Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Network Meta-analysis Comparing Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Antibodies in Solid Cancers.
Al-Showbaki, Laith; Nadler, Michelle B; Desnoyers, Alexandra; Almugbel, Fahad A; Cescon, David W; Amir, Eitan.
Afiliación
  • Al-Showbaki L; Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Nadler MB; Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Desnoyers A; Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Almugbel FA; Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Cescon DW; Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Amir E; Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
J Cancer ; 12(14): 4372-4378, 2021.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34093837
ABSTRACT

Background:

Multiple anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have been approved, and in some diseases, there is a choice of more than one. Comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability are unknown.

Methods:

Randomized trials (RCTs) supporting the registration of single agent anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 inhibitors between 2015-2019 were identified. We extracted the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and calculated the odds ratio (OR) for commonly reported safety and tolerability outcomes. We then performed a network meta-analysis, reporting multiple pair-wise comparisons between different anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies.

Results:

Sixteen RCTs comprising 10673 patients were included; 10 in non-small-cell lung cancer, 2 in melanoma, 2 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and 2 in urothelial cancer. Compared to pembrolizumab, efficacy was similar for nivolumab (HR 1.02 95% CI 0.91-1.14) and for atezolizumab (HR 0.97 95% CI 0.85-1.10), however, avelumab appeared inferior (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.06-1.56). Pembrolizumab showed similar odds of serious adverse events (SAEs) as nivolumab (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.56-2.27) and atezolizumab (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55-2.04). Compared to nivolumab, atezolizumab was associated with more SAEs (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.47-3.12). Avelumab had the lowest odds of grade 3-4 adverse events compared to pembrolizumab (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.74), nivolumab (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.62) and atezolizumab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14-0.33). The odds of treatment discontinuation without progression were similar between nivolumab and atezolizumab (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73-2.00), and between pembrolizumab and nivolumab (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.83-2.17), but was higher with atezolizumab compared to nivolumab (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.29-5.00). Pembrolizumab was associated with higher OR of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) compared to nivolumab (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.49-3.03) and atezolizumab (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09-2.43).

Conclusions:

Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab have similar efficacy. Avelumab appears less efficacious. Safety and tolerability seem better with avelumab, but worse with atezolizumab and pembrolizumab.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: J Cancer Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: J Cancer Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá