Blinatumomab versus Chemotherapy for Advanced Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Blinatumomab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody construct that enables CD3-positive T cells to recognize and eliminate CD19-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) blasts, was approved for use in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL on the basis of single-group trials that showed efficacy and manageable toxic effects. METHODS: In this multi-institutional phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with heavily pretreated B-cell precursor ALL, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive either blinatumomab or standard-of-care chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 405 patients who were randomly assigned to receive blinatumomab (271 patients) or chemotherapy (134 patients), 376 patients received at least one dose. Overall survival was significantly longer in the blinatumomab group than in the chemotherapy group. The median overall survival was 7.7 months in the blinatumomab group and 4.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death with blinatumomab vs. chemotherapy, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.93; P=0.01). Remission rates within 12 weeks after treatment initiation were significantly higher in the blinatumomab group than in the chemotherapy group, both with respect to complete remission with full hematologic recovery (34% vs. 16%, P<0.001) and with respect to complete remission with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery (44% vs. 25%, P<0.001). Treatment with blinatumomab resulted in a higher rate of event-free survival than that with chemotherapy (6-month estimates, 31% vs. 12%; hazard ratio for an event of relapse after achieving a complete remission with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery, or death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.71; P<0.001), as well as a longer median duration of remission (7.3 vs. 4.6 months). A total of 24% of the patients in each treatment group underwent allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 87% of the patients in the blinatumomab group and in 92% of the patients in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with blinatumomab resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL. (Funded by Amgen; TOWER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02013167 .).

Stopping guidelines for harm in a study designed to establish the safety of a marketed drug.

In a study designed to establish the safety of a marketed drug, interim analyses performed to detect harm can protect trial participants and the wider public before the final analysis occurs. Monitoring for harm within a safety study is different from monitoring for benefit, so techniques commonly used in an efficacy study of an experimental drug may not apply. We propose potentially more suitable techniques in this setting, including a novel spending function and conditional power. These techniques have reasonable operating characteristics in a simulation. The appropriate technique to implement will depend on circumstances of specific to the individual safety study.

A Comparison of Ezetimibe and Evolocumab for Atherogenic Lipid Reduction in Four Patient Populations: A Pooled Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Three Phase 3 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians, payers, guideline committees, and policymakers support the use of high-intensity statins in patients at high risk for complications of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Guidelines and recommendations provide guidance on next steps for patients with inadequate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control on maximally tolerated statin or for those who are statin-intolerant. Ezetimibe and evolocumab improve CV outcomes when added to statins in high-CV-risk populations. The aim of the study was to compare evolocumab and ezetimibe for lipid-lowering efficacy and safety. METHODS: We summarized data from 1427 patients from three phase 3 evolocumab studies comparing double-blinded evolocumab vs. ezetimibe. These studies evaluated four distinct populations: those free of CVD receiving each agent as monotherapy, patients with CVD receiving add-on therapy to low- or high-intensity statin, and statin-intolerant patients. Lipid efficacy and safety were reported at week 12. RESULTS: Across the studies, evolocumab reduced LDL-C by a mean 55-61% from baseline to week 12; ezetimibe lowered LDL-C by 18-20% from baseline (mean difference = 38-43% favoring evolocumab; p < 0.0001). This corresponded to absolute reductions in LDL-C of 60-104 mg/dL with evolocumab vs. 17-35 mg/dL with ezetimibe. Evolocumab also significantly improved other lipids and led to a higher percentage of patients achieving LDL-C goals vs. ezetimibe. Adverse events and discontinuation rates (oral and parenteral therapy) were balanced across groups, suggesting good tolerance and acceptance of both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Evolocumab outperformed ezetimibe in efficacy and lipid goal attainment. Both products demonstrated good safety/tolerability. These data may help guide access decisions for high-risk patients with inadequate treatment response or intolerance to statin therapy.

Pooled analysis of individual patient-level data from all randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of darbepoetin alfa in the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia.

PURPOSE: Although numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and tolerability of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA), results of some recent trials and one meta-analysis have suggested that ESAs may negatively impact survival and/or disease control in patients with cancer. METHODS: To assess the benefits and risks of ESAs in CIA, we conducted a pooled analysis of individual patient-level data from all randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in 2,122 patients with CIA receiving darbepoetin alfa (DA; n = 1,200) or placebo (n = 912). RESULTS: DA did not increase mortality (hazard ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.1) and had no effect on progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.04) and disease progression (hazard ratio = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.03), but, as expected, increased the risk for thromboembolic events (hazard ratio = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.26). Overall and progression-free survival were not affected by baseline hemoglobin and seemed better in patients who achieved hemoglobin more than 12 or more than 13 g/dL. Transfusions and rates of hemoglobin increase (> 1 g/dL in 14 days; > 2 g/dL in 28 days) owing to transfusions were associated with an increased risk for death and disease progression in both treatment groups; in the absence of transfusions, rates of hemoglobin increase did not appear to increase the risk for adverse outcomes. Compared with placebo, DA significantly reduced the risk of receiving one or more transfusion. CONCLUSION: There seemed to be no association between DA and risk of death or disease progression in this meta-analysis of individual patient data from DA studies conducted in CIA, the approved indication for ESAs in oncology.

A randomized, active-control, pilot trial of front-loaded dosing regimens of darbepoetin-alfa for the treatment of patients with anemia during chemotherapy for malignant disease.

BACKGROUND: Anemia in patients receiving chemotherapy can be ameliorated with recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO), which is administered one to three times per week. Darbepoetin alpha, a new erythropoietic agent, has longer serum residence time, allowing it to be administered less frequently. METHODS: Patients (n = 127) were randomized to receive study drug for 12 weeks: either rHuEPO 40,000 U with escalations to 60,000 U for nonresponders or darbepoetin alpha at doses of 4.5 microg/kg per week until hemoglobin concentration >or= 12 g/dL, then 1.5 microg/kg per week (Group 1); 4.5 microg/kg per week for 4 weeks, then 2.25 microg/kg per week for 8 weeks (Group 2); or 4.5 microg/kg per week for 4 weeks, then 3.0 microg/kg every 2 weeks (Group 3). Efficacy was measured using the mean change in hemoglobin level, the proportion of patients achieving a hemoglobin response, the time to response, and the mean change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue Scale scores. Safety was assessed by reports of adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, after 4 weeks of treatment, the mean change (95% confidence interval [95%CI]) in hemoglobin concentration was 0.53 g/dL (95%CI, 0.05-1.02 g/dL), 0.70 g/dL (95%CI, 0.11-1.29 g/dL), and 0.90 g/dL (95%CI, 0.47-1.33 g/dL) in darbepoetin alpha Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 0.39 g/dL (95%CI, - 0.22-1.00 g/dL) in the rHuEPO group. By the end of the study, the mean change (95%CI) in hemoglobin concentration was 1.35 g/dL (95%CI, 0.67-2.02 g/dL), 1.35 g/dL (95%CI, 0.57-2.12 g/dL), and 1.28 g/dL (95%CI, 0.84-1.73 g/dL) in darbepoetin alpha Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 1.03 g/dL (95%CI, 0.53-1.53 g/dL) in the rHuEPO group. The early erythropoietic response in patients who were treated with darbepoetin alpha was associated with an early and maintained reduction in patient-reported fatigue. The adverse event profile was comparable with all doses of darbepoetin alpha and rHuEPO. CONCLUSIONS: Darbepoetin alpha, given as a front-loaded dose for 4 weeks and followed by lower and/or less frequent doses, appears to be efficacious and may decrease the time to response relative to treatment with rHuEPO.