Amivantamab plus Lazertinib in Previously Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR-related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.).

Management of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in patients receiving amivantamab in the CHRYSALIS study.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab, a fully humanized EGFR-MET bispecific antibody, has antitumor activity in diverse EGFR- and MET-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a safety profile consistent with associated on-target activities. Infusion-related reaction(s) (IRR[s]) are reported commonly with amivantamab. We review IRR and subsequent management in amivantamab-treated patients. METHODS: Patients treated with the approved dose of intravenous amivantamab (1050 mg, <80 kg; 1400 mg, ≥80 kg) in CHRYSALIS-an ongoing, phase 1 study in advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC-were included in this analysis. IRR mitigations included split first dose (350 mg, day 1 [D1]; remainder, D2), reduced initial infusion rates with proactive infusion interruption, and steroid premedication before initial dose. For all doses, pre-infusion antihistamines and antipyretics were required. Steroids were optional after the initial dose. RESULTS: As of 3/30/2021, 380 patients received amivantamab. IRRs were reported in 256 (67%) patients. Signs/symptoms of IRR included chills, dyspnea, flushing, nausea, chest discomfort, and vomiting. Most of the 279 IRRs were grade 1 or 2; grade 3 and 4 IRR occurred in 7 and 1 patients, respectively. Most (90%) IRRs occurred on cycle 1, D1 (C1D1); median time-to-first-IRR onset during C1D1 was 60 min; and first-infusion IRRs did not compromise subsequent infusions. Per protocol, IRR was mitigated on C1D1 with holding of infusion (56% [214/380]), reinitiating at reduced rate (53% [202/380]), and aborting infusion (14% [53/380]). C1D2 infusions were completed in 85% (45/53) of patients who had C1D1 infusions aborted. Four patients (1% [4/380]) discontinued treatment due to IRR. In studies aimed at elucidating the underlying mechanism(s) of IRR, no pattern was observed between patients with versus without IRR. CONCLUSION: IRRs with amivantamab were predominantly low grade and limited to first infusion, and rarely occurred with subsequent dosing. Close monitoring for IRR with the initial amivantamab dose and early intervention at first IRR signs/symptoms should be part of routine amivantamab administration.

Amivantamab in EGFR Exon 20 Insertion-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Progressing on Platinum Chemotherapy: Initial Results From the CHRYSALIS Phase I Study.

PURPOSE: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (Exon20ins) mutations exhibits inherent resistance to approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Amivantamab, an EGFR-MET bispecific antibody with immune cell-directing activity, binds to each receptor's extracellular domain, bypassing resistance at the tyrosine kinase inhibitor binding site. METHODS: CHRYSALIS is a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study, which included a population with EGFR Exon20ins NSCLC. The primary end points were dose-limiting toxicity and overall response rate. We report findings from the postplatinum EGFR Exon20ins NSCLC population treated at the recommended phase II dose of 1,050 mg amivantamab (1,400 mg, ≥ 80 kg) given once weekly for the first 4 weeks and then once every 2 weeks starting at week 5. RESULTS: In the efficacy population (n = 81), the median age was 62 years (range, 42-84 years); 40 patients (49%) were Asian, and the median number of previous lines of therapy was two (range, 1-7). The overall response rate was 40% (95% CI, 29 to 51), including three complete responses, with a median duration of response of 11.1 months (95% CI, 6.9 to not reached). The median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5 to 10.9). In the safety population (n = 114), the most common adverse events were rash in 98 patients (86%), infusion-related reactions in 75 (66%), and paronychia in 51 (45%). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypokalemia in six patients (5%) and rash, pulmonary embolism, diarrhea, and neutropenia in four (4%) each. Treatment-related dose reductions and discontinuations were reported in 13% and 4% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Amivantamab, via its novel mechanism of action, yielded robust and durable responses with tolerable safety in patients with EGFR Exon20ins mutations after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy.

Canagliflozin provides durable glycemic improvements and body weight reduction over 104 weeks versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin: a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy/safety of canagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, compared with glimepiride over 104 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, patients (N = 1,450) received canagliflozin 100 or 300 mg or glimepiride (titrated up to 6 or 8 mg/day) during a 52-week core period followed by a 52-week extension. RESULTS: At week 104, reductions from baseline in A1C were -0.65%, -0.74%, and -0.55% (-7.1, -8.1, and -6.0 mmol/mol) with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg and glimepiride, respectively. Durability analyses showed sustained A1C lowering with both canagliflozin doses versus glimepiride. Reductions in body weight (-4.1%, -4.2%, and 0.9%, respectively) and systolic blood pressure (-2.0, -3.1, and 1.7 mmHg, respectively) were seen with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg compared with glimepiride at week 104. The overall adverse event (AE) incidence was 73.3%, 77.9%, and 78.4% with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg and glimepiride; the incidence of AE-related discontinuations was low across groups (6.2%, 9.5%, and 7.3%, respectively). Incidences of genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infections, and osmotic diuresis-related AEs were higher with canagliflozin than glimepiride; these were generally mild to moderate in intensity and led to few discontinuations. Fewer patients had hypoglycemia episodes with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg than glimepiride (6.8%, 8.2%, and 40.9%). Mild decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate occurred initially with canagliflozin; these attenuated over 104 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin provided durable glycemic improvements compared with glimepiride and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving background treatment with metformin over 104 weeks.