Association of Body Mass Index With the Safety Profile of Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab.

Importance: Increased 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. Objective: To 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 Participants: This 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. Interventions: Nivolumab, 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 Measures: Odds 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. Results: A 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 Relevance: Obesity 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.

Indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (an anti-programmed death-1 antibody) is an adjuvant standard of care for patients with high-risk resected melanoma, although a watch-and-wait strategy remains an option. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo, the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy, was conducted in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. METHODS: An ITC using the Bucher method compared nivolumab with placebo using intention-to-treat population data from the phase III CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs ipilimumab; minimum follow-up, 4 years; NCT02388906) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 (ipilimumab vs placebo; minimum follow-up, ≈4.5 years; NCT00636168) trials. The end-points were recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). To account for cross-trial differences in staging and subsequent therapy, additional analyses examined patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and adjusted post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071, respectively. RESULTS: Nivolumab versus placebo was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.68) and OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.89). Nivolumab versus placebo was also associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40-0.69), DMFS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97) in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and in OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92) in the overall population after adjusting post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071. CONCLUSION: This ITC shows that adjuvant nivolumab provides clinically meaningful improvements in RFS, DMFS and OS versus a watch-and-wait strategy in high-risk resected melanoma.

Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit-risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6-42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9-29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6-17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9-13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety of BMS-820836 in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Major Depression: Results From 2 Randomized, Double-Blind Studies.

Two phase 2B, randomized, double-blind studies assessed the efficacy and safety of fixed or flexible dose of triple monoamine uptake inhibitor BMS-820836 in patients with treatment-resistant depression to demonstrate whether switching to BMS-820836 was superior to the continuation of standard antidepressant treatment. Patients with a history of inadequate response to 1 to 3 adequate trials of antidepressant therapies were prospectively treated with duloxetine 60 mg/d for 8 weeks (CN162-006) or duloxetine 60 mg/d or escitalopram 20 mg/d for 7 weeks (CN162-007). Inadequate responders were randomized to continue their prospective phase treatment or switch to flexible-dose (0.5-2 mg/d; CN162-006) or fixed-dose (0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 mg/d; CN162-007) BMS-820836 for 6 weeks. The primary end point in both studies was mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from randomization to study end point. BMS-820836 flexible (0.5-2 mg/d) or fixed dose of 1 mg/d or greater showed efficacy similar to the continuation of antidepressant treatment, with no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. In the CN162-006 study, the adjusted mean (SE) change in MADRS total score was -8.7 (0.661) and -8.1 (0.656) for BMS-820836 and duloxetine, respectively (P = 0.526). In the CN162-007 study, the adjusted mean (SE) change in MADRS total score was -7.3 (0.830) and -6.6 (0.842) for BMS-820836 of 1 and 2 mg, respectively, and -6.9 (0.602) for the continuation group (P = 0.910). Thus, BMS-820836 was well tolerated, with no evidence of dose-dependent discontinuations due to adverse events, but it failed to demonstrate superiority to the continuation of an existing antidepressant in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Daclatasvir and asunaprevir plus peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in HCV genotype 1 or 4 non-responders.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Improved therapies for peginterferon/ribavirin null or partial responders are needed. This study evaluated daclatasvir (NS5A inhibitor) and asunaprevir (NS3 protease inhibitor) plus peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in this patient population. METHODS: This open-label, phase 3 study (HALLMARK-QUAD; NCT01573351) treated patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 (n=354) or 4 (n=44) infection who had a prior null or partial response to peginterferon/ribavirin. Patients received daclatasvir 60 mg once-daily plus asunaprevir 100mg twice-daily, with weekly peginterferon alfa-2a and weight-based ribavirin for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response at post-treatment week 12 (SVR12) among genotype 1-infected patients. RESULTS: Daclatasvir plus asunaprevir and peginterferon/ribavirin demonstrated SVR12 rates of 93% (95% CI 90-96) in prior non-responders infected with HCV genotype 1. SVR12 rates among genotype 4-infected patients were 98% (95% CI 93-100); one patient had a missing post-treatment week-12 HCV-RNA measurement, but achieved an SVR at post-treatment week 24, yielding a 100% SVR rate in genotype 4 patients. Prior peginterferon/ribavirin response, sex, age, IL28B genotype, or cirrhosis status did not influence SVR12 rates. Serious adverse events occurred in 6% of patients; 5% discontinued treatment due to an adverse event. Grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities included neutropenia (22%), lymphopenia (16%), anemia (6%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and ALT/AST elevations (3% each). CONCLUSIONS: Daclatasvir plus asunaprevir and peginterferon/ribavirin demonstrated high rates of SVR12 in genotype 1- or 4-infected prior null or partial responders. The combination was well tolerated and no additional safety and tolerability concerns were observed compared with peginterferon/ribavirin regimens.

All-oral 12-week treatment with daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection: ALLY-3 phase III study.

UNLABELLED: Treatment options for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 infection are limited, with the currently approved all-oral regimens requiring 24-week treatment and the addition of ribavirin (RBV). This phase III study (ALLY-3; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02032901) evaluated the 12-week regimen of daclatasvir (DCV; pangenotypic nonstructural protein [NS]5A inhibitor) plus sofosbuvir (SOF; pangenotypic NS5B inhibitor) in patients infected with genotype 3. Patients were either treatment naïve (n = 101) or treatment experienced (n = 51) and received DCV 60 mg plus SOF 400 mg once-daily for 12 weeks. Coprimary endpoints were the proportions of treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients achieving a sustained virological response (SVR) at post-treatment week 12 (SVR12). SVR12 rates were 90% (91 of 101) and 86% (44 of 51) in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients, respectively; no virological breakthrough was observed, and ≥99% of patients had a virological response (VR) at the end of treatment. SVR12 rates were higher in patients without cirrhosis (96%; 105 of 109) than in those with cirrhosis (63%; 20 of 32). Five of seven patients who previously failed treatment with an SOF-containing regimen and 2 of 2 who previously failed treatment with an alisporivir-containing regimen achieved SVR12. Baseline characteristics, including gender, age, HCV-RNA levels, and interleukin-28B genotype, did not impact virological outcome. DCV plus SOF was well tolerated; there were no adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation and only 1 serious AE on-treatment, which was unrelated to study medications. The few treatment-emergent grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities that were observed were transient. CONCLUSION: A 12-week regimen of DCV plus SOF achieved SVR12 in 96% of patients with genotype 3 infection without cirrhosis and was well tolerated. Additional evaluation to optimize efficacy in genotype 3-infected patients with cirrhosis is underway.

Dapagliflozin add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 102-week trial.

BACKGROUND: Management of type 2 diabetes with metformin often does not provide adequate glycemic control, thereby necessitating add-on treatment. In a 24-week clinical trial, dapagliflozin, an investigational sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, improved glycemic control in patients inadequately controlled with metformin. The present study is an extension that was undertaken to evaluate dapagliflozin as long-term therapy in this population. METHODS: This was a long-term extension (total 102 weeks) of a 24-week phase 3, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to blinded daily treatment (placebo, or dapagliflozin 2.5 to 5, or 10 mg) plus open-label metformin (≥1,500 mg). The previously published primary endpoint was change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at 24 weeks. This paper reports the follow-up to week 102, with analysis of covariance model performed at 24 weeks with last observation carried forward; a repeated measures analysis was utilized to evaluate changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and weight. RESULTS: A total of 546 patients were randomized to 1 of the 4 treatments. The completion rate for the 78-week double-blind extension period was lower for the placebo group (63.5%) than for the dapagliflozin groups (68.3% to 79.8%). At week 102, mean changes from baseline HbA1c (8.06%) were +0.02% for placebo compared with -0.48% (P = 0.0008), -0.58% (P <0.0001), and -0.78% (P <0.0001) for dapagliflozin 2.5 to 5, and 10 mg, respectively. In addition, all dapagliflozin groups had sustained reductions from baseline in FPG (-1.07 to -1.47 mmol/l) and body weight (-1.10 to -1.74 kg) at 102 weeks, whereas increases were noted in placebo-treated patients for both of these outcomes. Events of hypoglycemia were rare and were not severe. Evidence suggestive of genital infection was reported in 11.7% to 14.6% of dapagliflozin patients and 5.1% of placebo patients, with one related discontinuation (dapagliflozin 5 mg). Evidence suggestive of urinary tract infection was reported in 8.0% to 13.3% of dapagliflozin patients and 8.0% of placebo patients, with one related discontinuation (dapagliflozin 2.5 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin added to metformin for 102 weeks enabled sustained reductions in HbA1c, FPG, and weight without increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on metformin alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00528879.

Effects of adjunctive treatment with aripiprazole on body weight and clinical efficacy in schizophrenia patients treated with clozapine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Clozapine is associated with significant weight gain and metabolic disturbances. This multicentre, randomized study comprised a double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase of 16 wk, and an open-label extension phase of 12 wk. Outpatients who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for schizophrenia, who were not optimally controlled while on stable dosage of clozapine for > or =3 months and had experienced weight gain of > or =2.5 kg while taking clozapine, were randomized (n=207) to aripiprazole at 5-15 mg/d or placebo, in addition to a stable dose of clozapine. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in body weight at week 16 (last observation carried forward). Secondary endpoints included clinical efficacy, body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference. A statistically significant difference in weight loss was reported for aripiprazole vs. placebo (-2.53 kg vs. -0.38 kg, respectively, difference=-2.15 kg, p<0.001). Aripiprazole-treated patients also showed BMI (median reduction 0.8 kg/m(2)) and waist circumference reduction (median reduction 2.0 cm) vs. placebo (no change in either parameter, p<0.001 and p=0.001, respectively). Aripiprazole-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. There were no significant differences in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score changes between groups but Clinical Global Impression Improvement and Investigator's Assessment Questionnaire scores favoured aripiprazole over placebo. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable between groups. Combining aripiprazole and clozapine resulted in significant weight, BMI and fasting cholesterol benefits to patients suboptimally treated with clozapine. Improvements may reduce metabolic risk factors associated with clozapine treatment.

The efficacy and safety of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder: a second multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Nonresponse to one or more antidepressants is common and an important public health problem. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole or placebo to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) in patients with major depressive disorder who showed an inadequate response to at least 1 and up to 3 historical and 1 additional prospective ADT. The study comprised a 7-28-day screening, an 8-week prospective treatment, and a 6-week randomization phase. During prospective treatment, patients experiencing a major depressive episode (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score > or = 18) received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus clinicians' choice of ADT (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled-release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended-release). Subjects with inadequate response were randomized to adjunctive placebo (n = 190) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n = 191) (starting dose 5 mg/d, dose adjustments 2-20 mg/d, mean end-point dose of 11.0 mg/d). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score from end of prospective treatment phase to end of randomized treatment phase (last observation carried forward). Mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo (-8.5 vs -5.7; P = 0.001). Remission rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo (25.4% vs 15.2%; P = 0.016) as were response rates (32.4% vs 17.4%; P < 0.001). Adverse events occurring in 10% of patients or more with adjunctive placebo or aripiprazole were akathisia (4.2% vs 25.9%), headache (10.5% vs 9.0%), and fatigue (3.7% vs 10.1%). Incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation was low (adjunctive placebo [1.1%] vs adjunctive aripiprazole [3.7%]). Aripiprazole is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy as demonstrated in this short-term study for patients who are nonresponsive to standard ADT.