Outcomes in children with hemophilia A with inhibitors: Results from a noninterventional study.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding management of pediatric persons with hemophilia A (PwHA) with factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors are limited. This prospective noninterventional study (NCT02476942) evaluated annualized bleeding rates (ABRs), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in pediatric PwHA with FVIII inhibitors. PROCEDURE: PwHA aged <12 years with current FVIII inhibitors and high-titer inhibitor history were enrolled. Participants remained on usual treatment; no interventions were applied. Outcomes included ABR, safety, and HRQoL. RESULTS: Twenty-four PwHA aged 2-11 years (median 7.5) were enrolled and monitored for 8.7-44.1 weeks (median 23.4). In the episodic (n = 10) and prophylactic (n = 14) groups, respectively, 121 of 185 (65.4%) and 101 of 186 (54.3%) bleeds were treated using activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) and/or recombinant activated FVII (rFVIIa). ABRs (95% confidence interval) were 19.4 (13.2-28.4) and 18.5 (14.2-24.0) for treated bleeds, and 32.7 (20.5-52.2) and 33.1 (22.4-48.9) for all bleeds, respectively. Most prophylactic group participants (92.9%) were prescribed aPCC; 50% adhered to their prescribed treatment regimen. Adherence to prophylactic rFVIIa was not assessed. Serious adverse events included hemarthrosis (12.5%) and mouth hemorrhage (12.5%); the most common nonserious adverse event was viral upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%). HRQoL showed functional impairment at baseline; scores remained stable throughout, with little intergroup variation. CONCLUSIONS: ABRs remained high in pediatric PwHA with inhibitors receiving standard treatment. This study demonstrates the need for more effective treatments, with reduced treatment burden, to prevent bleeds, increase prophylaxis adherence, and improve patient outcomes.

Efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis versus factor VIII prophylaxis for treatment of hemophilia A without inhibitors: network meta-analysis and sub-group analyses of the intra-patient comparison of the HAVEN 3 trial.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis with that of factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors using two approaches: network meta-analyses (NMA) and additional sub-group analyses from the HAVEN 3 trial.Methods: The NMA used data from trials identified using a systematic literature review and compared bleed rates in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and patients receiving FVIII prophylaxis using a Bayesian, random effects generalized linear model with log link Poisson likelihood. Additional sub-groups of the HAVEN 3 trial included here were defined as patients whose dose-taking behavior met either European label or World Federation of Hemophilia guidelines. A negative binomial regression model was used to conduct an intra-patient comparison of bleed rates within the sub-groups, during treatment with FVIII prophylaxis before entering HAVEN 3 and treatment with emicizumab prophylaxis during HAVEN 3.Results: Four studies were included in the base-case NMA. Evidence showed that the total treated bleed rate was lower with emicizumab prophylaxis compared with FVIII prophylaxis (rate ratio [RR] = 0.36 [95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.13-0.95]). Similar associations were observed in sensitivity analyses. The additional HAVEN 3 analyses also showed lower rates of treated bleeds with emicizumab prophylaxis than with FVIII prophylaxis (RRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.380 [0.186-0.790] and 0.472 [0.258-0.866] in two sub-groups). These results confirm the original HAVEN 3 intra-patient comparison findings.Conclusions: Combined findings from NMA and additional sub-group analyses of HAVEN 3 support the superiority of emicizumab prophylaxis over FVIII prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.

Bleeding and safety outcomes in persons with haemophilia A without inhibitors: Results from a prospective non-interventional study in a real-world setting.

INTRODUCTION: Prospectively collected real-world data on bleeds, haemophilia treatment and safety in persons with haemophilia A (PwHA) without factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors are limited. A global, non-interventional study (NIS; NCT02476942) prospectively collected real-world data in PwHA who were treated per local routine clinical practice. AIM: Assess annualized bleeding rate (ABR), haemophilia treatment practices and adverse events (AEs) in adult/adolescent PwHA without inhibitors. METHODS: Eligible participants aged ≥12 years with severe HA without history of inhibitors prospectively collected bleeding and treatment information. RESULTS: Ninety-four participants were enrolled (median [range] age, 34 [12-76] years) and monitored for a median (range) of 29.8 (12.4-47.7) weeks. In the episodic (n = 45) and prophylactic (n = 49) treatment groups, respectively, 872/1066 (81.8%) and 151/189 (79.9%), bleeds were treated; ABRs (95% confidence interval) were 36.1 (30.8-42.3) and 5.0 (3.3-7.5), respectively, for treated bleeds and 43.1 (36.5-50.9) and 6.2 (4.2-9.2), respectively, for all bleeds, and median (interquartile range) ABRs were 31.1 (19.8-51.6) and 1.9 (0.0-8.2), respectively, for treated bleeds and 35.3 (21.7-62.9) and 2.7 (0.0-9.4), respectively, for all bleeds. Half of the participants on FVIII prophylaxis had relatively high adherence to treatment, using 2.9 and 2.1 median doses/wk of standard and extended half-life FVIII, respectively. Serious AEs included gastrointestinal polyp haemorrhage and haemarthrosis; the most common AE was viral upper respiratory tract infection. CONCLUSION: PwHA without inhibitors continue to bleed on prophylaxis, consistent with the literature, and require treatment for breakthrough bleeds. This prospective NIS demonstrates the need for more efficacious haemostatic approaches.

Comparison of design strategies for a three-arm clinical trial with time-to-event endpoint: Power, time-to-analysis, and operational aspects.

To optimize resources, randomized clinical trials with multiple arms can be an attractive option to simultaneously test various treatment regimens in pharmaceutical drug development. The motivation for this work was the successful conduct and positive final outcome of a three-arm randomized clinical trial primarily assessing whether obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in patients with chronic lympocytic lymphoma and coexisting conditions is superior to chlorambucil alone based on a time-to-event endpoint. The inference strategy of this trial was based on a closed testing procedure. We compare this strategy to three potential alternatives to run a three-arm clinical trial with a time-to-event endpoint. The primary goal is to quantify the differences between these strategies in terms of the time it takes until the first analysis and thus potential approval of a new drug, number of required events, and power. Operational aspects of implementing the various strategies are discussed. In conclusion, using a closed testing procedure results in the shortest time to the first analysis with a minimal loss in power. Therefore, closed testing procedures should be part of the statistician's standard clinical trials toolbox when planning multiarm clinical trials.

Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions.

BACKGROUND: The monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, combined with chemotherapeutic agents, has been shown to prolong overall survival in physically fit patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) but not in those with coexisting conditions. We investigated the benefit of the type 2, glycoengineered antibody obinutuzumab (also known as GA101) as compared with that of rituximab, each combined with chlorambucil, in patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions. METHODS: We randomly assigned 781 patients with previously untreated CLL and a score higher than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) (range, 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating worse health status) or an estimated creatinine clearance of 30 to 69 ml per minute to receive chlorambucil, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituximab plus chlorambucil. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: The patients had a median age of 73 years, creatinine clearance of 62 ml per minute, and CIRS score of 8 at baseline. Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil or rituximab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil monotherapy, increased response rates and prolonged progression-free survival (median progression-free survival, 26.7 months with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.24; P<0.001; and 16.3 months with rituximab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.57; P<0.001). Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil alone, prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.74; P=0.002). Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with rituximab-chlorambucil, resulted in prolongation of progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.49; P<0.001) and higher rates of complete response (20.7% vs. 7.0%) and molecular response. Infusion-related reactions and neutropenia were more common with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil than with rituximab-chlorambucil, but the risk of infection was not increased. CONCLUSIONS: Combining an anti-CD20 antibody with chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. In this patient population, obinutuzumab was superior to rituximab when each was combined with chlorambucil. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01010061.).

Obinutuzumab (GA101) monotherapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large b-cell lymphoma or mantle-cell lymphoma: results from the phase II GAUGUIN study.

PURPOSE: Obinutuzumab (GA101), a type II, glycoengineered, humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, was superior to rituximab in human diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) xenograft models. In phase I of our study, obinutuzumab (GA101) exhibited encouraging activity but no clear dose-response relationship, and few patients had aggressive histologies. The efficacy and safety of two doses of obinutuzumab (GA101) were explored in our randomized phase II trial in patients with heavily pretreated DBLCL and MCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive eight cycles of obinutuzumab (GA101) either as a flat dose of 400 mg for all infusions (days 1 and 8 of cycle 1; day 1 of cycles 2 to 8) or 1,600 mg on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and 800 mg on day 1 of cycles 2 to 8. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled: 21 patients in the 400/400-mg treatment arm (DLBCL, n = 10; MCL, n = 11) and 19 patients in the 1,600/800-mg arm (DLBCL, n = 15; MCL, n = 4). End-of-treatment response was 28% (32% and 24% in the 1,600/800-mg and 400/400-mg study arms, respectively). Best overall response rates were 37% in the 1,600/800-mg arm and 24% in the 400/400-mg study arm (DLBCL, eight [32%] of 25 patients; MCL, four [27%] of 15 patients). Five (20%) of 25 rituximab-refractory patients exhibited treatment response, including four of 12 in the 1,600/800-mg group. The most common adverse events were infusion-related reactions (IRRs), which were manageable. Three patients had grade 3/4 IRRs. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was seen in only one patient. CONCLUSION: Obinutuzumab (GA101) 1,600/800 mg achieves early steady-state concentration and clinical activity with an acceptable safety profile in relapsed/refractory DLBCL and MCL, supporting further exploration.

Phase 1 study results of the type II glycoengineered humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab (GA101) in B-cell lymphoma patients.

Whereas the chimeric type I anti-CD20 Ab rituximab has improved outcomes for patients with B-cell malignancies significantly, many patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) remain incurable. Obinutuzumab (GA101) is a glycoengineered, humanized anti-CD20 type II Ab that has demonstrated superior activity against type I Abs in vitro and in preclinical studies. In the present study, we evaluated the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of GA101 in a phase 1 study of 21 patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed, or refractory CD20(+) indolent NHL. Patients received GA101 in a dose-escalating fashion (3 per cohort, range 50/100-1200/2000 mg) for 8 × 21-day cycles. The majority of adverse events (AEs) were grades 1 and 2 (114 of 132 total AEs). Seven patients reported a total of 18 grade 3 or 4 AEs. Infusion-related reactions were the most common AE, with most occurring during the first infusion and resolving with appropriate management. Three patients experienced grade 3 or 4 drug-related infusion-related reactions. The best overall response was 43%, with 5 complete responses and 4 partial responses. Data from this study suggest that GA101 was well tolerated and demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with previously treated NHL up to doses of 2000 mg. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00517530.