Jenny J. Kim, Pharm.D., BCPS, is Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacogenomics, Bernard J. Dunn School of Pharmacy, Shenandoah University, Ashburn, VA. Diana R. Langworthy, Pharm.D., BCPS, is Clinical Pharmacist, Adult Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester
Citations 3
Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Advanced, Unresectable Melanoma
Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 10 6 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 10 8 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.
Docetaxel As Monotherapy or Combined With Ramucirumab or Icrucumab in Second-Line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: An Open-Label, Three-Arm, Randomized Controlled Phase II Trial
Purpose This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel monotherapy or docetaxel in combination with ramucirumab (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antibody) or icrucumab (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 antibody) after progression during or within 12 months of platinum-based regimens for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle (arm A), docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV plus ramucirumab 10 mg/kg IV on day 1 of a 3-week cycle (arm B), or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV on day 1 plus icrucumab 12 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle (arm C). Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results A total of 140 patients were randomly assigned and treated in arms A (n = 45), B (n = 46), or C (n = 49). PFS was significantly longer in arm B compared with arm A (median, 5.4 months; 95% CI, 3.1 to 6.9 months v 2.8 months; 95% CI, 1.9 to 3.6 months; stratified hazard ratio, 0.389; 95% CI, 0.235 to 0.643; P = .0002). Arm C did not experience improved PFS compared with arm A (1.6 months; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.9; stratified hazard ratio, 0.863; 95% CI, 0.550 to 1.357; P = .5053). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events (arms A, B, and C) were neutropenia (36%, 33%, and 39%), fatigue (13%, 30%, and 20%), febrile neutropenia (13%, 17%, and 6.1%), and anemia (6.7%, 13%, and 14%, respectively). Conclusion The addition of ramucirumab to docetaxel met the prespecified efficacy end point for prolonging PFS in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma receiving second-line treatment and warrants further investigation in the phase III setting.
Clinical implications of statin therapy in patients undergoing hemodialysis