Biosimilar epoetin for cancer and chemotherapy-induced anaemia in the US

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-122
Author(s):  
Charles L Bennett

Biosimilars are biological drug products that are highly similar to reference products in analytic features, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety and efficacy. Biosimilar epoetin received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018 [1]. The manufacturer received an FDA non-approval letter in 2017, despite receiving a favourable review by the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) and an FDA non-approval letter in 2015 for an earlier formulation.

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110379
Author(s):  
Katie Xu ◽  
Elizabeth Hansen

Review objective There have been several advances in the field of myelodysplastic syndromes over the past year, yielding two new US Food and Drug Administration drug approvals. The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials, therapeutic use, adverse effects, clinical use controversies, product description, and upcoming trials for myelodysplastic syndromes novel agents luspatercept-aamt and decitabine/cedazuridine are reviewed. Data sources This review article utilized primary information obtained from both the published studies involved in the approval of luspatercept-aamt and decitabine/cedazuridine and package inserts for the respective medications. This review article utilized secondary information obtained from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines using filters and keywords to sustain information relevancy as well as key studies using the keywords, “luspatercept-aamt, myelodysplastic syndromes, decitabine, cedazuridine, hypomethylating agent, ASTX727” from scholarly journal database PubMed. Data summary Myelodysplastic syndromes consist of myeloid clonal hemopathies with a diverse range of presentation. Until recently, there have been relatively few new therapies in the myelodysplastic syndromes treatment landscape. On April 3, 2020 the US Food and Drug Administration approved Reblozyl®(luspatercept-aamt), then on July 7, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved INQOVI® (decitabine and cedazuridine). Luspatercept-aamt acts as a erythroid maturation agent through differentiation of late-stage erythroid precursors. The safety and efficacy of luspatercept-aamt was demonstrated in the MEDALIST trial, a phase III trial in patients with very low-intermediate risk refractory myelodysplastic syndromes and ring sideroblasts. Luspatercept-aamt met both primary and secondary endpoints of transfusion independence of 8 weeks or longer and transfusion independence of 12 weeks or longer, respectively. Decitabine/cedazuridine has a unique mechanism of action in which decitabine acts as a nucleoside metabolic inhibitor promoting DNA hypomethylation and cedazuridine then prevents degradation of decitabine. The safety and efficacy of decitabine/cedazuridine was shown in the ASCERTAIN study, a phase III trial in patients with intermediate or high risk myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. The primary outcome evaluated was 5-day cumulative area under the curve between decitabine/cedazuridine and IV decitabine as well as additional outcomes including safety. Decitabine/cedazuridine met primary outcome and had a similar safety profile to IV decitabine. Conclusion The novel myelodysplastic syndromes agents luspatercept-aamt and decitabine/cedazuridine provide a clinical benefit in the studied populations.


2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 915-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara M. Davit ◽  
Mei-Ling Chen ◽  
Dale P. Conner ◽  
Sam H. Haidar ◽  
Stephanie Kim ◽  
...  

Kidney Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Ilya Tsimafeyeu

On November 23, 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), thus opening a new era of immunotherapy for this tumor. This review summarizes the 5-year experience of studying and using nivolumab in RCC patients.


2020 ◽  
Vol 133 (4) ◽  
pp. 740-749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald S. Litman

The United States Food and Drug Administration is tasked with ensuring the efficacy and safety of medications marketed in the United States. One of their primary responsibilities is to approve the entry of new drugs into the marketplace, based on the drug’s perceived benefit–risk relationship. The Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Product Advisory Committee is composed of experts in anesthesiology, pain management, and biostatistics, as well as consumer and industry representatives, who meet several times annually to review new anesthetic-related drugs, those seeking new indications, and nearly every opioid-related application for approval. The following report describes noteworthy activities of this committee since 2017, as it has grappled, along with the Food and Drug Administration, to balance the benefit–risk relationships for individual patients along with the overarching public health implications of bringing additional opioids to market. All anesthesia advisory committee meetings since 2017 will be described, and six will be highlighted, each with representative considerations for potential new opioid formulations or local anesthetics.


JAMA Oncology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Z. Feit ◽  
Debra A. Goldman ◽  
Evan Smith ◽  
Jenny Deighan ◽  
Alexia Iasonos ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (36) ◽  
pp. 6243-6250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou ◽  
Fadi Braiteh ◽  
David J. Stewart ◽  
Razelle Kurzrock

Purpose To approve a new anticancer drug, the US Food and Drug Administration often requires randomized trials. However, several oncology drugs have been approved on the basis of objective end points without a randomized trial. We reviewed the long-term safety and efficacy of such agents. Methods We searched the Web site of the US Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and MEDLINE for initial applications of investigational anticancer drugs from 1973 through 2006. Results Overall, 68 oncology drugs, excluding hormone therapy and supportive care, were approved, including 31 without a randomized trial. For these 31 drugs, a median of two clinical trials (range, one to seven) and 79 patients (range, 40 to 413) were used per approval. Objective response was the most common end point used for approval; median response rate was 33% (range, 11% to 90%). Thirty drugs are still fully approved. United States marketing authorization for one drug, gefitinib (an epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] inhibitor), was rescinded after a randomized trial showed no survival improvement; however, this trial was performed in unselected patients, and it was subsequently demonstrated that patients with EGFR mutation are more likely to respond. Nineteen of the 31 drugs have additional uses (per National Comprehensive Cancer Network or National Cancer Institute Physician Data Query guidelines), and subsequent formal US Food and Drug Administration approvals were obtained for 11 of these (range, one to 18 new indications). No drug has demonstrated safety concerns. Conclusion Nonrandomized clinical trials with definitive end points can yield US Food and Drug Administration approvals, and these drugs have a reassuring record of long-term safety and efficacy.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua J. Skydel ◽  
Audrey D. Zhang ◽  
Sanket S. Dhruva ◽  
Joseph S. Ross ◽  
Joshua D. Wallach

Background/Aims: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlines clinical studies as postmarketing requirements and commitments to be fulfilled following FDA approval of new drugs and biologics ("therapeutics"). As regulators have increasingly emphasized lifecycle evaluation of approved therapeutics, postmarketing studies are intended to advance our understanding of therapeutic safety and efficacy, yet little is known about how often clinical studies are outlined or the indications they investigate. To assess FDA's use of postmarket clinical studies to generate evidence of therapeutic safety and efficacy, we characterized FDA postmarketing requirements and commitments for new therapeutics approved from 2009-2018. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all novel therapeutics, including small molecule drugs and biologics, receiving original FDA approval from 2009-2018, using approval letters accessed through the Drug@FDA database. Outcomes included the number and characteristics of FDA postmarketing requirements and commitments for new therapeutics at original approval, including types of studies outlined, indications to be investigated, and clinical evidence to be generated. Results: From 2009-2018, FDA approved 343 new therapeutics with 1978 postmarketing requirements and commitments. Overall, 750 (37.9%) postmarketing requirements and commitments outlined clinical studies. For 71 of 343 (20.7%) therapeutics, no postmarketing requirements nor commitments for clinical studies were outlined, while at least 1 was outlined for 272 (79.3%; median = 2 (IQR, 1-4)). Among these 272 therapeutics, the number of postmarketing requirements and commitments for clinical studies per therapeutic did not significantly change from 2009 (median 2 (IQR, 1-4)) to 2018 (median 2 (IQR, 1-3); P = .54). Among the 750 postmarketing requirements and commitments for clinical studies, 448 (59.7%) outlined new prospective cohort studies, registries, or clinical trials, while the remainder outlined retrospective studies, secondary analyses, or completion of ongoing studies. Although 455 (60.7%) clinical studies investigated only original approved therapeutic indications, 123 (16.4%) enrolled from an expansion of the approved disease population and 61 (8.1%) investigated diseases unrelated to approved indications. Conclusions: Most therapeutics are approved by FDA with at least 1 postmarketing requirement or commitment for a clinical study, which outline investigations of safety or efficacy for both approved and unapproved indications. However, the median number of 2 clinical studies outlined has remained relatively constant over the last decade, despite increasing emphasis on lifecycle evaluation of approved therapeutics.


2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Michael Roberts ◽  
J.Timothy Wright

The frequent ingestion of fermentable sugars such as sucrose, fructose, glucose and maltose is conducive to the development of caries in the teeth of susceptible individuals. Natural and artificial alternatives to these sugars have been and continue to be developed as non/low-caloric sweeteners. The US Food and Drug Administration have approved four non-caloric sweeteners at present. However, there are several other non-caloric sweeteners being commonly used in other countries.A review of these sweeteners is provided with information on a promising new agent that has not yet gained FDA approval.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document