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.

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.

Assessment of Adverse Events in Protocols, Clinical Study Reports, and Published Papers of Trials of Orlistat: A Document Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how adverse events are summarised and reported in trials, as detailed information is usually considered confidential. We have acquired clinical study reports (CSRs) from the European Medicines Agency through the Freedom of Information Act. The CSRs describe the results of studies conducted as part of the application for marketing authorisation for the slimming pill orlistat. The purpose of this study was to study how adverse events were summarised and reported in study protocols, CSRs, and published papers of orlistat trials. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We received the CSRs from seven randomised placebo controlled orlistat trials (4,225 participants) submitted by Roche. The CSRs consisted of 8,716 pages and included protocols. Two researchers independently extracted data on adverse events from protocols and CSRs. Corresponding published papers were identified on PubMed and adverse event data were extracted from this source as well. All three sources were compared. Individual adverse events from one trial were summed and compared to the totals in the summary report. None of the protocols or CSRs contained instructions for investigators on how to question participants about adverse events. In CSRs, gastrointestinal adverse events were only coded if the participant reported that they were "bothersome," a condition that was not specified in the protocol for two of the trials. Serious adverse events were assessed for relationship to the drug by the sponsor, and all adverse events were coded by the sponsor using a glossary that could be updated by the sponsor. The criteria for withdrawal due to adverse events were in one case related to efficacy (high fasting glucose led to withdrawal), which meant that one trial had more withdrawals due to adverse events in the placebo group. Finally, only between 3% and 33% of the total number of investigator-reported adverse events from the trials were reported in the publications because of post hoc filters, though six of seven papers stated that "all adverse events were recorded." For one trial, we identified an additional 1,318 adverse events that were not listed or mentioned in the CSR itself but could be identified through manually counting individual adverse events reported in an appendix. We discovered that the majority of patients had multiple episodes of the same adverse event that were only counted once, though this was not described in the CSRs. We also discovered that participants treated with orlistat experienced twice as many days with adverse events as participants treated with placebo (22.7 d versus 14.9 d, p-value < 0.0001, Student's t test). Furthermore, compared with the placebo group, adverse events in the orlistat group were more severe. None of this was stated in the CSR or in the published paper. Our analysis was restricted to one drug tested in the mid-1990s; our results might therefore not be applicable for newer drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In the orlistat trials, we identified important disparities in the reporting of adverse events between protocols, clinical study reports, and published papers. Reports of these trials seemed to have systematically understated adverse events. Based on these findings, systematic reviews of drugs might be improved by including protocols and CSRs in addition to published articles.

Adverse Events Associated with Flumazenil Treatment for the Management of Suspected Benzodiazepine Intoxication--A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses of Randomised Trials.

Flumazenil is used for the reversal of benzodiazepine overdose. Serious adverse events (SAEs) including seizures and cardiac arrhythmias have been reported in patients treated with flumazenil, and the clinical advantage of flumazenil treatment has been questioned. The objective was to assess the risk of (S)AEs associated with the use of flumazenil in patients with impaired consciousness due to known or suspected benzodiazepine overdose. Studies included in the meta-analyses were identified by literature search in Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase using combinations of the words flumazenil, benzodiazepines, anti-anxiety agents, poisoning, toxicity and overdose. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in verified or suspected benzodiazepine overdose patients comparing treatment with flumazenil versus placebo were included. Pre-defined outcome measures were AEs, SAEs and mortality. Thirteen trials with a total of 994 randomised (990 evaluable) patients were included. AEs were significantly more common in the flumazenil group (138/498) compared with the placebo group (47/492) (risk ratio: 2.85; 95% confidence interval: 2.11-3.84; p < 0.00001). SAEs were also significantly more common in the flumazenil group compared with the placebo group (12/498 versus 2/492; risk ratio: 3.81; 95% CI: 1.28-11.39; p = 0.02). The most common AEs in the flumazenil group were agitation and gastrointestinal symptoms, whereas the most common SAEs were supraventricular arrhythmia and convulsions. No patients died during the blinded phase of the RCTs. The use of flumazenil in a population admitted at the emergency department with known or suspected benzodiazepine intoxication is associated with a significantly increased risk of (S)AEs compared with placebo. Flumazenil should not be used routinely, and the harms and benefits should be considered carefully in every patient.

Antibody induction therapy for lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted organ rejection, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary. Clear evidence is essential to identify an optimal, safe and effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for lung transplant recipients. Consensus has not yet been achieved concerning use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction following lung transplantation. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction with ATG, ALG, IL-2RA, alemtuzumab, or muromonab-CD3 for lung transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 4 March 2013 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immunosuppressive monoclonal and polyclonal T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. An inclusion criterion was that all participants must have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy within each study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors extracted data. We derived risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and trial sequential analyses were undertaken to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included six RCTs (representing a total of 278 adult lung transplant recipients) that assessed the use of T-cell antibody induction. Evaluation of the included studies found all to be at high risk of bias.We conducted comparisons of polyclonal or monoclonal T-cell antibody induction versus no induction (3 studies, 140 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus no induction (3 studies, 125 participants); interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL-2RA) versus no induction (1 study, 25 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus muromonab-CD3 (1 study, 64 participants); and polyclonal T-cell antibody versus IL-2RA (3 studies, 100 participants). Overall we found no significant differences among interventions in terms of mortality, acute rejection, adverse effects, infection, pneumonia, cytomegalovirus infection, bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease, or cancer.We found a significant outcome difference in one study that compared antithymocyte globulin versus muromonab-CD3 relating to adverse events (25/34 (74%) versus 12/30 (40%); RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.98). This suggested that antithymocyte globulin increased occurrence of adverse events. However, trial sequential analysis found that the required information size had not been reached, and the cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries.None of the studies reported quality of life or kidney injury. Trial sequential analyses indicated that none of the meta-analyses achieved required information sizes and the cumulative Z-curves did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries, nor reached the area of futility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No clear benefits or harms associated with the use of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when different types of T-cell antibodies were compared were identified in this review. Few studies were identified that investigated use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after lung transplantation, and numbers of participants and outcomes were also limited. Assessment of the included studies found that all were at high risk of methodological bias.Further RCTs are needed to perform robust assessment of the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. Future studies should be designed and conducted according to methodologies to reduce risks of systematic error (bias) and random error (play of chance).

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation is a well-accepted treatment for people with most end-stage lung diseases. Although both tacrolimus and cyclosporin are used as primary immunosuppressive agents in lung transplant recipients, it is unclear which of these drugs is better in reducing rejection and death without causing adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of tacrolimus versus cyclosporin for primary immunosuppression in lung transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 10 April 2013 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. We also searched Science Citation Index Expanded and the Transplant Library to 20 April 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared any dose and duration of administration of tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppressive treatment in lung transplant recipients. Our selection criteria required that all included patients received the same additional immunosuppressive therapy within each study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors extracted data. For dichotomous data we used risk ratio (RR) and used mean difference (MD) for continuous data, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components of the included studies were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies that enrolled a total of 413 adult patients that compared tacrolimus with microemulsion or oral solution cyclosporin. All studies were found to be at high risk of bias. Tacrolimus seemed to be significantly superior to cyclosporin regarding the incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74), lymphocytic bronchitis score (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.16), treatment withdrawal (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46), and arterial hypertension (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89). However, the finding for arterial hypertension was not confirmed when analysed using a random-effects model (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.73). Furthermore, trial sequential analysis found that none of the meta-analyses reached the required information sizes and cumulative Z-curves did not cross trial sequential monitoring boundaries. Diabetes mellitus occurred more frequently among people in the tacrolimus group compared with the cyclosporin group when the fixed-effect model was applied (RR 4.24, 95% CI 1.58 to 11.40), but no difference was found when the random-effects model was used for analysis (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.75 to 26.05). Again, trial sequential analysis found that the required information threshold was not reached and cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary. No significant difference between treatment groups was observed regarding mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.49), incidence of acute rejection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03), numbers of infections/100 patient-days (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.00), cancer (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.16), kidney dysfunction (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.14), kidney failure (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.94), neurotoxicity (RR 7.06, 95% CI 0.37 to 135.19), and hyperlipidaemia (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.20). Trial sequential analysis showed the required information thresholds were not reached for any of these outcome measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus may be superior to cyclosporin regarding bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, lymphocytic bronchitis, treatment withdrawal, and arterial hypertension, but may be inferior regarding development of diabetes. No difference in mortality and acute rejection was observed between patients treated with tacrolimus and cyclosporin. There were few studies comparing tacrolimus and cyclosporin after lung transplantation, and the numbers of patients and events in the included studies were limited. Furthermore, the included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the results of the present review. Such studies ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors (bias) and of random errors (play of chance).

[Weight reducing and glucose reducing effects of liraglutide treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes]. / Liraglutids glukose- og vægtreducerende effekt ved behandling af type 2-diabetes.

Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues including liraglutide is a new treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes. Treatment with liraglutide decreases HbA1c by 1-2%, and additionally liraglutide has a reducing effect on weight, lipids and blood pressure. Most adverse events are related to the gastrointestinal system and most often they disappear within a few weeks. The risk of major hypoglycaemic episodes is minimal. Long term data on treatment and adverse events with liraglutide are still lacking.

[Quetiapine-induced leucopenia]. / Quetiapininduceret leukopeni.

We describe the case of a 20-year-old man with schizophrenia who was treated with the dibenzothiazepine antipsychotic drug quetiapine in oral doses of 900 mg daily. At admission the patient had a normal blood count. 15 weeks after initiation of treatment asymptomatic cytopenia was discovered with leucocytes of 2.2 billion/l and thrombocytes of 114 billion/l. Two weeks after discontinuation of quetiapine the leucopenia subsided. Physicians should be aware of leucopenia as a potential adverse effect to quetiapine, especially in patients with symptoms of infections or cytopenia.

[Impotence caused by Methotrexate treatment]. / Impotens forårsaget af behandling med methotrexat.

Methotrexate (MTX) is used in the treatment of malignant and non-malignant diseases. This case report describes impotence as a seldom but possible overlooked adverse effect to MTX treatment. A 58 year-old man was treated for erythrodermia with a weekly dose of 7.5 mg MTX. He developed erective impotence nine months after initiation of treatment. Two weeks after discontinuation of MTX the impotence subsided, but when MTX treatment was reintroduced, the impotence returned after two months. Only a few other cases of impotence associated with MTX have been described previously.

[Nordic accident classification system used in the Danish National Hospital Registration System to register causes of severe traumatic brain injury]. / Nordisk Ulykkesklassifikation anvendt i Landspatientregisteret til registrering af årsager til hovedtraumer.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose was to illustrate the use of the accident classification system worked out by the Nordic Medico-Statistical Committee (NOMESCO). In particular, registration of causes of severe traumatic brain injury according to the system as part of the Danish National Hospital Registration System was studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised 117 patients with very severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to the Brain Injury Unit of the University Hospital in Hvidovre, Copenhagen, from 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2002. Prospective NOMESCO coding at discharge was compared to independent retrospective coding based on hospital records, and to coding from other wards in the Danish National Hospital Registration System. Furthermore, sets of codes in the Danish National Hospital Registration System for consecutive admissions after a particular accident were compared. RESULTS: Identical results of prospective and independent retrospective coding were found for 65% of 588 single codes, and complete sets of codes for the same accident were identical only in 28% of cases. Sets of codes for the first admission in a hospital course corresponded to retrospective coding at the end of the course in only 17% of cases. Accident code sets from different wards, based on the same injury, were identical in only 7% of cases. CONCLUSION: Prospective coding by the NOMESCO accident classification system proved problematic, both with regard to correctness and completeness. The system--although logical--seems too complicated compared to the resources invested in the coding. The results of this investigation stress the need for better management and for better instruction to those who carry out the registration.

Polycythaemia vera and essential thrombocythaemia: current treatment strategies.

Polycythaemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythaemia (ET) are classified as Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative diseases. Both PV and ET are rare diseases, but the prevalence is high. Patients who have not been treated for the diseases are at great risk of morbidity and mortality as a result of thrombohaemorrhagic events. However, if patients have been well treated, their prognosis is good and life-expectancy approaches normal. This article provides diagnostic tools and flowcharts for treatment of PV and ET. Treatment of PV and ET should be risk-adjusted and individualised. Low-dose aspirin is recommended as an antiaggregative drug in both diseases. For PV, phlebotomy to control a haematocrit at <0.45 is the cornerstone in treatment, and treatment with hydroxycarbamide (hydroxyurea) or interferon (IFN)-alpha is added to reduce hypermetabolic symptoms or splenomegaly becoming cytoreductive. In ET, hydroxycarbamide and anagrelide are the most used drugs, and anagrelide may also be added in PV to reduce thrombocytosis. IFNalpha is the only myelosuppressive treatment available during pregnancy. Current controversies regarding treatment illustrate the need for more randomised clinical trials. Demonstration of over expression of the PV-1 gene and in particular the JAK-2 mutation will be novel diagnostic criteria and may have an impact for future therapy of both PV and ET.

[Damage control surgery in multiply traumatised patients]. / Damage control surgery hos multitraumatiserede patienter.

The results of extensive and prolonged surgical procedures performed in multi trauma patients are often poor. These patients may develop the lethal combination of metabolic acidosis, coagulopathy and hypothermia, which reduces their physiological reserve capacity. The 'damage control surgery' (DCS) approach is known to reduce the mortality rate in multi trauma patients. DCS consists of a short primary operation to control bleeding and prevent contamination. Thereafter, resuscitation is performed in the intensive care unit. Finally, reoperation and definitive repair of lesions are done.