A Randomized Clinical Trial of Regdanvimab in High-Risk Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: We evaluated clinical effectiveness of regdanvimab (CT-P59), a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 neutralizing monoclonal antibody, in reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time in patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), primarily Alpha variant. Methods: This was phase 3 of a phase 2/3 parallel-group, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomized to single-dose regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (n = 656) or placebo (n = 659), alongside standard of care. The primary endpoint was COVID-19 disease progression up to day 28 among "high-risk" patients. Key secondary endpoints were disease progression (all randomized patients) and time to recovery (high-risk and all randomized patients). Results: Of 1315 randomized patients, 880 were high risk; the majority were infected with Alpha variant. The proportion with disease progression was lower (14/446, 3.1% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.9%-5.2%] vs 48/434, 11.1% [95% CI, 8.4%-14.4%]; P < .001) and time to recovery was shorter (median, 9.27 days [95% CI, 8.27-11.05 days] vs not reached [95% CI, 12.35-not calculable]; P < .001) with regdanvimab than placebo. Consistent improvements were seen in all randomized and non-high-risk patients who received regdanvimab. Viral load reductions were more rapid with regdanvimab. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 11 patients (4/652 [0.6%] regdanvimab, 7/650 [1.1%] placebo). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 5 of (4/652 [0.6%] regdanvimab and 1/650 [0.2%] placebo). Conclusions: Regdanvimab was an effective treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, significantly reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time without notable safety concerns prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04602000; 2020-003369-20 (EudraCT).

Efficacy and Safety of Regdanvimab (CT-P59): A Phase 2/3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Outpatients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Regdanvimab (CT-P59) is a monoclonal antibody with neutralizing activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We report on part 1 of a 2-part randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study for patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 received a single dose of regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (n = 100), regdanvimab 80 mg/kg (n = 103), or placebo (n = 104). The primary end points were time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swab based on quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) up to day 28 and time to clinical recovery up to day 14. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients requiring hospitalization, oxygen therapy, or mortality due to COVID-19. Results: Median (95% CI) time to negative conversion of RT-qPCR was 12.8 (9.0-12.9) days with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg, 11.9 (8.9-12.9) days with regdanvimab 80 mg/kg, and 12.9 (12.7-13.9) days with placebo. Median (95% CI) time to clinical recovery was 5.3 (4.0-6.8) days with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg, 6.2 (5.5-7.9) days with regdanvimab 80 mg/kg, and 8.8 (6.8-11.6) days with placebo. The proportion (95% CI) of patients requiring hospitalization or oxygen therapy was lower with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (4.0% [1.6%-9.8%]) and regdanvimab 80 mg/kg (4.9% [2.1%-10.9%]) vs placebo (8.7% [4.6%-15.6%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events or deaths occurred. Conclusions: Regdanvimab showed a trend toward a minor decrease in time to negative conversion of RT-qPCR results compared with placebo and reduced the need for hospitalization and oxygen therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Clinical trial registration : NCT04602000 and EudraCT 2020-003369-20.

Effect of Hepatic Impairment on Cobimetinib Pharmacokinetics: The Complex Interplay Between Physiological Changes and Drug Characteristics.

Cobimetinib is a kinase inhibitor indicated for use in combination with vemurafenib for treatment of unresectable/metastatic melanoma with specific BRAF mutations. Cobimetinib is extensively metabolized in liver; thus, patients with hepatic impairment (HI) might have increased cobimetinib exposure. In this study, we investigated the impact of HI on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of cobimetinib. Subjects with normal hepatic function and mild to severe HI were enrolled. All subjects received a single oral dose of 10 mg cobimetinib, and serial blood samples were collected at specified times. Cobimetinib PK in subjects with mild and moderate HI was similar to that in those with normal liver function. However, subjects with severe HI, on average, showed ∼30% lower total AUC0-∞ and ∼2-fold higher unbound AUC0-∞ compared with those with normal hepatic function. These exposure differences can be explained by lower albumin levels observed in subjects with severe HI, the strong correlation between albumin level and the unbound fraction and the general PK variability of cobimetinib. In addition, previous studies with cobimetinib showed a lack of an exposure-response relationship for efficacy and safety. Therefore, collectively, our results suggest that the starting dose for patients with hepatic impairment can be the same as that for those with normal hepatic function.

A phase Ib open-label dose escalation study of the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of cobimetinib (GDC-0973) and ipatasertib (GDC-0068) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This Phase Ib study explored combination dosing of the allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor cobimetinib and the ATP-competitive pan-AKT inhibitor ipatasertib. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled to two dose escalation arms, each using a 3 + 3 design in 28-day cycles. In Arm A, patients received concurrent cobimetinib and ipatasertib on days 1-21. In Arm B, cobimetinib was administered intermittently with ipatasertib for 21 days. Primary objectives evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated doses (MTD), and the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters, MAPK and PI3K pathway alterations, changes in tissue biomarkers, and preliminary anti-tumor efficacy. Expansion cohorts included patients with PTEN-deficient triple-negative breast cancer and endometrial cancer. RESULTS: Among 66 patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug, all experienced an adverse event (AE). Although no DLTs were reported, 6 patients experienced Cycle 1 DLT-equivalent AEs. The most common treatment-related AEs were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, dermatitis acneiform, and fatigue. Thirty-five (53%) patients experienced drug-related AEs of ≥ grade 3 severity. Cobimetinb/ipatasertib MTDs were 60/200 mg on Arm A and 150/300 mg on Arm B; the latter was chosen as the RP2D. No pharmacokinetic interactions were identified. Biomarker analyses indicated pathway blockade and increases in IFNγ and PD-L1 gene expression following the combination. Three patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer achieved partial response, all with PTEN-low disease and two with tumor also harboring KRAS mutation. CONCLUSION: There was limited tolerability and efficacy for this MEK and AKT inhibitor combination. Nonetheless, pharmacodynamic analyses indicated target engagement and suggest rationale for further exploration of cobimetinib or ipatasertib in combination with other anticancer agents. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01562275.

Atezolizumab with or without cobimetinib versus regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (IMblaze370): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer is typically unresponsive to immunotherapy. This phase 3 study was designed to assess atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report the comparison of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab monotherapy versus regorafenib in the third-line setting. METHODS: IMblaze 370 is a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, done at 73 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and disease progression on or intolerance to at least two previous systemic chemotherapy regimens were enrolled. We used permuted-block randomisation (block size four) to assign patients (2:1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus cobimetinib (60 mg orally once daily for days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle), atezolizumab monotherapy (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks), or regorafenib (160 mg orally once daily for days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). Stratification factors were extended RAS status (wild-type vs mutant) and time since diagnosis of first metastasis (<18 months vs ≥18 months). Recruitment of patients with high microsatellite instability was capped at 5%. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. IMblaze370 is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02788279. FINDINGS: Between July 27, 2016, and Jan 19, 2017, 363 patients were enrolled (183 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 90 in the regorafenib group). At data cutoff (March 9, 2018), median follow-up was 7·3 months (IQR 3·7-13·6). Median overall survival was 8·87 months (95% CI 7·00-10·61) with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib, 7·10 months (6·05-10·05) with atezolizumab, and 8·51 months (6·41-10·71) with regorafenib; the hazard ratio was 1·00 (95% CI 0·73-1·38; p=0·99) for the combination versus regorafenib and 1·19 (0·83-1·71; p=0·34) for atezolizumab versus regorafenib. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 109 (61%) of 179 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 28 (31%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 46 (58%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events in the combination group were diarrhoea (20 [11%] of 179), anaemia (ten [6%]), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (12 [7%]), and fatigue (eight [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 71 (40%) of 179 patients in the combination group, 15 (17%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 18 (23%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group (sepsis) and one in the regorafenib group (intestinal perforation). INTERPRETATION: IMblaze370 did not meet its primary endpoint of improved overall survival with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab versus regorafenib. The safety of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib was consistent with those of the individual drugs. These results underscore the challenge of expanding the benefit of immunotherapy to patients whose tumours have lower baseline levels of immune inflammation, such as those with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech Inc.

Genomic Features of Exceptional Response in Vemurafenib ± Cobimetinib-treated Patients with BRAF V600-mutated Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Previous investigations identified transcriptional signatures associated with innate resistance to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 therapy in melanoma. This analysis aimed to increase understanding of the role of baseline genetic features in the variability of response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy for BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This exploratory analysis compared genomic features, using whole-exome and RNA sequencing, of baseline tumors from patients who had complete response versus rapid progression (disease progression at first postbaseline assessment) on treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib or vemurafenib alone. Associations of gene expression with progression-free survival or overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Whole-exome sequencing showed that MITF and TP53 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with rapid progression, while NF1 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with complete response. However, the low frequency of alterations in any one gene precluded their characterization as drivers of response/resistance. Analysis of RNA profiles showed that expression of immune response-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients with complete response, while expression of keratinization-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients who experienced rapid progression. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that enriched immune infiltration might be a shared feature favoring response to both targeted and immune therapies, while features of innate resistance to targeted and immune therapies were distinct.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Parsatuzumab (Anti-EGFL7) or Placebo in Combination with Carboplatin, Paclitaxel, and Bevacizumab for First-Line Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The lack of efficacy associated with anti-EGFL7 combined with standard bevacizumab and chemotherapy in this phase II trial in non-small cell lung carcinoma is consistent with the lack of benefit observed in colorectal carcinoma, highlighting the challenge of enhancing the efficacy of VEGF inhibition in unselected populations.Future efforts with agents like anti-EGFL7 should be guided by advances in pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarker development for antiangiogenic agents. BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor-like domain 7 (EGFL7) is an extracellular matrix-associated protein that is upregulated during angiogenesis and supports endothelial cell survival. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of the anti-EGFL7 antibody, parsatuzumab, in combination with bevacizumab plus platinum-based therapy for advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). METHODS: Patients (n = 104) were randomized to either placebo or parsatuzumab (600 mg) in combination with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) and carboplatin/paclitaxel, administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Carboplatin and paclitaxel were administered for up to six cycles. Bevacizumab and parsatuzumab/placebo were administered for a maximum of 24 months. RESULTS: The progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) was 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-2.8; p = .047). The median PFS was 6.7 months for the parsatuzumab arm versus 8.1 months for the placebo arm. The hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.5-2.2; p = .847). The objective response rate (ORR) was 29% in the parsatuzumab arm and 56% in the placebo arm. Overall safety and tolerability were consistent with the established toxicity profile of bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of efficacy for the addition of parsatuzumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy for first-line NS-NSCLC.

Health-related quality of life impact of cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in patients with advanced or metastatic BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In the coBRIM study, cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (C+V) significantly improved survival outcomes vs placebo and vemurafenib (P+V) in patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. An analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) from coBRIM is reported. METHODS: Patients completing the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline and ⩾1 time point thereafter constituted the analysis population. Change from baseline ⩾10 points was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Mean baseline scores for all QLQ-C30 domains were similar between arms. Most on-treatment scores for QLQ-C30 domains were also comparable between arms. A transient deterioration in role function in cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15; -14.7 points) in the P+V arm and improvement in insomnia in the C+V arm at C2D15 (-12.4 points) was observed. Among patients who experienced a ⩾10-point change from baseline (responders), between-group differences were greatest for insomnia (16%), social functioning (10%), fatigue (9%) and pain (7%), all favouring C+V. Diarrhoea, photosensitivity reaction, pyrexia, and rash did not meaningfully affect global health status (GHS). Serous retinopathy was associated with a transient decrease in GHS at C1D15 assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma, treatment with C+V maintained HRQOL compared with P+V, with superior efficacy.

Elevated Levels of BRAFV600 Mutant Circulating Tumor DNA and Circulating Hepatocyte Growth Factor Are Associated With Poor Prognosis in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: We performed a retrospective exploratory analysis to evaluate the prognostic and predictive effect of two circulating biomarkers, BRAFV600 mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating hepatocyte growth factor (cHGF), in metastatic melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated patients from BRIM-3, a phase III trial comparing vemurafenib and dacarbazine in 675 patients with BRAFV600 mutated advanced melanoma. ctDNA was measured using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction, and cHGF was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Partitioning analysis was used to group patients into risk categories. RESULTS: Patients with elevated levels of baseline BRAFV600 ctDNA had significantly shorter median OS than those with undetectable levels of ctDNA (vemurafenib arm, 9.9 v 21.4 months, respectively, and dacarbazine arm: 6.1 v 21.0 months, respectively). Median OS was also shorter in patients with high levels of cHGF compared with those with low cHGF (vemurafenib arm, 11.9 v 17.3 months, respectively, and dacarbazine arm, 6.1 v 14.4 months, respectively). In a multivariable proportional hazards model with adjustment for lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, disease stage, and treatment, ctDNA and cHGF were both independent prognostic factors for OS, (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.28 for high v undetectable ctDNA; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.53 for high v low cHGF). Using partitioning analysis, we found that patients with elevated ctDNA combined with elevated cHGF constituted the highest risk group with significantly shorter OS. CONCLUSION: Here, we report that BRIM-3 patients with high levels of ctDNA and cHGF have worse OS regardless of treatment and that these factors are independent prognostic markers for metastatic melanoma.

Effects of Molecular Heterogeneity on Survival of Patients With BRAFV600-Mutated Melanoma Treated With Vemurafenib With or Without Cobimetinib in the coBRIM Study.

PURPOSE: The treatment of advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanomas with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) has improved survival, but the efficacy of BRAFi varies among individuals and the development of acquired resistance to BRAFi through reactivation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling is common. We performed an exploratory, retrospective analysis to investigate the effects of BRAFV600 allelic balance, coexisting oncogene mutations, cell proliferation signaling levels, and loss of PTEN expression on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients in the phase III coBRIM study, which compared the combination of the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib with the BRAFi vemurafenib versus vemurafenib as monotherapy. METHODS: Baseline tumor samples from the intention-to-treat population were analyzed by targeted deep sequencing at a median coverage of 3,600× and by immunohistochemistry for cell proliferation markers, BRAFV600E, and PTEN. The association of these biomarkers with PFS was assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Gene expression in relation to loss of PTEN was profiled by RNA sequencing in 205 patient samples and 42 BRAFV600-mutated melanoma cell lines. RESULTS: Neither BRAFV600 allelic balance nor coexisting mutations in the RAS/RAF/RTK pathway affected PFS in either treatment group. Increased baseline MAPK signaling and cell proliferation did not affect PFS in patients treated with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib. PTEN loss was associated with reduced PFS in patients treated with vemurafenib alone but not in patients treated with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib. CONCLUSION: Deeper inhibition of the MAPK pathway through targeting of both MEK and BRAF may override the effects of tumor heterogeneity and improve PFS in all patients with advanced BRAFV600 melanoma.

Gene Expression Profiling in BRAF-Mutated Melanoma Reveals Patient Subgroups with Poor Outcomes to Vemurafenib That May Be Overcome by Cobimetinib Plus Vemurafenib.

Purpose: The association of tumor gene expression profiles with progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib was evaluated.Experimental Design: Gene expression of archival tumor samples from patients in four trials (BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM) was evaluated. Genes significantly associated with PFS (P < 0.05) were identified by univariate Cox proportional hazards modeling, then subjected to unsupervised hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis, and recursive partitioning to develop optimized gene signatures.Results: Forty-six genes were identified as significantly associated with PFS in both BRIM-2 (n = 63) and the vemurafenib arm of BRIM-3 (n = 160). Two distinct signatures were identified: cell cycle and immune. Among vemurafenib-treated patients, the cell-cycle signature was associated with shortened PFS compared with the immune signature in the BRIM-2/BRIM-3 training set [hazard ratio (HR) 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-2.6, P = 0.0001] and in the coBRIM validation set (n = 101; HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5; P = 0.08). The adverse impact of the cell-cycle signature on PFS was not observed in patients treated with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib (n = 99; HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8; P = 0.66).Conclusions: In vemurafenib-treated patients, the cell-cycle gene signature was associated with shorter PFS. However, in cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib-treated patients, both cell cycle and immune signature subgroups had comparable PFS. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib may abrogate the adverse impact of the cell-cycle signature. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5238-45. ©2017 AACR.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Parsatuzumab (Anti-EGFL7) or Placebo in Combination with FOLFOX and Bevacizumab for First-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: These negative phase II results for parsatuzumab highlight the challenges of developing an agent intended to enhance the efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition without the benefit of validated pharmacodynamic biomarkers or strong predictive biomarker hypotheses.Any further clinical development of anti-EGFL7 is likely to require new mechanistic insights and biomarker development for antiangiogenic agents. BACKGROUND: EGFL7 (epidermal growth factor-like domain 7) is a tumor-enriched vascular extracellular matrix protein that supports endothelial cell survival. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of parsatuzumab (also known as MEGF0444A), a humanized anti-EGFL7 IgG1 monoclonal antibody, in combination with modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: One-hundred twenty-seven patients were randomly assigned to parsatuzumab, 400 mg, or placebo, in combination with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab, 5 mg/kg. Treatment cycles were repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for a maximum of 24 months, with the exception of oxaliplatin, which was administered for up to 8 cycles. RESULTS: The progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.93; p = .548). The median PFS was 12 months for the experimental arm versus 11.9 months for the control arm. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.46-2.1; p = .943). The overall response rate was 59% in the parsatuzumab arm and 64% in the placebo arm. The adverse event profile was similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of efficacy for the addition of parsatuzumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy for first-line mCRC. The Oncologist 2017;22:375-e30.

Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma, as previously reported in the coBRIM study. In this Article, we report updated efficacy results, including overall survival and safety after longer follow-up, and selected biomarker correlative studies. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed BRAF(V600) mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive response system to receive cobimetinib (60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day rest period in each 28-day cycle) or placebo, in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Progression-free and overall survival were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; all analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01689519, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS: Between Jan 8, 2013, and Jan 31, 2014, 495 eligible adult patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib group (n=247) or placebo plus vemurafenib group (n=248). At a median follow-up of 14·2 months (IQR 8·5-17·3), the updated investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 7·2 months (5·6-7·5) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46-0·72], p<0·0001). The final analysis for overall survival occurred when 255 (52%) patients had died (Aug 28, 2015). Median overall survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·3-not estimable) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 17·4 months (95% CI 15·0-19·8) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·90; p=0·005). The safety profile for cobimetinib and vemurafenib was tolerable and manageable, and no new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events occurring at a higher frequency in patients in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group compared with the vemurafenib group were γ-glutamyl transferase increase (36 [15%] in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group vs 25 [10%] in the placebo and vemurafenib group), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (30 [12%] vs one [<1%]), and alanine transaminase increase (28 [11%] vs 15 [6%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 92 patients (37%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 69 patients (28%) in the vemurafenib group. Pyrexia (six patients [2%]) and dehydration (five patients [2%]) were the most common serious adverse events reported in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group. A total of 259 patients have died: 117 (47%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 142 (58%) in the vemurafenib group. The primary cause of death was disease progression in most patients: 109 (93%) of 117 in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 133 (94%) of 142 in the vemurafenib group. INTERPRETATION: These data confirm the clinical benefit of cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib and support the use of the combination as a standard first-line approach to improve survival in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).

The effects of a high-fat meal on single-dose vemurafenib pharmacokinetics.

Vemurafenib is an orally bioavailable BRAF inhibitor approved for the treatment of BRAF(V600) -mutant metastatic melanoma. It is important to understand the effects of a high-fat meal on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vemurafenib in humans because it is a Biopharmaceutics Classification System Class IV drug and its PK can be altered by food. An open-label, multicenter, randomized, 2-period crossover study was performed to evaluate the effect of food (high-fat meal) on the PK of a single oral dose of vemurafenib. Secondary objectives were safety and tolerability, efficacy with best overall response rate, and overall survival during the treatment period. The concomitant intake of food (high-fat meal) increased mean Cmax 3.5 to 7.5 µg/mL and mean AUC0-∞ 119 to 360 µg·h/mL after a single 960 mg dose of vemurafenib (N = 13-15 patients). An effect of food on single-dose exposure is suggested by point estimates and 90% CI of geometric mean ratios for vemurafenib plasma AUC0-∞ (4.7) and Cmax (2.5). Toxicity and response rate of vemurafenib in this study were consistent with prior experience in patients with BRAF(V600) -mutant metastatic melanoma. A high-fat meal increased the exposure to vemurafenib without altering the mean terminal half-life.

Daily dosing of vismodegib to steady state does not prolong the QTc interval in healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: Vismodegib was assessed as being of low risk for QT interval prolongation based on prior nonclinical and clinical experience. A dedicated study was conducted to further assess the potential for vismodegib to prolong the QTc interval. METHODS AND RESULTS: Given the nonlinear pharmacokinetics of vismodegib, a thorough QTc study as is typically designed was not possible, and an innovative design was employed. This dedicated QTc study was powered to exclude a 20-millisecond change from the baseline QTc interval. The subjects were administered daily oral 150 mg of vismodegib for 7 days, or a single dose of 400 mg of moxifloxacin, with corresponding matching placebos. The upper limits of the 90% confidence intervals for the difference in ΔQTcF between vismodegib and placebo at steady state were <20 milliseconds at all timepoints with a maximum of 10 milliseconds at 12 hours postdose. Exposure-response analysis yielded an estimated slope equal to 0.11 ms/µM, which was not statistically significant. After a single dose of moxifloxacin was administered, the lower limits of the 90% confidence interval of the difference in ΔQTcF between moxifloxacin and placebo were >5 milliseconds from 1-12 hours postdose, thereby establishing assay sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: There was no effect of vismodegib on the QTc interval when dosed daily at 150 mg to steady state.

A phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled study of vismodegib as maintenance therapy in patients with ovarian cancer in second or third complete remission.

PURPOSE: Hedgehog pathway inhibition has been suggested as a potential maintenance treatment approach in ovarian cancer through disruption of tumor-stromal interactions. Vismodegib is an orally available Hedgehog pathway inhibitor with clinical activity in advanced basal cell carcinoma and medulloblastoma. This phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was designed to provide a preliminary estimate of efficacy in patients with ovarian cancer in second or third complete remission (CR). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in second or third CR were randomized 1:1 to vismodegib (GDC-0449; 150 mg daily) or placebo three to 14 weeks after completing chemotherapy. Treatment continued until radiographic progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred four patients were randomized to vismodegib (n = 52) or placebo (n = 52); median PFS was 7.5 months and 5.8 months, respectively [HR 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-1.35]. The HR was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.36-1.20) for second CR patients (n = 84) and 1.79 (95% CI, 0.50-6.48) for third CR patients (n = 20). The most common adverse events in the vismodegib arm were dysgeusia/ageusia, muscle spasms, and alopecia. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 12 patients (23.1%) with vismodegib and six (11.5%) with placebo. Hedgehog expression was detected in 13.5% of archival tissues. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the sought magnitude of increase in PFS was not achieved for vismodegib maintenance versus placebo in patients with ovarian cancer in second or third CR. The frequency of Hedgehog ligand expression was lower than expected.

Single and multiple dose intravenous and oral pharmacokinetics of the hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib in healthy female subjects.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: While recent publications have suggested the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vismodegib appear to be non-linear, there has not been a report describing the mechanisms of non-linearity. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: This study provides evidence that two separate processes, namely, solubility-limited absorption and concentration-dependent plasma protein binding, can explain the non-linear PK of vismodegib. This study provides quantitative results which can account for the lower than expected accumulation of vismodegib with continuous daily dosing. AIM: Vismodegib has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. The pharmacokinetics (PK) of vismodegib are non-linear. The objective of this study was to determine whether vismodegib PK change following repeated dosing by administering a tracer intravenous (i.v.) dose of (14) C-vismodegib with single and multiple oral doses. METHODS: Healthy post menopausal female subjects (n= 6/group) received either a single or daily 150 mg vismodegib oral dose with a (14) C-labelled 10 µg i.v. bolus dose administered 2 h after the single or last oral dose (day 7). Plasma samples were assayed for vismodegib by LC-MS/MS and for (14) C-vismodegib by accelerator mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Following a single i.v. dose, mean clearance, volume of distribution and absolute bioavailability were 43.4 ml h(-1) , 16.4 l and 31.8%, respectively. Parallel concentration-time profiles following single oral and i.v. administration of vismodegib indicated elimination rate limited PK. Following i.v. administration at steady-state, mean clearance and volume of distribution were 78.5 ml h(-1) and 26.8 l, respectively. Comparison of i.v. PK parameters after single and multiple oral dosing showed similar half-life, increased clearance and volume of distribution (81% and 63% higher, respectively) and decreased bioavailability (77% lower) after repeated dosing. Relative to single dose, the unbound fraction of vismodegib increased 2.4-fold with continuous daily dosing. CONCLUSION: Vismodegib exhibited a long terminal half-life after oral and i.v. administration, moderate absolute bioavailability and non-linear PK after repeated dosing. Results from this study suggest that the non-linear PK of vismodegib result from two separate, non-linear processes, namely solubility limited absorption and high affinity, saturable plasma protein binding.

Pharmacokinetic dose-scheduling study of hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib (GDC-0449) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate whether less frequent dosing [three times per week (TIW) or once weekly (QW)] of 150 mg vismodegib following a loading dose [150 mg once daily (QD) for 11 days] would result in similar safety, tolerability, and steady-state levels of total and unbound vismodegib as continuous QD dosing. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sixty-seven patients with advanced solid tumors were stratified by baseline plasma alpha 1-acid glycoprotein (AAG) levels and randomized to one of three vismodegib 150 mg regimens: QD (n = 23), TIW (n = 22), or QW (n = 22) for up to 42 days after an 11-day loading phase (150 mg QD). Total and unbound (dialyzed) plasma vismodegib concentrations were determined by LC-MS/MS. RESULTS: The most frequently reported adverse events were consistent with those in prior monotherapy trials, with similar incidence and severity regardless of dosing schedule. After the 150 mg QD loading phase, a concentration-dependent change in protein binding (3-fold increase in vismodegib fraction unbound) was observed at steady state compared with single dose. Mean total and unbound vismodegib steady-state concentrations were lower after TIW and QW than QD dosing, with an average intrasubject decrease of 50% and 80%, respectively, for unbound drug. Mechanism-based PK model simulations accurately and prospectively predicted the PK results. CONCLUSIONS: Vismodegib 150 mg TIW or QW failed to achieve unbound plasma concentrations previously associated with efficacy in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma and medulloblastoma, even after a QD loading dose period. The 150 mg QD regimen is appropriate for vismodegib based on its clinical activity, tolerability, and favorable unbound concentrations.