Asciminib in Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) need long-term therapy with high efficacy and safety. Asciminib, a BCR::ABL1 inhibitor specifically targeting the ABL myristoyl pocket, may offer better efficacy and safety and fewer side effects than currently available frontline ATP-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, patients with newly diagnosed CML were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either asciminib (80 mg once daily) or an investigator-selected TKI, with randomization stratified by European Treatment and Outcome Study long-term survival score category (low, intermediate, or high risk) and by TKI selected by investigators before randomization (including imatinib and second-generation TKIs). The primary end points were major molecular response (defined as BCR::ABL1 transcript levels ≤0.1% on the International Scale [IS]) at week 48, for comparisons between asciminib and investigator-selected TKIs and between asciminib and investigator-selected TKIs in the prerandomization-selected imatinib stratum. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were assigned to receive asciminib and 204 to receive investigator-selected TKIs. The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the investigator-selected TKI group. A major molecular response at week 48 occurred in 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, as compared with 49.0% in the investigator-selected TKI group (difference, 18.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6 to 28.2; adjusted two-sided P<0.001]), and in 69.3% of patients in the asciminib group as compared with 40.2% in the imatinib group within the imatinib stratum (difference, 29.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 16.9 to 42.2; adjusted two-sided P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a major molecular response at week 48 was 66.0% with asciminib and 57.8% with TKIs in the second-generation TKI stratum (difference, 8.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.1 to 21.5). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher and events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were less frequent with asciminib (38.0% and 4.5%, respectively) than with imatinib (44.4% and 11.1%) and second-generation TKIs (54.9% and 9.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial comparing asciminib with investigator-selected TKIs and imatinib, asciminib showed superior efficacy and a favorable safety profile in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML. Direct comparison between asciminib and second-generation TKIs was not a primary objective. (Funded by Novartis; ASC4FIRST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04971226).

Effect of ceritinib on the pharmacokinetics of coadministered CYP3A and 2C9 substrates: a phase I, multicenter, drug-drug interaction study in patients with ALK + advanced tumors.

PURPOSE: Ceritinib is an ALK receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved as first- and second-line treatment in adult patients with ALK + metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study investigated the drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential of ceritinib when coadministered with midazolam and warfarin as probe substrates for CYP3A and CYP2C9 activity, respectively. METHODS: This was a phase I, multicenter, open-label, single sequence, crossover DDI study in 33 adult patients with ALK + NSCLC or other advanced tumors. A single dose of a cocktail consisting of midazolam and warfarin was administered with and without concomitant administration of ceritinib. The primary objective was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of midazolam and warfarin. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, overall response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) of ceritinib 750 mg once daily. RESULTS: Ceritinib inhibited CYP3A-mediated metabolism of midazolam, resulting in a markedly increased AUC (geometric mean ratio [90% confidence interval]) by 5.4-fold (4.6, 6.3). Ceritinib also led to an increase in the AUC of S-warfarin by 54% (36%, 75%). The pharmacokinetics and safety profile of ceritinib in this study are consistent with previous reports and no new safety signals were reported. Among the 19 patients with NSCLC, efficacy (ORR: 42.1% and DCR: 63.2%) was similar to that reported previously in studies of pretreated patients with ALK + NSCLC. CONCLUSION: Ceritinib is a strong CYP3A inhibitor and a weak CYP2C9 inhibitor. These findings should be reflected as actionable clinical recommendations in the prescribing information for ceritinib with regards to concomitant medications whose pharmacokinetics may be altered by ceritinib.

First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ceritinib in patients with untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study in untreated patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK-rearranged non-squamous NSCLC was done in 134 centres across 28 countries. Eligible patients were assigned via interactive response technology to oral ceritinib 750 mg/day or platinum-based chemotherapy ([cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5-6 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2] every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by maintenance pemetrexed); randomisation was stratified by World Health Organization performance status (0 vs 1-2), previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, and presence of brain metastases as per investigator's assessment at screening. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was blinded independent review committee assessed progression-free survival, based on all randomly assigned patients (the full analysis set). Efficacy analyses were done based on the full analysis set. All safety analyses were done based on the safety set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828099. FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and May 11, 2015, 376 patients were randomly assigned to ceritinib (n=189) or chemotherapy (n=187). Median progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent review committee) was 16·6 months (95% CI 12·6-27·2) in the ceritinib group and 8·1 months (5·8-11·1) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·42-0·73]; p<0·00001). The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (in 160 [85%] of 189 patients), nausea (130 [69%]), vomiting (125 [66%]), and an increase in alanine aminotransferase (114 [60%]) in the ceritinib group and nausea (in 97 [55%] of 175 patients), vomiting (63 [36%]), and anaemia (62 [35%]) in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: First-line ceritinib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Effect of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome/chronic eosinophilic leukemia: analysis of the phase 2, open-label, single-arm A2101 study.

PURPOSE: Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL) are characterized by sustained overproduction of eosinophils and organ dysfunction. CEL involves the presence of clonal genetic markers, such as a fusion of FIP1-like 1 protein and platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (FIP1L1-PDGFRα, or F/P) or PDGFRα-activating mutations. METHODS: Sixteen patients with HES/CEL were enrolled in the phase 2 nilotinib registration trial (NCT00109707) and treated with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. The median duration of treatment was 95 days (range 3-1,079). RESULTS: Twelve patients had HES: 1 achieved a complete hematologic response (CHR), 3 achieved stable disease, 3 had progressive disease, and 5 were not evaluable for response. Four patients had CEL: 2 with the F/P fusion and 2 with PDGFRα-activating mutations. Both patients with an F/P fusion achieved a CHR; 1 also achieved a complete molecular response (CMR). Of the 2 patients with PDGFRα-activating mutations, 1 had stable disease and the other achieved CMR. At 24 months, overall survival in the HES group was 75.0 % (95 % CI 50.5-100.0) and no patients in the CEL group died. Median survival was not yet reached after a median follow-up of 32 months. The most common grade 3/4 hematologic laboratory abnormalities were lymphocytopenia (31.3 %) and neutropenia (25.0 %). The most common drug-related nonhematologic grade 3/4 adverse event was pruritus, which occurred in 2 patients (12.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: Nilotinib 400 mg twice daily was effective in some patients with HES/CEL regardless of F/P mutation status, and the safety profile was consistent with other nilotinib studies.

Effects of famotidine or an antacid preparation on the pharmacokinetics of nilotinib in healthy volunteers.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effects of either famotidine or antacid on the pharmacokinetics of nilotinib in healthy subjects, with the specific focus to explore different dosing separation schemes leading to a minimized drug-drug interaction. METHODS: Fifty-two subjects were randomized to receive the following treatments in a crossover manner: (A) single oral nilotinib 400 mg alone; (B) famotidine 20 mg twice a day for 3 days, followed by a single administration of nilotinib 400 mg and famotidine 20 mg on Day 4, where famotidine was given 2 h after nilotinib; (C) single oral nilotinib 400 mg and antacid suspension 20 mL, where antacid was given 2 h before nilotinib; (D) single oral nilotinib 400 mg and antacid suspension 20 mL, where antacid was given 2 h after nilotinib. RESULTS: Comparing Treatment B to Treatment A, the geometric mean ratios of nilotinib C(max), AUC(0-tlast), and AUC(0-inf) were 0.966, 0.984, and 0.911, respectively (90% confidence intervals (CIs), 0.875-1.066, 0.905-1.069, and 0.798-1.039, respectively). Nilotinib pharmacokinetic parameters following Treatment C or Treatment D were similar to those after Treatment A; the corresponding 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of C(max), AUC(0-tlast), and AUC(0-inf) all fell within the bioequivalence range of 0.8-1.25. CONCLUSIONS: Neither famotidine nor antacid significantly affected nilotinib pharmacokinetics. When concurrent use of an H2 blocker or an antacid is necessary, the H2 blocker may be administered 10 h before and 2 h after nilotinib dose, or the antacid may be administered 2 h before or 2 h after nilotinib dose.