-
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2023Glioblastoma (GBM) is characterized by aggressive growth and high rates of recurrence. Despite the advancements in conventional therapies, the prognosis for GBM patients... (Review)
Review
Glioblastoma (GBM) is characterized by aggressive growth and high rates of recurrence. Despite the advancements in conventional therapies, the prognosis for GBM patients remains poor. Immunotherapy has recently emerged as a potential treatment option. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current strategies and future perspectives of the GBM immunotherapy strategies. A systematic search was conducted across major medical databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) up to 3 September 2023. The search strategy utilized relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to "glioblastomas," "immunotherapies," and "treatment." The studies included in this review consist of randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies reporting on the use of immunotherapies for the treatment of gliomas in human subjects. A total of 1588 papers are initially identified. Eligibility is confirmed for 752 articles, while 655 are excluded for various reasons, including irrelevance to the research topic (627), insufficient method and results details (12), and being case-series or cohort studies (22), systematic literature reviews, or meta-analyses (3). All the studies within the systematic review were clinical trials spanning from 1995 to 2023, involving 6383 patients. Neuro-oncology published the most glioma immunotherapy-related clinical trials (15/97, 16%). Most studies were released between 2018 and 2022, averaging nine publications annually during this period. Adoptive cellular transfer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells were the primary focus in 11% of the studies, with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), oncolytic viruses (OVs), and cancer vaccines (CVs) comprising 26%, 12%, and 51%, respectively. Phase-I trials constituted the majority at 51%, while phase-III trials were only 7% of the total. Among these trials, 60% were single arm, 39% double arm, and one multi-arm. Immunotherapies were predominantly employed for recurrent GBM (55%). The review also revealed ongoing clinical trials, including 9 on ICIs, 7 on CVs, 10 on OVs, and 8 on CAR T cells, totaling 34 trials, with phase-I trials representing the majority at 53%, and only one in phase III. Overcoming immunotolerance, stimulating robust tumor antigen responses, and countering immunosuppressive microenvironment mechanisms are critical for curative GBM immunotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors, show promise, with the ongoing research aiming to enhance their effectiveness. Personalized cancer vaccines, especially targeting neoantigens, offer substantial potential. Oncolytic viruses exhibited dual mechanisms and a breakthrough status in the clinical trials. CAR T-cell therapy, engineered for specific antigen targeting, yields encouraging results, particularly against IL13 Rα2 and EGFRvIII. The development of second-generation CAR T cells with improved specificity exemplifies their adaptability.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Cancer Vaccines; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Glioma; Immunotherapy; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Brain Neoplasms; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 37894718
DOI: 10.3390/ijms242015037 -
Cancer Research and Treatment Jul 2023We intend to evaluate the efficacy of salvage treatments for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) through meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of Salvage Treatments in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Including Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
PURPOSE
We intend to evaluate the efficacy of salvage treatments for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) through meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
R/R DLBCL trials were divided into two groups based on eligibility for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT), and meta-analysis of each group was performed. Random effects models were used to estimate the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was used as reference treatment.
RESULTS
Twenty-six ASCT-eligible cohorts from 17 studies comprising 2,924 patients and 59 ASCT-ineligible cohorts from 53 studies comprising 3,617 patients were included in the pooled analysis. In the ASCT-eligible group, the pooled 1-year PFS rate was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.65) for the CAR T-cell group and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.37) for the group with chemotherapy followed by ASCT intention. The two treatments were not significantly different in meta-regression analysis. In the ASCT-ineligible group, the pooled 1-year PFS was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.46) for CAR T-cell, and the highest primary outcome was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.57) for the tafasitamab group. CAR T-cell therapy showed significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy and therapies based on ibrutinib, lenalidomide, and selinexor. However, loncastuximab, polatuzumab plus bendamustine and rituximab, and the tafasitamab group showed no different efficacy than CAR T-cell therapy after adjusting for median number of previous lines of treatment.
CONCLUSION
Although several regimens were crudely grouped for classification, CAR T-cell therapy did not outperform chemotherapy followed by ASCT in the second-line setting or several recently developed agents in the ASCT-ineligible setting.
Topics: Humans; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Combined Modality Therapy; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Salvage Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse
PubMed: 36915243
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2022.1658 -
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Jan 2024Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies, including axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), are innovative treatments for patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies, including axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), are innovative treatments for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Following initial regulatory approvals, real-world evidence (RWE) of clinical outcomes with these therapies has been accumulating rapidly. Notably, several large registry studies have been published recently. Here we comprehensively describe clinical outcomes with approved CAR-T therapies in patients with r/r LBCL using available RWE. We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and 15 conference proceedings to identify studies published between 2017 and July 2022 that included ≥10 patients with r/r LBCL treated with commercially available CAR-T therapies. Eligible study designs were retrospective or prospective observational studies. Key outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to compare real-world outcomes with those of pivotal clinical trials and to compare clinical outcomes associated with axi-cel and tisa-cel. Study cohort mapping was conducted to avoid including patients more than once. Of 76 cohorts we identified, 46 reported patients treated specifically with either axi-cel or tisa-cel, with 39 cohorts (n = 2754 patients) including axi-cel and 20 (n = 1649) including tisa-cel. No studies of liso-cel that met the inclusion criteria were identified during the search period. One-half of the tisa-cel cohorts were European, compared with 33% of the axi-cel cohorts. Among studies with available data, axi-cel had a significantly shorter median time from apheresis to CAR-T infusion than tisa-cel. Despite including broader patient populations, real-world effectiveness and safety of both axi-cel and tisa-cel were consistent with data from the pivotal clinical trials. Comparative meta-analysis of axi-cel versus tisa-cel demonstrated adjusted hazard ratios for OS and PFS of .60 (95% confidence interval [CI], .47 to .77) and .67 (95% CI, .57 to .78), respectively, both in favor of axi-cel. Odds ratios (ORs) for ORR and CR rate, both favoring axi-cel over tisa-cel, were 2.05 (95% CI, 1.76 to 2.40) and 1.70 (95% CI, 1.46 to 1.96), respectively. The probability of grade ≥3 CRS was comparable with axi-cel and tisa-cel, whereas axi-cel was associated with a higher incidence of grade ≥3 ICANS (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 3.05 to 5.11). Our meta-analysis indicates that CAR-T therapies have manageable safety profiles and are effective in a wide range of patients with r/r LBCL, and that axi-cel is associated with improved OS and PFS and increased risk of grade ≥3 ICANS compared with tisa-cel. Limitations of this study include nonrandomized treatments, potential unknown prognostic factors, and the lack of available real-world data for liso-cel.
Topics: Humans; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Observational Studies as Topic; Pathologic Complete Response; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Retrospective Studies; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 37890589
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2023.10.017 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Dec 2023A registered (PROSPERO - CRD42022346462) systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of all-grade infections amongst adult patients receiving CAR-T therapy for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A registered (PROSPERO - CRD42022346462) systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of all-grade infections amongst adult patients receiving CAR-T therapy for haematological malignancy. Meta-analysis of pooled incidence, using random effects model, was conducted. Cochran's Q test examined heterogeneity. 2678 patients across 33 studies were included in the primary outcome. Forty-percent of patients (95% CI: 0.33 - 0.48) experienced an infection of any grade. Twenty-five percent of infection events (95% CI: 0.16 - 0.34) were severe. Late infections were as common as early infections (IRR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.38 - 1.98). All-grade infections, bacterial and viral infections were highest in myeloma patients at 57%, 37% and 28% respectively. Patients with NHL more commonly experienced late infections. Pooled rate of invasive candidiasis/yeast infections was 2% in studies utilizing anti-yeast prophylaxis. This review identified a high rate of all-grade infections, moderate rate of severe infections, and myeloma as a high-risk haematological group.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hematology
PubMed: 37739146
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104134 -
The Lancet. Microbe Nov 2023Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy.
FINDINGS
We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1.
INTERPRETATION
Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19.
FUNDING
The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Australia; Treatment Outcome; Antibodies, Monoclonal
PubMed: 37924835
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00194-5 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2023Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivir monotherapy and combination therapy with that of control drugs.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs and 32 observational studies were included in the analysis. Regarding the primary outcome, remdesivir use reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.48,0.68)) and shortened the time to clinical improvement (MD = -2.51, 95% CI (-2.75, -2.28)). Regarding other clinical outcomes, remdesivir use was associated with improved clinical status (RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.01, 1.17)). Regarding safety outcomes, remdesivir use did not cause liver or kidney damage (RR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.68, 1.11)) (RR = 0.88, 95%CI (0.70,1.10)). Compared with remdesivir alone, remdesivir combined with other drugs (e.g., steroids, favipiravir, and convalescent plasma) had no effect on mortality.
CONCLUSION
The use of remdesivir can help to reduce the mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 and shorten the time to clinical improvement. There was no benefit of remdesivir combination therapy for other clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322859.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37814214
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08525-0 -
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics &... 2023The new class of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell has emboldened health-care professionals and patients for a more effective treatment of hematological malignancies,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The new class of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell has emboldened health-care professionals and patients for a more effective treatment of hematological malignancies, indicatively lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and myeloma. Nevertheless, their burgeoning procurement costs comprise a litmus stress for health systems across the globe. In this context, this systematic review aims to update the current body of evidence assessing CAR-T economic evaluations and elucidate their financial efficiency.
AREAS COVERED
A systematic review of the economic evaluations of tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel and brexucabtagene autoleucel was performed.
EXPERT OPINION
The updated results corroborated the previously reported favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of CAR-T. They also pointed out differences among CAR-T agents. However, their budget impact emerges as a significant barrier in the reimbursement process. Any proposed Managed Entry Agreement must integrate the ingrained uncertainty of long-term efficacy and precede reimbursement decisions.
Topics: Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Budgets; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 37288738
DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2214731 -
Journal of Medical Virology Dec 2023This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Outpatients; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Hospitalization; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 38105461
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.29310 -
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Jan 2024The safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is poorly understood, given the paucity of available data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is poorly understood, given the paucity of available data in this patient population. There is a theoretical risk of compromising transplanted organ function with CAR T cell therapy; conversely, organ transplantation-related immunosuppression can alter the function of CAR T cells. Given the prevalence of post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease, which often can be difficult to treat with conventional chemoimmunotherapy, understanding the risks and benefits of delivering lymphoma-directed CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is of utmost importance. We sought to determine the efficacy of CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients as well as the associated adverse effects, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and compromised solid organ transplant function. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of adult recipients of solid organ transplant who received CAR T cell therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Primary outcomes included efficacy, defined as overall response (OR), complete response (CR), progression-free survival, and overall survival, as well as rates of CRS and ICANS. Secondary outcomes included rates of transplanted organ loss, compromised organ function, and alterations to immunosuppressant regimens. After a systematic literature review and 2-reviewer screening process, we identified 10 studies suitable for descriptive analysis and 4 studies suitable for meta-analysis. Among all patients, 69% (24 of 35) achieved a response to CAR T cell therapy, and 52% (18 of 35) achieved a CR. CRS of any grade occurred in 83% (29 of 35), and CRS grade ≥3 occurred in 9% (3 of 35). Sixty percent of the patients (21 of 35) developed ICANS, and 34% (12 of 35) developed ICANS grade ≥3. The incidence of any grade 5 toxicity among all patients was 11% (4 of 35). Fourteen percent of the patients (5 of 35) experienced loss of the transplanted organ. Immunosuppressant therapy was held in 22 patients but eventually restarted in 68% of them (15 of 22). Among the studies included in the meta-analysis, the pooled OR rate was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.2% to 100%; I = 71%) and the pooled CR rate was 46% (95% CI, 25.4% to 67.8%; I = 29%). The rates of any grade CRS and grade ≥3 CRS were 88% (95% CI, 69% to 99%; I = 0%) and 5% (95% CI, 0% to 21%; I = 0%), respectively. The rates of any grade ICANS and ICANS grade ≥3 were 54% (95% CI, 9% to 96%; I = 68%) and 40% (95% CI, 3% to 85%; I = 63%), respectively. The efficacy of CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is comparable to that in the general population as reported in prior investigational studies, with an acceptable toxicity profile in terms of CRS, ICANS, and transplanted organ compromise. Further studies are needed to determine long-term effects on organ function, sustained response rates, and best practices peri-CAR T infusion period in this patient population.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma; Organ Transplantation; Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing; Antigens, CD19; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Immunosuppressive Agents; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 37279856
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2023.05.018 -
Leukemia & Lymphoma 2023Relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) is a challenging disease with low rates of remission and survival in adult patients. Anti-CD19... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Differences in efficacy and safety among CAR-Ts anti-CD19/CD22, anti-CD19, and anti-CD22, in adult patients with relapse/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) is a challenging disease with low rates of remission and survival in adult patients. Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cells (CAR-Ts) therapies have been approved for these patients. Dual-target CAR-Ts against CD19 and CD22 have recently been developed to improve the efficacy of the single-target therapy; however, extent of the improvement using this dual-target therapy has yet to be determined. We performed a meta-analysis of the outcome and safety of CAR-Ts, comparing anti-CD19 vs anti-CD22 vs dual-target anti-CD19/CD22 CAR-Ts, to elucidate the differences and limitations of these therapies in adult patients with R/R B-ALL. our results suggest that anti-CD19/CD22 CAR-Ts generate lower incidence of relapse and neurotoxicity, but similar results were obtained regarding complete remission, minimal residual disease, overall survival, and cytokine release syndrome compared with single-target anti-CD19 and anti-CD22 CAR-Ts.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Recurrence; Lymphoma, B-Cell; Antigens, CD19; Acute Disease; Sialic Acid Binding Ig-like Lectin 2
PubMed: 37548560
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2023.2243357