Adjuvant PD-1 inhibitor versus high-dose interferon α-2b for Chinese patients with cutaneous and acral melanoma: A retrospective cohort analysis.

e21516 Background: The clinical efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors as an adjuvant treatment for Asian melanoma patients has not yet been determined. Methods: Thus, this single-centre, retrospective study analysed the clinical data of 90 Chinese patients with completely resected, stage III cutaneous or acral melanoma who received either adjuvant PD-1 inhibitor or high-dose interferon α-2b (HDI). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control baseline differences between the two treatment groups. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the secondary end points included distance metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and incidence of first distant metastatic sites. Results: Anti-PD-1 treatment resulted in significantly longer RFS (18-month RFS, 53.3% versus 26.7%; 95% CI, 0.097-0.975; P < 0.05) and DMFS (18-month DMFS, 70.9% versus 46.1%; 95% CI, 0.13-0.945; P < 0.05) than HDI in cutaneous melanoma patients. However, adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment had no advantage over HDI in acral melanoma patients (18-month RFS, 30.0% versus 35.9%; P > 0.05; 18-month DMFS, 36.5% versus 63.6%; P > 0.05). The incidence of lung metastasis at first in the anti-PD-1 group was found to be significantly lower (12.5% versus 48.5%; P < 0.05) in cutaneous melanoma patients than in acral melanoma patients, but no difference in metastatic sites were observed between the two treatment groups among acral melanoma patients. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was similar between the two treatment groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment was well tolerated and yielded a significantly better prognosis than HDI in Chinese patients with stage IIIB/C cutaneous melanoma, but a significant difference was not observed in those with acral melanoma.

An investigation into the beneficial effects of high-dose interferon beta 1-a, compared to low-dose interferon beta 1-a (the base therapeutic regimen) in moderate to severe COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled l trial

Objectives We will investigate the effectiveness of high dose Interferon Beta 1a, compared to low dose Interferon Beta 1a (the base therapeutic regimen) in COVID-19 Confirmed Cases (Either RT-PCR or CT Scan Confirmed) with moderate to severe disease Trial Design This is a single center, open label, randomized, controlled, 2-arm parallel group (1:1 ratio), clinical trial. Participants The eligibility criteria in this study is: age ≥ 18 years, oxygen saturation (SPO2) ≤ 93% or respiratory rate ≥ 24, at least one of the following manifestation: radiation contactless body temperature ≥37.8, Cough, shortness of breath, nasal congestion/ discharge, myalgia/arthralgia, diarrhea/vomiting, headache or fatigue on admission. The onset of the symptoms should be acute (≤ 14 days). The exclusion criteria include refusal to participate, using drugs with potential interaction with lopinavir/ritonavir or interferon-β 1a, blood ALT/AST levels > 5 times the upper limit of normal on laboratory results, pregnant or lactating women, history of alcohol or drug addiction in the past 5 years, the patients who be intubated less than one hours after admission to hospital. This study will be undertaken at the Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Intervention and Comparator COVID- 19 confirmed patients (using the RT-PCR test or CT scan) will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. The intervention group (Arms1) will be treated with lopinavir / ritonavir (Kaletra) + high dose Interferon-β 1a (Recigen) and the control group will be treated with lopinavir / ritonavir (Kaletra) + low dose Interferon-β 1a (Recigen) (the base therapeutic regimen). Both groups will receive standard care consisting of the necessary oxygen support, non-invasive, or invasive mechanical ventilation. Main outcomes Primary outcome: Time to clinical improvement is our primary outcome measure. This is an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale (recommended by the World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) R&D. Geneva: World Health Organization) or discharge from the hospital, whichever comes first. Secondary outcomes: mortality from the date of randomization until the last day of the study which will be the day all of the patients have had at least one of the following outcomes: 1) Improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale. 2) Discharge from the hospital 3) Death. Improvement of SPO2 during the hospitalization, duration of hospitalization from date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or death, whichever comes first. The incidence of new mechanical ventilation uses from the date of randomization until the last day of the study and the duration of it will be extracted. Please note that we are trying to add further secondary outcomes and this section of the protocol is still evolving. Randomization Eligible patients with confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infections will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two therapeutic arms using permuted, block-randomization to balance the number of patients allocated to each group. The permuted block (three or six patients per block) randomization sequence will be generated, using Package ‘randomizeR’ in R software version 3.6.1. and placed in individual sealed and opaque envelopes by the statistician. The investigator will enroll the patients and only then open envelopes to assign patients to the different treatment groups. This method of allocation concealment will result in minimum selection and confounding biases. Blinding (Masking) The present research is open-label (no masking) of patients and health care professionals who are undertaking outcome assessment of the primary outcome - time to clinical improvement. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) Of the 100 patients randomised, 50 patients will be assigned to receive high dose Interferon beta-1a plus lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra), 50 patients will be assigned to receive low dose Interferon beta 1a plus lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra). Trial Status Protocol version 1.2.1. Recruitment is finished, the start date of recruitment was on August 20th 2020, and the end date was on September 4th 2020. Last point of data collection will be the last day on which all of the 100 participants have had an outcome of clinical improvement or death, up to 14th days after hospitalization. Trial registration This study was registered with National Institutes of Health Clinical trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov; identification number NCT04521400, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04521400, registered August 18, 2020 and first available online August 20, 2020). Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Phase III Study of Adjuvant Ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) Versus High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b for Resected High-Risk Melanoma: North American Intergroup E1609

PURPOSE Phase III adjuvant trials have reported significant benefits in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for high-dose interferon alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10). E1609 evaluated the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and ipi10 versus HDI. PATIENTS AND METHODS E1609 was a phase III trial in patients with resected cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage IIIB, IIIC, M1a, or M1b). It had 2 coprimary end points: OS and RFS. A 2-step hierarchic approach first evaluated ipi3 versus HDI followed by ipi10 versus HDI. RESULTS Between May 2011 and August 2014, 1,670 adult patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to ipi3 (n = 523), HDI (n = 636), or ipi10 (n = 511). Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 occurred in 37% of patients receiving ipi3, 79% receiving HDI, and 58% receiving ipi10, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 35%, 20%, and 54%, respectively. Comparison of ipi3 versus HDI used an intent-to-treat analysis of concurrently randomly assigned patient cases (n = 1,051) and showed significant OS difference in favor of ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95.6% repeated CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .044; RFS: HR, 0.85; 99.4% CI, 0.66 to 1.09; P = .065). In the second step, for ipi10 versus HDI (n = 989), trends in favor of ipi10 did not achieve statistical significance. Salvage patterns after melanoma relapse showed significantly higher rates of ipilimumab and ipilimumab/anti–programmed death 1 use in the HDI arm versus ipi3 and ipi10 ( P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION Adjuvant therapy with ipi3 benefits survival versus HDI; for the first time to our knowledge in melanoma adjuvant therapy, E1609 has demonstrated a significant improvement in OS against an active control regimen. The currently approved adjuvant ipilimumab dose (ipi10) was more toxic and not superior in efficacy to HDI.