Upload
theodora-harris
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Case 1
• Types of studies: Two Phase I dose-finding studies in children with hematologic malignancies– from supplemental (S) NDA and from
original (O) NDA
• Size of data set: – for efficacy/safety: 39 [31(S) + 8(O) ]– for PK: 33 [27(S) + 6 (O) ]
Results• Safety: similar to adults; MTD not reached• PK: parameters similar to adult values• PK-PD relationship: no correlation• Proof of concept
– remissions induced in the same malignancy in pediatrics as in adults, although in a limited number of pediatric patients
– remissions occurred in approximately the same proportion as in adults
Case 1
Comparison between Children & Adults
• Same side effects as adults but lower grade• Lack of PK-PD relationship
– exposure (area under the concentration-time curve) and Day 28 white blood cell count
• Lack of clear dose-proportionality– starting dose chosen to provide similar exposure
to adult doses – lack of relationship between dose and exposure
• overlap between AUCs for different doses
Case 1
Case 1. Overlap of Dose and Area under the Curve
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Ped Dose 1 Ped Dose 2 Adult Dose
Dose
AU
CCase 1
Issues & Conclusions
• Efficacy and extrapolation– first time extrapolation has been used for
approval
• Challenge in finding a pediatric dosage
Case 1
Case 2
• Type of study: Single Phase II pharmacokinetic study in malignant and non-malignant life-threatening conditions
• Size of data set: – 24 patients– ages 5 months to 16 years
Type of Information Submitted
• Safety– Clinical Adverse Events and laboratory
abnormalities
• PK/PD– Multiple sampling in each patient with initial
dosing based on body weight and subsequent adjustment based on PK/PD information
Case 2
Results
• Safety: generally similar to adults
• PK/PD: Suggested pediatric dosing based on population PK– Two-step dosing based on body weight– < 12 kg and > 12 kg
Case 2
Comparison between Children & Adults
• Pediatric data indicate need for higher dosage in smaller children (by weight)
Case 2
Issues & Conclusions
• Limited safety information and dosing recommendations added to Special Populations - Pediatric section
Case 2
Case 3
Dosing and Proof of Concept Submitted
Preliminary Activity in a Disease found only in Pediatric Patients with the
Approved Indications for Diseases found only in Adults
Case 3
• Types of studies: – Phase I dose-finding study in children with
solid tumors and hematologic malignancies– Phase II open label single arm study for
response rate in children with refractory or relapsed solid tumors
• Size of data set: – Phase I: 48 (30 solid tumor + 18 leukemia),
ages 1-15 years– Phase II: 108, ages <1 to 15 years
Results• Safety: similar to adults; MTD not reached for
leukemia, MTD for solid tumors higher than approved adult dose
• PK: parameters similar to adult values• PK-PD relationship: no relationship between
exposure and nadir white blood cell count due to maximal suppression at lowest dose
• Proof of concept – Consistent tumor responses seen in one class of
solid tumors
Case 3
Comparison between Children & Adults
• Higher doses tolerated in children
• Responses seen in some pediatric malignancies that are not found in adults
Case 3
Issues & Conclusions• The disease where activity was demonstrated in
children is a pediatric disease that is rarely found in adults
• The approved indications are diseases found almost exclusively in adults
• Extrapolation of efficacy cannot be used• Product labeling did not include the submitted
pediatric data• Product currently not approved for use in children
Case 3
Case 4• Types of studies: Phase I dose-finding trial
in solid tumors and hematologic malignancies
• Size of data set:– Solid tumors: 25 evaluable patients– Hematologic malignancies: 4 evaluable patients– Additional 17 patients treated; inevaluable– Ages 2-17
Case 4• Types of studies: Phase II stratified open-
label study in solid tumors– Primary endpoint: Response rate
• Size of data set:– Designed to enroll at least 14 patients per subset
– CNS tumors 21 patients
– Soft tissue sarcoma 21 patients
– Neuroblastoma 4 patients
– Age < 21 (2 older ineligible pts excluded)
Type of Information Submitted
• Safety– Collected only AEs attributed to drug by PI– Post-marketing pediatric safety reports
• PK/PD– Abbreviated study reports (no primary
data)
• Efficacy– Abbreviated clinical trial study reports
Case 4
Results
• Safety: similar to adults• PK: MTD, recommended Phase II dose
identified• PK/PD: Recommended Phase II dose too
toxic; dose lowered• Efficacy
– RR 0 in CNS, neuroblastoma strata– Neuroblastoma arm closed early– 1 CR and 1 PR in soft tissue sarcoma
Case 4
Comparison between Children & Adults
• Toxicity profile similar in adults and children
• Recommended dose (after testing in Phase II) similar to that approved in adults
Case 4
Issues & Conclusions
• Brief description of study included in the label
• Negative efficacy data included in the label
• No PK or dosing data included
Case 4
Case 5• Types of studies:
– two Phase I studies included pharmacokinetics and dose determination data on patients with relapsed or refractory CNS & solid tumors
– one single-arm Phase II study to evaluate efficacy in relapsed or refractory CNS & solid tumors
• Size of data set:– Phase I studies: 82 patients, ages 3 to 17; 19
patients had pharmacokinetic data
– Phase II study: 122 patients, ages 3 to 17
Type of Information Submitted
• Safety
• PK/PD– multiple sampling in each patient with
initial dosing based on body surface area
• Efficacy
Case 5
Results
• Safety: similar to adults
• PK/PD– the pharmacokinetics of the drug are similar
independent of previous treatment– no relationship between age and clearance
• Efficacy: Of 122 patients, 1 CR and 5 PR
Case 5
Comparison between Children & Adults
• Similar clearance and volume of distribution values
• Response to therapy is different (worse in children)
• Responses occurred in a different histological subtype from the adult tumor
Case 5
Issues & Conclusions
• This drug was approved for an adult disease that also exists in children, BUT did not show efficacy in that disease
• Responses were seen in a disease that occurs primarily in children and for which there is available effective therapy
• What information, if any, should be included in the labeling?
Case 5
Case SummariesTypes ofStudies
InformationSubmitted
Results Comparison Issues
Case 1
Samediseaseadults &children
Phase I x 2
Total pts.-39
Safety, PK,PK/PD, Proofof Concept
Safety,dosing, andresponse torx same asadults
Drug bettertolerated inchildren, nodoseproportionality
Extrapolationused tosupportefficacy,Properpediatric dosestillindeterminate
Case 2
Samediseaseadults &children plusadditionalpediatricdiseases
Phase II
Total pts-24
SafetyPK/PD
Dosingdependentupon bodyweight withchange at 12kg
Higherpediatric dosein smallerchildren
Limited safetyand dosinginformationincluded inPediatricsSubsection ofPrecautions
Case 3
Different adultand pediatricdiseases
Phase I x 2Phase II
Total pts- 156
Safety, PK,PK/PD, Proofof Concept
Safety similarto adults,dosing higherin children, nodoseproportionality,Evidence ofactivity in apediatricdisease
Higher dosestolerated inchildren,
Extrapolationnotapplicable,Noinformation inpackageinsert
Case 4
Different adultand pediatricdiseases
Phase IPhase II
Total pts-71
Safety,PK/PD,Efficacy
Safety anddosing similarto adults, lowactivity
Safety anddosing similarto adults
Lack ofactivitydescribed inpackageinsert, nodosingprovided
Case 5
Spectrum ofpediatricdiseasesincludingapprovedadultindication
Phase I x 2Phase II
Total pts-204
Safety,PK/PD,Efficacy
Safety anddosing similarto adults, noresponses inchildren withdiseaseapproved inadults, activityin a pediatricdisease
Safety anddosing similarto adults, noactivity inapprovedindication foradults
Extrapolationnot possible