[Approval of CoronaVac in Brazil and Chile: some lessons on vaccine regulatory challengesA aprovação da CoronaVac no Brasil e no Chile: algumas lições sobre os desafios regulatórios de vacinas]. / La aprobación de CoronaVac en Brasil y Chile: algunas lecciones sobre los retos regulatorios de vacunas.

This analysis compares and systematizes some of the milestones (between December 2020 and October 2021) in the approval by Brazil and Chile of the CoronaVac vaccine made by the Chinese laboratory Sinovac, with regard to how the efficacy and immunogenicity of the vaccine was determined. To this end, a comprehensive analysis was conducted of official public documentation of the vaccine's approval in both countries; likewise, relevant technical articles on the subject, as well as dissemination and discussion in the media were considered. In both cases, a wide range of private and public actors expressed clearly competing interests in the measurement and dissemination of figures on the vaccine's efficacy. This reveals the challenges that middle-income countries face-and will continue to face-when certifying the quality of products in a pandemic period, and the need to institutionally strengthen regulatory authorities to ensure a sound and accurate evaluation of vaccine quality, in terms of safety and efficiency.

Esta análise compara e sistematiza alguns marcos da aprovação, no Brasil e no Chile, da vacina CoronaVac, do laboratório chinês Sinovac, de dezembro de 2020 a outubro de 2021, especificamente sobre como sua eficácia e imunogenicidade foram fundamentadas. Para tanto, foi realizada uma análise exaustiva da documentação pública oficial sobre a aprovação da vacina em ambos os países. Da mesma forma, foram considerados artigos técnicos pertinentes sobre o assunto, e divulgações e discussões realizadas na mídia. Em ambos os casos, uma disputa de interesses de uma ampla gama de atores privados e públicos em torno da medição e divulgação dos números referentes à eficácia foi claramente expressa. Isso permite visualizar os enormes desafios que os países de renda média enfrentam e enfrentarão para certificar a qualidade dos produtos em um contexto epidemiológico de pandemia e a necessidade de fortalecer institucionalmente as autoridades reguladoras para viabilizar uma avaliação íntegra e acertada da qualidade das vacinas em relação a sua segurança e eficiência.

PCSK9: a key modulator of cardiovascular health.

Since the discovery of proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 (PCSK9) in 2003, this PC has attracted a lot of attention from the scientific community and pharmaceutical companies. Secreted into the plasma by the liver, the proteinase K-like serine protease PCSK9 binds the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor at the surface of hepatocytes, thereby preventing its recycling and enhancing its degradation in endosomes/lysosomes, resulting in reduced LDL-cholesterol clearance. Surprisingly, in a nonenzymatic fashion, PCSK9 enhances the intracellular degradation of all its target proteins. Rare gain-of-function PCSK9 variants lead to higher levels of LDL-cholesterol and increased risk of cardiovascular disease; more common loss-of-function PCSK9 variants are associated with reductions in both LDL-cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease. It took 9 years to elaborate powerful new PCSK9-based therapeutic approaches to reduce circulating levels of LDL-cholesterol. Presently, PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies that inhibit its function on the LDL receptor are evaluated in phase III clinical trials. This review will address the biochemical, genetic, and clinical aspects associated with PCSK9's biology and pathophysiology in cells, rodent and human, with emphasis on the clinical benefits of silencing the expression/activity of PCSK9 as a new modality in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia and associated pathologies.

A crisis in clinical research.

The clinical research pipeline is critical to ensuring continued development of novel treatments that can offer patients with cancer safe and effective options. Unfortunately, progress has slowed since the COVID-19 pandemic due to uncovered, systemic inefficiencies across critical processes. Towards initiating discussion on how to reinvigorate clinical research, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) hosted a virtual summit that characterized issues and formed potential solutions. This commentary serves to highlight the crisis facing clinical research as well as stimulate field-wide discussion on how to better serve patients into the future.

Four-year clinical update and treatment switching-adjusted outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the CheckMate 9LA randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression or histology. We report updated efficacy and safety in all randomized patients with a minimum 4-year follow-up and an exploratory treatment-switching adjustment analysis in all treated patients who received chemotherapy and subsequent immunotherapy. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and ECOG performance status ≤1 were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with chemotherapy (two cycles) or chemotherapy (four cycles, with optional maintenance pemetrexed for the nonsquamous population). Assessments included OS, progression-free survival, and objective response rate. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by tumor PD-L1 expression and histology and in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and a treatment-switching adjustment analysis using inverse probability of censoring weighting. RESULTS: With a 47.9-month minimum follow-up for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong OS over chemotherapy in all randomized patients (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87; 4-year OS rate: 21% versus 16%), regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression (HR (95% CI): PD-L1<1%, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86) and ≥1%, 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92)) or histology (squamous, 0.64 (0.48 to 0.84) and non-squamous, 0.80 (0.66 to 0.97)). In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to TRAEs (n=61), the 4-year OS rate was 41%. With treatment-switching adjustment for the 36% of patients receiving subsequent immunotherapy in the chemotherapy arm, the estimated HR of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this 4-year update, patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to have long-term, durable efficacy benefit over chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression and/or histology. A greater estimated relative OS benefit was observed after adjustment for subsequent immunotherapy use in the chemotherapy arm. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic/recurrent NSCLC, including those with tumor PD-L1<1% or squamous histology, populations with high unmet needs.

Efficacy, safety, and biomarker analysis of nivolumab in combination with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in patients with HR-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a phase II study (WJOG11418B NEWFLAME trial).

BACKGROUND: Hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer is a disease for which no immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown promise as effective therapies. Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors synergistically increased the effectiveness of antiprogrammed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies in preclinical studies. METHODS: This non-randomized, multicohort, phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab 240 mg administered every 2 weeks in combination with the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily and either fulvestrant (FUL) or letrozole (LET) as a first-line or second-line treatment for HR-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR), and secondary end points were toxicity, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Blood, tissue, and fecal samples were collected at multiple points for correlative studies to evaluate immunity biomarkers. RESULTS: From June 2019 to early study termination due to safety concerns on July 2020, 17 patients were enrolled (FUL: n=12, LET: n=5). One patient with a prior treatment history in the FUL cohort was excluded. ORRs were 54.5% (6/11) and 40.0% (2/5) in the FUL and LET cohorts, respectively. Treatment-emergent (TE) adverse events (AEs) of grade ≥3 occurred in 11 (92%) and 5 (100%) patients in the FUL and LET cohorts, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were neutropenia (7 (58.3%) and 3 (60.0%) in the FUL and LET cohorts, respectively), followed by alanine aminotransferase elevation (5 (41.6%) and 4 (80.0%)). One treatment-related death from interstitial lung disease occurred in the LET cohort. Ten patients developed liver-related grade ≥3 AEs. Liver biopsy specimens from 3 patients showed hepatitis characterized by focal necrosis with predominant CD8+ lymphocyte infiltration. Marked elevation of tumor necrosis factor-related cytokines and interleukin-11, and a decrease in peripheral regulatory T cells (Tregs), were observed in patients with hepatotoxicity. These findings suggest that treatment-related toxicities were immune-related AEs likely caused by proinflammatory cytokine production and suppression of Treg proliferation due to the addition of abemaciclib to nivolumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the combination of nivolumab and abemaciclib was active, it caused severe and prolonged immune-related AEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: JapicCTI-194782, jRCT2080224706, UMIN000036970.

Molecular profile-based recommendations for postoperative adjuvant therapy in early endometrial cancer with high-intermediate or intermediate risk: a Chinese randomized phase III trial (PROBEAT).

BACKGROUND: The use of molecular categorisation is shifting paradigm towards the use of molecular information to refine risk stratification in endometrial cancer (EC). To date, evidence to support molecular-guided therapies is limited to retrospective studies and secondary molecular analyses of patients receiving standard treatment. The PROBEAT study is the first randomized phase III trial to evaluate tailored adjuvant treatment based on WHO-endorsed molecular classification in Chinese EC patients. It is expected to provide a clinical decision-making tool for adjuvant treatment of patients with high-intermediate risk (HIR) or intermediate risk (IR) EC to better optimise and personalise patient care and increase relapse-free survival. METHODS: The PROBEAT trial is a prospective, multicentre study led by Women's Hospital of Zhejiang University Gynaecologic Oncology Group. Recruitment started on January 24, 2022, and 590 patients with HIR or IR endometrioid EC are expected to be recruited from 13 clinical centres in China. All tumor tissues will be classified into four molecular subtypes (POLEmut, MMRd, p53abn, or NSMP) based on WHO-endorsed molecular classification. Patients will be randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to either experimental arm and will receive molecular profile-based adjuvant treatment (observation in the POLEmut subgroup, vaginal brachytherapy in the MMRd or NSMP subgroup, or chemoradiotherapy in the p53abn subgroup) or to standard arm and will receive preferred adjuvant radiotherapy as recommended by the recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines version 1 (2022). The primary outcome is 3-year rates of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are relapse-free survival, overall survival, adverse events and health-related cancer-specific quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05179447.

Combining histological grade, TILs, and the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway to identify immunogenic tumors and de-escalate radiotherapy in early breast cancer: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of immunological biomarkers for radiotherapy (RT) individualization in breast cancer requires consideration of tumor-intrinsic factors. This study aimed to investigate whether the integration of histological grade, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1), and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) can identify tumors with aggressive characteristics that can be downgraded regarding the need for RT. METHODS: The SweBCG91RT trial included 1178 patients with stage I-IIA breast cancer, randomized to breast-conserving surgery with or without adjuvant RT, and followed for a median time of 15.2 years. Immunohistochemical analyses of TILs, PD-1, and PD-L1 were performed. An activated immune response was defined as stromal TILs ≥10% and PD-1 and/or PD-L1 expression in ≥1% of lymphocytes. Tumors were categorized as high-risk or low-risk using assessments of histological grade and proliferation as measured by gene expression. The risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and benefit of RT were then analyzed with 10 years follow-up based on the integration of immune activation and tumor-intrinsic risk group. RESULTS: Among high-risk tumors, an activated immune infiltrate was associated with a reduced risk of IBTR (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.73, p=0.006). The incidence of IBTR in this group was 12.1% (5.6-25.0) without RT and 4.4% (1.1-16.3) with RT. In contrast, the incidence of IBTR in the high-risk group without an activated immune infiltrate was 29.6% (21.4-40.2) without RT and 12.8% (6.6-23.9) with RT. Among low-risk tumors, no evidence of a favorable prognostic effect of an activated immune infiltrate was seen (HR 2.0, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.6, p=0.100). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating histological grade and immunological biomarkers can identify tumors with aggressive characteristics but a low risk of IBTR despite a lack of RT boost and systemic therapy. Among high-risk tumors, the risk reduction of IBTR conferred by an activated immune infiltrate is comparable to treatment with RT. These findings may apply to cohorts dominated by estrogen receptor-positive tumors.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with ECOG performance status 2 and other special populations: CheckMate 817.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection). METHODS: Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory. RESULTS: The most common grade 3-4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02869789.

Maximizing the value of phase III trials in immuno-oncology: A checklist from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC).

The broad activity of agents blocking the programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand (the PD-(L)1 axis) revolutionized oncology, offering long-term benefit to patients and even curative responses for tumors that were once associated with dismal prognosis. However, only a minority of patients experience durable clinical benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in most disease settings. Spurred by preclinical and correlative studies to understand mechanisms of non-response to the PD-(L)1 antagonists and by combination studies in animal tumor models, many drug development programs were designed to combine anti-PD-(L)1 with a variety of approved and investigational chemotherapies, tumor-targeted therapies, antiangiogenic therapies, and other immunotherapies. Several immunotherapy combinations improved survival outcomes in a variety of indications including melanoma, lung, kidney, and liver cancer, among others. This immunotherapy renaissance, however, has led to many combinations being advanced to late-stage development without definitive predictive biomarkers, limited phase I and phase II data, or clinical trial designs that are not optimized for demonstrating the unique attributes of immune-related antitumor activity-for example, landmark progression-free survival and overall survival. The decision to activate a study at an individual site is investigator-driven, and generalized frameworks to evaluate the potential for phase III trials in immuno-oncology to yield positive data, particularly to increase the number of curative responses or otherwise advance the field have thus far been lacking. To assist in evaluating the potential value to patients and the immunotherapy field of phase III trials, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has developed a checklist for investigators, described in this manuscript. Although the checklist focuses on anti-PD-(L)1-based combinations, it may be applied to any regimen in which immune modulation is an important component of the antitumor effect.

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory. RESULTS: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

La aprobación de CoronaVac en Brasil y Chile: algunas lecciones sobre los retos regulatorios de vacunas / Approval of CoronaVac in Brazil and Chile: some lessons on vaccine regulatory challenges / A aprovação da CoronaVac no Brasil e no Chile: algumas lições sobre os desafios regulatórios de vacinas

RESUMEN Este análisis compara y sistematiza algunos hitos de la aprobación en Brasil y Chile de la vacuna CoronaVac del laboratorio chino Sinovac, desde diciembre 2020 hasta octubre 2021, respecto de cómo se fundamentó su eficacia e inmunogenicidad. A tal fin se realizó un análisis exhaustivo de la documentación oficial pública sobre la aprobación de la vacuna en ambos países; asimismo, se consideraron artículos técnicos pertinentes sobre la materia, y la divulgación y discusión realizada en los medios de comunicación. En uno y otro caso se expresó nítidamente una puja de una amplia gama de actores privados y públicos en torno a la medición y difusión de las cifras de eficacia. Esto permite visualizar los sendos retos que enfrentan y enfrentarán los países de medianos ingresos para certificar la calidad de productos en una era epidemiológica pandémica, y la necesidad de fortalecer institucionalmente las autoridades regulatorias, para viabilizar una evaluación proba y certera de la calidad de las vacunas, en cuanto a su seguridad y eficiencia.

ABSTRACT This analysis compares and systematizes some of the milestones (between December 2020 and October 2021) in the approval by Brazil and Chile of the CoronaVac vaccine made by the Chinese laboratory Sinovac, with regard to how the efficacy and immunogenicity of the vaccine was determined. To this end, a comprehensive analysis was conducted of official public documentation of the vaccine's approval in both countries; likewise, relevant technical articles on the subject, as well as dissemination and discussion in the media were considered. In both cases, a wide range of private and public actors expressed clearly competing interests in the measurement and dissemination of figures on the vaccine's efficacy. This reveals the challenges that middle-income countries face—and will continue to face—when certifying the quality of products in a pandemic period, and the need to institutionally strengthen regulatory authorities to ensure a sound and accurate evaluation of vaccine quality, in terms of safety and efficiency.

RESUMO Esta análise compara e sistematiza alguns marcos da aprovação, no Brasil e no Chile, da vacina CoronaVac, do laboratório chinês Sinovac, de dezembro de 2020 a outubro de 2021, especificamente sobre como sua eficácia e imunogenicidade foram fundamentadas. Para tanto, foi realizada uma análise exaustiva da documentação pública oficial sobre a aprovação da vacina em ambos os países. Da mesma forma, foram considerados artigos técnicos pertinentes sobre o assunto, e divulgações e discussões realizadas na mídia. Em ambos os casos, uma disputa de interesses de uma ampla gama de atores privados e públicos em torno da medição e divulgação dos números referentes à eficácia foi claramente expressa. Isso permite visualizar os enormes desafios que os países de renda média enfrentam e enfrentarão para certificar a qualidade dos produtos em um contexto epidemiológico de pandemia e a necessidade de fortalecer institucionalmente as autoridades reguladoras para viabilizar uma avaliação íntegra e acertada da qualidade das vacinas em relação a sua segurança e eficiência.