Durvalumab as monotherapy and in combination therapy in patients with lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia: The FUSION NHL 001 trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors may represent a promising strategy for boosting immune responses and improving the antitumor activity of standard therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies. AIMS: Phase 1/2 FUSION NHL 001 was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of durvalumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, combined with standard-of-care therapies for lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoints were to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the drugs used in combination with durvalumab (durvalumab was administered at the previously recommended dose of 1500 mg every 4 weeks) and to assess safety and tolerability. Patients were enrolled into one of four arms: durvalumab monotherapy (Arm D) or durvalumab in combination with lenalidomide ± rituximab (Arm A), ibrutinib (Arm B), or rituximab ± bendamustine (Arm C). A total of 106 patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma were enrolled. All but two patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); those not experiencing a TEAE were in Arm C (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL]) and Arm D (DLBCL during the durvalumab monotherapy treatment period). No new safety signals were identified, and TEAEs were consistent with the respective safety profiles for each study treatment. Across the study, patients with follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23) had an overall response rate (ORR) of 59%; ORR among DLBCL patients (n = 37) was 18%. Exploratory biomarker analysis showed that response to durvalumab monotherapy or combination therapy was associated with higher interferon-γ signature scores in patients with FL (p = .02). CONCLUSION: Durvalumab as monotherapy or in combination is tolerable but requires close monitoring. The high rate of TEAEs during this study may reflect on the difficulty in combining durvalumab with full doses of other agents. Durvalumab alone or in combination appeared to add limited benefit to therapy.

Phase 2 results of lisocabtagene maraleucel in Japanese patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product, lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), is administered at equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells. This analysis assessed safety and efficacy of liso-cel in Japanese patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) aggressive large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) in Cohort 3 of TRANSCEND WORLD (NCT03484702). Liso-cel (100 × 106 total CAR+ T cells) was administered 2-7 days after lymphodepletion. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; Lugano 2014 criteria) assessed by an independent review committee. Fourteen patients were enrolled; 10 received liso-cel infusion (median time to liso-cel availability, 23 days) and were evaluable at data cutoff (median follow-up, 12.5 months). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (90%), leukopenia (80%), anemia (70%), and thrombocytopenia (70%). All-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was observed in 50% of patients, though no grade ≥3 CRS events were reported. Grade 1 neurological events occurred in 1 patient but were resolved without any intervention. Prolonged cytopenia (grade ≥ 3 at day 29) was reported for 60% of patients. The ORR was 70%, and complete response rate was 50%. The median duration of response was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-not reached), and overall survival was 14.7 months (95% CI, 1.7-not reached). One patient diagnosed with central nervous system involvement after screening but before liso-cel infusion, responded to liso-cel. Liso-cel demonstrated meaningful efficacy and a manageable safety profile in Japanese patients with R/R LBCL.

Safety and immunogenicity of a multivalent HIV vaccine comprising envelope protein with either DNA or NYVAC vectors (HVTN 096): a phase 1b, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to now, immunisation regimens that have been assessed for development of HIV vaccines have included purified envelope (Env) protein among the boosting components of the regimen. We postulated that co-administration of Env protein with either a DNA or NYVAC vector during priming would result in early generation of antibody responses to the Env V1/V2 region, which are important markers for effective protection against infection. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a multivalent HIV vaccine including either DNA or NYVAC vectors alone or in combination with Env glycoprotein (gp120) followed by a co-delivered NYVAC and Env protein boost. METHODS: We did a single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b trial at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (Lausanne, Switzerland). We included healthy volunteers aged 18-50 years who were at low risk of HIV infection. We randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to one of four vaccination schedules or placebo (4:1), and within these schedules participants were allocated either active treatment (T1, T2, T3, and T4) or placebo (C1, C2, C3, and C4). T1 consisted of two doses of NYVAC vector followed by two doses of NYVAC vector and gp120 Env protein; T2 comprised four doses of NYVAC vector and gp120 Env protein; T3 was two doses of DNA vector followed by two doses of NYVAC vector and gp120 Env protein; and T4 was two doses of DNA vector and gp120 Env protein followed by two doses of NYVAC vector and gp120 Env protein. Placebo injections were matched to the corresponding active treatment group. Doses were administered by injection at months 0, 1, 3, and 6. Primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine schedules. Immune response measures included cross-clade and epitope-specific binding antibodies, neutralising antibodies, and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity measured 2 weeks after the month 1, 3, and 6 vaccinations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01799954. FINDINGS: Between Aug 23, 2012, and April 18, 2013, 148 healthy adult volunteers were screened for the trial, of whom 96 participants were enrolled. 20 individuals were allocated to each active treatment group (groups T1-4; n=80) and four were assigned to each placebo group (groups C1-4; n=16). Vaccines containing the NYVAC vector (groups T1 and T2) were associated with more frequent severe reactogenicity and more adverse events than were vaccines containing the DNA vector (groups T3 and T4). The most frequent adverse events judged related to study product were lymphadenopathy (n=9) and hypoaesthesia (n=2). Two participants, one in the placebo group and one in the DNA-primed T3 group, had serious adverse events that were judged unrelated to study product. One participant in the T3 group died from cranial trauma after a motor vehicle accident. Across the active treatment groups, IgG responses 2 weeks after the 6-month dose of vaccine were 74-95%. Early administration of gp120 Env protein (groups T2 and T4) was associated with a substantially earlier and higher area under the curve for gp120 Env binding, production of anti-V1/V2 and neutralising antibodies, and better antibody-response coverage over a period of 18 months, compared with vaccination regimens that delayed administration of gp120 Env protein until the 3-month vaccination (groups T1 and T3). INTERPRETATION: Co-administration of gp120 Env protein components with DNA or NYVAC vectors during priming led to early and potent induction of Env V1/V2 IgG binding antibody responses. This immunisation approach should be considered for induction of preventive antibodies in future HIV vaccine efficacy trials. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Immunogenicity and safety of double versus standard dose of the seasonal influenza vaccine in solid-organ transplant recipients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of vaccines with higher doses of antigen is an attractive strategy to improve the immunogenicity of influenza vaccination in transplant recipients. However, the effect of vaccination with a double-dose (DD) containing 30 µg of antigen in this population remains unknown. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial to compare the immunogenicity and safety of DD (30 µg) vs. standard dose (SD, 15 µg) of a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in kidney and liver transplant recipients. Immunogenicity was assessed by hemagglutination-inhibition assay. Vaccine response was defined as seroconversion to at least one viral strain 2 weeks after vaccination and seroprotection as a titer ≥40. RESULTS: Sixty-three kidney and 16 liver transplant recipients were enrolled. Forty patients received the DD and 39 the SD vaccine. Overall, 40% of patients in the DD compared to 26% in the SD group (P = 0.174) responded to vaccine. In the DD arm, more patients were seroprotected to all viral strains after vaccination (88% vs 69%, P = 0.048). Post vaccination geometric mean titers of antibodies were 131.9 vs. 89.7 (P = 0.187) for H1N1, 185.4 vs. 138.7 (P = 0.182) for H3N2, and 96.6 vs. 68.8 (P = 0.081) for influenza B with the DD vs. SD. In both groups, most of the adverse events were mild and no vaccine-related severe adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Double-dose influenza vaccine is safe and may increase antibody response in transplant recipients. In this population, DD vaccination could be an alternative when high-dose vaccine is not available. NCT02746783.

Safety, tolerability and efficacy of intradermal rabies immunization with DebioJect™.

In a single-center study, 66 healthy volunteers aged between 18 and 50years were randomized to be immunized against rabies with three different injection routes: intradermal with DebioJect™ (IDJ), standard intradermal with classical needle (IDS), also called Mantoux method, and intramuscular with classical needle (IM). "Vaccin rabique Pasteur®" and saline solution (NaCl 0.9%) were administered at D0, D7 and D28. Antigen doses for both intradermal routes were 1/5 of the dose for IM. Tolerability, safety and induced immunogenicity of IDJ were compared to IDS and IM routes. Pain was evaluated at needle insertion and at product injection for all vaccination visits. Solicited Adverse Event (SolAE) and local reactogenicity symptoms including pain, redness and pruritus were recorded daily following each vaccination visit. Adverse events (AE) were recorded over the whole duration of the study. Humoral immune response was measured by assessing the rabies virus neutralizing antibody (VNA) titers using Rapid Fluorescent Focus Inhibition Test (RFFIT). Results demonstrated that the DebioJect™ is a safe, reliable and efficient device. Significant decreases of pain at needle insertion and at vaccine injection were reported with IDJ compared to IDS and IM. All local reactogenicity symptoms (pain, redness and pruritus) after injection with either vaccine or saline solution, were similar for IDJ and IDS, except that IDJ injection induced more redness 30min after saline solution. No systemic SolAE was deemed related to DebioJect™ and classical needles. No AE was deemed related to DebioJect™. No Serious Adverse Event (SAE) was reported during the study. At the end of the study all participants were considered immunized against rabies and no significant difference in humoral response was observed between the 3 studied routes.

Safety of human immunisation with a live-attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis vaccine: a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase I trial.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis remains one of the world's deadliest transmissible diseases despite widespread use of the BCG vaccine. MTBVAC is a new live tuberculosis vaccine based on genetically attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis that expresses most antigens present in human isolates of M tuberculosis. We aimed to compare the safety of MTBVAC with BCG in healthy adult volunteers. METHODS: We did this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 1 study at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV; Lausanne, Switzerland). Volunteers were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18-45 years, clinically healthy, HIV-negative and tuberculosis-negative, and had no history of active tuberculosis, chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis, or BCG vaccination. Volunteers fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to three cohorts in a dose-escalation manner. Randomisation was done centrally by the CHUV Pharmacy and treatments were masked from the study team and volunteers. As participants were recruited within each cohort, they were randomly assigned 3:1 to receive MTBVAC or BCG. Of the participants allocated MTBVAC, those in the first cohort received 5 × 10(3) colony forming units (CFU) MTBVAC, those in the second cohort received 5 × 10(4) CFU MTBVAC, and those in the third cohort received 5 × 10(5) CFU MTBVAC. In all cohorts, participants assigned to receive BCG were given 5 × 10(5) CFU BCG. Each participant received a single intradermal injection of their assigned vaccine in 0·1 mL sterile water in their non-dominant arm. The primary outcome was safety in all vaccinated participants. Secondary outcomes included whole blood cell-mediated immune response to live MTBVAC and BCG, and interferon γ release assays (IGRA) of peripheral blood mononuclear cells. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02013245. FINDINGS: Between Jan 23, 2013, and Nov 6, 2013, we enrolled 36 volunteers into three cohorts, each of which consisted of nine participants who received MTBVAC and three who received BCG. 34 volunteers completed the trial. The safety of vaccination with MTBVAC at all doses was similar to that of BCG, and vaccination did not induce any serious adverse events. All individuals were IGRA negative at the end of follow-up (day 210). After whole blood stimulation with live MTBVAC or BCG, MTBVAC was at least as immunogenic as BCG. At the same dose as BCG (5×10(5) CFU), although no statistical significance could be achieved, there were more responders in the MTBVAC group than in the BCG group, with a greater frequency of polyfunctional CD4+ central memory T cells. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, MTBVAC is the first live-attenuated M tuberculosis vaccine to reach clinical assessment, showing similar safety to BCG. MTBVAC seemed to be at least as immunogenic as BCG, but the study was not powered to investigate this outcome. Further plans to use more immunogenicity endpoints in a larger number of volunteers (adults and adolescents) are underway, with the aim to thoroughly characterise and potentially distinguish immunogenicity between MTBVAC and BCG in tuberculosis-endemic countries. Combined with an excellent safety profile, these data support advanced clinical development in high-burden tuberculosis endemic countries. FUNDING: Biofabri and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through the TuBerculosis Vaccine Initiative (TBVI).