Panobinostat’s FDA Advisory Committee Meeting May Be A Bit Tougher Than Expected

As reported earlier today by The Beacon, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) this morning released key documents related to the agency’s review of panobinostat as a potential new treatment for multiple myeloma.
The documents consist of briefing reports, agendas, and other supporting material for the meeting of the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) this coming Thursday. The morning session of that meeting will be devoted to a review of panobinostat (Farydak), which is being developed by the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis (NYSE:NVS).
Among the documents released this morning, two in particular offer key data that could affect both how the ODAC votes in regard to panobinostat on Thursday, and whether the FDA eventually approves panobinostat.
The first is the FDA staff’s review and summary of data from the key clinical trial, known as PANORAMA-1, providing data in support of panobinostat’s new drug application.
The second is the question the FDA staff has developed for the ODAC to consider and vote on during Thursday’s meeting. The question is accompanied by bullet points highlighting the FDA staff’s key takeaways from its analysis of the panobinostat trial data.
Prior to today’s release of the meeting documents, the Beacon’s sense from discussions with myeloma specialists was that panobinostat’s approval was likely to be supported by the ODAC, and that the FDA would eventually approve panobinostat.
The data in the documents released today, however, suggest that ODAC’s support for panobinostat – and FDA approval of the drug – may not be quite as certain as they were before.
In particular, the FDA staff note in their meeting documents that panobinostat may not provide as much of a progression-free survival benefit as previously reported.
Up until today, panobinostat’s progression-free survival benefit typically has been reported as being 3.9 months. The FDA staff point out, however, that an arguably more accurate estimate of the survival benefit is 2.2 months – and the benefit may even be less than two months.
In addition, the FDA staff note that panobinostat appears to double the chance a patient may die during treatment due to causes not directly related to multiple myeloma. The staff also highlight evidence that panobinostat may have heart-related toxicities.
These findings – particularly the lower estimate of panobinostat’s survival benefit – suggest the rest of the drug’s path to approval may not be quite as easy as expected.
Why The Staff’s Findings May Be Important
In the past, myeloma experts have expressed a willingness to accept panobinostat’s potential safety issues given the drug’s four-month progression-free survival benefit.
This support was bolstered by the fact that panobinostat is from a completely different class of drugs than existing myeloma therapies. Panobinostat is what is known as a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, and no HDAC inhibitor is currently approved – or regularly used – as a treatment for myeloma.
If, however, panobinostat’s progression-free survival benefit is just two months, the benefit starts to enter territory where physicians – and the FDA – may not view the drug’s benefit as unequivocally worth its risks.
For example, another HDAC inhibitor, Zolinza (vorinostat), was tested as a potential myeloma therapy in a major clinical trial and was found to have a 0.8 month progression-free survival benefit (see related Beacon news). That survival benefit has been viewed by most myeloma experts as too small to justify using the drug regularly in the treatment of multiple myeloma.
Why The Staff’s Findings May Not Be Important
Despite the concerns just described, it is worth noting that nowhere in the documents prepared for this Thursday’s ODAC meeting does the FDA staff express outright concern about the FDA approving panobinostat.
In comparison, when Kyprolis (carfilzomib) was reviewed by the ODAC in 2012, the FDA staff said in its briefing report for the ODAC meeting that it was “very concerned” about “severe toxicities, including deaths” that have been observed in association with the use of Kyprolis (related Beacon news). There are no such statements in the FDA staff reports about panobinostat.
Moreover, despite the FDA staff’s concerns about Kyprolis’s safety expressed in its briefing for the 2012 ODAC meeting, the drug’s approval was strongly supported by the ODAC, and Kyprolis was approved by the FDA the following month.
Background
The Novartis application requesting FDA approval of panobinostat is based on data from the Phase 3 clinical trial known as PANORAMA-1. The trial tested panobinostat in combination with Velcade (bortezomib) and dexamethasone (Decadron) in multiple myeloma patients who have had one to three prior therapies.
Patients in the trial were randomly assigned to one of two treatment regimens: panobinostat, Velcade, and dexamethasone; or a placebo (sugar pill) combined with Velcade and dexamethasone.
Results of that trial were published last month (see related Novartis press release and the article in The Lancet Oncology [abstract]). The published results mirror those presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting this past June (see related Beacon news and the slides from the ASCO presentation, courtesy of Dr. Paul Richardson of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston).
Panobinostat’s Efficacy
A key concern raised by the FDA staff in its briefing report for Thursday’s ODAC meeting is the magnitude of panobinostat’s survival benefit.
The staff note that, based on reports from trial investigators, panobinostat has an estimated progression-free survival benefit of 3.9 months. Investigator reports indicate that patients treated with panobinostat in the trial had a median progression-free survival of 12.0 months versus 8.1 months for the patients who were not treated with panobinostat.
However, as the trial was being conducted, an audit determined that not all trial investigators were using the approved method for measuring patient M-spikes. Thus, an independent review committee (IRC) was appointed to review patient test results and develop new response and progression-free survival estimates.
The IRC’s estimate of panobinostat’s progression-free survival benefit is 2.2 months – noticeably lower than the 3.9 months derived from investigator response estimates. The IRC calculated that patients treated with panobinostat had a median progression-free survival of 9.9 months versus 7.7 months for the patients not treated with panobinostat.
Additional sensitivity analyses, apparently carried out by the FDA staff, suggest that the progression-free survival benefit could be as low as 1.9 months.
The FDA also looked at the overall survival data from the PANORAMA-1 trial. Thus far, there is no statistically significant overall survival benefit to treatment with panobinostat.
Panobinostat’s Safety
Previous summaries of the PANORAMA-1 trial results have noted that patients in the trial who were treated with panobinostat were more likely to experience serious side effects, particularly low platelet counts, low white blood cell counts, and diarrhea.
The FDA staff report prepared for Thursday’s ODAC meeting also makes note of these results.
However, the FDA staff also noted that 64 percent of the panobinostat-treated patients in the study experienced damage to their heart as evidenced by electrocardiogram (heart rhythm) changes. In comparison, heart rhythm changes were observed in only 42 percent of the patients who were not treated with panobinostat.
The FDA staff also looked at how frequently patients in the PANORAMA-1 study died due to reasons not related to multiple myeloma while they were being treated. The staff found that this death rate was twice as high among panobinostat-treated patients in the trial (7.0 percent) as in the patients not treated with panobinostat (3.5 percent).
A list of all documents released today by the FDA in advance of Thursday’s ODAC meeting can be found at the FDA website.
Related Articles:
- FDA Approves Once-Weekly Dosing And Revised Safety Information For Kyprolis
- Nelfinavir-Velcade Combination Very Active In Advanced, Velcade-Resistant Multiple Myeloma
- Stem Cell Transplantation May Be Underutilized In Multiple Myeloma Patients In Their 80s
- Sustained Complete Response To Initial Treatment Associated With Substantial Survival Benefit In Multiple Myeloma
- Once-Weekly High-Dose Kyprolis Yields Deeper Responses And Longer Remissions Than Twice-Weekly Kyprolis (ASCO & EHA 2018)
Has the lower PFS estimate (2.2 months) been reported before? It seems surprising that it would come out just now, particularly because it's noticeably lower than the 4 months that everyone has been quoting all the time.
I checked into why the Independent Review Committee was created and what it did. There is some interesting stuff there. This is from the FDA report:
"During an internal audit while the trial was ongoing but after all patients completed treatment, the Applicant identified that not all investigator sites used protocol-defined methods for measuring M-protein: protein electrophoresis (PEP) with quantification of M-protein spike. In 193 patients (25% of the total enrolled) alternative methods were used such as nephelometry or total globulin, or the gamma globulin fraction was used as an indicator for an IgG M-component. Missing assessments occurred in both arms: M-protein measurement was incomplete in 25% of patients on the panobinostat + BD arm and 26% on the placebo + BD arm.
Identification of the protocol deviations prompted the Applicant’s Study Steering Committee to recommend an independent review committee (IRC) assess the response data. In this assessment, patients with available M-protein results measured by PEP were evaluated for response using mEBMT criteria, as done by the investigators. For patients without M-protein measurements, the IRC could assess responses based on principles and intention of the mEBMT criteria. This latitude allowed the IRC to adjudicate disease deterioration by rising M-protein values as progression. In other cases of missing baseline data, the IRC could use post-baseline M-protein values and immunofixation data to determine responses."
Thanks for your question, Jonah.
To our knowledge, the IRC PFS estimates were first reported in the Lancet Oncology article that was published last month. It lays out the primary results of the PANORAMA1 trial. However, in that paper, the IRC estimates were mentioned once in passing, and were not repeated or emphasized elsewhere in the paper or in Novartis press releases about the study.
Specifically, in the Lancet Oncology discussion of the PFS results, after the presentation of the investigator PFS estimates, there is this sentence:
"Independent assessment of progression-free survival was consistent with the investigator review: median progression-free survival was 9·95 months (95% CI 8·31–11·30) for the panobinostat group and 7·66 months (6·93–8·54) for the placebo group (HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·58–0·83; p<0·0001; appendix p 18)."
After your comment came in, we looked at the Novartis briefing document prepared for tomorrow's meeting to see if it mentions the IRC PFS estimates. Apparently, there are two sets of IRC estimates, and the difference between the two sets depends on whether one requires that progression be confirmed by two consecutive sets of lab results.
The investigators used the progression-confirmation requirement for their estimates. The IRC estimates reported by the FDA do not use a progression-confirmation requirement.
The IRC estimates that use a progression-confirmation requirement look very similar to the investigators' PFS estimates. The panobinostat-treated patients in the study had a median PFS of 11.99 months and those not treated with panobinostat had a PFS of 8.31 months, for a PFS benefit of 3.68 months -- much closer to the investigators' estimates of 3.9 months. (See Table 7-6 in the Novartis briefing document, page 42.)
We'll have to see tomorrow how the ODAC decides to sort through these different PFS estimates.
Thanks again for the comment.
Thanks for these articles about Panabinostat, which is a type of Histone Deacetylas Inhibitor (HDAC). i understand from reading other Beacon articles that these type of drugs work by increasing the production of proteins that slow cell division and cause death of the cells. The live coverage you are posting is very interesting. Good luck with all of this, in terms of getting a new drug approved.