Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).

Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS: Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS: The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (a programmed death 1 [PD-1] checkpoint inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] checkpoint inhibitor) have been shown to have complementary activity in metastatic melanoma. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab was compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, 945 previously untreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma to nivolumab alone, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or ipilimumab alone. Progression-free survival and overall survival were coprimary end points. Results regarding progression-free survival are presented here. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Efficacy of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in the long-term treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder with an inadequate response to lithium or valproate monotherapy: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole (ARI) adjunctive to lithium (Li) or valproate (Val) (ARI+Li / Val) compared with placebo (PLB) adjunctive to Li or Val (PLB+Li / Val) as maintenance therapy for patients with bipolar I disorder who had an inadequate response to Li or Val monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with a current manic/mixed episode received Li or Val for at least 2 weeks. Those with an inadequate response [Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≥ 16 and ≤ 35% decrease from baseline at 2 weeks] received adjunctive single-blind ARI plus mood stabilizer. Patients who achieved stability [YMRS and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≤ 12] for 12 consecutive weeks were randomized to double-blind ARI (10-30 mg/day) or PLB+Li / Val. Relapse was monitored for 52 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were randomized to ARI+ Li / Val (n=168) or PLB+Li / Val (n=169). The Kaplan-Meier relapse rate at 52 weeks was 17% with ARI+Li / Val and 29% with PLB+Li / Val. ARI+Li / Val significantly delayed time to any relapse compared with PLB+Li / Val; hazard ratio=0.54 (95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.89; log-rank p=0.014). The most common AEs ≥ 5%(ARI+Li / Val versus PLB+Li / Val) were headache (13.2% versus 10.8%), weight increase (9.0% versus 6.6%), tremor (6.0% versus 2.4%), and insomnia (5.4% versus 9.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of ARI+Li / Val treatment increased the time to relapse to any mood episode compared with Li or Val monotherapy, and was relatively well tolerated during the one-year study. These findings suggest that there is a long-term benefit in continuing ARI adjunctive to a mood stabilizer after sustained remission is achieved.

Evaluation of Two Dosing Regimens for Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 511 Trial.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries. We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses. After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups. Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 ( P = .006). In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group. Median overall survival was not reached in either group. CONCLUSION: The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3. Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 26-week trial of aripiprazole in recently manic patients with bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of aripiprazole in preventing relapse of a mood episode in recently manic- or mixed-episode patients with bipolar I disorder stabilized on aripiprazole. METHOD: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study enrolled patients from 76 centers in 3 countries (Argentina, Mexico, United States) from March 2000 to June 2003. Bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV) patients who had recently been hospitalized and treated for a manic or mixed episode entered an open-label stabilization phase (aripiprazole monotherapy: 15 or 30 mg/day, 6-18 weeks). After meeting stabilization criteria (Young Mania Rating Scale score of < or = 10 and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score of < or = 13 for 6 consecutive weeks), 161 patients were randomly assigned to aripiprazole or placebo for the 26-week, double-blind phase. The primary endpoint was time to relapse for a manic, mixed, or depressive episode (defined by discontinuation caused by lack of efficacy). RESULTS: Aripiprazole was superior to placebo in delaying the time to relapse (p = .020). Aripiprazole-treated patients had significantly fewer relapses (25%) than placebo patients (43%; p = .013). Aripiprazole was superior to placebo in delaying the time to manic relapse (p = .01); however, no significant differences were observed in time to depressive relapse (p = .68). Weight gain (> or = 7% increase) occurred in 7 (13%) aripiprazole-treated and 0 placebo-treated patients. Adverse events (> or = 5% incidence and twice that of placebo) reported by aripiprazole-treated patients were akathisia, pain in the extremities, tremor, and vaginitis. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole, 15 or 30 mg/day, was superior to placebo in maintaining efficacy in patients with bipolar I disorder with a recent manic or mixed episode who were stabilized and maintained on aripiprazole treatment for 6 weeks, as shown by a longer time to relapse.

Aripiprazole in the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder: a 3-week placebo-controlled study.

This study compares the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a partial dopamine agonist, aripiprazole, with placebo in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic or mixed episode. In total, 272 hospitalized patients were randomized to aripiprazole 30 mg/day or placebo in this 3-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Dosing could be reduced to 15 mg/day for tolerability and, subsequently, increased to 30 mg/day based on clinical response. Primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline to endpoint in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score; response was defined as > or = 50% decrease from baseline YMRS score. Aripiprazole-treated patients demonstrated significantly greater improvement from baseline to endpoint in mean YMRS total scores compared with placebo-treated patients as early as Day 4 and sustained through Week 3. A significantly higher response rate was observed in aripiprazole-treated patients (53% vs. 32% at endpoint). Aripiprazole produced significantly greater improvements from baseline on other efficacy assessments compared with placebo, including Clinical Global Impression - Bipolar Version Severity and Improvement scores. The 30 mg/day dose was maintained by 85% of aripiprazole-treated patients. Incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events was similar for aripiprazole (8.8%) and placebo (7.5%). Aripiprazole treatment resulted in no significant difference from placebo in change in mean body weight and was not associated with elevated serum prolactin or QTc prolongation. In conclusion, aripiprazole demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder presenting with acute manic or mixed episodes, and exhibited a favourable safety and tolerability profile.

Improvement in functional outcomes with adjunctive aripiprazole versus placebo in major depressive disorder: a pooled post hoc analysis of 3 short-term studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of adjunctive aripiprazole to antidepressant therapy (ADT) on functional outcomes, as assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). METHOD: A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 similarly designed randomized, placebo-controlled trials was conducted (CN138-139 [September 2004-December 2006], CN138-163 [June 2004-April 2006], and CN138-165 [March 2005-April 2008]). Patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder who had a prior inadequate response to ADT received adjunctive aripiprazole or placebo to standard ADT. The change from baseline to endpoint on total SDS score and on individual SDS domains and the distributional categorical shifts of patient-reported severity of functional impairment on the SDS were assessed. RESULTS: Aripiprazole compared to placebo augmentation produced significant improvements in self-reported functioning levels in the SDS mean total score (-1.2 vs -0.7, P ≤ .001) and social life (-1.4 vs -0.7, P ≤ .001) and family life (-1.4 vs -0.7, P ≤ .001) domains. Additionally, a significant number of patients exhibited a shift from a severe/moderate level of impairment at baseline to a mild level of functional impairment after 6 weeks of adjunctive aripiprazole treatment compared with placebo in the SDS mean total score (P = .001) and social life (P ≤ .001) and family life (P = .001) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole augmentation of standard antidepressant therapy resulted in significant improvements in both total and individual domains of functioning, as assessed by the SDS, with significant categorical shifts from severe/moderate to mild levels of functioning compared with placebo augmentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00095823, NCT00095758, and NCT00105196.

Efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in patients with major depressive disorder who showed minimal response to initial antidepressant therapy.

To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in patients with minimal response to prior antidepressant therapy (ADT). Pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies assessing the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole to ADT in patients with major depressive disorder who had a minimal response [< 25% reduction on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)] to an 8-week prospective ADT. During the 6-week, double-blind adjunctive phase, response was defined as at least 50% reduction in the MADRS score and remission as at least 50% reduction in MADRS score and a MADRS score ≤ 10. Rates were examined using analysis of covariance and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to calculate time to response and remission. Of 1038 patients, 72% (n=746) exhibited a minimal response to ADT (ADT minimal responder). Time to response and remission were significantly shorter for ADT minimal responders receiving aripiprazole+ADT versus adjunctive placebo+ADT. ADT minimal responders on aripiprazole+ADT showed significantly greater improvements in MADRS score at endpoint compared with minimal responders on placebo+ADT (-10.3 vs. -6.5, P<0.0001). In addition, ADT minimal responders exhibited significantly higher response rates with aripiprazole+ADT than placebo+ADT (36 vs. 19%, respectively, P<0.0001) and higher remission rates (24 vs. 12%, respectively, P<0.0001). The numbers needed to treat with aripiprazole+ADT were six for response and eight for remission. Aripiprazole augmentation had a rapid and clinically meaningful effect in ADT minimal responders.

Safety and tolerability of the γ-secretase inhibitor avagacestat in a phase 2 study of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of the -secretase inhibitor avagacestat in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled,24-week phase 2 study. SETTING: Global, multicenter trial. PATIENTS: A total of 209 outpatients with mild to moderate AD were randomized into the double-blind treatment phase. The median age of the patients was 75 years,58.9% were APOE ε4 carriers, and baseline measures of disease severity were similar among groups. INTERVENTION: Avagacestat, 25, 50, 100, or 125 mg daily,or placebo administered orally daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety and tolerability of avagacestat. RESULTS: Discontinuation rates for the 25-mg and 50-mg doses of avagacestat were comparable with placebo but were higher in the 100-mg and 125-mg dose groups.Trends for worsening cognition, as measured by change from baseline Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale score, were observed in the 100-mg and125-mg dose groups. Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were similar across placebo and treatment groups. The most common reason for discontinuation was adverse events, predominantly gastrointestinal anddermatologic. Other adverse events occurring more frequentlyin patients undergoing treatment included reversibleglycosuria (without associated serum glucose changes), nonmelanoma skin cancer, and asymptomaticmagnetic resonance imaging findings. Exploratory cerebrospinal fluid amyloid isoforms and tau biomarker analysis demonstrated dose-dependent but not statistically significant reductions in a small subset of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Avagacestat dosed at 25 and 50 mg daily was relatively well tolerated and had low discontinuation rates. The 100-mg and 125-mg dose arms were poorly tolerated with trends for cognitive worsening. Exploratory cerebrospinal fluid biomarker substudies provide preliminary support for -secretase target engagement,but additional studies are warranted to better characterize pharmacodynamic effects at the 25- and 50-mg doses.This study establishes an acceptable safety and tolerability dose range for future avagacestat studies in AD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00810147

A comparison of two fixed doses of aripiprazole with placebo in acutely relapsed, hospitalized patients with bipolar disorder I (manic or mixed) in subpopulations (CN138-007).

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of two fixed doses of aripiprazole (15 mg/day, n = 131 and 30 mg/day, n = 136) compared with placebo (n = 134) in acutely manic or mixed bipolar I hospitalized patients. The mean change from baseline to Week 3 in the YMRS Total Scores was -10.01 (95% CI: -11.92, -8.09) for aripiprazole 15 mg/day, -10.80 (95% CI: -12.71, -8.90) for aripiprazole 30 mg/day, and -10.12 (95% CI: -12.01, -8.24) for placebo. The most frequent adverse events (> or = 10% and greater than placebo) for either of the aripiprazole treatment groups were headache, nausea, dyspepsia, insomnia, agitation, constipation, akathisia, anxiety, lightheadedness, vomiting, diarrhea, asthenia and extremity pain. Aripiprazole 15 or 30 mg/day was not significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of bipolar I disorder acute mania at endpoint (Week 3). A high placebo response rate may have accounted for the lack of separation between treatment groups.