This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research article
Yingying Tang
Ningbo No 2 Hospital
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Currently, nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy in cancer treatment.
Methods: We examined data from PubMed, Web of science, EBSCO and Cochrane library. Eleven articles fulfilled our criteria, which we divided into 3 groups; nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab, nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab and nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3) versus nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1). We measured the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR) and TRAEs in any grade and grade 3 or higher.
Results: Compared with ipilimumab alone, the combined immunotherapy had better CR (RR: 4.89, p <0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, p <0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, p <0.001). The overall effect estimate favored the combined immunotherapy group in terms of the ORR (RR: 1.40, p <0.001) and PR (RR: 1.50, p <0.001) than nivolumab alone. Finally, N1I3 showed better PR (RR: 1.35, p =0.006) and ORR (RR: 1.21, p =0.03) than N3I1. The incidence of any TRAEs was similar between the both groups (RR: 1.05, p =0.06). However, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were lower in group N3I1 than group N1I3 (RR: 1.51, p <0.001).
Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that the curative effect of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was better than that of ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy. In the combination group, N1I3 combination was more effective than N3I1. Although the side effects were slightly increased in group N1I3, the overall safety was acceptable.
Keywords
Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, Tumor response, Adverse events, Meta-analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 12 Mar, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint. It has not completed peer review.
Research article
Yingying Tang
Ningbo No 2 Hospital
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 12 Mar, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Currently, nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy in cancer treatment.
Methods: We examined data from PubMed, Web of science, EBSCO and Cochrane library. Eleven articles fulfilled our criteria, which we divided into 3 groups; nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab, nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab and nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3) versus nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1). We measured the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR) and TRAEs in any grade and grade 3 or higher.
Results: Compared with ipilimumab alone, the combined immunotherapy had better CR (RR: 4.89, p <0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, p <0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, p <0.001). The overall effect estimate favored the combined immunotherapy group in terms of the ORR (RR: 1.40, p <0.001) and PR (RR: 1.50, p <0.001) than nivolumab alone. Finally, N1I3 showed better PR (RR: 1.35, p =0.006) and ORR (RR: 1.21, p =0.03) than N3I1. The incidence of any TRAEs was similar between the both groups (RR: 1.05, p =0.06). However, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were lower in group N3I1 than group N1I3 (RR: 1.51, p <0.001).
Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that the curative effect of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was better than that of ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy. In the combination group, N1I3 combination was more effective than N3I1. Although the side effects were slightly increased in group N1I3, the overall safety was acceptable.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Loading...