The changing landscape of treatment options in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

New paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treatments have been developed and innovative products are in the pipeline. However, despite many active clinical trials, bridging bench science to clinical development to authorised medicines remains challenging. Research in first-line treatment continues to focus on multidrug chemotherapy with the potential addition of new targeted molecules being studied. Research in second- and third-line treatment represents a shift from cytotoxic intensification to an area of precision medicine through emergent innovative and immuno-oncology products. The collaborative research model in ALL involving different stakeholders should intensify to facilitate bench-to-bedside clinical translation for the benefit of patients.

The European Medicines Agency Review of Tafasitamab in Combination With Lenalidomide for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma.

Tafasitamab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CD19 antigen, which is expressed in tumor cells from patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). On June 24, 2021, a positive opinion for a conditional marketing authorization was issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA)'s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) for tafasitamab, in combination with lenalidomide, for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Tafasitamab was evaluated in the phase 2 single-arm, multicenter, open-label L-MIND clinical trial. The primary endpoint of this trial was objective response rate (ORR). The best ORR, achieved at any time during the study, was 56.8% (95% confidence interval: 45.3%-67.8%), and the median duration of response was 34.6 months (95% confidence interval: 26.1-not reached). The most frequently reported adverse events by system organ class were infections and infestations (72.8%; grade ≥3: 29.6%), blood and lymphatic system disorders (65.4%; grade ≥3: 56.8%), gastrointestinal disorders (64.2%; grade ≥3: 2.5%), and general disorders and administration site conditions (58.0%; grade ≥3: 8.6%). The aim of this article is to summarize the scientific review of the application which led to the positive opinion by the CHMP.

[Combination therapies in immuno-oncology: differentiated regulatory approaches]. / Kombinationstherapien in der Immunonkologie: Differenzierte regulatorische Herangehensweisen.

Combination therapies of different drugs are an integral part of medicine. However, there is a scientific and regulatory need to understand the contribution of each drug to the overall effect, i.e., nonclinical and clinical development programs have to consider these aspects and need to be designed accordingly. Many drugs are currently under development that attempt to control malignant diseases in the long term by using and activating components of the patient's own immune system. The term immuno-oncology is often used in this context. Medicines that are developed and used for immuno-oncology can be assigned to completely different classes of medicines.This article provides an analysis of combination therapies in immuno-oncology with medicinal products produced by biotechnological manufacturing. This encompasses checkpoint inhibitors, genetically modified cell therapies, tumor vaccines, and oncolytic viruses. The challenges in clinical development are demonstrated on the basis of this heterogenous group of approved immuno-oncological drugs that have been investigated in combination therapies. Due to the different characteristics and number of combination partners, an individually tailored program must be designed for each development program and there is no standard solution.

EMA Review of Daratumumab (Darzalex) for the Treatment of Adult Patients Newly Diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma.

The use of daratumumab in combination with established regimens for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma has recently been authorized by the European Medicines Agency based on results from three separate phase III randomized, active controlled, open-label studies that have confirmed enhanced efficacy and tolerability in both transplant-ineligible (MMY3008 and MMY3007) and transplant-eligible (MMY3006) patients, without compromising transplant ability. Trial MMY3008 showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when daratumumab was added to lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone; the median PFS had not been reached in the daratumumab arm and was 31.9 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.73; p < .0001). Trial MMY3007 showed an improvement in PFS when daratumumab was added to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone compared with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone; PFS had not been reached in the daratumumab arm and was 18.1 months in the control arm (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.38-0.65; p < .0001). In trial MMY3006, daratumumab added to bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone was compared with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone as induction and consolidation treatment prior to autologous stem cell transplant. The stringent complete response rate at day 100 after transplant in the daratumumab group was 29% compared with 20% in the control group (odds ratio, 1.60; 1.21-2.12 95% CI; p = .0010). Overall adverse events were manageable, with an increased rate of neutropenia and infections in the daratumumab arms. Regulatory assessment of efficacy and safety results from trials MMY3006, MMY3007, and MMY3008 confirmed a positive benefit-risk ratio leading to an approval of the extensions of indication. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A set of extensions of indication was recently approved for daratumumab (Darzalex) in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in combination with established regimens. Results of the MMY3006, MMY3007, and MMY3008 trials have shown enhanced efficacy and a favorable side effect profile of several daratumumab-based combinations in patients both ineligible and eligible for transplant, without compromising transplant ability. The combinations of daratumumab with either lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone were approved for transplant-ineligible patients. The combination of daratumumab with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone was approved for transplant-eligible patients. These combinations are expected to improve the survival outlook for patients with multiple myeloma, without an unacceptable risk of increase in adverse events, and updated information on progression-free survival and overall survival is expected from the above trials.

[Approval of new medicinal products - administrative procedures].

In this review, we discuss the approval of new medicinal products in Europe, which in particular for products with a new active substance is increasingly being approved through formalised collaboration between the member states of the European Union. The collaboration has resulted in a strengthening and harmonisation of the administrative procedures leading to approval of new medicinal products.

[Approval of new medicinal products - documentation requirements].

In this review, we discuss the approval of new medicinal products, which particularly for new products containing a new active substance is increasingly done in collaboration between the European countries. This collaboration has strengthened and harmonised the scientific basis for approval of new drugs in the EU.

The EMA Review of Mylotarg (Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin) for the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

On February 22, 2018, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a marketing authorization for the medicinal product gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg; Pfizer, New York City, NY), intended for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Mylotarg was designated as an orphan medicinal product on October 18, 2000. The applicant for this medicinal product was Pfizer Limited (marketing authorization now held by Pfizer Europe MA EEIG).The demonstrated benefit with Mylotarg is improvement in event-free survival. This has been shown in the pivotal ALFA-0701 (MF-3) study. In addition, an individual patient data meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trials (3,325 patients) showed that the addition of Mylotarg significantly reduced the risk of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% CI: 0.73-0.90; p = .0001), and improved overall survival at 5 years (OR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82-0.98; p = .01) [Lancet Oncol 2014;15:986-996]. The most common (>30%) side effects of Mylotarg when used together with daunorubicin and cytarabine are hemorrhage and infection.The full indication is as follows: "Mylotarg is indicated for combination therapy with daunorubicin (DNR) and cytarabine (AraC) for the treatment of patients age 15 years and above with previously untreated, de novo CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML), except acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL)."The objective of this article is to summarize the scientific review done by the CHMP of the application leading to regulatory approval in the European Union. The full scientific assessment report and product information, including the Summary of Product Characteristics, are available on the European Medicines Agency website (www.ema.europa.eu). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article reflects the scientific assessment of Mylotarg (gemtuzumab ozogamicin; Pfizer, New York City, NY) use for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia based on important contributions from the rapporteur and co-rapporteur assessment teams, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use members, and additional experts following the application for a marketing authorization from the company. It's a unique opportunity to look at the data from a regulatory point of view and the importance of assessing the benefit-risk.

EMA Review of Daratumumab for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

On May 20, 2016, a conditional marketing authorization valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for daratumumab as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and who had demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy. The review of daratumumab was conducted under the EMA's accelerated assessment program for drugs that are of major interest for public health, especially from the point of view of therapeutic innovation.Daratumumab monotherapy achieved an overall response rate of 29.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.8 to 38.9) in patients with multiple myeloma who had received at least three prior lines of therapy (including a PI and IMiD) or were double refractory to a PI and an IMiD (Study MMY2002). In patients with multiple myeloma relapsed from or refractory to two or more different prior therapies, including IMiDs (e.g., thalidomide, lenalidomide) and PI, an overall response was observed in 15 patients (35.7%, 95% CI: 21.6 to 52.0) (Study GEN501).On April 28, 2017, the therapeutic indication was extended to include the use of daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. This was based on two subsequent phase III studies of daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide/low-dose dexamethasone (MMY3003) and bortezomib/low dose dexamethasone (MMY3004).The most common side effects (grade 3-4) associated with daratumumab included neutropenia (37%), thrombocytopenia (23%), anemia (16%), pneumonia (10%), lymphopenia (8%), infusion-related reactions (6%), upper respiratory tract infection (5%), and fatigue (5%).The objective of this study was to summarize the scientific review done by the CHMP of the application leading to regulatory approval in the EU. The full scientific assessment report and product information, including the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), are available on the EMA website (www.ema.europa.eu). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A conditional Marketing authorization was issued in the European Union for daratumamb as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, based on the response rate data from two single-agent studies. Darzalex, a novel monoclonal antibody targeted against CD38, demonstrated a durable response rate in a heavily pre-treated population with limited treatment options based on the response rate data from two single-agent studies. The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (study MMY3003), or bortezomib and dexamethasone (MMY3004), demonstrated a positive effect on progression-free survival in patients with multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior therapy. Following submission of the controlled data of the MMY3003 and MMY3004 studies, the efficacy and safety of daratumumab was confirmed and the approval of daratumumab was converted to standard approval.

Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies.

BACKGROUND: The need for formal and structured approaches for benefit-risk assessment of medicines is increasing, as is the complexity of the scientific questions addressed before making decisions on the benefit-risk balance of medicines. We systematically collected, appraised and classified available benefit-risk methodologies to facilitate and inform their future use. METHODS: A systematic review of publications identified benefit-risk assessment methodologies. Methodologies were appraised on their fundamental principles, features, graphical representations, assessability and accessibility. We created a taxonomy of methodologies to facilitate understanding and choice. RESULTS: We identified 49 methodologies, critically appraised and classified them into four categories: frameworks, metrics, estimation techniques and utility survey techniques. Eight frameworks describe qualitative steps in benefit-risk assessment and eight quantify benefit-risk balance. Nine metric indices include threshold indices to measure either benefit or risk; health indices measure quality-of-life over time; and trade-off indices integrate benefits and risks. Six estimation techniques support benefit-risk modelling and evidence synthesis. Four utility survey techniques elicit robust value preferences from relevant stakeholders to the benefit-risk decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologies to help benefit-risk assessments of medicines are diverse and each is associated with different limitations and strengths. There is not a 'one-size-fits-all' method, and a combination of methods may be needed for each benefit-risk assessment. The taxonomy introduced herein may guide choice of adequate methodologies. Finally, we recommend 13 of 49 methodologies for further appraisal for use in the real-life benefit-risk assessment of medicines.

Data-driven assessment of the association of polymorphisms in 5-Fluorouracil metabolism genes with outcome in adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer.

A major challenge in the assessment of medicines, treatment options, etc., is to establish a framework for the comparison of risks and benefits of many different types and magnitudes, a framework that at the same time allows a clear distinction between the roles played by the statistical analyses of data and by judgements based on personal experience and expertise. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how clinical data can be weighted, scored and presented by the use of an eight-step data-driven benefit-risk assessment method, where two genetic profiles are compared. Our aim was to present a comprehensive approach that is simple to apply, allows direct comparison of different types of risks and benefits, quantifies the clinical relevance of data and is tailored for the comparison of different options. We analysed a cohort of 302 patients with colorectal cancer treated with 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU). Endpoints were cure rate, survival rate, time-to-death (TTD), time-to-relapse (TTR) and main adverse drug reactions. Multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) was used to identify genetic interaction profiles associated with outcome. We have been able to demonstrate that a specific MDR-derived combination (the MDR-1 group) of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and thymidylate synthase polymorphisms is associated with increased and clinically significant difference for cure and survival rates, TTD and probably also for TTR, which are seen as the most important endpoints. An inferior profile was observed for severe myocardial ischaemia. A probably inferior profile was seen for severe arthralgia/myalgia and severe infections. A clear superior profile was seen for severe mucositis/stomatitis. The proposed approach offers comprehensive, data-driven assessment that can facilitate decision processes, for example, in a clinical setting. It employs descriptive statistical methods to highlight the clinically relevant differences between options.

A comprehensive approach to benefit-risk assessment in drug development.

Major regulatory agencies, for example, FDA and EMA, have started to request comprehensive benefit-risk analyses of pharmaceutical products prior to approval or labelling expansion. The purpose of this study is to develop a generally applicable and reliable data-driven benefit-risk assessment method, where two or more drugs/doses can be compared. Our aim is to formulate an approach that is simple to apply, allows direct comparison of different types of risks and benefits, and is tailored for application in different disease areas both during clinical development and in the marketing approval phase. The proposed benefit-risk assessment method involves eight successive steps: (1) establishment of the decision context, (2) identification of benefit and risk criteria, (3) weighting, (4) scoring, (5) evaluation of uncertainty, (6) calculation of weighted scores, (7) visualization, and (8) discussion and formulation of an overall conclusion. To reduce the impact of subjective judgements, scores are assigned to each criterion on the basis of objective information (data) wherever possible. The proposed benefit-risk evaluation approach offers comprehensive, data-driven assessments that can facilitate decision processes. It employs descriptive statistical methods to highlight the clinically significant differences between drugs in clinical trials. The approach can be used in single as well as in multiple trials and provides clear diagrams as the basis for presentation and discussion of the results.