ODAC: orBec Yields No 'Substantial Efficacy' in GI GVHD

Publication
Article
Oncology NEWS InternationalOncology NEWS International Vol 16 No 6
Volume 16
Issue 6

The FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 7-to-2 that the data presented by DOR BioPharma in support of its new drug application for orBec (beclomethasone dipropionate) failed to demonstrate substantial efficacy for orBec for its intended purpose

SILVER SPRING, Maryland—The FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 7-to-2 that the data presented by DOR BioPharma in support of its new drug application for orBec (beclomethasone dipropionate) failed to demonstrate substantial efficacy for orBec for its intended purpose, a conclusion also reached by the FDA's review team. The company is seeking approval for orBec for the treatment of graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) involving the gastrointestinal tract in conjunction with an induction course of high-dose prednisone or prednisolone. The oral drug is a diester of beclomethasone, a synthetic corticosteroid with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. It was granted orphan drug designation and fast track status during its development.

The company submitted findings from two trials of orBec as a treatment for GVHD following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation to support the drug's efficacy. The pivotal study, a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, involved 129 patients with grade 2 GVHD who received a 10-day induction course of high-dose prednisone and either orBec or placebo for 50 days. The supportive study was a single-institution, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial in 60 patients with GI GVHD.

The pivotal study's primary endpoint (time to GVHD treatment failure through study day 50) failed to reach significance (P = .118) despite a 37% lower risk of treatment failure for the orBec group. Through day 80 (a secondary endpoint), the difference was significant (P = .023) with a 46% lower risk of treatment failure for the orBec patients.

A secondary efficacy endpoint (proportion of patients with GVHD treatment failure by study day 50) showed a significant difference in favor of orBec (31% vs 48% for placebo, P = .05). By day 80, the difference was 39% vs 65% (P = .003).

At day 200 post-transplant (a safety endpoint), orBec patients had a higher survival rate (92% vs 76% for placebo patients) (HR 0.29, P = .014). The estimated 1-year post-randomization mortality was significant in favor of orBec (29% vs 42% for placebo) (HR 0.54, P = .04). This was not a pre-specified endpoint. "Patients with GVHD randomized to orBec had meaningful reductions in mortality," said George B. McDonald, MD, head of gastroenterology/hematology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

In its analysis, FDA emphasized that the pivotal study had failed its primary efficacy endpoint and that the trial had a major imbalance in the number of nonmyeloablative transplants between the treatment and placebo arms. "Once the study failed on the primary endpoint, any further analyses are exploratory, and statistical significance cannot be determined," said FDA medical reviewer Nancy S. Scher, MD.

Recent Videos
Epistemic closure, broad-scale distribution, and insurance companies are the 3 largest obstacles to implementing new peritoneal surface malignancy care guidelines into practice.
“This is something where this is written by the trainees, for the trainees, and, of course, for all the other clinicians who take care of patients,” said Kiran Turaga, MD, MPH.
“Everyone—patients, doctors—we all want the same thing. We want [patients] to live longer,” said Kiran Turaga, MD, MPH, on patients with peritoneal surface malignancies.
The new peritoneal surface malignancy care guidelines had clinicians gather from every disease state to show increased representation.
These new guidelines aim to alleviate some of the problems caused by patients with peritoneal metastases being diagnosed with the disease in late stages.
Those being treated for peritoneal carcinomatosis may not have to experience the complication rates or prolonged recovery associated with surgical options.
For patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, integrating PIPAC into a treatment regimen does not interrupt their systemic therapy.
According to Benjamin J. Golas, MD, PIPAC could be used as a bridging therapy before surgical debulking or between subsequent large surgical operations.
According to Benjamin Golas, MD, PIPAC is emerging as minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.
Related Content