Varicella zoster-specific CD4+Foxp3+ T cells accumulate after cutaneous antigen challenge in humans.

We investigated the relationship between varicella zoster virus (VZV)-specific memory CD4(+) T cells and CD4(+)Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells (Tregs) that accumulate after intradermal challenge with a VZV skin test Ag. VZV-specific CD4(+) T cells were identified with a MHC class II tetramer or by intracellular staining for either IFN-γ or IL-2 after Ag rechallenge in vitro. VZV-specific T cells, mainly of a central memory (CD45RA(-)CD27(+)) phenotype, accumulate at the site of skin challenge compared with the blood of the same individuals. This resulted in part from local proliferation because >50% of tetramer defined Ag-specific CD4(+) T cells in the skin expressed the cell cycle marker Ki67. CD4(+)Foxp3(+) T cells had the characteristic phenotype of Tregs, namely CD25(hi)CD127(lo)CD39(hi) in both unchallenged and VZV challenged skin and did not secrete IFN-γ or IL-2 after antigenic restimulation. The CD4(+)Foxp3(+) T cells from unchallenged skin had suppressive activity, because their removal led to an increase in cytokine secretion after activation. After VZV Ag injection, Foxp3(+)CD25(hi)CD127(lo)CD39(hi) T cells were also found within the VZV tetramer population. Their suppressive activity could not be directly assessed by CD25 depletion because activated T cells in the skin were also CD25(+). Nevertheless, there was an inverse correlation between decreased VZV skin responses and proportion of CD4(+)Foxp3(+) T cells present, indicating indirectly their inhibitory activity in vivo. These results suggest a linkage between the expansion of Ag-specific CD4(+) T cells and CD4(+) Tregs that may provide controlled responsiveness during Ag-specific stimulation in tissues.

Improving attribution of adverse events in oncology clinical trials.

Attribution of adverse events (AEs) is critical to oncology drug development and the regulatory process. However, processes for determining the causality of AEs are often sub-optimal, unreliable, and inefficient. Thus, we conducted a toxicity-attribution workshop in Silver Springs MD to develop guidance for improving attribution of AEs in oncology clinical trials. Attribution stakeholder experts from regulatory agencies, sponsors and contract research organizations, clinical trial principal investigators, pre-clinical translational scientists, and research staff involved in capturing attribution information participated. We also included patients treated in oncology clinical trials and academic researchers with expertise in attribution. We identified numerous challenges with AE attribution, including the non-informative nature of and burdens associated with the 5-tier system of attribution, increased complexity of trial logistics, costs and time associated with AE attribution data collection, lack of training in attribution for early-career investigators, insufficient baseline assessments, and lack of consistency in the reporting of treatment-related and treatment-emergent AEs in publications and clinical scientific reports. We developed recommendations to improve attribution: we propose transitioning from the present 5-tier system to a 2-3 tier system for attribution, more complete baseline information on patients' clinical status at trial entry, and mechanisms for more rapid sharing of AE information during trials. Oncology societies should develop recommendations and training in attribution of toxicities. We call for further harmonization and synchronization of recommendations regarding causality safety reporting between FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies. Finally, we suggest that journals maintain or develop standardized requirements for reporting attribution in oncology clinical trials.

Phase I clinical trial of combination imatinib and ipilimumab in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Imatinib mesylate can induce rapid tumor regression, increase tumor antigen presentation, and inhibit tumor immunosuppressive mechanisms. CTLA-4 blockade and imatinib synergize in mouse models to reduce tumor volume via intratumoral accumulation of CD8+ T cells. We hypothesized that imatinib combined with ipilimumab would be tolerable and may synergize in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Primary objective of the dose-escalation study (3 + 3 design) was to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose. Secondary objectives included evaluation of antitumor activity of the combination based on KIT mutation status and the capacity of tumor-associated immune biomarkers to predict response. RESULTS: The primary objective to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was achieved, and the recommended phase II doses are ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks and imatinib 400 mg twice daily. Of the 35 patients treated in the escalation and GIST expansion, none experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The most common grade 1/2-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (66%), nausea (57%), anorexia, vomiting (each 31%), edema (29%), and anemia, diarrhea, and rash (each 23%). Grade 3 AEs occurred in 6 patients (17%) and included fatigue, anemia, fever, rash, and vomiting. There were no grade 4 AEs. In general, the combination was well tolerated. Among all patients, 2 responses were seen: 1 partial response (GIST) and 1 partial response (melanoma). Stable disease was seen in 6 patients lasting an average of 6 months. The melanoma responder was KIT mutated and the GIST responder was wild-type. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that this combination of a targeted agent with checkpoint blockade is safe across multiple tumor types. Low activity with no clear signal for synergy was observed in escalation or GIST expansion cohorts. Assessment of antitumor activity of this combination in the KIT-mutant melanoma population is being evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01738139, registered 28 November 2012.