 3, randomized trial known as ALFA-0701. Updated results from this trial are available in the US prescribing information for GO.

Patients and treatment

ALFA-0701 included 271 patients with newly diagnosed, de novo AML who were 50 to 70 years of age.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive induction consisting of daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on days 1 to 3) and cytarabine (200 mg/m² on days 1 to 7) with (n=135) or without (n=136) GO at 3 mg/m² (up to maximum of 1 vial) on days 1, 4, and 7. Patients who did not achieve a response after first induction could receive a second induction with daunorubicin and cytarabine alone.

Patients with a response received consolidation therapy with 2 courses of treatment including daunorubicin (60 mg/m² on day 1 of first consolidation course; 60 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of second consolidation course) and cytarabine (1 g/m² every 12 hours on days 1 to 4) with or without GO at 3 mg/m² (up to a maximum of 1 vial) on day 1 according to their initial randomization.

Patients who achieved remission were also eligible for allogeneic transplant. An interval of at least 2 months between the last dose of GO and transplant was recommended.

Baseline characteristics were largely well balanced between the treatment arms, but there was a higher percentage of males in the GO arm than the control arm—55% and 44%, respectively.

Results

The study’s primary endpoint was event-free survival. The median event-free survival was 17.3 months in the GO arm and 9.5 months in the control arm (hazard ratio=0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.76; P<0.001).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. (Updated overall survival data have not been provided).

All patients in this trial developed severe neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. However, the incidence of prolonged, grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in the absence of active leukemia was higher in the GO arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) considered most important for understanding the safety profile of GO were hemorrhage, veno-occlusive liver disease (VOD), and severe infections.

Treatment discontinuation due to any AE occurred in 31% of patients in the GO arm and 7% of those in the control arm. The most frequent AEs leading to discontinuation for patients on GO were thrombocytopenia (15%), VOD (3%), and septic shock (2%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 8 patients (6%) in the GO arm and 3 (2%) in the control arm. In the GO arm, 3 patients died of VOD, 4 died of hemorrhage-related events, and 1 died of a suspected cardiac cause. All 3 fatal AEs in the control arm were sepsis.

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Gilead Sciences International Ltd. recently withdrew its application for European approval of idelalisib (Zydelig) in combination with rituximab and bendamustine for the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Idelalisib is currently approved in the European Union for use in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab or ofatumumab) to treat adults with CLL who have received at least 1 prior therapy or as first-line treatment of CLL in the presence of 17p deletion or TP53 mutation in patients who are not eligible for any other therapies.

Idelalisib is also approved as monotherapy for adults with follicular lymphoma that is refractory to 2 prior lines of treatment.

In seeking expanded approval for idelalisib, Gilead submitted data from a study (NCT01569295) comparing idelalisib plus bendamustine and rituximab to placebo plus bendamustine and rituximab.

Interim results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in March 2017.

Gilead withdrew the application for idelalisib after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) had evaluated documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

Gilead had not responded to the last round of questions at the time of the withdrawal.

At that point, the CHMP was of the provisional opinion that idelalisib should not be approved for use in combination with rituximab and bendamustine in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL.

The CHMP said additional, longer-term data are needed to show the benefits of idelalisib plus rituximab and bendamustine outweigh the risks.

Gilead said its withdrawal of the application was based on the CHMP’s opinion that there was insufficient evidence of a favorable benefit-risk profile.

The company also said the withdrawal does not impact ongoing trials of idelalisib.

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Gilead Sciences International Ltd. recently withdrew its application for European approval of idelalisib (Zydelig) in combination with rituximab and bendamustine for the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Idelalisib is currently approved in the European Union for use in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab or ofatumumab) to treat adults with CLL who have received at least 1 prior therapy or as first-line treatment of CLL in the presence of 17p deletion or TP53 mutation in patients who are not eligible for any other therapies.

Idelalisib is also approved as monotherapy for adults with follicular lymphoma that is refractory to 2 prior lines of treatment.

In seeking expanded approval for idelalisib, Gilead submitted data from a study (NCT01569295) comparing idelalisib plus bendamustine and rituximab to placebo plus bendamustine and rituximab.

Interim results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in March 2017.

Gilead withdrew the application for idelalisib after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) had evaluated documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

Gilead had not responded to the last round of questions at the time of the withdrawal.

At that point, the CHMP was of the provisional opinion that idelalisib should not be approved for use in combination with rituximab and bendamustine in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL.

The CHMP said additional, longer-term data are needed to show the benefits of idelalisib plus rituximab and bendamustine outweigh the risks.

Gilead said its withdrawal of the application was based on the CHMP’s opinion that there was insufficient evidence of a favorable benefit-risk profile.

The company also said the withdrawal does not impact ongoing trials of idelalisib.

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Gilead Sciences International Ltd. recently withdrew its application for European approval of idelalisib (Zydelig) in combination with rituximab and bendamustine for the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Idelalisib is currently approved in the European Union for use in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab or ofatumumab) to treat adults with CLL who have received at least 1 prior therapy or as first-line treatment of CLL in the presence of 17p deletion or TP53 mutation in patients who are not eligible for any other therapies.

Idelalisib is also approved as monotherapy for adults with follicular lymphoma that is refractory to 2 prior lines of treatment.

In seeking expanded approval for idelalisib, Gilead submitted data from a study (NCT01569295) comparing idelalisib plus bendamustine and rituximab to placebo plus bendamustine and rituximab.

Interim results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in March 2017.

Gilead withdrew the application for idelalisib after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) had evaluated documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

Gilead had not responded to the last round of questions at the time of the withdrawal.

At that point, the CHMP was of the provisional opinion that idelalisib should not be approved for use in combination with rituximab and bendamustine in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL.

The CHMP said additional, longer-term data are needed to show the benefits of idelalisib plus rituximab and bendamustine outweigh the risks.

Gilead said its withdrawal of the application was based on the CHMP’s opinion that there was insufficient evidence of a favorable benefit-risk profile.

The company also said the withdrawal does not impact ongoing trials of idelalisib.

Photo from Amgen

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended a label variation for Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) to include the Neulasta® Onpro® Kit.

The Neulasta Onpro Kit is an on-body injector (OBI) delivery system for Neulasta, which is approved in the European Union to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancy (with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The Neulasta Onpro Kit includes a specifically designed Neulasta pre-filled syringe along with a single-use OBI. The small, lightweight OBI is applied to a patient’s skin on the same day of chemotherapy.

The OBI is intended to facilitate timed delivery of the correct dose of Neulasta and eliminate the need for patients to return to a healthcare setting the day after they receive chemotherapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on the Neulasta Onpro Kit will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the centralized marketing authorization of Neulasta will be updated to include information on the Neulasta Onpro Kit in the drug’s label.

This change will be valid throughout the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions about Neulasta’s label on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Photo from Amgen

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended a label variation for Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) to include the Neulasta® Onpro® Kit.

The Neulasta Onpro Kit is an on-body injector (OBI) delivery system for Neulasta, which is approved in the European Union to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancy (with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The Neulasta Onpro Kit includes a specifically designed Neulasta pre-filled syringe along with a single-use OBI. The small, lightweight OBI is applied to a patient’s skin on the same day of chemotherapy.

The OBI is intended to facilitate timed delivery of the correct dose of Neulasta and eliminate the need for patients to return to a healthcare setting the day after they receive chemotherapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on the Neulasta Onpro Kit will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the centralized marketing authorization of Neulasta will be updated to include information on the Neulasta Onpro Kit in the drug’s label.

This change will be valid throughout the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions about Neulasta’s label on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Photo from Amgen

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended a label variation for Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) to include the Neulasta® Onpro® Kit.

The Neulasta Onpro Kit is an on-body injector (OBI) delivery system for Neulasta, which is approved in the European Union to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancy (with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The Neulasta Onpro Kit includes a specifically designed Neulasta pre-filled syringe along with a single-use OBI. The small, lightweight OBI is applied to a patient’s skin on the same day of chemotherapy.

The OBI is intended to facilitate timed delivery of the correct dose of Neulasta and eliminate the need for patients to return to a healthcare setting the day after they receive chemotherapy.

The CHMP’s opinion on the Neulasta Onpro Kit will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the centralized marketing authorization of Neulasta will be updated to include information on the Neulasta Onpro Kit in the drug’s label.

This change will be valid throughout the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions about Neulasta’s label on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of bosutinib (BOSULIF) to include treatment of patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently approved in Europe to treat patients with Ph+ CML in chronic, accelerated, or blast phase who have received one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate treatment options.

The CHMP’s opinion on bosutinib will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for bosutinib is based on results from the BFORE trial, which were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The publication included data on 536 patients newly diagnosed with chronic phase CML. They were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The modified intent-to-treat population included Ph+ patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts who had at least 12 months of follow-up. In this group, there were 246 patients in the bosutinib arm and 241 in the imatinib arm.

In the modified intent-to-treat population, the rate of major molecular response at 12 months was 47.2% in the bosutinib arm and 36.9% in the imatinib arm (P=0.02). The rate of complete cytogenetic response was 77.2% and 66.4%, respectively (P<0.008).

In the entire study population, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of those receiving imatinib discontinued treatment—12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, due to drug-related toxicity.

Adverse events that were more common in the bosutinib arm than the imatinib arm included grade 3 or higher diarrhea (7.8% vs 0.8%), increased alanine levels (19% vs 1.5%), increased aspartate levels (9.7% vs 1.9%), cardiovascular events (3% vs 0.4%), and peripheral vascular events (1.5% vs 1.1%).

Cerebrovascular events were more common with imatinib than bosutinib (0.4% and 0%, respectively).

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of bosutinib (BOSULIF) to include treatment of patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently approved in Europe to treat patients with Ph+ CML in chronic, accelerated, or blast phase who have received one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate treatment options.

The CHMP’s opinion on bosutinib will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for bosutinib is based on results from the BFORE trial, which were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The publication included data on 536 patients newly diagnosed with chronic phase CML. They were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The modified intent-to-treat population included Ph+ patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts who had at least 12 months of follow-up. In this group, there were 246 patients in the bosutinib arm and 241 in the imatinib arm.

In the modified intent-to-treat population, the rate of major molecular response at 12 months was 47.2% in the bosutinib arm and 36.9% in the imatinib arm (P=0.02). The rate of complete cytogenetic response was 77.2% and 66.4%, respectively (P<0.008).

In the entire study population, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of those receiving imatinib discontinued treatment—12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, due to drug-related toxicity.

Adverse events that were more common in the bosutinib arm than the imatinib arm included grade 3 or higher diarrhea (7.8% vs 0.8%), increased alanine levels (19% vs 1.5%), increased aspartate levels (9.7% vs 1.9%), cardiovascular events (3% vs 0.4%), and peripheral vascular events (1.5% vs 1.1%).

Cerebrovascular events were more common with imatinib than bosutinib (0.4% and 0%, respectively).

Image by Difu Wu

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of bosutinib (BOSULIF) to include treatment of patients with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

Bosutinib is currently approved in Europe to treat patients with Ph+ CML in chronic, accelerated, or blast phase who have received one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate treatment options.

The CHMP’s opinion on bosutinib will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for bosutinib is based on results from the BFORE trial, which were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The publication included data on 536 patients newly diagnosed with chronic phase CML. They were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib (n=268) or imatinib (n=268).

The modified intent-to-treat population included Ph+ patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts who had at least 12 months of follow-up. In this group, there were 246 patients in the bosutinib arm and 241 in the imatinib arm.

In the modified intent-to-treat population, the rate of major molecular response at 12 months was 47.2% in the bosutinib arm and 36.9% in the imatinib arm (P=0.02). The rate of complete cytogenetic response was 77.2% and 66.4%, respectively (P<0.008).

In the entire study population, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of those receiving imatinib discontinued treatment—12.7% and 8.7%, respectively, due to drug-related toxicity.

Adverse events that were more common in the bosutinib arm than the imatinib arm included grade 3 or higher diarrhea (7.8% vs 0.8%), increased alanine levels (19% vs 1.5%), increased aspartate levels (9.7% vs 1.9%), cardiovascular events (3% vs 0.4%), and peripheral vascular events (1.5% vs 1.1%).

Cerebrovascular events were more common with imatinib than bosutinib (0.4% and 0%, respectively).

Photo by Bill Branson

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the current indication for denosumab (XGEVA®).

The CHMP said the drug should be approved for use in preventing skeletal related events (SREs) in adults with advanced malignancies involving bone, which includes multiple myeloma (MM).

Denosumab is currently approved in Europe to prevent SREs—defined as radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression—in adults with bone metastases from solid tumors.

The drug is also approved for the treatment of adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity.

The CHMP’s opinion on expanding the indication for denosumab will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for denosumab is based on data from the ’482 study, which were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

In this phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying SREs in patients with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.

Researchers randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.

The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio=0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).

There were fewer renal treatment-emergent adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively.

But there were more hypocalcemia adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.

Photo by Bill Branson

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the current indication for denosumab (XGEVA®).

The CHMP said the drug should be approved for use in preventing skeletal related events (SREs) in adults with advanced malignancies involving bone, which includes multiple myeloma (MM).

Denosumab is currently approved in Europe to prevent SREs—defined as radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression—in adults with bone metastases from solid tumors.

The drug is also approved for the treatment of adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity.

The CHMP’s opinion on expanding the indication for denosumab will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for denosumab is based on data from the ’482 study, which were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

In this phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying SREs in patients with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.

Researchers randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.

The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio=0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).

There were fewer renal treatment-emergent adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively.

But there were more hypocalcemia adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.

Photo by Bill Branson

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the current indication for denosumab (XGEVA®).

The CHMP said the drug should be approved for use in preventing skeletal related events (SREs) in adults with advanced malignancies involving bone, which includes multiple myeloma (MM).

Denosumab is currently approved in Europe to prevent SREs—defined as radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression—in adults with bone metastases from solid tumors.

The drug is also approved for the treatment of adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity.

The CHMP’s opinion on expanding the indication for denosumab will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.

The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation for denosumab is based on data from the ’482 study, which were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.

In this phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying SREs in patients with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.

Researchers randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.

The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio=0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).

There were fewer renal treatment-emergent adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively.

But there were more hypocalcemia adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.

Fitness class

Getting the recommended amount of physical activity does not eliminate the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with frequent TV viewing, according to research published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

In a study of more than 15,000 Americans, people who reported watching TV “very often” had nearly twice the risk of VTE as people who said they “never or seldom” watched TV.

People who watched TV very often had an increased VTE risk even when researchers adjusted for physical activity levels, smoking status, body mass index, and other factors.

“These results suggest that even individuals who regularly engage in physical activity should not ignore the potential harms of prolonged sedentary behaviors such as TV viewing,” said study author Yasuhiko Kubota, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“Avoiding frequent TV viewing, increasing physical activity, and controlling body weight might be beneficial to prevent VTE.”

Kubota and his colleagues came to these conclusions after analyzing data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, an ongoing, population-based, prospective study conducted in the US.

The researchers evaluated 15,158 Americans who were 45 to 64 years of age when ARIC started in 1987.

Study subjects were initially asked about their health status, whether they exercised or smoked, and whether they were overweight or not. Over the years, ARIC team members have been in regular contact with subjects to ask about any hospital treatment they might have received.

When subjects were asked about their TV viewing habits, most said they watched TV “sometimes” (n=7094). Fewer subjects said they watched TV “often” (n=4023), “never or seldom” (n=2815), and “very often” (n=1226).

Results

Via hospital records and imaging tests, Kubota and his colleagues identified 691 cases of VTE in the study cohort.

In assessing the risk of VTE, the researchers compared the “never or seldom” TV viewing group to the other viewing groups.

In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, “sometimes” viewers had a hazard ratio (HR) of VTE of 1.17, the “often” group had an HR of 1.31, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.88.

In a second model, the researchers adjusted for the aforementioned factors as well as smoking status, leisure-time physical activity, eGFR, and prevalent cardiovascular disease.

In this model, “sometimes” viewers had an HR of VTE of 1.16, the “often” group had an HR of 1.26, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.71.

In a third model, Kubota and his colleagues adjusted for all of the aforementioned factors as well as body mass index.

In this model, “sometimes” viewers had an HR of VTE of 1.13, the “often” group had an HR of 1.20, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.53.

The researchers noted that subjects who met the American Heart Association’s recommended level of physical activity but watched TV “very often” had an HR of VTE of 1.80. Subjects with a poor physical activity level who watched TV “very often” had an HR of 2.07.

Kubota and his colleagues also found that obese subjects had an increased risk of VTE, and TV viewing appeared to add to that risk.

Obese subjects who watched TV “very often” had an HR of VTE of 3.70. For obese subjects who “never or seldom” watched TV, the HR was 1.90.

Fitness class

Getting the recommended amount of physical activity does not eliminate the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with frequent TV viewing, according to research published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

In a study of more than 15,000 Americans, people who reported watching TV “very often” had nearly twice the risk of VTE as people who said they “never or seldom” watched TV.

People who watched TV very often had an increased VTE risk even when researchers adjusted for physical activity levels, smoking status, body mass index, and other factors.

“These results suggest that even individuals who regularly engage in physical activity should not ignore the potential harms of prolonged sedentary behaviors such as TV viewing,” said study author Yasuhiko Kubota, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“Avoiding frequent TV viewing, increasing physical activity, and controlling body weight might be beneficial to prevent VTE.”

Kubota and his colleagues came to these conclusions after analyzing data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, an ongoing, population-based, prospective study conducted in the US.

The researchers evaluated 15,158 Americans who were 45 to 64 years of age when ARIC started in 1987.

Study subjects were initially asked about their health status, whether they exercised or smoked, and whether they were overweight or not. Over the years, ARIC team members have been in regular contact with subjects to ask about any hospital treatment they might have received.

When subjects were asked about their TV viewing habits, most said they watched TV “sometimes” (n=7094). Fewer subjects said they watched TV “often” (n=4023), “never or seldom” (n=2815), and “very often” (n=1226).

Results

Via hospital records and imaging tests, Kubota and his colleagues identified 691 cases of VTE in the study cohort.

In assessing the risk of VTE, the researchers compared the “never or seldom” TV viewing group to the other viewing groups.

In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, “sometimes” viewers had a hazard ratio (HR) of VTE of 1.17, the “often” group had an HR of 1.31, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.88.

In a second model, the researchers adjusted for the aforementioned factors as well as smoking status, leisure-time physical activity, eGFR, and prevalent cardiovascular disease.

In this model, “sometimes” viewers had an HR of VTE of 1.16, the “often” group had an HR of 1.26, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.71.

In a third model, Kubota and his colleagues adjusted for all of the aforementioned factors as well as body mass index.

In this model, “sometimes” viewers had an HR of VTE of 1.13, the “often” group had an HR of 1.20, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.53.

The researchers noted that subjects who met the American Heart Association’s recommended level of physical activity but watched TV “very often” had an HR of VTE of 1.80. Subjects with a poor physical activity level who watched TV “very often” had an HR of 2.07.

Kubota and his colleagues also found that obese subjects had an increased risk of VTE, and TV viewing appeared to add to that risk.

Obese subjects who watched TV “very often” had an HR of VTE of 3.70. For obese subjects who “never or seldom” watched TV, the HR was 1.90.

Fitness class

Getting the recommended amount of physical activity does not eliminate the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with frequent TV viewing, according to research published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

In a study of more than 15,000 Americans, people who reported watching TV “very often” had nearly twice the risk of VTE as people who said they “never or seldom” watched TV.

People who watched TV very often had an increased VTE risk even when researchers adjusted for physical activity levels, smoking status, body mass index, and other factors.

“These results suggest that even individuals who regularly engage in physical activity should not ignore the potential harms of prolonged sedentary behaviors such as TV viewing,” said study author Yasuhiko Kubota, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“Avoiding frequent TV viewing, increasing physical activity, and controlling body weight might be beneficial to prevent VTE.”

Kubota and his colleagues came to these conclusions after analyzing data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, an ongoing, population-based, prospective study conducted in the US.

The researchers evaluated 15,158 Americans who were 45 to 64 years of age when ARIC started in 1987.

Study subjects were initially asked about their health status, whether they exercised or smoked, and whether they were overweight or not. Over the years, ARIC team members have been in regular contact with subjects to ask about any hospital treatment they might have received.

When subjects were asked about their TV viewing habits, most said they watched TV “sometimes” (n=7094). Fewer subjects said they watched TV “often” (n=4023), “never or seldom” (n=2815), and “very often” (n=1226).

Results

Via hospital records and imaging tests, Kubota and his colleagues identified 691 cases of VTE in the study cohort.

In assessing the risk of VTE, the researchers compared the “never or seldom” TV viewing group to the other viewing groups.

In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, “sometimes” viewers had a hazard ratio (HR) of VTE of 1.17, the “often” group had an HR of 1.31, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.88.

In a second model, the researchers adjusted for the aforementioned factors as well as smoking status, leisure-time physical activity, eGFR, and prevalent cardiovascular disease.

In this model, “sometimes” viewers had an HR of VTE of 1.16, the “often” group had an HR of 1.26, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.71.

In a third model, Kubota and his colleagues adjusted for all of the aforementioned factors as well as body mass index.

In this model, “sometimes” viewers had an HR of VTE of 1.13, the “often” group had an HR of 1.20, and the “very often” group had an HR of 1.53.

The researchers noted that subjects who met the American Heart Association’s recommended level of physical activity but watched TV “very often” had an HR of VTE of 1.80. Subjects with a poor physical activity level who watched TV “very often” had an HR of 2.07.

Kubota and his colleagues also found that obese subjects had an increased risk of VTE, and TV viewing appeared to add to that risk.

Obese subjects who watched TV “very often” had an HR of VTE of 3.70. For obese subjects who “never or seldom” watched TV, the HR was 1.90.