Ipilimumab.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3586137 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsThe 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.).
| S-EPMC5744258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionImmune checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab , are a new class of immunotherapeutic agents that have shown significant efficacy in melanoma. A number of ongoing clinical trials are investigating the role of ipilimumab in prostate cancer, either alone or in combination with immunomodulating agents such as radiation and chemotherapy, and in combination with cancer vaccines.Areas coveredThis article reviews the molecular basis, preclinical and clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab in prostate cancer. Medical literature search using MEDLINE and online abstracts database of national meetings form the basis of this article.Expert opinionA number of preliminary clinical studies suggest the potential therapeutic utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab in prostate cancer. Pending the results of large-scale studies, the rationale of combining ipilimumab with standard anticancer therapeutics such as radiation, cytotoxic chemotherapy and other immunotherapeutic agents can be of great value in reducing mortality and morbidity in prostate cancer.
| S-EPMC6628899 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) blockade with ipilimumab prolongs survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. CTLA-4 blockade and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-secreting tumor vaccine combinations demonstrate therapeutic synergy in preclinical models. A key unanswered question is whether systemic GM-CSF (sargramostim) enhances CTLA-4 blockade.ObjectiveTo compare the effect of ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone on overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic melanoma.Design, setting, and participantsThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a US-based phase 2 randomized clinical trial from December 28, 2010, until July 28, 2011, of patients (N = 245) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, at least 1 prior therapy, no central nervous system metastases, and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, intravenously on day 1 plus sargramostim, 250 μg subcutaneously, on days 1 to 14 of a 21-day cycle (n = 123) vs ipilimumab alone (n = 122). Ipilimumab treatment included induction for 4 cycles followed by maintenance every fourth cycle.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary end point: comparison of length of OS. Secondary end point: progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, safety, and tolerability.ResultsMedian follow-up was 13.3 months (range, 0.03-19.9). Median OS as of December 2012 for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 17.5 months (95% CI, 14.9-not reached) vs 12.7 months (95% CI, 10.0-not reached) for ipilimumab. The 1-year survival rate for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 68.9% (95% CI, 60.6%-85.5%) compared to 52.9% (95% CI, 43.6%-62.2%) for ipilimumab alone (stratified log-rank 1-sided P = .01; mortality hazard ratio 0.64 [1-sided 90% repeated CI, not applicable-0.90]). A planned interim analysis was conducted at 69.8% of expected events (104 observed with 149 expected deaths). Planned interim analysis using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary was crossed for improvement in OS. There was no difference in PFS. Median PFS for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.6) vs 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.0) for ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 44.9% (95% CI; 35.8%-54.4%) of patients in the ipilimumab plus sargramostim group vs 58.3% (95% CI, 49.0%-67.2%) of patients in the ipilimumab-alone group (2-sided P = .04).Conclusion and relevanceAmong patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, treatment with ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone resulted in longer OS and lower toxicity, but no difference in PFS. These findings require confirmation in larger studies with longer follow-up.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01134614.
| S-EPMC4336189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has demonstrated efficacy for unresectable melanoma. We explored response patterns from a phase 2 study evaluating patients with unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1c malignant melanoma who received T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Patients with objective response per modified irRC were evaluated for pseudo-progression (single ≥25% increase in tumour burden before response). Patients without pseudo-progression were classified by whether they responded within or after 6 months of treatment start; those with pseudo-progression were classified by whether pseudo-progression was due to increase in existing lesions or development of new lesions. Overall, 39% (n = 38/98) in the combination arm and 18% (n = 18/100) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response. Eight responders (combination, n = 7 [18.4%]; ipilimumab, n = 1 [5.6%]) had pseudo-progression; most occurred by week 12 and were caused by an increase in existing lesions. These data reinforce use of T-VEC through initial progression when combined with checkpoint inhibitors.Trial Registration NCT01740297 (ClinicalTrials.gov; date of registration, December 4, 2012); 2012-000307-32 (ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu; date of registration, May 13, 2014).
| S-EPMC6738060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn 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 methodsPatients 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.ResultsMedian 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.ConclusionThese 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.
| S-EPMC8718224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIpilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies.MethodsIMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.ResultsAmong 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti-programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab-treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab-treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts.ConclusionsWith long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913.
| S-EPMC8164785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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%.ConclusionsConcurrent 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.).
| S-EPMC5698004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ipilimumab with and without anti-Programmed Death 1 (PD-1) improved overall survival (OS) in melanoma. Despite this, the optimal dose and therapeutic mechanism of ipilimumab in patients remains unclear. KEYNOTE-029 and other studies suggest that low-dose ipilimumab with anti-PD1 maintains efficacy while decreasing toxicity, emphasizing T-cell trafficking and reinvigoration as likely mechanisms. See related article by Long et al., p. 5280.
| S-EPMC8807780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pre-treatment (PT) and On-Treatment (C3D8) biopsy samples from patients on the Phase I trial of Ipilimumab and Evofosfamide (NCT03098160) were analyzed by RNA sequencing.
2021-06-09 | GSE159237 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundMonoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage.MethodsPatient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period.ResultsThe total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively.ConclusionsThe total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).
| S-EPMC6610852 | biostudies-literature