Symptomatic Pneumonitis With Durvalumab After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC.

Introduction: In the placebo-controlled, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.00251) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC and no progression after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis (PRP) was common in both arms. We report exploratory analyses evaluating the association of symptomatic (grade ≥2) PRP (G2+PRP) with baseline factors and clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients with WHO performance status of 0 or 1 were randomized (2:1) to 12 months of durvalumab or placebo, 1 to 42 days after cCRT. Associations between baseline factors and on-study G2+PRP in durvalumab-treated patients were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for time-dependent G2+PRP plus covariates for randomization stratification factors without and with additional baseline factors. Results: On-study G2+PRP occurred in 94 of 475 (19.8%) and 33 of 234 patients (14.1%) on durvalumab and placebo, respectively (median follow-up, 25.2 mo); grade greater than or equal to 3 PRP was uncommon (4.6% and 4.7%, respectively). Time to onset and resolution of G2+PRP was similar with durvalumab and placebo. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified patients treated in Asia, those with stage IIIA disease, those with performance status of 1, and those who had not received induction chemotherapy as having a higher risk of G2+PRP. PFS and OS benefit favoring durvalumab versus placebo was maintained regardless of time-dependent G2+PRP. Conclusions: Factors associated with higher risk of G2+PRP with durvalumab after cCRT were identified. Clinical benefit was maintained regardless of on-study G2+PRP, suggesting the risk of this event should not deter the use of durvalumab in eligible patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Characterizing immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC: A post-hoc analysis of the PACIFIC trial.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs), including all-cause immune-mediated pneumonitis, were reported in approximately 25% of patients in the placebo-controlled, phase III PACIFIC trial of durvalumab monotherapy (for up to 12 months) in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy; only 3.4% of patients experienced grade 3/4 imAEs. With broad application of the PACIFIC regimen (consolidation durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy), now standard-of-care in this setting, there is a need to better characterize the occurrence of imAEs with this regimen. METHODS: We performed descriptive, post-hoc, exploratory analyses to characterize the occurrence of imAEs (pneumonitis and non-pneumonitis) in PACIFIC in terms of: incidence, severity, and timing; clinical management and outcomes; and associations between the occurrence of imAEs and (1) all-cause AEs and (2) baseline patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Any-grade immune-mediated pneumonitis (9.4%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (10.7%) occurred infrequently and were more common with durvalumab versus placebo. Grade 3/4 immune-mediated pneumonitis (1.9%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (1.7%) were uncommon with durvalumab, as were fatal imAEs (0.8%; all pneumonitis). The most common non-pneumonitis imAEs with durvalumab were thyroid disorders, dermatitis/rash, and diarrhea/colitis. Dermatitis/rash had the shortest time to onset (from durvalumab initiation), followed by pneumonitis; dermatitis/rash had the longest time to resolution, followed by thyroid disorders. Most patients with immune-mediated pneumonitis (78.4%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (56.3%) had these events occur ≤ 3 months after initiating durvalumab. ImAEs were well managed with administration of systemic corticosteroids, administration of endocrine replacement therapy, and interruption/discontinuation of durvalumab. Time elapsed from completion of prior radiotherapy to trial randomization (<14 vs. ≥ 14 days) did not impact either incidence or severity of imAEs. Durvalumab had a manageable safety profile broadly irrespective of whether patients experienced imAEs. CONCLUSION: The risk of imAEs should not deter use of the PACIFIC regimen in eligible patients, as these events are generally well managed through appropriate clinical intervention.

Impact of prior chemoradiotherapy-related variables on outcomes with durvalumab in unresectable Stage III NSCLC (PACIFIC).

INTRODUCTION: The PACIFIC trial demonstrated that durvalumab significantly improved progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS), versus placebo, in patients with Stage III NSCLC and stable or responding disease following concurrent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT). A range of CT and RT regimens were permitted, and used, in the trial. We report post-hoc, exploratory analyses of clinical outcomes from PACIFIC according to CRT-related variables. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 (1-42 days post-CRT) to up to 12 months durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) or placebo. Efficacy and safety were analyzed in patient subgroups defined by the following baseline variables: platinum-based CT (cisplatin/carboplatin); vinorelbine, etoposide, or taxane-based CT (all yes/no); total RT dose (<60 Gy/60-66 Gy/>66 Gy); time from last RT dose to randomization (<14 days/≥14 days); and use of pre-CRT induction CT (yes/no). Treatment effects for time-to-event endpoints were estimated by hazard ratios (HRs) from unstratified Cox-proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 713 patients were randomized, of whom 709 received treatment in either the durvalumab (n/N = 473/476) or placebo arms (n/N = 236/237). Durvalumab improved PFS, versus placebo, across all subgroups (median follow up, 14.5 months; HR range, 0.34-0.63). Durvalumab improved OS across most subgroups (median follow up, 25.2 months; HR range, 0.35-0.86); however, the 95 % confidence interval (CI) of the estimated treatment effect crossed one for the subgroups of patients who received induction CT (HR, 0.78 [95 % CI, 0.51-1.20]); carboplatin (0.86 [0.60-1.23]); vinorelbine (0.79 [0.49-1.27]); and taxane-based CT (0.73 [0.51-1.04]); and patients who were randomized ≥14 days post-RT (0.81 [0.62-1.06]). Safety was broadly similar across the CRT subgroups. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab prolonged PFS and OS irrespective of treatment variables related to prior CRT to which patients with Stage III NSCLC had previously stabilized or responded. Limited patient numbers and imbalances in baseline factors in each subgroup preclude robust conclusions.

Safety Profile of Ceftazidime-Avibactam: Pooled Data from the Adult Phase II and Phase III Clinical Trial Programme.

INTRODUCTION: Ceftazidime-avibactam combines the established anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin, ceftazidime, with the novel non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor, avibactam. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in adults using pooled data from two phase II (NCT00690378, NCT00752219) and five phase III (NCT01499290, NCT01726023, NCT01644643, NCT01808093 and NCT01595438/NCT01599806) clinical studies. METHODS: Safety data from seven multicentre, randomised, active-comparator studies were pooled by study group at the patient level for descriptive analyses, comprising patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including pyelonephritis, complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), or nosocomial pneumonia (NP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), treated with ceftazidime-avibactam ± metronidazole or comparator. RESULTS: In total, 4050 patients (ceftazidime-avibactam ± metronidazole, n = 2024; comparator, n = 2026) were included in the pooled analysis. Adverse events (AEs) up to the last study visit occurred in 996 (49.2%) and 965 (47.6%) patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam ± metronidazole and comparator, respectively. The most common AEs across treatment groups were diarrhoea, nausea, headache, vomiting and pyrexia. There were few discontinuations due to AEs (2.5% and 1.7% for ceftazidime-avibactam ± metronidazole and comparators, respectively). Overall rates of serious AEs were 8.7% for ceftazidime-avibactam ± metronidazole and 7.2% for comparators; respective rates of AEs with an outcome of death were 2.0% and 1.8%. AEs considered causally related to the study drug or procedures occurred in 10.7% and 9.6% of patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam ± metronidazole and comparators; the most common drug-related AEs in both groups were diarrhoea, headache, nausea and increased alanine aminotransferase. No impact to the safety profile of ceftazidime-avibactam ± metronidazole was found with regard to intrinsic factors, such as age or renal function at baseline, or extrinsic factors, such as geographical origin. Potentially clinically significant changes in laboratory parameters were infrequent with no trends or safety concerns identified. CONCLUSION: The observed safety profile of ceftazidime-avibactam across infection types is consistent with the established safety profile of ceftazidime monotherapy and no new safety findings were identified. This analysis supports the use of ceftazidime-avibactam as a treatment option in adults with cUTI, cIAI and NP, including VAP.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Plus Metronidazole in the Treatment of Children ≥3 Months to <18 Years With Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection: Results From a Phase 2, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole is effective in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) in adults. This single-blind, randomized, multicenter, phase 2 study (NCT02475733) evaluated the safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole in children with cIAI. METHODS: Hospitalized children (≥3 months to <18 years) with cIAI were randomized 3:1 to receive intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole, or meropenem, for a minimum of 72 hours (9 doses), with optional switch to oral therapy thereafter for a total treatment duration of 7-15 days. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study, along with clinical and microbiologic outcomes, and pharmacokinetics. A blinded observer determined adverse event (AE) causality, and clinical outcomes up to the late follow-up visit. RESULTS: Eighty-three children were randomized and received study drug (61 ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and 22 meropenem); most (90.4%) had a diagnosis of appendicitis. Predominant Gram-negative baseline pathogens were Escherichia coli (79.7%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (33.3%); 2 E. coli isolates were ceftazidime-non-susceptible. AEs occurred in 52.5% and 59.1% of patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem groups, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 8.2% and 4.5% of patients, respectively; none was considered drug related. No deaths occurred. Favorable clinical/microbiologic responses were observed in ≥90% of patients in both treatment groups at end-of-intravenous treatment and test-of-cure visits. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to ceftazidime alone, and appeared effective in pediatric patients with cIAI due to Gram-negative pathogens, including ceftazidime-non-susceptible strains.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftazidime-Avibactam in the Treatment of Children ≥3 Months to <18 Years With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection: Results from a Phase 2 Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime-avibactam is effective and well tolerated in adults with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), but has not been evaluated in children with cUTI. METHODS: This single-blind, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 2 study (NCT02497781) randomized children ≥3 months to <18 years with cUTI (3:1) to receive intravenous (IV) ceftazidime-avibactam or cefepime for ≥72 hours, with subsequent optional oral switch. Total treatment duration was 7-14 days. Primary objective was assessment of safety. Secondary objectives included descriptive efficacy and pharmacokinetics. A blinded observer determined adverse event (AE) causality and clinical outcomes up to the late follow-up visit (20-36 days after the last dose of IV/oral therapy). RESULTS: In total, 95 children received ≥1 dose of IV study drug (ceftazidime-avibactam, n = 67; cefepime, n = 28). The predominant baseline Gram-negative uropathogen was Escherichia coli (92.2%). AEs occurred in 53.7% and 53.6% patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam and cefepime groups, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 11.9% (ceftazidime-avibactam) and 7.1% (cefepime) patients. One serious AE (ceftazidime-avibactam group) was considered drug related. In the microbiologic intent-to-treat analysis set, favorable clinical response rates >95% were observed for both groups at end-of-IV and remained 88.9% (ceftazidime-avibactam) and 82.6% (cefepime) at test-of-cure. Favorable per-patient microbiologic response at test-of-cure was 79.6% (ceftazidime-avibactam) and 60.9% (cefepime). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam was well tolerated in children with cUTI, with a safety profile consistent with that of adults with cUTI and of ceftazidime alone, and appeared effective in children with cUTI due to Gram-negative pathogens.

Advance care planning: the impact of Ceiling of Treatment plans in patients with Coordinate My Care.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this evaluation is to describe the components and results of urgent care planning in Coordinate My Care (CMC), a digital clinical service for patients with life-limiting illness, for use if a patient is unable to make or express choices. Ceiling of treatment (CoT) plans were created detailing where the patient would like to receive their care and how aggressive medical interventions should be. METHODS: A retrospective service evaluation was completed of all CMC records created between December 2015 and September 2016 (n=6854). CMC records were divided into two cohorts: those with a CoT plan and those without. The factors associated with these cohorts were reviewed including age, diagnosis, resuscitation status and preferences for place of death (PPD). Analysis of the non-mandatory free text section was carried out. RESULTS: Two-thirds of patients had recorded decisions about CoT. Regardless of which CoT option was chosen, for most patients, PPD was home or care home. Patients with a CoT plan were more likely to have a documented resuscitation status. Patients with a CoT were more likely to die in their PPD (82%vs71%, OR 1.79, p<0.0001). A higher proportion of patients with a CoT decision died outside hospital. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that a substantial proportion of patients are willing to engage in urgent care planning. Three facets of urgent care planning identified include PPD, CoT and resuscitation status.

Ceftazidime-Avibactam Susceptibility Breakpoints against Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Clinical susceptibility breakpoints against Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for the ceftazidime-avibactam dosage regimen of 2,000/500 mg every 8 h (q8h) by 2-h intravenous infusion (adjusted for renal function) have been established by the FDA, CLSI, and EUCAST as susceptible (MIC, ≤8 mg/liter) and resistant (MIC, >8 mg/liter). The key supportive data from pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses, in vitro surveillance, including molecular understanding of relevant resistance mechanisms, and efficacy in regulatory clinical trials are collated and analyzed here.

Clinical activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against MDR Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: pooled data from the ceftazidime/avibactam Phase III clinical trial programme.

Objectives: This analysis evaluated the clinical activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against MDR Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates pooled from the adult Phase III clinical trials in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) or nosocomial pneumonia (NP) including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Methods: Baseline isolates from five Phase III randomized controlled trials of ceftazidime/avibactam versus predominantly carbapenem comparators in patients with cIAI (RECLAIM 1 and 2; NCT01499290 and RECLAIM 3; NCT01726023), cUTI (RECAPTURE 1 and 2; NCT01595438 and NCT01599806), NP including VAP (REPROVE; NCT01808092) and cIAI or cUTI caused by ceftazidime-non-susceptible Gram-negative pathogens (REPRISE; NCT01644643) were tested for MDR status and susceptibility to ceftazidime/avibactam and carbapenem-based comparators using CLSI broth microdilution methodology. Microbiological and clinical responses for patients with ≥1 MDR Enterobacteriaceae or P. aeruginosa isolate were assessed at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Results: In the pooled microbiologically modified ITT population, 1051 patients with MDR Enterobacteriaceae and 95 patients with MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were identified. Favourable microbiological response rates at TOC for all MDR Enterobacteriaceae and MDR P. aeruginosa were 78.4% and 57.1%, respectively, for ceftazidime/avibactam and 71.6% and 53.8%, respectively, for comparators. The proportions of patients with ≥1 MDR isolate who were clinically cured at TOC were similar in the ceftazidime/avibactam (85.4%) and comparator (87.9%) arms. Conclusions: Ceftazidime/avibactam demonstrated similar clinical efficacy to predominantly carbapenem comparators against MDR Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa, and may be a suitable alternative to carbapenem-based therapies for cIAI, cUTI and NP/VAP caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens.

Efficacy and Safety of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Plus Metronidazole Versus Meropenem in the Treatment of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection: Results From a Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Program.

BACKGROUND: When combined with ceftazidime, the novel non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor avibactam provides a carbapenem alternative against multidrug-resistant infections. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole were compared with meropenem in 1066 men and women with complicated intra-abdominal infections from 2 identical, randomized, double-blind phase 3 studies (NCT01499290 and NCT01500239). METHODS: The primary end point was clinical cure at test-of-cure visit 28-35 days after randomization, assessed by noninferiority of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole to meropenem in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat (mMITT) population (in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidance), and the modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations (European Medicines Agency guidance). Noninferiority was considered met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for between-group difference was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -12.5%. RESULTS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem across all primary analysis populations. Clinical cure rates with ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem, respectively, were as follows: mMITT population, 81.6% and 85.1% (between-group difference, -3.5%; 95% confidence interval -8.64 to 1.58); modified intention-to-treat, 82.5% and 84.9% (-2.4%; -6.90 to 2.10); and clinically evaluable, 91.7% and 92.5% (-0.8%; -4.61 to 2.89). The clinical cure rate with ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole for ceftazidime-resistant infections was comparable to that with meropenem (mMITT population, 83.0% and 85.9%, respectively) and similar to the regimen's own efficacy against ceftazidime-susceptible infections (82.0%). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Efficacy was similar against infections caused by ceftazidime-susceptible and ceftazidime-resistant pathogens. The safety profile of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was consistent with that previously observed with ceftazidime alone. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01499290 and NCT01500239.

Safety, local tolerability and pharmacokinetics of ceftaroline fosamil administered in a reduced infusion volume.

AIMS: The standard dose of ceftaroline fosamil for patients with normal renal function is 600 mg diluted in 250 ml by 60 min intravenous infusion every 12 h. This two part phase I trial (NCT01577589) assessed safety and local tolerability of multiple ceftaroline fosamil 50 ml and 250 ml infusions, and pharmacokinetics following single administrations of each infusion volume. METHODS: Part A was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, multiple dose crossover study. Twenty-four healthy subjects were randomized to simultaneous, bilateral ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg and placebo infusions in each arm (50 ml then 250 ml or vice versa) every 12 h for 72 h, with a ≥ 4.5 day washout. Local tolerability was evaluated by the Visual Infusion Phlebitis scale, with scores ≥2 considered infusion site reactions (ISRs). Part B was an open label crossover study. Ten subjects were randomized to single 50 ml and 250 ml ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg infusions on days 1 and 3 (washout on day 2). Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were taken over 24 h. RESULTS: In part A, four subjects (16.7%) experienced ISRs, all of which were associated with placebo infusions. No ISRs were reported for either ceftaroline fosamil 50 ml or 250 ml. Plasma pharmacokinetics (ceftaroline fosamil, active ceftaroline and an inactive metabolite) were similar following single 50 ml and 250 ml infusions in part B. CONCLUSIONS: No new safety concerns were identified for ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg 50 ml compared with 250 ml. These findings suggest infusion volumes down to 50 ml may be used in patients with fluid intake restrictions.