Dataset Information

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma^?.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Approved first-line treatments for patients with BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma include nivolumab (a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) plus ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibitor; NIVO+IPI) and the BRAF/MEK inhibitors dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB+TRAM), encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO+BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (VEM+COBI). Results from prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing these treatments have not yet been reported. This analysis evaluated the relative efficacy and safety of NIVO+IPI versus DAB+TRAM, ENCO+BINI, and VEM+COBI in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).

Patients and methods

A systematic literature review identified RCTs for DAB+TRAM, ENCO+BINI, and VEM+COBI in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Individual patient-level data for NIVO+IPI were derived from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (BRAF-mutant cohort) and restricted to match the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the comparator trials. Treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) models. Safety outcomes (grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events) with NIVO+IPI and the comparators were compared.

Results

In the Cox proportional hazards analysis, NIVO+IPI showed improved OS compared with DAB+TRAM (HR = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.73), ENCO+BINI (HR = 0.60; CI, 0.42-0.85), and VEM+COBI (HR = 0.50; CI, 0.36-0.70) for the overall study period. In the time-varying analysis, NIVO+IPI was associated with significant improvements in OS and PFS compared with the BRAF/MEK inhibitors 12 months after treatment initiation. There were no significant differences between NIVO+IPI and BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment from 0 to 12 months. Safety outcomes favored DAB+TRAM over NIVO+IPI, whereas NIVO+IPI was comparable to VEM+COBI.

Conclusion

Results of this MAIC demonstrated durable OS and PFS benefits for patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma treated with NIVO+IPI compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, with the greatest benefits noted after 12 months.

SUBMITTER: Tarhini AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7872980 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma<sup>☆</sup>.

Tarhini A A AA Toor K K Chan K K McDermott D F DF Mohr P P Larkin J J Hodi F S FS Lee C-H CH Rizzo J I JI Johnson H H Moshyk A A Rao S S Kotapati S S Atkins M B MB

ESMO open 20210206 2

<h4>Background</h4>Approved first-line treatments for patients with BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma include nivolumab (a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) plus ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibitor; NIVO+IPI) and the BRAF/MEK inhibitors dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB+TRAM), encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO+BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (VEM+COBI). Results from prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing these treatments have not yet been re ...[more]

PMID: 33556898

Similar Datasets

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.).

Project description:BackgroundAnchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), based on propensity score weighting, is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method in health technology assessment. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small.MethodsA modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The first model produces inverse probability weights that are combined with the odds weights produced by the second model. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials. Nevertheless, 2SMAIC can be applied in situations where the IPD trial is observational, by including potential confounders in the treatment assignment model. The simulation study also explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time.ResultsDespite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.ConclusionsTwo-stage approaches to MAIC can increase precision and efficiency with respect to the standard approach by adjusting for empirical imbalances in prognostic covariates in the IPD trial. Further modules could be incorporated for additional variance reduction or to account for missingness and non-compliance in the IPD trial.

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.

Project description:BackgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma.MethodsWe randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk.ResultsA total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups.ConclusionsOverall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Project description:ImportanceAlthough the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab has unquestionable benefit over nivolumab monotherapy in advanced melanoma, currently no summative analyses have compared the combination with nivolumab monotherapy for advanced cancers other than melanoma.ObjectiveTo examine whether the addition of ipilimumab to standard-dose nivolumab safely improves clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancers other than melanoma.Data sourcesElectronic databases (PubMed, EBSCO Information Services, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for studies of standard-dose nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in the treatment of advanced cancers other than melanoma published from database inception to October 31, 2022.Study selectionEight studies (total patients, 1727; nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 854; nivolumab monotherapy group, 873) met the selection criteria. Patients had squamous cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death ligand 1 level of 1% or higher, small cell lung cancer, pleural mesothelioma, urothelial carcinoma, esophagogastric carcinoma, sarcoma, or glioblastoma multiforme.Data extraction and synthesisFor comparison of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes, estimation of log(hazard ratios [HRs]) and SEs was initially performed for OS and PFS of each included study based on summary statistics extracted from individual Kaplan-Meier curves. Inverse-variance weighting was then used to compute pooled HRs (95% CIs). For comparison of dichotomous data (treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events and discontinuations), odds ratios (ORs) were used, and the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to estimate pooled ORs (95% CIs).ResultsTreatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was not associated with improvement in OS over treatment with nivolumab alone (pooled HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06; P = .36), with 4 of the 8 studies having numerically lower median OS with the combination. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with marginal, but not clinically meaningful, improvement in PFS over nivolumab alone (pooled HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98; P = .02). The combination was associated with substantially higher treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (pooled OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.47-2.31; P < .001) and treatment-related discontinuations (pooled OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.44-2.65; P < .001). This finding was recapitulated in meta-analyses of individual grade 3 to 4 adverse events of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, pneumonitis, endocrine dysfunction, dermatitis, fatigue.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis of 8 advanced cancers other than melanoma, the differences detected in OS and PFS between nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab were not clinically meaningful (even though statistical significance was detected in PFS). Treatment-related higher-grade toxicity and discontinuations were substantially higher with the combination therapy. The data indicate that investigations of anti-programmed death 1 (PD1) plus anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) therapies in any nonmelanoma advanced cancer should be conducted along with anti-PD1 monotherapy to ensure that the net effect of the addition of anti-CTLA-4 to anti-PD1 can be clearly established for that cancer and setting and that unnecessary CTLA-4 inhibition with related toxic effects (both clinical and financial) can be avoided.

Project description:We conducted the first trial of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade in resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finding nivolumab monotherapy to be safe and feasible with an encouraging rate of pathologic response. Building on these results, and promising data for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) in advanced NSCLC, we expanded our study to include an arm investigating neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Patients with resectable stage IB (≥4 cm)-IIIA (American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor Node Metastases seventh edition), histologically confirmed, treatment-naïve NSCLC received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously 6 weeks prior to planned resection. Nivolumab 3 mg/kg was given again approximately 4 and 2 weeks preoperatively. Primary endpoints were safety and feasibility with a planned enrollment of 15 patients. Pathologic response was a key secondary endpoint. While the treatment regimen was feasible per protocol, due to toxicity, the study arm was terminated early by investigator consensus after 9 of 15 patients were enrolled. All patients received every scheduled dose of therapy and were fit for planned surgery; however, 6 of 9 (67%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and 3 (33%) experienced grade ≥3 TRAEs. Three of 9 patients (33%) had biopsy-confirmed tumor progression precluding definitive surgery. Of the 6 patients who underwent resection, 3 are alive and disease-free, 2 experienced recurrence and are actively receiving systemic treatment, and one died postoperatively due to acute respiratory distress syndrome. Two patients who underwent resection had tumor pathologic complete responses (pCRs) and continue to remain disease-free over 24 months since surgery. Pathologic response correlated with pre-treatment tumor PD-L1 expression, but not tumor mutation burden. Tumor KRAS/STK11 co-mutations were identified in 5 of 9 patients (59%), of whom two with disease progression precluding surgery had tumor KRAS/STK11/KEAP1 co-mutations. Though treatment was feasible, due to toxicity the study arm was terminated early by investigator consensus. In light of this, and while the long-term disease-free status of patients who achieved pCR is encouraging, further investigation of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with resectable NSCLC requires the identification of predictive biomarkers that enrich for response.

Dataset Information

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma^?.

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma<sup>☆</sup>.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Dataset Information

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma?.

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma<sup>☆</sup>.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma^?.