The JAVELIN Bladder Medley trial: avelumab-based combinations as first-line maintenance in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Results from JAVELIN Bladder 100 established avelumab (anti-PD-L1) first-line maintenance as the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) that has not progressed with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We describe the design of JAVELIN Bladder Medley (NCT05327530), an ongoing phase II, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-arm, umbrella trial. Overall, 252 patients with advanced UC who are progression-free following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy will be randomized 1:2:2:2 to receive maintenance therapy with avelumab alone (control group) or combined with sacituzumab govitecan (anti-Trop-2/topoisomerase inhibitor conjugate), M6223 (anti-TIGIT) or NKTR-255 (recombinant human IL-15). Primary end points are progression-free survival per investigator and safety/tolerability of the combination regimens. Secondary end points include overall survival, objective response and duration of response per investigator, and pharmacokinetics.

Urothelial cancer develops in the urinary tract, which contains the parts of the body that move urine from the kidneys to outside of the body. Urothelial cancer is called advanced when it has spread outside of the urinary tract. Chemotherapy is often the first main treatment given to people with advanced urothelial cancer. Avelumab is an immunotherapy drug that can help the body's immune system find and destroy cancer cells. Results from a trial called JAVELIN Bladder 100 looked at avelumab maintenance treatment, which is given after chemotherapy. The trial showed that avelumab maintenance treatment helped people with advanced urothelial cancer live longer than people who were not treated with avelumab. Avelumab also helped people have a longer time without their cancer getting worse. Avelumab is the only approved maintenance treatment available for people with advanced urothelial cancer that has not worsened after chemotherapy. The JAVELIN Bladder Medley trial will assess whether avelumab maintenance treatment given in combination with other anticancer drugs can help people with advanced urothelial cancer live longer and have a longer time without their cancer getting worse compared with avelumab alone. Researchers will also look at the side effects people have when they receive avelumab alone or combined with the other anticancer drugs in this trial. Results will show whether the benefit of avelumab maintenance treatment can be improved by combining avelumab with other anticancer drugs. People started joining this trial in August 2022. Results will be reported in the future. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05327530 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Avelumab Versus Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients With High-Expression Programmed Death-Ligand 1-Positive Metastatic NSCLC: Primary Analysis From the Phase 3 JAVELIN Lung 100 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We report the primary analysis from JAVELIN Lung 100, a phase 3 trial comparing avelumab (anti⁠-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive (+) advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Adults with PD-L1+ (≥1% of tumor cells; PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 73-10 pharmDx), EGFR and ALK wild-type, previously untreated, stage IV NSCLC were randomized to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W), avelumab 10 mg/kg once weekly (QW) for 12 weeks and Q2W thereafter, or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee. The primary analysis population was patients with high-expression PD-L1+ tumors (≥80% of tumor cells). RESULTS: A total of 1214 patients were randomized to avelumab Q2W (n = 366), avelumab QW (n = 322), or chemotherapy (n = 526). In the primary analysis population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS with avelumab Q2W (n = 151) versus chemotherapy (n = 216) were 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-1.09; one-sided p = 0.1032; median OS, 20.1 versus 14.9 mo) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.54-0.93; one-sided p = 0.0070; median PFS, 8.4 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. With avelumab QW (n = 130) versus chemotherapy (n = 129), HRs were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59-1.07; one-sided p = 0.0630; median OS, 19.3 versus 15.3 mo) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98; one-sided p = 0.0196; median PFS, 7.5 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Longer median OS and PFS were observed with avelumab versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, but differences in OS and PFS were not statistically significant, and the trial did not meet its primary objective. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT02576574.

Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines based on mRNA coding for antigens have been shown to be safe and immunogenic in preclinical models. We aimed to report results of the first-in-human proof-of-concept clinical trial in healthy adults of a prophylactic mRNA-based vaccine encoding rabies virus glycoprotein (CV7201). METHODS: We did an open-label, uncontrolled, prospective, phase 1 clinical trial at one centre in Munich, Germany. Healthy male and female volunteers (aged 18-40 years) with no history of rabies vaccination were sequentially enrolled. They received three doses of CV7201 intradermally or intramuscularly by needle-syringe or one of three needle-free devices. Escalating doses were given to subsequent cohorts, and one cohort received a booster dose after 1 year. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The secondary endpoint was to determine the lowest dose of CV7201 to elicit rabies virus neutralising titres equal to or greater than the WHO-specified protective antibody titre of 0·5 IU/mL. The study is continuing for long-term safety and immunogenicity follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02241135. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2013, and Jan 11, 2016, we enrolled and vaccinated 101 participants with 306 doses of mRNA (80-640 µg) by needle-syringe (18 intradermally and 24 intramuscularly) or needle-free devices (46 intradermally and 13 intramuscularly). In the 7 days post vaccination, 60 (94%) of 64 intradermally vaccinated participants and 36 (97%) of 37 intramuscularly vaccinated participants reported solicited injection site reactions, and 50 (78%) of 64 intradermally vaccinated participants and 29 (78%) of 37 intramuscularly vaccinated participants reported solicited systemic adverse events, including ten grade 3 events. One unexpected, possibly related, serious adverse reaction that occurred 7 days after a 640 µg intramuscular dose resolved without sequelae. mRNA vaccination by needle-free intradermal or intramuscular device injection induced virus neutralising antibody titres of 0·5 IU/mL or more across dose levels and schedules in 32 (71%) of 45 participants given 80 µg or 160 µg CV7201 doses intradermally and six (46%) of 13 participants given 200 µg or 400 µg CV7201 doses intramuscularly. 1 year later, eight (57%) of 14 participants boosted with an 80 µg needle-free intradermal dose of CV7201 achieved titres of 0·5 IU/mL or more. Conversely, intradermal or intramuscular needle-syringe injection was ineffective, with only one participant (who received 320 µg intradermally) showing a detectable immune response. INTERPRETATION: This first-ever demonstration in human beings shows that a prophylactic mRNA-based candidate vaccine can induce boostable functional antibodies against a viral antigen when administered with a needle-free device, although not when injected by a needle-syringe. The vaccine was generally safe with a reasonable tolerability profile. FUNDING: CureVac AG.

Risk-benefit assessment of closed intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the current state of evidence.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aims to analyse the risk-benefit association of (1) prophylactic drains and/or (2) the time of their removal after pancreatic resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Biosis, and The Cochrane Library) was performed to identify all types of controlled trials comparing the role of drainage or the time of their removal on postoperative complications following pancreatic surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Four studies, two randomised trials and two prospective cohort studies, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Removal of drains at day 5 or later did not show an influence on mortality, morbidity, re-intervention or hospital stay compared to no insertion of drains. Early (day 3-4) compared to late (≥ day 5) drain removal significantly reduced pancreatic fistulas (odds ratio (OR) 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.32; P = 0.0002), intra-abdominal collections (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.67; P = 0.02) and abscesses (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-1.00; P = 0.05). Moreover, hospital stay was significantly reduced after early drain removal (mean difference -2.60 days; 95% CI -4.74 to -0.46; P = 0.02) CONCLUSION: Further randomised controlled trials are warranted to clarify whether drains are of any use. In case of drain insertion, early removal seems to be superior to late removal.