SummaryBackgroundImmunotherapy combination treatments can improve patient outcomes. Epacadostat, an IDO1 selective inhibitor, and pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, showed promising antitumour activity ...in the phase 1–2 ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study in advanced melanoma. In this trial, we aimed to compare progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. MethodsIn this international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma previously untreated with PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and had a known BRAFV600 mutant status or consented to BRAFV600 mutation testing during screening. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression and BRAFV600 mutation status and randomly assigned (1:1) through a central interactive voice and integrated web response system to receive epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. We used block randomisation with a block size of four in each stratum. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis population included randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study was stopped after the second interim analysis; follow-up for safety is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02752074. FindingsBetween June 21, 2016, and Aug 7, 2017, 928 patients were screened and 706 patients were randomly assigned to receive epacadostat plus pembrolizumab (n=354) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n=352). Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·3–14·5). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups for progression-free survival (median 4·7 months, 95% CI 2·9–6·8, for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs 4·9 months, 2·9–6·8, for placebo plus pembrolizumab; hazard ratio HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; one-sided p=0·52) or overall survival (median not reached in either group; epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab: HR 1·13, 0·86–1·49; one-sided p=0·81). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase, which occurred in 14 (4%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11 (3%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 37 (10%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 32 (9%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in either treatment group. InterpretationEpacadostat 100 mg twice daily plus pembrolizumab did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival compared with placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The usefulness of IDO1 inhibition as a strategy to enhance anti-PD-1 therapy activity in cancer remains uncertain. FundingIncyte Corporation, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme.
The phase III PACIFIC trial compared durvalumab with placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. ...Consolidation durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS; stratified hazard ratio HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87;
= .00251) and progression-free survival (PFS blinded independent central review; RECIST v1.1; stratified HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65;
< .0001), with manageable safety. We report updated, exploratory analyses of survival, approximately 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned.
Patients with WHO performance status 0 or 1 (any tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 status) were randomly assigned (2:1) to durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; administered once every 2 weeks for 12 months) or placebo, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. Time-to-event end point analyses were performed using stratified log-rank tests. Medians and landmark survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Seven hundred and nine of 713 randomly assigned patients received durvalumab (473 of 476) or placebo (236 of 237). As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up, 34.2 months all patients; 61.6 months censored patients), updated OS (stratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; median, 47.5
29.1 months) and PFS (stratified HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68; median, 16.9
5.6 months) remained consistent with the primary analyses. Estimated 5-year rates (95% CI) for durvalumab and placebo were 42.9% (38.2 to 47.4) versus 33.4% (27.3 to 39.6) for OS and 33.1% (28.0 to 38.2) versus 19.0% (13.6 to 25.2) for PFS.
These updated analyses demonstrate robust and sustained OS and durable PFS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 42.9% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive at 5 years and 33.1% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive and free of disease progression, establishing a new benchmark for standard of care in this setting.
We used the Stigma in Global Context-Mental Health Study to assess the core sentiments that represent consistent, salient public health intervention targets.
Data from 16 countries employed a ...nationally representative sampling strategy, international collaboration for instrument development, and case vignettes with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition depression and schizophrenia criteria. We measured knowledge and prejudice with existing questions and scales, and employed exploratory data analysis to examine the public response to 43 items.
Across countries, levels of recognition, acceptance of neurobiological attributions, and treatment endorsement were high. However, a core of 5 prejudice items was consistently high, even in countries with low overall stigma levels. The levels were generally lower for depression than schizophrenia, and exclusionary sentiments for more intimate venues and in authority-based roles showed the greatest stigma. Negative responses to schizophrenia and depression were highly correlated across countries.
These results challenge researchers to reconfigure measurement strategies and policymakers to reconsider efforts to improve population mental health. Efforts should prioritize inclusion, integration, and competences for the reduction of cultural barriers to recognition, response, and recovery.
Clinicians, advocates, and policy makers have presented mental illnesses as medical diseases in efforts to overcome low service use, poor adherence rates, and stigma. The authors examined the impact ...of this approach with a 10-year comparison of public endorsement of treatment and prejudice.
The authors analyzed responses to vignettes in the mental health modules of the 1996 and 2006 General Social Survey describing individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, major depression, and alcohol dependence to explore whether more of the public 1) embraces neurobiological understandings of mental illness; 2) endorses treatment from providers, including psychiatrists; and 3) reports community acceptance or rejection of people with these disorders. Multivariate analyses examined whether acceptance of neurobiological causes increased treatment support and lessened stigma.
In 2006, 67% of the public attributed major depression to neurobiological causes, compared with 54% in 1996. High proportions of respondents endorsed treatment, with general increases in the proportion endorsing treatment from doctors and specific increases in the proportions endorsing psychiatrists for treatment of alcohol dependence (from 61% in 1996 to 79% in 2006) and major depression (from 75% in 1996 to 85% in 2006). Social distance and perceived danger associated with people with these disorders did not decrease significantly. Holding a neurobiological conception of these disorders increased the likelihood of support for treatment but was generally unrelated to stigma. Where associated, the effect was to increase, not decrease, community rejection.
More of the public embraces a neurobiological understanding of mental illness. This view translates into support for services but not into a decrease in stigma. Reconfiguring stigma reduction strategies may require providers and advocates to shift to an emphasis on competence and inclusion.
Methods for group comparisons using predicted probabilities and marginal effects on probabilities are developed for regression models for binary outcomes. Unlike approaches based on the comparison of ...regression coefficients across groups, the methods we propose are unaffected by the scalar identification of the coefficients and are expressed in the natural metric of the outcome probability. While we develop our approach using binary logit with two groups, we consider how our interpretive framework can be used with a broad class of regression models and can be extended to any number of groups.
Anxiety disorders are complex diseases, and often co-occur with depression. It is as yet unclear if a common neural circuit controls anxiety-related behaviors in both anxiety-alone and comorbid ...conditions. Here, utilizing the chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) paradigm that induces singular or combined anxiety- and depressive-like phenotypes in mice, we show that a ventral tegmental area (VTA) dopamine circuit projecting to the basolateral amygdala (BLA) selectively controls anxiety- but not depression-like behaviors. Using circuit-dissecting ex vivo electrophysiology and in vivo fiber photometry approaches, we establish that expression of anxiety-like, but not depressive-like, phenotypes are negatively correlated with VTA → BLA dopamine neuron activity. Further, our optogenetic studies demonstrate a causal link between such neuronal activity and anxiety-like behaviors. Overall, these data establish a functional role for VTA → BLA dopamine neurons in bi-directionally controlling anxiety-related behaviors not only in anxiety-alone, but also in anxiety-depressive comorbid conditions in mice.
Here we report a phase 1b clinical trial testing the impact of oncolytic virotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec on cytotoxic T cell infiltration and therapeutic efficacy of the anti-PD-1 antibody ...pembrolizumab. Twenty-one patients with advanced melanoma were treated with talimogene laherparepvec followed by combination therapy with pembrolizumab. Therapy was generally well tolerated, with fatigue, fevers, and chills as the most common adverse events. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred. Confirmed objective response rate was 62%, with a complete response rate of 33% per immune-related response criteria. Patients who responded to combination therapy had increased CD8+ T cells, elevated PD-L1 protein expression, as well as IFN-γ gene expression on several cell subsets in tumors after talimogene laherparepvec treatment. Response to combination therapy did not appear to be associated with baseline CD8+ T cell infiltration or baseline IFN-γ signature. These findings suggest that oncolytic virotherapy may improve the efficacy of anti-PD-1 therapy by changing the tumor microenvironment.
Display omitted
Display omitted
•Oncolytic virus plus anti-PD-1 therapy favorably changed the tumor microenvironment•A high overall response rate of 62% to the combination in metastatic melanoma•A high complete response rate of 33% to the combination in metastatic melanoma•Responses to this combination appeared independent of baseline CD8+ infiltration
In combination with anti-PD-1 therapy, intratumoral injection of an oncolytic virus engineered to enhance immune recognition of cancer resulted in a high response rate in patients with advanced melanoma.
Pembrolizumab prolongs progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in resected stage III disease. KEYNOTE-716 assessed pembrolizumab as ...adjuvant therapy in patients with completely resected, high-risk, stage II melanoma. We report results from the planned first and second interim analyses for recurrence-free survival.
In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, involving 160 academic medical centres and hospitals in 16 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA), patients aged 12 years or older with newly diagnosed, completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (TNM stage T3b or T4 with a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy) were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four and stratified by T-category (3b, 4a, and 4b) and paediatric status (age 12–17 years vs ≥18 years), using an interactive response technology system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg in paediatric patients) or placebo every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. All patients, clinical investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to recurrence or death) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment). The primary endpoint was met if recurrence-free survival was significantly improved for pembrolizumab versus placebo at either the first interim analysis (after approximately 128 patients had events) or second interim analysis (after 179 patients had events) under multiplicity control. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836, and is closed to accrual.
Between Sept 23, 2018, and Nov 4, 2020, 1182 patients were screened, of whom 976 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489; ITT population). The median age was 61 years (IQR 52–69) and 387 (40%) patients were female and 589 (60%) were male. 874 (90%) of 976 patients were White and 799 (82%) were not Hispanic or Latino. 483 (99%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 486 (99%) of 489 in the placebo group received assigned treatment. At the first interim analysis (data cutoff on Dec 4, 2020; median follow-up of 14·4 months IQR 10·2–18·7 in the pembrolizumab group and 14·3 months 10·1–18·7 in the placebo group), 54 (11%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 82 (17%) of 489 in the placebo group had a first recurrence of disease or died (hazard ratio HR 0·65 95% CI 0·46–0·92; p=0·0066). At the second interim analysis (data cutoff on June 21, 2021; median follow-up of 20·9 months 16·7–25·3 in the pembrolizumab group and 20·9 months 16·6–25·3 in the placebo group), 72 (15%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 115 (24%) in the placebo group had a first recurrence or died (HR 0·61 95% CI 0·45–0·82). Median recurrence-free survival was not reached in either group at either assessment timepoint. At the first interim analysis, grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (16%) of 483 patients in the pembrolizumab groups versus 21 (4%) of 486 in the placebo group. At the first interim analysis, four patients died from an adverse event, all in the placebo group (one each due to pneumonia, COVID-19-related pneumonia, suicide, and recurrent cancer), and at the second interim analysis, one additional patient, who was in the pembrolizumab group, died from an adverse event (COVID-19-related pneumonia). No deaths due to study treatment occurred.
Pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for up to approximately 1 year for stage IIB or IIC melanoma resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death versus placebo, with a manageable safety profile.
Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Many research questions involve comparing predictions or effects across multiple models. For example, it may be of interest whether an independent variable's effect changes after adding variables to ...a model. Or, it could be important to compare a variable's effect on different outcomes or across different types of models. When doing this, marginal effects are a useful method for quantifying effects because they are in the natural metric of the dependent variable and they avoid identification problems when comparing regression coefficients across logit and probit models. Despite advances that make it possible to compute marginal effects for almost any model, there is no general method for comparing these effects across models. In this article, the authors provide a general framework for comparing predictions and marginal effects across models using seemingly unrelated estimation to combine estimates from multiple models, which allows tests of the equality of predictions and effects across models. The authors illustrate their method to compare nested models, to compare effects on different dependent or independent variables, to compare results from different samples or groups within one sample, and to assess results from different types of models.
In the Phase 3, placebo-controlled PACIFIC trial of patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC without disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, consolidative durvalumab was associated ...with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio HR = 0.68; 95% confidence interval CI: 0.53–0.87; p = 0.00251; data cutoff, March 22, 2018) and progression-free survival (PFS) (blinded independent central review; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) (HR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.42–65; p < 0.0001; February 13, 2017) with manageable safety. Here, we report updated analyses of OS and PFS, approximately 4 years after the last patient was randomized.
Patients with WHO performance status of 0 or 1 (and any tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status) were randomized (2:1) to intravenous durvalumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo, administered every 2 weeks (≤12 months), stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. OS and PFS were analyzed using a stratified log-rank test in the intent-to-treat population. Medians and 4-year OS and PFS rates were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method.
Overall, 709 of 713 randomized patients received durvalumab (n/N=473/476) or placebo (n/N=236/237). As of March 20, 2020 (median follow-up = 34.2 months; range: 0.2–64.9), updated OS (HR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.57–0.88) and PFS (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.44–0.67) remained consistent with the primary analyses. The median OS for durvalumab was reached (47.5 mo; placebo, 29.1 months). Estimated 4-year OS rates were 49.6% versus 36.3% for durvalumab versus placebo, and 4-year PFS rates were 35.3% versus 19.5% respectively.
These updated exploratory analyses demonstrate durable PFS and sustained OS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 49.6% of patients randomized to durvalumab remain alive at 4 years (placebo, 36.3%), and 35.3% remain alive and progression-free (placebo, 19.5%).
PDF
