Agnostic evaluation of ipilimumab and nivolumab association: a metanalysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Marchetti P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7688006 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Agnostic evaluation of ipilimumab and nivolumab association: a metanalysis.
Marchetti Paolo P Botticelli Andrea A Ascierto Antonio Paolo AP Curigliano Giuseppe G Giannarelli Diana D
Journal of translational medicine 20201125 1
<h4>Background</h4>Ipilimumab and Nivolumab, targeting the molecules CTLA-4, PD-1, respectively,have shown efficacy against several types of cancer. Despite these results, only a small percentage of patients maintains a long-lasting effect. Even Ipilimumab, in combination with nivolumab, has demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in multiple tumor types. However, no trial has been designed with the primary endpoint to compare the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined, compared to n ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma.MethodsIn this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors.ResultsAmong patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication.ConclusionsThe objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).
| S-EPMC5744258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes.Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated.ResultsMedian OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed.ConclusionThese 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.
| S-EPMC8718224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with melanoma, ipilimumab (an antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4]) prolongs overall survival, and nivolumab (an antibody against the programmed death 1 [PD-1] receptor) produced durable tumor regression in a phase 1 trial. On the basis of their distinct immunologic mechanisms of action and supportive preclinical data, we conducted a phase 1 trial of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma.MethodsWe administered intravenous doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone every 3 weeks for 4 doses (concurrent regimen). The combined treatment was subsequently administered every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. In a sequenced regimen, patients previously treated with ipilimumab received nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 48 doses.ResultsA total of 53 patients received concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and 33 received sequenced treatment. The objective-response rate (according to modified World Health Organization criteria) for all patients in the concurrent-regimen group was 40%. Evidence of clinical activity (conventional, unconfirmed, or immune-related response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks) was observed in 65% of patients. At the maximum doses that were associated with an acceptable level of adverse events (nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight and ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram), 53% of patients had an objective response, all with tumor reduction of 80% or more. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 53% of patients in the concurrent-regimen group but were qualitatively similar to previous experience with monotherapy and were generally reversible. Among patients in the sequenced-regimen group, 18% had grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy and the objective-response rate was 20%.ConclusionsConcurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab had a manageable safety profile and provided clinical activity that appears to be distinct from that in published data on monotherapy, with rapid and deep tumor regression in a substantial proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01024231.).
| S-EPMC5698004 | biostudies-literature
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:ImportanceIncreased survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors has been reported for patients with obesity vs a normal body mass index (BMI). However, the association of obesity with the safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors warrants study.ObjectiveTo investigate associations between BMI and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) among patients with advanced cancers treated with nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was a retrospective pooled analysis of 3772 patients from 14 multicenter CheckMate clinical trials across 8 tumor types. Patients with advanced cancers received nivolumab, 3 mg/kg (n = 2746); nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, plus ipilimumab, 1 mg/kg (n = 713); or nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, plus ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg (n = 313). Baseline BMI was categorized as normal weight or underweight (<25), overweight (25 to <30), or obese (≥30) according to World Health Organization criteria. The studies began patient enrollment between February 9, 2012, and May 21, 2015, and patients were followed up to database lock on May 1, 2019. Data analysis was conducted from May 1 to September 1, 2019.InterventionsNivolumab, 3 mg/kg; nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, plus ipilimumab, 1 mg/kg; and nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, plus ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg.Main outcomes and measuresOdds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for incidence of any-grade and grade 3 or 4 irAEs were calculated for patients with obesity vs normal weight or underweight BMI in the overall cohort and in subgroups based on patient and tumor characteristics. Analyses for nivolumab plus ipilimumab cohorts were exploratory.ResultsA total of 3772 patients were included, 2600 were male (69%), and median age was 61 years (range, 18-90 years). For patients receiving monotherapy with nivolumab, 3 mg/kg (n = 2746), the incidence of any-grade irAEs was higher in patients with obesity (n = 543) vs those with normal weight or underweight BMI (n = 1266; OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.38-2.11). Incidence of grade 3 or 4 irAEs did not differ between patients with obesity and those with normal weight or underweight BMI (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.61). Risk of any-grade and grade 3 or 4 irAEs appeared consistent with that in the overall population across all subgroups evaluated except for a higher likelihood of grade 3 or 4 irAEs among female patients with obesity vs normal weight or underweight BMI (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.07-2.79). For patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab, the incidence of irAEs appeared consistent across BMI categories.Conclusions and relevanceObesity appeared to be associated with an increased incidence of any-grade irAEs among patients treated with nivolumab monotherapy and with grade 3 or 4 irAEs among female patients only. These findings may inform the monitoring of patients at high risk of developing irAEs.
| S-EPMC9857666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTreatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting.ObjectiveTo evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022.ExposuresPatients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab.Main outcomes and measuresTreatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up.ResultsA total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.
| S-EPMC10290253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Standard first-line chemotherapy results in disease progression and death within one year in most patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma1-4. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated superior overall survival versus chemotherapy at 12-month follow-up in gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction or oesophageal adenocarcinoma in the randomized, global CheckMate 649 phase 3 trial5 (programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score ≥5 and all randomized patients). On the basis of these results, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is now approved as a first-line treatment for these patients in many countries6. Nivolumab and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab have distinct but complementary mechanisms of action that contribute to the restoration of anti-tumour T-cell function and induction of de novo anti-tumour T-cell responses, respectively7-11. Treatment combining 1 mg kg-1 nivolumab with 3 mg kg-1 ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful anti-tumour activity with a manageable safety profile in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer12. Here we report both long-term follow-up results comparing nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone and the first results comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone from CheckMate 649. After the 24.0-month minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥5 (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.81) and all randomized patients (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.88). Overall survival in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. No new safety signals were identified. Our results support the continued use of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as standard first-line treatment for advanced gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma.
| S-EPMC8967713 | 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:BackgroundNo meta-analysis has assessed the pooled frequencies of adverse events (AEs) induced by concomitant nivolumab plus ipilimumab regimen for anticancer-medications-naïve malignancies. Furthermore, no meta-analysis has compared detailed safety profiles between four doses of nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (N3I1) and four doses of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (N1I3). Objectives of this study was estimating AE frequencies, and comparison of AE frequencies between N3I1 and N1I3 regimens.MethodsFour major electronic databases were searched; both interventional and observational studies were included. All primary cancer types were permitted. Patients should not have been previously treated with any anti-cancer medications. The frequency of AEs was pooled using a random-model meta-analysis using the generic inverse variance method. Protocol registration: UMIN000044090.ResultsForty articles representing 48 populations with 4,677 patients were included in the study. The pooled frequencies for key indicators were as follows: any AE, 81.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77.5-85.1); grade 3 or higher AE, 40.6% (95% CI: 35.7-45.5); serious AE, 32.7% (95% CI: 22.4-43.1); AE leading to discontinuation, 28.3% (95% CI: 23.7-32.8); and treatment-related death, 0.7% (95% CI: 0.4-1.1). AEs with the highest incidence were fatigue (27.9%, 95% CI: 22.6-33.3), followed by diarrhea (26.0%, 95% CI: 21.5-30.5), pruritus (24.6%, 95% CI: 20.3-28.8), rash (24.0% 95% CI: 19.3-28.7), and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (21.2%, 95% CI: 14.9-27.5). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that N3I1, compared to N1I3, less frequently induced any AE (N1I3 95.7%, N3I1 84.5%, p = 0.003), grade 3 or higher AE (N1I3 64.3%, N3I1 35.7%, p < 0.001), and serious AE (N1I3 61.4%, N3I1 47.8%, p = 0.004).ConclusionsApproximately 40% of patients had grade 3 or higher AE. The N3I1 regimen was substantiated to trigger fewer any AEs, high grade AEs, and serious AE than the N1I3 regimen.
| S-EPMC8841925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically improved outcomes for nononcogene-addicted NSCLC, monotherapy with programmed cell death protein-1 (PD1) inhibition has been associated with low efficacy in the EGFR-mutant setting. Given the potential for synergism with combination checkpoint blockade, we designed a trial to test the activity of combination nivolumab (N)-ipilimumab (NI) in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.MethodsThis is a randomized phase 2 study (NCT03091491) of N versus NI combination in EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-resistant NSCLC, with crossover permitted on disease progression. The primary end point was the objective response rate, and the secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ICI after EGFR TKI.ResultsRecruitment ceased owing to futility after 31 of 184 planned patients were treated. A total of 15 patients received N and 16 received NI combination. There were 16 patients (51.6%) who had programmed death-ligand (PDL1) 1 greater than or equal to 1%, and 15 (45.2%) harbored EGFR T790M. Five patients derived clinical benefits from ICI with one objective response (objective response rate 3.2%), and median progression-free survival was 1.22 months (95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.35) for the overall cohort. None of the four patients who crossed over achieved salvage response by NI. PDL1 and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were not able to predict ICI response. Rates of all grade immune-related adverse events were similar (80% versus 75%), with only two grade 3 events.ConclusionsImmune checkpoint inhibition is ineffective in EGFR TKI-resistant NSCLC. Whereas a small subgroup of EGFR-mutant NSCLC may be immunogenic and responsive to ICI, better biomarkers are needed to select appropriate patients.
| S-EPMC9679031 | biostudies-literature