• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • JobWatch
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Draft Guidance Lays Out FDA Thinking on AML Clinical Studies

Draft Guidance Lays Out FDA Thinking on AML Clinical Studies

August 24, 2020

The FDA is willing to consider a range of clinical trial designs and various endpoints for new drugs or biologics intended to treat acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to a new draft guidance.

Clinical studies of new treatments for the disease need to take into account potential interactions with currently available treatments. For example, the draft guidance says, because standard treatments for AML include drugs that are substrates, inducers or inhibitors of cytochrome P450 enzymes, sponsors should conduct in vitro metabolism studies to determine if their new treatment also works in such ways before starting the first-in-human trial.

It’s also known that currently available AML treatments can cause the cardiac side effect known as QT prolongation, so the FDA recommends sponsors assess early in clinical development whether their new product also has this side effect. Sponsors additionally need to consider that AML patients, especially the elderly, may have impaired kidney or liver function, so they “should identify elimination pathways of the parent [investigational] drug and its active metabolites,” which will help establish a “basis of dose modifications for patients with organ impairment in late-phase clinical studies,” according to the draft guidance.

The agency also encourages early pediatric studies, and there are special considerations for older adult patients and pregnant patients.

The draft guidance goes into considerable detail as to the efficacy endpoints it will consider in AML clinical studies. For example, the agency says, time-to-event endpoints commonly used include overall survival, event-free survival and relapse-free survival. Frequently used binary endpoints include complete remission, complete remission with partial hematological recovery and transfusion-independence.

Also possible in AML trials are minimal residual disease-based endpoints, such as remnants of the cancer in the bone marrow of less than 0.01 percent, which the agency has accepted in the past as supporting evidence of efficacy. However, the draft guidance cautions, such standards may change “as technologies improve and new clinical findings emerge.” Also discussed as possibilities are alternative biomarkers or measures of efficacy and well-defined and reliable patient-focused outcome measures.

Alongside such endpoint considerations, the draft guidance delves into patient enrollment criteria. For example, in dose-escalation trials to determine the maximum tolerated dose, “the eligible population is usually limited to patients who have failed all conventional drugs.” This could be broadened somewhat to include “patients with subtypes of AML that respond very poorly to conventional drugs, such as those with high-risk genetic abnormalities … even without prior treatment,” as long as the consent forms the patients sign are clear about the implications of forgoing conventional treatment.

In confirmatory trials, the agency recommends using blinded treatments where feasible to avoid bias. Sponsors should detail how they’re using specific genetic targets and other prognostic factors for eligibility or risk stratification. The draft guidance also cautions sponsors to seek advice from the FDA “rather than using outdated criteria solely to match a population used in support of a past approval.”

Public comments on the draft are due Oct. 13.

Read the draft guidance here: https://bit.ly/32fyapK.

Upcoming Events

  • 24May

    Powering an Effective Oversight Strategy with Clinical and Operational Insights

  • 25May

    2022 WCG Avoca Quality & Innovation Summit: Own the Future

  • 28Jun

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for the Life Sciences

  • 16Oct

    WCG MAGI's Clinical Research Hybrid Conference - 2022 West

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Protocol-360x240.png

    Avoid Deviations by Making Protocol Review a Team Effort

  • SelectionProcess-360x240.png

    Give Us a Voice: Sites Clamor for a Say on Vendor Selection

  • Convince-360x240.png

    Use Data and Details to Convince Site Leadership to Add Staff

  • AsktheExpertsBadge-360x240.png

    Ask the Experts: Listing Trial Staff and Others on the Statement of Investigator

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing