-
Autoimmunity Reviews Feb 2022To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IVIg) and subcutaneous (SCIg) immunoglobulin (Ig) therapy in the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IVIg) and subcutaneous (SCIg) immunoglobulin (Ig) therapy in the treatment of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) and juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and SCOPUS were searched to identify studies on Ig therapy in patients with IIM and/or JDM (2010-2020). Outcome measures were complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) in terms of muscle power and extramuscular disease activity measures on the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) core set domains.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies were included (n = 576, 544 IIM, 32 JDM). Muscle power PR with pooled Ig therapy was 88.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 80.6-93.5, n = 499) and PR with SCIg treatment was 96.61% (95% CI: 87.43-99.15, n = 59). Pooled PR with first-line use of IVIg was 77.07% (95% CI: 61.25-92.89, n = 80). Overall, mean time to response was 2.9 months (95% CI: 1.9-4.1). Relapse was seen in 22.76% (95% CI: 14.9-33). Studies on cutaneous disease activity and dysphagia showed significant treatment responses. Glucocorticoid and immunosuppressant sparing effect was seen in 40.9% (95% CI: 20-61.7) and 42.2% (95% CI: 20.4-64.1) respectively. Ig therapy was generally safe with low risk of infection (1.37%, 95% CI: 0.1-2.6).
CONCLUSIONS
Add-on Ig therapy improves muscle strength in patients with refractory IIM, but evidence on Ig therapy in new-onset disease and extramuscular disease activity is uncertain.
Topics: Dermatomyositis; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Myositis
PubMed: 34800685
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102997 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Mar 2023There is not enough information to position medications for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). Therefore, using a network meta-analysis and systematic review, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
There is not enough information to position medications for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). Therefore, using a network meta-analysis and systematic review, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of combination therapy and infliximab (IFX) monotherapy in CD patients.
METHODS
We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CD patients who were given IFX-containing combination therapy versus IFX monotherapy. Induction and maintenance of clinical remission were the efficacy outcomes, while adverse events were the safety outcomes. The surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities was used to assess ranking in the network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
In total, 15 RCTs with 1586 CD patients were included in this study. There was no statistical difference between different combination therapies in induction and maintenance of remission. In terms of inducing clinical remission, IFX + EN (SUCRA: 0.91) ranked highest; in terms of maintaining clinical remission, IFX + AZA (SUCRA: 0.85) ranked highest. There was no treatment that was significantly safer than the others. In terms of any adverse events, serious adverse events, serious infections, and infusion/injection-site reactions, IFX + AZA (SUCRA: 0.36, 0.12, 0.19, and 0.24) was ranked lowest for all risks; while IFX + MTX (SUCRA: 0.34, 0.06, 0.13, 0.08, 0.34, and 0.08) was rated lowest for risk of abdominal pain, arthralgia, headache, nausea, pyrexia, and upper respiratory tract infection.
CONCLUSION
Indirect comparisons suggested that efficacy and safety of different combination treatments are comparable in CD patients. For maintenance therapies, IFX + AZA was ranked highest for clinical remission and lowest for adverse events. Further head-to-head trials are required.
Topics: Humans; Infliximab; Crohn Disease; Immunosuppressive Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Remission Induction
PubMed: 36971914
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04378-w -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
OBJECTIVE
This work aims to summarize both label and off-label biologics on AD treatment in phase II and phase III stages, and compile evidence on the efficacy of the most-studied biologics.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all documented biological therapies for AD. The criteria were further refined to focus on those treatments with the highest evidence level for AD with at least one randomized clinical trial supporting their use. Only studies or articles published in English were enrolled in this study.
FINDINGS
Primary searches identified 525 relevant articles and 27 trials. Duplicated articles and papers without a full text were excluded. Only completed trials were enrolled. We included 28 randomized controlled trials, 4 unpublished trials, 2 observational studies, and 1 meta-analysis. Eight kinds of biologics, including IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, anti-IL-13 antibodies, anti-IL-22 antibodies, anti-IL-33 antibodies, thymic stromal lymphopoietin inhibitor (TSLP), OX40 antibodies, and H4R-antagonists were included in this work. Dupliumab, as the most widely used and investigated biologic, was reported in 1 meta-analysis and 4 trials exploring its long-term use and application in both adults and pediatric patients. Besides dupilumab, four other IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors recruited were all randomized, clinical trials at phase 2-3 stage. Six different kinds of JAK inhibitors were summarized with strong evidence revealing their significant therapeutic effects on AD. There were 3 trials for nemolizumab, an anti-IL-13 antibody, all of which were in the phase 2 clinical trial stage. Results showed nemolizumab could be another alternative therapy for moderate-to-severe AD with long-term efficiency and safety.
CONCLUSION
The biological therapies with the most robust evidence on efficacy and long-term safety for AD treatment include dupilumab, barcitinib, abrocitinib, and delgocitinib. Most of the biologics mentioned in this review were still at the exploratory stage. This review will help practitioners advise patients seeking suitable biological therapies and offer experimental study directions for treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azetidines; Biological Products; Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Nitriles; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 33735876
DOI: 10.1159/000514535 -
International Immunopharmacology Jul 2023Progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS) is a debilitating condition characterized by progressively worsening symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies are novel therapies for MS, but... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS) is a debilitating condition characterized by progressively worsening symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies are novel therapies for MS, but their safety and efficacy in the progressive form have not been comprehensively studied. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the available evidence regarding monoclonal antibody treatment for PMS.
METHODS
After registration of the study protocol in PROSPERO, we systematically searched three major databases for clinical trials involving monoclonal antibodies administration for PMS treatment. All the retrieved results were imported into the EndNote reference manager. After removing the duplicates, two independent researchers did the study selection and data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist.
RESULTS
Of the 1846 studies in the preliminary search, 13 clinical trials investigating monoclonal antibodies (Ocrelizumab, Natalizumab, Rituximab, and Alemtuzumab) in PMS patients were included. Ocrelizumab was significantly effective in reducing clinical disease progression measures in primary PMS patients. The results for Rituximab were not completely reassuring and only showed significant changes for some endpoints on MRI and clinical measures. Natalizumab decreased the relapse rate and improved MRI features for secondary PMS patients, but not clinical endpoints. The studies on Alemtuzumab treatment revealed conflicting outcomes, with improvements observed in MRI endpoints but clinical worsening in patients. Additionally, among the studied adverse events, upper respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, and nasopharyngitis were frequently reported.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, Ocrelizumab is the most efficient monoclonal antibody for primary PMS, although it is associated with a higher risk of infection. While other monoclonal antibodies did not show significant promise in treating PMS, more research is necessary.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Rituximab; Natalizumab; Alemtuzumab; Multiple Sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting
PubMed: 37209514
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2023.110266 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023A series of clinical trials support the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) compared to the placebo, but the priority among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A series of clinical trials support the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) compared to the placebo, but the priority among drugs remains unclear. Therefore, we conduct a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the relative effects of different drugs for generalized MG.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched for eligible studies up to 1 June 2023. The primary outcome was efficacy (Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living [MG-ADL] score and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis [QMG] score) and safety (adverse events [AEs]). Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% credible intervals (95%CrIs) were used to show the effect size of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies involving 1167 individuals were identified for NMA. For efficacy outcomes, belimumab, efgartigimod, mezagitamab 600mg, and nipocalimab 60mg/kg were inferior to rozanolixzumab 7mg/kg (MD ranged from 2 to 3.69) and rozanolixzumab 10mg/kg (MD ranged from 2.04 to 3.72) in MG-ADL score, and rozanolixzumab had the highest rank probability (83%) according to the subjective surface under the curve ranking area (SUCRA). For QMG score, batoclimab 340mg (MD ranged from 4.32 to 8.52) and batoclimab 680mg (MD ranged from 4.11 to 9.31) were more effective than placebo and other monoclonal antibodies except for rozanolixzumab, with the highest SUCRA value (93% and 97% respectively). For safety outcomes, belimumab achieved the highest SUCRA value (89.8%) with significant statistical difference compared to rozanolixzumab 7mg/kg (RR 0.08, 95%CrI 0.01 to 0.94) and rozanolixzumab 10mg/kg (RR 0.08, 95%CrI 0.01 to 0.86).
CONCLUSION
While all monoclonal antibodies were superior to the placebo, rozanolixzumab and batoclimab might be the most effective for generalized MG. However, rozanolixzumab was associated with higher incidence of AEs. Given the limitations inherent in indirect comparisons, further head-to-head and extensive observational studies are necessary to confirm our findings.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/?s=202370112, identifier 202370112.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Activities of Daily Living; Bayes Theorem; Myasthenia Gravis
PubMed: 38022544
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1280226 -
Efficacy and safety of biologic therapy in microscopic colitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.European Journal of Gastroenterology &... Oct 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of biologic therapy in the treatment of steroid-refractory microscopic colitis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of biologic therapy in the treatment of steroid-refractory microscopic colitis (MC).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central to identify articles and abstracts reporting efficacy or safety data on biologic use (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib) for induction and maintenance of remission in MC. We assessed clinical remission and response rates and all reported adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
A total of 376 studies were screened yielding 13 articles (including four abstracts) with a combined information on 78 patients for efficacy and safety outcomes. Most studies were case series. Vedolizumab was used in five studies, adalimumab in three, and a combination of infliximab and adalimumab in five studies. The rates of remission were 66.08% (95% CI, 36.79-95.37%; I2 , 71%) at weeks 3-6 and 54.20% (95% CI, 39.39-69.01%; I2 , 0%) at weeks 12-16. Clinical response rates were 100% (95% CI, 88.04-100%; I2 , 0%) at weeks 3-6 and 67.20% (95% CI, 47.72-86.69%; I2 , 52%) at weeks 12-16. Most frequent AE was medication discontinuation with a pooled incidence of 16.1% (95% CI, 5.9-37.5%). No deaths attributable to biologic use were reported. The overall quality of evidence was very low due to the high risk of biases.
CONCLUSION
Low-quality evidence supports the short-term efficacy of biologics in budesonide refractory MC. While our findings represent the most comprehensive evaluation of biologic therapy in severe MC, further research including randomized clinical trials is needed to better define the role of specific agents and long-term therapy.
Topics: Adalimumab; Biological Therapy; Colitis, Microscopic; Humans; Infliximab; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 36052677
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000002409 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.
DATA SOURCES
WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).
STUDY SELECTION
Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.
METHODS
After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.
RESULTS
As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.
CONCLUSION
In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.
FUNDING
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Viral; Antiviral Agents; Bayes Theorem; COVID-19; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Network Meta-Analysis; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34556486
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2231 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Clinical evidence suggests that first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies can improve survival in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapies in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.
INTRODUCTION
Clinical evidence suggests that first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies can improve survival in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsq-NSCLC). However, the optimal strategy remains unknown without a systematic comparison of their long-term effects.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis by retrieving up-to-date literature from PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine), and major international conference publications. Published studies and abstracts comparing first-line ICI combination therapies with other treatments for patients with advanced nsq-NSCLC were included. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was measured over 12 months for progression-free survival (PFS) and 18 months for overall survival (OS), and the Royston-Parmar model was used to extrapolate and compare data for the long-term outcomes.
RESULTS
We included a total of 11 trials involving 12 therapies and 6,130 patients. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy exhibited the best overall survival (OS) benefit at both 18 and 60 months [RMST = 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.96 to 3.97; life-years gained over a 5-year period = 2.18 years]. Nivolumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was found to present the best progression-free survival (PFS) benefit at 12 months (RMST 3.02, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.91), whereas atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy showed the best PFS benefit at 36 months (life-years gained over 3 years = 1.22 years). Subgroup analyses showed that among patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 50%, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in superior OS benefits at 18 and 60 months, respectively. Among patients with PD-L1 expression< 1%, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with OS benefits at both 18 and 60 months. Sintilimab plus chemotherapy was associated with relatively fewer grade ≥ 3 adverse events than other ICI combination therapies.
CONCLUSION
Our results show that ICI combination therapies showed better survival benefits than chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could provide the best OS benefits to patients with advanced nsq-NSCLC, whereas atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy could bring the best PFS benefits. The optimal ICI combination therapy varies depending on PD-L1 expression level.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=325005, identifier CRD42022325005.
Topics: United States; Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; B7-H1 Antigen; Nivolumab; Lung Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Bevacizumab; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36389713
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.948597 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jun 2023Patients with HER2+ breast cancer (BC) frequently develop leptomeningeal metastases (LM). While HER2-targeted therapies have demonstrated efficacy in the neoadjuvant,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with HER2+ breast cancer (BC) frequently develop leptomeningeal metastases (LM). While HER2-targeted therapies have demonstrated efficacy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings, including for parenchymal brain metastases, their efficacy for patients with LM has not been studied in a randomized controlled trial. However, several single-armed prospective studies, case series and case reports have studied oral, intravenous, or intrathecally administered HER2-targeted therapy regimens for patients with HER2+ BC LM.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data to evaluate the efficacy of HER2-targeted therapies in HER2+ BC LM in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Targeted therapies evaluated were trastuzumab (intrathecal or intravenous), pertuzumab, lapatinib, neratinib, tucatinib, trastuzumab-emtansine and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with CNS-specific progression-free survival (PFS) as a secondary endpoint.
RESULTS
7780 abstracts were screened, identifying 45 publications with 208 patients, corresponding to 275 lines of HER2-targeted therapy for BC LM which met inclusion criteria. In univariable and multivariable analyses, we observed no significant difference in OS and CNS-specific PFS between intrathecal trastuzumab compared to oral or intravenous administration of HER2-targeted therapy. Anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody-based regimens did not demonstrate superiority over HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In a cohort of 15 patients, treatment with trastuzumab-deruxtecan was associated with prolonged OS compared to other HER2-targeted therapies and compared to trastuzumab-emtansine.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis, comprising the limited data available, suggest that intrathecal administration of HER2-targeted therapy for patients with HER2+ BC LM confers no additional benefit over oral and/or IV treatment regimens. Although the number of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan in this cohort is small, this novel agent offers promise for this patient population and requires further investigation in prospective studies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptor, ErbB-2; Trastuzumab; Meningeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37156650
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.04.008 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022CD47-SIRPα interaction acts as a "don't eat me" signal and is exploited by cancer to downregulate innate and adaptive immune surveillance. There has been intense... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CD47-SIRPα interaction acts as a "don't eat me" signal and is exploited by cancer to downregulate innate and adaptive immune surveillance. There has been intense interest to develop a mechanism of blockade, and we aimed to analyze the emerging data from early clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant databases and conference abstracts including clinical trials using CD47 and/or SIRPα inhibitors in cancer treatment. Nonlinear mixed models were applied for comparison of response and toxicity. We retrieved 317 articles, 24 of which were eligible. These included 771 response-evaluable patients with hematologic (47.1%) and solid tumors (52.9%). Of these, 6.4% experienced complete response, 10.4% partial response, and 26.1% stable disease for a 16.7% objective response rate (ORR), 42.8% disease control rate, and 4.8-month median duration of response. ORR was significantly higher for hematologic cancers (25.3%) than solid cancers (9.1%, p=0.042). Comparing by mechanism, seven CD47 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and six selective SIRPα blockers were given alone or combined with checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapy, and/or chemotherapy. In solid cancers, selective SIRPα blockade showed a higher ORR (16.2%) than anti-CD47 mAbs (2.8%, p=0.079), which was significant for combination therapies (ORR 28.3% vs 3.0%, respectively, p=0.010). Responses were seen in head and neck, colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, hepatocellular, non-small cell lung, and HER2+gastroesophageal cancers. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was seen in 3.3% of patients (5.4% anti-CD47 mAbs, 1.4% selective SIRPα blockers; p=0.01). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) ≥grade 3 was 18.0%, similar between the two groups (p=0.082), and mostly laboratory abnormalities. For anti-CD47 mAbs, the most common toxicities included grade 1-2 fatigue (27.2%), headache (21.0%), and anemia (20.5%). For selective SIRPα blockers, these included grade 1-2 infusion reaction (23.1%) and fatigue (15.8%). Anti-CD47 mAbs were significantly more likely than selective SIRPα blockers to cause grade 1-2 fever, chills, nausea/vomiting, headache, and anemia. In conclusion, combination therapies using selective SIRPα blockade had higher response rates in solid tumors than anti-CD47 mAb combinations. Hematologic changes were the main TRAEs, and selective SIRPα blockers seemed to have a better grade 1-2 toxicity profile. Treatment was well-tolerated with minimal DLTs.
Topics: Humans; Protein Binding; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Fatigue; Headache; Neoplasms; CD47 Antigen
PubMed: 36439116
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1027235