Close

Epizyme Announces U.S. FDA Approval of TAZVERIK for the Treatment of Patients with Epithelioid Sarcoma

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...
- Advertisement -

Epizyme, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company developing novel epigenetic therapies, announced that the U.S. FDA has granted accelerated approval of TAZVERIK for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients aged 16 years and older with metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma not eligible for complete resection, based on overall response rate and duration of response in a Phase 2 clinical trial.

“Despite industry advancements, there are limited therapeutic options for treating patients with epithelioid sarcoma who struggle with high rates of recurrence and toxicities associated with currently used therapies,” said Gary K. Schwartz, M.D., chief of hematology and oncology at Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, deputy director of the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, professor of oncology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and an investigator in Epizyme’s Phase 2 trial. “The TAZVERIK data from the ES cohort in Epizyme’s Phase 2 trial support its potential to provide clinically meaningful and durable responses, and tolerability for ES patients. This approval of TAZVERIK represents an important advancement in the treatment of patients with ES.”

“accelerated approval of TAZVERIK is a landmark event for people with ES and represents our dedication to our mission of rewriting treatment for people with cancer and other serious diseases,” said Robert Bazemore, president and chief executive officer of Epizyme. “TAZVERIK is now the first and only FDA-approved EZH2 inhibitor, and the first and only FDA-approved treatment specifically indicated for ES patients. Our commercial launch plans are underway, and we expect to make TAZVERIK available to ES patients and treating physicians across the U.S. within 10 business days.”

“For people with epithelioid sarcoma, an aggressive life threatening cancer that affects young adults, having new treatment options can offer much needed hope,” added Denise Reinke, MS, NP, MBA, president and chief executive officer of the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration (SARC) and co-founder of the Sarcoma Coalition.

Dr. Shefali Agarwal, chief medical officer, commented, “Discovering, developing and obtaining FDA approval for TAZVERIK, with its novel mechanism of action, is the result of years of work and commitment by many people, including the patients, caregivers and physicians who have participated in our clinical trials, along with the talented team at Epizyme. We are tremendously proud of this important milestone and look forward to further advancing clinical development of tazemetostat for multiple types of cancers.”

Continued approval for this indication is contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial. The company’s ongoing, global, randomized, controlled confirmatory trial assessing the combination of TAZVERIK plus doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin plus placebo as a front-line treatment for ES is underway.

In addition, Epizyme will conduct certain post-marketing activities, including clinical pharmacology evaluations to assess the effect of TAZVERIK on liver function and the effect of CYP3A inhibitors and inducers on TAZVERIK to inform aspects of the prescribing information. The company will also expand enrollment in Cohort 6 of its Phase 2 study, which has enrolled 44 patients to date, for a total of at least 60 epithelioid sarcoma patients. This expansion is intended to provide more patient experience for potential future inclusion in the label.

Phase 2 Epithelioid Sarcoma Cohort Efficacy Data
The efficacy of TAZVERIK was evaluated in an open-label, single-arm cohort (Cohort 5) of a multi-center study (Study EZH-202, NCT02601950) in patients with histologically confirmed, metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma. Patients were required to have INI1 loss, detected using local tests, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0-2. Patients received TAZVERIK 800 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumor response assessments were performed every 8 weeks. The major efficacy outcome measures were confirmed overall response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 as assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) and duration of response (DOR). Median duration of follow-up was 14 months (range 0.4 to 31).

Among the 62 patients who received TAZVERIK, median age was 34 years (range 16 to 79); 63% were male, 76% were White, 11% were Asian, 44% had proximal disease, 92% had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1, and 8% had an ECOG PS of 2. Prior surgery occurred in 77% of patients; 61% received prior systemic chemotherapy.

In the total 62 patients treated, the ORR (95% confidence interval) was 15% (7%, 26%), with 1.6% of patients achieving a complete response and 13% achieving a partial response. Among responders in the trial, 67% had a duration of response of six months or longer.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 37% of patients receiving TAZVERIK. Serious adverse reactions in ≥3% of patients who received TAZVERIK were hemorrhage, pleural effusion, skin infection, dyspnea, pain, and respiratory distress.

One patient (2%) permanently discontinued TAZVERIK due to an adverse reaction of altered mood.

Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 34% of patients who received TAZVERIK. The most frequent adverse reactions requiring dosage interruptions in ≥3% were hemorrhage, increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST).

Dose reduction due to an adverse reaction occurred in one (2%) patient who received TAZVERIK; the dose was reduced in this patient for decreased appetite.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were pain, fatigue, nausea, decreased appetite, vomiting and constipation.

About TAZVERIK
TAZVERIK is a methyltransferase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients aged 16 years and older with metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma not eligible for complete resection. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s).

Dosage and Administration
The recommended dosage of TAZVERIK is 800 mg taken orally twice daily with or without food.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

Warnings and Precautions

Secondary Malignancies

  • The risk of developing secondary malignancies is increased following treatment with TAZVERIK. Across clinical trials of 668 adults who received TAZVERIK 800 mg twice daily, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) occurred in 0.6% of patients. One pediatric patient developed T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LBL)

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity

  • Based on findings from animal studies and its mechanism of action, TAZVERIK can cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women. There are no available data on TAZVERIK use in pregnant women to inform the drug-associated risk. Administration of tazemetostat to pregnant rats and rabbits during organogenesis resulted in dose-dependent increases in skeletal developmental abnormalities in both species beginning at maternal exposures approximately 1.5 times the adult human exposure (area under the plasma concentration time curve [AUC0-45h]) at the 800 mg twice daily dose.
  • Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with TAZVERIK and for 6 months after the final dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with TAZVERIK and for 3 months after the final dose.

Adverse Reactions

In 62 clinical study patients with epithelioid sarcoma receiving TAZVERIK 800 mg twice daily: Serious adverse reactions occurring in >3% were hemorrhage, pleural effusion, skin infection, dyspnea and pain, and respiratory distress. The most common (≥20%) adverse events were pain (52%), fatigue (47%), nausea (36%), decreased appetite (26%), vomiting (24%) and constipation (21%).

Drug Interactions

  • Avoid coadministration of strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitors with TAZVERIK. If coadministration of moderate CYP3A inhibitors cannot be avoided, reduce TAZVERIK dose.
  • Avoid coadministration of strong or moderate CYP3A inducers with TAZVERIK, which may decrease the efficacy of TAZVERIK.
  • Coadministration of TAZVERIK with CYP3A substrates, including hormonal contraceptives, can result in decreased concentrations and reduced efficacy of CYP3A substrates.

Lactation

  • Because of the potential risk for serious adverse reactions from TAZVERIK in the breastfed child, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment with TAZVERIK and for one week after the final dose.

Investor Conference Call
Epizyme will host an investor conference call and webcast tonight at 5:30 p.m. ET. To participate in the call, please dial (877) 844-6886 (domestic) or (970) 315-0315 (international) and refer to conference ID 2339029. A live webcast will be available in the investor section of the company’s website at www.epizyme.com. The webcast will be archived on the website for 60 days.

About Epizyme, Inc.
Epizyme, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company committed to its mission of rewriting treatment for cancer and other serious diseases through novel epigenetic medicines. In addition to an active research and discovery pipeline, Epizyme has one U.S. FDA approved product, TAZVERIK™ (tazemetostat), for the treatment of patients aged 16 years and older with metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma (ES) who are not eligible for complete resection. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication is contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in an ongoing confirmatory trial. The company is also exploring the treatment potential of tazemetostat in investigational clinical trials in other solid tumors and hematological malignancies, as a monotherapy and combination therapy in both relapsed and front-line disease settings. By focusing on the genetic drivers of disease, Epizyme seeks to match medicines with the patients who need them. For more information, visit www.epizyme.com.

 

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »