Benefits and risks of clofarabine in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia investigated in depth by multi-state modeling.

BACKGROUND: We recently reported results of the prospective, open-label HOVON-100 trial in 334 adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) randomized to first-line treatment with or without clofarabine (CLO). No improvement of event-free survival (EFS) was observed, while a higher proportion of patients receiving CLO obtained minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. AIM: In order to investigate the effects of CLO in more depth, two multi-state models were developed to identify why CLO did not show a long-term survival benefit despite more MRD-negativity. METHODS: The first model evaluated the effect of CLO on going off-protocol (not due to refractory disease/relapse, completion or death) as a proxy of severe treatment-related toxicity, while the second model evaluated the effect of CLO on obtaining MRD negativity. The subsequent impact of these intermediate events on death or relapsed/refractory disease was assessed in both models. RESULTS: Overall, patients receiving CLO went off-protocol more frequently than control patients (35/168 [21%] vs. 18/166 [11%], p = 0.019; HR 2.00 [1.13-3.52], p = 0.02), especially during maintenance (13/44 [30%] vs. 6/56 [11%]; HR 2.85 [95%CI 1.08-7.50], p = 0.035). Going off-protocol was, however, not associated with more relapse or death. Patients in the CLO arm showed a trend towards an increased rate of MRD-negativity compared with control patients (HR MRD-negativity: 1.35 [0.95-1.91], p = 0.10), which did not translate into a significant survival benefit. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the intermediate states, i.e., going off-protocol and MRD-negativity, were affected by adding CLO, but these transitions were not associated with subsequent survival estimates, suggesting relatively modest antileukemic activity in ALL.

How to develop new systemic treatments in ultra-rare cancers with high unmet needs? The case of alveolar soft-part sarcoma.

Developing new drugs or generating evidence for existing drugs in new indications for ultra-rare cancers is complex and carries a high-risk of failure. This gets even harder in ultra-rare tumours, which have an annual incidence of 1 per 1,000,000 population or less. Here, we illustrate the problem of adequate evidence generation in ultra-rare tumours, using Alveolar Soft-Part Sarcomas (ASPS) - an ultra-rare sarcoma newly diagnosed in approximately 60 persons a year in the European Union - as an exemplar case showing challenges in development despite being potentially relevant for classes of agents. We discuss some possible approaches for addressing such challenges, especially focussing on constructive collaboration between academic groups, patients and advocates, drug manufacturers, and regulators to optimise drug development in ultra-rare cancers. This article, written by various European stakeholders, proposes a way forward to ultimately get better options for patients with ultra-rare cancers.

Bayesian interim analysis for prospective randomized studies: reanalysis of the acute myeloid leukemia HOVON 132 clinical trial.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to establish the benefit-risk ratio of novel drugs. However, the evaluation of mature results often takes many years. We hypothesized that the addition of Bayesian inference methods at interim analysis time points might accelerate and enforce the knowledge that such trials may generate. In order to test that hypothesis, we retrospectively applied a Bayesian approach to the HOVON 132 trial, in which 800 newly diagnosed AML patients aged 18 to 65 years were randomly assigned to a "7 + 3" induction with or without lenalidomide. Five years after the first patient was recruited, the trial was negative for its primary endpoint with no difference in event-free survival (EFS) between experimental and control groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, p = 0.96) in the final conventional analysis. We retrospectively simulated interim analyses after the inclusion of 150, 300, 450, and 600 patients using a Bayesian methodology to detect early lack of efficacy signals. The HR for EFS comparing the lenalidomide arm with the control treatment arm was 1.21 (95% CI 0.81-1.69), 1.05 (95% CI 0.86-1.30), 1.00 (95% CI 0.84-1.19), and 1.02 (95% CI 0.87-1.19) at interim analysis 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Complete remission rates were lower in the lenalidomide arm, and early deaths more frequent. A Bayesian approach identified that the probability of a clinically relevant benefit for EFS (HR < 0.76, as assumed in the statistical analysis plan) was very low at the first interim analysis (1.2%, 0.6%, 0.4%, and 0.1%, respectively). Similar observations were made for low probabilities of any benefit regarding CR. Therefore, Bayesian analysis significantly adds to conventional methods applied for interim analysis and may thereby accelerate the performance and completion of phase III trials.

Attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival as endpoint in the advanced cancer setting.

PURPOSE: To describe the attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival (PFS) as efficacy endpoint in clinical trials with patients with advanced cancer and to explore to what extent these attitudes influence the willingness to trade between PFS and toxicity. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey with regulators from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and healthcare professionals (HCP) from the "Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland" (HOVON) collaborative group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Attitudes towards PFS were elicited using 5-point Likert items. The respondents' willingness to trade between PFS and grade 3 or 4 (G34) toxicity was assessed using the threshold technique and quantified in terms of their maximum acceptable risk (MAR). RESULTS: Responses were collected from 287 HCPs and 64 regulators with mainly clinical expertise. Attitudes towards PFS were often spread out in both groups and related to beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate for clinical benefit, being an intrinsic benefit to be distinguished from OS, or on the importance given to OS. Being a regulator or holding stronger beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate or an intrinsic benefit were associated with a higher MAR. Presence of a supportive trend in OS was stated as important but was not associated with MAR. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and the need for improving communication to patients about meaning, strengths, and limitations of improvements in PFS. CONCLUSION: Attitudes towards PFS were spread out and were associated with individual differences in the willingness to trade between toxicity and PFS. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and improving communication to patients.

Queries Raised During Oncology Business Pipeline Meetings at the European Medicines Agency: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers guidance and support to pharmaceutical companies through bilateral discussions called business pipeline meetings (BPMs). An analysis of BPMs in oncology over a 5-year period was conducted to identify common topics and recurring queries. The documents of all BPMs available at the EMA regarding the field of oncology from January 1, 2018, to Decemer 31, 2022, were reviewed. For every query, a main category was assigned, and in case of multiple relevant topics, a secondary category was appointed too. For all queries, the follow-up offered by the EMA was documented, and whether the requested information was available. Subsequently, all queries were scanned for overlapping topics between meetings. From 2018 to 2022, 31 BPMs were held between the EMA and pharmaceutical companies to discuss oncology-related questions, for a total of 397 queries raised. They were classified into 24 topics, of which 15 were common topics (n ≥ 10 queries) with regulatory pathways/guidelines and trial design having the most queries. Post-BPM actions were taken or recommended by the EMA for 41.3% of queries, such as referrals to scientific advice or published guidelines. Forty-three queries were raised at more than one BPM. Targeted therapy, companion diagnostics, institutional collaboration, trial design, and regulatory pathways/guidelines were the most discussed topics in oncology BPMs, with molecular developments being the common denominator. Creating Q&A documents, publishing new guidelines, providing a framework for discussions, and questionnaire-based follow-up research can improve the quality of BPMs, and the accessibility of the information requested during the BPMs.

The EMA Assessment of Asciminib for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase Who Were Previously Treated With at Least Two Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

Asciminib is an allosteric high-affinity tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of the BCR-ABL1 protein kinase. This kinase is translated from the Philadelphia chromosome in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Marketing authorization for asciminib was granted on August 25, 2022 by the European Commission. The approved indication was for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in the chronic phase which have previously been treated with at least 2 TKIs. Clinical efficacy and safety of asciminib were evaluated in the open-label, randomized, phase III ASCEMBL study. The primary endpoint of this trial was major molecular response (MMR) rate at 24 weeks. A significant difference in MRR rate was shown between the asciminib treated population and the bosutinib control group (25.5% vs. 13.2%, respectively, P = .029). In the asciminib cohort, adverse reactions of at least grade 3 with an incidence ≥ 5% were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, increased pancreatic enzymes, hypertension, and anemia. The aim of this article is to summarize the scientific review of the application which led to the positive opinion by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

A simulated maximum likelihood procedure for analyzing imprecise trade-off thresholds between the benefits and harms of medicines.

Stated preference studies in which information on the willingness to trade-off between the benefits and harms of medicines is elicited from patients or other stakeholders are becoming increasingly mainstream. Such trade-offs can mathematically be represented by a weighted additive function, with the weights, whose ratios determine how much an individual is willing to trade-off between the treatment attributes, being the response vector for the statistical analysis. One way of eliciting trade-off information is through multi-dimensional thresholding (MDT), which is a bisection-based approach that results in increasingly tight bounds on the values of the weights ratios. While MDT is cognitively less demanding than other, more direct elicitation methods, its use complicates the statistical analysis as it results in weights data that are region censored. In this article, we present a simulated maximum likelihood (SML) procedure for fitting a Dirichlet population model directly to the region-censored weights data and perform a series of computational experiments to compare the proposed SML procedure to a naive approach in which a Dirichlet distribution is fitted to the centroids of the weights boundaries obtained with MDT. The results indicate that the SML procedure consistently outperformed the centroid-based approach, with the centroid-based approach requiring three bisection steps per trade-off to achieve a similar precision as the SML procedure with one bisection step per trade-off. Using the newly proposed SML procedure, MDT can be applied with smaller sample sizes or with fewer questions compared to the more naïve centroid-based approach that was applied in previous applications of MDT.

A Review of Causal Inference for External Comparator Arm Studies.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design to establish the efficacy of new drugs and to support regulatory decision making. However, a marked increase in the submission of single-arm trials (SATs) has been observed in recent years, especially in the field of oncology due to the trend towards precision medicine contributing to the rise of new therapeutic interventions for rare diseases. SATs lack results for control patients, and information from external sources can be compiled to provide context for better interpretability of study results. External comparator arm (ECA) studies are defined as a clinical trial (most commonly a SAT) and an ECA of a comparable cohort of patients-commonly derived from real-world settings including registries, natural history studies, or medical records of routine care. This publication aims to provide a methodological overview, to sketch emergent best practice recommendations and to identify future methodological research topics. Specifically, existing scientific and regulatory guidance for ECA studies is reviewed and appropriate causal inference methods are discussed. Further topics include sample size considerations, use of estimands, handling of different data sources regarding differential baseline covariate definitions, differential endpoint measurements and timings. In addition, unique features of ECA studies are highlighted, specifically the opportunity to address bias caused by unmeasured ECA covariates, which are available in the SAT.

The value of anticancer drugs - a regulatory view.

The high prices of new anticancer drugs and the marginal added benefit perceived by some stakeholders have fuelled a debate on the value of anticancer drugs in the European Union, even though an agreed definition of what constitutes a drug's value does not exist. In this Perspective, we discuss the value of drugs from different viewpoints and objectives of decision makers: for regulators, assessment of the benefit-risk balance of a drug is a cornerstone for approval; payers rely on cost-effectiveness analyses carried out by health technology assessment agencies for reimbursement decisions; for patients, treatment choices are based on personal preferences and attitudes to risk; and clinicians can use several scales (such as the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)) that have been developed as an attempt to measure value objectively. Although a unique definition that fully captures the concept of value is unlikely to emerge, herein we discuss the importance of understanding different perspectives, and how regulators can help to inform different decision makers.

Extension of Indication for Authorised Oncology Products in the European Union: A Joint Effort of Multiple Stakeholders.

After marketing authorisation, the development of a medicinal product often continues with studies investigating new therapeutic indications. Positive results can potentially lead to changes to the terms of the marketing authorisation, such as an extension of therapeutic indication(s). These studies can be initiated and sponsored by the marketing authorisation holder (MAH) or by others. When results from an investigator-initiated trial suggest that an authorised medicinal product is safe and effective for a new therapeutic indication, physicians may want to treat their patients with this medicinal product. In such a situation, it is desirable to extend the therapeutic indication(s) via the regulatory approval process, as this can facilitate patient access within the European Union. There may however be challenges when the MAH did not conduct the study and might not have access to the data. In this perspective, we focus on the possibilities to extend the therapeutic indication(s) of an already authorised medicinal product based on results from investigator-initiated trials. We address: (1) the advantages of an extension of indication; (2) the regulatory requirements for a variation application; (3) investigator-initiated trials as a basis for regulatory approval; (4) the role of the MAH in extending the indication. With this article, we want to emphasize the importance of a collaborative approach and dialogue between stakeholders with the aim to facilitate access to effective medicinal products.

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.

The European Medicines Agency Review of Crizanlizumab for the Prevention of Recurrent Vaso-Occlusive Crises in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease.

Crizanlizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to P-selectin. On October 28, 2020, a conditional marketing authorization valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for crizanlizumab for the prevention of recurrent vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) in patients with sickle cell disease aged 16 years or older. Crizanlizumab was evaluated in a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized multicenter trial comparing high-dose (5 mg/kg) crizanlizumab, low-dose (2.5 mg/kg) crizanlizumab and placebo in patients with a history of 2-10 VOCs in the previous year. Patients who were receiving concomitant hydroxycarbamide (HC) as well as those not receiving HC were included in the study. The primary endpoint of the trial was the annual rate of sickle cell-related pain crises as adjudicated by a central review committee. High-dose crizanlizumab led to a 45.3% lower median annual rate of sickle cell-related pain crises compared to placebo (P = 0.010), with no statistically significant difference for the low dose. Treatment with high-dose crizanlizumab led to similar incidences of adverse events (AEs), grade 3 AEs, and serious AEs compared to placebo. Most frequently observed AEs that occurred more often in the crizanlizumab arm compared to placebo were infusion related reactions (34.8% versus 21%), arthralgia (18.2% versus 8.1%), diarrhea (10.6% versus 3.2%), and nausea (18.2% versus 11.3%). The aim of this article is to summarize the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the EU.

EMA Review of Isatuximab in Combination with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the human CD38 antigen. On May 30, 2020, a marketing authorization valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPd) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and refractory (RR) multiple myeloma (MM). The recommended dose of isatuximab was 10 mg/kg, administered intravenously weekly at cycle 1 and then biweekly in subsequent 28-day cycles. Isatuximab was evaluated in a phase III, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial that randomly allocated IsaPd versus pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (Pd) to adult patients with RR MM. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee, which was superior for the IsaPd arm (hazard ratio, 0.596; 95% confidence interval, 0.436-0.814; p = .001) compared with the Pd arm. Treatment with IsaPd led to higher incidences of treatment-related adverse events (AEs), grade ≥ 3 AEs, and serious AEs compared with Pd treatment. Most frequently observed AEs that occurred more often in the IsaPd arm were infusion-related reactions, infections, respiratory AEs, neutropenia (including neutropenic complications), and thrombocytopenia. The aim of this article is to summarize the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the EU. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Isatuximab was approved in the European Union, in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have already received therapy but whose disease did not respond or relapsed afterward. The addition of isatuximab resulted in a clinically meaningful and significant prolongation of the time from treatment initiation to further disease relapse or patient's death. The safety profile was considered acceptable, and the benefit-risk ratio was determined to be positive.

The European Medicines Agency Review of Luspatercept for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Transfusion-dependent Anemia Caused by Low-risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes With Ring Sideroblasts or Beta-thalassemia.

Luspatercept is a recombinant fusion protein that selectively binds to ligands belonging to the transforming growth factor-beta superfamily, resulting in erythroid maturation and differentiation. On June 25, 2020, a marketing authorization valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for luspatercept for the treatment of adult patients with transfusion-dependent anemia caused by very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with ring sideroblasts, or those with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia (BT). Luspatercept was evaluated in 2 separate phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre trials. The primary endpoints of these trials were the percentage of patients achieving transfusion independence over ≥8 weeks or longer for patients with MDS, and the percentage of patients achieving a ≥33% reduction in transfusion burden from baseline to week 13-24 for patients with BT. In the MDS trial, the percentage of responders was 37.91% versus 13.16%, P < 0.0001, for patients receiving luspatercept versus placebo, respectively. In the BT trial, the percentage of responders was 21.4% versus 4.5% (P < 0.0001) for luspatercept versus placebo, respectively. Treatment with luspatercept led to similar incidences of adverse events (AEs), but higher incidences of grade ≥3 AEs and serious AEs compared to placebo. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent AEs (≥15%) in the pooled luspatercept group were headache; back pain, bone pain, and arthralgia; diarrhea; fatigue; pyrexia; and cough. The aim of this article is to summarize the scientific review of the application, which led to the regulatory approval in the EU.

Ethical Aspects of Regulating Oncology Products.

Medicines, including those intended for the treatment of cancer, are tightly regulated. Such regulation, historically linked to disasters due to unsafe medicines, evolved to cover all aspects of research around the quality, safety and efficacy of candidate medicines. This chapter intends to give an introduction on what regulators do and where the ethical foundations for regulating medicines might be searched. Some specific dilemmas will be explored, such as (i) whether at all, and if so subject to which conditions, research on animals is justified; (ii) what to do when potentially useful data on a medicine were collected unethically; (iii) which additional ethical challenges are posed by the fact that regulators have to make decisions on a medicine under uncertainty; and (iv) how to account for patients' preferences (and their heterogeneity) in regulatory decision-making. An overview of emerging topics such as use of healthcare data and open science is also proposed. While not intending to cover all arguments in the complex conversation around the regulation of medicines for cancer (let alone, around the regulation of medicines in general), this chapter aims to give a basis for further reading.

EMA Review of Acalabrutinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

On November 5, 2020, a marketing authorization valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for acalabrutinib monotherapy or acalabrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab (AcalaObi) in adult patients with treatment-naïve (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and also for acalabrutinib monotherapy in adult patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) CLL. Acalabrutinib inhibits the Bruton tyrosine kinase, which plays a significant role in the proliferation and survival of the disease. Acalabrutinib was evaluated in two phase III multicenter randomized trials. The first trial (ACE-CL-007) randomly allocated acalabrutinib versus AcalaObi versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (ChlObi) to elderly/unfit patients with TN CLL. The progression-free survival (PFS), as assessed by an independent review committee, was superior for both the AcalaObi (hazard ratio [HR], 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-0.17) and acalabrutinib (HR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.13-0.3) arms compared with the ChlObi arm. The second trial (ACE-CL-309) randomly allocated acalabrutinib versus rituximab plus idelalisib or bendamustine to adult patients with RR CLL. Also in this trial, the PFS was significantly longer in the acalabrutinib arm (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49). Adverse events for patients receiving acalabrutinib varied across trials, but the most frequent were generally headache, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and infections. The scientific review concluded that the benefit-risk ratio of acalabrutinib was positive for both indications. This article summarizes the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the EU. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Acalabrutinib was approved in the European Union for the treatment of adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who have not received treatment before and for those who have received therapy but whose disease did not respond or relapsed afterward. Acalabrutinib resulted in a clinically meaningful and significant lengthening of the time from treatment initiation to further disease relapse or patient's death compared with standard therapy. The overall safety profile was considered acceptable, and the benefit-risk ratio was determined to be positive.

Randomized Controlled Trials Versus Real World Evidence: Neither Magic Nor Myth.

Compared with drugs from the blockbuster era, recently authorized drugs and those expected in the future present a heterogenous mix of chemicals, biologicals, and cell and gene therapies, a sizable fraction being for rare diseases, and even individualized treatments or individualized combinations. The shift in the nature of products entails secular trends for the definitions of "drugs" and "target population" and for clinical use and evidence generation. We discuss that the lessons learned from evidence generation for 20th century medicines may have limited relevance for 21st century medicines. We explain why the future is not about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) vs. real-world evidence (RWE) but RCTs and RWE-not just for the assessment of safety but also of effectiveness. Finally, we highlight that, in the era of precision medicine, we may not be able to reliably describe some small treatment effects-either by way of RCTs or RWE.

EMA Review of Belantamab Mafodotin (Blenrep) for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

On August 25, 2020, a marketing authorization valid through the European Union was issued for belantamab mafodotin monotherapy for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in adult patients who have received at least four prior therapies, whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor (PI), one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb), and who have demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy. Belantamab mafodotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a mAb, which binds specifically to B-cell maturation antigen, with maleimidocaproyl monomethyl auristatin F, which is a cytotoxic agent. It was evaluated in Study 205678 (DREAMM-2), an open-label, two arm, phase II, multicenter study in patients with MM who had relapsed following treatment with at least three prior therapies, who were refractory to an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 mAb alone or in combination. Patients were randomized to receive 2.5 mg/kg (n = 97) or 3.4 mg/kg (n = 99) belantamab mafodotin by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Belantamab mafodotin achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 32% (97.5% confidence interval [CI]: 22-44) with a median duration of response (DoR) of 11 months (95% CI: 4.2 to not reached). The most frequently (≥20%) reported adverse reactions grades 3-4 with belantamab mafodotin were keratopathy (31%), thrombocytopenia (22%), and anemia (21%). With regard to the corneal risks associated with belantamab mafodotin, patients would need to undergo specific ophthalmic examinations so that any findings can be promptly and adequately managed. The scientific review concluded that a 32% ORR and a median DoR of 11 months observed with belantamab mafodotin was considered clinically meaningful. Given the manageable toxicity profile and considering that belantamab mafodotin has a mechanism of action that is different from that of authorized treatments in this group of highly pretreated patients whose disease is refractory to three classes of agents, the benefit risk for belantamab mafodotin monotherapy was considered positive, although the efficacy and safety evidence were not as comprehensive as normally required. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep, GlaxoSmithKline, St. Louis, MO, U.S.A) was approved in the European Union as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Belantamab mafodotin resulted in durable response in highly pretreated patients whose disease is refractory to three classes of agents. Belantamab mafodotin is a monoclonal antibody against B-cell maturation antigen conjugated with the potent antimitotic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethyl auristatin. This is the first monoclonal antibody to target this antigen in multiple myeloma, which represents a true novelty from a pharmacological point of view.