IXEMPRA - Another expensive drug for advanced breast cancer

First of Two Trials

FDA's approval of Ixempra was based on two clinical trials that included a total of 878 patients. The first of these studies was a phase II (non-randomized) trial of Ixempra as a stand-alone treatment. That study enrolled 126 patients with either metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer that had proven resistant to three prior therapies. There was an "objective partial response" in 12.4 percent of 113 evaluable patients. In other words, fewer than one out of eight patients who got the drug saw their tumors shrink. (And, by the way, whatever happened to the other 13 "unevaluable" patients in the study? Under the commonly observed intent-to-treat rule of medical statistics, they should have been included in this analysis.) A partial response is generally defined as an incomplete shrinkage of the tumor by more than 50 percent for one month or more. As long-time readers of this newsletter will know, a partial response generally does not correlate with increased survival. Side effects of Ixempra in this trial included the following:

• Peripheral sensory neuropathy in 62 percent of patients, with serious to severe effects (Grades 3 and 4) in 14 percent;
• Fatigue/asthenia 56 percent (Grade 3/4: 13 percent);
• Myalgia/arthralgia 49 percent (Grade 3/4: 8 percent);
• Alopecia 48 percent (Grade 3/4: 0 percent);
• Nausea 42 percent (Grade 3/4: 2 percent);
• Stomatitis/mucositis 29 percent (Grade 3/4: 6 percent);
• Vomiting 29 percent (Grade 3/4: 1 percent);
• Diarrhea 22 percent (Grade 3/4: 1 percent);
• Musculoskeletal pain 20 percent (Grade 3/4: 3 percent).

Major hematologic (blood-related) adverse events included neutropenia (Grade 3-4 in 54 percent) and leukopenia (Grade 3-4 in 49 percent).

Combination Trial

FDA also took into consideration a larger phase III randomized trial which evaluated the efficacy and safety of Ixempra combined with Xeloda (capecitabine) in comparison to Xeloda used as a stand alone treatment. This trial included 752 patients who were previously treated with anthracyclines (such as Adriamycin) and taxanes (such as Taxol), and whose tumors had already shown resistance to these therapies. In this trial, Ixempra in combination with Xeloda resulted in a slight improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared to Xeloda given alone.

The median survival with the combination of Ixempra and Xeloda was 5.7 months vs. 4.1 months for Xeloda alone - a gain of 1.6 months. But the side effects included peripheral sensory neuropathy in 65 percent, hand-foot syndrome in 64 percent, nausea in 53 percent, diarrhea in 44 percent, etc.

Again, readers will note that the above statistics do not yield any information on overall survival, i.e., how long on average Ixempra patients can be expected to live compared to those who got either Xeloda alone or no further treatment. The increase of 1.6 months (which you can be sure will be widely bandied about as indicative of the "value" of Ixempra) refers solely to an improvement in progression-free survival. But progression-free survival is not at all the same thing as improved overall survival. Progression-free survival is the time during which the disease appears stable before once again beginning to advance. It is entirely possible that two groups of patients could have a significant difference in this parameter, but the disease could still claim their lives at roughly the same time.

A Bristol-Myers spokesperson has been quoted as saying that the cost of a full course of Ixempra would be between $18,440 to $23,050.

There was a time when FDA required proof of increased survival before it would approve a new drug. Now Bristol-Myers has gotten Ixempra onto the market, having only shown a slight increase in a surrogate marker of doubtful benefit.

Signature
--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:

Ixempra company web site: http://www.ixempra.com/

Cost of Ixempra: http://www.topnews.in/bristol-myers-breast-cancer-drug-won-us-fda-approval-23921

When doctors won't tell . . .
Of all the online nutritional information, nutritional facts, medical and dietary sites there are to choose from, in an article entitled "How to ease the pain" The Sunday Times magazine, Culture, published a list of just five websites it considered reliable and informative.
This site was one of that five.

BARRY'S BOOKS

Trick and Treat:
How 'healthy eating' is making us ill

"A great book that shatters so many of the nutritional fantasies and fads of the last twenty years. Read it and prolong your life."
Clarissa Dickson Wright

"NH&WL may be the best non-technical book on diet ever written"
Joel Kauffman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA

The Perfect Weight Plan: Be Slim without Dieting

- a completely new kind of video and DVD.

"Must be regarded as essential reading . . . informative and thought-provoking." Dr Vyvyan Howard, MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath. University of Liverpool.