Adverse events induced by durvalumab and tremelimumab combination regimens: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10501063 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Recently, the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab, two immune checkpoint inhibitors, for the treatment of different types of cancers has been considered; however, its overall effects, including its safety, are still unclear and need to be further investigated. Objectives: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the safety and tolerability of this combination of drugs. Methods: A systematic review of the literature, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, was conducted by employing online electronic databases and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Meeting Library. The selection of eligible publications was made following a staged screening and selection process. The software RevMan 5.4 was used to run the quantitative analysis and forest plots, while the Cochrane tool was employed for risk of bias assessment. Results: From the retrieved 157 results, 9 randomized controlled trials involving 3060 patients were included. By comparing the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab vs. durvalumab monotherapy, it was observed that: adverse events (AEs) ≥ Grade 3 incidence was 32.6% (536/1646) vs. 23.8% (336/1414) (Z = 2.80; p = 0.005; risk ratio (RR) = 1.44), reduced appetite incidence was 10.8% (154/1427) vs. 8.3% (108/1305) (Z = 2.26; p = 0.02; RR = 1.31), diarrhea was reported in 15.6% (229/1473) vs. 8.1% (110/1352) (Z = 5.90; p < 0.00001; RR = 1.91), rash incidence was equal to 11.1% (160/1441) vs. 6.5% (86/1320) (Z = 4.35; p <0.0001; RR = 1.75), pruritis was 13.6% (201/1473) vs. 7.7% (104/1352) (Z = 5.35; p < 0.00001; RR = 1.83), fever was 10.5% (42/399) vs. 6.6% (22/330) (Z = 2.27; p = 0.02; RR = 1.77), discontinuation rate was 18% (91/504) vs. 3% (36/434) (Z = 4.78; p < 0.00001; RR = 2.41), and death rate was 2.6% (13/504) vs. 0.7% (3/434) (Z = 1.90; p = 0.06; RR = 2.77). Conclusions: It was observed that the combined (durvalumab and tremelimumab) vs. monotherapy (durvalumab) is associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation, mortality, fever, diarrhea, rash, pruritis, and reduced appetite. This information is relevant and should be disclosed, especially to patients that are currently enrolled in clinical trials considering this combined therapy.
| S-EPMC9138649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNo meta-analysis has assessed the pooled frequencies of adverse events (AEs) induced by concomitant nivolumab plus ipilimumab regimen for anticancer-medications-naïve malignancies. Furthermore, no meta-analysis has compared detailed safety profiles between four doses of nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (N3I1) and four doses of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (N1I3). Objectives of this study was estimating AE frequencies, and comparison of AE frequencies between N3I1 and N1I3 regimens.MethodsFour major electronic databases were searched; both interventional and observational studies were included. All primary cancer types were permitted. Patients should not have been previously treated with any anti-cancer medications. The frequency of AEs was pooled using a random-model meta-analysis using the generic inverse variance method. Protocol registration: UMIN000044090.ResultsForty articles representing 48 populations with 4,677 patients were included in the study. The pooled frequencies for key indicators were as follows: any AE, 81.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77.5-85.1); grade 3 or higher AE, 40.6% (95% CI: 35.7-45.5); serious AE, 32.7% (95% CI: 22.4-43.1); AE leading to discontinuation, 28.3% (95% CI: 23.7-32.8); and treatment-related death, 0.7% (95% CI: 0.4-1.1). AEs with the highest incidence were fatigue (27.9%, 95% CI: 22.6-33.3), followed by diarrhea (26.0%, 95% CI: 21.5-30.5), pruritus (24.6%, 95% CI: 20.3-28.8), rash (24.0% 95% CI: 19.3-28.7), and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (21.2%, 95% CI: 14.9-27.5). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that N3I1, compared to N1I3, less frequently induced any AE (N1I3 95.7%, N3I1 84.5%, p = 0.003), grade 3 or higher AE (N1I3 64.3%, N3I1 35.7%, p < 0.001), and serious AE (N1I3 61.4%, N3I1 47.8%, p = 0.004).ConclusionsApproximately 40% of patients had grade 3 or higher AE. The N3I1 regimen was substantiated to trigger fewer any AEs, high grade AEs, and serious AE than the N1I3 regimen.
| S-EPMC8841925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCancer immunotherapy represents one of the most important innovations in modern medicine. Durvalumab is an anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL-1) agent which is currently under investigation in several studies in combination with the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) drug tremelimumab. The aim of this review was to systematically identify and revise the current scientific literature investigating the combination of these two drugs in solid tumors.MethodsA digital search on the Medline (PubMed interface) and Scopus databases for articles published from inception to 26 February 2021 was performed. The terms used for the search were durvalumab AND tremelimumab. Trials reported in English involving adult patients with solid cancers treated with the combination durvalumab plus tremelimumab were retrieved; the references of the articles were cross-checked to identify missing papers.ResultsThe electronic search produced 267 results; after exclusion of duplicates, irrelevant articles, reviews, and papers not in English or missing data, 19 articles were included for revision. The total number of patients treated with the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab in the studies retrieved was 2052.ConclusionThe combination of durvalumab plus tremelimumab showed some oncological advantages in comparison with traditional chemotherapies in some subsets of tumors, but generally has not shown consistent advantages in comparison with the employment of durvalumab monotherapy. A number of the studies examined had intrinsic methodological limitations; therefore, future well-designed studies involving larger cohorts are warranted.
| S-EPMC8279985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Although clinical practice guidelines for the management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI)-related adverse events have recently been published, precise and nuanced toxicity data for combination ICI therapy are lacking. Therefore, herein we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials on combination ICI to synthesize the treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) profile of combination ICI therapy. Methods: PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database/EBM were searched for eligible studies. Clinical trials evaluating combination immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced unresectable cancer were included in the analysis based on prespecified criteria. Risk of bias across studies was evaluated using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's regression test. The summary outcomes were pooled risk ratios (RR) and the logit-transformed proportion for incidence data. Results: A total of 18 studies comprising 2,767 patients across 10 cancer types were included in the final analysis. Combination ICI was associated with a slightly higher risk of all-grade adverse events (RR 1.07 [95% CI 1.03-1.11]) and markedly greater risk of grade 3 or higher adverse events (RR 2.21 [95% CI 1.57-3.10]) compared to monotherapy ICI. Subgroup analyses showed significant differences in risk of grade 3 or higher adverse events between treatment types (PD-1 + CTLA-4 and PD-L1 + CTLA-4), among cancer types, and among dosing regimens (N1I3, N3I1, and D20T1). The incidence of all-grade adverse events was 0.905 [95% CI 0.842-0.945], and the ratio of grade 3 or higher events to all-grade adverse events was 0.396 [95% CI 0.315-0.483]. The most common all-grade TRAEs were diarrhea/colitis, fatigue/asthenia, nausea/vomiting, rash, and pruritis. Conclusion: Combination ICI therapy has a significantly different treatment-related adverse event profile compared to monotherapy.
| S-EPMC7090167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Biliary and pancreatic diseases are common in the elderly; however, few studies have addressed the occurrence of adverse events in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Our objective was to determine the incidence rates of specific adverse events in this group and calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for selected comparison groups.Bibliographical searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. The studies included documented the incidence of adverse events (perforation, pancreatitis, bleeding, cholangitis, cardiopulmonary adverse events, mortality) in patients aged ≥ 65 who underwent ERCP. Pooled incidence rates were calculated for each reported adverse event and IRRs were determined for available comparison groups. A parallel analysis was performed in patients aged ≥ 80 and ≥ 90.Our literature search yielded 7429 articles, of which 69 studies met our inclusion criteria. Pooled incidence rates for adverse events (per 1000 ERCPs) in patients aged ≥ 65 were as follows: perforation 3.8 (95 %CI 1.8 - 7.0), pancreatitis 13.1 (95 %CI 11.0 - 15.5), bleeding 7.7 (95 %CI 5.7 - 10.1), cholangitis 16.1 (95 %CI 11.7 - 21.7), cardiopulmonary events 3.7 (95 %CI 1.5 - 7.6), and death 7.1 (95 %CI 5.2 - 9.4). Patients ≥ 65 had lower rates of pancreatitis (IRR 0.3, 95 %CI 0.3 - 0.4) compared with younger patients. Octogenarians had higher rates of death (IRR 2.4, 95 %CI 1.3 - 4.5) compared with younger patients, whereas nonagenarians had increased rates of bleeding (IRR 2.4, 95 %CI 1.1 - 5.2), cardiopulmonary events (IRR 3.7, 95 %CI 1.0 - 13.9), and death (IRR 3.8, 95 %CI 1.0 - 14.4). Conclusions ERCP appears to be safe in elderly patients, except in the very elderly who are at higher risk of some adverse events. These data on adverse event rates can help to inform clinical decision-making, the consent process, and comparative effectiveness analyses.
| S-EPMC4423280 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant combination immunotherapy is changing the treatment landscape for patients with cancer. Exploring the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in relation to this novel approach may provide valuable insights for future clinical investigations.MethodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) websites were searched for all relevant literature from their inception to November 24, 2023. We then extracted the required data from the included studies and used the R software to analyze the pooled incidence of irAEs. Subgroup analyses examined the pooled incidence of irAEs according to cancer and combination types using a random-effects model.ResultsSixteen studies involving 501 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Considering the heterogeneity of the study design, we analyzed the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and the single-arm studies separately. In RCTs, the incidence of any-grade irAEs was 95.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87.3-99.3) and that of grade ≥3 irAEs was 24.0% (95% CI 13.7-36.0). In single-arm studies, the incidence of any-grade irAEs was 89.4% (95% CI 75.0-98.0) and grade ≥3 irAEs was 20.3% (95% CI 8.7-35.2). In both RCTs and single arms, the most common any- grade irAEs were rash and fatigue, while the most common grade ≥3 irAEs was abnormal liver function and colitis. Due to irAEs, 9.4% of patients in RCTs and 6.9% of patients in single-arm studies did not complete the prescribed neoadjuvant treatment cycle.ConclusionThis study comprehensively summarized the incidence of irAEs in neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy. The occurrence of irAEs varies depending on the cancer and combination types. Our meta-analysis provides clinicians with essential guidance for the management of patients with cancer.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023387969.
| S-EPMC10796654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the risks of cardiac adverse events in solid tumor patients treated with monotherapy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or combined therapy of ICIs plus chemotherapy.MethodsEligible studies were selected through the following databases: PubMed, Embase and clinical trials (https://clinicaltrials.gov.) and included phase III/IV randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with the solid tumor treated with ICIs. The data was analyzed by using Review Manager (version5.3), Stata (version 15.1).ResultsAmong 2,551 studies, 25 clinical trials including 20,244 patients were qualified for the meta-analysis. Compared with PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab) or CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab), PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab) plus CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab) combined therapy showed significant increase in grade 5 arrhythmology (OR 3.90, 95% CI: 1.08-14.06, p = 0.603). PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy show significant increase in grades 1-5 myocardial disease (OR 5.09, 95% CI: 1.11-23.32, p = 1.000). Compared with chemotherapy, PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab) or CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab), PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab) plus CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab) combined therapy show significant increase in grades 1-5 arrhythmology (OR 2.49, 95% CI: 1.30-4.78, p = 0.289).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis demonstrated that PD-1 inhibitor plus CTLA-4 inhibitor can result in a higher risk of grade 5 arrhythmology in comparison with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitor alone, and a higher risk of grade 5 arrhythmology in comparison with chemotherapy. PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy treatment could increase the risk of all-grade myocardial disease compared with chemotherapy. However, in most cases, there was no significant increase of risks of cardiovascular toxicity in PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone.
| S-EPMC8190385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeImmune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) may be associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. We assessed the relationship between imAE development and efficacy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with durvalumab (anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 [PD-L1]) alone or in combination with tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4).MethodsThe analysis used individual patient-level data from 307 and 310 patients in the monotherapy and combination arms of MYSTIC, respectively. We evaluated the association between treatment efficacy and development of imAEs using univariate and multivariate survival analyses. Using machine learning, we built a predictive model utilizing baseline clinical and laboratory features to identify patients at risk of developing imAEs and further evaluated patient survival based on a threshold index extracted from the model.ResultsPatients who developed any grade of imAE had improved overall survival versus patients without (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.62). imAE development was associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.44-0.66) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model considering patient demographic features and baseline characteristics. Higher odds of imAE development were observed (odds ratio 3.023; 95% CI: 1.56-5.83) in responders versus non-responders in patients treated with immunotherapy. Based on baseline characteristics, the random forest classification algorithm was used to formulate a predictive model to identify patients at increased risk of developing imAEs during treatment.ConclusionPost-hoc exploratory analysis found that the efficacy of immunotherapy was improved in patients who developed on-treatment imAEs. This was independent of severity of imAEs or the need for steroid treatment, which is important in allowing patients to remain on treatment and derive optimal clinical benefit. Further research is warranted to establish the correlation between incidence of imAEs and efficacy in this patient population.
| S-EPMC9670978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFulminant myocarditis has been reported in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We present the first described case of acute immune-mediated myocarditis and myositis associated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab combination therapy. The patient was undergoing treatment for advanced endometrial cancer.Case presentationA 75-year-old Caucasian female presented with difficulty ambulating due to neck protraction, imbalance, and increased shortness of breath with exertion 3 weeks after her first durvalumab and tremelimumab administration for advanced endometrial cancer. While the patient's initial laboratory data showed an acute transaminitis and elevated creatine phosphokinase (CPK), consistent with myositis, she developed complete heart block and ventricular dysfunction, with elevated troponins. Endomyocardial biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of immune-mediated myocarditis. She was treated with high-dose steroids and mycophenolate mofetil, which led to eventual native conduction and left ventricular ejection fraction recovery. Upon discharge, she was titrated off of steroids over 8 weeks and her mycophenolate was subsequently stopped. A follow-up computed tomography scan revealed progression of metastatic disease. The patient remains alive using supplemental oxygen 3 months after admission.ConclusionsDurvalumab plus tremelimumab combination therapy can lead to fulminant immune-mediated myocarditis. This patient's myocarditis was amenable to treatment with high-dose intravenous steroids and mycophenolate.
| S-EPMC6005798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMetamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.ObjectiveTo determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.ResultsOf the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.ConclusionFor short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.
| S-EPMC4405027 | biostudies-literature