Back to Authors

Diab, Adi

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0153-0244

Mayo Clinic

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Citations 5

Selective immune suppression using interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors for management of immune-related adverse events
Fa’ak, Faisal , Buni, Maryam, Falohun, Adewunmi, Song, Juhee , Trinh, Van Anh, Tahon, Nourel Hoda , Elsayes, Khaled M. , Ludford, Kaysia , Montazari, Emma J., Chernis, Julia , Dimitrova, Maya , Sandigursky, Sabina, Sparks, Jeffrey A. , Abu-Shawer, Osama , Rahma, Osama E. , Thanarajasingam, Uma , Zeman, Ashley M., Talukder, Rafee , Chung, Sarah H. , Grivas, Petros , Daher, May , Abudayyeh, Ala , Osman, Iman , Suarez‐Almazor, María E. , Abdel‐Wahab, Noha , Diab, Adi , Grivas, Petros , Weber, Jeffrey , Diab, Adi , Sparks, Jeffrey A , Lu, Huifang , Johnson, Daniel Hartman , Zobniw, Chrystia M. , Awiwi, Muhammad O. , Singh, Namrata , Weber, Jeffrey S. , Tayar, Jean H.

Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer | June 16, 2023 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 6 | Pages: e006814

10.1136/jitc-2023-006814 Get It

Background Management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is important as they cause treatment interruption or discontinuation, more often seen with combination immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Here, we retrospectively evaluated the safety and effectiveness of anti-interleukin-6 receptor (anti-IL-6R) as therapy for irAEs. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter study evaluating patients diagnosed with de novo irAEs or flare of pre-existing autoimmune disease following ICI and were treated with anti-IL-6R. Our objectives were to assess the improvement of irAEs as well as the overall tumor response rate (ORR) before and after anti-IL-6R treatment. Results We identified a total of 92 patients who received therapeutic anti-IL-6R antibodies (tocilizumab or sarilumab). Median age was 61 years, 63% were men, 69% received anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) antibodies alone, and 26% patients were treated with the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies. Cancer types were primarily melanoma (46%), genitourinary cancer (35%), and lung cancer (8%). Indications for using anti-IL-6R antibodies included inflammatory arthritis (73%), hepatitis/cholangitis (7%), myositis/myocarditis/myasthenia gravis (5%), polymyalgia rheumatica (4%), and one patient each with autoimmune scleroderma, nephritis, colitis, pneumonitis and central nervous system vasculitis. Notably, 88% of patients had received corticosteroids, and 36% received other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as first-line therapies, but without adequate improvement. After initiation of anti-IL-6R (as first-line or post-corticosteroids and DMARDs), 73% of patients showed resolution or change to ≤grade 1 of irAEs after a median of 2.0 months from initiation of anti-IL-6R therapy. Six patients (7%) stopped anti-IL-6R due to adverse events. Of 70 evaluable patients by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) V.1.1 criteria; the ORR was 66% prior versus 66% after anti-IL-6R (95% CI, 54% to 77%), with 8% higher complete response rate. Of 34 evaluable patients with melanoma, the ORR was 56% prior and increased to 68% after anti-IL-6R (p=0.04). Conclusion Targeting IL-6R could be an effective approach to treat several irAE types without hindering antitumor immunity. This study supports ongoing clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab (anti-IL-6R antibody) in combination with ICIs ( NCT04940299 , NCT03999749 ).
Safety and Activity of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in People Living With HIV and Cancer: A Real-World Report From the Cancer Therapy Using Checkpoint Inhibitors in People Living With HIV-International (CATCH-IT) Consortium
Zarif, Talal El , Nassar, Amin H. , Adib, Elio , Fitzgerald, Bailey G. , Huang, Jiaming , Mouhieddine, Tarek H. , Rubinstein, P , Nonato, Taylor K., McKay, Rana R. , Li, Mingjia , Baiocchi, Robert A. , Lorentsen, Michael , Dittus, Christopher , Dizman, Nazlı , Falohun, Adewunmi, Abdel‐Wahab, Noha , Diab, Adi , Bankapur, Anand, Reed, Alexandra, Kim, Chul , Arora, Aakriti, El‐Am, Edward , Abdallah, Wassim , Al‐Hader, Ahmad, Ghazal, Batool Abu, Drolen, Claire , Drakaki, Alexandra , Baena, Javier , Nebhan, Caroline A. , Haykal, Tarek , Morse, Michael A. , Cortellini, Alessio , Pinato, David J. , Pria, Alessia Dalla , Bakalov, Veli , Bahary, Nathan , Rajkumar, Aarthi , Mangla, Ankit , Singh, Parminder , Nana, Frank Aboubakar , Lopetegui‐Lia, Nerea , Dobbs, Ryan W. , Funchain, Pauline , Long, Georgina V. , Genova, Carlo , Barletta, Giulia, Idossa, Damé , Lamberti, Giuseppe , Freeman, Dory , Chiao, Elizabeth Y. , Johnson, Douglas B. , Ramaswami, Ramya , Bower, Mark , Emu, Brinda , Baden, Lindsey R. , Sonpavde, Guru , Naqash, Abdul Rafeh , El Zarif, Talal , Rubinstein, Paul G , Mittra, Arjun , Owen, Dwight H , Lorentsen, Michael , Dittus, Christopher , Dizman, Nazli , Abdel-Wahab, Noha , Diab, Adi , Kim, Chul , Shah, Neil J , Kozaily, Elie , Abdallah, Wassim , Saeed, Anwaar , Drolen, Claire , Lechner, Melissa G , Drakaki, Alexandra , Nebhan, Caroline A , Haykal, Tarek , Cortellini, Alessio , Pinato, David J , Dalla Pria, Alessia , Hall, Evan , Bahary, Nathan , Mangla, Ankit , Shah, Vishal , Aboubakar Nana, Frank , Lopetegui-Lia, Nerea , Dima, Danai , Dobbs, Ryan W , Funchain, Pauline , Woodford, Rachel , Long, Georgina V , Menzies, Alexander M , Genova, Carlo , Puri, Sonam , Florou, Vaia , Lamberti, Giuseppe , Addeo, Alfredo , Bersanelli, Melissa , Xie, Wanling , Reid, Erin G , Chiao, Elizabeth Y , Sharon, Elad , Johnson, Douglas B , Ramaswami, Ramya , Bower, Mark , Choueiri, Toni K , Lurain, Kathryn , Sonpavde, Guru , Naqash, Abdul Rafeh , Nassar, Amin H. , Singh, Parminder , Saeed, Anwaar , Shah, Vishal , Dima, Danai , Saleem, Rabia, Saponara, Maristella , Queirolo, Paola , Addeo, Alfredo , Xie, Wanling , Sharon, Elad , Marron, Thomas , Choueiri, Toni K. , Espinar, Javier Baena

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 16, 2023 | Volume: 41 | Issue: 21 | Pages: 3712-3723

10.1200/jco.22.02459 Get It

PURPOSE Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.
Tilsotolimod Exploits the TLR9 Pathway to Promote Antigen Presentation and Type 1 IFN Signaling in Solid Tumors: A Multicenter International Phase I/II Trial (ILLUMINATE-101)
Babiker, Hani M. , Subbiah, Vivek , Agarwala, Sanjiv S. , Algazi, Alain P. , Schachter, Jacob , Lotem, Michael, Maurice‐Dror, Corinne , Hendler, Daniel , Rahimian, Shah, Minderman, Hans , Mahadevan, Daruka , Bernatchez, Chantale , Hultsch, Rolf, Kaplan, Nadia, Woodhead, Gregory , Hennemeyer, Charles , Chunduru, Srinivas K., Anderson, Peter M. , Diab, Adi , Babiker, Hani , Borazanci, Erkut , Subbiah, Vivek , Agarwala, Sanjiv , Algazi, Alain , Schachter, Jacob , Maurice-Dror, Corinne , Hendler, Daniel , Haymaker, Cara , Bernatchez, Chantale , Kaplan, Nadia , Woodhead, Gregory , Hennemeyer, Charles , Puzanov, Igor , Borazanci, Erkut , Haymaker, Cara , Murthy, Ravi , Puzanov, Igor

Clinical Cancer Research | August 2, 2022 | Volume: 28 | Issue: 23 | Pages: 5079-5087

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-4486 Get It

Abstract Purpose: Tilsotolimod is an investigational synthetic Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist that has demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical models. The ILLUMINATE-101 phase I study explored the safety, dose, efficacy, and immune effects of intratumoral (it) tilsotolimod monotherapy in multiple solid tumors. Patients and Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of refractory cancer not amenable to curative therapies received tilsotolimod in doses escalating from 8 to 32 mg into a single lesion at weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 11. Additional patients with advanced malignant melanoma were enrolled into an expansion cohort at the 8 mg dose. Objectives included characterizing the safety, establishing the dose, efficacy, and immunologic assessment. Blood samples and tumor biopsies of injected and noninjected lesions were obtained at baseline and 24 hours after treatment for immune analyses. Results: Thirty-eight and 16 patients were enrolled into the dose escalation and melanoma expansion cohorts, respectively. Deep visceral injections were conducted in 91% of patients. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) or grade 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed. Biopsies 24 hours after treatment demonstrated an increased IFN pathway signature and dendritic cell maturation. Immunologic profiling revealed upregulation of IFN-signaling genes and modulation of genes for checkpoint proteins. In the dose escalation cohort, 12 (34%) of 35 evaluable patients achieved a best overall response rate (ORR) of stable disease (SD), whereas 3 (19%) of 16 evaluable patients in the melanoma cohort achieved stable disease. Conclusions: Overall, tilsotolimod monotherapy was generally well tolerated and induced rapid, robust alterations in the tumor microenvironment. See related commentary by Punekar and Weber, p. 5007
Phase Ib: Preliminary clinical activity and immune activation for NKTR-262 [TLR 7/8 agonist] plus NKTR-214 [CD122-biased agonist] in patients (pts) with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors (REVEAL Phase Ib/II Trial).
Diab, Adi , Marcondes, Mario Q., Kotzin, Brian L. , Tagliaferri, Mary , Hoch, Ute , Cattaruzza, Fiore, Zalevsky, Jonathan , Bilen, Mehmet Asım , Gupta, Shilpa , Domingo‐Musibay, Evidio , Borazanci, Erkut , Curti, Brendan D. , Borazanci, Erkut , Li, Yunfeng , Brohl, Andrew S. , Brugarolas, James , Conley, Anthony P. , D'Angelo, Sandra P

Journal of Clinical Oncology | July 11, 2019 | Volume: 37 | Issue: 8_suppl | Pages: 26-26

10.1200/jco.2019.37.8_suppl.26 Get It

26 Background: NKTR-262 is a novel intratumoral prodrug designed to promote tumor antigen release, an immune stimulatory environment, and antigen presentation. NKTR-214 increases CD8+ T cells and NK cells in the tumor microenvironment. The combination of NKTR-262 with NKTR-214 accesses innate and adaptive immunity to provide an abscopal response and systemic tumor immunity. The Phase 1b/2 REVEAL trial is enrolling. Methods: In a 3+3 Phase 1 design, pts who are relapsed/refractory to ≥1 CPI receive escalating doses of intratumoral (IT) NKTR-262 followed by combined q3w treatment of IT NKTR-262 and fixed-dose intravenous (IV) NKTR-214 (0.006 mg/kg). Phase 1 will evaluate PK, safety, efficacy, and determine recommended Phase 2 dose. Scans are conducted every 9 wks (± 1 wk). Peripheral blood (PB) and tumor tissue are collected to measure biomarkers of immune activation. In Phase 2 expansion, NKTR-262 + NKTR-214 ± IV nivolumab (360 mg) will be assessed in specific tumor cohorts of IO-naïve and experienced pts. Results: As of 06 Nov 2018, 11 pts had received at least one cycle of NKTR-262 + NKTR-214 therapy. 7/11 pts were efficacy evaluable with at least one on-treatment scan (4 MEL, 2 SARC, 1 CRC). 2/4 R/R melanoma pts had uPRs with 100% (scan 2) and 40% (scan 1) reductions in target lesions per RECIST 1.1, respectively. Both patients remain on treatment. Two SARC pts had stable disease at scan 1. No pts experienced G3 or higher TRAEs or immune-related adverse events (AEs). Most common G1-2 AEs were transient flu-like symptoms. Gene expression analysis of tumor and PB show dose-dependent induction (4 to 16-fold) of TLR target genes. Consistent with the mechanism of action for NKTR-214, PB flow cytometry shows an average 13-fold increase from baseline in Ki67+ CD8+T cells in 6 pts. Conclusions: NKTR-262 + NKTR-214 engage the immune activation cascade from local tumor antigen production to anti-tumor T cell response. Initial dose levels of NKTR-262 with fixed-dose NKTR-214 were well-tolerated with early evidence of clinical activity. These data support continued evaluation of the combination +/- nivolumab. Clinical trial information: NCT03435640.