Paclitaxel: Should we be concerned about the risks? Rajabrata - - PDF document

▶
paclitaxel should we be concerned about the risks
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Paclitaxel: Should we be concerned about the risks? Rajabrata - - PDF document

Mar 09, 2024 301 likes •464 views

4/8/19 Paclitaxel: Should we be concerned about the risks? Rajabrata Sarkar M.D. Ph.D. Barbara Baur Dunlap Professor of Surgery and Physiology Interim Chair, Department of Surgery Chief, Division of Vascular Surgery University of Maryland

slide-1
SLIDE 1

4/8/19 1

Paclitaxel: Should we be concerned about the risks?

Rajabrata Sarkar M.D. Ph.D.

Barbara Baur Dunlap Professor of Surgery and Physiology Interim Chair, Department of Surgery Chief, Division of Vascular Surgery University of Maryland

Disclosures

  • None
slide-2
SLIDE 2

4/8/19 2

Objectives

  • Review the biology of taxol and

restenosis

  • Describe the recent meta-analysis of

taxol and mortality

  • Evaulate the data and responses to it
  • Discuss the controversy and how to

approach patients

Paclitaxel (Taxol)

  • Derived from Pacific

yew bark

  • Targets tubulin and

inhibits assembly of the mitotic spindle

  • Widely used

chemotherapy and restenosis agent

slide-3
SLIDE 3

4/8/19 3

Vascular uses of paclitaxel

  • Extensive randomized clinical trials

demonstrate that paclitaxel coated angioplasty balloons and stents have superior patency in the peripheral circulation

  • Widely used by multiple specialties to

treat PAD and dialysis restenosis

  • Multiple major manufacturers
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4/8/19 4

The Meta-Analysis

Published in Journal of the American Heart Association December 6th, 2018

  • Public data on 28 RCTs

(24 DCB and 4 DES trials)

  • 4663 patients
  • 12 devices (2.0, 3.0 and 3.5µg/mm2)

Risk of Death Following Application of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons and Stents in the Femoropopliteal Artery of the Leg: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Volume: 7, Issue: 24, DOI: (10.1161/JAHA.118.011245)

One Year Risk of death

slide-5
SLIDE 5

4/8/19 5

Risk of Death Following Application of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons and Stents in the Femoropopliteal Artery of the Leg: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Volume: 7, Issue: 24, DOI: (10.1161/JAHA.118.011245)

Risk of death at two years

Risk of Death Following Application of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons and Stents in the Femoropopliteal Artery of the Leg: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Volume: 7, Issue: 24, DOI: (10.1161/JAHA.118.011245)

Risk of death at 4-5 years

slide-6
SLIDE 6

4/8/19 6

Risk of Death Following Application of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons and Stents in the Femoropopliteal Artery of the Leg: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Volume: 7, Issue: 24, DOI: (10.1161/JAHA.118.011245)

Total Paclitaxel dose vs. risk of death

First FDA letter to doctors

  • Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease

with Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents Potentially Associated with Increased Mortality - Letter to Health Care Providers

  • 1/17/19
slide-7
SLIDE 7

4/8/19 7

FDA letter 1/17/19

  • In clinical decision-making, discuss the risks

and benefits of all available treatment options for PAD with your patients.

  • Continue surveillance and report adverse

events

  • “Currently, the FDA believes that the benefits

continue to outweigh the risks for approved paclitaxel-coated balloons and paclitaxel- eluting stents when used in accordance with their indications for use.”

Reactions

  • BASIL-3, SWEDEPAD 1, SWEDEPAD

2 trials halted enrollment

  • Manufacturers re-examined data from

their clinical trials

  • Others examined mortality in patients

receiving these treatments

  • Critique of methods in the meta-analysis
slide-8
SLIDE 8

4/8/19 8

Critique of methods

  • A statistical assumption is made that the unknown

study-specific log relative risks are normal, i.e. follow a bell-shaped curve.

  • However, the normality assumption is rejected

(p=0.03) for 12 of the 28 studies (43% of the studies) at two years; at five years, the sample of three studies is too small for a meaningful normality test.

  • When contemporary, more robust methodologies that

do not make this assumption are employed, the

  • verall mortality differences are not statistically

significant at the one-, two-, and five-year intervals of the study.

  • Presented by Hanson T, LINC Leipzig, Germany 2019.

Critique of methods

  • Authors propose their own model of drug exposure
  • Drug dose (Dosei) is modeled as a constant based on dosage in

labeling of respective devices; time (Timei) is follow-up time in years.

  • However, paclitaxel demonstrates a transient presence in

tissue, not a constant level over years. – Plasma half-life of PTX post-DCB is hours to days – Target tissue PTX residence post-DCB (see figure) is weeks to months

slide-9
SLIDE 9

4/8/19 9

Other analysis

  • Secemsky et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2019: Retrospective

study of 16,560 beneficiaries of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services with femoropopliteal disease.

  • Treatment with drug-coated device was associated

with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality compared to non-drug coated devices through 600 days (p=0.007)

  • Authors conclude no evidence of increased all-cause

mortality following femoropopliteal artery revascularization with drug-coated devices compared with non–drug-coated devices.

32.5% 34.3%

Secemsky et al. JAMA

  • Cardiol. 2019
slide-10
SLIDE 10

4/8/19 10

  • Individual patient-level analysis on 1980 patients from the IN.PACT

Clinical Program to determine any potential connection between paclitaxel exposure and mortality.1

  • Results demonstrate no correlation between paclitaxel exposure and

mortality through 5 years.

– No difference in mean nominal paclitaxel exposure by survival status. – No difference in survival status stratified by drug exposure (by terciles). – Paclitaxel dose NOT identified as a predictor of mortality (by multivariable analysis).

  • Preliminary findings suggest that follow-up visit compliance may be

associated with a lower risk of mortality

Reactions to first letter

  • William A. Gray, MD (Lankenau Heart Institute,

Wynnewood, PA), told TCTMD. “We really need to understand the causes of death at the patient level, but I’m not sure I would change practice at this point.”

  • Christopher White, MD (Ochsner Medical Center,

New Orleans, LA): “We should be paying attention to these signals. We don’t know why it might be harmful [but] we definitely ought to be looking at this.The wrong thing to do right now would be to just deny this like a climate denier,”

slide-11
SLIDE 11

4/8/19 11

Reactions

  • Leipzig Interventional Course (LINC; 22–25 January, Leipzig,

Germany):

  • An independent, third party, pooled analysis of all the IN.PACT

Admiral DCB (Medtronic) clinical programmes, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and including 1,980 patients, demonstrated that at five years, there is no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the DCB and the control arm (9.3% vs. 11.2% respectively, p=0.399).

  • Five-year data from 1,189 patients in the LEVANT 2 trial within

the Lutonix DCB (BD) programme showed no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the DCB and the control group (14.2% vs. 10.6% respectively, p=0.22), as described at LINC.

  • Results from a Cook Medical press release also demonstrated

the safety of their drug-eluting stent, the Zilver PTX. Patient- level data found no increased mortality at five years with Zilver PTX compared to non-coated stents and balloons (18.7% vs. 17.6% respectively, p=0.53).

The story continues…

  • However, Medtronic and Cook Medical

have since issued corrections to their published data regarding the safety of their devices, the IN.PACT Admiral DCB and the Zilver PTX drug-eluting stent, respectively.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

4/8/19 12

FDA letter 3/15/19

  • We have now conducted a preliminary analysis of long-term

follow-up data (up to five years in some studies) of the pivotal premarket randomized trials for paclitaxel-coated products indicated for PAD. While the analyses are ongoing, our preliminary review of this data has identified a potentially concerning signal of increased long-term mortality in study subjects treated with paclitaxel-coated products compared to patients treated with uncoated devices.

  • Of the three trials with 5-year follow-up data, each showed

higher mortality in subjects treated with paclitaxel-coated products than subjects treated with uncoated devices. In total, among the 975 subjects in these 3 trials, there was an approximately 50% increased risk of mortality in subjects treated with paclitaxel-coated devices versus those treated with control devices (20.1% versus 13.4% crude risk of death at 5 years).

IN.PACT SFA IN.PACT Japan IN.PACT China

(DCB n=143)

IN.PACT Global

(DCB n=1406)

DCB

(n=220)

PTA

(n=111) p-value

DCB

(n=68)

PTA

(n=32) p-value

1 year 1.9% 0.0% 0.926 0.0% 0.0%

  • 2.9%

3.5% 2 years 8.1% 0.9% 0.008 6.1% 3.4% 1.000

Study completed

  • ne year

7.6% 3 years 10.7% 1.9% 0.006 6.0% 6.9% 1.000 11.4% 4 years 13.0% 6.8% 0.116

Study completed at three years Complete data not yet available

5 years 15.8% 9.6% 0.156

slide-13
SLIDE 13

4/8/19 13

FDA letter 3/15/19

  • These data should be interpreted with caution for

several reasons. First, there is large variability in the risk estimate of mortality due to the limited amount of long-term data. Second, these studies were not

  • riginally designed to be pooled, introducing greater

uncertainty in the results. Third, the specific cause and mechanism of the increased mortality is unknown.

  • When making treatment recommendations and as

part of the informed consent process, consider that there may be an increased rate of long-term mortality in patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

FDA letter 3/15/19

  • Discuss the risks and benefits of all available

PAD treatment options with your patients. For most patients, alternative treatment options to paclitaxel-coated balloons and paclitaxel- eluting stents should generally be used until additional analysis of the safety signal has been performed.

  • For some individual patients at particularly

high risk for restenosis, clinicians may determine that the benefits of using a paclitaxel-coated product may outweigh the risks.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

4/8/19 14

What about taxol in coronary stents?

  • SPIRIT III: prospective, multicenter trial where 1,002

patients were randomized 2:1 to EES(everolimus) versus PES (paclitaxel) coronary stents

  • EES also resulted in reduced rates of all-cause

death (5.9% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.02), with nonsignificantly different rates of MI, stent thrombosis, and TLR, and no evidence of late catch- up of TLR over time.

  • Suggests paclitaxel increases mortality independent
  • f stent thrombosis
  • JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Dec;6(12):1263-6.
slide-15
SLIDE 15

4/8/19 15

My opinion

  • The data (and the FDA recommendations)

suggest that the use of paclitaxel may increase risk of long term death

  • Given many different endovascular treatment
  • ptions for PAD, choose other means of

treatment for now

  • Given the late (2-5 years) effects noted,

clinical trial design to further prove/disprove the effect or determine the exact mechanisms will be difficult to impossible