Novartis data show more than 50 percent of eligible Ph+ CML patients maintain Treatment-free Remission after stopping Tasigna

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

When to Bring in Outside Help for FDA Cybersecurity Compliance (and What to Look For)

Medical device cybersecurity has become too important to treat...

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...
- Advertisement -
  • In ENESTfreedom, 51.6% of eligible first-line Tasigna patients maintained TFR for 48 weeks after stopping treatment; study did not meet its statistical primary endpoint, specifically the > 50% lower limit of the 95% confidence interval[1]
  • ENESTop met primary endpoint with 57.9% of eligible patients who had switched to Tasigna from Glivec® maintaining TFR for 48 weeks after treatment cessation[2]
  • First results from clinical program provide greater understanding of TFR and may help establish appropriate criteria for eligible Ph+ CML patients to stop treatment
  • Novartis expresses its deepest gratitude to the patients who participated in these important clinical trials

Novartis announced at the 52nd American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, the first results from the Tasigna (nilotinib) Treatment-free Remission (TFR) clinical trial program. These studies evaluated the potential to maintain molecular response (MR) after stopping therapy in adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the chronic phase who achieved a sustained deep level of molecular response with Tasigna – a concept called TFR[3]. Findings from two open label trials, ENESTfreedom and ENESTop, showed that more than 50% of Ph+ CML patients who met the rigorous predefined response criteria of the trials were able to maintain TFR after stopping Tasigna both in the first-line setting and after switching from Glivec (imatinib)*[1],[2]. Discussions with regulatory authorities are underway with potential submissions in 2016.

Results from the ENESTfreedom study found that more than half (51.6%) of 190 CML patients (confidence interval [CI] 95%: 44.2%-58.9%) who achieved a sustained deep molecular response following at least three years of first-line treatment with Tasigna were able to discontinue therapy and remain in TFR for 48 weeks[1]. ENESTfreedom did not meet its primary objective, the percentage of patients in major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABL1 International Scale [IS] <= 0.1%) at 48 weeks in the TFR phase, per the original statistical assumption that the lower limit of the 95% CI will be equal to or greater than 50%[1]. The median treatment duration in this trial was 3.6 years which is a short length of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) exposure prior to attempting TFR. Of the 86 patients who restarted treatment with Tasigna due to loss of MMR, 98.8% were able to regain MMR (n=85) and 88.4% were able to regain MR4.5 (BCR-ABL1 IS <= 0.0032%; n=76) [1]. By weeks 7.9 and 15.0 of treatment reinitiation with Tasigna, 50% of retreated patients already achieved MMR and MR4.5, respectively1. One patient discontinued the study at 7.1 weeks without regaining MMR after reinitiating treatment with Tasigna[1].

“ENESTfreedom is the first trial to show that, after a short treatment duration with nilotinib of 3.6 years, more than 50 percent of patients who stopped therapy were able to remain treatment-free at 48 weeks,” said Dr. Andreas Hochhaus, Head of the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Jena University Hospital, Germany, and primary investigator for the ENESTfreedom study. “Findings from the nilotinib TFR trials add to the existing body of research exploring the discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment in CML and may help to establish safe and appropriate criteria for eligible patients to stop treatment[1],[2],[3].”

ENESTop, the second Novartis TFR trial at ASCO, evaluated 126 patients who were able to achieve a sustained deep molecular response with Tasigna, but not with prior Glivec therapy[2]. In this trial, nearly 6 out of 10 (57.9%) patients (95% CI: 48.8%-66.7%) who achieved a sustained deep molecular response following at least three years of Tasigna therapy maintained a molecular response 48 weeks after stopping treatment[2]. The study met its primary endpoint of the proportion of patients without confirmed loss of MR4.0 (BCR-ABL1 IS <= 0.01%) or loss of MMR within 48 weeks of Tasigna discontinuation in the TFR phase[2]. In the study, 51 patients with confirmed loss of MR4.0 or loss of MMR restarted Tasigna[2]. Of these patients, 98.0% (n=50) regained at least MMR, with 94.1% (n=48) and 92.2% (n=47) regaining MR4.0 and MR4.5, respectively[2]. By weeks 12.0 and 13.1 of treatment reinitiation with Tasigna, 50% of retreated patients already achieved MR4.0 and MR4.5, respectively[2]. One patient entered the treatment reinitiation phase but did not regain MMR by 20 weeks and discontinued the study. The BCR-ABL1 for this patient was 62.2% at the start of Tasigna retreatment and 9.8% at study exit[2].

“Novartis has been at the forefront of advancements in the treatment and understanding of CML for 20 years,” said Alessandro Riva, MD, Global Head, Novartis Oncology Development and Medical Affairs. “The exploration of TFR in patients treated with Tasigna, which includes Novartis support of eight TFR studies, is the next step in our commitment to advancing care for patients living with this disease.”

Results from ENESTfreedom were presented today in an oral session (Abstract #7001, 3:12 p.m. CDT) at ASCO in Chicago. Data from ENESTop will be presented in a poster session on June 6 (Abstract #7054, 8:00-11:00 a.m. CDT). Both studies are ongoing, with planned follow-up to evaluate the ability of patients to sustain remission for longer durations following discontinuation of Tasigna. These are the first presentations of data from the Novartis Tasigna TFR clinical trial program.

An important part of the Tasigna TFR studies is regular and frequent molecular monitoring with a well-validated assay able to measure BCR-ABL transcript levels down to MR4.5. Frequent patient monitoring during TFR allows timely determination of loss of MR4.0 and MMR and need for treatment initiation[1],[2].

No new major safety findings were observed in these studies in patients treated with Tasigna beyond those in the known safety profile of Tasigna[1],[2]. In ENESTfreedom, 24.7% of patients experienced musculoskeletal pain during the first year of the TFR phase versus 16.3% while still taking Tasigna in the one-year consolidation phase[1]. In ENESTop, the rates of all grade musculoskeletal pain were 42.1% in the first year of the TFR phase versus 14.3% while still taking Tasigna in the consolidation phase[2]. No patients progressed to advance phase/blast crisis in the two studies[1],[2].

Stopping CML treatment is currently not a clinical recommendation and should only be attempted in the context of a clinical study. Discontinuation of treatment in ENESTfreedom and ENESTop was conducted under the conditions of the trials and in patients who met the rigorous predefined criteria of the trials[1],[2].

About ENESTfreedom
ENESTfreedom (Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials – Following REsponsE in De nOvo CML-CP Patients) is an open label Phase II study involving 215 Ph+ CML patients in the chronic phase, conducted at 132 sites across 19 countries. ENESTfreedom evaluated stopping treatment in 190 adults with Ph+ CML after the patients had achieved a response of MR4.5 with Tasigna and a sustained deep molecular response for one year as a first-line treatment.

About ENESTop
ENESTop (Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety Trial) is an open label Phase II study involving 163 Ph+ CML patients, conducted at 63 sites across 18 countries. The trial evaluated stopping treatment in 126 adults with Ph+ CML in the chronic phase after patients had achieved and sustained deep molecular response for one year with Tasigna following Glivec.

About Tasigna (nilotinib)
Tasigna (nilotinib) is approved in more than 122 countries for the treatment of chronic phase and accelerated phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (Ph+ CML) in adult patients resistant or intolerant to at least one prior therapy, including Glivec (imatinib), and in more than 120 countries for the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML in chronic phase.

About Novartis
Novartis provides innovative healthcare solutions that address the evolving needs of patients and societies. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Novartis offers a diversified portfolio to best meet these needs: innovative medicines, eye care and cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals. Novartis is the only global company with leading positions in these areas. In 2015, the Group achieved net sales of USD 49.4 billion, while R&D throughout the Group amounted to approximately USD 8.9 billion (USD 8.7 billion excluding impairment and amortization charges). Novartis Group companies employ approximately 118,000 full-time-equivalent associates. Novartis products are available in more than 180 countries around the world. For more information, please visit http://www.novartis.com.

For Novartis multimedia content, please visit www.novartis.com/news/media-library.
For questions about the site or required registration, please contact: media.relations@novartis.com

*Known as Gleevec® (imatinib mesylate) tablets in the US, Canada and Israel.

References
[1] Hochhaus, A. et al. Treatment-free remission (TFR) in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) treated with frontline nilotinib: Results from the ENESTfreedom study. Oral Presentation. Abstract #7001. 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, USA.
[2] Hughes, H.P. et al. Treatment-free remission (TFR) in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) treated with second-line nilotinib (NIL): First results from the ENESTop study. Poster Presentation. Abstract #7054. 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, USA.
[3] Hughes, H.P. and Ross, R.M. Moving treatment-free remission into mainstream clinical practice in CML. Blood. 2016. Advance online publication. doi# 10.1182/blood-2016-01-694265.

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

When to Bring in Outside Help for FDA Cybersecurity Compliance (and What to Look For)

Medical device cybersecurity has become too important to treat...

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. ...

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 »