Back to Authors

Norsworthy, Kelly J.

0000-0002-8462-9994

Mayo Clinic

United States Food and Drug Administration

Citations 3

Real-world practice patterns of IDH inhibitors and outcomes of on-label IDH inhibitor use for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in the United States
Leone, Sami, Dworkin, Emily , Kahla, Justin A. , Ali, Moiez , Raptis, Nepheli, Lokhandwala, Alifya, Taborda, Cristian , Ritchie, Jordan, Coltoff, Alexander , Ormond, Sean, Dulak, Dominika, Im, Annie , Song, Amy , Scobie, Micaela R. , Lewis-Gonzalez, Jessica, Foucar, Charles , LeBlanc, Thomas W. , Pulte, Dianne , Wynne, Joseph , Leblanc, Thomas , Lin, Chenyu , Woods, Ashley C. , Li, Zhiguo , Leone, Sami, Abaza, Yasmin , Filho, Cilomar Martins de Oliveira , Lee, Michelle Hyunju , Bewersdorf, Jan Philipp , Burkart, Madelyn , Kumar, Mahesh , Song, Amy, Iyer, Sunil Girish , Murthy, Guru Subramanian Guru , Zhou, Katherine Ismei , Atallah, Ehab , Winer, Eric P. , Erba, Harry Paul , Patel, Anand , Badar, Talha , Norsworthy, Kelly J.

Blood | December 5, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 1614-1614

10.1182/blood-2025-1614 Get It

Abstract Introduction: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations are observed in ~20% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In the U.S., ivosidenib (ivo) is approved with or without azacitidine (aza) in the frontline (FL) and as monotherapy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) IDH1-mutated (mut) AML. Olutasidenib (oluta) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH1-mut AML. Enasidenib (ena) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH2-mut AML. This study describes real-world IDH inhibitor (IDHi) administration patterns and evaluates their outcomes in on-label settings. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with IDH1/2-mut AML who received ivosidenib, olutasidenib, or enasidenib was conducted at 12 academic institutions in the U.S. Best response at any time during treatment, including complete response (CR) and complete response with partial hematologic recovery (CRh), were graded using European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2022 criteria. Results: A total of 387 patients with IDH1- and IDH2-mut AML were treated with an IDHi in the FL or R/R setting. Median follow-up was 9.6 months (range, 0.03-90.7). Demographics include 79% White, 14% Black, 3% Asian, and 4% other/unknown race; 5% were Hispanic ethnicity; 46% were female; the median age was 70 years (range, 28-95). 70% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, 26% had secondary AML, and 10% had therapy-related AML. Per the ELN 2024 less-Intensive risk classification, 58% were favorable risk, 29% intermediate, 7% adverse, and 6% unknown. Overall, 209 of 387 patients (54%) received IDHi regimens on-label. In FL IDH1-mut AML (n=45), 11 received ivo monotherapy, 25 aza/ivo, and 9 used off-label combinations: 3 hypomethylating agent (HMA) + venetoclax (ven) + ivo, 5 decitabine/ivo, 1 intensive chemotherapy (IC)/ivo. Among R/R IDH1-mut AML (n=109), 47 received ivo monotherapy, 7 oluta monotherapy, and 55 off-label (31 HMA/ivo, 16 HMA/ven/ivo, 3 IC/ivo, and 5 other). 44 received off-label ena for FL treatment of IDH2-mut AML (25 ena monotherapy, 9 HMA/ena, 8 HMA/ven/ena, and 2 IC/ena). In R/R IDH2-mut AML (n=189), 119 patients received ena monotherapy and 70 received off-label combinations (25 HMA/ena, 30 HMA/ven/ena, 7 IC/ena, 6 ena/gilteritinib, and 2 other). In on-label treatment of FL IDH1-mut AML, one of four patients with response assessment of FL ivo monotherapy had a CR/CRh. Of 19 patients with response assessment on FL aza/ivo, 13 patients (68.4%) had a CR as best response (95% CI, 46.0-84.6%). Median OS was 14.9 mo (95% CI, 4.17-NR) for ivo monotherapy (n=11) and 31.9 mo (95% CI, 9.1-NR) for aza/ivo (n=25), with 0 and 2 patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT), respectively. In R/R IDH1-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh was 35.5% (95% CI, 21.1-53.1) for on-label ivo monotherapy. All 4 patients with response assessment for on-label oluta monotherapy had a CR. Median OS was 14.0 mo (95% CI, 10.1-22.4) for ivo monotherapy and NR for oluta monotherapy (95% CI, 10.1-NR), with 10 and 0 receiving allo-SCT, respectively. The CR/CRh rate for ivo was 38.1% (8 of 21 assessed; 95% CI, 20.8-59.1) in age < 70, and 30.0% (3 of 10 assessed; 95% CI, 10.8-60.3) in age ≥ 70. Median OS was 15.2 mo (95% CI 9.3-NR) in age < 70 (n=27) and 10.4 mo (95% CI 8.0-18) in age ≥ 70 (n=20). In R/R IDH2-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh for on-label ena monotherapy was 38.2% (95% CI, 27.6-50.1). Median OS was 12.1 mo (95% CI, 8.2-16.6), with 5 having received allo-SCT. In demographic subgroups for ena monotherapy, 52 non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with response assessment had a CR/CRh rate of 42.3% (95% CI, 0.30-0.56). Only 1 of 13 non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients with response assessment had a CRh (7.7%; 95% CI, 1.4-33.0) as best response, with none attaining CR. Median OS was 13.7 mo (95% CI 10.3-26.3) in NHW (n=82), 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NR) in NHB (n=18), and 69.1 mo (95% CI, 52.6-NR) in Hispanic patients (n=8). The CR/CRh rate was 48.6% (17 of 35 assessed; 95% CI, 33.0-64.4) for age < 70, and 27.3% (9 of 33 assessed; 95% CI, 15.1-44.2) for age ≥ 70. Median OS was 12.0 mo (95% CI, 9.9-22.1) in age < 70 (n=48) and 5.8 mo (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in age ≥ 70 (n=69). Conclusion: Practice patterns for IDH inhibitors in AML vary considerably, with high amounts of off-label use. Response rates for ivosidenib and enasidenib in the real-world setting are comparable to those of clinical trials. Descriptive analyses of demographic subgroups highlight areas in need of further research.
Advancing drug development in myelodysplastic syndromes
McGraw, Kathy L. , Cunningham, Lea, Kim, Nina , Jen, Emily Y. , Ehrlich, Lori A. , Aplan, Peter D. , Garcia‐Manero, Guillermo , Foran, James M. , Zeidan, Amer M., Scott, Bart L. , Buckstein, Rena , Tinsley-Vance, Sara, Verma, Amit , Wroblewski, Tanya, Pavletic, Steven Z. , Zeidan, Amer M. , Verma, Amit , Kim, Nina , Jen, Emily Y , Ehrlich, Lori A , Aplan, Peter D , Garcia, Jacqueline S , Komrokji, Rami S , Sekeres, Mikkael A , Scott, Bart , Verma, Amit , Zeidan, Amer M , Mina, Alain , Calvo, Katherine R. , Garcia, Jacqueline S. , Dezern, Amy Elizabeth , Komrokji, Rami S. , Sekeres, Mikkael A. , Norsworthy, Kelly J.

Blood Advances | December 30, 2024 | Volume: 9 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 1095-1104

10.1182/bloodadvances.2024014865 Get It

Abstract Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs) are heterogeneous stem cell malignancies characterized by poor prognosis and no curative therapies outside of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Despite some recent approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, (eg, luspatercept, ivosidenib, decitabine/cedazuridine, and imetelstat), there has been little progress in the development of truly transformative therapies for the treatment of patients with MDS. Challenges to advancing drug development in MDS are multifold but may be grouped into specific categories, including criteria for risk stratification and eligibility, response definitions, time-to-event end points, transfusion end points, functional assessments, and biomarker development. Strategies to address these challenges and optimize future clinical trial design for patients with MDS are presented here.
Perspectives on drug development in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: changing the paradigm
Hunter, Anthony M. , Patnaik, Mrinal M. , Itzykson, Raphaël , Karanes, Chatchada , Li, Yanxia , Claro, R. Angelo de , Theoret, Marc R. , Pulte, Elizabeth, Padron, Eric , Karanes, Chatchada , de Claro, R Angelo , Itzykson, Raphael , Mesa, Ruben A. , Norsworthy, Kelly J.

Blood | November 7, 2024 | Volume: 144 | Issue: 19 | Pages: 1987-1992

10.1182/blood.2024025648 Get It

Abstract Drug development for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) has failed to parallel the recent success observed in related myeloid neoplasms. To address these shortcomings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a “Mini-symposium on CMML: Current State of the Art and Trial Design” in September 2023. This symposium brought together a panel of key FDA regulators and academic experts in CMML drug development to discuss challenges and provide perspectives on future drug development for this disease. The panel explored unique challenges that underlie the lack of therapeutic advances in CMML to date and discussed relevant topics such as clinical trial design, study end points, and key regulatory considerations. This article summarizes the key points of discussion from this symposium to facilitate advancements in the field.