FDA Approval Summary: Amivantamab for the Treatment of Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations.

The FDA granted accelerated approval for amivantamab-vmjw (hereafter referred to as amivantamab), a bispecific antibody directed against EGFR and mesenchymal-epithelial transition receptor, on May 21, 2021, for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Approval was based on results of an ongoing, multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label, multicohort clinical trial (CHRYSALIS, NCT02609776), demonstrating a substantial overall response rate (ORR) and durable responses, with an ORR of 40% [95% confidence interval (CI): 29-51] and a median response duration of 11.1 months (95% CI: 6.9-not evaluable). Guardant360 CDx was contemporaneously approved as a companion diagnostic for this indication to identify EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in plasma specimens. The most notable safety finding was the high incidence (66%) of infusion-related reactions, which is addressed in both the Dosage and Administration and Warnings and Precautions sections of the product label. Other common adverse reactions (occurring in ≥20% of patients) were rash, paronychia, musculoskeletal pain, dyspnea, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, edema, stomatitis, cough, and constipation. The approval of amivantamab was the first approval of a targeted therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Pharmacokinetics of topical calcineurin inhibitors in adult atopic dermatitis: a randomized, investigator-blind comparison.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare pharmacokinetics of pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1% in adults with extensive, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Secondary end points included efficacy and safety. METHODS: Patients received twice-daily treatment for 13 days. Blood concentrations of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus were measured at days 1, 5, and 13. Treatment success was defined as an Investigators' Global Assessment score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). RESULTS: Tacrolimus was detectable in 36% of blood samples and pimecrolimus was detectable in 12%. In patients with measurable blood drug concentrations, systemic exposure to tacrolimus (mean area under the curve(0-10h) < 9.7 ng.h/mL; n = 7) was higher than to pimecrolimus (mean area under the curve(0-10h) < 2.5 ng.h/mL; n = 2). Whole-body treatment success (day 13) was achieved in 1 of 18 (5.6%) and 2 of 19 (10.5%) patients treated with pimecrolimus and tacrolimus, respectively, and face/neck treatment success in 5 of 18 (27.8%) and 5 of 19 (26.3%) patients, respectively. Patients included in the study were adult patients with severe atopic dermatitis. The results and conclusions drawn from this study population may not be applicable for the majority of patients with atopic dermatitis who have mild to moderate disease. CONCLUSION: Pimecrolimus appears to be associated with lower systemic drug exposure than tacrolimus.

A randomized investigator-blinded study comparing pimecrolimus cream 1% with tacrolimus ointment 0.03% in the treatment of pediatric patients with moderate atopic dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% in pediatric patients with moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: 141 patients (aged 2-17 years) were randomized to treatment with pimecrolimus cream 1% (n=71) or tacrolimus ointment 0.03% (n=70) twice daily for 6 weeks. RESULTS: At day 4, local, application-site reactions were less common and of shorter duration with pimecrolimus than with tacrolimus. Incidence of erythema/irritation was 8% (6/71) with pimecrolimus compared with 19% (13/70) with tacrolimus (P=.039). Fewer patients receiving pimecrolimus (0%, 0/6) experienced erythema/irritation lasting >30 minutes, compared with those receiving tacrolimus (85%, 11/13; P <.001). Fewer patients reported itching with pimecrolimus (8%; 6/71) than with tacrolimus (20%; 14/70; P=.073). Incidence of warmth, stinging, and burning was similar in both groups; however, reactions lasting >30 minutes were fewer with pimecrolimus (0%, 0/14) than with tacrolimus (67%, 8/12; P <.001). More patients receiving pimecrolimus rated ease of application as 'excellent' or 'very good', compared with tacrolimus (76% vs 59%, respectively; P <.020). Efficacy was similar in both groups at day 43. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSION: Pimecrolimus cream 1% had better formulation attributes and local tolerability than tacrolimus ointment 0.03% while providing similar efficacy and overall safety in pediatric patients with moderate AD.