Finding the (biomarker-defined) subgroup of patients who benefit from a novel therapy: No time for a game of hide and seek.

An important element of precision medicine is the ability to identify, for a specific therapy, those patients for whom benefits of that therapy meaningfully exceed the risks. To achieve this goal, treatment effect usually is examined across subgroups defined by a variety of factors, including demographic, clinical, or pathologic characteristics or by molecular attributes of patients or their disease. Frequently such subgroups are defined by the measurement of biomarkers. Even though such examination is necessary when pursuing this goal, the evaluation of treatment effect across a variety of subgroups is statistically fraught due to both the danger of inflated false-positive error rate from multiple testing and the inherent insensitivity to how treatment effects differ across subgroups.Pre-specification of subgroup analyses with appropriate control of false-positive (i.e. type I) error is recommended when possible. However, when subgroups are specified by biomarkers, which could be measured by different assays and might lack established interpretation criteria, such as cut-offs, it might not be possible to fully specify those subgroups at the time a new therapy is ready for definitive evaluation in a Phase 3 trial. In these situations, further refinement and evaluation of treatment effect in biomarker-defined subgroups might have to take place within the trial. A common scenario is that evidence suggests that treatment effect is a monotone function of a biomarker value, but optimal cut-offs for therapy decisions are not known. In this setting, hierarchical testing strategies are widely used, where testing is first conducted in a particular biomarker-positive subgroup and then is conducted in the expanded pool of biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative patients, with control for multiple testing. A serious limitation of this approach is the logical inconsistency of excluding the biomarker-negatives when evaluating effects in the biomarker-positives, yet allowing the biomarker-positives to drive the assessment of whether a conclusion of benefit could be extrapolated to the biomarker-negative subgroup.Examples from oncology and cardiology are described to illustrate the challenges and pitfalls. Recommendations are provided for statistically valid and logically consistent subgroup testing in these scenarios as alternatives to reliance on hierarchical testing alone, and approaches for exploratory assessment of continuous biomarkers as treatment effect modifiers are discussed.

Perspectives on informative Bayesian methods in pediatrics.

Bayesian methods have been proposed as a natural fit for pediatric extrapolation, as they allow the incorporation of relevant external data to reduce the required sample size and hence trial burden for the pediatric patient population. In this paper we will discuss our experience and perspectives with these methods in pediatric trials. We will present some of the background and thinking underlying pediatric extrapolation and discuss the use of Bayesian methods within this context. We will present two recent case examples illustrating the value of a Bayesian approach in this setting and present perspectives on some of the issues that we have encountered in these and other cases.

Retrieved-Dropout-Based multiple imputation for time-to-event data in cardiovascular outcome trials.

Recently, retrieved-dropout-based multiple imputation has been used in some therapeutic areas to address the treatment policy estimand, mostly for continuous endpoints. In this approach, data from subjects who discontinued study treatment but remained in study were used to construct a model for multiple imputation for the missing data of subjects in the same treatment arm who discontinued study. We extend this approach to time-to-event endpoints and provide a practical guide for its implementation. We use a cardiovascular outcome trial dataset to illustrate the method and compare the results with those from Cox proportional hazard and reference-based multiple imputation methods.

Should responder analyses be conducted on continuous outcomes?

Continuous outcomes are often dichotomized to classify trial subjects as responders or nonresponders, with the difference in rates of response between treatment and control defined as the "responder effect." In this article, we caution that dichotomization of continuous interval outcomes may not be best practice. Defining clinical benefit or harm for continuous interval outcomes as the difference between the means of treatment and control, that is, the "continuous treatment effect," we examine the case where treatment and control outcomes are normally distributed and differ only in location. For this case, continuous treatment effects may be considered clinically relevant if they exceed a prespecified minimum clinically important difference. In contrast, using minimum clinically important differences as dichotomization thresholds will not ensure clinically relevant responder effects. For example, in some situations, increasing the threshold may actually relax the criterion for effectiveness by increasing the calculated responder effect. Using responder effects to quantitatively assess benefit or risk of investigational drugs for continuous interval outcomes presents interpretational challenges. In particular, when the dichotomization threshold is halfway between the treatment and control outcome means, the responder effect is at a maximum with a magnitude monotonically related to the number of standard deviations between the mean outcomes of treatment and control. Large responder effect benefits may therefore reflect clinically unimportant continuous treatment effects amplified by small standard deviations, and small responder effect risks may reflect either clinically important continuous treatment effects minimized by large standard deviations, or selection of a dichotomization threshold not providing maximum responder effect.

Resampling-based stepwise multiple testing procedures with applications to clinical trial data.

Endpoints in clinical trials are often highly correlated. However, the commonly used multiple testing procedures in clinical trials either do not take into consideration the correlations among test statistics or can only exploit known correlations. Westfall and Young constructed a resampling-based stepdown method that implicitly utilizes the correlation structure of test statistics in situations with unknown correlations. However, their method requires a "subset pivotality" assumption. Romano and Wolf proposed a more general stepdown method, which does not require such an assumption. There is at present little experience with the application of such methods in analyzing clinical trial data. We advocate the application of resampling-based multiple testing procedures to clinical trials data when appropriate. We have conjectured that the resampling-based stepdown methods can be extended to a stepup procedure under appropriate assumptions and examined the performance of both stepdown and stepup methods under a variety of correlation structures and distribution types. Results from our simulation studies support the use of the resampling-based methods under various scenarios, including binary data and small samples, with strong control of Family wise type I error rate (FWER). Under positive dependence and for binary data even under independence, the resampling-based methods are more powerful than the Holm and Hochberg methods. Last, we illustrate the advantage of the resampling-based stepwise methods with two clinical trial data examples: a cardiovascular outcome trial and an oncology trial.

Assessing and communicating heterogeneity of treatment effects for patient subpopulations: Panel discussion on considerations in design and analysis.

Clinical trials are primarily conducted to understand the average effects treatments have on patients. However, patients are heterogeneous in the severity of the condition and in ways that affect what treatment effect they can expect. It is therefore important to understand and characterize how treatment effects vary. The design and analysis of clinical studies play critical roles in evaluating and characterizing heterogeneous treatment effects. This panel discussed considerations in design and analysis under the recognition that there are heterogeneous treatment effects across subgroups of patients. Panel members discussed many questions including: What is a good estimate of the treatment effect in me, a 65-year-old, bald, Caucasian-American, male patient? What magnitude of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is sufficiently large to merit attention? What role can prior evidence about HTE play in confirmatory trial design and analysis? Is there anything described in the 21st Century Cures Act that would benefit from greater attention to HTE? An example of a Bayesian approach addressing multiplicity when testing for treatment effects in subgroups will be provided. We can do more or better at understanding heterogeneous treatment effects and providing the best information on heterogeneous treatment effects.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval summary: omacetaxine mepesuccinate as treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia.

On October 26, 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to omacetaxine mepesuccinate (Synribo; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., North Wales, PA, http://www.tevausa.com) for the treatment of adult patients with chronic phase (CP) or accelerated phase (AP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) with resistance and/or intolerance to two or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The approval was based on the FDA review of data from 111 patients with CML in CP or in AP who had received two or more prior TKIs, including imatinib. Major cytogenetic response was achieved in 18% of patients with CP, with a median response duration of 12.5 months. Major hematologic response was achieved in 14% of patients with AP, with a median response duration of 4.7 months. The FDA safety evaluation was based on submitted data from 163 patients with CP or AP CML who had received at least one dose of omacetaxine mepesuccinate. The safety evaluation was limited by the single-arm design of the clinical trials as conducted in a small number of previously treated patients. The most common (≥20%) adverse reactions of any grade in enrolled patients included thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, asthenia, injection site reaction, pyrexia, and infection. The FDA concluded that omacetaxine mepesuccinate has shown activity and a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for the studied population of adult patients with CML (CP or AP) with resistance and/or intolerance to two or more TKIs. Further evidence of response durability to verify clinical benefit is pending.

Evaluating and adjusting for premature censoring of progression-free survival.

The intent-to-treat principle, grouping subjects as they were randomized and following all subjects to the endpoint or the end of study, allows valid statistical comparisons. Progression-free survival (PFS) has been used as a decision-making endpoint in oncology. It can be difficult to have a meaningful intent-to-treat analysis of PFS as some studies have extensive loss to follow-up for PFS. In the analysis, subjects lost to follow-up for PFS have their PFS times censored, with the censoring treated as noninformative. We use remaining overall survival to investigate whether premature censoring for PFS is informative and the potential bias in treating such censoring as noninformative.

Bayesian Methods in Human Drug and Biological Products Development in CDER and CBER.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been leaders in protecting and promoting the U.S. public health by helping to ensure that safe and effective drugs and biological products are available in the United States for those who need them. The null hypothesis significance testing approach, along with other considerations, is typically used to demonstrate the effectiveness of a drug or biological product. The Bayesian framework presents an alternative approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment. This article discusses the Bayesian framework for drug and biological product development, highlights key settings in which Bayesian approaches may be appropriate, and provides recent examples of the use of Bayesian approaches within CDER and CBER.

Innovations in Pediatric Therapeutics Development: Principles for the Use of Bridging Biomarkers in Pediatric Extrapolation.

Even with recent substantive improvements in health care in pediatric populations, considerable need remains for additional safe and effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of diseases in children. The approval of prescription drugs and biological products for use in pediatric settings, as in adults, requires demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness and favorable benefit-to-risk. For diseases primarily affecting children, such evidence predominantly would be obtained in the pediatric setting. However, for conditions affecting both adults and children, pediatric extrapolation uses scientific evidence in adults to enable more efficiently obtaining a reliable evaluation of an intervention's effects in pediatric populations. Bridging biomarkers potentially have an integral role in pediatric extrapolation. In a setting where an intervention reliably has been established to be safe and effective in adults, and where there is substantive evidence that disease processes in pediatric and adult settings are biologically similar, a 'bridging biomarker' should satisfy three additional criteria: effects on the bridging biomarker should capture effects on the principal causal pathway through which the disease process meaningfully influences 'feels, functions, survives' measures; secondly, the experimental intervention should not have important unintended effects on 'feels, functions, survives' measures not captured by the bridging biomarker; and thirdly, in statistical analyses in adults, the intervention's net effect on 'feels, functions, survives' measures should be consistent with what would be predicted by its level of effect on the bridging biomarker. A validated bridging biomarker has considerable potential utility, since an intervention's efficacy could be extrapolated from adult to pediatric populations if evidence in children establishes the intervention not only to be safe but also to have substantive effects on that bridging biomarker. Proper use of bridging biomarkers could increase availability of reliably evaluated therapies approved for use in pediatric settings, enabling children and their caregivers to make informed choices about health care.

Testing in a Prespecified Subgroup and the Intent-to-Treat Population.

In many settings, testing has been proposed to assess the effect of an experimental regimen within a biomarker-positive subgroup where it is biologically plausible that benefit is stronger in such patients, and in the overall population that also includes biomarker-negative subjects less likely to benefit from that regimen. A statistically favorable result in the biomarker-positive subgroup would lead to a claim for that subgroup, whereas a statistically favorable result for the overall population would lead to a claim that includes both biomarker subgroups. The latter setting is problematic when biomarker-negative patients truly do not benefit from the experimental regimen. When it is prespecified that biomarker-negative patients should not be included in the primary analysis of treatment effect in biomarker-positive patients because of the likelihood that treatment effects would differ between the 2 subgroups, it is logically inconsistent to include biomarker-positive patients in the primary analysis of treatment effect in biomarker-negative patients.

U.S. Food and drug administration approval: rituximab in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical studies that led to the FDA approval of rituximab in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of two multinational, randomized trials in CLL patients comparing rituximab combined with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide versus FC were reviewed. The primary endpoint of both studies was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The addition of rituximab to FC decreased the risk of a PFS event by 44% in 817 previously untreated patients and by 24% in 552 previously treated patients. Median survival times could not be estimated. Exploratory analysis in patients older than 70 suggested that there was no benefit to patients when rituximab was added to FC. The safety profile observed in both trials was consistent with the known toxicity profile of rituximab, FC, or CLL. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the demonstration of clinically meaningful prolongation of PFS, the FDA granted regular approval to rituximab in combination with FC for the treatment of patients with CLL. The magnitude of the treatment effect in patients 70 years and older is uncertain.

Some essential considerations in the design and conduct of non-inferiority trials.

BACKGROUND: Suppose a standard therapy (Standard) has been established to provide a clinically important reduction in risk of irreversible morbidity or mortality. In that setting, the safety and efficacy of an experimental intervention likely would be assessed in a clinical trial providing a comparison with Standard rather than a placebo arm. Such a trial often is designed to assess whether the efficacy of the experimental intervention is not unacceptably worse than that of Standard, and is called a non-inferiority trial. Formally, the non-inferiority trial usually is designed to rule out a non-inferiority margin, defined as the minimum threshold for what would constitute an unacceptable loss of efficacy. PURPOSE: Even though the literature has many important articles identifying various approaches to the design and conduct of non-inferiority trials, confusion remains especially regarding key considerations for selecting the non-inferiority margin. The purpose of this article is to provide improved clarity regarding these considerations. METHODS: We present scientific insights into many factors that should be addressed in the design and conduct of non-inferiority trials to enhance their integrity and reliability, and provide motivation for key considerations that guide the selection of non-inferiority margins. We also provide illustrations and insights from recent experiences. RESULTS: Two considerations are essential, and should be addressed in separate steps, in the formulation of the non-inferiority margin. First, the margin should be formulated using adjustments to account for bias or lack of reliability in the estimate of the effect of Standard in the non-inferiority trial setting. Second, the non-inferiority margin should be formulated to achieve preservation of an appropriate percentage of the effect of Standard. LIMITATIONS: The considerations, in particular regarding the importance of preservation of effect, might not apply to settings where it would be ethical as well as clinically relevant to include both Standard and placebo arms in the trial for direct comparisons with the experimental intervention arm. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority trials with non-rigorous margins allow substantial risk for accepting inadequately effective experimental regimens, leading to the risk of erosion in quality of health care. The design and conduct of non-inferiority trials, including selection of non-inferiority margins, should account for many factors that can induce bias in the estimated effect of Standard in the non-inferiority trial and thus lead to bias in the estimated effect of the experimental treatment, for the need to ensure the experimental treatment preserves a clinically acceptable fraction of Standard's effect, and for the particular vulnerability of the integrity of a non-inferiority trial to the irregularities in trial conduct. Due to the inherent uncertainties in non-inferiority trials, alternative designs should be pursued whenever possible.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval: panitumumab for epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal carcinoma with progression following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-containing chemotherapy regimens.

PURPOSE: To describe the Food and Drug Administration review and marketing approval considerations for panitumumab (Vectibix) for the third-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal carcinoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Food and Drug Administration reviewed a single, open-label, multicenter trial in which 463 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer who had progressed on or following treatment with a regimen containing a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan were randomized (1:1) to receive best supportive care (BSC) with or without panitumumab (6 mg/kg every other week) administered until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Progression and response were confirmed by an independent review committee masked to treatment assignment. At progression, patients in the BSC-alone arm were eligible to receive panitumumab. RESULTS: Although median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in both treatment arms ( approximately 8 weeks), the mean PFS was approximately 50% longer among patients receiving panitumumab than among those receiving BSC alone (96 versus 60 days, respectively) and the objective response rate in patients receiving panitumumab was 8%. However, no difference in overall survival was shown between the two study arms. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab received accelerated approval based on improvement in PFS and an independently confirmed response rate of 8%, similar to that observed with other active agents at this advanced stage of disease. Confirmation of clinical benefit will be required for full approval.

Continuing reassessment of the risks of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) are approved for the treatment of anemia in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies whose anemia is due to the effect of concomitantly administered chemotherapy. Since the 1993 approval of epoetin alfa in patients with cancer, the risk of thrombovascular events, decreased survival, and poorer tumor control have been increasingly recognized. The risks of ESAs in patients with cancer and the design of trials to assess these risks have been the topic of discussion at two Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committees in 2004 and 2007. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Evaluation of randomized clinical trials comparing use of ESAs to transfusion support alone in patients with active cancer. RESULTS: Six studies (Breast Cancer Erythropoeitin Survival Trial, Evaluation of NeoRecormon on outcome in Head And Neck Cancer in Europe, Danish Head and Neck Cancer, Lymphoid Malignancy, CAN-20, and Anemia of Cancer) investigating ESAs in oncology patients showed decreased survival, decreased duration of locoregional tumor control, and/or increased risk of thrombovascular events. In these six studies, ESA dosing was targeted to achieve and maintain hemoglobin values in excess of current recommendations, and in three of the six studies, ESAs were administered to patients not receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: ESAs increase the risk of thrombovascular events and result in decreased survival and poorer tumor control when administered to achieve hemoglobin levels of > or =12 g/dL in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies. No completed or ongoing randomized, controlled trial has addressed safety issues of ESAs in patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia using currently approved dosing regimens in an epidermal tumor type. Additional studies are needed to better characterize these risks.

Missing data in biologic oncology products.

The intent-to-treat principle requires analyses according to the treatment groups to which patients were randomized and that patients be followed to the occurrence of the endpoint or the end of study. This provides unbiased comparisons with valid p values. For many trials the limitations of the data will not be known until the data are analyzed. In this article, the loss-to-follow-up with respect to the intent-to-treat principle on the most important efficacy endpoints was evaluated for clinical trials of anticancer biologic products submitted to the FDA from August 2005 to October 2008. We provide recommendations in light of the results.

Approval summary: imatinib mesylate capsules for treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia in chronic phase.

PURPOSE: The purpose is to describe the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval of imatinib (Gleevec; Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ) for treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) in chronic phase. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The FDA reviewed data in electronic format from a randomized controlled clinical trial of 1106 adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in chronic phase, comparing imatinib with the combination of IFN-alpha and cytarabine. RESULTS: Imatinib showed clinically and statistically significantly better results for time-to-progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis, progression-free survival, complete hematological response rate, and cytogenetic response rate. With a median follow-up of 14 months, a maximum follow-up of 19.5 months, and an expected median survival of 5-6 years on the IFN-alpha/cytarabine control arm, few of the expected progressions to accelerated or blast phase or deaths have occurred. Imatinib was also better tolerated. Edema, nausea, rigors, neutropenia, and headache were more frequent in women. Only 57% of the IFN-alpha target dose was administered, and only 68% of patients received any cytarabine. However, this does not appear to adequately explain the superiority of imatinib observed in this trial. Results of a population pharmacokinetic study in a subgroup of 371 patients and a separate rifampin-imatinib drug-drug interaction study in healthy volunteers are presented. CONCLUSIONS: On December 20, 2002, imatinib was granted accelerated approval under subpart H, rather than regular approval. Follow-up is short compared with the natural history of chronic phase CML or more mature results with established therapies such as IFN-alpha or transplantation. If imatinib should stop working after 1.5-2 years, the results could be importantly different from the present analysis. As a Phase IV postmarketing commitment, the applicant has agreed to provide follow-up reports on this imatinib study annually for the next 6 years.

Approval summary: imatinib mesylate in the treatment of metastatic and/or unresectable malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

PURPOSE: Imatinib mesylate (Gleevec; Novartis, East Hanover, NJ)is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved previously in 2001 by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia in blast crisis, accelerated phase, or in chronic phase after failure of IFN-alpha therapy. We review herein the clinical profile of this drug and the regulatory review leading to the approval of a supplemental New Drug Application for the treatment of metastatic and/or unresectable malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We discuss the efficacy and side effects of imatinib mesylate in a Phase II trial of 147 patients with metastatic and/or unresectable malignant GISTs, the basis for marketing approval, and postmarketing commitments by the drug's manufacturer. RESULTS: Imatinib was assessed in a single, open-label trial involving one European center and three centers in the United States. Seventy-three patients were randomly allocated to receive 400 mg of imatinib daily, and 74 patients received 600 mg daily. At the study report cutoff date, an objective response was confirmed in 56 patients; the overall response rate for the combined study arms was 38% (95% confidence interval, 30-46%). These responses were all partial responses. There was no statistically significant difference in response rates between the two dose groups. Adverse events included edema, fluid retention, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgias, skin rash, bone marrow suppression, bleeding, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, or bilirubin. Bleeding into the gastrointestinal tract or intratumoral sites occurred in 7 patients (5%) and was not correlated with thrombocytopenia or tumor bulk. The pharmacokinetics of imatinib in GIST patients were similar to those of chronic myelogenous leukemia patients. CONCLUSIONS: On February 1, 2001, imatinib mesylate was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of malignant metastatic and/or unresectable GISTs. The recommended dose is 400 or 600 mg daily.

Approval summary for imatinib mesylate capsules in the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia.

PURPOSE: Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) results from the breakpoint cluster region-Abl fusion gene product, a tyrosine kinase involved in cell division and apoptosis. Imatinib, an orally administered inhibitor of the breakpoint cluster region-Abl tyrosine kinase, is capable of blocking proliferation and inducing apoptosis in CML cell lines. In this report, we describe the preclinical profile of imatinib and the data submitted in the New Drug Application that led to its marketing approval. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Chemistry manufacturing and controls, animal toxicology, and biopharmaceutical data are described. Results of Phase I and Phase II clinical studies in patients with CML in blast crisis (CML-BC), in accelerated phase (CML-AP), and in chronic phase disease-resistant or intolerant to IFN-alpha (CML-CP) are summarized. The basis for marketing approval and postmarketing commitments by the pharmaceutical company are discussed. RESULTS: Toxicology studies in the rat, dog, and monkey show the hematological, renal, and hepatobiliary toxicity of imatinib. Pharmacokinetic studies in patients with CML demonstrate 98% imatinib bioavailability. The elimination half-lives of the parent drug and the major active metabolite, CGP74588, from plasma are approximately 18 and 40 h, respectively. Approximately 81% of the drug is eliminated in 7 days, 68% in the feces and 13% in the urine. Cytochrome P-450 3A4 is the main enzyme responsible for imatinib metabolism. Phase I and II clinical studies were conducted. The Phase I study, in 83 CML patients, evaluated oral imatinib doses from 25 to 1000 mg/day. Dose-limiting toxicity was not observed. The three Phase II studies, in CML-CP, CML-AP, and CML-BC, enrolled 1027 patients. CML-CP patients received 400 mg/day imatinib, whereas CML-AP and CML-BC patients generally received 600 mg/day imatinib. Primary study endpoints were cytogenetic response rate (CML-CP) and hematological response rate (CML-AP and CML-BC). The cytogenetic response rate for CML-CP patients was 49%. The hematological response rate of CML-AP and CML-BC patients was 63 and 26%, respectively. The most common imatinib adverse events were nausea, vomiting, myalgia, edema, and diarrhea. Elevated liver enzymes and/or bilirubin were reported in 27 patients (2.6%). CONCLUSIONS: On May 10, 2001, imatinib mesylate (Gleevec, formerly known as STI-571 and Glivec), manufactured and distributed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ, was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of CML in three clinical settings: CML-BC, CML-AP, and CML-CP. This report summarizes the Food and Drug Administration's review of the New Drug Application.