A critical evaluation of the EFS endpoint in AML: Does induction treatment failure timing have a profound impact on study design and results?

Despite emerging novel therapies, treating acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains challenging. Complexities persist in designing pivotal clinical trials and establishing acceptable endpoints for AML. Recent FDA guidance for drug and biological products development for AML outlines considerations for trial design. The guidance defines overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) as endpoints representing clinical benefit for AML therapies without curative intent. We highlight the EFS definition, particularly the assignment of day 1 as the event date for patients with induction treatment failures (ITFs), as recommended in the guidance. Through a comprehensive simulation study, our results show that the guidance EFS definition performs adequately with high complete remission (CR) rates but may pose challenges for low CR rates. When the experimental arm CR rate is 5% or less over the control, the use of the ITF events at day 1 for EFS definition leads to a critical power decrease, hampering the ability to predict survival benefit for a moderate OS duration. We further expand upon the EFS definition with the event date at ITF period end. Our goal is to inform investigators and regulatory agencies about the implications and limitations of various EFS definitions for future pivotal trials in AML.

Phase 1 study to evaluate the effects of rifampin on pharmacokinetics of pevonedistat, a NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Pevonedistat (TAK-924/MLN4924) is an investigational small molecule inhibitor of the NEDD8-activating enzyme that has demonstrated clinical activity across solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Here we report the results of a phase 1 study evaluating the effect of rifampin, a strong CYP3A inducer, on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of pevonedistat in patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT03486314). Patients received a single 50 mg/m2 pevonedistat dose via a 1-h infusion on Days 1 (in the absence of rifampin) and 10 (in the presence of rifampin), and daily oral dosing of rifampin 600 mg on Days 3-11. Twenty patients were enrolled and were evaluable for PK and safety. Following a single dose of pevonedistat at 50 mg/m2, the mean terminal half-life of pevonedistat was 5.7 and 7.4 h in the presence and in the absence of rifampin, respectively. The geometric mean AUC0-inf of pevonedistat in the presence of rifampin was 79% of that without rifampin (90% CI: 69.2%-90.2%). The geometric mean Cmax of pevonedistat in the presence of rifampin was similar to that in the absence of rifampin (96.2%; 90% CI: 79.2%-117%). Coadministration of pevonedistat with rifampin, a strong metabolic enzyme inducer, did not result in clinically meaningful decreases in systemic exposures of pevonedistat. The study results support the recommendation that no pevonedistat dose adjustment is needed for patients receiving concomitant CYP3A inducers. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03486314.

Overall Survival with Brentuximab Vedotin in Stage III or IV Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Five-year follow-up in a trial involving patients with previously untreated stage III or IV classic Hodgkin's lymphoma showed long-term progression-free survival benefits with first-line therapy with brentuximab vedotin, a CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate, plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD), as compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). A planned interim analysis indicated a potential benefit with regard to overall survival; data from a median of 6 years of follow-up are now available. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD or ABVD. The primary end point, modified progression-free survival, has been reported previously. The key secondary end point was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 664 patients were assigned to receive A+AVD and 670 to receive ABVD. At a median follow-up of 73.0 months, 39 patients in the A+AVD group and 64 in the ABVD group had died (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.88; P = 0.009). The 6-year overall survival estimates were 93.9% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.5) in the A+AVD group and 89.4% (95% CI, 86.6 to 91.7) in the ABVD group. Progression-free survival was longer with A+AVD than with ABVD (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.86). Fewer patients in the A+AVD group than in the ABVD group received subsequent therapy, including transplantation, and fewer second cancers were reported with A+AVD (in 23 vs. 32 patients). Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was recommended after an increased incidence of febrile neutropenia was observed with A+AVD. More patients had peripheral neuropathy with A+AVD than with ABVD, but most patients in the two groups had resolution or amelioration of the event by the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received A+AVD for the treatment of stage III or IV Hodgkin's lymphoma had a survival advantage over those who received ABVD. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas and Seagen; ECHELON-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01712490; EudraCT number, 2011-005450-60.).