-
Cancers Dec 2023Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies are typically administered in the inpatient setting, outpatient administration is rapidly expanding. However,... (Review)
Review
The Impact of Outpatient versus Inpatient Administration of CAR-T Therapies on Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Outcomes in Patients with Hematological Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.
Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies are typically administered in the inpatient setting, outpatient administration is rapidly expanding. However, there is limited summarized evidence comparing outcomes between outpatient and inpatient administration. This systematic literature review aims to compare the safety, efficacy, quality of life (QoL), costs, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) outcomes in patients with hematological cancer who are administered CAR-T therapy in an outpatient versus an inpatient setting. Publications (2016 or later) that reported the outcomes of interest in patients treated with a CAR-T therapy in both outpatient and inpatient settings, or only the outpatient setting, were reviewed. In total, 38 publications based on 21 studies were included. Safety findings suggested the comparable frequency of adverse events in the two settings. Eleven studies that reported data in both settings showed comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient). Improvements in the QoL were observed in both settings while costs associated with CAR-T therapy were lower in the outpatient setting. Although unplanned hospitalizations were higher in the outpatient cohort, overall HCRU was lower. Outpatient administration of CAR-T therapy appears to have comparable outcomes in safety, efficacy, and QoL to inpatient administration while reducing the economic burden.
PubMed: 38136292
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15245746 -
CytoJournal 2024Multiple myeloma (MM) is a bone marrow cancer that profoundly affects plasma cells involved in the immune response. Myeloma cells alter the average production of cells...
OBJECTIVE
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a bone marrow cancer that profoundly affects plasma cells involved in the immune response. Myeloma cells alter the average production of cells in the bone marrow. Anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy allows genetic modifications of an individual's T-cells to increase the expression of CARs used to identify and attach BCMA proteins to the malignant cells. Our main objective is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy for MM.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We searched five databases, PubMed, CNKI, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CNKI, for studies published on anti-BCMA,CAR-T-cell treatment for MM. Inclusion criteria involved prospective single-arm studies either single or multi-center, in various MM phases and studies that reported anti-BCMA,CAR-T-cell treatment for MM. We excluded non-English publications and conference papers. All statistical analyses were performed in R software and Review Manager 5.4.1.
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were included in the analysis. We found that the overall response survival complete response increase was statistically significant. Similarly, the reduction in cytokine release syndrome grades 3 and 4 and neurotoxicity after follow-up was statistically significant. However, the reduction in minimal residual disease negativity (MRDN) was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Using anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy in MM was highly efficacious and safe in lowering the adverse outcomes and improving the survival outcomes, complete response, and overall response.
PubMed: 38628287
DOI: 10.25259/Cytojournal_64_2023 -
JMA Journal Apr 2024The possibility of developing a severe coronavirus infectious (COVID-19) disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has increased,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The possibility of developing a severe coronavirus infectious (COVID-19) disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has increased, particularly in patients with hematological malignancies. These patients are more likely to produce less antibody protection due to the immunocompromised nature of the disease and the anticancer treatments. Therefore, the present systematic review intended to evaluate the seroconversion rate of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies compared with healthy controls.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, as well as other searches (i.e., reference list from article search and manual searches), from December 2020 to May 2022. The outcome of interest included estimating the seroconversion rates following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies and comparing them with those in healthy controls. After two-step screening, the data were extracted and the summary measures were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 39 articles regarding patients with hematological malignancies were included in the present review. After the first vaccine dose, these patients had considerably lower antibody response rates (37.0%) compared with healthy controls (74.5%). Following the second vaccine dose, the seroconversion rate in patients reached 66.8%, whereas it peaked at 97.9% in the healthy controls following complete immunization. Notably, the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccine combination achieved the highest seropositivity rate of approximately 70%. Multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and lymphoma were the cancers of interest in most of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present study highlighted the comparatively low seropositivity rates in patients with hematological malignancies, with substantial variations in rates across disease groups. The findings emphasize the possibility of additional booster doses for these individuals to enhance their immunity against SARS-CoV-2.
PubMed: 38721084
DOI: 10.31662/jmaj.2023-0171 -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2024Published research suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are neither commonly collected nor reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for solid tumors....
IMPORTANCE
Published research suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are neither commonly collected nor reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for solid tumors. Little is known about these practices in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the prevalence of PROs as prespecified end points in RCTs of hematological malignant neoplasms, and to assess reporting of PROs in associated trial publications.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
All issues of 8 journals known for publishing high-impact RCTs (NEJM, Lancet, Lancet Hematology, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Blood, JAMA, and JAMA Oncology) between January 1, 2018, and December 13, 2022, were searched for primary publications of therapeutic phase 3 trials for adults with hematological malignant neoplasms. Studies that evaluated pretransplant conditioning regimens, graft-vs-host disease treatment, or radiotherapy as experimental treatment were excluded. Data regarding trial characteristics and PROs were extracted from manuscripts and trial protocols. Univariable analyses assessed associations between trial characteristics and PRO collection or reporting.
FINDINGS
Ninety RCTs were eligible for analysis. PROs were an end point in 66 (73%) trials: in 1 trial (1%) as a primary end point, in 50 (56%) as a secondary end point, and in 15 (17%) as an exploratory end point. PRO data were reported in 26 of 66 primary publications (39%): outcomes were unchanged in 18 and improved in 8, with none reporting worse PROs with experimental treatment. Trials sponsored by for-profit entities were more likely to include PROs as an end point (49 of 55 [89%] vs 17 of 35 [49%]; P < .001) but were not significantly more likely to report PRO data (20 of 49 [41%] vs 6 of 17 [35%]; P = .69). Compared with trials involving lymphoma (18 of 29 [62%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (18 of 28 [64%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (27 of 30 [90%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (3 of 3 [100%]) were more likely to include PROs as an end point (P = .03). Similarly, compared with trials involving lymphoma (3 of 18 [17%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (5 of 18 [28%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (16 of 27 [59%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (2 of 3 [67%]) were more likely to report PROs in the primary publication (P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review, almost 3 of every 4 therapeutic RCTs for blood cancers collected PRO data; however, only 1 RCT included PROs as a primary end point. Moreover, most did not report resulting PRO data in the primary publication and when reported, PROs were either better or unchanged, raising concern for publication bias. This analysis suggests a critical gap in dissemination of data on the lived experiences of patients enrolled in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.
Topics: Humans; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Hematologic Neoplasms; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38829615
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.14425