Survival, response duration, and activity by BRAF mutation (MT) status of nivolumab (NIVO, anti-PD-1, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) and ipilimumab (IPI) concurrent therapy in advanced melanoma (MEL)

LBA9003^

Background: We report updated survival and clinical activity in initially enrolled cohorts and activity by BRAF MT status in a phase I trial of concurrent and sequenced NIVO + IPI. Methods: MEL pts (n=53, enrolled 2009-2012, data analysis Dec 2013) with ≤3 prior therapies received IV concurrent NIVO + IPI, Q3Wk × 4 doses, followed by NIVO Q3Wk × 4. At wk 24, NIVO + IPI continued Q12Wk × 8 in pts with disease control and no DLT. Tumor responses were evaluated by WHO and immune-related criteria. Results: Pt characteristics included stage M1c: 55% and prior systemic therapy: 40%. Across doses, 1- and 2-y OS rates were 82% and 75%. Clinical activity was similar to previous reports except CRs rose to 9/53 (17%). Pts with/without tumor BRAF MT (n=36) had similar activity (Table). By wk 36, 42% demonstrated ≥80% tumor reduction. Median duration of response (DOR) was not reached (NR). Of 22 pts with objective response, 14 (64%) had DOR ≥24 wk (range: 25+, 106+). Treatment-related adverse events were as reported previously: grade 3-4, 53% of pts; most common: ↑ lipase and AST (13% ea). Data for sequenced cohorts are shown (Table). Conclusions: Concurrent NIVO + IPI therapy showed encouraging survival and a manageable safety profile in advanced MEL pts. Responses were observed regardless of BRAF MT status and were durable in the majority of pts. Forty additional pts were enrolled (last pt: Nov 2013) on a cohort of NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3Wk × 4 doses, followed by NIVO 3mg/kg Q2Wk (the selected regimen for phase II/III trials). Clinical trial information: NCT01024231. [Table: see text]

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

In patients with melanoma, ipilimumab (an antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4]) prolongs overall survival, and nivolumab (an antibody against the programmed death 1 [PD-1] receptor) produced durable tumor regression in a phase 1 trial. On the basis of their distinct immunologic mechanisms of action and supportive preclinical data, we conducted a phase 1 trial of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma.

METHODS

We administered intravenous doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone every 3 weeks for 4 doses (concurrent regimen). The combined treatment was subsequently administered every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. In a sequenced regimen, patients previously treated with ipilimumab received nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 48 doses.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients received concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and 33 received sequenced treatment. The objective-response rate (according to modified World Health Organization criteria) for all patients in the concurrent-regimen group was 40%. Evidence of clinical activity (conventional, unconfirmed, or immune-related response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks) was observed in 65% of patients. At the maximum doses that were associated with an acceptable level of adverse events (nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight and ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram), 53% of patients had an objective response, all with tumor reduction of 80% or more. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 53% of patients in the concurrent-regimen group but were qualitatively similar to previous experience with monotherapy and were generally reversible. Among patients in the sequenced-regimen group, 18% had grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy and the objective-response rate was 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab had a manageable safety profile and provided clinical activity that appears to be distinct from that in published data on monotherapy, with rapid and deep tumor regression in a substantial proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01024231.).

Peripheral and tumor immune correlates in patients with advanced melanoma treated with combination nivolumab (anti-PD-1, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) and ipilimumab

3003^

Background: Nivolumab and ipilimumab are fully human monoclonal antibodies that block the immune checkpoint receptors PD-1 and CTLA-4, respectively. In a multi-cohort, phase I study of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination therapy in melanoma patients (pts), objective response rates up to 47% were observed (NCT01024231). Putative predictive biomarkers from peripheral blood (PB) or tumor, including tumor PD-L1 expression, absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and PB myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) were evaluated. Pharmacodynamic changes in activated and effector T cells were also assessed. Methods: Tumor PD-L1 membrane expression was assessed in archival FFPE specimens by immunohistochemistry (28-8 PD-L1 antibody). ALC was measured in serial PB samples; changes in the percentage, number and phenotype of activated CD4+ and CD8+T cells and MDSC were characterized by flow cytometry. Results: PD-L1 expression was seen in 37% (10/27) of pts, using a cut-off of 5% tumor cell membrane staining. Objective responses (OR) were seen in pts with both PD-L1 negative (8/17) and PD-L1 positive (4/10) tumors. Relative to baseline, a rise in ALC was not detected, but phenotypic changes in PB T-cell subsets, including increases in the percentage of CD4 and CD8 expressing HLA-DR, ICOS and/or Ki67 were seen with combination therapy. Low ALC (<1.0 at wk 6-7) did not preclude OR as 3 of 12 pts with low ALC responded. Of pts evaluated, OR with ≥80% reduction in tumor burden at 12 wk were seen in pts with a low frequency of pretreatment PB MDSC (3/7) but no OR were seen in pts with high MDSC (0/6). Conclusions: In this small subset of pts,OR were seen independent of PD-L1 or ALC status in contrast to prior observations with nivolumab or ipilimumab, respectively. Thus, the immune response generated by combination therapy may have unique features compared to either monotherapy. The relationship between frequency of PB MDSC and reduction in tumor burden will be further explored. Further efforts in this study and in future phase III randomized studies will investigate these and other phenotypic changes in immune cell populations and their relationship to patterns of clinical activity. Clinical trial information: NCT01024231.

Phase I dose escalation study of nivolumab (Anti-PD-1; BMS-936558; ONO-4538) in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with or without chronic viral hepatitis

TPS3111

Background: Pts with advanced HCC have limited treatment options. Sorafenib, the current standard of care, achieves only modest overall survival improvements. There is a clear etiologic association between HCC and prior/concurrent hepatitis B (HBV) or C (HCV) infection. Programmed death-1 (PD-1) is an immune checkpoint receptor that inhibits T-cell activation when bound by ligands including PD-L1/L2. PD-L1 overexpression has been noted on HCC tumors, and PD-1/PD-L1 interaction may contribute to viral hepatitis induced T-cell exhaustion. Nivolumab, a PD-1 receptor blocking antibody, has shown efficacy against various solid tumor types in Ph 1 trials. We hypothesized that blockade of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction could enhance T-cell activation and mediate antitumor and/or antiviral activity in HCC pts. We describe a phase I, dose-escalation study of nivolumab in advanced HCC pts. Methods: Successive pt cohorts with histologically confirmed advanced HCC with/without HBV or HCV infection (N=72 max) will be treated on 3 distinct arms with IV nivolumab at 0.3, 1 and 3.0 mg/kg (uninfected or HCV-infected pts) or 0.1, 0.3, 1 and 3.0 mg/kg (HBV-infected pts) every 2 weeks using a 3+3 escalation scheme. Pts must have progressive disease or intolerance after ≥1 line of therapy or have refused sorafenib treatment, and a Child-Pugh class A. HBV-infected pts must be receiving antiviral therapy (viral DNA <100 IU/mL) for ≥3 months. Pts with brain metastasis, encephalopathy, prior/current ascites requiring paracentesis, history of recent variceal bleeding, active coinfection with HIV, or both HBV and HCV, or concurrent hepatitis D and HBV infection will be excluded. Primary endpoints include characterization of safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities and maximum tolerated dose of nivolumab. Secondary endpoints include assessment of the preliminary antitumor activity (per modified RECIST for HCC), PK and immunogenicity. Exploratory endpoints include evaluation of the relationship between tumor PD-L1 expression and clinical outcome, and nivolumab’s antiviral and immunoregulatory activity in peripheral blood and/or tumor specimens. Clinical trial information: NCT01658878.

Safety and clinical activity of nivolumab (anti-PD-1, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in combination with ipilimumab in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL)

9012^

Background: CTLA-4 and PD-1 are critical immune checkpoint receptors. In MEL pts, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) prolonged survival in two phase III trials, and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 31% (n=106) in a phase I trial. PD-1 is induced by CTLA-4 blockade, and combined blockade of CTLA-4/PD-1 showed enhanced antitumor activity in murine models. Thus, we initiated the first phase 1 study to evaluate nivolumab/ipilimumab combination therapy. Methods: MEL pts with ≤3 prior therapies received IV nivolumab and ipilimumab concurrently, q3 wk × 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone q3 wk × 4 (Table). At wk 24, combined treatment was continued q12 wk × 8 in pts with disease control and no DLT. In two sequenced-regimen cohorts, pts with prior standard ipilimumab therapy were treated with nivolumab (q2 wk × 48). Results: As of Dec. 6, 2012, 69 pts were treated. We report efficacy data on 37 pts with concurrent therapy in completed cohorts 1-3 (Table); ORR was 38% (95% CI: 23-55). In cohort 2 (MTD), ORR was 47% and 41% of pts had ≥80% tumor reduction at 12 wk (Table) with some pts showing rapid responses, prompt symptom resolution, and durable CRs. Related adverse events (rAEs) for concurrent therapy were similar in nature with some higher in frequency than those typically seen for the monotherapies and were generally manageable using immunosuppressants. Cohort 3 exceeded the MTD (DLT: gr 3-4 ↑ lipase). At the MTD, gr 3-4 rAEs occurred in 59% of pts and included uveitis/choroiditis, colitis, and reversible lab abnormalities. Conclusions: Nivolumab and ipilimumab can be combined with a manageable safety profile. Clinical activity for concurrent therapy appears to exceed that of published monotherapy data, with rapid and deep tumor responses (≥80% tumor reduction at 12 wk) in 30% (11/37) of pts. A phase III trial is planned to compare concurrent combination dosing with each monotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01024231. [Table: see text]

Single-dose pharmacokinetics of boceprevir in subjects with impaired hepatic or renal function

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Boceprevir is a novel inhibitor of the hepatitis C virus NS3 protease and was recently approved for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of impaired hepatic or renal function on boceprevir pharmacokinetics and safety/tolerability.

METHODS

We conducted two open-label, single-dose, parallel-group studies comparing the safety and pharmacokinetics of boceprevir in patients with varying degrees of hepatic impairment compared with healthy controls in one study and patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on haemodialysis with healthy controls in the other. Patients with hepatic impairment (mild [n = 6], moderate [n = 6], severe [n = 6] and healthy controls [n = 6]) received a single dose of boceprevir (400 mg) on day 1, and whole blood was collected at selected timepoints up to 72 hours postdose to measure plasma drug concentrations. Patients with ESRD and healthy subjects received a single dose of boceprevir 800 mg orally on days 1 and 4, with samples for pharmacokinetic analyses collected at selected timepoints up to 48 hours postdose on both days. In addition, 4 hours after dosing on day 4, patients with ESRD underwent haemodialysis with arterial and venous blood samples collected up to 8 hours postdose.

RESULTS

In the hepatic impairment study, there was a trend toward increased mean maximum (peak) plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of boceprevir with increasing severity of liver impairment. Point estimates for the geometric mean ratio for C(max) ranged from 100% in patients with mild hepatic impairment to 161% in patients with severe hepatic impairment, with the geometric mean ratio for AUC ranging from 91% in patients with mild hepatic impairment to 149% for patients with severe hepatic impairment, relative to healthy subjects. The mean elimination half-life (t(1/2;)) and median time to C(max) (t(max)) values of boceprevir were similar in healthy subjects and patients with hepatic impairment. In the renal impairment study, mean boceprevir C(max) and AUC values were comparable in patients with ESRD and in healthy subjects, with point estimates for the geometric mean ratio of 81% and 90%, respectively, compared with healthy subjects. Mean t(1/2;), median t(max) and mean apparent oral total clearance (CL/F) values were similar in healthy subjects and patients with ESRD. Boceprevir exposure was also similar in patients with ESRD on day 1 (no dialysis) and day 4 (dialysis beginning 4 hours postdose), with point estimates for the geometric mean ratio of C(max) and AUC to the last measurable sampling time (AUC(last)) on day 1 compared with day 4 of 88% and 98%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in one patient with severe hepatic impairment (mild vomiting) and two patients with ESRD (moderate ventricular extrasystoles, flatulence and catheter thrombosis).

CONCLUSION

In the present studies, the pharmacokinetic properties of boceprevir were not altered to a clinically meaningful extent in patients with impaired liver or renal function. These data indicate that boceprevir dose adjustment is not warranted in patients with impaired hepatic function or ESRD, including those receiving dialysis. Boceprevir is not removed by haemodialysis.

Single-dose pharmacokinetics of boceprevir in subjects with impaired hepatic or renal function

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Boceprevir is a novel inhibitor of the hepatitis C virus NS3 protease and was recently approved for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of impaired hepatic or renal function on boceprevir pharmacokinetics and safety/tolerability.

METHODS

We conducted two open-label, single-dose, parallel-group studies comparing the safety and pharmacokinetics of boceprevir in patients with varying degrees of hepatic impairment compared with healthy controls in one study and patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on haemodialysis with healthy controls in the other. Patients with hepatic impairment (mild [n = 6], moderate [n = 6], severe [n = 6] and healthy controls [n = 6]) received a single dose of boceprevir (400 mg) on day 1, and whole blood was collected at selected timepoints up to 72 hours postdose to measure plasma drug concentrations. Patients with ESRD and healthy subjects received a single dose of boceprevir 800 mg orally on days 1 and 4, with samples for pharmacokinetic analyses collected at selected timepoints up to 48 hours postdose on both days. In addition, 4 hours after dosing on day 4, patients with ESRD underwent haemodialysis with arterial and venous blood samples collected up to 8 hours postdose.

RESULTS

In the hepatic impairment study, there was a trend toward increased mean maximum (peak) plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of boceprevir with increasing severity of liver impairment. Point estimates for the geometric mean ratio for C(max) ranged from 100% in patients with mild hepatic impairment to 161% in patients with severe hepatic impairment, with the geometric mean ratio for AUC ranging from 91% in patients with mild hepatic impairment to 149% for patients with severe hepatic impairment, relative to healthy subjects. The mean elimination half-life (t(1/2;)) and median time to C(max) (t(max)) values of boceprevir were similar in healthy subjects and patients with hepatic impairment. In the renal impairment study, mean boceprevir C(max) and AUC values were comparable in patients with ESRD and in healthy subjects, with point estimates for the geometric mean ratio of 81% and 90%, respectively, compared with healthy subjects. Mean t(1/2;), median t(max) and mean apparent oral total clearance (CL/F) values were similar in healthy subjects and patients with ESRD. Boceprevir exposure was also similar in patients with ESRD on day 1 (no dialysis) and day 4 (dialysis beginning 4 hours postdose), with point estimates for the geometric mean ratio of C(max) and AUC to the last measurable sampling time (AUC(last)) on day 1 compared with day 4 of 88% and 98%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in one patient with severe hepatic impairment (mild vomiting) and two patients with ESRD (moderate ventricular extrasystoles, flatulence and catheter thrombosis).

CONCLUSION

In the present studies, the pharmacokinetic properties of boceprevir were not altered to a clinically meaningful extent in patients with impaired liver or renal function. These data indicate that boceprevir dose adjustment is not warranted in patients with impaired hepatic function or ESRD, including those receiving dialysis. Boceprevir is not removed by haemodialysis.