Tivozanib 890microgram capsules

Objective: This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: A systematic review with frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of: cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + avelumab, and axitinib + pembrolizumab in previously untreated adult patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. Eligible studies were identified by two reviewers in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias for RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The P score was used to determine the treatment ranking. The mean probability of an event along with the relative measures of the NMA was considered with the treatment rankings. Results: A total of 13 RCTs were included in the systematic review and NMA. Sorafenib and tivozanib used as monotherapy were the best treatment options. Sorafenib achieved the highest P score for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), fatigue, nausea, vomiting of any grade, and hypertension of any grade or grade ≥3. Tivozanib achieved the highest P score for AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, and grade ≥3 diarrhea. Sunitinib was the best treatment option in terms of diarrhea and dysphonia of any grade, while cabozantinib, pazopanib, and axitinib + pembrolizumab–in terms of grade ≥3 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. TKIs used in combination were shown to have a poorer safety profile than those used as monotherapy. Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab was considered the worst option in terms of any AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, treatment discontinuation due to AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, fatigue of any grade, nausea, vomiting, and grade ≥3 nausea. Axitinib + avelumab was the worst treatment option in terms of dysphonia, grade ≥3 diarrhea, and hypertension, while cabozantinib + nivolumab was the worst option in terms of grade ≥3 vomiting. Interestingly, among the other safety endpoints, cabozantinib monotherapy had the lowest P score for diarrhea and hypertension of any grade. Conclusion: The general safety profile, including common AEs, is better when TKIs are used as monotherapy vs. in combination with immunological agents. To confirm these findings, further research is needed, including large RCTs.

Abstract licence: CC BY

OBJECTIVE: For patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the dose of targeted agents was recommended in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a network meta-analysis to describe a categorized safety ranking profile and assess the adaptability of the combination options of targeted agents. METHODS: The targeted agents refer to vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials comparing these drugs were enrolled in a Bayesian model network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen clinical trials with 11 treatments and 10,615 patients were included. For grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), compared with placebo, lenvatinib plus everolimus showed worse safety than all other treatments except for lenvatinib (placebo vs. OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.78). Everolimus was generally the safest agent (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.50-3.14). Sorafenib arose the least renal AEs (placebo vs. OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06-11.64), whereas lenvatinib plus everolimus had the highest risk of renal toxicity (placebo vs. 0.17 95% CI 0.01-1.02). For gastrointestinal symptoms, everolimus was related to much lower toxicity than other agents. In the respiratory safety analysis, tivozanib (placebo vs. OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.31) and axitinib (OR 5.43, 95% CI 3.26-9.22) were the riskiest agents. In terms of hepatobiliary (placebo vs. OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09-2.10) and hemotoxicity (placebo vs. OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.14-7.68) related AEs, lenvatinib was found to be the safest treatment compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus, with the best safety of grade ≥ 3, gastrointestinal, and respiratory AEs, was more likely to be considered for combination therapies. Lenvatinib appears to be the safest for blood/lymphatic and hepatobiliary AEs. For patients with renal disorders, sorafenib arises the least renal toxicity AEs. This study will guide treatment options and optimize the trial design for advanced or metastatic RCC.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression. Objectives: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Methods: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Results: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conclusions: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587. Funding: ; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) is a blanket term for a collection of heterogeneous and biologically diverse RCC histologies, including but not limited to papillary, chromophobe, and unclassified subtypes. Tivozanib is a selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that demonstrated activity in RCC with clear cell component. The objective of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of tivozanib in histologically unclassified/mixed RCC. METHODS: We identified patients with nccRCC enrolled in Study 201 (NCT00502307) between October 2007 and July 2008. This was a phase II randomized discontinuation trial of tivozanib in patients with RCC who had no prior VEGFR-targeted treatment. Clinical outcomes including investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR, defined by complete response + partial response + stable disease), and progression-free survival (PFS) were examined. RESULTS: Of the 272 patients enrolled, 46 (16.9%) patients had nccRCC: 11 (4%) papillary, 2 (0.7%) chromophobe, 2 (0.7%) collecting duct, and 31 (11.4%) mixed/unclassified. Of the 46 patients with nccRCC, 38 were continuously treated with tivozanib and the best ORR was 21.1% (confirmed) and 31.6% (confirmed and unconfirmed). The DCR was 73.7% and median PFS was 6.7 months (95% confidence interval, 125-366 days). There were no new safety signals compared to the ITT population. Limitations include the small number of individual nccRCC subtypes and the randomized discontinuation design. CONCLUSION: Tivozanib demonstrated activity and a favorable safety profile in patients with nccRCC. These data add to the body of evidence supporting the use of VEGFR-TKI in advanced nccRCC.

Abstract licence: CC BY

The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) against vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) has transformed the therapeutic landscape for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, dose reductions and interruptions are frequently needed due to limited toxicity, mostly from off-target effects. Tivozanib is a potent, selective VEGFR TKI with weak off-target effects. TIVO-1 and TIVO-3 were randomized controlled phase 3 trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy and after failing two previous lines (including targeted therapy), respectively. Tivozanib did not confer any survival advantage, but it significantly increased progression-free survival, response rates, and the duration of responses with a superior safety profile. Although results from subgroup analysis need to be interpreted cautiously, tivozanib demonstrated superiority after two previous lines of VEGFR TKIs or after axitinib, another selective VEGFR inhibitor. Tivozanib also demonstrated durable activity after therapy with an immune-checkpoint inhibitor, while an ongoing study investigating the combination of tivozanib/nivolumab has shown promising preliminary results regarding efficacy and safety. In conclusion, tivozanib was recently added to our therapeutic armamentarium against advanced RCC. Ongoing rational therapeutic combinations of tivozanib will determine the optimal setting in which the maximum benefit can be derived.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Long-term exploratory analyses from the TIVO-3 trial in relapsed/refractory (R/R) RCC including patients (26%) with prior immuno-oncology (IO) therapy are reported. METHODS: Patients with R/R advanced RCC that progressed with 2 or 3 prior systemic therapies (≥1 VEGFR TKI) were randomized to tivozanib 1.5 mg QD or sorafenib 400 mg BID, stratified by IMDC risk and previous therapy. Safety, investigator-assessed long-term progression-free survival (LT-PFS), and serial overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean time on treatment was 11.0 months with tivozanib (n = 175) and 6.3 months with sorafenib (n = 175). Fewer grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred with tivozanib (46%) than sorafenib (55%). Dose modification rates were lower with tivozanib than sorafenib across age/prior IO subgroups; prior IO therapy did not impact dose reductions or discontinuations in either arm. Landmark LT-PFS rates were higher with tivozanib (3 years: 12.3% vs 2.4%; 4 years: 7.6% vs 0%). After 22.8 months mean follow-up, the OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.14); when conditioned on 12-month landmark PFS, tivozanib showed significant OS improvement over sorafenib (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; 2-sided P = .0221). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and long-term survival benefit in patients with R/R advanced RCC who were alive and progression free at 12 months. These post hoc exploratory analyses of LT-PFS and conditional OS support a clinically meaningful improvement with tivozanib versus sorafenib in this advanced RCC population.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Background: Tivozanib, a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in a phase III clinical trials for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. However, comprehensive evaluation of its long-term safety profile in a large sample population remains elusive. The current study assessed Tivozanib-related adverse events of real-world through data mining of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Methods: Disproportionality analyses, utilizing reporting odds ratio proportional reporting ratio Bayesian confidence propagation neural network and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms, were conducted to quantify signals of Tivozanib-related AEs. Weibull distribution was used to predict the varying risk incidence of AEs over time. Results: Out of 5,361,420 reports collected from the FAERS database, 1,366 reports of Tivozanib-associated AEs were identified. A total of 94 significant disproportionality preferred terms (PTs) conforming to the four algorithms simultaneously were retained. The most common AEs included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, blood pressure increased, decreased appetite, and dysphonia, consistent with prior specifications and clinical trials. Unexpected significant AEs such as dyspnea, constipation, pain in extremity, stomatitis, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome was observed. The median onset time of Tivozanib-related AEs was 37 days (interquartile range [IQR] 11.75-91 days), with a majority (n = 127, 46.35%) occurring within the initial month following Tivozanib initiation. Conclusion: Our observations align with clinical assertions regarding Tivozanib's safety profile. Additionally, we unveil potential novel and unexpected AE signatures associated with Tivozanib administration, highlighting the imperative for prospective clinical studies to validate these findings and elucidate their causal relationships. These results furnish valuable evidence to steer future clinical inquiries aimed at elucidating the safety profile of Tivozanib.

Abstract licence: CC BY