-
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Jan 2024Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has become an important therapeutic option for various cancer types. Although the treatment is effective, ICI can...
Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has become an important therapeutic option for various cancer types. Although the treatment is effective, ICI can overstimulate the patient's immune system, leading to potentially severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis and myocarditis. The initial mainstay of treatments includes the administration of corticosteroids. There is little evidence how to treat steroid-resistant (sr) irAEs. It is mainly based on small case series or single case reports. This systematic review summarizes available evidence about sr-irAEs. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed. Additionally, we included European Society for Medical Oncology, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines for irAEs in our assessment. The study population of all selected publications had to include patients with cancer who developed hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis or myocarditis during or after an immunotherapy treatment and for whom corticosteroid therapy was not sufficient. Our literature search was not restricted to any specific cancer diagnosis. Case reports were also included. There is limited data regarding life-threatening sr-irAEs of colon/liver/lung/heart and the majority of publications are single case reports. Most publications investigated sr colitis (n=26), followed by hepatitis (n=21), pneumonitis (n=17) and myocarditis (n=15). There is most data for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to treat sr hepatitis and for infliximab, followed by vedolizumab, to treat sr colitis. Regarding sr pneumonitis there is most data for MMF and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) while data regarding infliximab are conflicting. In sr myocarditis, most evidence is available for the use of abatacept or anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (both with or without MMF) or ruxolitinib with abatacept. This review highlights the need for prompt recognition and treatment of sr hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis and myocarditis. Guideline recommendations for sr situations are not defined precisely. Based on our search, we recommend-as first line treatment-(1) MMF for sr hepatitis, (2) infliximab for sr colitis, followed by vedolizumab, (3) MMF and IVIG for sr pneumonitis and (4) abatacept or ATG (both with or without MMF) or ruxolitinib with abatacept for sr myocarditis. These additional immunosuppressive agents should be initiated promptly if there is no sufficient response to corticosteroids within 3 days.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Colitis; Hepatitis; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Infliximab; Mycophenolic Acid; Myocarditis; Neoplasms; Nitriles; Pneumonia; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 38233099
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-007409 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jun 2021Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a serious complication that represents the second leading cause of death in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Treatment of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a serious complication that represents the second leading cause of death in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Treatment of RA-ILD remains controversial. The absence of randomized clinical trials and specific ACR or EULAR therapeutic guidelines makes it difficult to establish solid therapeutic recommendations on this issue. In this scenario, real-world data is especially valuable.
OBJECTIVE
To review the literature evidence on the efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with associated interstitial lung disease (ILD), given its clinical relevance and the lack of consensus on its therapeutic management.
METHODS
PUBMED and EMBASE were searched from the date of approval of ABA to the end of 2020 using a combination of RA, ILD and ABA terms following PRISMA guidelines. Identified studies were evaluated by two independent investigators.
RESULTS
Nine original studies (1 case series and 8 observational studies) were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. No randomized trial or meta-analysis were identified. The mean age of patients ranged from 61.2 to 75 years and the mean RA duration varied from 7.4 to 18 years. Subcutaneous ABA (74.5%-91%) predominated in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) (58%-75%), and it was used as first-line biologic agent in 22.8%-64.9% of the patients. The mean course of ILD ranged from 1 to 6.7 years, being usual and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia the most frequent patterns. Improvement or stabilization of ILD imaging (76.6%-92.7%) and FVC or DLCO (>85%) was described after a mean follow-up of 17.4-47.8 months, regardless of the pattern of lung involvement, being more remarkable in patients with shorter evolution of ILD. ABA led to significantly lower ILD worsening rates than TNF inhibitors (TNFi) and was associated with a 90% reduction in the relative risk of deterioration of ILD at 24 months of follow-up compared to TNFi and csDMARDs. Combination with methotrexate may have a corticoid-sparing effect. No unexpected adverse events were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that ABA may be a plausible alternative to treat RA patients with ILD. It would be highly desirable to develop prospective randomized controlled studies to confirm these findings.
Topics: Abatacept; Aged; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 33887489
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102830 -
Clinical and Experimental Immunology Jul 2021Cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) haploinsufficiency (CHAI) and lipopolysaccharide-responsive beige-like anchor (LRBA) deficiency (LATAIE) are newly identified... (Review)
Review
Cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) haploinsufficiency (CHAI) and lipopolysaccharide-responsive beige-like anchor (LRBA) deficiency (LATAIE) are newly identified inborn errors of immunity with shared molecular pathomechanisms and clinical manifestations. In this review, we aimed to provide differential comparisons regarding demographic, clinical, immunological and molecular characteristics between these two similar conditions. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases and included studies were systematically evaluated. Overall, 434 (222 CHAI and 212 LATAIE) patients were found in 101 eligible studies. The CHAI patients were mainly reported from North America and western Europe, while LATAIE patients were predominantly from Asian countries. In CHAI, positive familial history (P < 0·001) and in LATAIE, consanguineous parents (P < 0·001) were more common. In CHAI patients the rates of granulomas (P < 0·001), malignancies (P = 0·001), atopy (P = 0·001), cutaneous disorders (P < 0·001) and neurological (P = 0·002) disorders were higher, while LATAIE patients were more commonly complicated with life-threatening infections (P = 0·002), pneumonia (P = 0·006), ear, nose and throat disorders (P < 0·001), organomegaly (P = 0·023), autoimmune enteropathy (P = 0·038) and growth failure (P < 0·001). Normal lymphocyte subsets and immunoglobulins except low serum levels of CD9 B cells (14·0 versus 38·4%, P < 0·001), natural killer (NK) cells (21 versus 41·1%, P < 0·001), immunoglobulin (Ig)G (46·9 versus 41·1%, P = 0·291) and IgA (54·5 versus 44·7%, P = 0·076) were found in the majority of CHAI and LATAIE patients, respectively. The most frequent biological immunosuppressive agents prescribed for CHAI and LATAIE patients were rituximab and abatacept, respectively. Further investigations into the best conditioning and treatment regimens pre- and post-transplantation are required to improve the survival rate of transplanted CHAI and LATAIE patients.
Topics: Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing; CTLA-4 Antigen; Haploinsufficiency; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Immunosuppressive Agents; Lymphocytes
PubMed: 33788257
DOI: 10.1111/cei.13600 -
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Nov 2023To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of novel biologics for the treatment of lupus nephritis based on a reticulated meta-analysis approach. Registered... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of novel biologics for the treatment of lupus nephritis based on a reticulated meta-analysis approach. Registered clinical trials in 4 major databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials) and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched with a search time frame of build to June 2022. And we screened registered randomized controlled clinical trials of biologics for the treatment of lupus nephritis according to the protocol's nadir criteria. Trials were evaluated for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, and data were statistically analyzed using Stata 16.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software to compare and rank differences in effectiveness and safety between the biologics. A total of 10 registered randomized controlled clinical trials involving 2148 subjects were included in this study. The interventions were ranked from best to worst in terms of the primary outcome indicator of effectiveness, renal complete remission: belimumab > anifrolumab (900 + 300) mg > obinutuzumab > ocrelizumab 400 mg > abatacept 30/10 mg/kg > belimumab + rituximab > abatacept 10/10 mg/kg > abatacept (30/10 + 10/10) mg/kg > placeo > ocrelizumab 1000 mg > rituximab > anifrolumab 300 mg, belimumab was superior to placebo [OR = 1.75, 95% CI (1.13, 2.70)] and anifrolumab 300 mg [OR = 3.27, 95% CI (1.05, 10.14)], anifrolumab (900 + 300) mg was superior to anifrolumab 300 mg [OR = 3.56, 95% CI (1.30, 9.76)], and all were statistically significant. The ranking of each intervention in terms of overall renal remission for secondary outcome indicators from best to worst was: obinutuzumab > belimumab + rituximab > anifrolumab (900 + 300) mg > ocrelizumab 1000 mg > ocrelizumab 400 mg > belimumab > rituximab 1000 mg > abatacept 30/10 mg/kg > abatacept (30/10 + 10/10) mg/kg > placeo > abatacept 10/10 mg/kg > anifrolumab 300 mg, obinutuzumab was superior to placebo [OR = 2.27, 95% CI (1.11, 4.67)] and belimumab was also superior to placebo [OR = 1.56, 95% CI (1.07, 2.27)], and all were statistically significant. In terms of safety, with a focus on serious adverse events and serious infections, the results were: Serious adverse events at 1 year of monitoring occurred better with ocrelizumab 1000 mg than ocrelizumab 400 mg [OR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.29, 0.89)] and were statistically different; serious adverse events at 2 years of monitoring infection adverse events occurred better with obinutuzumab than with abatacept (30/10 + 10/10) mg/kg [OR = 0.24, 95% CI (0.07, 0.81)] and were statistically different. The safety of the new biologics in combination with conventional standard therapies is generally good, but it is belimumab and obinutuzumab that are most effective in achieving complete and overall remission in the kidney. This study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, with a registration number of CRD42021262498.
Topics: Humans; Rituximab; Abatacept; Biological Products; Lupus Nephritis; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37462818
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-023-01132-y -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Feb 2023The risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation after biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) therapy in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation after biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) combined with HBsAg-/HBcAb+ is still inconsistent.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of existing databases from 1977 to August 22, 2021. Studies of RA patients combined with HBsAg-/HBcAb +, treated with b/tsDMARDs and the reported number of HBV reactivation were included.
RESULTS
We included 26 studies of 2252 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients treated with b/tsDMARDs. The pooled HBV reactivation rate was 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.04; I = 66%, p < .01). In the subgroup analysis, the HBV reactivation rate of rituximab (RTX), abatacept, and inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were 9.0% (95% CI: 0.04-0.15; I = 61%, p = .03), 6.0% (95% CI: 0.01-0.13; I = 40%, p = .19), 1.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03; I = 41%, p = .19), 0.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.02; I = 0%, p = .43), 0.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; I = 0%, p = .87), respectively. While HBsAb- patients have a significant risk of reactivation (odds ratio [OR] = 4.56, 95% CI = 2.45-8.48; I = 7%, p = .37), low HBsAb+ group also display a significant risk of reactivation (OR = 5.45, 95% CI: 1.35-21.94; I = 0%, p = .46).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis demonstrates the highest potential risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients receiving RTX treatment, especially HBsAb- patients. Our study furthers the understanding of the prophylactic use of anti-HBV drugs in such patients. However, it is relative safety to use the inhibitors of IL-6, TNF-α, and JAK in these patients.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B Antibodies; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B virus; Interleukin-6; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Rituximab; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 36840482
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.780 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology Sep 2023Abatacept (Orencia) is a drug used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The agent improves patients' pain and joint inflammation through modulation of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Abatacept (Orencia) is a drug used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The agent improves patients' pain and joint inflammation through modulation of a co-stimulatory signal necessary for T cell activation. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of abatacept in the management of rheumatoid arthritis using the Cochrane systematic review.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search among PubMed, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Web of Science, and Embase databases from the establishment of these databases to April 2022. The effectiveness and safety of abatacept in treating rheumatoid arthritis were assessed in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70/90 responses, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS-28-CRP), and adverse events. The Relative Risks (RRs) of relative safety and efficacy and their corresponding 95 confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the pooled assessments of the outcomes. We used the review manager software version 5.4 to analyse our data, and the PRISMA checklist 2020 was used to ensure that our work conforms with the specification of meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Our study included 13 randomised control trials with a total of 5978 adult patients from different geographic regions and races. Following the combined analysis of these enrolled studies, the RRs for ACR 20/50/70/90 responses were 1.57 [95%CI 1.27, 1.93], 1.84 [95%CI 1.38, 2.44], 2.36 [95%CI 1.60, 3.47], and 2.95 [95%CI 1.88, 4.63], respectively. Such findings suggest that abatacept-treated patients were 1.57, 1.84, 2.36, and 2.95 times more likely to achieve ACR 20/50/70/90 responses, respectively, than those treated with placebo, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and or other biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. An exclusive comparison of abatacept and other biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) indicated that participants who were treated with abatacept could achieve better ACR responses than those treated with other b/tsDMARDs. Adverse events were less seen in abatacept-treated patients than in those who were given other b/tsDMARDs.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis concludes that in adult with rheumatoid arthritis, abatacept can achieve better health outcomes than other biologic drugs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Abatacept; Methotrexate; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Antirheumatic Agents; Biological Products; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36912326
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/2xjg0d -
RMD Open Oct 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of non-conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (ncs-DMARD) strategies on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of non-conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (ncs-DMARD) strategies on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD).
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles from inception to 1 June 2022. The results obtained from the analysis were expressed as mean difference (MD), effect size and 95% CI.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies, including 1315 patients with RA-ILD, were eligible. The ncs-DMARDs included abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, tumour necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors. Compared with the baseline, there were no significant changes in forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV) and diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) values in the pooled data after ncs-DMARD treatment (alone or combined with conventional therapy) (p=0.36 for FVC; p=0.96 for FEV and p=0.46 for DLCO). Of note, FVC was obviously increased in rituximab subgroup (MD=-4.62, 95% CI -8.90 to -0.33, p=0.03). Also, high-resolution CT non-progression rate and fatality rate due to ILD progression in patients with RA-ILD were 0.792 (95% CI 0.746 to 0.834, p=0.015) and 0.049 (95% CI 0.035 to 0.065, p=0.000), respectively.
CONCLUSION
ncs-DMARDs alone or combined with conventional therapy might be an optimal and promising treatment for stabilising or improving ILD in patients with RA-ILD.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022356816.
Topics: Humans; Rituximab; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Abatacept
PubMed: 37899093
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003487 -
Vaccines Nov 2023Pneumococcal pneumonia is an important cause of morbidity and mortality amongst patients with inflammatory arthritis. Vaccination is recommended by the National... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pneumococcal pneumonia is an important cause of morbidity and mortality amongst patients with inflammatory arthritis. Vaccination is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) but it remains unclear how vaccine efficacy is impacted by different immunosuppressive agents. Our objective was to compare the chance of a seroconversion following vaccination against pneumococcus in patients with inflammatory arthritis to that in the general population, as well as to compare the chance of seroconversion across different targeted therapies.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until 20 June 2023. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Aggregate data were used to undertake a pairwise meta-analysis. Our primary outcome of interest was vaccine seroconversion. We accepted the definition of serological response reported by the authors of each study.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were identified in the systematic review (2807 patients) with ten reporting sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis (1443 patients). The chance of seroconversion in patients receiving targeted therapies, relative to the general population, was 0.61 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.08). The reduced odds of response were skewed strongly by the effects of abatacept and rituximab with no difference between patients on TNF inhibitors (TNFis) or IL-6 inhibition and healthy controls. Within different inflammatory arthritis populations the findings remained consistent, with rituximab having the strongest negative impact on vaccine response. TNF inhibition monotherapy was associated with a greater chance of vaccine response compared with methotrexate (2.25 (95% CI 1.28 to 3.96)). JAK inhibitor (JAKi) studies were few in number and did not present comparable vaccine response endpoints to include in the meta-analysis. The information available does not suggest any significant detrimental effects of JAKi on vaccine response.
CONCLUSION
This updated meta-analysis confirms that, for most patients with inflammatory arthritis, pneumococcal vaccine can be administered with confidence and that it will achieve comparable seroconversion rates to the healthy population. Patients on rituximab were the group least likely to achieve a response and further research is needed to explore the value of multiple-course pneumococcal vaccination schedules in this population.
PubMed: 38006012
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11111680 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Feb 2023Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a group of different conditions typically affecting striate muscle, lung, joints, skin and gastrointestinal tract. Treatment... (Review)
Review
Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a group of different conditions typically affecting striate muscle, lung, joints, skin and gastrointestinal tract. Treatment typically relies on glucocorticoids and synthetic immunosuppressants, but the occurrence of refractory, difficult to treat, manifestations, may require more aggressive treatment, borrowed from other autoimmune diseases, including biologic disease modifying drugs (bDMARDs). In this regard, we conducted a systemic literature review in order to depict the current evidence about the use of bDMARDs in IIM. A total of 78 papers, published during the last 21 years, were retrieved. The majority of patients was treated with TNF-α inhibitors, whose effectiveness was assessed particularly in recalcitrant striate muscle, skin and joints involvement. Rituximab, whose evidence is supported by a large number of real-life studies and trials, seems to be an excellent option in case of ILD and anti-synthetase syndrome, while Tocilizumab, despite not meeting primary and secondary endpoints in a recently published clinical trial, proved its effectiveness in rapidly progressing ILD. Similarly, Abatacept, studied in a phase IIb clinical trial with conflicting evidence, was reported to be effective in some case reports of refractory dermatomyositis. Less data exist for anti-IL1 and anti-IL23 agents, which were employed particularly for inclusion body myositis and severe skin disease, respectively. This study provides an organ-focused assessment of bDMARDs in IIM, which display encouraging results in the treatment of refractory subsets of disease.
Topics: Humans; Biological Products; Myositis; Immunosuppressive Agents; Rituximab; Lung Diseases, Interstitial
PubMed: 36549353
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2022.103264 -
Vaccine Jun 2023Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) are at a potentially higher risk for COVID-19 infection complications. Given their inherent altered immune system and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) are at a potentially higher risk for COVID-19 infection complications. Given their inherent altered immune system and the use of immunomodulatory medications, vaccine immunogenicity could be unpredictable with a suboptimal or even an exaggerated immunological response. The aim of this study is to provide real-time data on the emerging evidence of COVID-19 vaccines' efficacy and safety in patients with ARDs.
METHODS
We performed a literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID databases up to 11-13 April 2022 on the efficacy and safety of both types of the mRNA-vaccines and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in patients with ARD. The risk of bias in the retrieved studies was evaluated using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Also, current clinical practice guidelines from multiple international professional societies were reviewed.
RESULTS
We identified 60 prognostic studies, 69 case reports and case series, and eight international clinical practice guidelines. Our results demonstrated that most patients with ARDs were able to mount humoral and/or cellular responses after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine although this response was suboptimal in patients receiving certain disease-modifying medications including rituximab, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, daily glucocorticoids >10 mg, abatacept, as well as in older individuals, and those with comorbid interstitial lung diseases. Safety reports on COVID-19 vaccines in patients with ARDs were largely reassuring with mostly self-limiting adverse events and very minimal post-vaccination disease flares.
CONCLUSION
Both types of the mRNA-vaccines and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective and safe in patients with ARD. However, due to their suboptimal response in some patients, alternative mitigation strategies such as booster vaccines and shielding practices should also be followed. Management of immunomodulatory treatment regimens during the peri vaccination period should be individualized through shared decision making with patients and their attending rheumatologists.
Topics: Humans; Aged; COVID-19 Vaccines; RNA, Messenger; COVID-19; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; Autoimmune Diseases; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 37244811
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.05.048