Long-term outcomes of patients with active melanoma brain metastases treated with combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 204): final results of an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab was efficacious in patients with asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in CheckMate 204, but showed low efficacy in patients with symptomatic MBM. Here, we provide final 3-year follow-up data from the trial. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study (CheckMate 204) included adults (aged ≥18 years) with measurable MBM (0·5-3·0 cm in diameter). Asymptomatic patients (cohort A) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and no neurological symptoms or baseline corticosteroid use; symptomatic patients (cohort B) had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 with stable neurological symptoms and could be receiving low-dose dexamethasone. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was given intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease lasting ≥6 months) assessed in all treated patients. Intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival were key secondary endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 119 (72%) of 165 screened patients were enrolled and treated: 101 patients were asymptomatic (cohort A; median follow-up 34·3 months [IQR 14·7-36·4]) and 18 were symptomatic (cohort B; median follow-up 7·5 months [1·2-35·2]). Investigator-assessed intracranial clinical benefit was observed in 58 (57·4% [95% CI 47·2-67·2]) of 101 patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) of 18 patients in cohort B; investigator-assessed objective response was observed in 54 (53·5% [43·3-63·5]) patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) patients in cohort B. 33 (33%) patients in cohort A and three (17%) patients in cohort B had an investigator-assessed intracranial complete response. For patients in cohort A, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 54·1% (95% CI 42·7-64·1) and overall survival was 71·9% (61·8-79·8). For patients in cohort B, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 18·9% (95% CI 4·6-40·5) and overall survival was 36·6% (14·0-59·8). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (15 [15%] of 101 patients each) in cohort A; no grade 3 TRAEs occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B, and no grade 4 events occurred. The most common serious TRAEs were colitis, diarrhoea, hypophysitis, and increased alanine aminotransferase (five [5%] of each among the 101 patients in cohort A); no serious TRAE occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B. There was one treatment-related death (myocarditis in cohort A). INTERPRETATION: The durable 3-year response, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients support first-line use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Symptomatic disease in patients with MBM remains difficult to treat, but some patients achieve a long-term response with the combination. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

First-line immunotherapy versus targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma: a real-world analysis.

Aim: To compare effectiveness of nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (BRAFi + MEKi) in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: This study used the Flatiron Health electronic medical record database. Results: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, NIVO + IPI was associated with a 32% reduction in risk of death versus BRAFi + MEKi. At a mean follow-up of 15-16 months, 64% of NIVO + IPI patients and 43% of BRAFi + MEKi patients were alive; subsequent therapy was administered to 33 and 41% of patients, respectively. After first-line NIVO + IPI, 20% of patients died before subsequent therapy, whereas 32% died after first-line BRAFi + MEKi. Conclusion: In this real-world study, patients treated with first-line NIVO + IPI showed significant survival benefit versus those receiving first-line BRAFi + MEKi.

Risk of cardiovascular events among patients with HIV treated with atazanavir-containing regimens: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A previous cohort study indicated that atazanavir (ATV), a protease inhibitor used for HIV treatment, is not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events. The objective of this study was to compare the risk of CV events among antiretroviral-naïve patients initiating ATV-containing versus ATV-free ARV regimens. METHODS: Patients with HIV who newly initiated antiretroviral therapy were selected from MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid databases. The first claim for an antiretroviral medication between 1/1/2007 and 12/31/2013 was known as the index date. Patients were categorized as initiating an ATV-containing or an ATV-free regimen. Patients who did not have 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to the index date or who had evidence of a CV event during this time period were excluded. Myocardial infarction, stroke, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft were identified through diagnosis and procedure codes. Patients were followed from index date until a CV event, continuous gap of >30 days without initiated ARV, a claim for ATV in the ATV-free cohort, disenrollment, or study end, whichever occurred first. Unadjusted incidence rates (IR) were calculated and propensity-score-weighted Cox proportional hazards models were fit to compare hazards of CV events between the two cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 22,211 patients (2437 ATV-containing and 19,774 ATV-free) were identified in the Commercial Database and 7136 patients were identified (1505 ATV-containing and 5631 ATV-free) in the Medicaid Database. CV events were uncommon (Commercial IR per 1000 person-years for a CV event: ATV-containing = 3.01, ATV-free = 3.26; Medicaid IR: ATV-containing = 10.9, ATV-free = 9.9). In propensity-score-weighted models combining the two populations, there was no significant difference in the hazards of a CV event for patients initiating an ATV-containing regimen compared with those initiating an ATV-free regimen (hazard ratio = 1.16, 95 % confidence interval 0.67-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis, there was no significant increase in the risk of CV events associated with exposure to ATV-containing regimens.

Real-world outcomes with immuno-oncology therapies in advanced melanoma: final results of the OPTIMIzE registry study.

Aim: The OPTIMIzE registry study evaluated real-world outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immuno-oncology therapies. Materials and methods: Data were collected for patients treated with anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab; n = 147) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 81) from 2015-2017 and followed for ≥3 years. Results: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of death (adjusted HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.54-1.28; p = 0.41), higher disease control rate (72 vs 56%; p = 0.04), and stable quality of life, but more grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (54 vs 26%; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: These results support the use of immuno-oncology therapy in advanced melanoma.

Melanoma is a serious form of skin cancer that develops from melanocytes, which are pigment cells that give the skin, hair, and other tissues their color. At advanced stages of spread, melanoma can be life-threatening. However, immunotherapy, a type of therapy that helps the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells, allows some patients with advanced melanoma to live longer. The OPTIMIzE study looked at how well patients with advanced melanoma did when treated with different immunotherapies. These patients were treated in a real-world setting, such as a doctor's office, and were not participating in a clinical trial. Compared with clinical trials, real-world studies like the OPTIMIzE study may include a more varied group of patients because of the less selective study enrollment requirements. In the OPTIMIzE study, patients were treated with either a single immunotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab alone) or a combination of two immunotherapies (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Both single and combination immunotherapies were effective and tolerable. Patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab had greater tumor shrinkage than patients receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab alone, but with more side effects from their treatment. Despite the occurrence of side effects with both single and combination immunotherapies, patients reported that their quality of life remained stable while being treated. The OPTIMIzE study shows that immunotherapy is effective and tolerable for patients with advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. This information may help doctors with selecting treatments for their patients with advanced melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02780089 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

Sensitivity of treatment-free survival to subgroup analyses in patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors can experience ongoing disease control after treatment discontinuation without subsequent systemic anticancer therapy. We previously defined a novel outcome, treatment-free survival (TFS), as the time between protocol therapy cessation and subsequent therapy initiation/death. We assessed the effect of established prognostic variables [lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), programmed death ligand 1 status, BRAF mutation status, performance status, and sex] on TFS in different treatment scenarios: treatment until toxicity/progression with frequent early cessation (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), treatment until toxicity/progression with a well-tolerated regimen (nivolumab), and treatment for a short fixed duration (ipilimumab). Data were pooled from 1077 patients with advanced melanoma treated in the CheckMate 069 and 067 trials. TFS was defined as the area between the Kaplan-Meier curves for time to therapy cessation and time to subsequent therapy initiation/death. TFS was estimated by restricted mean (r-mean) survival time at 36 months since randomization. Clinically meaningful TFS (r-mean TFS 3.7-12.7 months) was observed across all patient subgroups. TFS was longest in patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The largest differences in r-mean TFS were observed with LDH in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab and ipilimumab treatment groups (TFS difference 4.7 and 4.9 months, respectively). In the nivolumab group, there was little difference in TFS across subgroups (r-mean TFS 3.7-5.5 months). TFS was sensitive to prognostic subgroup differences; however, duration of treatment affected the sensitivity of TFS. These results provide further support for TFS as a clinical outcome measure.

Long-Term Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Nivolumab Alone Versus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated. RESULTS: Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.

Treatment-free survival over extended follow-up of patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in CheckMate 067.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-free survival (TFS) characterizes disease control after discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) until subsequent therapy or death. We previously evaluated TFS in a pooled analysis of the CheckMate 067 and CheckMate 069 trials of the ICIs nivolumab and ipilimumab, alone or in combination, in patients with advanced melanoma after minimum follow-up of 36 months. This analysis investigated TFS differences between treatments in CheckMate 067 after a minimum follow-up of 60 months, and their relation to overall survival (OS) differences. METHODS: Data were from 937 patients who initiated treatment (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or ipilimumab) in CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505). TFS was defined as the area between the Kaplan-Meier curves for time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, each measured from randomization. TFS was partitioned as time with and without toxicity. Toxicity included persistent and late-onset grade ≥2 select treatment-related adverse events (ie, those of potential immunologic etiology). The area between Kaplan-Meier curves was estimated by the difference in 60-month restricted-mean times of the endpoints. Between-group differences were estimated with bootstrapped 95% CIs. RESULTS: At 60 months from randomization, 39%, 24%, and 11% of patients assigned to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab, respectively, had survived and were treatment-free. The 60-month mean TFS was approximately twice as long with the combination (19.7 months) than with nivolumab (9.9 months; absolute difference, 9.8 (95% CI 6.7 to 12.8)) or ipilimumab (11.9 months; absolute difference, 7.8 (95% CI 4.6 to 11.0)). In the respective groups, mean TFS represented 33% (8% with and 25% without toxicity), 17% (2% and 14%), and 20% (3% and 17%) of the 60-month period. Compared with 36-month estimates, mean TFS over the 60-month period represented slightly greater percentages of time in the nivolumab-containing regimen groups and a lesser percentage in the ipilimumab group. TFS differences between the combination and either monotherapy increased with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Along with improved long-term OS with the nivolumab-containing regimens versus ipilimumab, TFS without toxicity was sustained with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus either monotherapy, demonstrating larger between-group differences with extended follow-up.

Comparative efficacy of combination immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

AIM: Comparison of clinical outcomes of nivolumab + ipilimumab versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (dabrafenib + trametinib or vemurafenib + cobimetinib) in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted between nivolumab + ipilimumab (CheckMate 067/069 studies) and BRAF + MEK inhibitors (COMBI-d, COMBI-v and coBRIM studies). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and objective response rates were assessed. RESULTS: After adjusting, nivolumab + ipilimumab showed improved OS versus dabrafenib + trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.89) or vemurafenib + cobimetinib (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.36-0.89); OS outcomes were similar at 1 year, with benefits emerging after 12 months; progression-free survival and objective response rates were similar. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54.1% with nivolumab + ipilimumab, 31.6% with dabrafenib + trametinib and 59.5% with vemurafenib + cobimetinib. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab + ipilimumab had significantly improved clinical outcomes versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors, with benefits increasing after longer follow-up. Ongoing randomized trials directly comparing these treatments are necessary to prospectively validate these findings.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with treatment sequences in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma.

AIM: The cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. MATERIALS & METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed to estimate total costs and health outcomes over a patient's lifetime (30 years). Efficacy was based on the CheckMate 067/069 trials and a matching-adjusted-indirect comparison between immuno-oncology and targeted therapies. Safety, cost (in US dollars; US third-party payer perspective) and health-related quality-of-life inputs were based on published literature. RESULTS: Estimated survival gain was higher for sequences initiating with anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 than for anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF+MEK inhibitors. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained for first-line anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 was US$54,273 versus first-line anti-PD-1 and $79,124 versus first-line BRAF+MEK inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Initiating treatment with anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 was more cost-effective than initiation with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF+MEK inhibitors.

Treatment-Free Survival: A Novel Outcome Measure of the Effects of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition-A Pooled Analysis of Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Outcome measures that comprehensively capture attributes of immuno-oncology agents, including prolonged treatment-free time and persistent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), are needed to complement conventional survival end points. METHODS: We pooled data from the CheckMate 067 and 069 clinical trials of nivolumab and ipilimumab, as monotherapies or in combination, for patients with advanced melanoma. Treatment-free survival (TFS) was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two conventional time-to-event end points, each defined from random assignment: time to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was partitioned as time with and without toxicity by a third end point, time to cessation of both ICI therapy and toxicity. Toxicity included persistent and late-onset grade 3 or higher TRAEs. The area under each Kaplan-Meier curve was estimated by the 36-month restricted mean time. RESULTS: At 36 months, many of the 1,077 patients who initiated ICI therapy were surviving free of subsequent therapy initiation (47% nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 37% nivolumab, 15% ipilimumab). The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (11.1 months) compared with nivolumab (4.6 months; difference, 6.5 months; 95% CI, 5.0 to 8.0 months) or ipilimumab (8.7 months; difference, 2.4 months; 95% CI, 0.8 to 4.1 months); restricted mean TFS represented 31% (3% with and 28% without toxicity), 13% (1% and 11%), and 24% (less than 1% and 23%) of the 36-month period, respectively, in the three treatment groups. TFS without toxicity was longer for nivolumab plus ipilimumab than nivolumab (difference, 6.0 months) or ipilimumab (difference, 1.7 months). CONCLUSION: The analysis of TFS between ICI cessation and subsequent therapy initiation revealed longer TFS without toxicity for patients with advanced melanoma who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nivolumab or ipilimumab. Regardless of treatment, a small proportion of the TFS involved grade 3 or higher TRAEs.

Association Between Bilirubin, Atazanavir, and Cardiovascular Disease Events Among People Living With HIV Across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Bilirubin is an antioxidant that may suppress lipid oxidation. Elevated bilirubin is associated with decreased cardiovascular events in HIV-uninfected populations. We examined these associations in people living with HIV (PLWH). METHODS: Potential myocardial infarctions (MIs) and strokes were centrally adjudicated. We examined MI types: type 1 MI (T1MI) from atherosclerotic plaque instability and type 2 MI (T2MI) in the setting of oxygen demand/supply mismatch such as sepsis. We used multivariable Cox regression analyses to determine associations between total bilirubin levels and outcomes adjusting for traditional and HIV-specific risk factors. To minimize confounding by hepatobiliary disease, we conducted analyses limited to bilirubin values <2.1 mg/dL; among those with fibrosis-4 values <3.25; and among everyone. We repeated analyses stratified by hepatitis C status and time-updated atazanavir use. RESULTS: Among 25,816 PLWH, there were 392 T1MI and 356 T2MI during follow-up. Adjusted hazard ratios for the association of higher bilirubin levels with T1MI were not significant. Higher bilirubin levels were associated with T2MI. By contrast, among PLWH on atazanavir, higher bilirubin levels were associated with fewer T2MI (hazard ratio 0.56:0.33-1.00). Higher bilirubin levels among those on atazanavir were associated with fewer T1MI combined with ischemic stroke. LIMITATIONS: Analyses were conducted with total rather than unconjugated bilirubin. CONCLUSIONS: Among PLWH, higher bilirubin levels were associated with T2MI among some subgroups. However, among those on atazanavir, there was a protective association between bilirubin and T2MI. These findings demonstrate different associations between outcomes and elevated bilirubin due to diverse causes and the importance of distinguishing MI types.

Sequential treatment approaches in the management of BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences with checkpoint inhibitors in patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma. MATERIALS & METHODS: Using a discrete event simulation model, cost and health outcomes were estimated. Pooled data from CheckMate 067/069 trials were used to calculate survival outcomes including treatment-free interval extrapolated over a patient's lifetime. Costs accounted for treatment, administration, toxicity, and disease management. RESULTS: First-line anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 initiating sequences had the highest estimated mean survival gain (7.6-7.7 years), driven by a longer estimated mean treatment-free interval (5.3 years). Incremental costs per incremental quality-adjusted life year gained for anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 followed by chemotherapy were US$30,955 versus anti-PD-1 initiating sequences, within the willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSION: Anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 initiating sequences for BRAF wild-type melanoma are cost-effective versus anti-PD-1.

Differentiation of Type 1 and Type 2 Myocardial Infarctions Among HIV-Infected Patients Requires Adjudication Due to Overlap in Risk Factors.

The Universal Myocardial infarction (MI) definition divides MIs into different types. Type 1 MIs (T1MI) result spontaneously from atherosclerotic plaque instability. Type 2 MIs (T2MI) are due to secondary causes of myocardial oxygen demand/supply mismatch such as occurs with sepsis. T2MI are much more common among those with HIV than in the general population. T1MI and T2MI have different mechanisms, risk factors, and potential treatments suggesting that they should be distinguished to achieve a better scientific understanding of MIs in HIV. We sought to determine whether MI type could be accurately predicted by patient characteristics without adjudication in HIV-infected individuals. We developed a statistical model to predict T2MI versus T1MI using adjudicated events from six sites utilizing demographic characteristics, traditional cardiovascular, and HIV-related risk factors. Validation was assessed in a seventh site via mean calibration, and discrimination level was assessed by the area under the curve (AUC). Of 812 MIs, 388 were T2MI. HIV-related factors including hepatitis C infection were predictive of T2MI, whereas traditional cardiovascular risk factors including total cholesterol predicted T1MI. The score predicted 69 T2MI in the validation sample resulting in poor calibration, given that 90 T2MIs were observed. The development sample AUC was 0.75 versus 0.65 in the validation sample, suggesting relatively poor discrimination. The level of discrimination to predict MI type based on patient characteristics is insufficient for individual level prediction. Adjudication is required to distinguish MI types, which is necessary to advance understanding of this important outcome among HIV populations.

Cardiovascular outcomes among HIV-infected veterans receiving atazanavir.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with HIV infection have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared with uninfected individuals. Antiretroviral therapy with atazanavir (ATV) delays progression of atherosclerosis markers; whether this reduces cardiovascular disease event risk compared with other antiretroviral regimens is currently unknown. DESIGN: Population-based, noninterventional, historical cohort study conducted from 1 July 2003 through 31 December 2015. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration hospitals and clinics throughout the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Treatment-naive patients with HIV infection (N = 9500). ANTIRETROVIRAL EXPOSURES: Initiating antiretroviral regimens containing ATV, other protease inhibitors, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), or integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). MAIN OUTCOME/EFFECT SIZE MEASURES: Incidence rates of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause mortality within each regimen. ATV versus other protease inhibitor, NNRTI, or INSTI covariate-adjusted hazard ratios by using Cox proportional hazards models and inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Incidence rates for MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality with ATV-containing regimens (5.2, 10.4, and 16.0 per 1000 patient-years, respectively) were lower than with regimens containing other protease inhibitors (10.2, 21.9, and 23.3 per 1000 patient-years), NNRTIs (7.5, 15.9, and 17.5 per 1000 patient-years), or INSTIs (13.0, 33.1, and 21.5 per 1000 patient-years). After inverse probability of treatment weighting, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality with ATV-containing regimens versus all non-ATV-containing regimens were 0.59 (0.41-0.84), 0.64 (0.50-0.81), and 0.90 (0.73-1.11), respectively. CONCLUSION: Among treatment-naive HIV-infected patients in the Veterans Health Administration initiating ATV-containing regimens, risk of both MI and stroke were significantly lower than in those initiating regimens containing other protease inhibitors, NNRTIs, or INSTIs.

Atazanavir and Cardiovascular Risk Among Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). While viral suppression with antiretroviral therapy decreases CVD risk overall, several studies have suggested that certain antiretrovirals, particularly certain protease inhibitors, may be associated with an increased relative risk of CVD. In AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5260 s, ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV) was associated with slower atherosclerosis progression compared to ritonavir-boosted darunavir and raltegravir, potentially due to hyperbilirubinemia. Although hyperbilirubinemia may lead to increased rates of treatment discontinuation, it may also contribute to a favorable cardiovascular (CV) profile for ATV. To fully elucidate the effect of ATV on CVD risk among HIV-infected patients, a systematic review of the literature was performed. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and Embase databases was conducted on August 26, 2015, using terms to identify papers that discuss ATV, HIV, and CVD. Articles were limited to English-language publications of randomized-controlled or observational studies investigating adult humans. The primary outcome was the incidence of CVD. Articles describing surrogate markers of CVD were also included. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this qualitative analysis: six reported CVD outcomes, two reported data on atherosclerosis as assessed by carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), and two reported outcomes related to endothelial function. The studies reporting the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) among HIV-infected patients showed that ATV (boosted and unboosted) was not associated with an increased risk of acute MI. Other CV endpoints were similarly unaffected by treatment with ATV. Compared with non-ATV-based regimens, ATV had beneficial effects on cIMT progression in the publications identified, with no apparent impact on endothelial function. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed that there was no increased risk or occurrence of adverse CV events among HIV-infected patients receiving ATV. Markers of atherosclerosis were improved, suggesting a possible antioxidant effect of ATV, and endothelial function was not affected. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb (article processing charges and medical writing support).

Persistence, adherence, and all-cause healthcare costs in atazanavir- and darunavir-treated patients with human immunodeficiency virus in a real-world setting.

OBJECTIVES: Atazanavir (ATV) and darunavir (DRV) are protease inhibitors approved for HIV treatment in combination with ritonavir (/r). The objectives of this study were to compare persistence (time to treatment discontinuation/modification), adherence, and healthcare costs among patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) initiating ATV/r or DRV/r. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used commercial and Medicaid administrative insurance claims data. Patients initiating ATV/r or DRV/r from 2006-2013 with continuous enrollment for ≥6 months before and ≥3 months after initiation were included. Patients were followed from initiation until discontinuation/modification (≥30 day gap in ATV or DRV or initiation of a new antiretroviral medication), during which time adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC], with PDC ≥80% or 95% considered adherent) and per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were measured. DRV/r patients were propensity score matched to ATV/r patients at a 1:1 ratio to achieve balance on potentially confounding demographic and clinical factors. Commercial and Medicaid samples were analyzed separately, as were antiretroviral (ART)-naïve and experienced patients. RESULTS: The final samples comprised 2988 commercially-insured and 1158 Medicaid-insured patients. There were no significant differences in hazards of discontinuation/modification between the ATV/r or DRV/r cohorts. With respect to odds of being adherent, the only marginally significant result was comparing odds of achieving PDC ≥80% among ART-naïve Medicaid patients, which favored ATV/r. All other adherence comparisons were not significant. Although ATV/r cohorts tended to have lower PPPM costs, the majority of these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HIV treated with either ATV/r or DRV/r had similar time to treatment discontinuation/modification, adherence, and monthly healthcare costs. Results were similar across the pre-specified sub-groups. These findings are useful not only as an insight into clinical practice, but also as a resource for healthcare providers and payers evaluating treatment options for HIV+ individuals.

No difference in persistence to treatment with atazanavir or darunavir in HIV patients in a real-world setting.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of data comparing the protease inhibitors (PIs) atazanavir (ATV) and darunavir (DRV) in a real-world setting. This study compared persistence (time to switch/discontinuation) to therapy between ATV-treated and DRV-treated patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, observational cohort study using US insurance claims for commercially and Medicaid-insured patients. Patients were aged ≥18 years and initiated an ATV- or DRV-based regimen boosted with ritonavir between 7/1/2006 and 3/31/2013, with ≥6 months of continuous enrolment prior to and ≥3 months of continuous enrolment following initiation; patients were required to have ≥1 inpatient or outpatient medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for HIV during that time period of enrolment. Patients with no claims for antiretroviral therapy (ART) any time prior to initiation were considered to be ART-naïve. Time to switch/discontinuation was defined as the number of days from initiation of the regimen until earliest of: (1) a ≥30-day continuous gap in therapy in ATV or DRV; (2) a prescription claim for an ART agent that was not part of the initial regimen (with the exception of changes in concomitant nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or the addition of integrase inhibitors); (3) censoring at a ≥30-day continuous gap in therapy in ritonavir; (4) censoring at disenrolment from insurance benefits or (5) censoring at the study end date (9/30/2013 in the commercial data and 12/31/2013 in the Medicaid data). Time to switch/discontinuation was compared using incidence rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for calendar time, patient demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Table 1 displays the study results and cohort sample sizes. Mean ages across the cohorts were 41-42 years. The proportions of patients who were ART-naïve were 58-59% among the ATV/r cohorts and 53-55% among the DRV/r cohorts. There were no significant differences in the adjusted hazards of switch/discontinuation between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of switch/discontinuation was higher among Medicaid patients (who may be socioeconomically disadvantaged) than Commercial patients. There were no significant differences in persistence (time to switch/discontinuation) with the initiated PI among HIV patients who initiated an ATV-based regimen versus a DRV-based regimen.