scholarly journals Evaluation of the Reporting of Safety and Immune-Related Adverse Events in Clinical Trials of FDA-Approved Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Oncology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Karimian ◽  
Sandra Mavoungou ◽  
Joe-Elie Salem ◽  
Florence Tubach ◽  
Agnes Dechartres
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Considerable Variability ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background – While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs. Methods – MEDLINE was searched via PubMed to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared reporting and evaluated concordance in reported safety data between both sources. Results – Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8% and 8.8% of published trials respectively, compared to 11.8% and 5.9% of registry results. Evaluating the concordance of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had concordant data between both sources.Conclusions – The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

scholarly journals The quality of reporting general safety parameters and immune-related adverse events in clinical trials of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Karimian ◽  
Sandra Mavoungou ◽  
Joe-Elie Salem ◽  
Florence Tubach ◽  
Agnes Dechartres
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Safety Parameters

Abstract Background – While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced-stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the quality of reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs. Methods – PubMed was searched to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared the quality of reporting and the value of safety data between both sources. Results – Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8% and 8.8% of publications respectively, compared to 11.8% and 5.9% in registry results. Comparing the value of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had matching data in both sources. Conclusions – The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

scholarly journals The quality of reporting general safety parameters and immune-related adverse events in clinical trials of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Karimian ◽  
Sandra Mavoungou ◽  
Joe-Elie Salem ◽  
Florence Tubach ◽  
Agnès Dechartres
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Link Type

Abstract Background While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced-stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the quality of reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs. Methods PubMed was searched to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared the quality of reporting and the value of safety data between both sources. Results Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8 and 8.8% of publications respectively, compared to 11.8 and 5.9% in registry results. Comparing the value of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had matching data in both sources. Conclusions The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

scholarly journals The quality of reporting general safety parameters and immune-related adverse events in clinical trials of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Karimian ◽  
Sandra Mavoungou ◽  
Joe-Elie Salem ◽  
Florence Tubach ◽  
Agnes Dechartres
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Safety Parameters

Abstract Background – While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced-stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the quality of reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs.Methods – PubMed was searched to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared the quality of reporting and the value of safety data between both sources.Results – Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8% and 8.8% of publications respectively, compared to 11.8% and 5.9% in registry results. Comparing the value of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had matching data in both sources.Conclusions – The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Combination with Chemotherapy as a First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Carcinoma

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3629
Author(s):  
Hsiao-Ling Chen ◽  
Yu-Kang Tu ◽  
Hsiu-Mei Chang ◽  
Tai-Huang Lee ◽  
Kuan-Li Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
Grade 3

Patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) have a very short survival time even if they receive standard cytotoxic chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum (EP). Several randomized controlled trials have shown that patients with ED-SCLC who received a combination of EP plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) had superior survival compared with those who received EP alone. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide a ranking of ICIs for our primary endpoints in terms of overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR), as well as our secondary endpoint in terms of adverse events. The fractional polynomial model was used to evaluate the adjusted hazard ratios for the survival indicators (OS and PFS). Treatment rank was estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), as well as the probability of being best (Prbest) reference. EP plus nivolumab, atezolizumab or durvalumab had significant benefits compared with EP alone in terms of OS (Hazard Ratio HR = 0.67, 95% Confidence Interval CI = 0.46–0.98 for nivolumab, HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54–0.91 for atezolizumab, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.59–0.90 for durvalumab) but no significant differences were observed for pembrolizumab or ipilimumab. The probability of nivolumab being ranked first among all treatment arms was highest (SCURA = 78.7%, Prbest = 46.7%). All EP plus ICI combinations had a longer PFS compared with EP alone (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46–0.92 for nivolumab, HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.61–0.96 for atezolizumab, HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.65–0.94 for durvalumab, HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61–0.92 for pembrolizumab), and nivolumab was ranked first in terms of PFS (SCURA = 85.0%, Prbest = 66.8%). In addition, nivolumab had the highest probability of grade 3–4 adverse events (SUCRA = 84.8%) in our study. We found that nivolumab had the best PFS and OS in all combinations of ICIs and EP, but nivolumab also had the highest probability of grade 3–4 adverse events in our network meta-analysis. Further head-to head large-scale phase III randomized controlled studies are needed to verify our conclusions.

Dermatologic adverse events with immune checkpoint blockade: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Kushal Naha ◽  
Lakshmi Manogna Chintalacheruvu ◽  
Donald C. Doll ◽  
Sowjanya Naha
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Blockade ◽  
Checkpoint Blockade ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Dermatologic Adverse Events

84 Background: Immune checkpoint blockade is known to be associated with various dermatologic adverse events. However, these adverse effects have not been studied in a systematic manner. This is especially relevant considering the rapidly increasing number of immune checkpoint inhibitors that are now available. Methods: We searched for eligible studies in PubMed and Google scholar. We reviewed randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors - PD1 inhibitors, PDL1 inhibitors and CTLA4 inhibitors and for dermatologic adverse effects. A total of 47 randomized controlled trials involving 11875 patients met eligibility criteria for our study. Results: Incidence rate of all grade dermatologic adverse effects was 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.4-41.7%). Most common adverse effects included pruritus (17.3%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.6-18.1%), undifferentiated rash (15.1%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-15.9%), vitiligo (3.6%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2-3.9%), maculopapular rash (2.3%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.6%), stomatitis (0.7%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.92%) and dry skin (0.7%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.8%). Less common adverse events include palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia, pemphigoid skin reactions, lichen planus and hyperhidrosis. Grade 3 and higher adverse effects were seen in 1.3% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.6%). Conclusions: A wide range of dermatologic adverse effects can be seen with immune checkpoint blockade. While the majority of these events are of grade 1-2, they can occasionally be severe and even life threatening. Patients receiving immune checkpoint blockade should be closely monitored for dermatologic adverse effects.

scholarly journals IMMU-04. IMMUNE-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS STRONGLY PREDICT SUPERIOR OUTCOMES IN BRAIN METASTASES PATIENTS RECEIVING LOCAL TREATMENT AND IMMUNE CHECKPOINT INHIBITORS

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii105-ii105
Author(s):  
Alexander Hulsbergen ◽  
Asad Lak ◽  
Yu Tung Lo ◽  
Nayan Lamba ◽  
Steven Nagtegaal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Local Treatment ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Immortal Time Bias ◽  
The Brain

Abstract INTRODUCTION In several cancers treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), a remarkable association between the occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and superior oncological outcomes has been reported. This effect has hitherto not been reported in the brain. This study aimed to investigate the relation between irAEs and outcomes in brain metastases (BM) patients treated with both local treatment to the brain (LT; i.e. surgery and/or radiation) and ICIs. METHODS This study is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients treated for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) BMs in a tertiary institution in Boston, MA. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and intracranial progression-free survival (IC-PFS), measured from the time of LT. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for immortal time bias (i.e., patients who live longer receive more cycles of ICIs and thus have more opportunity to develop an irAE). RESULTS A total of 184 patients were included; 62 (33.7%) were treated with neurosurgical resection and 122 (66.3%) with upfront brain radiation. irAEs occurred in 62 patients (33.7%). After adjusting for lung-Graded Prognostic Assessment, type of LT, type of ICI, newly diagnosed vs. recurrent BM, BM size and number, targetable mutations, and smoking status, irAEs were strongly associated with better OS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 – 0.58, p < 0.0001) and IC-PFS (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.26 – 0.65; p = 0.0001). Landmark analysis including only patients who received more than 3 cycles of ICI (n = 133) demonstrated similar results for OS and IC-PFS, as did sensitivity analysis adjusting for the number of cycles administered (HR range 0.36 – 0.51, all p-values < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS After adjusting for known prognostic factors, irAEs strongly predict superior outcomes after LT in NSCLC BM patients. Sensitivity analysis suggests that this is unlikely due to immortal time bias.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document