9 research outputs found
Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma
BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P = 0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma
Radiocontrast nephropathy: is it dose related or not?
Objective: To assess the safety of high dose non-ionic contrast media during a single radiological procedure in patients with pre-existing renal impairment.Methods: One hundred eighteen patients, with serum Creatinine greater than 1.3 mg/dl who were undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous transluminal coronary angiography (PTCA) were included in the study. All patients received the nonionic dye ULTRAVIST (lopromide). Serum creatinine were measured before, 48 hours and 1 week after the administration of contrast agent. An acute contrast induced reduction in renal function was defined as an increase in Serum Creatinine concentration of \u3e=0.5 mg/dl, 48 hours after the administration of contrast agent. All patients with end stage renal disease or patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery within a week after coronary angiography or had any concomitant factors that could cause acute renal failure e.g., sepsis, hypotention, etc., were excluded. Patients receiving a dose of upto 100 ml of contrast agent (low dose group) were separated from those who received greater than 100 ml of contrast agent (high dose group). Patients in both groups had similar characteristics in terms of sex, age, weight and underlying disease. Student\u27s t-test was used for statistical analysis.Results: The mean age of our patients was 62.3+/-8.83 (range 40-84 years). There were 93 (78.8%) males and 25 (21.2%) females. The mean pre-contrast creatinine in the low contrast group was 1.97+/-0.92 and high dose group was 2.16+/-1.90 (p=0.48). The post-contrast Creatinine at 48 hours was 2.11+/-1.11 and 2.06+/-1.39 in the groups receiving low and high dose contrast agents respectively (p=0.830), while at 7 days post-contrast it was 2.17+/-1.28 and 1.95+/-1.43 respectively in the two groups (p=0.391). The contrast-induced reduction in renal function (rise in serum Cr \u3e=0.5 mg/dl above base line) occurred in 14% (n=8) of patients in low dose and in 11% (n=7) in high dose contrast group (p=0.830, insignificant).CONCLUSION: The results of our study confirm that high dose non-ionic contrast is not associated with increased risk of contrast-mediated nephrotoxicity in patients with pre-existing renal insufficiency undergoing cardiac angiography (p=0.830, insignificant)
Extra temporal involvement in herpes simplex encephalitis
Temporal lobe abnormalities on brain imaging have been described as strong evidence for herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE) in appropriate clinical settings. Extra temporal abnormalities are less well described in these patients. We retrospectively reviewed 20 patients of HSE and found extra temporal involvement in 11 (55%) patients. Three patients (15 %) had pure extra temporal abnormalities. Twelve patients (60%) had temporal lobe involvement, four patients (20%) had pure temporal lobe involvement and five patients (25%) had normal CT/MRI scans. Our study suggests that extra temporal involvement on brain imaging is common in HSE and in a significant minority of the patients this can even be the sole abnormality
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial
BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32路4 months [IQR 13路4-36路3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35路6-not estimable] vs 26路6 months [22路1-33路4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0路66 [95% CI 0路54-0路80], p<0路0001), progression-free survival (median 8路2 months [95% CI 6路9-10路0] vs 8路3 months [7路0-8路8]; HR 0路77 [95% CI 0路65-0路90], p=0路0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0路0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37路9 months [32路2-not estimable]; HR 0路71 [95% CI 0路59-0路86], p=0路0003), progression-free survival (median 9路7 months [95% CI 8路1-11路1] vs 9路7 months [8路3-11路1]; HR 0路85 [95% CI 0路73-0路98], p=0路027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0路015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.status: publishe
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma:extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial
BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32路4 months [IQR 13路4-36路3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35路6-not estimable] vs 26路6 months [22路1-33路4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0路66 [95% CI 0路54-0路80], p<0路0001), progression-free survival (median 8路2 months [95% CI 6路9-10路0] vs 8路3 months [7路0-8路8]; HR 0路77 [95% CI 0路65-0路90], p=0路0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0路0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37路9 months [32路2-not estimable]; HR 0路71 [95% CI 0路59-0路86], p=0路0003), progression-free survival (median 9路7 months [95% CI 8路1-11路1] vs 9路7 months [8路3-11路1]; HR 0路85 [95% CI 0路73-0路98], p=0路027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0路015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical