Accelerating drug development at Bristol Myers Squibb through innovation.

This paper focuses on the use of novel technologies and innovative trial designs to accelerate evidence generation and increase pharmaceutical Research and Development (R&D) productivity, at Bristol Myers Squibb. We summarize learnings with case examples, on how we prepared and continuously evolved to address the increasing cost, complexities, and external pressures in drug development, to bring innovative medicines to patients much faster. These learnings were based on review of internal efforts toward accelerating R&D focusing on four key areas: adopting innovative trial designs, optimizing trial designs, leveraging external control data, and implementing novel methods using artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Final Overall Survival and Other Efficacy and Safety Results From ASCEND-3: Phase II Study of Ceritinib in ALKi-Naive Patients With ALK-Rearranged NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: The phase II, single-arm ASCEND-3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor (ALKi)-naive patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC who had received at least three previous lines of chemotherapy. Here, we report the final efficacy and safety results. METHODS: Eligible patients (including those with asymptomatic or neurologically stable brain metastases) received oral ceritinib (750 mg/day, fasted). The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points were Blinded Independent Review Committee-assessed ORR; investigator- and Blinded Independent Review Committee-assessed overall intracranial response rate, duration of response, time to response, disease control rate, and progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); and safety. Exploratory end points included patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 124 patients enrolled, 122 (98.4%) had received previous antineoplastic medications (31 patients [25.0%] received at least three regimens), and 49 (39.5%) had baseline brain metastases. The median follow-up time (data cutoff: January 22, 2018) was 52.1 (range, 48.4-60.1) months. The investigator-assessed ORR was 67.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.8-75.9), and the median PFS was 16.6 months (95% CI: 11.0-23.2). The median OS was 51.3 months (95% CI: 42.7-55.3). Most common adverse events (all grades, ≥60% of patients, all-causality) were diarrhea (85.5%), nausea (78.2%), and vomiting (71.8%). Overall, 18 patients (14.5%) had an adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. Health-related quality of life was maintained during ceritinib treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ceritinib exhibited prolonged and clinically meaningful OS, PFS, and duration of response in chemotherapy-pretreated (at least three lines), ALKi-naive patients with ALK+ NSCLC. The safety profile was consistent with that reported in previous studies.

Efficacy and Safety of Ceritinib (450 mg/d or 600 mg/d) With Food Versus 750-mg/d Fasted in Patients With ALK Receptor Tyrosine Kinase (ALK)-Positive NSCLC: Primary Efficacy Results From the ASCEND-8 Study.

INTRODUCTION: In an earlier report of the ASCEND-8 study (open-label, phase I, three-arm study, treatment-naive patients and pre-treated patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC), it was shown that ceritinib 450 mg with food had comparable exposure and better gastrointestinal tolerability than 750-mg fasted. METHODS: Here, we report efficacy and updated safety data from primary efficacy analysis of the ASCEND-8 study. Key secondary endpoints were overall response rate and duration of response, assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. RESULTS: In total, 306 patients were randomized to ceritinib 450-mg fed (n = 108) or 600-mg fed (n = 87) or 750-mg fasted (n = 111), of which 304 patients were included in safety analysis and 198 treatment-naive patients (ALK receptor tyrosine kinase [ALK]-positive by immunohistochemistry) were included in the efficacy analysis (450-mg fed [n = 73], 600-mg fed [n = 51], and 750-mg fasted [n = 74]). The BIRC-assessed overall response rate was 78.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.9-86.9), 72.5% (95% CI: 58.3-84.1), and 75.7% (95% CI: 64.3-84.9), respectively; and the median duration of response (months) by BIRC was not estimable (NE) (95% CI: 11.2-NE), 20.7 (95% CI: 15.8-NE), and 15.4 (95% CI: 8.3-NE), respectively. Based on the safety analysis (n = 304), the 450-mg fed arm showed the highest median relative dose intensity (100% versus 78.5% versus 83.7%), lowest proportion of patients with dose reductions (24.1% versus 65.1% versus 60.9%), and lowest proportion of patients with gastrointestinal toxicities (75.9% versus 82.6% versus 91.8%). CONCLUSION: Ceritinib at a dose of 450 mg with food compared to 750-mg fasted showed consistent efficacy and less gastrointestinal toxicity.

Ceritinib versus chemotherapy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer previously given chemotherapy and crizotinib (ASCEND-5): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceritinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, which has shown robust anti-tumour efficacy, along with intracranial activity, in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. In phase 1 and 2 studies, ceritinib has been shown to be highly active in both ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients who had progressed after chemotherapy (mostly multiple lines). In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously progressed following crizotinib and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with ALK-rearranged stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (with at least one measurable lesion) who had received previous chemotherapy (one or two lines, including a platinum doublet) and crizotinib and had subsequent disease progression, from 99 centres across 20 countries. Other inclusion criteria were a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function and laboratory test results, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and having recovered from previous anticancer treatment-related toxicities. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; with blocking [block size of four]; stratified by WHO performance status [0 vs 1-2] and presence or absence of brain metastases) to oral ceritinib 750 mg per day fasted (in 21 day treatment cycles) or chemotherapy (intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 [investigator choice], every 21 days). Patients who discontinued chemotherapy because of progressive disease could cross over to the ceritinib group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks until month 18 and every 9 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828112, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2013, and Nov 2, 2015, we randomly allocated 231 patients; 115 (50%) to ceritinib and 116 (50%) to chemotherapy (40 [34%] to pemetrexed, 73 [63%] to docetaxel, and three [3%] discontinued before receiving treatment). Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5-21·4). Ceritinib showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy (5·4 months [95% CI 4·1-6·9] for ceritinib vs 1·6 months [1·4-2·8] for chemotherapy; hazard ratio 0·49 [0·36-0·67]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported in 49 (43%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and 36 (32%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were similar between groups (13 [11%] in the ceritinib group vs 12 [11%] in the chemotherapy group). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events in the ceritinib group were increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (24 [21%] of 115 vs two [2%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group), increased γ glutamyltransferase concentration (24 [21%] vs one [1%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (16 [14%] vs one [1%] in the chemotherapy group). Six (5%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group discontinued because of adverse events compared with eight (7%) of 116 in the chemotherapy group. 15 (13%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and five (4%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group died during the treatment period (from the day of the first dose of study treatment to 30 days after the final dose). 13 (87%) of the 15 patients who died in the ceritinib group died because of disease progression and two (13%) died because of an adverse event (one [7%] cerebrovascular accident and one [7%] respiratory failure); neither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related. The five (4%) deaths in the chemotherapy group were all due to disease progression. INTERPRETATION: These findings show that patients derive significant clinical benefit from a more potent ALK inhibitor after failure of crizotinib, and establish ceritinib as a more efficacious treatment option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Assessment of drug-drug interaction potential between ceritinib and proton pump inhibitors in healthy subjects and in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy of ceritinib was evaluated. METHODS: A healthy subject drug-drug interaction (DDI) study was conducted to assess the effect of esomeprazole on the PK of a single 750 mg dose of ceritinib. To further investigate the impact of PPIs on the PK and efficacy of ceritinib in ALK-positive cancer patients, two subgroup analyses were performed. Analysis 1 evaluated ceritinib steady-state trough concentration (Ctrough,ss) and overall response rate (ORR) by concomitant use of PPIs in patients from the ASCEND-1, -2, and -3 studies; analysis 2 evaluated ceritinib single-dose and steady-state AUC0-24h and C max by concomitant PPI use in patients from ASCEND-1 using a definition of PPI usage similar to that used in the healthy subject study. RESULTS: In the healthy subject study, co-administration of a single 750 mg dose of ceritinib with esomeprazole 40 mg for 6 days decreased ceritinib AUC0-∞ by 76% and C max by 79%. However, based on subgroup analysis 1, patients had similar C trough,ss and ORR regardless of concomitant PPI usage. Based on analysis 2, co-administration of a single 750 mg ceritinib dose with PPIs for 6 days in patients suggested less effect on ceritinib exposure than that observed in healthy subjects as AUC0-24h decreased by 30% and C max decreased by 25%. No clinically meaningful effect on steady-state exposure was observed after daily dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term administration of ceritinib with PPIs does not adversely affect the PK and efficacy of ceritinib in ALK-positive cancer patients.

Efficacy and safety of muraglitazar: a double-blind, 24-week, dose-ranging study in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Muraglitazar is a dual (alpha/gamma) PPAR activator. Dual receptor activation may improve glycaemic and lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.This randomised double-blind trial in 1,477 drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes compared the efficacy and safety of muraglitazar (0.5, 1.5, 5, 10, and 20 mg) with pioglitazone (15 mg). Endpoints included changes in HbA(1C) and plasma lipids, last observation carried forward over 24 weeks. At week 24, mean changes from baseline in HbA(1C) ranged from -0.25% to -1.76% with muraglitazar (p

Muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) PPAR activator: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week monotherapy trial in adult patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) present a therapeutic target, and simultaneous activation of PPAR-alpha and PPAR-gamma may provide improvements in glycemic control and dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) PPAR activator, in adult patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled by diet and exercise. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, 24-week monotherapy study in drug-naive, type 2 diabetes patients with inadequate glycemic control. Men and women aged 18 to 70 years with a body mass index < or =41 kg/m(2) and serum triglyceride levels < or =600 mg/dL were eligible for study participation. The study included double-blind and open-label treatment phases. Patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels > or =7.0% and < or =10.0% at screening were enrolled in the double-blind treatment phase. These patients received treatment with muraglitazar 2.5 mg, muraglitazar 5 mg, or placebo. Patients with HbA(1c) levels >10.0% and < or =12.0% who met all other study criteria were eligible for enrollment in a 24-week, open-label evaluation of muraglitazar 5 mg. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in HbA(1c) levels after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 340 patients (179 men, 161 women) participated in the double-blind treatment phase of the study. Patients had mean baseline HbA(1c) levels of 7.9% to 8.0%. Monotherapy with muraglitazar 2.5 and 5 mg significantly reduced HbA(1c) levels (-1.05% and -1.23%, respectively) compared with placebo (-0.32%; P < 0.001). At week 24, 58%, 72%, and 30% of the patients receiving muraglitazar 2.5 mg, muraglitazar 5 mg, and placebo, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association-recommended HbA(1c) goal of <7.0%. Fasting plasma glucose, free fatty acids, and fasting plasma insulin levels significantly decreased during muraglitazar treatment (P < 0.001), suggesting an increase in insulin sensitivity. Muraglitazar 2.5 and 5 mg provided improvements from baseline in triglyceride (-18% and -27%), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (10% and 16%), apolipoprotein B (-7% and -12%), and non-HDL cholesterol levels (-3% and -5%) (P < 0.05 vs placebo for each). In a parallel, open-label cohort of 109 drug-naive patients (56 men, 53 women; mean baseline HbA(1c) level, 10.6%), muraglitazar 5 mg decreased the overall mean HbA(1c) level from baseline by 2.62% (last observation carried forward) and by 3.49% in the 62 patients completing 24 weeks of study. Changes in lipid parameters during open-label treatment were similar to those observed during double-blind treatment. Muraglitazar was generally well tolerated. Edema-related adverse events of mild to moderate severity occurred in 8% to 11% of patients in all groups. Mean changes from baseline weight in the double-blind treatment groups were 1.1 kg for muraglitazar 2.5 mg, 2.1 kg for muraglitazar 5 mg, and -0.8 kg for placebo (P < 0.001); there was a mean 2.9-kg increase in the open-label muraglitazar 5-mg group. CONCLUSION: In this study, 24 weeks of treatment with muraglitazar 2.5 or 5 mg was an effective treatment option for these patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise.