Resistance to anti-PD1 therapies in patients with advanced melanoma: systematic literature review and application of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Immunotherapy Resistance Taskforce anti-PD1 resistance definitions.

Nearly half of advanced melanoma patients do not achieve a clinical response with anti-programmed cell death 1 protein (PD1) therapy (i.e. primary resistance) or initially achieve a clinical response but eventually progress during or following further treatment (i.e. secondary resistance). A consensus definition for tumor resistance to anti-PD1 monotherapy was published by Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Immunotherapy Resistance Taskforce (SITC) in 2020. A systematic literature review (SLR) of clinical trials and observational studies was conducted to characterize the proportions of advanced melanoma patients who have progressed on anti-PD1 therapies. The SLR included 55 unique studies and the SITC definition of primary resistance was applied to 37 studies that specified disease progression by best overall response. Median and range of patients with primary resistance in studies that specified first-line and second-line or higher anti-PD1 monotherapy was 35.50% (21.19-39.13%; n = 4 studies) and 41.54% (30.00-56.41%, n = 3 studies); median and range of patients with primary resistance in studies that specified first-line and second-line or higher combination therapy was 30.23% (15.79-33.33%; n = 6 studies), and 70.00% (61.10-73.33%; n = 3 studies). Primary resistance to anti-PD1 monotherapies and when in combination with ipilimumab are higher in patients receiving second-line or higher therapies, in patients with acral, mucosal, and uveal melanoma, and in patients with active brain metastases. The percentage of patients with primary resistance was generally consistent across clinical trials, with variability in resistance noted for observational studies. Limitations include applying the SITC definitions to combination therapies, where consensus definitions are not yet available. Future studies should highly consider utilizing the SITC definitions to harmonize how resistance is classified and facilitate meaningful context for clinical activity.

KRAS mutation as a prognostic factor and predictive factor in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

KRAS (Kirsten Rat Sarcoma) is the most common oncogenic mutation detected in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the role of KRAS as either a prognostic factor or predictive factor (modifier of treatment effects) in NSCLC is not well established at this time. This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis synthesized the available evidence regarding the role of KRAS mutation as a predictive factor and/or prognostic factor of survival and response outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC. Relevant clinical trials and observational studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analyses were performed using data extracted from multivariable and univariable analyses from clinical studies to assess the empirical evidence of KRAS mutation status as a prognostic or/and predicitive factor. 43 selected studies were identified by the SLR and included in this meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did not demonstrate a significant prognostic effect of mutant KRAS on overall survival (OS) (HR=1.10; 95% CI [0.88, 1.38]) or progression free survival (PFS) (HR=1.03; 95% CI [0.80, 1.33]). However, when conducting meta-analyses on HRs reported in observational studies, a statistically significant negative prognostic effect of mutant KRAS was observed (OS HR=1.71; 95% CI [1.07, 2.84]; PFS HR=1.18; 95% CI [1.02, 1.36]). Meta-analyses of objective response rate (ORR) in RCTs demonstrated a negative prognostic effect of mutant KRAS (RR=0.38; 95% CI [0.16, 0.63]). Limited data were available to evaluate the role of KRAS mutation as a predictive factor. In conclusion, this research offers evidence that KRAS mutation may be a negative prognostic factor for survival and response outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, but further research is needed to address conflicting results on the importance of KRAS mutations as a predictive factor.

Comparative efficacy and safety of dabrafenib in combination with trametinib versus competing adjuvant therapies for high-risk melanoma.

Aim To conduct a systematic literature review of high-risk resectable cutaneous melanoma adjuvant therapeutics and compare safety and efficacy. Methods: The systematic literature review included randomized controlled trials investigating: dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB + TRAM), nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, vemurafenib, chemotherapy and interferons. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and safety. All outcomes were synthesized using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: Across relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and OS, DAB + TRAM had the lowest estimated hazards of respective events relative to all other treatments (exception relative to nivolumab in OS). Differences were significant relative to placebo, chemotherapy, interferons and ipilimumab. Conclusion: DAB + TRAM has improved efficacy over historical treatment options (ipilimumab, interferons and chemotherapy) and comparable efficacy with other targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Comparative efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide versus SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients inadequately controlled with one to two oral antidiabetic drugs: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide relative to sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) licensed in Europe and North America among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with 1-2 oral antidiabetics (OADs), using a network meta-analysis (NMA). Design systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data Sources EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched from January 1994 to August 2017. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials with ≥20 weeks of treatment evaluating once-weekly semaglutide or SGLT-2is. Primary outcomes included change from baseline in: HbA1c, weight, systolic blood pressure, postprandial blood glucose and fasting plasma glucose. Fixed-effect and random-effect Bayesian NMA were used to indirectly compare treatment effects at 26 (±4) weeks. Metaregression and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Model selection was performed using the deviance information criterion and consistency was assessed by comparing indirect (edge-splitting) to direct evidence. RESULTS: Forty-eight publications representing 21 trials were included. The mean differences (MD) in change from baseline in HbA1c of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg versus SGLT-2is ranged from -0.56% for canagliflozin 300 mg (95% credible interval (CrI): -0.76 to -0.33%), to -0.95% for dapagliflozin 5 mg (95% CrI: -1.20 to -0.69%). The MD in change from baseline in weight of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg versus SGLT-2is ranged from -1.35 kg for canagliflozin 300 mg to -2.48 kg for dapagliflozin 5 mg, while change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose ranged from -0.41 mmol/L for canagliflozin 300 mg to -1.37 mmol/L for dapagliflozin 5 mg. Once-weekly semaglutide was not statistically differentiable than all SGLT-2is in reducing systolic blood pressure. NMA was not feasible for postprandial blood glucose and safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly semaglutide demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c and body weight in T2D patients inadequately controlled with 1-2 OADs compared to all SGLT-2is licensed in Europe and North America.

Comparative efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment intensification with additional anti-diabetic agents is recommended in type 2 diabetes (T2D) for patients inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. The present network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated comparative efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) in T2D patients inadequately controlled with metformin. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials with ≥20 weeks duration were searched in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL. Primary efficacy outcomes were: change from baseline in HbA1c, weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), post-prandial blood glucose (PPG), and fasting blood glucose (FPG). Treatment effects at 26 (±4) weeks were compared using Bayesian NMAs. Meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were used to address the trial heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eight trials were found eligible for this NMA. Statistically significant reductions in HbA1c were observed with both 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg doses of once-weekly semaglutide when compared to SGLT-2is. The mean differences in change from baseline in HbA1c for once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg vs SGLT-2is ranged from -0.66% for canagliflozin 300 mg (95% Credible Intervals [CrI]: -0.82, -0.50%) to -1.11% for dapagliflozin 5 mg (95% CrI: -1.37, -0.85%). Once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg performed significantly better than all SGLT-2is of interest in reducing weight and improving FPG levels: however, SBP reduction was not statistically differentiable. Results of sensitivity analysis and meta-regressions aligned with base-case results. NMAs were not possible for PPG and safety outcomes, due to lack of data. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly semaglutide treatment is significantly better compared to SGLT-2is in achieving adequate glycemic control in T2D patients inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Treatment modifying factors of biologics for psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-regression.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore factors that modify treatment effects of non-conventional biologics versus placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-regression was conducted. The biologics included etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab, ustekinumab, tocilizumab, anakinra, abatacept, rituximab, and secukinumab. Outcomes included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 and 50, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical and Mental Component Summaries (PCS and MCS). RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were eligible for meta-regression. Treatment effects for ACR-20 at 12 weeks were higher in trials with longer disease durations (OR=2.94), and lower in trials enrolling older patients (OR=0.48), and those recently published (OR=0.49). Treatment effects for ACR-50 at 12 weeks were higher in trials with more males (OR=2.27), but lower in trials with high prior anti-TNF use (OR=0.28) and recently published trials (OR=0.37). For PASI-75, trials with more male patients (24 weeks: OR=2.56), and with higher swollen and tender joint counts (12 weeks: OR=8.33; 24 weeks: OR=14.44) showed higher treatment effects, and trials with high prior anti-TNF use had lower effects (OR=0.41). Treatment effects for SF-36 PCS at 24 weeks were higher in trials with longer psoriasis disease durations (OR=2.95) and PsA disease durations (OR=4.76), and those published earlier (OR=4.19). CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses show that differences in baseline characteristics may explain some of the differences in response to biologics versus placebo across different trials. Accounting for these factors in future studies will likely be important.

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of treatments for patients with untreated multiple myeloma not eligible for stem cell transplantation.

In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), patients ineligible for front-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), melphalan and prednisone (MP) with thalidomide (MPT) or bortezomib (VMP) are standard first-line therapeutic options. Despite new treatment regimens incorporating bortezomib or lenalidomide, MM remains incurable. The FIRST study demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) until progression vs. MPT in transplant-ineligible ndMM patients. However, to date no head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared Rd or MPT versus VMP. We conducted a network meta-analysis using RCTs identified through a systematic literature review to evaluate the relative efficacy of Rd versus other regimens on survival endpoints in previously untreated MM patients ineligible for ASCT. In this analysis, Rd was associated with a significant PFS and survival advantage versus other first-line treatments (VMP, MPT, MP), challenging the role of alkylators in this setting.

Cost per remission and cost per response with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the short-term costs per sustained remission and sustained response of three tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) in comparison to conventional therapy for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was developed. This included an 8-week induction period, and 22 subsequent 2-week cycles (up to 1 year). The model included three disease states: remission, response, and relapse. Costs were from a Canadian public payer perspective. Estimates for the additional cost per 1 year of sustained remission and sustained response were obtained. RESULTS: Golimumab 100 mg provided the lowest cost per additional remission ($935) and cost per additional response ($701) compared with conventional therapy. Golimumab 50 mg yielded slightly higher costs than golimumab 100 mg. Infliximab was associated with the largest additional number of estimated remissions and responses, but also higher cost at $1975 per remission and $1311 per response. Adalimumab was associated with the largest cost per remission ($7430) and cost per response ($2361). The cost per additional remission and cost per additional response associated with infliximab vs golimumab 100 mg was $14,659 and $4753, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the additional cost of 1 full year of remission and response are lowest with golimumab 100 mg, followed by golimumab 50 mg. Although infliximab has the highest efficacy, it did not exhibit the lowest cost per additional remission or response. Adalimumab produced the highest cost per additional remission and response.

The risk of elevated prolactin levels in pediatric patients exposed to antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications, particularly second-generation antipsychotics, are increasingly being used to alleviate the symptoms of schizophrenia and other severe mental disorders in the pediatric population. While evidence-based approaches examining efficacy and safety outcomes have been reported, no review has evaluated prolactin-based adverse events for antipsychotic treatments in schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. METHODS/DESIGN: Searches involving MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, Drug Industry Document Archive [DIDA], International Clinical Trials Registry Platform [ICTRP]) will be used to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts and relevant full-text articles of the papers identified by the initial search according to the prospectively defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction will be conducted in duplicate independently. Pairwise random effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be conducted on individual drug and class effects where appropriate. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will evaluate prolactin-based adverse events of first- and second-generation antipsychotics in the pediatric population with schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. It will also seek to strengthen the evidence base of the safety of antipsychotics by incorporating both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009506.

Adalimumab versus infliximab for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in adult patients naïve to anti-TNF therapy: an indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of adalimumab and infliximab for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis using indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review and Bayesian indirect treatment comparison meta-analyses were performed for seven patient-important clinical outcomes at 8 weeks and 52 weeks. Odds ratio (OR) estimates and associated 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were produced. RESULTS: Five eligible RCTs informed clinical remission, response, mucosal healing, quality of life, colectomy, serious adverse events, and discontinuation due to adverse events at 8 weeks and 52 weeks. At 8 weeks of induction therapy, clinical remission (OR=0.42, 95% CrI 0.17-0.97), clinical response (OR=0.45, 95% CrI 0.23-0.89) and mucosal healing (OR=0.46, 95% CrI 0.25-0.86) statistically favored infliximab. However, after 52 weeks of maintenance therapy OR estimates showed no significant difference between infliximab and adalimumab. For serious adverse events and discontinuations due to adverse events, adalimumab and infliximab were similar to placebo. Further, the indirect treatment comparison of adalimumab and infliximab yielded odds ratios close to 1.00 with wide credible intervals. CONCLUSION: The findings of this indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis suggest that both infliximab and adalimumab are superior to placebo in the treatment of moderate to moderately severe ulcerative colitis. While infliximab is statistically more effective than adalimumab in the induction of remission, response and mucosal healing at 8 weeks, infliximab and adalimumab are comparable in efficacy at 52 weeks of maintenance treatment.

Biologic agents in rheumatology: unmet issues after 200 trials and $200 billion sales.

Anti-TNF agents and other biologic therapies are widely prescribed for a variety of indications, with total sales that exceed $200 billion to date. In rheumatic diseases, biologic agents have now been studied in more than 200 randomized clinical trials and over 100 subsequent meta-analyses; however, the information obtained does not always meet the needs of patients and clinicians. In this Review, we discuss the current issues concerning the evidence derived from such studies: potential biases favouring positive results; a paucity of head-to-head comparisons between biologically active agents; overwhelming involvement of manufacturer sponsors in trials and in the synthesis of the evidence; the preference for trials with limited follow-up; and the potential for spurious findings on adverse events, leading to endless debates about malignancy risk. We debate the responsibilities of regulatory authorities, the pharmaceutical industry and academia in attempting to solve these shortcomings and challenges. We propose that improvements in the evidence regarding biologic treatments that are continually being added to the therapeutic armamentarium for rheumatic diseases might require revisiting the design and conduct of studies. For example, trials with long-term follow-up that are independent of the pharmaceutical industry, head-to-head comparisons of therapeutic agents and the use of rigorous clinical outcomes should be considered, and public availability of raw data endorsed.

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: an indirect comparison meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of available tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (anti-TNFs) for the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: We used an exhaustive search strategy covering randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) published on anti-TNFs for PsA. We performed indirect comparisons of the available anti-TNFs (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab) measuring relative risks (RR) for the psoriatic arthritis response criteria (PsARC), mean differences (MDs) for improvements from baseline for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) by PsARC responders and non-responders, and MD for the improvements from baseline for the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI). When the reporting of data on intervention group response rates and improvements were incomplete, we used straightforward conversions based on the available data. RESULTS: We retrieved data from 20 publications representing seven trials, as well as two HTAs. All anti-TNFs were significantly better than control, but the indirect comparison did not reveal any statistically significant difference between the anti-TNFs. For PsARC response, golimumab yielded the highest RR and etanercept the second highest; adalimumab and infliximab both yielded notably smaller RRs. For HAQ improvement, etanercept and infliximab yielded the largest MD among PsARC responders. For PsARC nonresponders, etanercept, infliximab, and golimumab yielded similar MDs, and adalimumab a notably lower MD. For PASI improvement, infliximab yielded the largest MD and golimumab the second largest, while etanercept yielded the smallest MD. In some instances, the estimated magnitudes of effect were notably different from the estimates of previous HTA indirect comparisons. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient statistical evidence to demonstrate differences in effectiveness between available anti-TNFs for PsA. Effect estimates seem sensitive to the analytic approach, and this uncertainty should be taken into account in future economic evaluations.

Factors behind HIV testing practices among Canadian Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve.

The objective of this study was to examine factors associated with HIV testing among Aboriginal peoples in Canada who live off-reserve. Data were drawn for individuals aged 15-44 from the Aboriginal Peoples Survey (2001), which represents a weighed sample of 520,493 Aboriginal men and women living off-reserve. Bivariable analysis and logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with individuals who had received an HIV test within the past year. In adjusted multivariable analysis, female gender, younger age, unemployment, contact with a family doctor or traditional healer within the past year, and "good" or "fair/poor" self-rated health increased the odds of HIV testing. Completion of high-school education, rural residency, and less frequent alcohol and cigarette consumption decreased the odds of HIV testing. A number of differences emerged when the sample was analyzed by gender, most notably females who self-reported "good" or "fair/poor" health status were more likely to have had an HIV test, yet males with comparable health status were less likely to have had an HIV test. Additionally, frequent alcohol consumption and less than high-school education was associated with an increased odds of HIV testing among males, but not females. Furthermore, while younger age was associated with an increased odds of having an HIV test in the overall model, this was particularly relevant for females aged 15-24. These outcomes provide evidence of the need for improved HIV testing strategies to reach greater numbers of Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve. They also echo the long-standing call for culturally appropriate HIV-related programming while drawing new attention to the importance of gender and age, two factors that are often generalized under the rubric of culturally relevant or appropriate program development.

Evaluation of immigration status, race and language barriers on chronic hepatitis C virus infection management and treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence in certain Canadian immigrant populations is higher than that of the overall population. Disparities in care related to immigration status as well as to race and language are well recognized. Identifying and understanding these disparities is vital to the provision of optimal and inclusive HCV care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: HCV RNA-positive patients assessed at The Ottawa Hospital Viral Hepatitis Clinic between June 2000 and June 2007 were identified using a clinical database. As measures of access to care, liver biopsy rates, treatment initiation rates, supportive care provision (i.e. erythropoietin for treatment-related anemia) and sustained virological response (SVR) rates were assessed as a function of immigration status, race and spoken language. RESULTS: Nine hundred and ten patients were evaluated, of which 20% were immigrants. Biopsy rates (54 vs. 51%), HCV treatment initiation (37 vs. 38%), erythropoietin prescription (13 vs. 18%) and SVR rates (52 vs. 51%) did not differ between immigrants and Canadian-born individuals. Spoken language and race did not influence access to treatment. SVR was predicted by genotype, HIV status and race. CONCLUSION: In the context of a multidisciplinary, multilingual universal health care system, by studying the influence of barriers to HCV investigation and successful therapy can be abrogated.