Long Term Remission and Cardiac Toxicity of a Combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in a Patient With Metastatic Head and Neck Carcinoma After Progression Following Nivolumab Monotherapy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schwab KS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6530425 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Long Term Remission and Cardiac Toxicity of a Combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in a Patient With Metastatic Head and Neck Carcinoma After Progression Following Nivolumab Monotherapy.
Schwab Katjana S KS Kristiansen Glen G Isaak Alexander A Held Stefanie E A SEA Heine Annekristin A Brossart Peter P
Frontiers in oncology 20190515
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMonoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage.MethodsPatient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period.ResultsThe total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively.ConclusionsThe total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).
| S-EPMC6610852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionImmunotherapy has revolutionized metastatic Melanoma therapy. The most active regimen is combination therapy of Ipilimumab-Nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo) with response rates (RR) of ~60% and median overall survival (OS) of ~6 years. Immune-related adverse events (irAE) are common (~60% develop grade 3-4) and pose a challenge when treating frail patients. We sought to examine whether Ipi-Nivo therapy is feasible in elderly metastatic melanoma patients.MethodsElectronic records of patients treated at the Ella Lemelbaum Institute with Ipi-Nivo between the years 2017-2021 were screened for age. Elderly patients were defined as age 75 and older (group A) and were matched with records of patients age <75 (group B). Records were analyzed for baseline parameters, immunotherapy regimen, RR, toxicity and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsTwenty-six relevant patients age >75 (median 77) were identified and were matched to 34 younger patients (median age 57). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of baseline parameters except for BRAF mutation status (group A 15%, group B 47%, p=0.008). Response rate in group A was 38% and is consistent with previously published data. Median PFS was the same for both groups (A = 5.5 months, B= 7.5 months, p=NS). Treatment was similarly tolerated: 35% of group A patients completed 4 cycles of therapy compared to 28% for group B (p=NS). Grade 2-4 irAE were the same (A=58%, B=66%, p=NS) and there was no difference in the need for hospitalization for G3-4 events between the groups. (A=63%, B=69%, p=NS). Further division into 4 age groups (>80 vs 75-79 in group A and 65-74 vs <65 in group B) found no difference in terms of response rate or G3-4 toxicity.ConclusionIpilimumab-Nivolumab combination therapy in elderly metastatic Melanoma patients seems to be well tolerated and efficient in selected elderly patients based on performance status and comorbidities, just as in younger patients. This regimen seems to be a feasible treatment option for this age group.
| S-EPMC9676931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The approval of new immunotherapies has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma. These survival gains come with trade-offs in side effects and costs, as well as important considerations for third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients.To develop a Markov model to determine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination as firstline therapy in metastatic melanoma, while accounting for differential effectiveness in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive and negative patients.A 3-state Markov model (PD-L1 positive stable disease, PD-L1 negative stable disease, and progression and/or death) was developed using a U.S. societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon of 14.5 years. Transition probabilities were calculated from progression-free (PF) survival data reported in the CheckMate-067 trial. Costs were expressed in 2015 U.S. dollars and were determined using national sources. Adverse event (AE) management was determined using immune-related AE (irAE) data from CheckMate-067, irAE management guides for nivolumab and ipilimumab, and treatment guidelines. Utilities were obtained from published literature, using melanoma-specific studies when available, and were weighted based on incidence and duration of irAEs. Base case, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not the cost-effective choice ($454,092 per PF quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) compared with nivolumab monotherapy in a base case analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per PFQALY. Combination therapy and nivolumab monotherapy were cost-effective choices compared with ipilimumab monotherapy. PD-L1 positive status, utility of nivolumab and combination therapy, and medication costs contributed the most uncertainty to the model. In a population of 100% PD-L1 negative patients, nivolumab was still the optimal treatment, but combination therapy had an improved incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $295,903 per PFQALY. Combination therapy became dominated by nivolumab, when 68% of the sample was PD-L1 positive. In addition, the cost of ipilimumab would have to decrease to < $21,555 per dose for combination therapy to have an ICER < $100,000 per PFQALY and to < $19,151 (a 42% reduction) to be more cost-effective than nivolumab monotherapy.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not cost-effective compared with nivolumab monotherapy, which was the most cost-effective option. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic implications of these new immunotherapies as they make value-based formulary decisions, and future cost-effectiveness studies are completed.No funding supported this study. Merino was a contractor with EMD Serono at the time of this study but does not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. All other authors have no financial disclosures and no conflicts of interest. All the authors contributed to the study concept and design. Tran, McDowell, and Barcelon took the lead in data collection, along with Oh, Keyvani, and Merino. All authors except Merino contributed to data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Oh, Tran, McDowell, and Wilson and revised by Oh, Tran, McDowell, Wilson, and Keyvani. This analysis was presented at Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016, April 19-22, 2016, in San Francisco, California, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual International Meeting, May 21-25, 2016, in Washington DC.
| S-EPMC5960988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNivolumab (a programmed death 1 [PD-1] checkpoint inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] checkpoint inhibitor) have been shown to have complementary activity in metastatic melanoma. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab was compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic melanoma.MethodsWe assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, 945 previously untreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma to nivolumab alone, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or ipilimumab alone. Progression-free survival and overall survival were coprimary end points. Results regarding progression-free survival are presented here.ResultsThe median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group.ConclusionsAmong previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).
| S-EPMC5698905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the CheckMate 651 study, nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cisplatin/carboplatin + cetuximab + fluorouracil) regimen was compared for effectiveness. It is not known whether these immunotherapy agents are cost-effective for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with EXTREME in the first-line setting from the standpoint of third-party payers in the United States. The projecting of costs and outcomes over 15 years was done using a three-state partitioned survival model discounted by 3% per year. Long-term extrapolation of CheckMate 651 was used to model progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The incremental net health benefit (INHB), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The uncertainty and stability of the model were accounted for via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. As compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, EXTREME was associated with an increase of 0.154 life-years and 0.076 QALYs, as well as a cost increase of $572 per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $7545/QALY along with the values of INMB and INHB were $113,267 and 0.076 QALYs, respectively, at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effective was > 99% in patients with combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1, CPS 1-19, or CPS ≥ 20. Moreover, hazard ratio for OS and body weight were the most sensitive parameters for the model. According to sensitivity analyses, these results were generally robust. In overall populations with R/M SCCHN, the EXTREME regimen is cost-effective compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Given a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the probability of the EXTREME regiment being cost-effective compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab, was 64%. Importantly, there was heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness probabilities, based on primary sites and expression levels of PD-L1. Therefore, tailored treatment based on individual patient and clinical characteristics, remains important, and may impact the cost-effectiveness of the regimens under study.
| S-EPMC10957979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Metastatic primary cutaneous extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a rare clinical entity with a 5-year survival <10% and no standard therapy. We report the first case to our knowledge of metastatic EMPD with treatment response to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. The patient had diffusely metastatic disease and previously progressed on cytotoxic chemotherapy and a molecularly targeted agent. Treatment with four cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg resulted in a durable partial response lasting 7 months. Analysis of metastatic tumor tissue failed to identify known predictors of treatment response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as high PD-L1 expression, high tumor mutation burden, or microsatellite instability. These findings support further investigation of immune checkpoint inhibition for the management of metastatic EMPD, which currently has an abysmal prognosis and no standard therapies.
| S-EPMC7983595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Durable responses and encouraging survival have been demonstrated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), but predictive markers are unknown. We used whole exome sequencing to evaluate the impact of tumor mutational burden on efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab in patients with SCLC from the nonrandomized or randomized cohorts of CheckMate 032. Patients received nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg plus 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Efficacy of nivolumab ± ipilimumab was enhanced in patients with high tumor mutational burden. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to provide a greater clinical benefit than nivolumab monotherapy in the high tumor mutational burden tertile.
| S-EPMC6750707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent studies have suggested the benefit of salvage chemotherapy (SCT) after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment for recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). We retrospectively examined the outcome of SCT and the usefulness of the serum C-reactive protein level (CRP) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as prognostic biomarkers. Thirty-nine patients with R/M HNSCC were enrolled in this study. Twenty-five patients (64.1%) received combination chemotherapy of weekly paclitaxel and cetuximab (PC) as SCT, and 14 patients (35.9%) received tegafur-gimestat-otastat potassium (S1), an oral fluoropyrimidine. In all patients, the response rate, disease control rate, median progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (OS) were 45.2%, 85.7%, 6.5 months, and 13.5 months, respectively. No chemotherapy-related deaths were observed. These PC groups had low CRP (<1.2 mg/dL) or low NLR (<7.0) values at the time of SCT induction, which was significantly associated with an improved OS (p = 0.0440, p = 0.0354). A multivariate analysis also showed that a lower CRP value was significantly associated with a better OS (p = 0.0078). We clarified the usefulness of the PC and S1 regimens as SCT. In addition, SCT with the PC regimen showed a better prognosis with a lower CRP or NLR at induction than a higher CRP or NLR. This is the first report on biomarkers of SCT in R/M HNSCC.
| S-EPMC7463840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo report a case of severe ocular rosacea following ipilimumab plus nivolumab treatment in a patient with metastatic malignant skin melanoma.MethodsCase report and review of the literature.ResultsA 68-year-old male with newly diagnosed metastatic malignant cutaneous melanoma was treated with first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab, which resulted in a partial response. Four months after initiation of treatment, the patient developed red eyelids and conjunctivae, with painful gritty eyes, limiting his capacity to read. Following a diagnosis of severe ocular rosacea and dry eyes, treatment including corticosteroids, antimicrobial agents, and eyelid hygiene was started, and within 3 months, the ocular complaints resolved.ConclusionTreatment with checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma may trigger several ocular immune-related adverse events. This case describes severe ocular rosacea as an adverse event following ipilimumab plus nivolumab treatment.
| S-EPMC5649334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent studies suggest that combining nivolumab with ipilimumab is a more effective treatment for melanoma patients, compared to using ipilimumab or nivolumab alone. However, treatment with these immunotherapeutic agents is frequently associated with increased risk of toxicity, and (auto-) immune-related adverse events. The precise pathophysiologic mechanisms of these events are not yet clear, and evidence from clinical trials and translational studies remains limited. Our retrospective analysis of ~7700 metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab and/or nivolumab from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) demonstrates that the identified immune-related reactions are specific to ipilimumab and/or nivolumab, and that when the two agents are administered together, their safety profile combines reactions from each drug alone. While more prospective studies are needed to characterize the safety of ipilimumab and nivolumab, the present work constitutes perhaps the first effort to examine the safety of these drugs and their combination based on computational evidence from real world post marketing data.
| S-EPMC6316083 | biostudies-literature