Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with immune dysregulation and hyperinflammation, including elevated interleukin-6 levels. The use of tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor, has resulted in better outcomes in patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in case reports and retrospective observational cohort studies. Data are needed from randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio receive a single intravenous infusion of tocilizumab (at a dose of 8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. Approximately one quarter of the participants received a second dose of tocilizumab or placebo 8 to 24 hours after the first dose. The primary outcome was clinical status at day 28 on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (discharged or ready for discharge) to 7 (death) in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all the patients who had received at least one dose of tocilizumab or placebo. Results Of the 452 patients who underwent randomization, 438 (294 in the tocilizumab group and 144 in the placebo group) were included in the primary and secondary analyses. The median value for clinical status on the ordinal scale at day 28 was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 1.0) in the tocilizumab group and 2.0 (non-ICU hospitalization without supplemental oxygen) (95% CI, 1.0 to 4.0) in the placebo group (between-group difference, −1.0; 95% CI, −2.5 to 0; P=0.31 by the van Elteren test). In the safety population, serious adverse events occurred in 103 of 295 patients (34.9%) in the tocilizumab group and in 55 of 143 patients (38.5%) in the placebo group. Mortality at day 28 was 19.7% in the tocilizumab group and 19.4% in the placebo group (weighted difference, 0.3 percentage points (95% CI, –7.6 to 8.2; nominal P=0.94). Conclusions In this randomized trial involving hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia, the use of tocilizumab did not result in significantly better clinical status or lower mortality than placebo at 28 days. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche and the Department of Health and Human Services; COVACTA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04320615 .)

BACKGROUND COVID-19 is associated with immune dysregulation and hyperinflammation. Tocilizumab is an anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody. METHODS Patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia receiving standard care were randomized (2:1) to double-blinded intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo. The primary outcome measure was clinical status on a 7-category ordinal scale at day 28 (1, discharged/ready for discharge; 7, death). RESULTS Overall, 452 patients were randomized; the modified-intention-to-treat population included 294 tocilizumab-treated and 144 placebo-treated patients. Clinical status at day 28 was not statistically significantly improved for tocilizumab versus placebo (P=0.36). Median (95% CI) ordinal scale values at day 28: 1.0 (1.0 to 1.0) for tocilizumab and 2.0 (1.0 to 4.0) for placebo (odds ratio, 1.19 [0.81 to 1.76]). There was no difference in mortality at day 28 between tocilizumab (19.7%) and placebo (19.4%) (difference, 0.3% [95% CI, -7.6 to 8.2]; nominal P=0.94). Median time to hospital discharge was 8 days shorter with tocilizumab than placebo (20.0 and 28.0, respectively; nominal P=0.037; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.79]). Median duration of ICU stay was 5.8 days shorter with tocilizumab than placebo (9.8 and 15.5, respectively; nominal P=0.045). In the safety population, serious adverse events occurred in 34.9% of 295 patients in the tocilizumab arm and 38.5% of 143 in the placebo arm. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized placebo-controlled trial in hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients, tocilizumab did not improve clinical status or mortality. Potential benefits in time to hospital discharge and duration of ICU stay are being investigated in ongoing clinical trials.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

478 Background: The programmed death-1 inhibitor NIVO had durable responses and a manageable safety profile in pts with aHCC in CheckMate 040 (NCT01658878; El-Khoueiry et al. Lancet 2017) and is approved in the United States, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere for sorafenib (SOR)-treated pts with aHCC. In another CheckMate 040 cohort, NIVO + IPI combination therapy had durable responses in SOR-treated pts with aHCC, with objective response rates (ORRs) > 30% in each dosing arm (Yau et al. J Clin Oncol 2019). CABO is also approved for SOR-treated pts with aHCC; a pivotal phase 3 trial reported median overall survival (OS) of 10.2 mo (Abou-Alfa et al. N Engl J Med 2018). This is the first report of efficacy and safety of NIVO + CABO +/- IPI (doublet and triplet) combinations in pts with aHCC. Methods: SOR-naive or -experienced pts with aHCC were randomized to 2 arms: [1] NIVO 240 mg Q2W + CABO 40 mg daily or [2] NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + CABO 40 mg daily. Treatment continued until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. Primary endpoints included ORR (investigator assessed using RECIST v1.1) and safety/tolerability. Data cutoff was January 2019. Results: 71 pts were randomized to NIVO + CABO (n = 36) or NIVO + IPI + CABO (n = 35). Investigator-assessed ORR was 17% (6 pts with partial response [PR]) in the NIVO + CABO arm and 26% (9 pts with PR) in the NIVO + IPI + CABO arm. Disease control rate was 81% for the NIVO + CABO arm and 83% for the NIVO + IPI + CABO arm; median progression-free survival was 5.5 mo for the NIVO + CABO arm and 6.8 mo for the NIVO + IPI + CABO arm. Median OS was not reached in either arm. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 15 pts (42%) in the NIVO + CABO arm and 25 pts (71%) in the NIVO + IPI + CABO arm and led to discontinuation in 1 (3%) and 7 (20%) pts, respectively. No new safety signals were observed in either arm. Updated data describing the efficacy and safety of the combinations will be shown. Conclusions: In pts with aHCC, NIVO + CABO +/- IPI combination therapy led to clinically meaningful responses. Although the triplet had a higher rate of TRAEs observed than the doublet regimen, the majority of AEs were manageable and reversible. Clinical trial information: NCT01658878.

PURPOSE The role of maintenance therapy for gastric (GC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) is unclear. We investigated avelumab (anti–programmed death ligand-1 [PD-L1]) maintenance after first-line induction chemotherapy for GC/GEJC. PATIENTS AND METHODS JAVELIN Gastric 100 was a global, open-label, phase III trial. Eligible patients had untreated, unresectable, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, locally advanced or metastatic GC or GEJC. Patients without progressive disease after 12 weeks of first-line chemotherapy with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine were randomly assigned 1:1 to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or continued chemotherapy, stratified by region (Asia v non-Asia). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) after induction chemotherapy in all randomly assigned patients or the PD-L1–positive randomly assigned population (≥ 1% of tumor cells; 73-10 assay). RESULTS A total of 805 patients received induction; 499 were randomly assigned to avelumab (n = 249) or continued chemotherapy (n = 250). Median OS was 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.1 to 12.0 months) versus 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 12.4 months) and 24-month OS rate was 22.1% versus 15.5% with avelumab versus chemotherapy, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P = .1779). In the PD-L1–positive population (n = 54), the HR for OS was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.23; P = .6352). In an exploratory analysis of the PD-L1–positive population, defined as combined positive score ≥ 1 (22C3 assay; n = 137), median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI, 8.7 to 17.3 months) with avelumab versus 11.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 12.6 months) with chemotherapy (unstratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.05). With avelumab and chemotherapy, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 149 (61.3%) and 184 (77.3%) patients, including grade ≥ 3 TRAEs in 31 (12.8%) and 78 (32.8%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION JAVELIN Gastric 100 did not demonstrate superior OS with avelumab maintenance versus continued chemotherapy in patients with advanced GC or GEJC overall or in a prespecified PD-L1–positive population.

327 Background: Pts with aHCC and CPB liver status are often excluded from clinical trials of novel therapies due to their poor prognosis (Greten British J Cancer 2005). Historical overall survival (OS) for these pts when treated with sorafenib (SOR) has ranged ≈3–5 mo in retrospective or descriptive studies (Abou-Alfa Gastrointest Cancer Res 2011; Da Fonseca Mol Clin Oncol 2015; Pressiani Ann Oncol 2013; Chiu Cancer 2012); thus, novel treatment options are needed for these pts. The PD-1 inhibitor NIVO is approved in the US, Canada, and elsewhere, most recently Australia, for SOR-treated pts with aHCC based on results from CheckMate-040 (NCT01658878) (El-Khoueiry Lancet 2017). Here we report data from the CPB cohort of CheckMate-040, the first prospective study of immunotherapy in this pt group. Methods: Pts with CPB (B7–B8) aHCC who were SOR-naïve (n = 25) or -experienced (n = 24) received NIVO 240 mg IV for 30 min Q2W until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) (investigator assessed [INV], RECIST v1.1) and duration of response (DOR). Safety was assessed in all treated pts using NCI CTCAE v4.0. Results: Of 49 analyzed pts, 28 (57.1%) had vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. During a follow-up range of 6–18 mo, INV ORR was 10.2% with 5 pts responding; disease control rate (DCR) was 55.1%. Median (m) time to response was 2.7 mo and mDOR was 9.9 mo; 2 pts had ongoing responses at data cutoff. The mOS was 7.6 mo (mOS follow-up was 7.4 mo); mOS in SOR-naïve and -treated pts was 9.8 and 7.3 mo, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 25 (51%) pts; 4 (8.2%) pts had select hepatic TRAEs. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 2 pts (4.1%). NIVO safety profile in these pts appeared comparable to cohorts of pts with CPA aHCC. Comparison data for pts with CPA aHCC and extended follow-up for pts with CPB aHCC will be presented. Conclusions: Encouraging DCR and durable responses were observed in pts with CPB aHCC treated with NIVO. AEs were manageable and did not lead to higher discontinuation compared with pts with CPA aHCC. NIVO showed promising efficacy and tolerability compared with historical data, supporting further investigation. Clinical trial information: NCT01658878.

278 Background: We report the primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 100, which compared avelumab (anti–PD-L1) maintenance after 1L CTx vs continued CTx in patients (pts) with GC/GEJC. Methods: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT02625610), eligible pts had previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced/metastatic (LA/M) HER2− GC/GEJC. Pts without progressive disease (PD) after 12 weeks of 1L oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine induction were randomized 1:1 to avelumab 10 mg/kg Q2W switch maintenance or continued CTx, stratified by region (Asia vs non-Asia). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) post induction in all randomized or PD-L1+ (≥1% of tumor cells, 73-10 assay) pts. Results: 805 pts received induction CTx and 499 pts were randomized (avelumab, n = 249; CTx, n = 250). At data cutoff (Sep 13, 2019), minimum follow-up was 18 months. In the avelumab and CTx arms, median OS post induction/randomization was 10.4 months (95% CI 9.1-12.0) vs 10.9 months (95% CI 9.6-12.4), hazard ratio (HR) 0.91 (95% CI 0.74-1.11; p = 0.1779); 24-month OS rates were 22.1% (95% CI 16.8-28.0) vs 15.5% (95% CI 10.8-20.9), respectively. The HR for OS in PD-L1+ pts (n = 54) was 1.13 (95% CI 0.57-2.23). No OS trend was seen in Asian pts (n = 114; HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.59-1.36]) or other subgroups, except for a potential benefit with avelumab in pts with no metastatic sites at randomization (n = 60; HR 0.52 [95% CI 0.28-0.98]). Progression-free survival was similar between arms (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.85-1.28]). In the avelumab vs CTx arms, objective response rates (post randomization only) were 13.3% (95% CI 9.3-18.1) vs 14.4% (95% CI 10.3-19.4), and 12-month rates for duration of response were 62.3% (95% CI 40.9-77.9) vs 28.4% (95% CI 13.2-45.7), respectively. Treatment-related adverse event rates (all grades/grade ≥3) were 61.3%/12.8% with avelumab and 77.3%/32.8% with CTx. Conclusions: Avelumab maintenance showed clinical activity and favorable safety vs continued CTx in pts with LA/M GE/GEJC; however, JAVELIN Gastric 100 did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating superior OS in the randomized or PD-L1+ population. Clinical trial information: NCT02625610.

Background The first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate TAK-264 (formerly MLN0264) consists of an antibody targeting guanylyl cyclase C (GCC) conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) via a peptide linker. This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of TAK-264 in patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction expressing GCC, who had progressed on ≥1 line of prior therapy. Methods This study used a two-stage design, with an interim analysis conducted after stage I to determine whether to continue to stage II or discontinue on the grounds of futility. Adult patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma expressing low, intermediate, or high GCC levels received TAK-264 1.8 mg/kg as a 30-min intravenous infusion once every 21 days, for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Radiographic assessments of tumor burden were performed every 2 cycles (6 weeks). Results A total of 38 patients participated in the study. Patients received a median of 2 (range 1-14) cycles; 8 (21%) received at least 6 cycles. The most common adverse events were nausea (53%), fatigue (32%), and decreased appetite (29%). Grade ≥3 events including anemia, diarrhea, and neutropenia were seen in 14 (37%) patients. Systemic exposure to TAK-264 was maintained throughout each treatment cycle. Two patients (6%) with intermediate GCC expression had objective responses. Conclusions TAK-264 demonstrated a manageable safety profile in this patient population. The stage I interim analysis did not support continuation to stage II of the study.