A Bivalent Omicron-BA.4/BA.5-Adapted BNT162b2 Booster in ≥12-Year-Olds.

BACKGROUND: Protection against contemporary SARS-CoV-2 variants requires sequence-adapted vaccines. METHODS: In this ongoing phase 2/3 trial, 12-17-year-olds (n=108), 18-55-year-olds (n=313), and >55-year-olds (n=306) who previously received 3 original BNT162b2 30-µg doses, received a fourth dose (second booster) of 30-µg bivalent original/Omicron-BA.4/BA.5-adapted BNT162b2 (BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5). For comparisons with original BNT162b2, participants were selected from another phase 3 trial. Immunologic superiority 1-month post-vaccination, with respect to 50% neutralizing titers (GMR lower bound [LB] 2-sided 95%CI >1), and noninferiority with respect to seroresponse rates (rate-difference LB 2-sided 95%CI >-5%), for Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were assessed in >55-year-olds versus original BNT162b2 as a second booster. Noninferiority with respect to neutralizing titer level (GMR LB 2-sided 95%CI >0.67) and seroresponse rate (rate-difference LB 2-sided 95%CI >-10%) of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 immune response for BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 in 18‒55-year-olds versus >55-year-olds was assessed. RESULTS: One-month post-vaccination in >55-year-olds, model-adjusted GMR of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 neutralizing titers for the BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 versus BNT162b2 group (2.91; 95%CI 2.45-3.44) demonstrated superiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5. Adjusted difference in percentages of >55-year-olds with seroresponse (26.77%; 95%CI 19.59-33.95) showed noninferiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 to BNT162b2. Noninferiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 in 18‒55-year-olds to >55-year-olds was met for model-adjusted GMR and seroresponse. GMTs in 12-17-year-olds increased from baseline to 1-month post-vaccination. The BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 safety profile was similar to booster doses of bivalent Omicron BA.1-modified BNT162b2 and original BNT162b2 reported in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on immunogenicity and safety data up to 1-month post-vaccination in participants who previously received 3 original BNT162b2 doses, a BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 30 µg booster has a favorable benefit-risk profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05472038.

Randomized trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a booster (third dose) of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine coadministered with 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in adults ≥65 years old.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at increased risk of adverse outcomes from pneumococcal disease and COVID-19. Vaccination is an established strategy for preventing both illnesses. This study evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of coadministration of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) and a booster (third dose) of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicentre study included 570 participants aged ≥65 years randomized 1:1:1 to PCV20 and BNT162b2 coadministered, or PCV20 or BNT162b2 only (administered with saline for blinding). Primary safety endpoints included local reactions, systemic events, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs). Secondary objectives were immunogenicity of PCV20 and BNT162b2 when administered together or separately. RESULTS: Coadministration of PCV20 and BNT162b2 was well tolerated. Local reactions and systemic events were generally mild-moderate; injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequent local and systemic events, respectively. AE and SAE rates were low and similar across groups. No AEs led to discontinuation; no SAEs were considered vaccination-related. Robust immune responses were observed, with opsonophagocytic activity geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs; from baseline to 1 month) of 2.5-24.5 and 2.3-30.6 across PCV20 serotypes in Coadministration and PCV20-only groups, respectively. GMFRs for full-length S-binding IgG of 35.5 and 39.0, and for neutralizing titres against SARS-CoV-2-wild type virus of 58.8 and 65.4, were observed in the Coadministration and BNT162b2-only groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and immunogenicity of coadministered PCV20 and BNT162b2 were similar to those of PCV20 or BNT162b2 administered alone, suggesting that the 2 vaccines may be coadministered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04887948.

Safety and immunogenicity of a 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine coadministered with quadrivalent influenza vaccine: A phase 3 randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults are at increased risk of adverse outcomes from pneumococcal disease and influenza infections. Vaccination is an established strategy for preventing both illnesses. This study evaluated coadministration of 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) and an adjuvanted quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (QIV). METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study included 1796 US adults ≥ 65 years of age randomized 1:1 to receive either PCV20 and QIV followed 1 month later by saline (Coadministration group) or QIV and saline followed 1 month later by PCV20 (Separate Administration group). Primary immunogenicity objectives were to show noninferiority of PCV20 and QIV coadministration compared with separate administration of either vaccine based on serotype-specific opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) titers for PCV20 and strain-specific hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI) titers for QIV. Safety endpoints included local reactions, systemic events, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Noninferiority for pneumococcal and influenza antibody responses (lower bound 95 % CI of the OPA and HAI geometric mean ratios of > 0.5 and > 0.67, respectively) was shown for the Coadministration group compared with the Separate Administration group for all 20 pneumococcal serotypes and all 4 influenza vaccine strains. Local reactions and systemic events were mostly mild or moderate in severity across groups; injection site pain was the most frequent local reaction, and fatigue was the most frequent systemic event. Mild and moderate fatigue were reported more frequently after PCV20 and QIV coadministration compared with separate administration (mild, 20.0 % vs 10.8 %-12.6 %; moderate, 12.3 % vs 8.4 %-9.6 %); this was not considered clinically significant. AE reporting rates were similar across groups, and no serious AEs were considered vaccination-related. CONCLUSIONS: Immune responses after coadministration of PCV20 and QIV were noninferior to separate administration of either vaccine. The PCV20 safety profile was similar when given together with or after QIV. These findings support PCV20 and QIV coadministration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04526574.

Evaluation of the Effects of Repeat-Dose Dabrafenib on the Single-Dose Pharmacokinetics of Rosuvastatin (OATP1B1/1B3 Substrate) and Midazolam (CYP3A4 Substrate).

Dabrafenib is an oral BRAF kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of various BRAF V600 mutation-positive solid tumors. In vitro observations suggesting cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A induction and organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) inhibition prompted us to evaluate the effect of dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam 3 mg (CYP3A substrate) and rosuvastatin 10 mg (OATP1B1/1B3 substrate) in a clinical phase 1, open-label, fixed-sequence study in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive tumors. Repeat dabrafenib dosing resulted in a 2.56-fold increase in rosuvastatin maximum observed concentration (Cmax ), an earlier time to Cmax , but only a 7% increase in area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 (predose) extrapolated to infinite time. Midazolam Cmax and AUC extrapolated to infinite time decreased by 47% and 65%, respectively, with little effect on time to Cmax . No new safety findings were reported. Exposure of drugs that are CYP3A4 substrates is likely to decrease when coadministered with dabrafenib. Concentrations of medicinal products that are sensitive OATP1B1/1B3 substrates may increase during the absorption phase.

Open-label, phase IIa study of dabrafenib plus trametinib in East Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant cutaneous melanoma.

PURPOSE: This study (NCT02083354) assessed the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in East Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant cutaneous melanoma. METHOD: Overall, 77 patients of East Asian origin (including 61 from Mainland China) with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant cutaneous melanoma were enrolled. Prior treatment was allowed except with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Patients received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg once daily. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1. Secondary end-points were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), pharmacokinetics and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff (February 23, 2018; median follow-up, 8.3 months), treatment was ongoing in 36 patients (47%). The median age was 52 years; 32% of patients had elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and 84% had received prior systemic therapy. ORR was 61% (95% confidence interval: 49.2-72.0), with four patients (5%) achieving complete response. Median DOR and PFS were 11.3 and 7.9 months, respectively. Median OS was not reached. The most common adverse event (AE) of any grade was pyrexia (56%). Grade ≥III AEs occurred in 29 patients (38%). The most common grade ≥III AEs were pyrexia (8%) and anaemia (6%). AEs led to permanent discontinuation in five patients (6.5%). Mean Cmax for dabrafenib and trametinib was 3560 and 11.5 ng/mL (day 1) and 2680 and 27.1 ng/mL (day 15), respectively. CONCLUSION: These results support the efficacy and tolerability of dabrafenib in combination with trametinib in East Asian patients with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant cutaneous melanoma.

Association of body-mass index and outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy: a retrospective, multicohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has been linked to increased mortality in several cancer types; however, the relation between obesity and survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between body-mass index (BMI) and progression-free survival or overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma who received targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed independent cohorts of patients with metastatic melanoma assigned to treatment with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy in randomised clinical trials and one retrospective study of patients treated with immunotherapy. Patients were classified according to BMI, following the WHO definitions, as underweight, normal, overweight, or obese. Patients without BMI and underweight patients were excluded. The primary outcomes were the associations between BMI and progression-free survival or overall survival, stratified by treatment type and sex. We did multivariable analyses in the independent cohorts, and combined adjusted hazard ratios in a mixed-effects meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of the association between BMI and survival outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed with meta-regression analyses. Analyses were done on the predefined intention-to-treat population in the randomised controlled trials and on all patients included in the retrospective study. FINDINGS: The six cohorts consisted of a total of 2046 patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy between Aug 8, 2006, and Jan 15, 2016. 1918 patients were included in the analysis. Two cohorts containing patients from randomised controlled trials treated with targeted therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib [n=599] and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib [n=240]), two cohorts containing patients treated with immunotherapy (one randomised controlled trial of ipilimumab plus dacarbazine [n=207] and a retrospective cohort treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab [n=331]), and two cohorts containing patients treated with chemotherapy (two randomised controlled trials of dacarbazine [n=320 and n=221]) were classified according to BMI as normal (694 [36%] patients), overweight (711 [37%]), or obese (513 [27%]). In the pooled analysis, obesity, compared with normal BMI, was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma (average adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·66-0·90] for progression-free survival and 0·74 [0·58-0·95] for overall survival). The survival benefit associated with obesity was restricted to patients treated with targeted therapy (HR 0·72 [0·57-0·91] for progression-free survival and 0·60 [0·45-0·79] for overall survival) and immunotherapy (HR 0·75 [0·56-1·00] and 0·64 [0·47-0·86]). No associations were observed with chemotherapy (HR 0·87 [0·65-1·17, pinteraction=0·61] for progression-free survival and 1·03 [0·80-1·34, pinteraction=0·01] for overall survival). The association of BMI with overall survival for patients treated with targeted and immune therapies differed by sex, with inverse associations in men (HR 0·53 [0·40-0·70]), but no associations observed in women (HR 0·85 [0·61-1·18, pinteraction=0·03]). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that in patients with metastatic melanoma, obesity is associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with those outcomes in patients with normal BMI, and that this association is mainly seen in male patients treated with targeted or immune therapy. These results have implications for the design of future clinical trials for patients with metastatic melanoma and the magnitude of the benefit found supports further investigation of the underlying mechanism of these associations. FUNDING: ASCO/CCF Young Investigator Award, ASCO/CCF Career Development Award, MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Melanoma Moonshot Program, MDACC Melanoma SPORE, and the Dr Miriam and Sheldon G Adelson Medical Research Foundation.