A randomised crossover study to evaluate patient preference for Rituximab SC or IV MO28457 (PrefMab) Stuart Osborne, Roche PDMA Statistics BBS BES Joint.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CQ Deng, PhD PPD Development Research Triangle Park, NC 27560
Advertisements

Development of Patient-Centered Questionnaires FDA/Industry Workshop – Washington DC 2005 Cindy Rodenberg, Ph.D Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee
Efficacy and Safety of Three Bortezomib-Based Combinations in Elderly, Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: Results from All Randomized Patients.
Clinical Trials Importance in future therapies. What are the Requirements to Produce New Drugs? Drug must work significantly better than a control treatment.
Modified Megestrol The Clinical Trials by : Carolina R. Akib
Estimation and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects in Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence May-June 2007.
Meeting Agenda Presentations on endpoints –Regulatory issues –Scientific issues Pros and cons of end points –Classical end points –Non-classical end points.
Sample Size Determination Ziad Taib March 7, 2014.
Trastuzumab [Genentech Inc.] Labeling Supplement to Include FISH Testing as a Method to Select Patients for Treatment FDA Clinical Review December 5, 2001.
ICH V1 An FDA Update Min Chen, M.S., RPh Office of Drug Safety Center for Drug Evaluation and Research FDA January 21, 2003.
Study design P.Olliaro Nov04. Study designs: observational vs. experimental studies What happened?  Case-control study What’s happening?  Cross-sectional.
Consumer behavior studies1 CONSUMER BEHAVIOR STUDIES STATISTICAL ISSUES Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr. Boston University Harvard Clinical Research Institute.
1 SNDA Gemzar plus Carboplatin Treatment of Late Relapsing Ovarian Cancer.
NHL13: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Study of Rituximab as Maintenance Treatment versus Observation Alone in Patients with Aggressive B ‐ Cell Lymphoma.
1 OTC-TFM Monograph: Statistical Issues of Study Design and Analyses Thamban Valappil, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistician OPSS/OB/DBIII Nonprescription Drugs.
What is a non-inferiority trial, and what particular challenges do such trials present? Andrew Nunn MRC Clinical Trials Unit 20th February 2012.
BASED ON PROTOCOL VERSION 1 SEPTEMBER 2012 A new study evaluating an investigational drug to treat patients with HER2-positive metastatic gastroesophageal.
PH 401: Meta-analysis Eunice Pyon, PharmD (718) , HS 506.
Ruan J et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 247.
Dyer MJS et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1743.
How To Design a Clinical Trial
Rituximab plus Lenalidomide Improves the Complete Remission Rate in Comparison with Rituximab Monotherapy in Untreated Follicular Lymphoma Patients in.
Correlation of Hand-Foot Skin Reaction (HFS) with Treatment Efficacy in Pancreatic Cancer (PC) Patients (pts) Treated with Gemcitabine/Capecitabine plus.
A Phase 3 Prospective, Randomized, International Study (MMY-3021) Comparing Subcutaneous and Intravenous Administration of Bortezomib in Patients with.
What is the best approach for a follicular lymphoma patient who achieves CR after frontline chemoimmunotherapy? Radioimmunotherapy! Matthew Matasar,
Agency Review of sNDA SE-006 DOXIL for Ovarian Cancer Division of Oncology Drug Products Office of Drug Evaluation 1 Center for Drug Evaluation.
HERA TRIAL: 2 Years versus 1 Year of Trastuzumab After Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Women with HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer at 8 Years of Median Follow-Up.
Pivotal Label Comprehension Study Mevacor™ OTC Capt. Laura Shay, RN, MS, C-ANP Division of Over-the-Counter Drug Products Center for Drug Evaluation and.
Zometa for Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases Protocol 039 Amna Ibrahim, M.D. Oncology Drug Products FDA.
Romidepsin in Association with CHOP in Patients with Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma: Final Results of the Phase Ib/II Ro-CHOP Study Dupuis J et al. Proc ASH.
20th Congress of the European Haematology Association, June 2015, Vienna, Austria Micro-costing study of rituximab subcutaneous injection versus intravenous.
ECCO ESMO 2011 GI Cancer Updates “VELOUR” Study
Methods to Handle Noncompliance
Summary Author: Dr. C. Tom Kouroukis, MD MSc FRCPC
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
How To Design a Clinical Trial
Slamon D et al. SABCS 2009;Abstract 62.
Campos M et al. Proc EHA 2013;Abstract B2009.
Campos M et al. Proc EHA 2013;Abstract B2009.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS IN NURSING RESEARCH
Alessandra Gennari, MD PhD
Claudia Marchetti Pierluigi Benedetti Panici
Maury S et al. Proc ASH 2015;Abstract 1.
A Single-Arm Phase IIIb Study of Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab with a Taxane as First-Line Therapy for Patients with HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.
CLINICAL PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT
Francis KL Chan Department of Medicine & Therapeutics CUHK
Statistical Core Didactic
Oki Y et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 252.
Vahdat L et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract P
Randomized Trials: A Brief Overview
Fujiwara H et al. Proc ASH 2015;Abstract 181.
Francesco Franchi, MD, Fabiana Rollini, MD, Jose Rivas Rios, MD, Andrea Rivas, MD, Malhar Agarwal, MD, Megha Kureti, MD, Deepa Nagaraju, MD, Mustafa Wali,
Crucial Statistical Caveats for Percutaneous Valve Trials
Chapter Eight: Quantitative Methods
Regulatory Industry Statistics Workshop 2018
Introduction The use of trastuzumab in the (neo)adjuvant setting for patients with her-2 positive early breast cancer is known to reduce the rate of disease.
Jonathan W. Friedberg M.D., M.M.Sc.
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 857.
Salles GA et al. Proc ASCO 2010;Abstract 8004.
IMagyn050 YO39523/GOG-3015/ENGOT-ov39 Recruitment Update
LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Preliminary results of a randomized phase III trial (FFCD.
Development Plans: Study Design and Dose Selection
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic. Ask What is a review?
Efficacy of BSI-201, a PARP Inhibitor, in Combination with Gemcitabine/Carboplatin (GC) in Triple Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer (mTNBC): Results.
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 265.
THE LANCET Oncology Volume 19, No. 1, p27–39, January 2018
Gregory Levin, FDA/CDER/OTS/OB/DBIII
Presentation transcript:

A randomised crossover study to evaluate patient preference for Rituximab SC or IV MO28457 (PrefMab) Stuart Osborne, Roche PDMA Statistics BBS BES Joint Meeting 22-Nov-2018

Overview Background information Study results Regulatory submission Study design Primary objective Approach to analysis & sample size Development of the Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) for PrefMab PPQ PPQ analysis population definitions in Protocol & Statistical Analysis Plan Study results Treatment exposure Preference & Strength of preference at Cycle 8 Reasons for preference at Cycle 8 Regulatory submission PrefMab included in Rituximab SC submission to FDA Subsequent FDA interaction Final wording in the US label References

Cross-over Study Design BACK Cross-over Study Design 8x R-chemo (CHOP/CVP/Benda) Rituxan SC (1400 mg) RITUXAN IV (375 mg/m2) CTSQ and RASQ R A N D O M I Z E 1:1 2 years follow-up Untreated FL or DLBCL (N=743) Arm A (n=372) Arm B (n=371) PPQ end of cycle Primary endpoint Secondary endpoints Patient Preference for IV or SC using Questionnaire (PPQ) Administration time CTSQ RASQ Safety Efficacy – CR, EFS, DFS, PFS, OS

Primary objective To evaluate the proportion of patients indicating an overall preference via the Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) for either the SC or the IV route of rituximab administration

Approach to analysis and sample size Descriptive analysis only - the binary primary endpoint (patient preference for rituximab SC) will be estimated with a two-sided 95% confidence interval. Sample size can be estimated so that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is higher than 50%. For PrefMab, it was anticipated (no reference data) that the proportion of patients preferring rituximab SC will be approximately 60%. The study planned a high sample size (actual was less but still relatively high). Protocol stated that with the planned sample size the 95% CI for SC preference rate of 60% = (56.4%, 63.6%). Software used: nQuery Version 7

Development of the Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) for PrefMab A specific PPQ for PrefMab was developed based on the patient preference questionnaire from the PrefHer trial (HER2-positive early breast cancer trial with a cross-over design assessing patient preference for SC vs IV dosing) (Pivot et al., 2013). The PrefHer measure was developed through standardized iterative methodology: Clinician input generated topics that might affect preference, which were formulated into questions Questions modified to ensure relevance and intelligibility Questions tested with patient volunteers who’d previously received treatment for breast cancer Further modifications to improve clarity and remove ambiguities The result was a questionnaire that assessed patient preference using questions that were relevant and easy to comprehend. This was subsequently applied to the PrefMab study. © 2017, Genentech / Proprietary information – Please do not copy, distribute or use without prior written consent.

PrefMab PPQ (Patient Preference Questionnaire) You have now received the drug Rituximab in two different ways: through a thin plastic tube and a needle that was put directly into a vein in your arm, called an intravenous or IV infusion. given through a needle injected into your abdomen (or stomach) area, called a subcutaneous or SC injection. Please answer the following questions about your experiences and your preferences. There are not any right or wrong answers. 1) All things considered which method of administration did you prefer? IV SC No preference 2) If you have a preference for one of the administration routes, how strong is this preference? Very strong Fairly strong Not very strong 3) If you have a preference for one of the administration routes, what are the TWO main reasons for your preference? Feels less emotionally distressing Requires less time in the clinic Lower level of injection-site pain Feels more comfortable during administration Other reason; please specify: ……………………..……………………… © 2017, Genentech / Proprietary information – Please do not copy, distribute or use without prior written consent.

PrefMab PPQ population definitions Primary population: ITT 743 patients (372 in Arm A and 371 in Arm B), was defined as all patients randomized into the study. Within the ITT population, patients were allocated to treatment groups according to their original randomization schedule. Efficacy and patient-related outcome (patient preference, RASQ, and CTSQ) endpoints were summarized based on the ITT population. Sensitivity analyses: modified ITT (mITT) 645 patients (323 in Arm A and 322 in Arm B), required the patient to have received both routes of administration and to have completed the primary question in the PPQ at either Cycle 6 or Cycle 8. A patient was considered to have received both* routes of administration if that patient has received at least one administration of each route during cycles 2 through 8. *cycle 1, always IV, did not count for the both routes of administration condition © 2017, Genentech / Proprietary information – Please do not copy, distribute or use without prior written consent.

Treatment exposure (Safety population) Cycles completed Arm A (N=371) N (%) Arm B (N=369) Total (N=740) Cycle 1 371 (100%) 369 (100%) 740 (100%) … Cycle 4 349 (94.1%) 349 (94.6%) 698 (94.3%) Cycle 8 311 (83.8%) 309 (83.7%) 620 (83.8%)

Preference & strength of preference (mITT) at Cycle 8 Variable Arm A (n = 323) Arm B (n = 322) Total (N = 645) Patients completing the Patient Preference Questionnaire at Cycle 8, n 293 298 591 Patients who prefer SC, n (%) 226 (77.1%) 251 (84.2%) 477 (80.7%) 95% confidence interval 77.9, 81.8 79.6, 88.2 77.3, 83.8 Strength of preference, n (%)   Very strong 117 (39.9%) 114 (38.3%) 231 (39.1%) Fairly strong 92 (31.4%) 112 (37.6%) 204 (34.5%) Not very strong 16 (5.5%) 25 (8.4%) 41 (6.9%) Patient didn't answer the question 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.2%) Patients who prefer IV, n (%) 37 (12.6%) 29 (9.7%) 66 (11.2%) 7 (2.4%) 15 (5.0%) 22 (3.7%) 15 (5.1%) 7 (2.3%) 6 (2.0%) 21 (3.6%) Patients with no preference, n (%) 30 (10.2%) 18 (6.0%) 48 (8.1%)

Reasons for preference (mITT) at Cycle 8 Variable Arm A (n = 323) Arm B (n = 322) Total (N = 645) Patients completing the Patient Preference Questionnaire at Cycle 8, n 293 298 591 Patients who prefer SC, n (%) 226 (77.1%) 251 (84.2%) 477 (80.7%) Feels less emotionally distressing 81 (27.6%) 91 (30.5%) 172 (29.1%) Requires less time in the clinic 205 (70.0%) 205 (68.8%) 410 (69.4%) Lower level of injection site pain 40 (13.7%) 52 (17.4%) 92 (15.6%) Feels more comfortable during administration 98 (33.4%) 119 (39.9%) 217 (36.7%) Other reason 17 (5.8%) 19 (6.4%) 36 (6.1%) Patient didn't answer the question 5 (1.7%) 10 (1.7%) Patients who prefer IV, n (%) 37 (12.6%) 29 (9.7%) 66 (11.2%) 16 (5.5%) 15 (5.0%) 31 (5.2%) 3 (1.0%) 4 (1.3%) 7 (1.2%) 18 (6.1%) 14 (4.7%) 32 (5.4%) 25 (8.5%) 44 (7.4%) 7 (2.3%) 12 (2.0%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.2%) Patients with no preference, n (%) 30 (10.2%) 18 (6.0%) 48 (8.1%)

PrefMab included in Rituximab SC submission to FDA FDA requested a face-to-face meeting to discuss Patient Preference results (11Jan2017) FDA request: Discuss the patient preference results (across all four studies) in reference to Rituxan SC. Present the methods, results, and analysis (including data completeness) from the patient preference questionnaires. Roche presentation based on requirements in FDA Guidance on Patient Preference Measures in Device Labeling. © 2017, Genentech / Proprietary information – Please do not copy, distribute or use without prior written consent.

Subsequent FDA interaction FDA followed up meeting with an Information Request on the PrefMab PPQ and PrefHer PPQ requesting: Qualitative summary reports, if available, and any other literature supporting their content validity. Quantitative summary reports, if available, and any other literature supporting other measurement properties (reliability, validity, ability to detect change, etc). Training materials and administration instructions (for both sites and patients), as well as user manuals, if available. Documentation of any measures that were taken to ensure adequate comprehension, i.e. tutorials or quizzes provided to patients prior to or during the trial. Documentation of translation techniques. Analysis results by country and indication (FL, DLBCL). © 2018, Genentech / Proprietary information – Please do not copy, distribute or use without prior written consent.

Final wording in the US label (section 14 Clinical Studies) 14.4 Patient Experience Previously untreated adult patients outside of the United States with CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or CD20+ follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (FL) Grades 1, 2, or 3a were randomized to receive a standard chemotherapy regimen (CHOP, CVP, or bendamustine) and either RITUXAN HYCELA 1,400mg/23,400 Units at Cycles 2–4 (after the first cycle with intravenous rituximab) or a rituximab product by intravenous infusion at Cycles 1–4. After the fourth cycle, patients were crossed over to the alternative route of administration for the remaining 4 cycles. After Cycle 8, 477 of 620 patients (77%) reported preferring subcutaneous administration of RITUXAN HYCELA over intravenous rituximab and the most common reason was that administration required less time in the clinic. After Cycle 8, 66 of 620 patients (11%) preferred rituximab intravenous administration and the most common reason was that it felt more comfortable during administration. Forty eight of 620 patients (7.7%) had no preference for the route of administration. Twenty nine subjects of 620 (4.7%) received Cycle 8 but did not complete the preference questionnaire.

References “Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of rituximab among patients with untreated CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma: results from a prospective, randomized, open-label, crossover study (PrefMab)” / Rummel et al / Annals of Oncology 2017; 28: 836-842 “Validation of a treatment satisfaction questionnaire in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: assessing the change from intravenous to subcutaneous administration of rituximab” / Theodore-Oklota et al / Patient Preference & Adherence 2016; 10: 1767-1776 “Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PrefHer): an open-label randomized study” / Pivot et al / Lancet Oncology 2013; 14: 962-970 “Patients preferences for SC trastuzumab versus conventional IV infusion for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive EBC: final analysis of 488 patients in the international, randomized, two-cohort PrefHer study” / Pivot et al / Annals of Oncology 2014; 25: 1979-87 “Implications of subcutaneous or intravenous delivery of trastuzumab; further insight from patient interviews in the PrefHer study” / Fallowfield et al / The Breast 2015; 24: 166-170 “Switching between intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) trastuzumab: Safety results from the PrefHer trial” / Gligorov et al / The Breast 2017; 34: 89-95 “Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous trastuzumab and intravenous trastuzumab as part of adjuvant therapy for HER2-positive early breast cancer: Final analysis of the randomised, two-cohort PrefHer study” / Pivot et al / European Journal of Cancer 2017; 86: 82-90