Linda Rollin

Nivolumab and Ipilimumab versus Ipilimumab in Untreated Melanoma

BACKGROUND In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression‐free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3‐year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression‐free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS At a minimum follow‐up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment‐related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol‐Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.)

Aripiprazole in the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder: a 3-week placebo-controlled study.

This study compares the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a partial dopamine agonist, aripiprazole, with placebo in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic or mixed episode. In total, 272 hospitalized patients were randomized to aripiprazole 30mg/day or placebo in this 3-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Dosing could be reduced to 15mg/day for tolerability and, subsequently, increased to 30mg/day based on clinical response. Primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline to endpoint in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score; response was defined as 50% decrease from baseline YMRS score. Aripiprazole-treated patients demonstrated significantly greater improvement from baseline to endpoint in mean YMRS total scores compared with placebo-treated patients as early as Day 4 and sustained through Week 3. A significantly higher response rate was observed in aripiprazole-treated patients (53% vs. 32% at endpoint). Aripiprazole produced significantly greater improvements from baseline on other efficacy assessments compared with placebo, including Clinical Global Impression – Bipolar Version Severity and Improvement scores. The 30mg/day dose was maintained by 85% of aripiprazole-treated patients. Incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events was similar for aripiprazole (8.8%) and placebo (7.5%). Aripiprazole treatment resulted in no significant difference from placebo in change in mean body weight and was not associated with elevated serum prolactin or QTc prolongation. In conclusion, aripiprazole demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder presenting with acute manic or mixed episodes, and exhibited a favourable safety and tolerability profile.

Efficacy of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in the long‐term treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder with an inadequate response to lithium or valproate monotherapy: a multicenter, double‐blind, randomized study

Marcus R, Khan A, Rollin L, Morris B, Timko K, Carson W, Sanchez R. Efficacy of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in the long‐term treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder with an inadequate response to lithium or valproate monotherapy: a multicenter, double‐blind, randomized study.
Bipolar Disord 2011: 13: 133–144.

A comparison of two fixed doses of aripiprazole with placebo in acutely relapsed, hospitalized patients with bipolar disorder I (manic or mixed) in subpopulations (CN138-007)

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of two fixed doses of aripiprazole (15 mg/day, n = 131 and 30 mg/day, n = 136) compared with placebo (n = 134) in acutely manic or mixed bipolar I hospitalized patients. The mean change from baseline to Week 3 in the YMRS Total Scores was -10.01 (95% CI: -11.92, -8.09) for aripiprazole 15 mg/day, -10.80 (95% CI: -12.71, -8.90) for aripiprazole 30 mg/day, and -10.12 (95% CI: -12.01, -8.24) for placebo. The most frequent adverse events (> or = 10% and greater than placebo) for either of the aripiprazole treatment groups were headache, nausea, dyspepsia, insomnia, agitation, constipation, akathisia, anxiety, lightheadedness, vomiting, diarrhea, asthenia and extremity pain. Aripiprazole 15 or 30 mg/day was not significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of bipolar I disorder acute mania at endpoint (Week 3). A high placebo response rate may have accounted for the lack of separation between treatment groups.

Efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in patients with major depressive disorder who showed minimal response to initial antidepressant therapy.

To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in patients with minimal response to prior antidepressant therapy (ADT). Pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies assessing the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole to ADT in patients with major depressive disorder who had a minimal response [<25% reduction on the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)] to an 8-week prospective ADT. During the 6-week, double-blind adjunctive phase, response was defined as at least 50% reduction in the MADRS score and remission as at least 50% reduction in MADRS score and a MADRS score ⩽10. Rates were examined using analysis of covariance and Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel tests. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to calculate time to response and remission. Of 1038 patients, 72% (n=746) exhibited a minimal response to ADT (ADT minimal responder). Time to response and remission were significantly shorter for ADT minimal responders receiving aripiprazole+ADT versus adjunctive placebo+ADT. ADT minimal responders on aripiprazole+ADT showed significantly greater improvements in MADRS score at endpoint compared with minimal responders on placebo+ADT (−10.3 vs. −6.5, P<0.0001). In addition, ADT minimal responders exhibited significantly higher response rates with aripiprazole+ADT than placebo+ADT (36 vs. 19%, respectively, P<0.0001) and higher remission rates (24 vs. 12%, respectively, P<0.0001). The numbers needed to treat with aripiprazole+ADT were six for response and eight for remission. Aripiprazole augmentation had a rapid and clinically meaningful effect in ADT minimal responders.

Efficacy and safety results from a phase III trial of nivolumab (NIVO) alone or combined with ipilimumab (IPI) versus IPI alone in treatment-naive patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL) (CheckMate 067).

LBA1 Background: The results of a phase I study in MEL suggested complementary clinical activity with NIVO (a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor) plus IPI (a CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitor). Here, we report the results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial designed to evaluate NIVO combined with IPI or NIVO alone vs IPI alone in MEL. METHODS Treatment-naïve pts (N = 945) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 1 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W, NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo, or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and M-stage. Co-primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS) (reported here) and overall survival (pts continue to be followed). Secondary endpoints include objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 and safety. RESULTS At a minimum follow-up of 9 months, NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone significantly improved PFS and ORR vs IPI (Table). Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 55.0%, 16.3%, and 27.3% of pts in the NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI arms, respectively (most commonly diarrhea [9.3%, 2.2%, 6.1%], increased lipase [8.6%, 3.5%, 3.9%], increased alanine aminotransferase [8.3%, 1.3%, 1.6%], and colitis [7.7%, 0.6%, 8.7%]). Drug-related AEs led to discontinuation in 36.4%, 7.7%, and 14.8% of pts in the NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI arms, with 0, 1, and 1 drug-related deaths, respectively. Efficacy outcomes by PD-L1 status will also be presented. CONCLUSIONS NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone had superior clinical activity vs IPI alone. The results with NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone further suggest complementary activity of the two agents. There were no new safety signals or drug-related deaths observed with the combination. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT01844505. [Table: see text].

Abstract CT075: Overall survival (OS) results from a phase III trial of nivolumab (NIVO) combined with ipilimumab (IPI) in treatment-naïve patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067)

Background: NIVO plus IPI improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) vs IPI alone in the phase II CheckMate 069 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials of treatment-naive patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL). Here, we report the first OS results from CheckMate 067. Methods: Treatment-naive patients (N=945) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W, NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo, or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by PD-L1 status ( Results: At a minimum follow-up of 28 months, median OS has not been reached in the NIVO+IPI or NIVO groups, and was 20.0 months for IPI (hazard ratio [HR]: NIVO+IPI vs IPI, 0.55; P Conclusions: Both NIVO+IPI and NIVO significantly improved OS vs IPI alone. In descriptive analyses, NIVO+IPI appeared to provide favorable survival outcomes over NIVO alone, including across clinically relevant subgroups. Citation Format: James Larkin, Vanna Chiarion-Sileni, Rene Gonzalez, Piotr Rutkowski, Jean-Jacques Grob, C. Lance Cowey, Christopher D. Lao, Dirk Schadendorf, Pier Francesco Ferrucci, Michael Smylie, Reinhard Dummer, Andrew Hill, John Haanen, Michele Maio, Grant McArthur, Dana Walker, Linda Rollin, Christine Horak, F. Stephen Hodi, Jedd D. Wolchok. Overall survival (OS) results from a phase III trial of nivolumab (NIVO) combined with ipilimumab (IPI) in treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT075. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT075

Improvement in functional outcomes with adjunctive aripiprazole versus placebo in major depressive disorder: a pooled post hoc analysis of 3 short-term studies.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of adjunctive aripiprazole to antidepressant therapy (ADT) on functional outcomes, as assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). METHOD A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 similarly designed randomized, placebo-controlled trials was conducted (CN138-139 [September 2004-December 2006], CN138-163 [June 2004-April 2006], and CN138-165 [March 2005-April 2008]). Patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder who had a prior inadequate response to ADT received adjunctive aripiprazole or placebo to standard ADT. The change from baseline to endpoint on total SDS score and on individual SDS domains and the distributional categorical shifts of patient-reported severity of functional impairment on the SDS were assessed. RESULTS Aripiprazole compared to placebo augmentation produced significant improvements in self-reported functioning levels in the SDS mean total score (-1.2 vs -0.7, P ≤ .001) and social life (-1.4 vs -0.7, P ≤ .001) and family life (-1.4 vs -0.7, P ≤ .001) domains. Additionally, a significant number of patients exhibited a shift from a severe/moderate level of impairment at baseline to a mild level of functional impairment after 6 weeks of adjunctive aripiprazole treatment compared with placebo in the SDS mean total score (P = .001) and social life (P ≤ .001) and family life (P = .001) scores. CONCLUSIONS Aripiprazole augmentation of standard antidepressant therapy resulted in significant improvements in both total and individual domains of functioning, as assessed by the SDS, with significant categorical shifts from severe/moderate to mild levels of functioning compared with placebo augmentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00095823, NCT00095758, and NCT00105196.

A Two-Stage Selection and Testing Design for Comparing Several Normal Means with a Standard

Abstract A two-stage design is proposed for the goal of selecting one among k experimental treatments, provided that it is better than a specified standard. In the first stage, ranking and selection techniques are used to screen out the one most promising treatment. In the second stage, hypothesis testing techniques are used to determine if the treatment chosen in the first stage is better than the standard. The design allows for early termination of the procedure at stage one if none of the treatments seem promising. All the treatments are assumed to follow normal distributions with a common unknown variance. A large population mean is assumed to be desirable, and hence “better than the standard” means that the population mean is sufficiently larger than the standard. Appropriate definitions of size and power are given. Sample size requirements are compared with an analogous two-stage selection procedure of Bechhofer and Turnbull [Bechhofer, R.E.; Turnbull, B.W. Two (k + 1)-decision selection procedures for comparing k normal means with a specified standard. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 1978, 73, 385–392].