Search

Supplementary Table from Phase IB Study of GITR Agonist Antibody TRX518 Singly and in Combination with Gemcitabine, Pembrolizumab, or Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose:TRX518 is a mAb engaging the glucocorticoid-induced TNF receptor−related protein (GITR). This open-label, phase I study (TRX518-003) evaluated the safety and efficacy of repeated dose TRX518 monotherapy and in combination with gemcitabine, pembrolizumab, or nivolumab in advanced solid tumors.Patients and Methods:TRX518 monotherapy was dose escalated (Part A) and expanded (Part B) up to 4 mg/kg loading, 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Parts C–E included dose-escalation (2 and 4 mg/kg loading followed by 1 mg/kg) and dose-expansion (4 mg/kg loading) phases with gemcitabine (Part C), pembrolizumab (Part D), or nivolumab (Part E). Primary endpoints included incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), serious adverse events (SAE), and pharmacokinetics. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and pharmacodynamics.Results:A total of 109 patients received TRX518: 43 (Parts A+B), 30 (Part C), 26 (Part D), and 10 (Part E), respectively. A total of 67% of patients in Parts D+E had received prior anti–PD(L)1 or anti–CTLA-4. No DLTs, treatment-related SAEs, and/or grade 4 or 5 AEs were observed with TRX518 monotherapy. In Parts C–E, no DLTs were observed, although TRX518-related SAEs were reported in 3.3% (Part C) and 10.0% (Part E), respectively. Objective response rate was 3.2%, 3.8%, 4%, and 12.5% in Parts A+B, C, D, and E, respectively. TRX518 affected peripheral and intratumoral regulatory T cells (Treg) with different kinetics depending on the combination regimen. Responses with TRX518 monotherapy+anti–PD1 combination were associated with intratumoral Treg reductions and CD8 increases and activation after treatment.Conclusions:TRX518 showed an acceptable safety profile with pharmacodynamic activity. Repeated dose TRX518 monotherapy and in combination resulted in limited clinical responses associated with immune activation.See related commentary by Hernandez-Guerrero and Moreno, p. 3905

Supplementary Data from Phase IB Study of GITR Agonist Antibody TRX518 Singly and in Combination with Gemcitabine, Pembrolizumab, or Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Supplementary Figure from Phase IB Study of GITR Agonist Antibody TRX518 Singly and in Combination with Gemcitabine, Pembrolizumab, or Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose: TRX518 is a mAb engaging the glucocorticoid-induced TNF receptor−related protein (GITR). This open-label, phase I study (TRX518-003) evaluated the safety and efficacy of repeated dose TRX518 monotherapy and in combination with gemcitabine, pembrolizumab, or nivolumab in advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: TRX518 monotherapy was dose escalated (Part A) and expanded (Part B) up to 4 mg/kg loading, 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Parts C–E included dose-escalation (2 and 4 mg/kg loading followed by 1 mg/kg) and dose-expansion (4 mg/kg loading) phases with gemcitabine (Part C), pembrolizumab (Part D), or nivolumab (Part E). Primary endpoints included incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), serious adverse events (SAE), and pharmacokinetics. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and pharmacodynamics. Results: A total of 109 patients received TRX518: 43 (Parts A+B), 30 (Part C), 26 (Part D), and 10 (Part E), respectively. A total of 67% of patients in Parts D+E had received prior anti–PD(L)1 or anti–CTLA-4. No DLTs, treatment-related SAEs, and/or grade 4 or 5 AEs were observed with TRX518 monotherapy. In Parts C–E, no DLTs were observed, although TRX518-related SAEs were reported in 3.3% (Part C) and 10.0% (Part E), respectively. Objective response rate was 3.2%, 3.8%, 4%, and 12.5% in Parts A+B, C, D, and E, respectively. TRX518 affected peripheral and intratumoral regulatory T cells (Treg) with different kinetics depending on the combination regimen. Responses with TRX518 monotherapy+anti–PD1 combination were associated with intratumoral Treg reductions and CD8 increases and activation after treatment. Conclusions: TRX518 showed an acceptable safety profile with pharmacodynamic activity. Repeated dose TRX518 monotherapy and in combination resulted in limited clinical responses associated with immune activation. See related commentary by Hernandez-Guerrero and Moreno, p. 3905

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of recombinant human iduronate-2-sulfatase (idursulfase) in the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis II. Methods: Ninety-six mucopolysaccharidosis II patients between 5 and 31 years of age were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to placebo infusions, weekly idursulfase (0.5 mg/kg) infusions or every-other-week infusions of idursulfase (0.5 mg/kg). Efficacy was evaluated using a composite endpoint consisting of distance walked in 6 minutes and the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity based on the sum of the ranks of change from baseline. Results: Patients in the weekly and every-other-week idursulfase groups exhibited significant improvement in the composite endpoint compared to placebo (P = 0.0049 for weekly and P = 0.0416 for every-other-week) after one year. The weekly dosing group experienced a 37-m increase in the 6-minute-walk distance (P = 0.013), a 2.7% increase in percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (P = 0.065), and a 160 mL increase in absolute forced vital capacity (P = 0.001) compared to placebo group at 53 weeks. Idursulfase was generally well tolerated, but infusion reactions did occur. Idursulfase antibodies were detected in 46.9% of patients during the study. Conclusion: This study supports the use of weekly infusions of idursulfase in the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis II.

Twenty-nine British and Irish hospitals each collected up to 300 bacterial isolates from in-patients. The organisms were identified by an appropriate API system or, for staphylococci, by their Gram and coagulase reactions. Disc susceptibility tests were performed. Isolates that gave zonesor = 25 mm to piperacillin/tazobactam (75 micrograms + 10 micrograms) discs were sent to a central laboratory for re-examination and determination of MIC, together with a sample of the more susceptible organisms. Results were evaluated for 6724 isolates. Over 95% of the isolates of Escherichia coli, klebsiellae, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Haemophilus, Moraxella and Bacteriodes, spp. streptococci, pneumococci and Enterococcus faecalis were susceptible to piperacillin/tazobactam (defined as giving a zoneor = 22 mm to a 75 micrograms + 10 micrograms disc), as were 86% of Acinetobacter spp. and 82% of the Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Morganella and Serratia group. Tazobactam particularly extended the activity of piperacillin against E. coli isolates (96% susceptible cf. 61% to piperacillin alone) klebsiellae (95% cf. 70%), P. mirabilis (99% cf. 86%), and Acinetobacter spp. (86% cf. 53%). Occasional (18%) resistance in Enterobacter, Serratia and Citrobacger spp. was probably caused by stable depression of Class I beta-lactamases, which are inhibited poorly by tazobactam. High resistance frequencies (25%) were found for Enterococcus faecium and Xanthomonas maltophilia. Tazobactam potentiated piperacillin against beta-lactamase-producing methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, but the mode inhibition zone of piperacillin/tazobactam discs was only 26 mm, compared to 38 mm for beta-lactamase-negative isolates. Nevertheless, fewer than 5% of the enzyme producers appeared resistant to 8 + 4 mg/L piperacillin/tazobactam in MIC tests. Similar behaviour was noted for coagulase-negative staphylococci. Amongst the eleven comparator drugs, ceftazidime, gentamicin and ciprofloxacin were as active as piperacillin/tazobactam against most enterobacteria. However, Acinetobacter and Bacteroides spp. and enterococci were resistant to ceftazidime, and Bacteroides spp., enterococci, pneumococci and other streptococci were inherently resistant to ciprofloxacin and gentamicin. Cefuroxime, ampicillin and co-amoxiclav had narrower spectra. Only imipenem showed a consistently wider spectrum and lower frequency of resistance than piperacillin/tazobactam.