Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 43-month Follow-up of the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 Study

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-B61): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy-based combinations including pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib are the standard of care for patients with first-line clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, but these combinations are not well characterised in non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

KEYNOTE-B61 is a single-arm, phase 2 trial being conducted at 48 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Russia, Spain, Türkiye, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated stage IV non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher were eligible for enrolment. All enrolled patients received pembrolizumab 400 mg intravenously every 6 weeks for up to 18 cycles (2 years) plus lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal; lenvatinib could be continued beyond 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as per adjusted Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) assessed by independent central review. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (the as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04704219) and is no longer recruiting participants but is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 21, 2022, 215 patients were screened; 158 were enrolled and received treatment. Median age at baseline was 60 years (IQR 52-69), 112 (71%) of 158 patients were male, 46 (29%) were female, 128 (81%) were White, 12 (8%) were Asian, three (2%) were Black or African American, and 15 (9%) were missing data on race. As of data cutoff (Nov 7, 2022), median study follow-up was 14·9 months (IQR 11·1-17·4). 78 of 158 patients had a confirmed objective response (49%; 95% CI 41-57), including nine (6%) patients with a confirmed complete response and 69 (44%) with a confirmed partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 81 (51%) of 158 patients, the most common of which were hypertension (37 [23%] of 158), proteinuria (seven [4%]), and stomatitis (six [4%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31 (20%) of 158 patients. Eight (5%) patients died due to adverse events, none of which was considered related to the treatment by the investigators (one each of cardiac failure, peritonitis, pneumonia, sepsis, cerebrovascular accident, suicide, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism).

INTERPRETATION

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has durable antitumour activity in patients with previously untreated advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that of previous studies. Results from KEYNOTE-B61 support the use of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for these patients.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, NJ, USA), and Eisai.

Health-related Quality of Life Analysis from KEYNOTE-426: Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) trial, pembrolizumab + axitinib demonstrated improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate over sunitinib monotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in KEYNOTE-426.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab + axitinib (n = 432) or sunitinib (n = 429). HRQoL data were available for 429 patients treated with pembrolizumab + axitinib and 423 patients treated with sunitinib.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

HRQoL end points were measured using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Core (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EQ-5D visual analog rating scale (VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Cancer Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) questionnaires.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Better or not different overall improvement rates from baseline between pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib were observed for the FKSI-DRS (-0.79% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.2 to 5.6), QLQ-C30 (7.5% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 1.0-14), and EQ-5D VAS (9.9% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 3.2-17). For time to confirmed deterioration (TTcD) and time to first deterioration (TTfD), no differences were observed between arms for the QLQ-C30 (TTcD hazard ratio [HR] 1.0; 95% CI 0.82-1.3; TTfD HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.97) and EQ-5D VAS (TTcD HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.87-1.3; TTfD HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83-1.2). TTfD was not different between treatment arms (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.95-1.3) for the FKSI-DRS, but TTcD favored sunitinib (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.7). Patients were assessed during the off-treatment period for sunitinib, which may have underestimated the negative impact of sunitinib on HRQoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patient-reported outcome scales showed that results between the pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms were not different, with the exception of TTcD by the FKSI-DRS.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib delays disease progression and extends survival, while HRQoL outcomes were not different between groups.

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Analysis of progression after first subsequent therapy in KEYNOTE-426

4513

Background: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study (NCT02853331) met its primary and key secondary end points of improved OS, PFS, and ORR with pembro + axi versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced ccRCC. Extended follow-up (42.8-mo median follow-up) continued to show the superior efficacy of pembro + axi versus sunitinib in this patient population. We describe the results of PFS2 for all randomly assigned patients and across IMDC risk categories. Methods: Treatment-naive patients with advanced ccRCC, Karnofsky Performance Status Scale score ≥70% and measurable disease per RECIST v1.1 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for up to 35 doses (̃2 y) + axi 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4-wk on/2-wk off schedule. The end point of this exploratory analysis was PFS2, defined as time from randomization to progression after first subsequent therapy or any-cause death. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS2 and hazard ratios were estimated using a Cox regression model. Results: Of 861 patients, 432 were assigned to receive pembro + axi; 429, to sunitinib. Median time from randomization to the database cutoff date (January 11, 2021) was 42.8 mo (range, 35.6-50.6). Overall, 47.2% of patients (204/432) in the pembro + axi arm and 65.5% of patients (281/429) in the sunitinib arm received ≥1 line of subsequent anticancer therapy. For patients who received subsequent therapy, anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents were the first subsequent treatment for 11.3% of patients (23/204) in the pembro + axi arm and 54.8% of patients (154/281) in the sunitinib arm. In the pembro + axi arm, 82.8% of patients (169/204) received a VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor as first subsequent therapy, as did 43.4% (122/281) in the sunitinib arm. PFS2 results are displayed in the Table. Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, PFS2 was longer for patients randomized to pembro + axi compared to sunitinib. Results were consistent across IMDC risk groups. These data support use of pembro + axi for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ccRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331. [Table: see text]

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Results from 42-month follow-up of KEYNOTE-426

4500

Background: In the first interim analysis of the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study (NCT02853331), treatment with pembro + axi significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR vs sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive advanced ccRCC. Extended follow-up (median, 30.6 mo) continued to demonstrate the superior efficacy of pembro + axi vs sunitinib monotherapy in this patient population. Here, we present the results of the prespecified final analysis with 42.8-mo median follow-up. Methods: Treatment-naive patients (pts) with advanced ccRCC, KPS ≥70%, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for up to 35 doses + axi 5 mg orally BID or sunitinib 50 mg orally QD on a 4-wk on/2-wk off schedule until progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by IMDC risk (favorable vs intermediate vs poor) and geographic region (North America vs Western Europe vs Rest of World). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS. Secondary endpoints were ORR, DOR, and safety. The protocol-specified final analysis was based on a target of 404 OS events. No formal hypothesis testing was performed because all efficacy endpoints were met previously at the first interim analysis; nominal P values are reported. Results: Overall, 861 pts were randomly assigned to receive pembro + axi (n=432) or sunitinib (n=429). Median duration of follow-up, defined as time from randomization to the database cutoff date, was 42.8 mo (range, 35.6-50.6). At data cutoff, 418 pts had died: 193 (44.7%) of 432 pts in the pembro + axi arm vs 225 (52.4%) of 429 pts in the sunitinib arm. Compared with sunitinib, pembro + axi improved OS (median: 45.7 vs 40.1 mo; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.60-0.88]; P<0.001) and PFS (median: 15.7 vs 11.1 mo; HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]; P<0.0001). The 42-mo OS rate was 57.5% with pembro + axi vs 48.5% with sunitinib; the 42-mo PFS rate was 25.1% with pembro + axi vs 10.6% with sunitinib. For pembro + axi vs sunitinib, ORR was 60.4% vs 39.6% ( P<0.0001); CR rate was 10.0% vs 3.5%; median DOR was 23.6 mo (range 1.4+ to 43.4+) vs 15.3 mo (range, 2.3-42.8+). Subsequent anticancer therapy was administered to 47.2% of pts in pembro + axi arm vs 65.5% of pts in sunitinib arm. Although a similar proportion of pts in each arm received VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors, only 10.2% of pts in the pembro + axi arm received subsequent treatment with a PD-1/L1 inhibitor compared to 48.7% of pts in the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 42.8 mo, this is the longest follow-up of an anti-PD–1/L1 immunotherapy combined with a VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor for first-line RCC. These results show that pembro + axi continues to demonstrate superior efficacy over sunitinib with respect to OS, PFS, and ORR, with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331.

Outcomes for patients in the pembrolizumab+axitinib arm with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who completed two years of treatment in the phase III KEYNOTE-426 study

327

Background: In the randomized, open-label, phase III KEYNOTE-426 study (NCT02853331), pembrolizumab + axitinib significantly improved overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced RCC. Per protocol, patients could discontinue pembrolizumab or axitinib and continue the other agent. Pembrolizumab was stopped for all patients at 2 years. Axitinib could be continued until progression or toxicity. This exploratory subgroup analysis of KEYNOTE-426 describes outcomes of patients who completed 2 years of pembrolizumab. Methods: Patients included in KEYNOTE-426 were treatment naive, with clear cell RCC, KPS ≥70%, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 doses + axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Primary end points of the original analysis were OS and PFS. Key secondary end points were ORR and safety. Results: Of 432 patients treated with pembrolizumab + axitinib, 129 (29.9%) completed 2 years of study therapy. Median (range) age of these patients was 61 (36-82) years, and 72.1% were male; 42 (32.6%) and 87 (67.4%) patients had International mRCC Database Consortium favorable and intermediate/poor risk, respectively, consistent with the intention-to-treat population (31.9% vs 68.1%). Median (range) follow-up (time from randomization to data cutoff) was 31.1 (24.0-37.7) months. For patients who completed 2 years of study therapy, the OS rates at 36 months was 93.8% (95% CI, 85.5%-97.4%). The PFS rates at 24 and 36 months were 72.7% (95% CI, 64.0%-79.7%) and 57.7% (95% CI, 46.3%-67.5%), respectively. The ORR was 85.3%, and the CR rate was 14.0%. 59.7% of patients experienced grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events and 8.5% experienced grade 3-5 immune-mediated adverse events. Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, a significant proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab + axitinib arm completed 2 years of pembrolizumab with ongoing clinical benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331 .

RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections

Background

The β-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections.

Methods

Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5–21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment.

Results

Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, –27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, –46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively.

Conclusions

Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT02452047.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis.

INTERPRETATION

With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Fosfomycin for Injection (ZTI-01) Versus Piperacillin-tazobactam for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Including Acute Pyelonephritis: ZEUS, A Phase 2/3 Randomized Trial

Background

ZTI-01 (fosfomycin for injection) is an epoxide antibiotic with a differentiated mechanism of action (MOA) inhibiting an early step in bacterial cell wall synthesis. ZTI-01 has broad in vitro spectrum of activity, including multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, and is being developed for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) and acute pyelonephritis (AP) in the United States.

Methods

Hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed cUTI/AP were randomized 1:1 to 6 g ZTI-01 q8h or 4.5 g intravenous (IV) piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) q8h for a fixed 7-day course (no oral switch); patients with concomitant bacteremia could receive up to 14 days.

Results

Of 465 randomized patients, 233 and 231 were treated with ZTI-01 and PIP-TAZ, respectively. In the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (m-MITT) population, ZTI-01 met the primary objective of noninferiority compared with PIP-TAZ with overall success rates of 64.7% (119/184 patients) vs 54.5% (97/178 patients), respectively; treatment difference was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.4, 20.8). Clinical cure rates at test of cure (TOC, day 19–21) were high and similar between treatments (90.8% [167/184] vs 91.6% [163/178], respectively). In post hoc analysis using unique pathogens typed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, overall success rates at TOC in m-MITT were 69.0% (127/184) for ZTI-01 versus 57.3% (102/178) for PIP-TAZ (difference 11.7% 95% CI: 1.3, 22.1). ZTI-01 was well tolerated. Most treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mild and transient.

Conclusions

ZTI-01 was effective for treatment of cUTI including AP and offers a new IV therapeutic option with a differentiated MOA for patients with serious Gram-negative infections.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT02753946

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Updated analysis of KEYNOTE-426

5001

Background: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study (NCT02853331) demonstrated that pembrolizumab (pembro) + axitinib (axi) significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR vs sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced RCC (aRCC) at the first pre-planned interim analysis (minimum study follow-up of 7 mo). Updated analyses are presented here. Methods: Treatment-naive patients (pts) with clear cell aRCC, KPS ≥70%, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for up to 35 doses + axi 5 mg orally BID or sunitinib 50 mg orally QD on a 4-wk on/2-wk off schedule until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by IMDC risk (favorable vs intermediate vs poor) and geographic region (North America vs Western Europe vs rest of world). Primary end points were OS and PFS. Secondary end points were ORR, DOR, and safety. All P values are nominal. A post-hoc exploratory analysis was done to evaluate association of depth of response (maximum reduction from baseline in sum of diameters of target lesions) and OS using landmark analysis up to 6 mo after randomization. Results: 861 pts were randomly assigned (pembro + axi, n = 432; sunitinib, n = 429). Median (range) duration of follow-up for all pts was 27.0 mo (0.1-38.4). Pembro + axi improved OS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.55-0.85]; P < 0.001; 24-mo OS rate, 74% vs 66%) vs sunitinib. Median (95% CI) OS was not reached with pembro + axi and was 35.7 mo (33.3-NR) with sunitinib. Pembro + axi improved PFS (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.60-0.84]; P < 0.001; 24-mo PFS rate, 38% vs 27%) vs sunitinib. For pembro +axi vs sunitinib respectively, median (95% CI) PFS was 15.4 (12.7-18.9) vs 11.1 mo (9.1-12.5); ORR was 60% vs 40% ( P < 0.0001); CR rate was 9% vs 3%; and median DOR was 23.5 mo (range 1.4+ to 34.5+) vs 15.9 mo (range 2.3-31.8+). In general, the pembro + axi benefit was observed in all subgroups tested, including IMDC risk and PD-L1 expression subgroups. Post-hoc landmark analysis at 6-mo showed that pts on pembro + axi with ≥80% target lesion reduction had OS similar to that of pts with CR per RECIST v1.1 based on Kaplan-Meier curves and HR [95% CI] estimates (0.20 [0.05-0.84] vs. 0.10 [0.01-0.76], respectively) vs pts with 0-30% target lesion reduction. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Pembro + axi continued to demonstrate superior and durable antitumor activity vs sunitinib in pts with first-line aRCC with a 27-mo median follow up; no new safety signals were observed. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331 .

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Outcomes in the combined IMDC intermediate/poor risk and sarcomatoid subgroups of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study

4500

Background: In KEYNOTE-426, pembro + axi significantly improved OS (HR 0.53, P < .0001), PFS (HR 0.69, P = .0001), and ORR (59.3% vs 35.7%, P < .0001) vs sunitinib and had manageable toxicity as first-line therapy for mRCC (NCT02853331). The pembro + axi benefit was observed across all IMDC risk groups and regardless of PD-L1 expression. We present data for the combined intermediate/poor risk group and for patients (pts) with sarcomatoid features. Methods: 861 eligible pts with clear-cell mRCC, no prior systemic therapy for mRCC, and KPS ≥70 were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for a maximum of 35 cycles plus axi 5 mg orally BID (N = 432) or sunitinib 50 mg orally QD (4-wk on/2-wk off) (N = 429). Primary endpoints were OS and PFS (RECIST v1.1 by blinded, independent central review [BICR]). ORR (RECIST v1.1 by BICR) was the key secondary endpoint. The intermediate/poor risk group was prespecified; the sarcomatoid group was exploratory. HRs and their 95% CIs were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model. None of the analyses were multiplicity-controlled. Results: 592 (68.8%) of all randomized pts were of IMDC intermediate/poor risk — 294 in the pembro + axi arm, 298 in the sunitinib arm. Pembro + axi improved OS (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.74; 12-mo rate 87.3% vs 71.3%), PFS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85; median 12.6 vs 8.2 mo), and ORR (55.8% [95% CI 49.9-61.5] vs 29.5% [24.4-35.1]) in pts with intermediate/poor risk; CR rates were 4.8% (95% CI 2.6-7.9) vs 0.7% (0.1-2.4). Of the 578 pts with known status, 105 (18.2%) had sarcomatoid features — 51 in the pembro + axi arm, 54 in the sunitinib arm. Pembro + axi improved OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21-1.59; 12-mo rate 83.4% vs 79.5%), PFS (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.00; median not reached vs 8.4 mo), and ORR (58.8% [95% CI 44.2-72.4] vs 31.5% [19.5-45.6]) in pts with sarcomatoid features; CR rates were 11.8% (95% CI 4.4-23.9) vs 0% (0.0-6.6). Conclusions: Pembro + axi provides benefit in the combined population of pts with IMDC intermediate or poor risk and in pts whose tumors had sarcomatoid features. The observed benefits were consistent with those seen in the total population. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331.

Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear.

METHODS

In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): phase III KEYNOTE-426 study

543

Background: A phase 1b study of pembro (anti–PD-1) plus axi (VEGFR-TKI) showed promising antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients (pts) with previously untreated mRCC. The global, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study assessed the efficacy and safety of pembro + axi vs sunitinib as first-line therapy for mRCC (NCT02853331). Methods: Eligible pts with clear-cell mRCC, no previous systemic therapy for mRCC, and KPS ≥70% were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for a maximum of 35 cycles plus axi 5 mg orally BID or sunitinib 50 mg orally QD (4-wk on/2-wk off schedule). Treatment was given until PD, intolerable toxicity, or pt/investigator decision. Randomization was stratified by IMDC risk group and geographic region. Primary endpoints were OS and PFS (RECIST v1.1 by blinded, independent central review [BICR]). ORR was the key secondary endpoint. At the protocol-specified first interim analysis, the superiority thresholds were P = 0.0001 for OS, 0.0013 for PFS, and 0.025 for ORR (if OS and PFS were significant). Results: 861 pts were randomized: 432 to pembro + axi, 429 to sunitinib. After a 12.8-mo median follow-up, 59.0% of pts in the pembro + axi arm and 43.1% in the sunitinib arm remained on treatment. Pembro + axi significantly improved OS (HR 0.53 [95% CI 0.38-0.74]; P < 0.0001; 12-mo rate 89.9% vs 78.3%), PFS (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.57-0.84]; P = 0.0001; median 15.1 vs 11.1 mo), and ORR (59.3% vs 35.7%; P < 0.0001). Duration of response was prolonged with pembro + axi (median not reached vs 15.2 mo). The pembro + axi benefit was observed in all subgroups tested, including all IMDC risk and PD-L1 expression subgroups. Treatment-related AEs were grade 3-5 in 62.9% of pts in the pembro + axi arm vs 58.1% in the sunitinib arm and led to regimen discontinuation in 6.3% vs 10.1%. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab + axitinib provided superior OS, PFS, and ORR compared with sunitinib and had manageable safety in pts with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic clear-cell RCC. These data suggest that pembrolizumab + axitinib should be a new standard of care for this population. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331.

1367. Clinical Cure in Secondary Efficacy Populations in Patients With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Treated With ZTI-01 (Fosfomycin for Injection): Findings From the ZEUS Trial

Background

ZTI-01 (fosfomycin for injection) is an investigational epoxide antibiotic with a differentiated mechanism of action (MOA) inhibiting an early step in bacterial cell wall synthesis. ZTI-01 has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity, including multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, and is being developed for the treatment of patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) and acute pyelonephritis (AP) in the United States.

Methods

ZEUS was a multicenter, double-blind, Phase 2/3 trial in hospitalized adults with cUTI and AP to evaluate safety and efficacy. Randomized patients received 6 g ZTI-01 q8h or 4.5 g IV piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) q8h for 7 days; patients with baseline bacteremia could receive up to 14 days; study continued to late follow-up (LFU, 26 ± 2 days). Oral step-down therapy was prohibited. ZTI-01 met the primary endpoint of noninferiority to PIP-TAZ. Secondary objectives included comparing clinical cure rates (assessed by investigator) in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT), microbiologic MITT (m-MITT), clinical evaluable (CE), and microbiologic evaluable (ME) populations at test-of-cure (TOC, Day 19 ± 2 days).

Results

There were 464 patients randomized who received study drug. In all populations, clinical cure rates at TOC were high and similar between treatment groups (>90%) (table).

Conclusion

These results demonstrate consistent efficacy in multiple secondary efficacy populations for patients with cUTI and AP who were treated with either ZTI-01 or PIP-TAZ. If approved by FDA, ZTI-01 may provide a new IV option with a differentiated MOA for patients in the United States with serious Gram-negative infections.

95% confidence intervals (CIs, two-sided) were computed using a continuity-corrected Zstatistic.

Disclosures

K. Kaye, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. L. B. Rice, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. V. Stus, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Investigator, Research support. O. Sagan, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Investigator, Research support. E. Fedosiuk, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Investigator, Research support. A. Das, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultant, Consulting fee. D. Skarinksy, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. P. B. Eckburg, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultant and Shareholder, Consulting fee. K. Manvelian, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. E. J. Ellis-Grosse, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc.: Employee and Shareholder, Salary.

Effect of Meropenem-Vaborbactam vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam on Clinical Cure or Improvement and Microbial Eradication in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection: The TANGO I Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Meropenem-vaborbactam is a combination carbapenem/beta-lactamase inhibitor and a potential treatment for severe drug-resistant gram-negative infections.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and adverse events of meropenem-vaborbactam in complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 3, multicenter, multinational, randomized clinical trial (TANGO I) conducted November 2014 to April 2016 and enrolling patients (≥18 years) with complicated UTI, stratified by infection type and geographic region.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive meropenem-vaborbactam (2g/2g over 3 hours; n = 274) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4g/0.5g over 30 minutes; n = 276) every 8 hours. After 15 or more doses, patients could be switched to oral levofloxacin if they met prespecified criteria for improvement, to complete 10 days of total treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary end point for FDA criteria was overall success (clinical cure or improvement and microbial eradication composite) at end of intravenous treatment in the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Primary end point for European Medicines Agency (EMA) criteria was microbial eradication at test-of-cure visit in the microbiologic modified ITT and microbiologic evaluable populations. Prespecified noninferiority margin was -15%. Because the protocol prespecified superiority testing in the event of noninferiority, 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 550 patients randomized, 545 received study drug (mean age, 52.8 years; 361 [66.2%] women; 374 [68.6%] in the microbiologic modified ITT population; 347 [63.7%] in the microbiologic evaluable population; 508 [93.2%] completed the trial). For the FDA primary end point, overall success occurred in 189 of 192 (98.4%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 171 of 182 (94.0%) with piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 4.5% [95% CI, 0.7% to 9.1%]; P < .001 for noninferiority). For the EMA primary end point, microbial eradication in the microbiologic modified ITT population occurred in 128 of 192 (66.7%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 105 of 182 (57.7%) with piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 9.0% [95% CI, -0.9% to 18.7%]; P < .001 for noninferiority); microbial eradication in the microbiologic evaluable population occurred in 118 of 178 (66.3%) vs 102 of 169 (60.4%) (difference, 5.9% [95% CI, -4.2% to 16.0%]; P < .001 for noninferiority). Adverse events were reported in 106 of 272 (39.0%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 97 of 273 (35.5%) with piperacillin-tazobactam.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with complicated UTI, including acute pyelonephritis and growth of a baseline pathogen, meropenem-vaborbactam vs piperacillin-tazobactam resulted in a composite outcome of complete resolution or improvement of symptoms along with microbial eradication that met the noninferiority criterion. Further research is needed to understand the spectrum of patients in whom meropenem-vaborbactam offers a clinical advantage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02166476.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first‑line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)

LBA348

Background: In the phase III AXIS trial, second-line therapy with axitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib for mRCC. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial to compare PFS of axitinib vs sorafenib as first-line therapy. Methods: Patients with untreated, measurable (RECIST v1.0), clear‑cell mRCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0 or 1 were randomized 2:1 to axitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. Randomization was stratified by PS. Primary endpoint was PFS per independent radiology committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 78% PFS improvement from 5.5 mo with sorafenib to 9.8 mo with axitinib, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.561 (overall 1-sided α=0.025). Results: Patients (N=288) were mainly from Eastern Europe (51%), Asia (25%), North America (14%), or South America (10%).Patient baseline characteristics for axitinib (n=192) vs sorafenib (n=96) included: median age, 58y vs 58y; male, 70% vs 77%; white, 71% vs 69%; favorable risk, 49% vs 55%; PS 0, 57% vs 57%; nephrectomy, 85% vs 90%. Median (m) PFS was 10.1 vs 6.5 mo with axitinib vs sorafenib (HR adjusted for PS, 0.767; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.559–1.053; 1‑sided P=0.0377). In patients with PS 0 and 1, respectively, mPFS with axitinib vs sorafenib was 13.7 vs 6.6 mo (HR, 0.644; 95% CI, 0.419–0.991; 1‑sided P=0.022) and 6.5 vs 6.4 mo (HR, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.585–1.482; 1‑sided P=0.38). Objective response rates (ORRs) with axitinib vs sorafenib were 32.3% vs 14.6% (1‑sided P=0.0006 adjusted for PS). Overall survival data were not mature. All-grade all‑causality adverse events (≥20%) with axitinib vs sorafenib were diarrhea (50% vs 40%), hypertension (49% vs 29%), weight decreased (37% vs 24%), fatigue (33% vs 26%), decreased appetite (29% vs 19%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (26% vs 39%), dysphonia (23% vs 10%), asthenia (21% vs 16%), and hypothyroidism (21% vs 7%). Conclusions: The study did not achieve its primary endpoint statistically, but axitinib demonstrated numerically longer mPFS and significantly higher ORR vs sorafenib, with an acceptable safety profile, as first-line therapy for mRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT00920816.