Close
[adinserter block="1"]

Pfizer Announces Final Results From Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Pivotal Phase 3 Study With Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

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

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...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

Pfizer Inc announced the publication of findings from the Phase 3 INO-VATE ALL study in the online issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study, also known as Study 1022, is an open-label, randomized, Phase 3 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin as compared with investigator-choice chemotherapy in 326 adult patients with relapsed or refractory CD22-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Results showed improvement over chemotherapy on a number of measures including complete hematologic remission and progression-free survival (PFS). Updated results and newly available overall survival (OS) data were also presented as a late-breaking oral presentation (#LB2233) today at the 21st Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2016 Annual Meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark.

“Relapsed or refractory ALL is an aggressive leukemia in urgent need of new treatment options as about half of adult patients will not respond to chemotherapy or will see their disease return,” said Hagop M. Kantarjian, M. D., lead study investigator and professor, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. “The efficacy results seen in patients treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin in this study are impressive, particularly median progression-free survival, high rates of hematological remission and absence of minimal residual disease. These results suggest inotuzumab ozogamicin, if approved, could be a valuable new addition to currently available treatment options for ALL patients, including as a bridge to stem cell transplantation, which is the best chance for a cure at this stage of the disease.”

The INO-VATE ALL study had two independent primary endpoints, complete response with or without hematologic remission and OS. INO-VATE ALL met its first primary endpoint of complete response, which was significantly better with inotuzumab ozogamicin compared to chemotherapy (80.7% [95% CI, 72%-88%] vs. 29.4% [95% CI, 21%-39%], P<0.001). Inotuzumab ozogamicin also significantly extended PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.45 [97.5% CI, 0.34-0.61], P<0.001; median PFS, 5.0 vs. 1.8 months, in their respective arms). The second primary endpoint of OS showed a strong trend toward longer OS for patients treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin compared to chemotherapy, but did not reach the level of statistical significance (p < 0.0104) for the trial (HR: 0.77 [97.5% CI, 0.58-1.03], one-sided P=0.0203; median OS, 7.7 months [95% CI, 6.0-9.2] vs. 6.7 months [95% CI, 4.9-8.3]). The two-year OS rate for inotuzumab ozogamicin was 23 percent (95% CI, 16%‒30%) compared to chemotherapy at 10 percent (95% CI, 5%‒16%).

“Adult patients with relapsed or refractory ALL have a five-year survival rate of less than 10 percent, making these patients particularly difficult to treat. To see remission rates and two-year survival rates that are more than doubled compared to standard of care chemotherapy is very gratifying. We believe these data add to the growing body of evidence that supports inotuzumab ozogamicin as an important potential treatment option in adults with relapsed or refractory ALL,” said Mace Rothenberg, MD, Chief Development Officer, Oncology, Pfizer Global Product Development.

Results from INO-VATE ALL also showed patients treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin achieved high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (78.4% [95% CI, 68%-87%; P<0.001]), and experienced a duration of response (DOR) of 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-5.4; HR: 0.55; P<0.034). In comparison, 28.1 percent (95% CI, 14%-47%; P<0.001) of patients treated with chemotherapy achieved MRD negativity and median DOR was 3.1 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.9; HR: 0.55; P<0.034). More patients also proceeded to stem-cell transplant with inotuzumab ozogamicin compared to standard chemotherapy (41% vs. 11%, P<0.001).

The most common adverse events (AEs) observed for both inotuzumab ozogamicin and chemotherapy were cytopenias, including febrile neutropenia (16% vs. 22%). Common nonhematologic treatment-emergent AEs with inotuzumab ozogamicin included nausea (32%), headache (28%) and pyrexia (27%). Patients in the chemotherapy arm experienced nausea (47%), pyrexia (43%) and diarrhea (40%).

Additionally, any-grade veno-occlusive liver disease (VOD) occurred more frequently in patients treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin compared to chemotherapy (11% vs. 1%). Five patients taking inotuzumab ozogamicin developed VOD during treatment and 10 patients developed VOD after subsequent stem cell transplant. Among those taking chemotherapy, one patient developed VOD after transplant; no cases of VOD occurred during treatment with chemotherapy.

Inotuzumab ozogamicin received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ALL in October 2015. Pfizer is working closely with the FDA and other regulatory authorities with the aim of making inotuzumab ozogamicin available for adult patients with relapsed or refractory CD22-positive ALL.

Pfizer Inc.: Working together for a healthier world®
At Pfizer, we apply science and our global resources to bring therapies to people that extend and significantly improve their lives. We strive to set the standard for quality, safety and value in the discovery, development and manufacture of healthcare products. Our global portfolio includes medicines and vaccines as well as many of the world’s best-known consumer healthcare products. Every day, Pfizer colleagues work across developed and emerging markets to advance wellness, prevention, treatments and cures that challenge the most feared diseases of our time. Consistent with our responsibility as one of the world’s premier innovative biopharmaceutical companies, we collaborate with health care providers, governments and local communities to support and expand access to reliable, affordable health care around the world. For more than 150 years, Pfizer has worked to make a difference for all who rely on us. For more information, please visit us at www.pfizer.com. In addition, to learn more, follow us on Twitter at@Pfizer(link is external) and @Pfizer_News(link is external), LinkedIn(link is external), YouTube, and like us on Facebook at Facebook.com/Pfizer(link is external).

1 National Cancer Institute: Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treatment (PDQ®) – General Information About Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Available at:http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/adultALL/HealthProfessional/page1(link is external). Accessed March 21, 2016.

2 American Cancer Society: Typical treatment of acute lymphocytic leukemia. Available at:http://www.cancer.org/cancer/leukemia-acutelymphocyticallinadults/detailedguide/leukemia-acute-lymphocytic-treating-typical-treatment(link is external). Accessed March 21, 2016.

3 American Cancer Society: What are the key statistics about acute lymphocytic leukemia? Available at:http://www.cancer.org/cancer/leukemia-acutelymphocyticallinadults/detailedguide/leukemia-acute-lymphocytic-key-statistics(link is external) (link is external). Accessed March 21, 2016.

4 Manal Basyouni A. et al. Prognostic significance of survivin and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2011.08.1147.

5 Fielding A. et al. Outcome of 609 adults after relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL); an MRC UKALL12/ECOG 2993 study. Blood. 2006; 944-950.

6 Leonard J et al. Epratuzumab, a Humanized Anti-CD22 Antibody, in Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: a Phase I/II Clinical Trial Results. Clinical Cancer Research. 2004; 10: 5327-5334.

7 DiJoseph JF. Antitumor Efficacy of a Combination of CMC-544 (Inotuzumab Ozogamicin), a CD22-Targeted Cytotoxic Immunoconjugate of Calicheamicin, and Rituximab against Non-Hodgkin’s B-Cell Lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12: 242-250.

Contact:

Media:

Sally Beatty, 212-733-6566

or

Investors:

Ryan Crowe, 212-733-8160

 

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

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...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

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 »