Long-Term Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Nivolumab Alone Versus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated. RESULTS Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF–wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy

Atazanavir and Cardiovascular Risk Among Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review

<p>Article full text</p> <p>The full text of this article can be found <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40121-016-0132-z"><b>here</b></a>.</p> <p>Provide enhanced content for this article</p> <p>If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced content for your article then please contact <a href="http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/”mailto:[email protected]”"><b>[email protected]</b></a>.</p> <p>The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.</p> <p>Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>Slide decks</li> <li>Videos and animations</li> <li>Audio abstracts</li> <li>Audio slides</li> </ul

Persistence, adherence, and all-cause healthcare costs in atazanavir- and darunavir-treated patients with human immunodeficiency virus in a real-world setting

<p><b>Objectives:</b></p> <p>Atazanavir (ATV) and darunavir (DRV) are protease inhibitors approved for HIV treatment in combination with ritonavir (/r). The objectives of this study were to compare persistence (time to treatment discontinuation/modification), adherence, and healthcare costs among patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) initiating ATV/r or DRV/r.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b></p> <p>This retrospective cohort study used commercial and Medicaid administrative insurance claims data. Patients initiating ATV/r or DRV/r from 2006–2013 with continuous enrollment for ≥6 months before and ≥3 months after initiation were included. Patients were followed from initiation until discontinuation/modification (≥30 day gap in ATV or DRV or initiation of a new antiretroviral medication), during which time adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC], with PDC ≥80% or 95% considered adherent) and per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were measured. DRV/r patients were propensity score matched to ATV/r patients at a 1:1 ratio to achieve balance on potentially confounding demographic and clinical factors. Commercial and Medicaid samples were analyzed separately, as were antiretroviral (ART)-naïve and experienced patients.</p> <p><b>Results:</b></p> <p>The final samples comprised 2988 commercially-insured and 1158 Medicaid-insured patients. There were no significant differences in hazards of discontinuation/modification between the ATV/r or DRV/r cohorts. With respect to odds of being adherent, the only marginally significant result was comparing odds of achieving PDC ≥80% among ART-naïve Medicaid patients, which favored ATV/r. All other adherence comparisons were not significant. Although ATV/r cohorts tended to have lower PPPM costs, the majority of these differences were not statistically significant.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b></p> <p>Patients with HIV treated with either ATV/r or DRV/r had similar time to treatment discontinuation/modification, adherence, and monthly healthcare costs. Results were similar across the pre-specified sub-groups. These findings are useful not only as an insight into clinical practice, but also as a resource for healthcare providers and payers evaluating treatment options for HIV+ individuals.</p