Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Jul 3;18(1):150.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-01933-5.

The efficacy and safety of combined immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab plus ipilimumab): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jingjie Chen  1   2   3 , Shengnan Li  4 , Qigu Yao  5 , Nannan Du  4 , Xiaojun Fu  1 , Yuanmei Lou  6 , Mengru Wang  7 , Feiyan Mao  1 , Danyi Mao  8 , Parikshit Asutosh Khadaroo  9 , Yingying Tang  10
Affiliations
Review

The efficacy and safety of combined immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab plus ipilimumab): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jingjie Chen et al. World J Surg Oncol. .

Abstract

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 plus ipilimumab 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 plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab (the dose used for monotherapy is 3 mg/kg), nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab (the dose used for monotherapy is 3 mg/kg), 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: 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. Compared with ipilimumab alone, the combined immunotherapy group had better CR (RR: 4.89, p < 0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, p < 0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, p < 0.001). 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 both groups (RR: 1.05, p = 0.06). However, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) was 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 nivolumab or ipilimumab monotherapy. In the combined immunotherapy group, N1I3 was more effective than N3I1. Although the side effects were slightly increased in N1I3 group, overall safety was acceptable.

Keywords: Adverse events; Ipilimumab; Meta-analysis; Nivolumab; Tumor response.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Forest plot of the overall effect between nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and ipilimumab alone. a Complete response (CR). b Partial response (PR). c Objective response rate (ORR)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot of the adverse events between nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and ipilimumab alone. a Any grade TRAEs. b Grade 3 or higher TRAEs
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of the overall effect between nivolumab-ipilimumab combined therapy and nivolumab monotherapy. a Complete response (CR). b Partial response (PR). c Objective response rate (ORR)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot of the adverse events between nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and nivolumab alone. a Any grade TRAEs. b Grade 3 or higher TRAEs
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot of the overall effect of the nivolumab-ipilimumab group therapy (N1I3 versus N3I1). a Complete response (CR). b Partial response (PR). c Objective response rate (ORR)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot of the adverse events of the nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (N1I3 versus N3I1). a Any grade TRAEs. b Grade 3 or higher TRAEs
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Rowshanravan B, Halliday N: CTLA-4: a moving target in immunotherapy. 2018, 131(1):58-67. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fife BT, Bluestone JA. Control of peripheral T-cell tolerance and autoimmunity via the CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways. Immunological reviews. 2008;224:166–182. - PubMed
    1. Stamper CC, Zhang Y, Tobin JF, Erbe DV, Ikemizu S, Davis SJ, Stahl ML, Seehra J, Somers WS, Mosyak L. Crystal structure of the B7-1/CTLA-4 complex that inhibits human immune responses. Nature. 2001;410(6828):608–611. - PubMed
    1. Wing K, Onishi Y, Prieto-Martin P, Yamaguchi T, Miyara M, Fehervari Z, Nomura T, Sakaguchi S. CTLA-4 control over Foxp3+ regulatory T cell function. Science (New York, NY) 2008;322(5899):271–275. - PubMed
    1. Hayashi H, Nakagawa K. Combination therapy with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors for cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2019. - PubMed