Broadly effective metabolic and immune recovery with C5 inhibition in CHAPLE disease.

Complement hyperactivation, angiopathic thrombosis and protein-losing enteropathy (CHAPLE disease) is a lethal disease caused by genetic loss of the complement regulatory protein CD55, leading to overactivation of complement and innate immunity together with immunodeficiency due to immunoglobulin wasting in the intestine. We report in vivo human data accumulated using the complement C5 inhibitor eculizumab for the medical treatment of patients with CHAPLE disease. We observed cessation of gastrointestinal pathology together with restoration of normal immunity and metabolism. We found that patients rapidly renormalized immunoglobulin concentrations and other serum proteins as revealed by aptamer profiling, re-established a healthy gut microbiome, discontinued immunoglobulin replacement and other treatments and exhibited catch-up growth. Thus, we show that blockade of C5 by eculizumab effectively re-establishes regulation of the innate immune complement system to substantially reduce the pathophysiological manifestations of CD55 deficiency in humans.

Genomic and Transcriptomic Features of Response to Anti-PD-1 Therapy in Metastatic Melanoma.

PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade provides significant clinical benefits for melanoma patients. We analyzed the somatic mutanomes and transcriptomes of pretreatment melanoma biopsies to identify factors that may influence innate sensitivity or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. We find that overall high mutational loads associate with improved survival, and tumors from responding patients are enriched for mutations in the DNA repair gene BRCA2. Innately resistant tumors display a transcriptional signature (referred to as the IPRES, or innate anti-PD-1 resistance), indicating concurrent up-expression of genes involved in the regulation of mesenchymal transition, cell adhesion, extracellular matrix remodeling, angiogenesis, and wound healing. Notably, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-targeted therapy (MAPK inhibitor) induces similar signatures in melanoma, suggesting that a non-genomic form of MAPK inhibitor resistance mediates cross-resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. Validation of the IPRES in other independent tumor cohorts defines a transcriptomic subset across distinct types of advanced cancer. These findings suggest that attenuating the biological processes that underlie IPRES may improve anti-PD-1 response in melanoma and other cancer types.

A Phase 2 Trial of Sibeprenlimab in Patients with IgA Nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: A proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL) is implicated in the pathogenesis of IgA nephropathy. Sibeprenlimab is a humanized IgG2 monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes APRIL. METHODS: In this phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned adults with biopsy-confirmed IgA nephropathy who were at high risk for disease progression, despite having received standard-care treatment, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous sibeprenlimab at a dose of 2, 4, or 8 mg per kilogram of body weight or placebo once monthly for 12 months. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the log-transformed 24-hour urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio at month 12. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at month 12. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Among 155 patients who underwent randomization, 38 received sibeprenlimab at a dose of 2 mg per kilogram, 41 received sibeprenlimab at a dose of 4 mg per kilogram, 38 received sibeprenlimab at a dose of 8 mg per kilogram, and 38 received placebo. At 12 months, the geometric mean ratio reduction (±SE) from baseline in the 24-hour urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio was 47.2±8.2%, 58.8±6.1%, 62.0±5.7%, and 20.0±12.6% in the sibeprenlimab 2-mg, 4-mg, and 8-mg groups and the placebo group, respectively. At 12 months, the least-squares mean (±SE) change from baseline in eGFR was -2.7±1.8, 0.2±1.7, -1.5±1.8, and -7.4±1.8 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the sibeprenlimab 2-mg, 4-mg, and 8-mg groups and the placebo group, respectively. The incidence of adverse events that occurred after the start of administration of sibeprenlimab or placebo was 78.6% in the pooled sibeprenlimab groups and 71.1% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with IgA nephropathy, 12 months of treatment with sibeprenlimab resulted in a significantly greater decrease in proteinuria than placebo. (Funded by Visterra; ENVISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04287985; EudraCT number, 2019-002531-29.).

Dupilumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Patients 1 to 11 Years of Age.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 pathways and has shown efficacy in five different atopic diseases marked by type 2 inflammation, including eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and adolescents. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:2:1:1 ratio, patients 1 to 11 years of age with active eosinophilic esophagitis who had had no response to proton-pump inhibitors to 16 weeks of a higher-exposure or lower-exposure subcutaneous dupilumab regimen or to placebo (two groups) (Part A). At the end of Part A, eligible patients in each dupilumab group continued the same regimen and those in the placebo groups were assigned to higher-exposure or lower-exposure dupilumab for 36 weeks (Part B). At each level of exposure, dupilumab was administered in one of four doses tiered according to baseline body weight. The primary end point was histologic remission (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count, ≤6 per high-power field) at week 16. Key secondary end points were tested hierarchically. RESULTS: In Part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of the 37 patients (68%) in the higher-exposure group, in 18 of the 31 patients (58%) in the lower-exposure group, and in 1 of the 34 patients (3%) in the placebo group (difference between the higher-exposure regimen and placebo, 65 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, 48 to 81; P<0.001]; difference between the lower-exposure regimen and placebo, 55 percentage points [95% CI, 37 to 73; P<0.001]). The higher-exposure dupilumab regimen led to significant improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures as compared with placebo. The improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures between baseline and week 52 in all the patients were generally similar to the improvements between baseline and week 16 in the patients who received dupilumab in Part A. In Part A, the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019, nausea, injection-site pain, and headache was at least 10 percentage points higher among the patients who received dupilumab (at either dose) than among those who received placebo. Serious adverse events were reported in 3 patients who received dupilumab during Part A and in 6 patients overall during Part B. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab resulted in histologic remission in a significantly higher percentage of children with eosinophilic esophagitis than placebo. The higher-exposure dupilumab regimen also led to improvements in measures of key secondary end points as compared with placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; EoE KIDS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04394351.).

Dupilumab for COPD with Blood Eosinophil Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation, has shown efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation and an elevated risk of exacerbation. Whether the findings would be confirmed in a second phase 3 trial was unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per microliter or higher to receive subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Key secondary end points, analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the changes from baseline in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at weeks 12 and 52 and in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating better quality of life) total score at week 52. RESULTS: A total of 935 patients underwent randomization: 470 were assigned to the dupilumab group and 465 to the placebo group. As prespecified, the primary analysis was performed after a positive interim analysis and included all available data for the 935 participants, 721 of whom were included in the analysis at week 52. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.06) with dupilumab and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) with placebo; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 with dupilumab (least-squares mean change, 139 ml [95% CI, 105 to 173]) as compared with placebo (least-squares mean change, 57 ml [95% CI, 23 to 91]), with a significant least-squares mean difference at week 12 of 82 ml (P<0.001) and at week 52 of 62 ml (P = 0.02). No significant between-group difference was observed in the change in SGRQ scores from baseline to 52 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups and consistent with the established profile of dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, dupilumab was associated with fewer exacerbations and better lung function than placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; NOTUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04456673.).

Eosinophil Depletion with Benralizumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an eosinophil-depleting anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody. The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis are unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients 12 to 65 years of age with symptomatic and histologically active eosinophilic esophagitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The two primary efficacy end points were histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the score on the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ; range, 0 to 84, with higher scores indicating more frequent or severe dysphagia) at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients underwent randomization: 104 were assigned to receive benralizumab, and 107 were assigned to receive placebo. At week 24, more patients had a histologic response with benralizumab than with placebo (87.4% vs. 6.5%; difference, 80.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72.9 to 88.8; P<0.001). However, the change from baseline in the DSQ score did not differ significantly between the two groups (difference in least-squares means, 3.0 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 7.4; P = 0.18). There was no substantial between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, which reflects endoscopic abnormalities. Adverse events were reported in 64.1% of the patients in the benralizumab group and in 61.7% of those in the placebo group. No patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) occurred in significantly more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group. However, treatment with benralizumab did not result in fewer or less severe dysphagia symptoms than placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MESSINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04543409.).

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Felzartamab in Antibody-Mediated Rejection.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-mediated rejection is a leading cause of kidney-transplant failure. The targeting of CD38 to inhibit graft injury caused by alloantibodies and natural killer (NK) cells may be a therapeutic option. METHODS: In this phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with antibody-mediated rejection that had occurred at least 180 days after transplantation to receive nine infusions of the CD38 monoclonal antibody felzartamab (at a dose of 16 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo for 6 months, followed by a 6-month observation period. The primary outcome was the safety and side-effect profile of felzartamab. Key secondary outcomes were renal-biopsy results at 24 and 52 weeks, donor-specific antibody levels, peripheral NK-cell counts, and donor-derived cell-free DNA levels. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients underwent randomization (11 to receive felzartamab and 11 to receive placebo). The median time from transplantation until trial inclusion was 9 years. Mild or moderate infusion reactions occurred in 8 patients in the felzartamab group. Serious adverse events occurred in 1 patient in the felzartamab group and in 4 patients in the placebo group; graft loss occurred in 1 patient in the placebo group. At week 24, resolution of morphologic antibody-mediated rejection was more frequent with felzartamab (in 9 of 11 patients [82%]) than with placebo (in 2 of 10 patients [20%]), for a difference of 62 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 19 to 100) and a risk ratio of 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.83). The median microvascular inflammation score was lower in the felzartamab group than in the placebo group (0 vs. 2.5), for a mean difference of -1.95 (95% CI, -2.97 to -0.92). Also lower was a molecular score reflecting the probability of antibody-mediated rejection (0.17 vs. 0.77) and the level of donor-derived cell-free DNA (0.31% vs. 0.82%). At week 52, the recurrence of antibody-mediated rejection was reported in 3 of 9 patients who had a response to felzartamab, with an increase in molecular activity and biomarker levels toward baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: Felzartamab had acceptable safety and side-effect profiles in patients with antibody-mediated rejection. (Funded by MorphoSys and Human Immunology Biosciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05021484; and EUDRACT number, 2021-000545-40.).

Subcutaneous Administration of a Monoclonal Antibody to Prevent Malaria.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous administration of the monoclonal antibody L9LS protected adults against controlled Plasmodium falciparum infection in a phase 1 trial. Whether a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously can protect children from P. falciparum infection in a region where this organism is endemic is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 trial in Mali to assess the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous administration of L9LS in children 6 to 10 years of age over a 6-month malaria season. In part A of the trial, safety was assessed at three dose levels in adults, followed by assessment at two dose levels in children. In part B of the trial, children were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive 150 mg of L9LS, 300 mg of L9LS, or placebo. The primary efficacy end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was the first P. falciparum infection, as detected on blood smear performed at least every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. A secondary efficacy end point was the first episode of clinical malaria, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: No safety concerns were identified in the dose-escalation part of the trial (part A). In part B, 225 children underwent randomization, with 75 children assigned to each group. No safety concerns were identified in part B. P. falciparum infection occurred in 36 participants (48%) in the 150-mg group, in 30 (40%) in the 300-mg group, and in 61 (81%) in the placebo group. The efficacy of L9LS against P. falciparum infection, as compared with placebo, was 66% (adjusted confidence interval [95% CI], 45 to 79) with the 150-mg dose and 70% (adjusted 95% CI, 50 to 82) with the 300-mg dose (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Efficacy against clinical malaria was 67% (adjusted 95% CI, 39 to 82) with the 150-mg dose and 77% (adjusted 95% CI, 55 to 89) with the 300-mg dose (P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous administration of L9LS to children was protective against P. falciparum infection and clinical malaria over a period of 6 months. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05304611.).

Benralizumab versus Mepolizumab for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a vasculitis characterized by eosinophilic inflammation. Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-5α receptor expressed on eosinophils, may be an option for treating EGPA. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3, randomized, active-controlled noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of benralizumab as compared with mepolizumab. Adults with relapsing or refractory EGPA who were receiving standard care were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive benralizumab (30 mg) or mepolizumab (300 mg) subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary end point was remission at weeks 36 and 48 (prespecified noninferiority margin, -25 percentage points). Secondary end points included the accrued duration of remission, time to first relapse, oral glucocorticoid use, eosinophil count, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients underwent randomization (70 assigned to each group). The adjusted percentage of patients with remission at weeks 36 and 48 was 59% in the benralizumab group and 56% in the mepolizumab group (difference, 3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to 18; P = 0.73 for superiority), showing noninferiority but not superiority of benralizumab to mepolizumab. The accrued duration of remission and the time to first relapse were similar in the two groups. Complete withdrawal of oral glucocorticoids during weeks 48 through 52 was achieved in 41% of the patients who received benralizumab and 26% of those who received mepolizumab. The mean (±SD) blood eosinophil count at baseline was 306.0±225.0 per microliter in the benralizumab group and 384.9±563.6 per microliter in the mepolizumab group, decreasing to 32.4±40.8 and 71.8±54.4 per microliter, respectively, at week 52. Adverse events were reported in 90% of the patients in the benralizumab group and 96% of those in the mepolizumab group; serious adverse events were reported in 6% and 13%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Benralizumab was noninferior to mepolizumab for the induction of remission in patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MANDARA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04157348.).

Overall Survival with Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy after surgery for renal-cell carcinoma was approved on the basis of a significant improvement in disease-free survival in the KEYNOTE-564 trial. Whether the results regarding overall survival from the third prespecified interim analysis of the trial would also favor pembrolizumab was uncertain. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had an increased risk of recurrence after surgery to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year) or until recurrence, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. A significant improvement in disease-free survival according to investigator assessment (the primary end point) was shown previously. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab and 498 to receive placebo. As of September 15, 2023, the median follow-up was 57.2 months. The disease-free survival benefit was consistent with that in previous analyses (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.87). A significant improvement in overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab as compared with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87; P = 0.005). The estimated overall survival at 48 months was 91.2% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 86.0% in the placebo group; the benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Pembrolizumab was associated with a higher incidence of serious adverse events of any cause (20.7%, vs. 11.5% with placebo) and of grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to pembrolizumab or placebo (18.6% vs. 1.2%). No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab was associated with a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival, as compared with placebo, among participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at increased risk for recurrence after surgery. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Enfortumab Vedotin and Pembrolizumab in Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: No treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.).

Combination Targeted Therapy in Relapsed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The identification of oncogenic mutations in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has led to the development of drugs that target essential survival pathways, but whether targeting multiple survival pathways may be curative in DLBCL is unknown. METHODS: We performed a single-center, phase 1b-2 study of a regimen of venetoclax, ibrutinib, prednisone, obinutuzumab, and lenalidomide (ViPOR) in relapsed or refractory DLBCL. In phase 1b, which included patients with DLBCL and indolent lymphomas, four dose levels of venetoclax were evaluated to identify the recommended phase 2 dose, with fixed doses of the other four drugs. A phase 2 expansion in patients with germinal-center B-cell (GCB) and non-GCB DLBCL was performed. ViPOR was administered every 21 days for six cycles. RESULTS: In phase 1b of the study, involving 20 patients (10 with DLBCL), a single dose-limiting toxic effect of grade 3 intracranial hemorrhage occurred, a result that established venetoclax at a dose of 800 mg as the recommended phase 2 dose. Phase 2 included 40 patients with DLBCL. Toxic effects that were observed among all the patients included grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (in 24% of the cycles), thrombocytopenia (in 23%), anemia (in 7%), and febrile neutropenia (in 1%). Objective responses occurred in 54% of 48 evaluable patients with DLBCL, and complete responses occurred in 38%; complete responses were exclusively in patients with non-GCB DLBCL and high-grade B-cell lymphoma with rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 or BCL6 (or both). Circulating tumor DNA was undetectable in 33% of the patients at the end of ViPOR therapy. With a median follow-up of 40 months, 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival were 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21 to 47) and 36% (95% CI, 23 to 49), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ViPOR was associated with durable remissions in patients with specific molecular DLBCL subtypes and was associated with mainly reversible adverse events. (Funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03223610.).

Nirsevimab for Prevention of Hospitalizations Due to RSV in Infants.

BACKGROUND: The safety of the monoclonal antibody nirsevimab and the effect of nirsevimab on hospitalizations for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated lower respiratory tract infection when administered in healthy infants are unclear. METHODS: In a pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, infants who were 12 months of age or younger, had been born at a gestational age of at least 29 weeks, and were entering their first RSV season in France, Germany, or the United Kingdom to receive either a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or standard care (no intervention) before or during the RSV season. The primary end point was hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection, defined as hospital admission and an RSV-positive test result. A key secondary end point was very severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection, defined as hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection with an oxygen saturation of less than 90% and the need for supplemental oxygen. RESULTS: A total of 8058 infants were randomly assigned to receive nirsevimab (4037 infants) or standard care (4021 infants). Eleven infants (0.3%) in the nirsevimab group and 60 (1.5%) in the standard-care group were hospitalized for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection, which corresponded to a nirsevimab efficacy of 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.8 to 92.0; P<0.001). Very severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection occurred in 5 infants (0.1%) in the nirsevimab group and in 19 (0.5%) in the standard-care group, which represented a nirsevimab efficacy of 75.7% (95% CI, 32.8 to 92.9; P = 0.004). The efficacy of nirsevimab against hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection was 89.6% (adjusted 95% CI, 58.8 to 98.7; multiplicity-adjusted P<0.001) in France, 74.2% (adjusted 95% CI, 27.9 to 92.5; multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.006) in Germany, and 83.4% (adjusted 95% CI, 34.3 to 97.6; multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.003) in the United Kingdom. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 86 infants (2.1%) in the nirsevimab group. CONCLUSIONS: Nirsevimab protected infants against hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection and against very severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection in conditions that approximated real-world settings. (Funded by Sanofi and AstraZeneca; HARMONIE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05437510).

Phase 3 Trial of Concizumab in Hemophilia with Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Concizumab is an anti-tissue factor pathway inhibitor monoclonal antibody designed to achieve hemostasis in all hemophilia types, with subcutaneous administration. A previous trial of concizumab (explorer4) established proof of concept in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. METHODS: We conducted the explorer7 trial to assess the safety and efficacy of concizumab in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (group 1) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (group 2) or were nonrandomly assigned to receive concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (groups 3 and 4). After a treatment pause due to nonfatal thromboembolic events in three patients receiving concizumab, including one from the explorer7 trial, concizumab therapy was restarted with a loading dose of 1.0 mg per kilogram of body weight, followed by 0.2 mg per kilogram daily (potentially adjusted on the basis of concizumab plasma concentration as measured at week 4). The primary end-point analysis compared treated spontaneous and traumatic bleeding episodes in group 1 and group 2. Safety, patient-reported outcomes, and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 133 enrolled patients, 19 were randomly assigned to group 1 and 33 to group 2; the remaining 81 were assigned to groups 3 and 4. The estimated mean annualized bleeding rate in group 1 was 11.8 episodes (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 19.9), as compared with 1.7 episodes (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.9) in group 2 (rate ratio, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.29]; P<0.001). The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients receiving concizumab (groups 2, 3, and 4) was 0 episodes. No thromboembolic events were reported after concizumab therapy was restarted. The plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, the annualized bleeding rate was lower with concizumab prophylaxis than with no prophylaxis. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; explorer7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04083781.).

Atezolizumab for Advanced Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft-tissue sarcoma with a poor prognosis and no established therapy. Recently, encouraging responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors have been reported. METHODS: We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicenter, single-group, phase 2 study of the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent atezolizumab in adult and pediatric patients with advanced ASPS. Atezolizumab was administered intravenously at a dose of 1200 mg (in patients ≥18 years of age) or 15 mg per kilogram of body weight with a 1200-mg cap (in patients <18 years of age) once every 21 days. Study end points included objective response, duration of response, and progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, as well as pharmacodynamic biomarkers of multistep drug action. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were evaluated. An objective response was observed in 19 of 52 patients (37%), with 1 complete response and 18 partial responses. The median time to response was 3.6 months (range, 2.1 to 19.1), the median duration of response was 24.7 months (range, 4.1 to 55.8), and the median progression-free survival was 20.8 months. Seven patients took a treatment break after 2 years of treatment, and their responses were maintained through the data-cutoff date. No treatment-related grade 4 or 5 adverse events were recorded. Responses were noted despite variable baseline expression of programmed death 1 and PD-L1. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab was effective at inducing sustained responses in approximately one third of patients with advanced ASPS. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141684.).

Dupilumab for COPD with Type 2 Inflammation Indicated by Eosinophil Counts.

BACKGROUND: In some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type 2 inflammation may increase exacerbation risk and may be indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 per microliter and an elevated exacerbation risk despite the use of standard triple therapy to receive dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations of COPD. Key secondary and other end points that were corrected for multiplicity were the change in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and in the scores on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; range, 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) and the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS-COPD; range, 0 to 40, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms). RESULTS: A total of 939 patients underwent randomization: 468 to the dupilumab group and 471 to the placebo group. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.93) with dupilumab and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.30) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 by a least-squares (LS) mean of 160 ml (95% CI, 126 to 195) with dupilumab and 77 ml (95% CI, 42 to 112) with placebo (LS mean difference, 83 ml; 95% CI, 42 to 125; P<0.001), a difference that was sustained through week 52. At week 52, the SGRQ score had improved by an LS mean of -9.7 (95% CI, -11.3 to -8.1) with dupilumab and -6.4 (95% CI, -8.0 to -4.8) with placebo (LS mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -5.5 to -1.3; P = 0.002). The E-RS-COPD score at week 52 had improved by an LS mean of -2.7 (95% CI, -3.2 to -2.2) with dupilumab and -1.6 (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.1) with placebo (LS mean difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.4; P = 0.001). The numbers of patients with adverse events that led to discontinuation of dupilumab or placebo, serious adverse events, and adverse events that led to death were balanced in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COPD who had type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, those who received dupilumab had fewer exacerbations, better lung function and quality of life, and less severe respiratory symptoms than those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; BOREAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03930732.).

Two Phase 3 Trials of Gantenerumab in Early Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid-beta (Aß) have the potential to slow cognitive and functional decline in persons with early Alzheimer's disease. Gantenerumab is a subcutaneously administered, fully human, anti-Aß IgG1 monoclonal antibody with highest affinity for aggregated Aß that has been tested for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: We conducted two phase 3 trials (GRADUATE I and II) involving participants 50 to 90 years of age with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and evidence of amyloid plaques on positron-emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive gantenerumab or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the score on the Clinical Dementia Rating scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB; range, 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment) at week 116. RESULTS: A total of 985 and 980 participants were enrolled in the GRADUATE I and II trials, respectively. The baseline CDR-SB score was 3.7 in the GRADUATE I trial and 3.6 in the GRADUATE II trial. The change from baseline in the CDR-SB score at week 116 was 3.35 with gantenerumab and 3.65 with placebo in the GRADUATE I trial (difference, -0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to 0.05; P = 0.10) and was 2.82 with gantenerumab and 3.01 with placebo in the GRADUATE II trial (difference, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.55 to 0.17; P = 0.30). At week 116, the difference in the amyloid level on PET between the gantenerumab group and the placebo group was -66.44 and -56.46 centiloids in the GRADUATE I and II trials, respectively, and amyloid-negative status was attained in 28.0% and 26.8% of the participants receiving gantenerumab in the two trials. Across both trials, participants receiving gantenerumab had lower CSF levels of phosphorylated tau 181 and higher levels of Aß42 than those receiving placebo; the accumulation of aggregated tau on PET was similar in the two groups. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema (ARIA-E) occurred in 24.9% of the participants receiving gantenerumab, and symptomatic ARIA-E occurred in 5.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Among persons with early Alzheimer's disease, the use of gantenerumab led to a lower amyloid plaque burden than placebo at 116 weeks but was not associated with slower clinical decline. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; GRADUATE I and II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03444870 and NCT03443973, respectively.).

Phase 3 Trial of Nemolizumab in Patients with Prurigo Nodularis.

BACKGROUND: Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, debilitating, and severely pruritic neuroimmunologic skin disease. Nemolizumab, an interleukin-31 receptor alpha antagonist, down-regulates key pathways in the pathogenesis of prurigo nodularis. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned adults with moderate-to-severe prurigo nodularis to receive an initial 60-mg dose of nemolizumab followed by subcutaneous injections of 30 mg or 60 mg (depending on baseline weight) every 4 weeks for 16 weeks or matching placebo. The primary end points were an itch response (a reduction of ≥4 points on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [PP-NRS; scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe itch]) and an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response (a score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] on the IGA [scores range from 0 to 4] and a reduction from baseline to week 16 of ≥2 points). There were five key secondary end points. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients underwent randomization; 183 were assigned to the nemolizumab group, and 91 to the placebo group. Treatment efficacy was shown with respect to both primary end points at week 16; a greater percentage of patients in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group had an itch response (56.3% vs. 20.9%; strata-adjusted difference, 37.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26.3 to 48.5), and a greater percentage in the nemolizumab group had an IGA response (37.7% vs. 11.0%; strata-adjusted difference, 28.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 18.8 to 38.2) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Benefits were observed for the five key secondary end points: itch response at week 4 (41.0% vs. 7.7%), PP-NRS score of less than 2 at week 4 (19.7% vs. 2.2%) and week 16 (35.0% vs. 7.7%), and an improvement of 4 or more points on the sleep disturbance numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no sleep loss] to 10 [unable to sleep at all]) at week 4 (37.2% vs. 9.9%) and week 16 (51.9% vs. 20.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The most common individual adverse events were headache (6.6% vs. 4.4%) and atopic dermatitis (5.5% vs. 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Nemolizumab monotherapy significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis. (Funded by Galderma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501679; EudraCT number, 2019-004789-17.).

First-Line Selpercatinib or Chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab in RET Fusion-Positive NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Selpercatinib, a highly selective potent and brain-penetrant RET inhibitor, was shown to have efficacy in patients with advanced RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a nonrandomized phase 1-2 study. METHODS: In a randomized phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line selpercatinib as compared with control treatment that consisted of platinum-based chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab at the investigator's discretion. The primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in both the intention-to-treat-pembrolizumab population (i.e., patients whose physicians had planned to treat them with pembrolizumab in the event that they were assigned to the control group) and the overall intention-to-treat population. Crossover from the control group to the selpercatinib group was allowed if disease progression as assessed by blinded independent central review occurred during receipt of control treatment. RESULTS: In total, 212 patients underwent randomization in the intention-to-treat-pembrolizumab population. At the time of the preplanned interim efficacy analysis, median progression-free survival was 24.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.9 to not estimable) with selpercatinib and 11.2 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 16.8) with control treatment (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.70; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with an objective response was 84% (95% CI, 76 to 90) with selpercatinib and 65% (95% CI, 54 to 75) with control treatment. The cause-specific hazard ratio for the time to progression affecting the central nervous system was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68). Efficacy results in the overall intention-to-treat population (261 patients) were similar to those in the intention-to-treat-pembrolizumab population. The adverse events that occurred with selpercatinib and control treatment were consistent with those previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with selpercatinib led to significantly longer progression-free survival than platinum-based chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab among patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC. (Funded by Eli Lilly and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04194944.).

Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line chemotherapy for endometrial cancer is paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy remains unclear. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned 816 patients with measurable disease (stage III or IVA) or stage IVB or recurrent endometrial cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab or placebo along with combination therapy with paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The administration of pembrolizumab or placebo was planned in 6 cycles every 3 weeks, followed by up to 14 maintenance cycles every 6 weeks. The patients were stratified into two cohorts according to whether they had mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) or mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease. Previous adjuvant chemotherapy was permitted if the treatment-free interval was at least 12 months. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the two cohorts. Interim analyses were scheduled to be triggered after the occurrence of at least 84 events of death or progression in the dMMR cohort and at least 196 events in the pMMR cohort. RESULTS: In the 12-month analysis, Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival in the dMMR cohort were 74% in the pembrolizumab group and 38% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.48; P<0.001), a 70% difference in relative risk. In the pMMR cohort, median progression-free survival was 13.1 months with pembrolizumab and 8.7 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.71; P<0.001). Adverse events were as expected for pembrolizumab and combination chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than with chemotherapy alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; NRG-GY018 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03914612.).