Ipilimumab in patients with melanoma and brain metastases: an open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases commonly develop in patients with melanoma and are a frequent cause of death of patients with this disease. Ipilimumab improves survival in patients with advanced melanoma. We aimed to investigate the safety and activity of this drug specifically in patients with brain metastases. METHODS: Between July 31, 2008, and June 3, 2009, we enrolled patients with melanoma and brain metastases from ten US centres who were older than 16 years into two parallel cohorts. Patients in cohort A were neurologically asymptomatic and were not receiving corticosteroid treatment at study entry; those in cohort B were symptomatic and on a stable dose of corticosteroids. Patients were to receive four doses of 10 mg/kg intravenous ipilimumab, one every 3 weeks. Individuals who were clinically stable at week 24 were eligible to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous ipilimumab every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with disease control, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease after 12 weeks, assessed with modified WHO criteria. Analyses of safety and efficacy included all treated patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00623766. FINDINGS: We enrolled 72 patients: 51 into cohort A and 21 into cohort B. After 12 weeks, nine patients in cohort A exhibited disease control (18%, 95% CI 8-31), as did one patient in cohort B (5%, 0·1-24). When the brain alone was assessed, 12 patients in cohort A (24%, 13-38) and two in cohort B (10%, 1-30) achieved disease control. We noted disease control outside of the brain in 14 patients (27%, 16-42) in cohort A and in one individual (5%, 0·1-24) in cohort B. The most common grade 3 adverse events in cohort A were diarrhoea (six patients [12%]) and fatigue (six [12%]); in cohort B, they were dehydration (two individuals [10%]), hyperglycaemia (two [10%]), and increased concentrations of serum aspartate aminotransferase (two [10%]). One patient in each cohort had grade 4 confusion. The most common grade 3 immune-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six patients [12%]) and rash (one [2%]) in cohort A, and rash (one individual [5%]) and increased concentrations of serum aspartate aminotransferase (two [10%]) in cohort B. One patient in cohort A died of drug-related complications of immune-related colitis. INTERPRETATION: Ipilimumab has activity in some patients with advanced melanoma and brain metastases, particularly when metastases are small and asymptomatic. The drug has no unexpected toxic effects in this population. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Daclatasvir vs telaprevir plus peginterferon alfa/ribavirin for hepatitis C virus genotype 1.

AIM: To evaluate daclatasvir vs telaprevir, each combined with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV), in treatment-naive hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) 1-infected patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study, 602 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to daclatasvir vs telaprevir, stratified by IL28B rs12979860 host genotype (CC vs non-CC), cirrhosis status (compensated cirrhosis vs no cirrhosis), and HCV GT1 subtype (GT1a vs GT1b). Patients were selected by study inclusion criteria from a total of 793 enrolled patients. Patients received daclatasvir 60 mg once daily or telaprevir 750 mg 3 times daily plus pegIFN/RBV. Daclatasvir recipients received 24 wk of daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV; those without an extended rapid virologic response (eRVR; undetectable HCV-RNA at weeks 4 and 12) received an additional 24 wk of pegIFN/RBV. Telaprevir-treated patients received 12 wk of telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV followed by 12 (with eRVR) or 36 (no eRVR) wk of pegIFN/RBV. The primary objective was to compare for noninferiority of sustained virologic response rates at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12) in GT1b-infected patients. Key secondary objectives were to demonstrate that the rates of anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL) and rash-related events, through week 12, were lower with daclatasvir + pegIFN/RBV than with telaprevir + pegIFN/RBV among GT1b-infected patients. Resistance testing was performed using population-based sequencing of the NS5A region for all patients at baseline, and for patients with virologic failure or relapse and HCV-RNA ≥ 1000 IU/mL, to investigate any link between NS5A polymorphisms associated with daclatasvir resistance and virologic outcome. RESULTS: Patient demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced across treatment arms; however, there was a higher proportion of black/African Americans in the daclatasvir groups (6.0% and 8.2% in the GT1b and GT1a groups, respectively) than in the telaprevir groups (2.2% and 3.0%). Among GT1b-infected patients, daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV was noninferior to telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV for SVR12 [85% (228/268) vs 81% (109/134); difference, 4.3% (95%CI: -3.3% to 11.9%)]. Anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL) was significantly less frequent with daclatasvir than with telaprevir [difference, -29.1% (95%CI: -38.8% to -19.4%)]. Rash-related events were also less common with daclatasvir than with telaprevir, but the difference was not statistically significant. In GT1a-infected patients, SVR12 was 64.9% with daclatasvir and 69.7% with telaprevir. Among both daclatasvir and telaprevir treatment groups, across GT1b- or GT1a-infected patients, lower response rates were observed in patients with IL28B non-CC and cirrhosis - factors known to affect response to pegIFN/RBV. Consistent with these observations, a multivariate logistic regression analysis in GT1b-infected patients demonstrated that SVR12 was associated with IL28B host genotype (CC vs non-CC, P = 0.011) and cirrhosis status (absent vs present, P = 0.031). NS5A polymorphisms associated with daclatasvir resistance (at L28, R30, L31, or Y93) were observed in 17.3% of GT1b-infected patients at baseline; such variants did not appear to be absolute predictors of failure since 72.1% of these patients achieved SVR12 compared with 86.9% without these polymorphisms. Among GT1b-infected patients, treatment was completed by 85.4% (229/268) in the daclatasvir group, and by 85.1% (114/134) in the telaprevir group, and among GT1a-infected patients, by 67.2% (90/134) and 69.7% (46/66), respectively. Discontinuations (of all 3 agents) due to an AE were more frequent with telaprevir than with daclatasvir, whereas discontinuations due to lack of efficacy were more frequent with daclatasvir, due, in part, to differences in futility criteria. CONCLUSION: Daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV demonstrated noninferiority to telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV for SVR12 and was well-tolerated in treatment-naive GT1b-infected patients, supporting the use of daclatasvir with other direct-acting antivirals.