XPOVIO® (selinexor): A Treatment Approved for Multiple Myeloma as Early as First Relapse

Author: Cristina Gasparetto, MD
Sponsored by: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc.
Dr. Gasparetto is a paid consultant for Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. and has been compensated.

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable hematologic cancer due to the clonal nature of the disease.1 With each relapse, cancer cells undergo clonal evolution and acquire new mutations that render them resistant to certain treatments.1 Triplet therapies combining proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (CD38-mAbs) have improved patient outcomes and their use has steadily increased over the past decade.2,3 When patients relapse after exposure to daratumumab (a CD38-mAb), the prognosis becomes unfavorable; even if patients previously responded to PIs or IMiDs, median survival may not reach one year.3 A significant unmet need therefore remains for providing durable disease control for patients with MM.1

For patients with previously-treated MM, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recommends a new triplet regimen should preferably include drugs or drug classes patients have not been exposed to, or not exposed to for at least 6 months.4 For patients with MM who are triple class exposed, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) may be a potential treatment class to consider in early relapsed (1-3 prior therapies) MM.4 Once-weekly XPOVIO® (selinexor), is a first-in-class, oral SINE compound approved as early as first relapse in MM that reversibly inhibits exportin 1 (XPO1).5 This action leads to accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins in the nucleus and reductions in several oncoproteins, such as c-myc and cyclin D1, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis of cancer cells.5 Oral, once weekly selinexor (XPOVIO®) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (XVd) is recommended by the NCCN as a Category 1 therapeutic option in early relapsed (1 to 3 prior therapies) MM.4

The efficacy and safety of XPOVIO was assessed in a phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing XPOVIO (100 mg once weekly) in combination with bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (20 mg) with Vd alone in patients exposed to one to three prior lines of therapy.6 Patient disease characteristics were well balanced in both treatment groups and the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).5,6 Patients in the XVd group demonstrated a median PFS of 13.9 months (95% CI: 11.73-NE) compared with 9.5 months (95% CI: 8.11-10.78) in the Vd group (HR 0.70 [95% CI: 0.53-0.93], P=0.0075).6 In patients treated with XVd, a greater median PFS was consistently observed in certain subgroups compared with patients treated with Vd (Figure 1).6,7 When comparing patients 65 years of age and older to younger patients, older patients had a higher incidence of discontinuation due to an adverse reaction (28% vs 13%) and a higher incidence of serious adverse reactions (56% vs 47%).5

XPOVIO-Combination-Demonstrated-Sustained-PFSFigure 1. Median PFS in the XVd and Vd treatment groups (primary endpoint) and in select patient subgroups in the XVd trial.

Oral, once-weekly XPOVIO dosage may be adjusted to help mitigate potential adverse reactions (ARs).5 The indicated starting dose of XPOVIO is 100 mg once weekly and the dose may be reduced to 80 mg, 60 mg, or 40 mg based on ARs.5 Dose reductions were permitted in the XVd trial to help mitigate ARs – 65% of patients in the XVd group had a dose reduction and the median dose of XPOVIO in that group was 80 mg once weekly.5,7 Patients in my clinical practice typically get reduced from 100 mg to 60 mg once weekly and experience minimal tolerability issues at 60 mg. In an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the XVd trial, efficacy was maintained with XPOVIO dose reductions (Figure 2).7

Efficacy-Maintained-Even-With-XPOVIO-Dose-ReductionFigure 2. Median PFS in XPOVIO dose-reduced patients in the XVd trial.

XVd was not associated with serious organ toxicities of the cardiac, pulmonary, renal, or hepatic systems.6,7 Warnings and precautions include life-threatening thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicities, severe life-threatening hyponatremia, serious infection, and life-threatening neurological toxicities.5 The most common adverse reactions (≥20% with a difference between arms of >5% compared to Vd) were fatigue, nausea, decreased appetite, diarrhea, peripheral neuropathy, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased weight, cataract, and vomiting (Figure 3).5 The XVd trial protocol required a prophylactic 5-HT3 antagonist to address nausea but allowed for other interventions as required.7 Nausea events were reported in 50% of patients, however, treatment-related nausea associated with XPOVIO diminished over time; 92% of nausea cases were resolved/resolving in the first month of treatment.7 Patients should be counseled on what to expect with XPOVIO therapy and monitored throughout treatment, with more frequent monitoring during the first three months of treatment.5

Figure 3. Adverse reactions reported in the XVd trial.

Below we consider 2 hypothetical patients where XPOVIO may be considered.

Patient A is a 66-year-old woman with relapsed/refractory MM. She was started on lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone, and received autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) followed by lenalidomide maintenance, which she did well on for 16 months. Upon relapsing, she was given daratumumab, pomalidomide with dexamethasone, and after 7 months, imaging confirmed that her MM progressed again. Given her DPd exposure, Patient A (RVd → ASCT → R → DPd) may be a candidate for a class switch to XVd.

Patient B is a 74-year-old man with a history of hypertension and was diagnosed with MM 2 years ago. Because of his hypertension, he was unable to start a PI due to risk of cardiotoxicity and he is ASCT ineligible. His healthcare provider started him on daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd), but after 2 years, he has relapsed. A class switch to XPOVIO could be considered for Patient B as his second-line therapy.

Healthcare providers should consider patients’ individual clinical characteristics when making treatment decisions. Consider switching class with XPOVIO® (selinexor) for patients at relapse, including those who have been exposed to a CD38-mAb–based regimen.5 Based on the results of the XVd trial and considering the clonal nature of MM, switching patients to XPOVIO may be an option to consider.

INDICATIONS
XPOVIO® (selinexor) is a prescription medicine approved:
• in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy.
• in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least two proteasome inhibitors, at least two immunomodulatory agents, and an anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

Thrombocytopenia:
XPOVIO can cause life-threatening thrombocytopenia, potentially leading to hemorrhage. Thrombocytopenia was reported in patients with multiple myeloma.
Thrombocytopenia is the leading cause of dosage modifications. Monitor platelet counts at baseline and throughout treatment. Monitor more frequently during the first 3 months of treatment. Monitor patients for signs and symptoms of bleeding. Interrupt, reduce dose, or permanently discontinue based on severity of adverse reaction.

Neutropenia: XPOVIO can cause life-threatening neutropenia, potentially increasing the risk of infection.
Monitor more frequently during the first 3 months of treatment. Consider supportive measures, including antimicrobials and growth factors (e.g., G-CSF). Interrupt, reduce dose, or permanently discontinue based on severity of adverse reaction.

Gastrointestinal Toxicity: XPOVIO can cause severe gastrointestinal toxicities in patients.

Nausea/Vomiting/Diarrhea:
Provide prophylactic antiemetics or treatment as needed.

Anorexia/Weight Loss:
Monitor weight, nutritional status, and volume status at baseline and throughout treatment and provide nutritional support, fluids, and electrolyte repletion as clinically indicated.

Hyponatremia:
XPOVIO can cause severe or life-threatening hyponatremia.
Monitor sodium level at baseline and throughout treatment.

Serious Infection:
XPOVIO can cause serious and fatal infections. Atypical infections reported after taking XPOVIO include, but are not limited to, fungal pneumonia and herpesvirus infection.

Neurological Toxicity:
XPOVIO can cause life-threatening neurological toxicities.
Coadministration of XPOVIO with other products that cause dizziness or mental status changes may increase the risk of neurological toxicity.
Advise patients to refrain from driving and engaging in hazardous occupations or activities until the neurological toxicity fully resolves. Institute fall precautions as appropriate.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity:
XPOVIO can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.
Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential and males with a female partner of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with XPOVIO and for 1 week after the last dose.

Cataracts: New onset or exacerbation of cataract has occurred during treatment with XPOVIO. The incidence of new onset or worsening cataract requiring clinical intervention was reported.

ADVERSE REACTIONS

The most common adverse reactions (ARs) (≥20%) in patients with multiple myeloma who received XVd were fatigue, nausea, decreased appetite, diarrhea, peripheral neuropathy, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased weight, cataract, and vomiting.

Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, hypophosphatemia, anemia, hyponatremia and neutropenia.

Fatal ARs occurred in 6% of patients within 30 days of last treatment. Serious ARs occurred in 52% of patients. Treatment discontinuation rate due to ARs was 19%. The most frequent ARs requiring permanent discontinuation in >2% of patients included fatigue, nausea, thrombocytopenia, decreased appetite, peripheral neuropathy and vomiting. Adverse reactions led to XPOVIO dose interruption in 83% of patients and dose reduction in 64% of patients.

USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS

No overall difference in effectiveness of XPOVIO was observed in patients >65 years old when compared with younger patients. Patients ≥65 years old had a higher incidence of discontinuation due to an adverse reaction (AR) and a higher incidence of serious ARs than younger patients.

The effect of end-stage renal disease (CLCR <15 mL/min) or hemodialysis on XPOVIO pharmacokinetics is unknown.

Please see full Prescribing Information.
To report SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS, contact Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. at 1-888-209-9326 or FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

© 2022 Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. US-XPOV-10/22-00003

References
1. Mikkilineni L, Kochenderfer JN. CAR T cell therapies for patients with multiple myeloma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18(2):71-84. doi:10.1038/s41571-020-0427-6
2. Braunlin M, Belani R, Buchanan J, Wheeling T, Kim C. Trends in the multiple myeloma treatment landscape and survival: a U.S. analysis using 2011-2019 oncology clinic electronic health record data. Leuk Lymphoma. 2021;62(2):377-386. doi:10.1080/10428194.2020.1827253
3. Gandhi UH, Cornell RF, Lakshman A, et al. Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy. Leukemia. 2019;33(9):2266-2275. doi:10.1038/s41375-019-0435-7
4. Referenced with permission from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Multiple Myeloma V.5.2022. © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Accessed October 18, 2022. To view the most recent and complete version of the guideline, go online to NCCN.org. NCCN makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way.
5. XPOVIO (selinexor) [prescribing information]. Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. https://www.karyopharm.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NDA-212306-SN-0071-Prescribing-Information-01July2019.pdf
6. Grosicki S, Simonova M, Spicka I, et al. Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2020;396(10262):1563-1573. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32292-3
7. Data on File. Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. 2021. Published online 2021.

OPDIVO® (nivolumab) for the Adjuvant Treatment of High-Risk Urothelial Carcinoma*

*Urothelial carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after undergoing radical resection.
Written by: Terence Friedlander, MD
Professor of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco

Content sponsored by: Bristol Myers Squibb
Dr Friedlander is a paid consultant for BMS and was compensated for his contribution in drafting this content.

Overview of High-Risk Urothelial Carcinoma*
Currently, radical resection with or without perioperative therapy is the standard of care for treating high-risk urothelial carcinoma (UC).1* However, there is still a high chance of recurrence within 2 years of radical resection, with less favorable survival rates for the high-risk patient population.1 While neoadjuvant therapy has an established role in treating high-risk UC,* data are less clear regarding the role of adjuvant therapy.2 In a retrospective observational cohort study of patients 65 years or older with UC at high risk of recurrence after radical resection, including patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, median disease-free survival (mDFS) was determined to be 13.5 months.1 Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the neoadjuvant standard of care, but prior to 2021 there were no FDA-approved adjuvant therapy options.1-3 Studies have shown that adjuvant chemotherapy may delay recurrence and improve overall survival (OS), but these studies have not definitively shown a survival benefit, largely due to inadequate sample sizes.2 Additionally, approximately 50% of patients are ineligible for cisplatin-based treatment.1 As a result, there is a high unmet need for this difficult-to-treat population, and it is important for the urologist, oncologist, and patient to discuss and align on perioperative treatments at the time of diagnosis and early in the patient journey.1,2,4 Entering the adjuvant treatment landscape, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be an additional treatment option for HCPs to consider for their patients with high-risk UC.1,2*

Adjuvant OPDIVO in High-Risk Urothelial Carcinoma*
OPDIVO is approved and indicated for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with UC who are at high risk of recurrence after undergoing radical resection, regardless of prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, nodal involvement, or PD-L1 status.5 The approval is based on Checkmate 274, a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of adjuvant OPDIVO versus placebo.6 More information on the study design can be found in the images below. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment arms.6
Checkmate 274Important Safety Information
Select Important Safety Information
In Checkmate 274, serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of OPDIVO patients. The most frequent serious adverse reaction reported in ≥2% of patients was urinary tract infection. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 1% of patients; these included events of pneumonitis (0.6%). The most-common adverse reactions reported in ≥20% of patients were rash, fatigue, diarrhea, pruritus, musculoskeletal pain, and UTI. OPDIVO was discontinued or delayed due to adverse reactions in 18% and 33% of patients, respectively.5

OPDIVO is associated with the following Warnings and Precautions: severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis and hepatotoxicity, endocrinopathies, nephritis with renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, other immune-mediated adverse reactions; infusion-related reactions; complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; embryo-fetal toxicity; and increased mortality in patients with multiple myeloma when OPDIVO is added to a thalidomide analogue and dexamethasone, which is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials.

OPDIVO may cause severe infusion-related reactions. In patients who received OPDIVO as a 60-minute intravenous infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 6.4% (127/1994) of patients.5 For additional information regarding infusion-related reactions, please see Important Safety Information for OPDIVO.
Checkmate-274-Defined-High-Risk-PatientsDouble-median-DFS-with-OPDIVO
Checkmate 274 was not powered to detect differences in the treatment effect at extended follow-up analysis; therefore, results from this exploratory analysis should be interpreted with caution.

Adjuvant OPDIVO demonstrated superior disease-free survival (DFS) compared with placebo at the primary analysis (minimum follow-up of 5.9 months).5,6 Median DFS was 20.8 months with OPDIVO versus 10.8 months with placebo (HR=0.70 [95% CI: 0.57–0.86];P=0.0008).5 OS was also evaluated as a secondary endpoint, but at the time of the planned interim analysis, these data were immature with 33% of deaths in the ITT population; in the UTUC subpopulation, 37 deaths occurred, 20 of which occurred with OPDIVO versus 17 with placebo.5 Although the subgroup analyses were not statistically powered, for patients with prior neoadjuvant cisplatin therapy (n=308), the DFS hazard ratio was 0.52 [95% CI: 0.38–0.71] and for patients without prior neoadjuvant cisplatin therapy (n=401), the DFS hazard ratio was 0.92 [95% CI: 0.69–1.21].6 In additional exploratory subgroup analyses, no improvement in DFS was observed with nivolumab compared to placebo in patients with UTUC (n=149) the unstratified DFS hazard ratio was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.74–1.80); in patients with PD-L1 expression of <1% (n=414), the unstratified DFS hazard ratio was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.64–1.08).5

At the extended follow-up analysis (minimum follow-up of 11.0 months), mDFS was doubled with adjuvant OPDIVO compared with placebo. Median DFS was 22.0 months with OPDIVO versus 10.9 months with placebo (HR=0.70 [95% CI: 0.57–0.85]).12

Summary/conclusions
Given the high unmet need in this difficult-to-treat population, the call for approved adjuvant treatment options continues to rise.1,2 Adjuvant OPDIVO offers a chance to change the future for patients with high-risk UC as the only FDA-approved adjuvant option for adult patients with UC at high risk of recurrence after radical resection regardless of prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, nodal involvement, or PD-L1 status.5,6,12 In Checkmate 274, OPDIVO significantly extended mDFS at the time of primary analysis and doubled mDFS at the time of extended follow-up analysis.5,6,12 Further data will be generated for the secondary endpoint of OS, which may provide greater insight into the efficacy of OPDIVO in this context.6,8 Given the clinical profile of Checkmate 274 and subsequent FDA approval, OPDIVO may help extend DFS for appropriate patients in need of treatment in the adjuvant UC setting.5,6,12

*Urothelial carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after undergoing radical resection.

Additional Definitions
CI=confidence interval; HCP=healthcare provider; HR=hazard ratio; ITT=intent to treat; PD-L1=programmed death ligand 1; UTUC=upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

Indication
OPDIVO® (nivolumab), as a single agent, is indicated for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC) who are at high risk of recurrence after undergoing radical resection of UC.

Important Safety Information
Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
Immune-mediated adverse reactions listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions, which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. While immune-mediated adverse reactions usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of OPDIVO. Early identification and management are essential to ensure safe use of OPDIVO. Monitor for signs and symptoms that may be clinical manifestations of underlying immune-mediated adverse reactions. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment with OPDIVO. In cases of suspected immune-mediated adverse reactions, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if OPDIVO interruption or discontinuation is required, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose immune-mediated adverse reactions are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis
OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis. The incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 3.1% (61/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (<0.1%), Grade 3 (0.9%), and Grade 2 (2.1%).

Immune-Mediated Colitis
OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated colitis. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated colitis occurred in 2.9% (58/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.7%) and Grade 2 (1%).

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis and Hepatotoxicity
OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated hepatitis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 1.8% (35/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (1.3%), and Grade 2 (0.4%).

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies
OPDIVO can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, immune-mediated hypophysitis, immune- mediated thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold OPDIVO depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated.

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 1% (20/1994), including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.6%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypophysitis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (0.3%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, thyroiditis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 2 (0.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hyperthyroidism occurred in 2.7% (54/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (<0.1%) and Grade 2 (1.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypothyroidism occurred in 8% (163/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (4.8%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, diabetes occurred in 0.9% (17/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.3%), and 2 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction
OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated nephritis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction occurred in 1.2% (23/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (<0.1%), Grade 3 (0.5%), and Grade 2 (0.6%).

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions
OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) has occurred with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate nonexfoliative rashes.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated rash occurred in 9% (171/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (2.2%).

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
The following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions occurred at an incidence of <1% (unless otherwise noted) in patients who received OPDIVO monotherapy or were reported with the use of other PD-1/PD- L1 blocking antibodies. Severe or fatal cases have been reported for some of these adverse reactions: cardiac/vascular: myocarditis, pericarditis, vasculitis; nervous system: meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis and demyelination, myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis (including exacerbation), Guillain-Barré syndrome, nerve paresis, autoimmune neuropathy; ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis to include increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; musculoskeletal and connective tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis, and associated sequelae including renal failure, arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; other (hematologic/immune): hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.

Some ocular IMAR cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other immune-mediated adverse reactions, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada–like syndrome, which has been observed in patients receiving OPDIVO, as this may require treatment with systemic corticosteroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss.

Infusion-Related Reactions
OPDIVO can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue OPDIVO in patients with severe (Grade 3) or life-threatening (Grade 4) infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild (Grade 1) or moderate (Grade 2) infusion-related reactions. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy as a 60- minute infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 6.4% (127/1994) of patients. In a separate trial in which patients received OPDIVO monotherapy as a 60-minute infusion or a 30-minute infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 2.2% (8/368) and 2.7% (10/369) of patients, respectively. Additionally, 0.5% (2/368) and 1.4% (5/369) of patients, respectively, experienced adverse reactions within 48 hours of infusion that led to dose delay, permanent discontinuation or withholding of OPDIVO.

Complications of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Fatal and other serious complications can occur in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before or after being treated with OPDIVO. Transplant-related complications include hyperacute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) after reduced intensity conditioning, and steroid-requiring febrile syndrome (without an identified infectious cause). These complications may occur despite intervening therapy between OPDIVO and allogeneic HSCT.

Follow patients closely for evidence of transplant-related complications and intervene promptly. Consider the benefit versus risks of treatment with OPDIVO prior to or after an allogeneic HSCT.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on its mechanism of action and findings from animal studies, OPDIVO can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with OPDIVO and for at least 5 months after the last dose.

Increased Mortality in Patients with Multiple Myeloma when OPDIVO is Added to a Thalidomide Analogue and Dexamethasone
In randomized clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, the addition of OPDIVO to a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone resulted in increased mortality. Treatment of patients with multiple myeloma with a PD-1 or PD-L1 blocking antibody in combination with a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials.

Lactation
There are no data on the presence of OPDIVO in human milk, the effects on the breastfed child, or the effects on milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in breastfed children, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment and for 5 months after the last dose.

Serious Adverse Reactions
In Checkmate 274, serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients receiving OPDIVO (n=351). The most frequent serious adverse reaction reported in ≥2% of patients receiving OPDIVO was urinary tract infection. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 1% of patients; these included events of pneumonitis (0.6%).

Common Adverse Reactions
In Checkmate 274, the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) reported in patients receiving OPDIVO (n=351) were rash (36%), fatigue (36%), diarrhea (30%), pruritus (30%), musculoskeletal pain (28%), and urinary tract infection (22%).

Please see US Full Prescribing Information for OPDIVO.

References
1. Drakaki A, Pantuck A, Mhatre SK, et al. “Real-world” outcomes and prognostic indicators among patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:76.e15-76.e22.
2. Referenced without permission from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Bladder Cancer V.2.2022. © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Accessed August 4, 2022. To view the most recent and complete version of the guidelines, go online to NCCN.org. NCCN makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way.
3. Apolo AB, Msaouel P, Niglio S, et al. Evolving Role of Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Kidney and Urothelial Cancers. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2022;42:1-16. doi:10.1200/EDBK_350829.
4. Nayan M, Bhindi B, Yu JL, et al. The initiation of a multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic and the uptake of neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A time-series analysis. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;10(1-2):25-30.
5. OPDIVO [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
6. Bajorin DF, Witjes JA, Gschwend JE, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(22):2102-2114.
7. Bajorin DF, Witjes JA, Gschwend JE, et al. First results from the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in patients who underwent radical surgery for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. Oral presentation at ASCO GU 2021. Abstract 391.
8. Bajorin DF, Witjes JA, Gschwend JE, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(22):2102-2114 [supplementary appendix].
9. American Cancer Society. Bladder cancer early detection, diagnosis, and staging. Accessed August 5, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/CRC/PDF/Public/8559.00.pdf.
10. Data on file. NIVO 639. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2021.
11. Witjes JA, Bajorin DF, Galsky MD, et al. Results for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the CheckMate 274 trial. Poster presentation at ASCO 2022. Abstract 4585.
12. Galsky MD, Witjes JA, Gschwend JE, et al. Disease-free survival with longer follow-up from the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial of adjuvant nivolumab in patients who underwent surgery for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. Oral presentation at the American Urological Association (AUA) Annual Meeting 2022. Abstract 22-3807.

© 2022 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. OPDIVO® and the related logos are trademarks of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. 1506-US-2200368 8/22

Opdualag™ (nivolumab and relatlimab-rmbw): A New Dual I-O Option in the 1L Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma

Written By: Leonel Fernando Hernandez Aya, MD. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center

Content Sponsored by: Bristol Myers Squibb
Dr Hernandez Aya is a paid consultant for BMS and was compensated for his contribution in drafting this content.

See additional definitions of abbreviations used throughout the article at the bottom of this page.

Overview of Metastatic Melanoma
Since the approval of anti–CTLA-4 in 2011 for metastatic melanoma, immuno-oncology(I-O) has transformed treatment outcomes.1 There are now several approved I-O options, and of those approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, dual immunotherapy in particular has had long-term success.2 The first dual immunotherapy, approved in 2015, consisted of PD-1 and CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitors for the 1L treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, regardless of BRAF mutation status.1,3,4 This anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 combination showed benefit in overall survival (OS) compared with anti–CTLA-4 alone.5 In general, the safety profile was consistent with previous experience with anti–PD-1 or anti–CTLA-4 alone.4 Until March 2022, this dual anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 immunotherapy was the only option indicated for the 1L treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma.3,6 Opdualag, the second approved dual immunotherapy, has provided an additional treatment option for nivolumab-monotherapy–appropriate patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.6-8

Opdualag
Opdualag is a dual immunotherapy option combining an anti–PD-1, nivolumab, with the first-in-class anti–LAG-3, relatlimab, in a fixed-dose formulation.7,8 PD-1 and LAG-3 are two distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints.7 Combined PD-1 and LAG-3 inhibition results in increased T-cell activation compared to the activity of either antibody alone. This initiates an improved anti-tumor immune response.8

Opdualag is indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age or older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.8 The approval is based on RELATIVITY-047, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, global study of Opdualag versus nivolumab monotherapy.7 Patients were stratified by AJCC v8 M stage, BRAF, PD-L1, and LAG-3 status.7 Key exclusion criteria include patients with active or untreated brain or leptomeningeal metastases, uveal melanoma, active autoimmune disease, or medical conditions requiring systemic treatment with moderate- or high-dose corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications.8

RELATIVITY-047 enrolled 714 patients who were randomized 1:1 to receive Opdualag (480 mg nivolumab/160 mg relatlimab as a fixed-dose combination[FDC]) every 4 weeks (n=355) or nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks (n=359).8 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival(PFS), and secondary endpoints were OS and overall response rate(ORR). PFS was determined by BICR using RECIST v1.1. Baseline characteristics were balanced across both treatment arms.7

Study design8

Median duration of treatment for Opdualag at the 19.3-month median follow-up was 8.3 months.7,9 Treat until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.8

*Patients were allowed to have received prior adjuvant and neoadjuvant melanoma therapy. Anti–PD-1, anti–CTLA-4, or BRAF-MEK therapy was allowed as long as there was at least 6 months between the last dose of therapy and date of recurrence; interferon therapy was allowed as long as the last dose was at least 6 weeks prior to randomization.8† PD-L1 expression (≥1% vs <1%) using PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx test.8‡ LAG-3 expression (≥1% vs <1%) using a clinical trial assay. The final analysis of OS was not statistically significant.8

Opdualag is associated with the following Warnings and Precautions: severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions (IMARs) including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis with renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, myocarditis, and other immune-mediated adverse reactions; infusion-related reactions; complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); and embryo-fetal toxicity.

Opdualag demonstrated superior PFS compared to nivolumab at the primary analysis(median of 13.2 months) with curve separation as early as 3 months and sustained over time.7,8 Median PFS (mPFS)was 10.1 months with Opdualag versus 4.6 months with nivolumab (HR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.62–0.92; P=0.0055).8 Similarly, patients who received Opdualag had longer PFS regardless of key prognostic indicators, such as the AJCC metastasis stage of the tumor, LDH level, and tumor burden.7

At the follow-up analysis (median of 19.3 months), mPFS was 10.22 months with Opdualag and 4.63 months with nivolumab (HR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.64-0.94).10 OS and ORR were also evaluated.8 The final analysis for the secondary endpoint of OS was not statistically significant (threshold for significance was P<0.04302), and median OS (mOS)was not reached with Opdualag compared with nivolumab, which resulted in a mOS of 34.1 months (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.64–1.01; P=0.0593). Additionally, the ORR was higher with Opdualag (43%) versus nivolumab (33%), with the median DOR not yet reached for both treatment arms.8,10 ORR was not formally tested based on the testing hierarchy.8

Progression-free survival at the 19.3-month median follow-up10*†‡

Symbols represent censored observations.
*Assessed by BICR.8† Final PFS analysis.8‡ Kaplan-Meier estimate. Based on stratified Cox proportional hazard model.8II Based on stratified log-rank test.8

Overall survival10*

*At the time of the final OS analysis, which was event-driven and occurred after the final PFS analysis.8† Based on stratified Cox proportional hazard model.8‡ Based on stratified log-rank test. Not significant at alpha level 0.04302.8

In RELATIVITY-047, Opdualag had no additional safety events and similar most common Grade 3/4 AEs versus nivolumab monotherapy.7,8 Adverse reactions occurring in ≥15% of patients receiving Opdualag were musculoskeletal pain (45%), fatigue (39%), rash (28%), pruritus (25%), diarrhea (24%), nausea (17%), headache (18%), hypothyroidism (17%), decreased appetite (15%), and cough (15%).8

Toxicity was graded per NCI CTCAE v5.
*Clinically relevant adverse reactions in <15% of patients who received Opdualag included vitiligo, adrenal insufficiency, myocarditis, and hepatitis.8† Includes multiple terms.8

Opdualag is a FDC administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion every 4 weeks.8 A FDC is the co-formulation of 2 active ingredients in a single vial administered as a single infusion, which may help reduce preparation and infusion times and could help minimize potential risk of administration errors.7,8,11 Opdualag can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue Opdualag in patients with severe or life-threatening infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild to moderate infusion-related reactions. In patients who received Opdualag as a 60-minute intravenous infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 7% (23/355) of patients.8

Summary/conclusions
Dual immunotherapy has changed the metastatic melanoma treatment landscape.2 Currently there are 2 dual immunotherapy options available for 1L treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.3,8 As the newest dual immunotherapy, Opdualag more than doubled mPFS with a similar safety profile compared with nivolumab.8 Opdualag can be used for the treatment of all nivolumab monotherapy-appropriate patients, providing the opportunity for more patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma to receive a dual immunotherapy.8 From my clinical experience, “it is great to have another treatment option for patients with metastatic melanoma.”

Indication for Opdualag
Opdualag is indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age or older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Important Safety Information for Opdualag
Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
Immune-mediated adverse reactions (IMARs) listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.

IMARs which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. IMARs can occur at any time after starting treatment with a LAG-3 and PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. While IMARs usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of Opdualag. Early identification and management of IMARs are essential to ensure safe use. Monitor patients closely for symptoms and signs that may be clinical manifestations of underlying IMARs. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment. In cases of suspected IMARs, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if Opdualag requires interruption or discontinuation, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose IMARs are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis, which may be fatal. In patients treated with other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies, the incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. Immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 3.7% (13/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.6%), and Grade 2 (2.3%) adverse reactions. Pneumonitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.8% and withholding of Opdualag in 1.4% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Colitis
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated colitis, defined as requiring use of corticosteroids and no clear alternate etiology. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies.

Immune-mediated diarrhea or colitis occurred in 7% (24/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (4.5%) adverse reactions. Colitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 2% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.8% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated hepatitis, defined as requiring the use of corticosteroids and no clear alternate etiology.

Immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 6% (20/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 4 (0.6%), Grade 3 (3.4%), and Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hepatitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.7% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.3% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies
Opdualag can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, hypophysitis, thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can be present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. In patients receiving Opdualag, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 4.2% (15/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (1.4%) and Grade 2 (2.5%) adverse reactions. Adrenal insufficiency led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.1% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.8% of patients.

Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis occurred in 2.5% (9/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.3%) and Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hypophysitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.3% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.6% of patients.

Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis occurred in 2.8% (10/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (1.1%) adverse reactions. Thyroiditis did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Thyroiditis led to withholding of Opdualag in 0.3% of patients. Hyperthyroidism occurred in 6% (22/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hyperthyroidism did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Hyperthyroidism led to withholding of Opdualag in 0.3% of patients. Hypothyroidism occurred in 17% (59/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (11%) adverse reactions. Hypothyroidism led to the permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.3% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.5% of patients.

Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated. Diabetes occurred in 0.3% (1/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, a Grade 3 (0.3%) adverse reaction, and no cases of diabetic ketoacidosis. Diabetes did not lead to the permanent discontinuation or withholding of Opdualag in any patient.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated nephritis, which is defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear etiology. In patients receiving Opdualag, immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction occurred in 2% (7/355) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (0.8%) adverse reactions. Immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.8% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.6% of patients.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis, defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear alternate etiology. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and Drug Rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms has occurred with PD-1/L-1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate non-exfoliative rashes.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

Immune-mediated rash occurred in 9% (33/355) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.6%) and Grade 2 (3.4%) adverse reactions. Immune-mediated rash did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Immune-mediated rash led to withholding of Opdualag in 1.4% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Myocarditis
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated myocarditis, which is defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear alternate etiology. The diagnosis of immune-mediated myocarditis requires a high index of suspicion. Patients with cardiac or cardio-pulmonary symptoms should be assessed for potential myocarditis. If myocarditis is suspected, withhold dose, promptly initiate high dose steroids (prednisone or methylprednisolone 1 to 2 mg/kg/day) and promptly arrange cardiology consultation with diagnostic workup. If clinically confirmed, permanently discontinue Opdualag for Grade 2-4 myocarditis.

Myocarditis occurred in 1.7% (6/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.6%), and Grade 2 (1.1%) adverse reactions. Myocarditis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.7% of patients.

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
The following clinically significant IMARs occurred at an incidence of <1% (unless otherwise noted) in patients who received Opdualag or were reported with the use of other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Severe or fatal cases have been reported for some of these adverse reactions: Cardiac/Vascular: pericarditis, vasculitis; Nervous System: meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis and demyelination, myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis (including exacerbation), Guillain-Barré syndrome, nerve paresis, autoimmune neuropathy; Ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur. Some cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other IMARs, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada–like syndrome, as this may require treatment with systemic steroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss; Gastrointestinal: pancreatitis including increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis (and associated sequelae including renal failure), arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; Endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; Other (Hematologic/Immune): hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.

Infusion-Related Reactions
Opdualag can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue Opdualag in patients with severe or life-threatening infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild to moderate infusion-related reactions. In patients who received Opdualag as a 60-minute intravenous infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 7% (23/355) of patients.

Complications of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT)
Fatal and other serious complications can occur in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before or after being treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 receptor blocking antibody. Transplant-related complications include hyperacute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, hepatic veno-occlusive disease after reduced intensity conditioning, and steroid-requiring febrile syndrome (without an identified infectious cause). These complications may occur despite intervening therapy between PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and allogeneic HSCT.

Follow patients closely for evidence of transplant-related complications and intervene promptly. Consider the benefit versus risks of treatment with a PD-1/PD-L1 receptor blocking antibody prior to or after an allogeneic HSCT.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on its mechanism of action and data from animal studies, Opdualag can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with Opdualag for at least 5 months after the last dose of Opdualag.

Lactation
There are no data on the presence of Opdualag in human milk, the effects on the breastfed child, or the effect on milk production. Because nivolumab and relatlimab may be excreted in human milk and because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in a breastfed child, advise patients not to breastfeed during treatment with Opdualag and for at least 5 months after the last dose.

Serious Adverse Reactions
In Relativity-047, fatal adverse reaction occurred in 3 (0.8%) patients who were treated with Opdualag; these included hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute edema of the lung, and pneumonitis. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 36% of patients treated with Opdualag. The most frequent serious adverse reactions reported in ≥1% of patients treated with Opdualag were adrenal insufficiency (1.4%), anemia (1.4%), colitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.4%), acute myocardial infarction (1.1%), back pain (1.1%), diarrhea (1.1%), myocarditis (1.1%), and pneumonitis (1.1%).

Common Adverse Reactions and Laboratory Abnormalities
The most common adverse reactions reported in ≥20% of the patients treated with Opdualag were musculoskeletal pain (45%), fatigue (39%), rash (28%), pruritus (25%), and diarrhea (24%).

The most common laboratory abnormalities that occurred in ≥20% of patients treated with Opdualag were decreased hemoglobin (37%), decreased lymphocytes (32%), increased AST (30%), increased ALT (26%), and decreased sodium (24%).

Please see US Full Prescribing Information for Opdualag.

Indication for OPDIVO® (nivolumab) + YERVOY® (ipilimumab)
OPDIVO, in combination with YERVOY, is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Important Safety Information
Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
Immune-mediated adverse reactions listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions, which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. While immune-mediated adverse reactions usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of OPDIVO or YERVOY. Early identification and management are essential to ensure safe use of OPDIVO and YERVOY. Monitor for signs and symptoms that may be clinical manifestations of underlying immune-mediated adverse reactions. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) level, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment with OPDIVO and before each dose of YERVOY. In cases of suspected immune-mediated adverse reactions, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if OPDIVO or YERVOY interruption or discontinuation is required, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose immune-mediated adverse reactions are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis. The incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 3.1% (61/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (<0.1%), Grade 3 (0.9%), and Grade 2 (2.1%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 7% (31/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (2.0%), and Grade 2 (4.4%).

Immune-Mediated Colitis
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated colitis, which may be fatal. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated colitis occurred in 2.9% (58/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.7%) and Grade 2 (1%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated colitis occurred in 25% (115/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.4%), Grade 3 (14%) and Grade 2 (8%).

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis and Hepatotoxicity
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated hepatitis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 1.8% (35/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (1.3%), and Grade 2 (0.4%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 15% (70/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (2.4%), Grade 3 (11%), and Grade 2 (1.8%).

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, immune-mediated hypophysitis, immune-mediated thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated.

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 1% (20/1994), including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.6%).In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 8% (35/456), including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (2.4%), and Grade 2 (4.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypophysitis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (0.3%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, hypophysitis occurred in 9% (42/456), including Grade 3 (2.4%) and Grade 2 (6%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, thyroiditis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 2 (0.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hyperthyroidism occurred in 2.7% (54/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (<0.1%) and Grade 2 (1.2%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, hyperthyroidism occurred in 9% (42/456) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.9%) and Grade 2 (4.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypothyroidism occurred in 8% (163/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (4.8%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, hypothyroidism occurred in 20% (91/456) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (11%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, diabetes occurred in 0.9% (17/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.3%), and 2 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated nephritis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction occurred in 1.2% (23/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (<0.1%), Grade 3 (0.5%), and Grade 2 (0.6%).

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions
OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) has occurred with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate nonexfoliative rashes.

YERVOY can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis, including bullous and exfoliative dermatitis, SJS, TEN, and DRESS. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate non-bullous/exfoliative rashes.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated rash occurred in 9% (171/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (2.2%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated rash occurred in 28% (127/456) of patients, including Grade 3 (4.8%) and Grade 2 (10%).

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
The following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions occurred at an incidence of <1% (unless otherwise noted) in patients who received OPDIVO monotherapy or OPDIVO in combination with YERVOY or were reported with the use of other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Severe or fatal cases have been reported for some of these adverse reactions: cardiac/vascular: myocarditis, pericarditis, vasculitis; nervous system: meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis and demyelination, myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis (including exacerbation), Guillain-Barré syndrome, nerve paresis, autoimmune neuropathy; ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis to include increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; musculoskeletal and connective tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis, and associated sequelae including renal failure, arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; other (hematologic/immune): hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.

In addition to the immune-mediated adverse reactions listed above, across clinical trials of YERVOY monotherapy or in combination with OPDIVO, the following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions, some with fatal outcome, occurred in <1% of patients unless otherwise specified: nervous system: autoimmune neuropathy (2%), myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis, motor dysfunction; cardiovascular: angiopathy, temporal arteritis; ocular: blepharitis, episcleritis, orbital myositis, scleritis; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis (1.3%); other (hematologic/immune): conjunctivitis, cytopenias (2.5%), eosinophilia (2.1%), erythema multiforme, hypersensitivity vasculitis, neurosensory hypoacusis, psoriasis.

Some ocular IMAR cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other immune-mediated adverse reactions, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada–like syndrome, which has been observed in patients receiving OPDIVO and YERVOY, as this may require treatment with systemic corticosteroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss.

Infusion-Related Reactions
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY in patients with severe (Grade 3) or life-threatening (Grade 4) infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild (Grade 1) or moderate (Grade 2) infusion-related reactions. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy as a 60-minute infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 6.4% (127/1994) of patients. In a separate trial in which patients received OPDIVO monotherapy as a 60-minute infusion or a 30-minute infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 2.2% (8/368) and 2.7% (10/369) of patients, respectively. Additionally, 0.5% (2/368) and 1.4% (5/369) of patients, respectively, experienced adverse reactions within 48 hours of infusion that led to dose delay, permanent discontinuation or withholding of OPDIVO. In melanoma patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, infusion-related reactions occurred in 2.5% (10/407) of patients.

Complications of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Fatal and other serious complications can occur in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before or after being treated with OPDIVO or YERVOY. Transplant-related complications include hyperacute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) after reduced intensity conditioning, and steroid-requiring febrile syndrome (without an identified infectious cause). These complications may occur despite intervening therapy between OPDIVO or YERVOY and allogeneic HSCT.

Follow patients closely for evidence of transplant-related complications and intervene promptly. Consider the benefit versus risks of treatment with OPDIVO and YERVOY prior to or after an allogeneic HSCT.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on its mechanism of action and findings from animal studies, OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The effects of YERVOY are likely to be greater during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with OPDIVO and YERVOY and for at least 5 months after the last dose.

Increased Mortality in Patients with Multiple Myeloma when OPDIVO is Added to a Thalidomide Analogue and Dexamethasone
In randomized clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, the addition of OPDIVO to a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone resulted in increased mortality. Treatment of patients with multiple myeloma with a PD-1 or PD-L1 blocking antibody in combination with a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials.

Lactation
There are no data on the presence of OPDIVO or YERVOY in human milk, the effects on the breastfed child, or the effects on milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in breastfed children, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment and for 5 months after the last dose.

Serious Adverse Reactions
In Checkmate 067, serious adverse reactions (74% and 44%), adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation (47% and 18%) or to dosing delays (58% and 36%), and Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions (72% and 51%) all occurred more frequently in the OPDIVO plus YERVOY arm (n=313) relative to the OPDIVO arm (n=313). The most frequent (≥10%) serious adverse reactions in the OPDIVO plus YERVOY arm and the OPDIVO arm, respectively, were diarrhea (13% and 2.2%), colitis (10% and 1.9%), and pyrexia (10% and 1.0%).

Common Adverse Reactions
In Checkmate 067, the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions in the OPDIVO plus YERVOY arm (n=313) were fatigue (62%), diarrhea (54%), rash (53%), nausea (44%), pyrexia (40%), pruritus (39%), musculoskeletal pain (32%), vomiting (31%), decreased appetite (29%), cough (27%), headache (26%), dyspnea (24%), upper respiratory tract infection (23%), arthralgia (21%), and increased transaminases (25%). In Checkmate 067, the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions in the OPDIVO arm (n=313) were fatigue (59%), rash (40%), musculoskeletal pain (42%), diarrhea (36%), nausea (30%), cough (28%), pruritus (27%), upper respiratory tract infection (22%), decreased appetite (22%), headache (22%), constipation (21%), arthralgia (21%), and vomiting (20%).

Please see US Full Prescribing Information for OPDIVO and YERVOY.

References
1. Michielin O, Atkins MB, Koon HB, Dummer R, Ascierto PA. Evolving impact of long-term survival results on metastatic melanoma treatment. J Immunother Cancer. 2020. doi:10.1136/jitc-2020-000948.
2. Curti BD, Faries MB. Recent advances in the treatment of melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2229-2240.
3. OPDIVO [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
4. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(1):23-34.
5. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(16):1535-1546.
6. Cancer Research Institute. FDA Approval Timeline of Active Immunotherapies. Updated June 27, 2022. Accessed July 11, 2022. https://www.cancerresearch.org/en-us/scientists/immuno-oncology-landscape/fda-approval-timeline-of-active-immunotherapies.
7. Tawbi HA, Schadendorf D, Lipson EJ, et al. Relatlimab and nivolumab versus nivolumab in untreated advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(1):24-34.
8. Opdualag [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
9. PubD 00058298. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2022.
10. Long GV, Hodi FS, Lipson EJ, et al. Relatlimab and nivolumab vs nivolumab in previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma: overall survival and response rates from RELATIVITY-047 (CA224-047). Oral presentation at ASCO Plenary Series 2022. Presentation number 9505.
11. US Food and Drug Administration. CFR–Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. Updated March 29, 2022. Accessed July 1, 2022.https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=300.50.

© 2022 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. OPDIVO®, YERVOY®, Opdualag™, and the related logos are trademarks of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
7356-US-2200441 8/22

Additional Definitions
AJCC=American Joint Committee on Cancer; BICR=blinded independent central review; CI=confidence interval;CTLA-4=cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4; DOR=duration of response; ECOG PS=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; HR=hazard ratio;IHC=immunohistochemistry; IV=intravenous;LAG-3=lymphocyte-activation gene 3; LDH=lactate dehydrogenase; M stage=metastasis stage; mo=month; no=number; NS=not significant; PD-1=programmed death receptor-1; PD-L1=programmed death ligand 1; q4w=every 4 weeks; RECIST=Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.

Consider Guideline-Recommended Biomarker Testing as an Integral Component of NSCLC Care

The NSCLC Landscape Has Evolved Significantly Due Largely to the Growing Number of Actionable Mutations1

Despite advancements in standard-of-care, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) continues to burden patients, with poor survival outcomes.2,3 NSCLC has been identified as the leading cause of cancer death worldwide with an estimated 1.8 million deaths in 2020.2 As the number of targeted therapies and approved companion diagnostics continues to grow, mortality and survival rates have begun to improve.3 With the addition of KRAS G12C, there are 9 actionable molecular biomarkers (as of February 2022) and more than 20 targeted therapies approved for use in advanced NSCLC.1,4 Guidelines recommend biomarker testing for all eligible patients at diagnosis of advanced NSCLC regardless of characteristics such as smoking history, race, or histology.5,6 Unfortunately, real-world evidence shows that far too many patients fail to receive the comprehensive biomarker testing.7

Adherence to Guidelines Can Improve Patient Outcomes8

As targeted therapies are approved, guidelines continue to update their recommendations on biomarker testing.5 As of March 2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for NSCLC recommend broad molecular testing of actionable and emerging biomarkers for eligible patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC (Figure 1).5 Similarly, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) endorsed the 2018 College of American Pathologists (CAP)/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines, recommending comprehensive cancer panel testing for genetic biomarkers.9,10

Figure 1: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for NSCLC5,*,†Advanced-Non-Squamous-NSCLC*The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for NSCLC provide recommendations for certain individual biomarkers that should be tested and recommend testing techniques but do not endorse any specific commercially available biomarker assays or commercial laboratories.5The NCCN Guidelines® for NSCLC recommend broad molecular testing to identify rare driver variants for which targeted therapies may be available to ensure patients receive the most appropriate treatment.5KRAS G12C and EGFR exon 20 mutations are used to determine subsequent (ie, second-line and beyond) therapy using targeted agents or other novel agents.5 §The definition of high-level MET amplification is evolving and may differ according to the assay used for testing. For NGS-based results, a copy number greater than 10 is consistent with high-level MET amplification.5 **For oncogenic or likely oncogenic HER2 mutations, refer to definitions at oncokb.org.5

Although adherence to guideline-recommended biomarker testing is associated with improved patient outcomes, real-world EMR data reveals suboptimal biomarker testing rates.8,11 In a retrospective study,†† 81% of patients with metastatic NSCLC did not receive testing for ALK, EGFR, ROS1, and BRAF before initiation of first-line treatment, despite availability of targeted therapies.11 Moreover, only 28% of patients received testing for all four genetic biomarkers and PD-L1 during the study period.11 In another retrospective study, less than 50% of patients with metastatic NSCLC received testing for all five biomarkers (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, PD-L1) (Figure 2).7

Beyond the underutilization of biomarker testing, there remains an even greater need to increase broad molecular testing among racial and ethnic minority groups in the US.12,13 In one retrospective study, Black/African American patients with advanced NSCLC had significantly lower rates of testing with NGS assays (39.8%) compared with White patients (50.1%) (Figure 3).12

††A retrospective study assessing real-world biomarker testing patterns in patients with de novo mNSCLC (N=2,257) in the community oncology setting using the US Oncology Network electronic health records between January 1st, 2017 and September 31st, 2019 with follow-up through December 31st, 2019.11

Figure 2: MYLUNG Consortium™ EMR Analysis of Patients With Metastatic NSCLC7,‡‡MYLUNG-Consortium‡‡A retrospective, observational study assessing real-world biomarker testing patterns in patients with metastatic NSCLC(N=3,474) from community oncology practices within the US Oncology Network community practices between 2018 and 2020.7
Figure 3: EMR Analysis of Biomarker Testing in Patients With Advanced/Metastatic NSCLC12,§§
EMR-Analysis-of-Biomarker-Testing
§§From a retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced/metastatic: NSCLC (N=14,768) from ~800 sites of care identified via the Flatiron Electronic Health Record Database between 2017 and 2020. Of this study cohort, patients included White (n=9,793), Black/African American (n=1,288), and non-squamous NSCLC (n=10,333).

Collectively, these findings highlight the disparity in proactive disease management across different patient populations.7,11,12

Considerations Across the Biomarker Testing Journey

There are several different methods in which eligible patients can be tested for actionable genetic alterations, each with unique considerations as indicated below (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Comparing Biomarker Testing Methods and Sample Types
Comparing-Biomarker-Testing-Methods***Data from a review of common molecular assays for biomarker testing that analyzed common detected variants, sensitivities, and turnaround time.6 †††cfDNA refers to all circulating DNA (largely non-malignant), while ctDNA refers to the tumor-related component of cfDNA.15 ‡‡‡Data from a prospective study that enrolled patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC undergoing SOC tissue genotyping and comprehensive cfDNA analysis, with turnaround time defined as the number of days between test order date and the retrieval of test results.16

While tissue biopsy remains the “gold standard” in NSCLC, it may not be feasible (insufficient tissue) or pragmatic (urgent need to begin treatment) in all patients.17 Plasma ctDNA demonstrates complementary results to tissue-based assays and can be considered a valid tool for genotyping of newly diagnosed patients with advanced NSCLC.15 In a prospective study of patients with previously untreated, non-squamous metastatic NSCLC from 2016 to 2018, guideline-recommended biomarkers with FDA-approved therapies (EGFR Exon 19 deletion and L858R, ALK fusion, ROS1 fusion, BRAF V600E) showed ≥ 98.2% concordance between tissue and liquid-based testing.16 While concordance is high for any single test, high concordance for full panels will be required for liquid biopsies to become standard; additionally, negative results on liquid biopsy still require validation with tissue testing.16,17

Liquid biopsy may offer improvements in sample acquisition and small tissue samples and provides less invasive procedures and shortened turnaround times.17 Other considerations for maximizing the tissue journey include the use of comprehensive testing, rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), and implementing reflex testing protocols with the help of a multidisciplinary team (MDT).17

Delays in Biomarker Testing Results May Impact Treatment Plan Decisions18

Longer turnaround times for molecular testing compared with turnaround times for PD-L1 testing by IHC may result in the initiation of immunotherapy before molecular testing results are received.18 Waiting for complete biomarker test results prior to initiating therapy can allow doctors to make the most informed decisions surrounding a patient’s treatment journey.18

Consider Comprehensive Biomarker Testing as an Important Part of Your Treatment Plan8

As the NSCLC landscape continues to progress with the increasing number of actionable biomarkers, there is a growing need for proactive and comprehensive molecular testing.7,17 Although real-world data has shown significant underuse of biomarker testing, rates can be improved with diligent observation of expanding guidelines and recommendations by expert panels and associations.7,8 In the coming years, clinicians may consider evolving institutional protocols, including enabling reflex testing, and work as an MDT to ensure biomarker testing is performed on all eligible patients with advanced NSCLC.17

[Abbreviations]
AA, African American; ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; BRAF, proto-oncogene B-Raf; cfDNA, cell-free DNA; ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; EMR, electronic medical record; ERBB2, erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; IHC, immunohistochemistry; KRAS, Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog; MET, mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition; mNSCLC, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network; NGS, next-generation sequencing; NTRK, neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase; PD-L1, programmed cell death ligand 1; RET, rearranged during transfection; ROS1, c-ros oncogene 1; SOC, standard-of-care.

[References]
1. Majeed U, et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14:108.
2. Sung H, et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249.
3. Siegel RL, et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:7-33.
4. Food and Drug Administration. www.fda.gov. Accessed October 6, 2021.
5. Referenced with permission from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. V.3.2022. ©National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Accessed March 16, 2022. To view the most recent and complete version of the guideline, go online to NCCN.org. NCCN makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way.
6. Pennell NA, et al. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019;39:531-542.
7. Robert NJ, et al. Presented at: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting; June 4–8, 2021; Virtual Meeting. Abstract 102.
8. John A, et al. Adv Ther. 2021;38:1552-1566.
9. Hanna N, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3484-3515.
10. Lindeman NI, et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:321-346.
11. Nadler ES, et al. Presented at: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting; June 4–8, 2021; Virtual Meeting. Abstract 9079.
12. Bruno DS, et al. Presented at: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting; June 4–8, 2021; Virtual Meeting. Abstract 9005.
13. Hann KEJ, et al. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:503.
14. Pennell NA, et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019;3:1-9.
15. Rolfo C, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16:1647-1662.
16. Leighl NB, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:4691-4700.
17. Gregg JP, et al. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2019;8:286-301.
18. Smeltzer MP, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15:1434-1448.

USA-510-80864 02/22

Investigator and Health Systems Insights on Real-World Evidence Associated With a First-Generation BTK Inhibitor in Patients With CLL/SLL

Written by: AJMC® Editorial Staff

Content Sponsored by: BeiGene

Adults experience chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) at a greater rate than they do any other type of leukemia.1 In 2014, ibrutinib became the first Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor approved by the FDA for the treatment of CLL.2,3 In a 3-year safety study of patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) taking a daily dose of this first-generation medication, ibrutinib was shown to have both a high response rate that increased in quality and frequency over time and modest toxicity.4

However, treatment with ibrutinib has been shown to be associated with adverse events (AEs) that can lead to discontinuation and/or down-dosing.5,6 In particular, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a known AE associated with BTK inhibitor treatment that has been reported in clinical trials.7,8

To determine the economic burden of down-dosing and therapy discontinuation due to AEs after initiation of ibrutinib therapy in patients with CLL/SLL, a team from Milliman, Inc, analyzed 2015 to 2019 data from a proprietary Medicare Advantage claims database that contains annual enrollment information and all Parts A, B, and D claims for approximately 2.5 million annual members.9 Investigators identified patients who developed AF within the first 12 months of starting treatment with ibrutinib. The results of this claims-based analysis were presented during a Science & Innovation Theater presented during the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2021, held from October 18 to 21, 2021, in Denver, Colorado.9

In the group identified for analysis, investigators examined rates of and average time to discontinuation, down-dosing, and AEs as well as total health care costs accumulated during the 12 months following ibrutinib start.9 Using these key metrics, investigators then compared patients who newly experienced AF (new AF) during this 12-month episode period with those who did not experience new AF during this period. The results of the analysis showed that patients with claims for new AF discontinued ibrutinib at more than twice the rate of patients without claims for new AF and had significantly higher health care utilization.9 These results are explored in detail in a review article, “Real-World Evidence Associated with a First-Generation BTK Inhibitor in Patients With CLL/SLL,” published by The American Journal of Managed Care® (AJMC®) on ajmc.com. In an interview following the review, principal investigator and health care consultant from Milliman, Inc, Kathryn Fitch, RN, MEd, discusses the study’s findings regarding treatment patterns among patients who developed new AF after starting ibrutinib, the costs associated with the development of new AF, and her team’s recent research in this field. In a final interview, Michael Kolodziej, MD, FACP, medical oncologist and Senior Advisor at ADVI Health, LLC, discussed the analysis and its potential implications for managed care.

REFERENCES

1. The American Cancer Society Medical and Editorial Content Team. What is chronic lymphocytic leukemia? American Cancer Society. Updated May 10, 2018. January 13, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/chronic-lymphocytic-leukemia/about/what-is-cll.html

2. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma: FDA updates. Lymphoma Research Foundation. Updated April 21, 2020. Accessed January 13, 2022. https://lymphoma.org/aboutlymphoma/cll/cllfdaupdates/

3. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number 205552Orig2s000. Trade name: Imbruvica. United States Food and Drug Administration. February 12, 2014. Accessed January 13, 2022. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2014/205552Orig2s000Approv.pdf

4. Byrd JC, Furman RR, Coutre SE, et al. Three-year follow-up of treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with CLL and SLL receiving single-agent ibrutinib. Blood. 2015;125(16):2497-2506. doi:10.1182/blood-2014-10-606038

5. Imbruvica. Prescribing information. Janssen Biotech; 2020. Accessed January 13, 2022. https://www.imbruvica.com/files/prescribing-information.pdf

6. Mato AR, Nabhan C, Thompson MC, et al. Toxicities and outcomes of 616 ibrutinib-treated patients in the United States: a real-world analysis. Haematologica. 2018;103(5):874-879. doi:10.3324/haematol.2017.182907

7. Brown JR, Moslehi J, O’Brien S, et al. Characterization of atrial fibrillation adverse events reported in ibrutinib randomized controlled registration trials. Haematologica. 2017;102(10):1796-1805. doi:10.3324/haematol.2017.171041

8. Caldeira D, Alves D, Costa J, Ferreira JJ, Pinto FJ. Ibrutinib increases the risk of hypertension and atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0211228. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211228

9. Fitch KV. Assessing the treatment emergent burden in BTKi therapy: a Medicare analysis in CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia). Presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2021; October 20, 2021; Denver, CO. Accessed January 18, 2022. https://2021.amcpnexus.org/program/science-innovation-theaters

OPDIVO® (nivolumab) + chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine + platinum-based) for the first-line (1L) treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status

BMS Sponsored Content

By Dr Rahul RavillaSponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb
Dr Ravilla is a paid consultant for BMS and was compensated for his contribution in drafting this content.

Introduction: Overview of gastroesophageal cancers

Gastroesophageal cancers consist of a group of heterogeneous tumors, including gastric cancer (GC), gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC), and esophageal cancer (EC).1 The majority of GC and GEJC are adenocarcinomas, while EC is categorized into 2 main histological subtypes: esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).2,3 EAC is the predominant histology in the United States, contributing to ~62% of all EC cases.3,4 EAC incidence rates have been increasing over the past 5 decades in Western countries.4 Recent trends in the United States also suggest increasing incidence rates of GC overall in young adults (<50 years old).5

Gastric and esophageal cancers can be aggressive diseases with 5-year relative survival rates of <6% in the metastatic setting in the United States.7,8 Worldwide, GC and EC represent the fourth and sixth most common causes of cancer-related deaths, respectively.5

Approximately 15%–20% of gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)9. In this article, we will focus on HER2-negative gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas. Historically, chemotherapy has been the standard of care for the 1L treatment in this setting.10 In 2021,chemoimmunotherapy combinations were approved for appropriate patients with certain types of gastroesophageal cancers.11,12

OPDIVO + chemotherapy in 1L metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC

Currently, OPDIVO + fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy (chemo) is the only 1L chemoimmunotherapy regimen approved in metastatic non-HER2+ GC, GEJC, and EAC regardless of PD-L1 (programmed death ligand 1) status.11,13,14 The combination was approved based on the results of Checkmate 649, a global phase 3 study in 1L metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC patients with ECOG performance status 0-1.11,13 Key exclusion criteria included known HER2+ status and untreated CNS metastases.11 The study recruited all eligible patients regardless of PD-L1 expression.11,13

Checkmate 649 enrolled 1581 patients randomized 1:1 to OPDIVO + chemo (n=789) or chemo alone (n=792). A total of 473 patients in the OPDIVO + chemo arm and 482 patients in the chemo arm had tumors that expressed PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥5. The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in PD-L1 CPS ≥5. Key secondary endpoints included OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥1, OS in all randomized patients, and objective response rate (ORR) in all randomized patients. Checkmate 649 evaluated OPDIVO (10 mg/mL) injection for intravenous (IV) use (q2w or q3w) in combination with physician’s choice of either fluorouracil + oxaliplatin + leucovorin (mFOLFOX6) given q2w or capecitabine + oxaliplatin (CapeOx) given q3w. OPDIVO dosing was aligned with chemotherapy schedule. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years. Baseline characteristics were consistent between all randomized and PD-L1 CPS ≥5 patients.13

There are Warnings and Precautions associated with OPDIVO to keep in mind. These include severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions, infusion-related reactions, complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); embryo-fetal toxicity, and increased mortality in patients with multiple myeloma when OPDIVO is added to a thalidomide analogue and dexamethasone, which is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials.11 Additional information related to Warnings and Precautions can be found in the Important Safety Information below.

In the primary analysis (minimum[min] follow-up of 12.1 months[mos]), OPDIVO + chemo demonstrated superior OS in all randomized, PD-L1 CPS ≥1, and PD-L1 CPS ≥5 patients as compared to chemotherapy alone. In all randomized patients, mOS was 13.8 mos (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.6–14.6) with OPDIVO + chemo vs 11.6 mos (95% CI: 10.9–12.5) with chemo (HR=0.80;95% CI: 0.71–0.90; P=0.0002). In PD-L1 CPS≥1 (n=1296), mOS was 14.0 mos (95% CI: 12.6–15.0) with OPDIVO + chemo vs 11.3 mos (95% CI: 10.6–12.3) with chemo (HR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.68–0.88; P<0.0001). In PD-L1 CPS≥5 (n=955), mOS was 14.4 mos (95% CI: 13.1–16.2) with OPDIVO + chemo vs 11.1 mos (95% CI: 10.0–12.1) with chemo (HR=0.71; 95% CI: 0.61–0.83; P<0.0001).11 The dual primary endpoint, mPFS in CPS ≥5 patients, was 7.7 mos (95% CI: 7.0–9.2) with OPDIVO + chemo vs 6.0 mos (95% CI: 5.6–6.9) with chemo (HR=0.68; 95% CI: 0.58–0.79; P<0.0001).

*FOLFOX or CapeOx.11†Assessed using blinded independent central review (BICR).11 ‡Based on confirmed response.11§Secondary endpoint.13

Exploratory OS analyses were reported for the primary (min follow-up 12.1 months) and follow-up (min follow-up 24 months) analysis. The 12-month OS rate in all randomized patients was 55% with OPDIVO + chemo vs 48% with chemo.13 The follow-up analysis at 24.0 months reported a mOS of 13.8 mos (95% CI: 12.4–14.5) with OPDIVO + chemo vs 11.6 mos (95% CI: 10.9–12.5) with chemo in all randomized patients (HR=0.79; (95% CI: 0.71–0.88) and 14.4 mos (95% CI: 13.1–16.2) with OPDIVO + chemo vs 11.1 mos with chemo (95% CI: 10.0–12.1)  in PD-L1 CPS ≥5 (HR=0.70; (95% CI: 0.60–0.81).14 The 24.0-month OS rate was 28% vs 19% for OPDIVO + chemo vs chemo, respectively, in all randomized patients.14

A secondary endpoint (min follow-up of 12.1 mos), ORR in all randomized patients, was 47% (95% CI: 43–50) with OPDIVO + chemo vs 37% (95% CI: 34–40) with chemo alone. Complete response (CR) rates were 10% vs 7% and partial response (PR) rates were 37% vs 30% for OPDIVO + chemo vs chemo, respectively.11

In Checkmate 649, the most common adverse reactions reported in ≥20% of patients treated with OPDIVO in combination with chemotherapy were peripheral neuropathy, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, constipation, and musculoskeletal pain. Of the ARs occurring in ≥10% of patients, those which were Grade 3–4 (OPDIVO + chemo vs chemo) were peripheral neuropathy (7% vs 4.8%), headache (0.8 vs 0.3%), nausea (3.2% vs 3.7%), diarrhea (5% vs 3.7%), vomiting (4.2% vs 4.2%), abdominal pain (2.8% vs 2.6%), constipation (0.6% vs 0.4%), stomatitis (1.8% vs 0.8%), fatigue (7% vs 5%), pyrexia (1% vs 0.4%), edema (0.5% vs 0.1%), decreased appetite (3.6% vs 2.5%), hypoalbuminemia (0.3% vs 0.3%), weight decreased (1.3% vs 0.7%), increased lipase (7% vs 3.7%), increased amylase (3.1% vs 0.4%), musculoskeletal pain (1.3% vs 2%), rash (1.7% vs 0.1%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.5% vs 0.8%), cough (0.1% vs 0%) and upper respiratory tract infection (0.1% vs 0.1%).

OPDIVO and/or chemotherapy were discontinued in 44% of patients and at least one dose was withheld in 76% of patients due to an adverse reaction. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 52% of patients treated with OPDIVO in combination with chemotherapy. The most frequent serious adverse reactions reported in ≥2% of patients treated with OPDIVO in combination with chemotherapy were vomiting (3.7%), pneumonia (3.6%), anemia (3.6%), pyrexia (2.8%), diarrhea (2.7%), febrile neutropenia (2.6%), and pneumonitis (2.4%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 16 (2.0%) patients who were treated with OPDIVO in combination with chemotherapy; these included pneumonitis (4 patients), febrile neutropenia (2 patients), stroke (2 patients), gastrointestinal toxicity, intestinal mucositis, septic shock, pneumonia, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, mesenteric vessel thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.11


Summary/conclusions

OPDIVO, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy, is an approved treatment option for 1L metastatic non-HER2+ GC/GEJC/EAC regardless of PD-L1 status.11 This approval is based on the Checkmate 649 study, which at the primary analysis demonstrated superior OS with OPDIVO + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in all randomized patients.11

1L=first line; chemo=chemotherapy; CI=confidence interval; CNS=central nervous system; ECOG=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; GEJC=gastroesophageal junction cancer; HR=hazard ratio; mo=month; mOS=median OS; q2w=every two weeks; q4w=every four weeks.

Indication

OPDIVO, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy, is indicated for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.11

Important Safety Information

Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions

• Immune-mediated adverse reactions listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.
• Immune-mediated adverse reactions, which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. While immune-mediated adverse reactions usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of OPDIVO. Early identification and management are essential to ensure safe use of OPDIVO. Monitor for signs and symptoms that may be clinical manifestations of underlying immune-mediated adverse reactions. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment with OPDIVO. In cases of suspected immune-mediated adverse reactions, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.
• Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if OPDIVO interruption or discontinuation is required, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose immune-mediated adverse reactions are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis
• OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis. The incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 3.1% (61/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (<0.1%), Grade 3 (0.9%), and Grade 2 (2.1%).

Immune-Mediated Colitis
• OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated colitis. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated colitis occurred in 2.9% (58/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.7%) and Grade 2 (1%).

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis and Hepatoxicity
• OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated hepatitis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 1.8% (35/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (1.3%), and Grade 2 (0.4%).

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies
• OPDIVO can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, immune-mediated hypophysitis, immune-mediated thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold OPDIVO depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated.
• In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 1% (20/1994), including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.6%).
• In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypophysitis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (0.3%).
• In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, thyroiditis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 2 (0.2%).
• In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hyperthyroidism occurred in 2.7% (54/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (<0.1%) and Grade 2 (1.2%).
• In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypothyroidism occurred in 8% (163/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (4.8%).
• In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, diabetes occurred in 0.9% (17/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.3%), and 2 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction
• OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated nephritis. In patients receiving OPDIVO® monotherapy, immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction occurred in 1.2% (23/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (<0.1%), Grade 3 (0.5%), and Grade 2 (0.6%).

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions
• OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) has occurred with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate nonexfoliative rashes.
• Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).
• In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated rash occurred in 9% (171/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (2.2%).

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
• The following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions occurred at an incidence of <1% (unless otherwise noted) in patients who received OPDIVO monotherapy or were reported with the use of other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Severe or fatal cases have been reported for some of these adverse reactions: cardiac/vascular: myocarditis, pericarditis, vasculitis; nervous system: meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis and demyelination, myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis (including exacerbation), Guillain-Barré syndrome, nerve paresis, autoimmune neuropathy; ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis to include increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; musculoskeletal and connective tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis, and associated sequelae including renal failure, arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; other (hematologic/immune): hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.
• Some ocular IMAR cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other immune-mediated adverse reactions, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada–like syndrome, which has been observed in patients receiving OPDIVO, as this may require treatment with systemic corticosteroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss.

Infusion-Related Reactions
• OPDIVO can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue OPDIVO in patients with severe (Grade 3) or life-threatening (Grade 4) infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild (Grade 1) or moderate (Grade 2) infusion-related reactions. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy as a 60-minute infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 6.4% (127/1994) of patients. In a separate trial in which patients received OPDIVO monotherapy as a 60-minute infusion or a 30-minute infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 2.2% (8/368) and 2.7% (10/369) of patients, respectively. Additionally, 0.5% (2/368) and 1.4% (5/369) of patients, respectively, experienced adverse reactions within 48 hours of infusion that led to dose delay, permanent discontinuation or withholding of OPDIVO.
Complications of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
• Fatal and other serious complications can occur in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before or after being treated with OPDIVO. Transplant-related complications include hyperacute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) after reduced intensity conditioning, and steroid-requiring febrile syndrome (without an identified infectious cause). These complications may occur despite intervening therapy between OPDIVO and allogeneic HSCT.
• Follow patients closely for evidence of transplant-related complications and intervene promptly. Consider the benefit versus risks of treatment with OPDIVO prior to or after an allogeneic HSCT.
Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
• Based on its mechanism of action and findings from animal studies, OPDIVO can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with OPDIVO and for at least 5 months after the last dose.
Increased Mortality in Patients with Multiple Myeloma when OPDIVO® is Added to a Thalidomide Analogue and Dexamethasone
• In randomized clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, the addition of OPDIVO to a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone resulted in increased mortality. Treatment of patients with multiple myeloma with a PD-1 or PD-L1 blocking antibody in combination with a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials.
Lactation
• There are no data on the presence of OPDIVO in human milk, the effects on the breastfed child, or the effects on milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in breastfed children, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment and for 5 months after the last dose.
Serious Adverse Reactions
• In Checkmate 649, serious adverse reactions occurred in 52% of patients treated with OPDIVO in combination with chemotherapy (n=782). The most frequent serious adverse reactions reported in ≥2% of patients treated with OPDIVO in combination with chemotherapy were vomiting (3.7%), pneumonia (3.6%), anemia (3.6%), pyrexia (2.8%), diarrhea (2.7%), febrile neutropenia (2.6%), and pneumonitis (2.4%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 16 (2.0%) patients who were treated with OPDIVO in combination with chemotherapy; these included pneumonitis (4 patients), febrile neutropenia (2 patients), stroke (2 patients), gastrointestinal toxicity, intestinal mucositis, septic shock, pneumonia, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, mesenteric vessel thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.
Common Adverse Reactions
• In Checkmate 649, the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) in patients treated with OPDIVO in combination with chemotherapy (n=782) were peripheral neuropathy (53%), nausea (48%), fatigue (44%), diarrhea (39%), vomiting (31%), decreased appetite (29%), abdominal pain (27%), constipation (25%), and musculoskeletal pain (20%).

Please see US Full Prescribing Information for OPDIVO.

References:

1. Paydary K, Reizine N, Catenacci DVT. Immune-checkpoint inhibition in the treatment of gastro-esophageal cancer: a closer look at the emerging evidence. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(23):5929.
2. National Cancer Institute. Gastric cancer treatment (PDQ®)–health professional version. National Cancer Institute website. Updated April 22, 2021.Accessed December 3, 2021.
http://cancer.gov/types/stomach/hp/stomach-treatment-pdq.
3. Chen Z, Ren Y, Du XL, et al. Incidence and survival differences in esophageal cancer among ethnic groups in the United States. Oncotarget. 2017;8(29):47037-47051.
4. He H, Chen N, Hou Y, et al. Trends in the incidence and survival of patients with esophageal cancer: a SEER database analysis. Thorac Cancer. 2020;11(5):1121-1128.
5. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249.
6. Arnold M, Ferlay J, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Soerjomataram I. Global burden of oesophageal and gastric cancer by histology and subsite in 2018. Gut. 2020;69(9):1564-1571.
7. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer stat facts: stomach cancer. National Cancer Institute website. Accessed December 3, 2021.
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/stomach.html.
8. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer stat facts: esophageal cancer. National Cancer Institute website. Accessed December 3, 2021.
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/esoph.html.
9. Grieb BC, Agarwal R. HER2-Directed Therapy in Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: Triumphs and Troubles. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2021;22(10):88.
10. ShankaranV, Xiao, H, Bertwistle D, et al. A comparison of real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients receiving first-line therapy for unresectable advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer versus esophageal adenocarcinomas. Adv Ther. 2021;38:
707-720.
11. OPDIVO® (nivolumab) [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2021.
12. KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab) [package insert]. Kenilworth, NJ: Merck & Co., Inc; 2021.
13. Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction cancer/oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10294):27-40.
14. Janjigian YY, Ajani JA, Moehler M, et al. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/ esophageal adenocarcinoma: CheckMate 649 study. Presentation at ESMO 2021. Abstract LBA7.
15. Data on file. BMS-REF-NIVO-0120. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2021.

OncoPrescribeupdates@oncoprescribe.com
Please click here to unsubscribe. Opting out of the subscription service emails will not opt you out of messages from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
©2022 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. All rights reserved. OPDIVO® and the related logos are registered trademarks of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
1506-US-2200006 03/22

Efficacy and Safety in the Phase 3 QUAZAR® AML-001 Study of ONUREG® (azacitidine) Tablets

       

Written by: Thomas E Boyd, MD, Texas Oncology
Content Sponsored by: Bristol Myers Squibb
Dr. Boyd is a paid consultant for BMS and was compensated for his contribution in drafting this article.

 

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematologic cancer with 5-year relative survival rates less than 30%.1 The journey for patients diagnosed with AML is very complex, and helping patients achieve remission is a major goal of initial treatment.2 Relapse after this initial therapy poses a significant roadblock to survival, as evidenced by high relapse rates and the current 5-year survival rate.1,3 There remains a critical need for therapies that extend survival.4

After a patient enters first remission, continued AML treatment is one avenue for appropriate patients.4 ONUREG® is the first and only FDA-approved continued AML treatment for adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia who achieved first complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy.5

The efficacy and safety of ONUREG® was evaluated in the Phase 3 QUAZAR®AML-001 trial, where patients who completed intensive induction with or without consolidation therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive ONUREG or placebo orally on Days 1 through 14 of each 28-day cycle.5 Randomization was stratified by age at time of induction therapy, cytogenetic risk category at time of induction therapy, prior history of MDS/CMML, and receipt of consolidation therapy following induction therapy.5

Median OS, the primary endpoint in the QUAZAR®AML-001 trial, was over 2 years (24.7 months) in the ONUREG® arm and 14.8 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.86; P=0.0009; Figure 1).5 This statistically significant survival benefit of ~10 months for patients with AML in first remission who received ONUREG® compared to placebo demonstrated that QUAZAR® AML-001 trial met its primary endpoint.5 Survival estimates were 73% for ONUREG® (n=168; 95% CI: 67, 78) and 56% for placebo (n=127; 95% CI: 49, 62) at 1 year, and 51% for ONUREG® (n=115; 95% CI: 44, 57) and 37% for placebo (n=82; 95% CI: 31, 43) at 2 years.6 Analyses of survival estimates at 1 and 2 years were not designed to show a difference between treatment arms.

Additional analyses show the influence of ONUREG® across subgroups vs placebo for median OS (Figure 2). It is important to note that these prespecified analyses should be interpreted with caution because of potential selection bias, insufficient sample size, and a higher probability of making a false positive finding.7

The most common adverse reactions (ARs, ≥ 10%) associated with ONUREG® treatment included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue/asthenia, constipation, pneumonia, abdominal pain, arthralgia, decreased appetite, febrile neutropenia, dizziness, and pain in extremity.5 Serious ARs occurred in 15% of patients who received ONUREG®, and the most common Grade 3/4 ARs were febrile neutropenia (11%), pneumonia (9%), diarrhea (5%), and fatigue/asthenia (4%).5

Efficacy and safety were established by the large, multicenter QUAZAR® AML-001 trial. These results established ONUREG® as a continued treatment for adult patients with AML who achieve first complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy.

Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier curve for OS: ITT population in QUAZAR® AML-0015
KM-for-Overall-Survival

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Overall survival select subgroup analysis6,7
Overall-Survival

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Analysis limitations: These prespecified subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution to determine a difference between arms in these select subgroups because of potential selection bias, insufficient sample size, and a higher probability of making a false positive finding.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
CONTRAINDICATIONS
ONUREG® is contraindicated in patients with known severe hypersensitivity to azacitidine or its components.
WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
Risks of Substitution with Other Azacitidine Products
Due to substantial differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters, the recommended dose and schedule for ONUREG® are different from those for the intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine products. Treatment of patients using intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine at the recommended dosage of ONUREG® may result in a fatal adverse reaction. Treatment with ONUREG® at the doses recommended for intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine may not be effective. Do not substitute ONUREG® for intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine.
Myelosuppression
New or worsening Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 22% of patients who received ONUREG®. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 12%. A dose reduction was required for 7% and 2% of patients due to neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Less than 1% of patients discontinued ONUREG® due to either neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. Monitor complete blood counts and modify the dosage as recommended. Provide standard supportive care, including hematopoietic growth factors, if myelosuppression occurs.
Increased Early Mortality in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS)
In AZA-MDS-003, 216 patients with red blood cell transfusion-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia due to MDS were randomized to ONUREG® or placebo. 107 received a median of 5 cycles of ONUREG® 300 mg daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Enrollment was discontinued early due to a higher incidence of early fatal and/or serious adverse reactions in the ONUREG® arm compared with placebo. The most frequent fatal adverse reaction was sepsis. Safety and effectiveness of ONUREG® for MDS have not been established. Treatment of MDS with ONUREG® is not recommended outside of controlled trials.
Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
ONUREG® can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Azacitidine caused fetal death and anomalies in pregnant rats via a single intraperitoneal dose less than the recommended human daily dose of oral azacitidine on a mg/m2 basis. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with ONUREG® and for at least 6 months after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with ONUREG® and for at least 3 months after the last dose.
ADVERSE REACTIONS
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received ONUREG®. Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% included pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). One fatal adverse reaction (sepsis) occurred in a patient who received ONUREG®.
Most common (≥10%) adverse reactions with ONUREG® vs placebo were nausea (65%, 24%), vomiting (60%, 10%), diarrhea (50%, 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44%, 25%), constipation (39%, 24%), pneumonia (27%, 17%), abdominal pain (22%, 13%), arthralgia (14%, 10%), decreased appetite (13%, 6%), febrile neutropenia (12%, 8%), dizziness (11%, 9%), pain in extremity (11%, 5%).
LACTATION
There are no data regarding the presence of azacitidine in human milk or the effects on the breastfed child or milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in the breastfed child, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment with ONUREG® and for 1 week after the last dose.

Please see full Prescribing Information for ONUREG®.

References
1. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets: Acute Myeloid Leukemia. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/amyl.html. Accessed April 21, 2021.
2. Medeiros BC. Interpretation of clinical endpoints in trials of acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. 2018;68:32-29.
3. Wei AH. Maintenance therapy for AML: are we there yet? Blood. 2019;133(13):1390-1392.
4. Medeiros BC, Chan SM, Daver NG, Jonas BA, Pollyea DA. Optimizing survival outcomes with post-remission therapy in acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2019;94:803-811.
5. ONUREG® [Prescribing Information]. Summit, NJ: Celgene Corporation; 2021.
6. Wei AH, Döhner H, Pocock C, et al. The QUAZAR AML-001 maintenance trial: results of a phase III international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of CC-486 in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first remission [oral presentation at ASH 2019]. Blood. 2019;134(Suppl 2):LBA-3.
7. Wei AH, Döhner H, Pocock C, et al. Oral Azacitidine Maintenance Therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in First Remission. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2526-2537.

© 2021 Celgene Corporation.
ONUREG is a trademark of Celgene Corporation, a Bristol Myers Squibb company.
QUAZAR® is a registered trademark of Celgene Corporation, a Bristol Myers Squibb company
02/22 2011-US-2100200

General Review: An Approved Treatment Option for Acute Myeloid Leukemia

 

Written by: Thomas E Boyd, MD, Texas Oncology
Content Sponsored by: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Dr. Boyd is a paid consultant for BMS and was compensated for his contribution in drafting this article.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a deadly disease that is more common in older adults.1 In 2021, it is estimated that there will be 20,240 new cases of AML in the United States, representing 1.1% of all new cancer cases.1 Additionally, there will be an estimated 11,400 deaths due to AML, representing 1.9% of all cancer deaths in the US in 2021.1 Once a patient is diagnosed with AML, beginning treatment as soon as possible is essential for disease management and survival.2

Currently, patients usually follow one of two paths for initial treatment of AML: conventional intensive induction chemotherapy or a less intensive option, with some patients going onto hematopoietic stem cell transplant after either initial treatment.3 The choice of treatment path is based on both patient- and disease-related characteristics such as medical fitness, age, cytogenetic and molecular testing, and risk of adverse events.2 With the progress seen in our understanding of the biology of AML, our knowledge of the molecular underpinnings of AML pathology has greatly improved over the years.4 This deeper understanding of disease at the molecular level has helped pave the way for a wave of approved therapies, with several new drug approvals beginning in 2017.5

A major goal of AML treatment is achieving remission.6 However, proliferative AML cells may still persist in remission, leading to a risk of relapse.4 Continued treatment of AML in first remission may improve overall survival.8

The large, multicenter QUAZAR®AML-001 trial established the efficacy and safety of ONUREG®(azacitidine) tablets, the first and only FDA-approved continued AML treatment for patients in first complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy.8 Eligible patients were ages 55 years or older, diagnosed with AML, were within 4 months of achieving first CR or CRi with intensive induction chemotherapy, and may have received consolidation therapy.8 Patients could not enroll in the study if they were candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation at the time of screening.8 Additional criteria included an ECOG performance status (PS) 0-3 and intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics, defined as normal cytogenetics +8, t(9;11), or other undefined, and complex (≥3 abnormalities): -5; 5q-; -7; 7q-; 11q23 – non t(9;11); inv(3); t(3;3); t(6;9); or t(9;22), respectively.8

Quazar-AML-Trial-DesignA total of 472 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either ONUREG® 300 mg or placebo orally on Days 1 through 14 of each 28-day cycle.8 Baseline demographics and disease-related characteristics were well balanced between the ONUREG and placebo arms.8 Across both arms, 72% of patients were 65 years or older, and most patients (92%) had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Additionally, approximately three-quarters of patients received 1 or 2 cycles of consolidation therapy.8

With a >2-year median overall survival and a statistically significant survival benefit of ~10 months for patients with AML in first remission compared to placebo, ONUREG met its primary endpoint (24.7 months in the treated arm vs 14.8 months in the placebo arm, hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.86; P=0.0009).8

The most common adverse reactions (ARs, ≥ 10%) associated with ONUREG® treatment included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue/asthenia, constipation, pneumonia, abdominal pain, arthralgia, decreased appetite, febrile neutropenia, dizziness, and pain in extremity.8 Serious ARs occurred in 15% of patients who received ONUREG®, with select Grade 3/4 ARs shown in the table below.8 Eight percent of patients permanently discontinued ONUREG®, 35% of patients required a treatment interruption due to an AR, and 14% of patients required a dose reduction.8

Quazar-Toxicities
ONUREG® is approved for continued treatment of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia who achieved first complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy.8 ONUREG® is an oral hypomethylating agent, offering a convenient, once-daily dosing that patients can take at home.8 However, it is important to emphasize that ONUREG® should not be substituted for intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine, because the indications and dosing regimen differ between these formulations.8 As the first and only FDA-approved continued AML treatment for patients in first remission, ONUREG® remains an option for appropriate patients.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
CONTRAINDICATIONS
ONUREG® is contraindicated in patients with known severe hypersensitivity to azacitidine or its components.
WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
Risks of Substitution with Other Azacitidine Products
Due to substantial differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters, the recommended dose and schedule for ONUREG® are different from those for the intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine products. Treatment of patients using intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine at the recommended dosage of ONUREG® may result in a fatal adverse reaction. Treatment with ONUREG® at the doses recommended for intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine may not be effective. Do not substitute ONUREG® for intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine.
Myelosuppression
New or worsening Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 22% of patients who received ONUREG®. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 12%. A dose reduction was required for 7% and 2% of patients due to neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Less than 1% of patients discontinued ONUREG® due to either neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. Monitor complete blood counts and modify the dosage as recommended. Provide standard supportive care, including hematopoietic growth factors, if myelosuppression occurs.
Increased Early Mortality in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS)
In AZA-MDS-003, 216 patients with red blood cell transfusion-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia due to MDS were randomized to ONUREG® or placebo. 107 received a median of 5 cycles of ONUREG® 300 mg daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Enrollment was discontinued early due to a higher incidence of early fatal and/or serious adverse reactions in the ONUREG® arm compared with placebo. The most frequent fatal adverse reaction was sepsis. Safety and effectiveness of ONUREG® for MDS have not been established. Treatment of MDS with ONUREG® is not recommended outside of controlled trials.
Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
ONUREG® can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Azacitidine caused fetal death and anomalies in pregnant rats via a single intraperitoneal dose less than the recommended human daily dose of oral azacitidine on a mg/m2 basis. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with ONUREG® and for at least 6 months after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with ONUREG® and for at least 3 months after the last dose.
ADVERSE REACTIONS
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received ONUREG®. Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% included pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). One fatal adverse reaction (sepsis) occurred in a patient who received ONUREG®.
Most common (≥10%) adverse reactions with ONUREG® vs placebo were nausea (65%, 24%), vomiting (60%, 10%), diarrhea (50%, 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44%, 25%), constipation (39%, 24%), pneumonia (27%, 17%), abdominal pain (22%, 13%), arthralgia (14%, 10%), decreased appetite (13%, 6%), febrile neutropenia (12%, 8%), dizziness (11%, 9%), pain in extremity (11%, 5%).
LACTATION
There are no data regarding the presence of azacitidine in human milk or the effects on the breastfed child or milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in the breastfed child, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment with ONUREG® and for 1 week after the last dose.

Please see full Prescribing Information for ONUREG®.

References
1. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets: Acute Myeloid Leukemia. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/amyl.html. Accessed April 21, 2021.
2. Medeiros BC, Satram S. Real world treatment patterns and comparative effectiveness among elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia in the United States. Ann Hematol Oncol. 2020;7(1):1283.
3. Burnett A, Wetzler M, Löwenberg B. Therapeutic advances in acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(5):487-494.
4. Brinda B, Khan I, Parkin B, Konig H. The rocky road to personalized medicine in acute myeloid leukaemia. J Cell Mol Med. 2018;22(3):1411-1427.
5. Lai C, Doucette K, Norsworthy K. Recent drug approvals for acute myeloid leukemia. J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12(100):1-20.
6. Medeiros BC. Interpretation of clinical endpoints in trials of acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. 2018;68:32-29.
7. Medeiros BC, Chan SM, Daver NG, Jonas BA, Pollyea DA. Optimizing survival outcomes with post-remission therapy in acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2019;94:803-811.
8. ONUREG® [Prescribing Information]. Summit, NJ: Celgene Corporation; 2021.

© 2021 Celgene Corporation.
ONUREG is a trademark of Celgene Corporation, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company.
QUAZAR is a registered trademark of Celgene Corporation, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company.
1/22 2011-US-2100199

Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Who Is an Appropriate Candidate for ONUREG® (azacitidine) Tablets?

 

Written by: Thomas E Boyd, MD, Texas Oncology
Content Sponsored by: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS)

 

 

Dr. Boyd is a paid consultant for BMS and was compensated for his contribution in drafting this article.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a deadly disease with most new cases affecting patients aged 65–74 years old.1 The 5-year relative survival rate for AML is 29.5%1, highlighting a need for treatment approaches that improve survival.2 Patient- and disease-related characteristics, including medical fitness, age, cytogenetic and molecular testing, and risk of adverse events, often determine treatment options.3

After careful consideration of all factors, patients can be treated with either a higher-intensity chemotherapy option or a lower-intensity therapy option, and in some cases, additional cycles of consolidation therapy may follow the higher-intensity chemotherapy option.4 Helping patients achieve remission and keeping them there is a major goal of initial induction therapy. Continued treatment of AML in first remission may improve overall survival; however, relapse due to residual AML cells is still a major concern.2 In 764 patients with AML aged 60–85 years old who received induction therapy, ~50% relapsed within 1 year and ~80% relapsed within 5 years.5 A goal of continued treatment for AML is extending overall survival (OS) in patients who have achieved first remission.2 In some instances, extending OS can be achieved with a hematopoietic stem cell transplant; but not all patients are eligible or choose to go down this treatment route.3

ONUREG® is the first and only FDA-approved therapy indicated for continued treatment of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia who achieved first complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy.6 The efficacy and safety of ONUREG® was evaluated in the Phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled QUAZAR® AML-001 study.6 Eligible patients were ages 55 years or older, diagnosed with AML, were within 4 months of achieving first CR or CRi with intensive induction chemotherapy, and may have received consolidation therapy.6 Efficacy was established by OS, where ONUREG® demonstrated >2 years median OS for patients with AML in first remission as compared to placebo (24.7 months in the treatment arm vs 14.8 months in the placebo arm, hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.86; P=0.0009).6 The most common adverse reactions (ARs, ≥ 10%) associated with ONUREG® treatment were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue/asthenia, constipation, pneumonia, abdominal pain, arthralgia, decreased appetite, febrile neutropenia, dizziness, and pain in extremity.6 Serious ARs occurred in 15% of patients who received ONUREG®, and the most common Grade 3/4 ARs are shown in the table below.6

Who is an appropriate candidate for ONUREG®? The following hypothetical examples will review some of the characteristics to consider when deciding if a patient could be appropriate for ONUREG®.

Patient A is a 67-year-old retired accountant who is active and generally healthy. Their hypertension is well managed with medication, and they have no other comorbidities. Despite no family history of leukemia or hematologic abnormalities, Patient A has just been diagnosed with de novo AML not otherwise specified with intermediate-risk cytogenetics and no actionable mutations. Their hematologist prescribes intensive induction chemotherapy with the standard 7+3 regimen, and Patient A went into first remission.

Patient A is generally healthy with a well-managed comorbidity, which results in their treatment with intensive induction chemotherapy followed by first remission. Patient A is a candidate for transplant but declines one due to concerns over graft-versus-host disease. Since Patient A chose not to proceed to transplant, then ONUREG® may be an option for them.

Patient B is a 70-year retired nurse who lives alone, with family nearby. They were recently diagnosed with AML and received 7+3 chemotherapy followed by one round of consolidation. Patient B tolerated their treatment as well as could be expected and achieved first complete remission. While they are eligible for transplant, they declined and have been under observation by their doctor for the past few months. Patient B received and tolerated intensive induction chemotherapy, achieved first remission, and declined transplant, an intensive curative option. This makes them a potential candidate for continued treatment with ONUREG®.

Ultimately, the treating physician will make the final decision, but ONUREG® is indicated as a continued treatment of adult patients with AML who achieved first CR or CRi following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy.6 Understanding a patient’s disease and journey can help set them on the path where appropriate towards a continued treatment that has demonstrated an overall survival benefit in the QUAZAR® AML-001 study.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
CONTRAINDICATIONS
ONUREG® is contraindicated in patients with known severe hypersensitivity to azacitidine or its components.
WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
Risks of Substitution with Other Azacitidine Products
Due to substantial differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters, the recommended dose and schedule for ONUREG® are different from those for the intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine products. Treatment of patients using intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine at the recommended dosage of ONUREG® may result in a fatal adverse reaction. Treatment with ONUREG® at the doses recommended for intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine may not be effective. Do not substitute ONUREG® for intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine.
Myelosuppression
New or worsening Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 22% of patients who received ONUREG®. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 12%. A dose reduction was required for 7% and 2% of patients due to neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Less than 1% of patients discontinued ONUREG® due to either neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. Monitor complete blood counts and modify the dosage as recommended. Provide standard supportive care, including hematopoietic growth factors, if myelosuppression occurs.
Increased Early Mortality in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS)
In AZA-MDS-003, 216 patients with red blood cell transfusion-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia due to MDS were randomized to ONUREG® or placebo. 107 received a median of 5 cycles of ONUREG® 300 mg daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Enrollment was discontinued early due to a higher incidence of early fatal and/or serious adverse reactions in the ONUREG® arm compared with placebo. The most frequent fatal adverse reaction was sepsis. Safety and effectiveness of ONUREG® for MDS have not been established. Treatment of MDS with ONUREG® is not recommended outside of controlled trials.
Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
ONUREG® can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Azacitidine caused fetal death and anomalies in pregnant rats via a single intraperitoneal dose less than the recommended human daily dose of oral azacitidine on a mg/m2 basis. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with ONUREG® and for at least 6 months after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with ONUREG® and for at least 3 months after the last dose.
ADVERSE REACTIONS
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received ONUREG®. Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% included pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). One fatal adverse reaction (sepsis) occurred in a patient who received ONUREG®.
Most common (≥10%) adverse reactions with ONUREG® vs placebo were nausea (65%, 24%), vomiting (60%, 10%), diarrhea (50%, 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44%, 25%), constipation (39%, 24%), pneumonia (27%, 17%), abdominal pain (22%, 13%), arthralgia (14%, 10%), decreased appetite (13%, 6%), febrile neutropenia (12%, 8%), dizziness (11%, 9%), pain in extremity (11%, 5%).
LACTATION
There are no data regarding the presence of azacitidine in human milk or the effects on the breastfed child or milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in the breastfed child, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment with ONUREG® and for 1 week after the last dose.

Please see full Prescribing Information for ONUREG®.

References
1. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets: Acute Myeloid Leukemia. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/amyl.html. Accessed April 21, 2021.
2. Medeiros BC, Chan SM, Daver NG, Jonas BA, Pollyea DA. Optimizing survival outcomes with post-remission therapy in acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2019;94:803-811.
3. Medeiros BC, Satram S. Real world treatment patterns and comparative effectiveness among elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia in the United States. Ann Hematol Oncol. 2020;7(1):1283.
4. Burnett A, Wetzler M, Löwenberg B. Therapeutic advances in acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(5):487-494.
5. Büchner T, Berdel WE, Haferlach C, et al. Age-related risk profile and chemotherapy dose response in acute myeloid leukemia: a study by the German Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(1):61-69.
6. ONUREG®® [Prescribing Information]. Summit, NJ: Celgene Corporation; 2021.

© 2021 Celgene Corporation.
ONUREG® is a trademark of Celgene Corporation, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company.
QUAZAR® is a registered trademark Celgene Corporation, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company.
12/21 2011-US-2100198

Real-world evidence: What can it inform us about the second-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC?

Written by Dr. Solly S. Chedid
Sponsored and developed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals.

Immunotherapies have changed the way we initiate treatment for many patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).1 As immunotherapy has become a standard first-line treatment, non-immunotherapy options are important to consider for second-line treatment. Currently, there is no clear standard of care for second-line therapy in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC who progress after immuno-chemotherapy. Therefore, an unmet need remains for studies designed to understand the effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments in these patients. Here we will review newly published real-world evidence on second-line treatments of patients with squamous NSCLC with afatinib (GILOTRIF®) following immuno-chemotherapy.

GILOTRIF is the only oral, chemotherapy-free option for treating patients with squamous NSCLC that has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.2 The efficacy and safety of GILOTRIF were demonstrated in the pivotal LUX-Lung 8 trial. In LUX-Lung 8, treatment with GILOTRIF led to statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (median 2.4 vs 1.9 months) and overall survival (median 7.9 vs 6.8 months) compared with erlotinib. In LUX-Lung 8, the most common adverse reactions reported in the GILOTRIF treated patients (≥20% all grades) were diarrhea (75%), rash/acneiform dermatitis (70%), stomatitis (30%), decreased appetite (25%), and nausea (21%).

The Real-world Effectiveness of 2L Treatment of Squamous mNSCLC Study is the first to evaluate the real-world use of GILOTRIF following first-line immuno-chemotherapy in patients with squamous NSCLC.1 It is a retrospective, non-interventional, multisite cohort study using electronic medical records of patients with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC treated with pembrolizumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the first line. Patients were treated with either GILOTRIF or physician’s choice chemotherapy in the second line. Study endpoints included patient demographics and clinical characteristics, time on second-line treatment, and incidence of severe (Grade ≥3) immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This study analysis was not powered to compare characteristics or outcomes between the cohorts. In addition, the results of this study are not intended for direct comparison with clinical trials. The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature, potential for selection bias, and lack of a comparator arm.

A total of 200 patients were included in this study; 99 received GILOTRIF, and 101 received chemotherapy in the second line.1 More patients in the GILOTRIF cohort had mixed histology, were epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation−positive, and were never smokers than those in the chemotherapy cohort. There were geographic differences between the cohorts; more patients from the Northeast received GILOTRIF, and more patients from the South received chemotherapy. In the GILOTRIF cohort, 45% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ranging from 0 to 1, while 55% had an ECOG PS of 2 or higher. In the chemotherapy arm, 50% of patients had ECOG PS 0 to 1, and 50% had ECOG PS of 2 or higher. Other characteristics, such as median age and stage at diagnosis, were similar in both cohorts.

The median time on treatment for the GILOTRIF cohort was 7.3 months. In patients with mixed histology, the median time on treatment was 8.1 months, and for patients with squamous histology it was 5.8 months.1 EGFR mutation−positive and EGFR mutation−negative patients remained on GILOTRIF for a median of 7.4 and 5.9 months, respectively. The median time on treatment from initiation of second-line chemotherapy was 4.2 months.

   Time on Treatment in the Real-World Effectiveness Study1
Time-on-GILOTRIF-Chemotherapy
The most common adverse drug reactions with GILOTRIF were diarrhea (26%), rash (6%), stomatitis, fatigue, and nausea (5% each).1 Six out of 99 patients experienced a Grade 3/4 irAE during second-line GILOTRIF therapy; each of these patients also experienced a Grade 3 irAE during first-line treatment. The 6 patients in the GILOTRIF cohort who experienced Grade 3/4 irAEs were treated with steroids, and none were hospitalized. Given the real-world nature of the study, adverse event data may be underreported or underdocumented; in addition, censoring may also bias results.

Such real-world evidence (RWE) studies have limitations, including their retrospective nature and potential for selection bias.1 However, in addition to clinical data collected in registrational clinical trials, data from RWE studies such as this can add important information to help evaluate the clinical utility of a drug in the real-world setting.3 RWE studies can be derived from rich data sources, such as electronic health records, registries, and claims databases, which reflect real-world use, outcomes, and the patient diversity seen in clinical practice.

Despite several limitations highlighted in this paper, the study adds to the body of evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of GILOTRIF when given as a second-line treatment following immuno-chemotherapy in routine clinical practice.1

INDICATION AND USAGE

GILOTRIF is indicated for the treatment of patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR GILOTRIF® (AFATINIB) TABLETS
WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

Diarrhea
• GILOTRIF can cause diarrhea which may be severe and can result in dehydration with or without renal impairment. In clinical studies, some of these cases were fatal.
• For patients who develop Grade 2 diarrhea lasting more than 48 hours or Grade 3 or greater diarrhea, withhold GILOTRIF until diarrhea resolves to Grade 1 or less, and then resume at a reduced dose.
• Provide patients with an anti-diarrheal agent (e.g., loperamide) for self-administration at the onset of diarrhea and instruct patients to continue anti-diarrheal until loose stools cease for 12 hours.
Bullous and Exfoliative Skin Disorders
• GILOTRIF can result in cutaneous reactions consisting of rash, erythema, and acneiform rash. In addition, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome was observed in clinical trials in patients taking GILOTRIF.
• Discontinue GILOTRIF in patients who develop life-threatening bullous, blistering, or exfoliating skin lesions. For patients who develop Grade 2 cutaneous adverse reactions lasting more than 7 days, intolerable Grade 2, or Grade 3 cutaneous reactions, withhold GILOTRIF. When the adverse reaction resolves to Grade 1 or less, resume GILOTRIF with appropriate dose reduction.
• Postmarketing cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and Stevens Johnson syndrome (SJS) have been reported in patients receiving GILOTRIF. Discontinue GILOTRIF if TEN or SJS is suspected.
Interstitial Lung Disease
• Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) or ILD-like adverse reactions (e.g., lung infiltration, pneumonitis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or alveolitis allergic) occurred in patients receiving GILOTRIF in clinical trials. In some cases, ILD was fatal. The incidence of ILD appeared to be higher in Asian patients as compared to white patients.
• Withhold GILOTRIF during evaluation of patients with suspected ILD, and discontinue GILOTRIF in patients with confirmed ILD.
Hepatic Toxicity
• Hepatic toxicity as evidenced by liver function tests abnormalities has been observed in patients taking GILOTRIF. In 4257 patients who received GILOTRIF across clinical trials, 9.7% had liver test abnormalities, of which 0.2% were fatal.
• Obtain periodic liver testing in patients during treatment with GILOTRIF. Withhold GILOTRIF in patients who develop worsening of liver function. Discontinue treatment in patients who develop severe hepatic impairment while taking GILOTRIF.
Gastrointestinal Perforation
• Gastrointestinal (GI) perforation, including fatal cases, has occurred with GILOTRIF. GI perforation has been reported in 0.2% of patients treated with GILOTRIF among 3213 patients across 17 randomized controlled clinical trials.
• Patients receiving concomitant corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or anti-angiogenic agents, or patients with increasing age or who have an underlying history of GI ulceration, underlying diverticular disease, or bowel metastases may be at an increased risk of perforation.
• Permanently discontinue GILOTRIF in patients who develop GI perforation.
Keratitis
• Keratitis has been reported in patients taking GILOTRIF.
• Withhold GILOTRIF during evaluation of patients with suspected keratitis. If diagnosis of ulcerative keratitis is confirmed, interrupt or discontinue GILOTRIF. If keratitis is diagnosed, the benefits and risks of continuing treatment should be carefully considered. GILOTRIF should be used with caution in patients with a history of keratitis, ulcerative keratitis, or severe dry eye. Contact lens use is also a risk factor for keratitis and ulceration.
Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
• GILOTRIF can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Advise pregnant women and females of reproductive potential of the potential risk to a fetus.
• Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment, and for at least 2 weeks after the last dose of GILOTRIF. Advise female patients to contact their healthcare provider with a known or suspected pregnancy.
ADVERSE REACTIONS
Adverse Reactions observed in clinical trials were as follows:
Previously Treated, Metastatic Squamous NSCLC
• In GILOTRIF-treated patients (n=392) the most common adverse reactions (≥20% all grades & vs erlotinib-treated patients (n=395)) were diarrhea (75% vs 41%), rash/acneiform dermatitis (70% vs 70%), stomatitis (30% vs 11%), decreased appetite (25% vs 26%), and nausea (21% vs 16%).
• Serious adverse reactions were reported in 44% of patients treated with GILOTRIF. The most frequent serious adverse reactions reported in patients treated with GILOTRIF were pneumonia (6.6%), diarrhea (4.6%), and dehydration and dyspnea (3.1% each). Fatal adverse reactions in GILOTRIF-treated patients included ILD (0.5%), pneumonia (0.3%), respiratory failure (0.3%), acute renal failure (0.3%), and general physical health deterioration (0.3%).
DRUG INTERACTIONS
Effect of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) Inhibitors and Inducers
• Concomitant use of P-gp inhibitors (including but not limited to ritonavir, cyclosporine A, ketoconazole, itraconazole, erythromycin, verapamil, quinidine, tacrolimus, nelfinavir, saquinavir, and amiodarone) with GILOTRIF can increase exposure to afatinib.
• Concomitant use of P-gp inducers (including but not limited to rifampicin, carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, and St. John’s wort) with GILOTRIF can decrease exposure to afatinib.
USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS
Lactation
• Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in breastfed infants from GILOTRIF, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment with GILOTRIF and for 2 weeks after the final dose.
Females and Males of Reproductive Potential
• GILOTRIF may reduce fertility in females and males of reproductive potential. It is not known if the effects on fertility are reversible.
Renal Impairment
• Patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15 to 29 mL/min/1.73 m2) have a higher exposure to afatinib than patients with normal renal function. Administer GILOTRIF at a starting dose of 30 mg once daily in patients with severe renal impairment. GILOTRIF has not been studied in patients with eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 or who are on dialysis.
Hepatic Impairment
• GILOTRIF has not been studied in patients with severe (Child Pugh C) hepatic impairment. Closely monitor patients with severe hepatic impairment and adjust GILOTRIF dose if not tolerated.

GF PROF ISI 10.21.19

References

1. Kim ES, Kish JK, Cseh A, et al. Second-line afatinib or chemotherapy following immunochemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic, squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: real-world effectiveness and safety from a multisite retrospective chart review in the USA. Clin Lung Cancer. 2021;S1525-7304(21)00029-2.
2. GILOTRIF. Prescribing information. Ridgefield, CT: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2019.
3. Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence — what is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med. 2016:8;375(23):2293-2297.

Please review the Full Prescribing Information and Patient Information.