Comparative safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis
Open Access
- 8 November 2018
- Vol. 363, k4226
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4226
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer. DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published in English between January 2007 and February 2018. REVIEW METHODS Only head-to-head phase II and III randomised controlled trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments or different doses of the same ICI drug were included: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, atezolizumab, conventional therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and their combinations), two ICI drugs, or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Eligible studies must have reported site, organ, or system level data on treatment related adverse events. High quality, single arm trials and placebo controlled trials on ICI drugs were selected to establish a validation group. RESULTS 36 head-to-head phase II and III randomised trials (n=15 370) were included. The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for all adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (probability 76%, pooled incidence 66.4%), nivolumab (56%, 71.8%), pembrolizumab (55%, 75.1%), ipilimumab (55%, 86.8%), and tremelimumab (54%, not applicable). The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for severe or life threatening adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (49%, 15.1%), nivolumab (46%, 14.1%), pembrolizumab (72%, 19.8%), ipilimumab (51%, 28.6%), and tremelimumab (28%, not applicable). Compared with conventional therapy, treatment-related adverse events for ICI drugs occurred mainly in the skin, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary systems. Taking one ICI drug was generally safer than taking two ICI drugs or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Among the five ICI drugs, atezolizumab had the highest risk of hypothyroidism, nausea, and vomiting. The predominant treatmentrelated adverse events for pembrolizumab were arthralgia, pneumonitis, and hepatic toxicities. The main treatment-related adverse events for ipilimumab were skin, gastrointestinal, and renal toxicities. Nivolumab had a narrow and mild toxicity spectrum, mainly causing endocrine toxicities. Integrated evidence from the pooled incidences, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses implied that nivolumab is the best option in terms of safety, especially for the treatment of lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS Compared with other ICI drugs used to treat cancer, atezolizumab had the best safety profile in general, and nivolumab had the best safety profile in lung cancer when taking an integrated approach. The safety ranking of treatments based on ICI drugs is modulated by specific treatment-related adverse events. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42017082553.This publication has 77 references indexed in Scilit:
- Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATAPLOS ONE, 2013
- Safety, Activity, and Immune Correlates of Anti–PD-1 Antibody in CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Ipilimumab in Combination With Paclitaxel and Carboplatin As First-Line Treatment in Stage IIIB/IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Phase II StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2012
- A prospective phase II trial exploring the association between tumor microenvironment biomarkers and clinical activity of ipilimumab in advanced melanomaJournal of Translational Medicine, 2011
- Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a multicenter single-arm phase II studyAnnals Of Oncology, 2010
- A phase II multicenter study of ipilimumab with or without dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced melanomaInvestigational New Drugs, 2010
- Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic dataBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2009
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996