Background: The use of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab as monotherapies or in combination has transformed the management of advanced melanoma even though these drugs are associated with a new profile of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The incidence of irAEs from clinical trials of these agents is an important factor for clinicians when treating patients with advanced melanoma. In the current study, we aimed to profile the incidence of potential irAEs of these agents when used as monotherapy and as combination therapy. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases; clinicaltrials.gov; and websites of regulatory agencies in the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan for phase 1-3 trials of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab for advanced melanoma. Random effect meta-analysis was utilized to profile the incidence of potential irAEs. Results: A total of 58 reports of 35 trials including 6,331 patients with advanced melanoma and reporting irAE data were included in the meta-analyses. We found higher incidences of potential irAEs in combination therapies vs. monotherapies for most of the types of irAEs. Among the monotherapies, ipilimumab users had the most frequent incidence of potential irAEs related to the gastrointestinal system (diarrhea, 29%; and colitis, 8%) and skin (rash, 31%; pruritus, 27%; and dermatitis, 10%), with hypophysitis in 4% of the patients. The most frequent potential irAEs among nivolumab users were maculopapular rash (13%), erythema (4%), hepatitis (3%), and infusion-related reactions (3%), while they were arthralgia (12%), hypothyroidism (8%), and hyperglycemia (6%), among pembrolizumab users. Almutairi et al. Immune-Related Adverse Events of Immunotherapies in Melanoma Conclusion: Especially the combination therapies tend to elevate the incidence of potential irAEs. Clinicians should be vigilant about irAEs following combination therapy as well as gastrointestinal and skin irAEs following ipilimumab therapy, in addition to being aware of potential irAEs leading to hyperglycemia, thyroid, hepatic, and musculoskeletal disorders following nivolumab and pembrolizumab therapy.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE A phase 2 trial comparing talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab vs ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma found no differential benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) but noted objective response rates (ORRs) of 38.8% (38 of 98 patients) vs 18.0% (18 of 100 patients), respectively. OBJECTIVE To perform an economic evaluation of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab combination therapy vs ipilimumab monotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS For PFS, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses using a 2-state Markov model (PFS vs progression or death) was performed. For ORRs, cost-effectiveness analysis of the incremental cost of 1 additional patient achieving objective response was performed. In this setting based on a US payer perspective (2017 US dollars), participants were patients with advanced unresectable melanoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The PFS life-years and PFS quality-adjusted life-years were determined, and the associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were estimated. Also estimated was the ICER per 1 additional patient (out of 100 treated patients) achieving objective response. Base-case analyses were validated by sensitivity analyses.

Background: The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have shown that glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) have varying degrees of cardiovascular (CV) safety in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM.) The lack of any head-to-head comparative trials among GLP1RAs urged the need for an indirect comparison of these agents. Therefore, this study was conducted to indirectly compare the CV safety and mortality effects among different GLP1RAs in patients with T2DM using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: Medline was searched to identify GLP1RA CVOTs to date. The outcomes of interest were CV death, myocardial infarction (IM), stroke, and death from any cause. An NMA with binomial likelihood logit link model was used for the binary outcomes. We conducted both fixed effects and random effects models for each outcome, and selected the best model based on the deviance information and the average posterior residual deviance. This NMA was reported in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA-NMA). Results: A total of seven GLP1RA CVOTs were included having 56,004 patients. The NMA results showed that oral semaglutide was statistically better than exenatide (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21-0.99), dulaglutide (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-0.97), albiglutide (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19-0.97), lixisenatide (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.92) in reducing CV death events. No significant differences were detected between most of the treatments regarding reducing death from any cause, MI and stroke events. The ranking results showed that oral semaglutide had the highest probability to be ranked first (> 90%) in reducing CV death and death from any cause. Moreover, once weekly semaglutide had the highest probability to be ranked first in reducing MI and stroke events. Conclusion: The GLP1RAs have shown significant benefits in terms of CV safety. The indirect comparison and ranking probability results have shown that one weekly semaglutide and oral semaglutide seems to be the preferred option in patients with T2DM and established or at high risk of CVD. This result can aid health care providers, pharmacy and therapeutics committees in hospitals, and insurance companies when deciding which GLP1RA to start or add to their formulary.

BackgroundPrevious reports suggest that the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might have affected incidences of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and new diagnoses of type 1 diabetes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the risk of DKA, including severe DKA, during the COVID-19 pandemic versus the prior-to-COVID-19 period among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE were searched for observational studies investigating the risk of DKA among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the prior-to-COVID-19 period. A random meta-analysis model was performed to estimate the relative risk of DKA during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type 1 diabetes status, established or newly diagnosed. In addition, sensitivity analysis was conducted for studies that reported results from adjusted analysis for potential confounders using fixed effect model.ResultsA total of 20 observational studies reported the risk of DKA, of which 18 reported the risk of severe DKA. The risks of DKA and severe DKA were 35% (RR 1.35, 95%CI 1.2-1.53, I2 = 71%) and 76% (RR 1.76, 95%CI 1.33-2.33, I2 = 44%) higher in the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group, respectively. Among patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes, the risk of DKA was 44% higher for the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group (RR 1.44, 95%CI 1.26-1.65; I2 = 64%). Only two studies reported the risk of DKA among patients with established type 1 diabetes and the cumulative risk was not statistically significant. In the sensitivity analysis, four studies reported an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of the risk of DKA during COVID-19 compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 period. The fixed estimate from the meta-analysis found an increase in the risk of DKA in the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group (aOR 2.04, 95%CI 1.66-2.50).ConclusionsThis study showed that DKA risk, especially the risk of severe DKA, has increased significantly during the pandemic. Healthcare systems must be aware and prepared for such an increase in DKA cases and take all necessary measures to prevent future spikes during the pandemic.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=272775, identifier PROSPERO [CRD42021272775].

No abstract

Tirzepatide is a new glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) that has shown promising results for weight loss. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of GLP-1RAs for obesity management. Embase and MEDLINE were searched looking for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of GLP-1RAs for weight loss in patients without diabetes. The main efficacy outcomes evaluated were the mean change in actual and percentage weight loss and the proportion of patients with weight loss of ≥5%-20%. Main safety outcomes evaluated include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, loss of appetite, pancreatitis, gallbladder-related disorders, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Seven RCTs with more than 12,300 patients were analyzed, including patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m 2 , or BMI ≥ 27 kg/m 2 with comorbidities. Weekly tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg resulted in more weight loss than weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg, daily semaglutide 0.4 mg, or liraglutide 3 mg. Tirzepatide and weekly semaglutide demonstrated comparable results but with significantly higher odds of achieving ≥5%-20% weight loss compared with liraglutide.GLP-1RAs triggered more gastrointestinal adverse events than placebo, with no in-between difference. Although all GLP-1RAs lead to significant weight reduction, tirzepatide was associated with better efficacy outcomes while having a comparable safety profile.

No abstract