Pembrolizumab with or Without Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (LEAP-011): A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes With Two Different Starting Doses of Lenvatinib in Combination With Everolimus for Previously Treated Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560). PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments-FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L-which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose.

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Starting Doses of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The ORRwk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORRwk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used.

The patient perspective of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency: disease burden and unmet needs.

Three people with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) share their experiences of living with this rare, genetic condition. They reflect on living with AATD and its impact on their lives including inequality of access to treatment across Europe. https://bit.ly/3rrYS9s.

Protocol for the EARCO Registry: a pan-European observational study in patients with α1-antitrypsin deficiency.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is a genetic condition that leads to an increased risk of emphysema and liver disease. Despite extensive investigation, there remain unanswered questions concerning the natural history, pathophysiology, genetics and the prognosis of the lung disease in association with AATD. The European Alpha-1 Clinical Research Collaboration (EARCO) is designed to bring together researchers from European countries and to create a standardised database for the follow-up of patients with AATD. STUDY DESIGN AND POPULATION: The EARCO Registry is a non-interventional, multicentre, pan-European, longitudinal observational cohort study enrolling patients with AATD. Data will be collected prospectively without interference/modification of patient's management by the study team. The major inclusion criterion is diagnosed severe AATD, defined by an AAT serum level <11 µM (50 mg·dL-1) and/or a proteinase inhibitor genotype ZZ, SZ or compound heterozygotes or homozygotes of other rare deficient variants. Assessments at baseline and during the yearly follow-up visits include lung function testing (spirometry, body plethysmography and diffusing capacity of the lung), exercise capacity, blood tests and questionnaires (symptoms, quality of life and physical activity). To ensure correct data collection, there will be designated investigator staff to document the data in the case report form. All data will be reviewed by the EARCO database manager. SUMMARY: The EARCO Registry aims to understand the natural history and prognosis of AATD better with the goal to create and validate prognostic tools to support medical decision-making.

Research priorities in α1-antitrypsin deficiency: results of a patients' and healthcare providers' international survey from the EARCO Clinical Research Collaboration.

α1-antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is a rare and under-recognised genetic condition. Owing to its low prevalence, international initiatives are key for conducting high-quality research in the field. From July 2018 to December 2019, the European Alpha-1 Research Collaboration (EARCO) developed and conducted two surveys, one for healthcare providers and one for patients and caregivers, aiming to identify research priorities and barriers in access to treatment for AATD. A survey on 164 research questions was electronically sent to 230 AATD experts in Europe, and 94 completed surveys from 24 countries were received. The top research areas identified by healthcare providers were causes of variable progression and poor outcomes, improvement in diagnosis, initiation and optimal dosing of augmentation therapy and effectiveness of self-management interventions. During the same period, 438 surveys were completed by patients and caregivers from 26 countries. The top research areas identified were improving knowledge about AATD, in particular among general practitioners, access to AATD specialised centres and access to reliable, easy to understand information about living with AATD. Regarding barriers to treatment, participants from countries where augmentation therapy was reimbursed prioritised improving knowledge in AATD, while respondents in non-reimbursed countries regarded access to AATD augmentation therapy and to specialised centres as the most relevant. The main research and management priorities identified by healthcare providers and patients included understanding the natural history of AATD, improving information to physicians, improving access to specialised reference centres, personalising treatment and having equal opportunities for access to existing therapies.