-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies. All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution. New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics. Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable. We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34396514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014963 -
Gynecologic Oncology Jun 2022Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has shown promise in hematologic and solid tumors. While data supports immunogenicity of gynecologic cancers, the benefit of ACT is not yet... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has shown promise in hematologic and solid tumors. While data supports immunogenicity of gynecologic cancers, the benefit of ACT is not yet clear. To address this question, we performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligible studies included those reporting oncologic response or toxicity data in at least one patient with any gynecologic cancer treated with ACT. Chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression were performed to identify predictors of response. We retrieved 281 articles, and 28 studies met our inclusion criteria. These comprised of 401 patients including 238 patients with gynecologic cancers (61.8% ovarian, 34.0% cervical, 2.9% endometrial, and 1.2% other). In patients with gynecologic cancers, response rates to ACT were 8.1% complete response, 18.2% partial response, and 31.4% stable disease, for an objective response rate (ORR) of 26.3%, disease control rate (DCR) of 57.6%, and median response duration of 5.5 months. Patients in studies reporting ≤1 median line of prior therapy had a higher ORR (52.9% vs. 22.6% for >1, p < 0.001), although DCR in the >1 group was still 53.2%. ORRs by ACT type were tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) 41.4%, natural killer cells 26.7%, peripheral autologous T-cells 18.4%, T-cell receptor-modified T-cells 15.4%, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cells 9.5% (p = 0.001). ORR was significantly improved with inclusion of lymphodepletion (34.8% vs. 15.4% without, p = 0.001). On multivariable analysis controlling for cancer type and lymphodepletion, TIL therapy was predictive of objective response (odds ratio 2.6, p = 0.011). The rate of grade 3 or 4 toxicity was 46.0%. All grade adverse events included fever, hypotension, dyspnea, confusion, hematologic changes, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, and diarrhea. In conclusion, ACT is a promising treatment modality in gynecologic cancer. We observed a particular benefit of TIL therapy and suggest inclusion of lymphodepletion in future trials.
Topics: Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphocytes, Tumor-Infiltrating; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell
PubMed: 35400527
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.03.013 -
International Immunopharmacology Jun 2020The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is an emerging pathogen that was first described in late December 2019 and causes a severe respiratory infection in humans. Since the...
The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is an emerging pathogen that was first described in late December 2019 and causes a severe respiratory infection in humans. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, international attention has raised to develop treatment and control options such as types of immunotherapies. The immunotherapy is an effective method for fighting against similar viral infections such as SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV. These methods include several types of vaccines, monoclonal antibody candidates, and etc. This systematic review article was designed to evaluate the existing evidence and experience related to immunotherapy for 2019-nCoV. Web of Science (ISI), PubMed, and Scopus databases were used to search for suitable keywords such as 2019-nCoV, novel coronavirus, Immunotherapy, interleukin, vaccine and the related words for relevant publications up to 24.3.2020. The present systematic review was performed based on PRISMA protocol. Data extraction and quality valuation of articles were performed by two reviewers. 51 articles were the results of the search and based on the inclusions and exclusions criteria, 7 articles were included in the final review. As a conclusion of these studies demonstratedthat although no serious research has been done on this subject at the time of writing this article, similar studies on the related viruses showed notable results. So immunotherapy for this virus can also be a suitable option.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Viral; Antigens, Viral; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Coronavirus Infections; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Cytokines; Humans; Immune Sera; Immunization, Passive; Immunotherapy; Interleukins; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Receptors, Virus; Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus; Viral Vaccines
PubMed: 32272396
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106455 -
The Oncologist Jun 2023T-cell receptor (TCR-T) therapies are based on the expression of an introduced TCR targeting a tumor associated antigen (TAA) which has been studied in several trials in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
T-cell receptor (TCR-T) therapies are based on the expression of an introduced TCR targeting a tumor associated antigen (TAA) which has been studied in several trials in cutaneous melanoma. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the primary efficacy of TCR-based adoptive cell therapy in cutaneous melanoma.
METHODS
We searched through PubMed electronic database from its inception until May 21, 2022. Primary endpoints were pooled objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). We conducted logistic regression analyses to identify potential predictive factors for tumor response.
RESULTS
From 187 patients, 50 showed an objective response (pooled ORR 28%; 95% CI, 20%-37%) and a pooled DCR of 38% (95% CI, 27%-50%). Median PFS was 2, 9 months (95% CI, 1.4-3.1). A trend toward higher PFS was demonstrated for patients treated with cancer/testis antigens targeting TCR-T cells (HR 0.91 95% CI, 0.64-1.3, P = .61) among whom, patients treated with NYESO-1 targeting TCR-T showed a significantly higher PFS (HR 0.63 95% CI, 0.64-0.98, P = .03). In addition, the number of infused cells was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of tumor response (OR 6.61; 95% CI, 1.68-21.6; P = .007).
CONCLUSION
TCR-T therapy shows promising results in terms of antitumor activity and survival similar to those reported for TILs with a significantly higher benefit for cancer/testis antigens targeting cells. Since TCR-based therapy shows advantages of great potential over classic ACT strategies, further research in solid cancers is warranted (PROSPERO ID CRD42022328011).
Topics: Male; Humans; Melanoma; Skin Neoplasms; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 37036865
DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad078 -
Immunotherapy Apr 2022Identify and describe published literature on the use of subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) as initial immunoglobulin (IG)-replacement therapy for patients with primary... (Review)
Review
Identify and describe published literature on the use of subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) as initial immunoglobulin (IG)-replacement therapy for patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PID). We systematically identified and summarized literature in MEDLINE, Embase, BioSciences Information Service and Cochrane Library assessing efficacy/effectiveness, safety/tolerability, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and dosing regimens of SCIG for IG-naive patients with PID. Sixteen studies were included. In IG-naive patients, SCIG managed/reduced infections and demonstrated similar pharmacokinetic parameters to IG-experienced patients; adverse events were mostly minor injection-site pain or discomfort. Three studies reported improvements in HRQoL. Quality of studies was difficult to assess due to limited reporting. Although studies were lacking, available data suggest IG-naive and IG-experienced patients initiating SCIG likely have similar outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunoglobulins; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes; Infusions, Subcutaneous; Injections, Subcutaneous; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35128932
DOI: 10.2217/imt-2021-0265 -
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 -
International Journal of Molecular... Sep 2023The aim of this paper was to review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined or sequential use of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and... (Review)
Review
The aim of this paper was to review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined or sequential use of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and CAR-T cell therapies in relapsed/refractory (R/R) haematological malignancies. A systematic literature review was performed until 21 November 2022. Inclusion criteria: cohort studies/clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of the combination of CAR-T cell therapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in R/R haematological malignancies, which had reported results. Those focusing only on ICI or CAR-T separately or evaluating the combination in other non-hematological solid tumours were excluded. We used a specific checklist for quality assessment of the studies, and then we extracted data on efficacy or efficiency and safety. A total of 1867 articles were identified, and 9 articles were finally included (early phase studies, with small samples of patients and acceptable quality). The main pathologies were B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL) and B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (B-NHL). The most studied combination was tisagenlecleucel with pembrolizumab. In terms of efficacy, there is great variability: the combination could be a promising option in B-ALL, with modest data, and in B-NHL, although hopeful responses were received, the combination does not appear better than CAR-T cell monotherapy. The safety profile could be considered comparable to that described for CAR-T cell monotherapy.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Hematologic Neoplasms; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 37834228
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241914780 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Recombinant antibodies such as nanobodies are progressively demonstrating to be a valid alternative to conventional monoclonal antibodies also for clinical applications....
Recombinant antibodies such as nanobodies are progressively demonstrating to be a valid alternative to conventional monoclonal antibodies also for clinical applications. Furthermore, they do not solely represent a substitute for monoclonal antibodies but their unique features allow expanding the applications of biotherapeutics and changes the pattern of disease treatment. Nanobodies possess the double advantage of being small and simple to engineer. This combination has promoted extremely diversified approaches to design nanobody-based constructs suitable for particular applications. Both the format geometry possibilities and the functionalization strategies have been widely explored to provide macromolecules with better efficacy with respect to single nanobodies or their combination. Nanobody multimers and nanobody-derived reagents were developed to image and contrast several cancer diseases and have shown their effectiveness in animal models. Their capacity to block more independent signaling pathways simultaneously is considered a critical advantage to avoid tumor resistance, whereas the mass of these multimeric compounds still remains significantly smaller than that of an IgG, enabling deeper penetration in solid tumors. When applied to CAR-T cell therapy, nanobodies can effectively improve the specificity by targeting multiple epitopes and consequently reduce the side effects. This represents a great potential in treating malignant lymphomas, acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, multiple myeloma and solid tumors. Apart from cancer treatment, multispecific drugs and imaging reagents built with nanobody blocks have demonstrated their value also for detecting and tackling neurodegenerative, autoimmune, metabolic, and infectious diseases and as antidotes for toxins. In particular, multi-paratopic nanobody-based constructs have been developed recently as drugs for passive immunization against SARS-CoV-2 with the goal of impairing variant survival due to resistance to antibodies targeting single epitopes. Given the enormous research activity in the field, it can be expected that more and more multimeric nanobody molecules will undergo late clinical trials in the next future. Systematic Review Registration.
Topics: Animals; Autoimmune Diseases; Communicable Diseases; Humans; Immunomodulation; Molecular Imaging; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasms; Recombinant Proteins; Single-Domain Antibodies
PubMed: 35116045
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.838082 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2024Relapse/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (r/r B-ALL) represents paediatric cancer with a challenging prognosis. CAR T-cell treatment, considered an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comprehensive analysis of the efficacy and safety of CAR T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Relapse/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (r/r B-ALL) represents paediatric cancer with a challenging prognosis. CAR T-cell treatment, considered an advanced treatment, remains controversial due to high relapse rates and adverse events. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of CAR T-cell therapy for r/r B-ALL.
METHODS
The literature search was performed on four databases. Efficacy parameters included minimal residual disease negative complete remission (MRD-CR) and relapse rate (RR). Safety parameters constituted cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS).
RESULTS
Anti-CD22 showed superior efficacy with the highest MRD-CR event rate and lowest RR, compared to anti-CD19. Combining CAR T-cell therapy with haploidentical stem cell transplantation improved RR. Safety-wise, bispecific anti-CD19/22 had the lowest CRS rate, and anti-CD22 showed the fewest ICANS. Analysis of the costimulatory receptors showed that adding CD28ζ to anti-CD19 CAR T-cell demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing relapses with favorable safety profiles.
CONCLUSION
Choosing a more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell treatment is crucial for improving overall survival in acute leukaemia. Beyond the promising anti-CD22 CAR T-cell, exploring costimulatory domains and new CD targets could enhance treatment effectiveness for r/r B-ALL.
Topics: Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Precursor B-Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Antigens, CD19; Sialic Acid Binding Ig-like Lectin 2; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Child; Treatment Outcome; Neoplasm, Residual; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Recurrence; Neurotoxicity Syndromes
PubMed: 38738799
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2349796 -
Transfusion Medicine (Oxford, England) Dec 2021Despite scientific advances, there is no effective medical therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Evidence-base for practise and implications for research.
BACKGROUND
Despite scientific advances, there is no effective medical therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19.
METHODS
This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Only prospective clinical trials randomly assigning COVID-19 patients to convalescent plasma plus standard of care therapy (test arm) versus placebo/standard of care (control arm) were included. Two reviewers independently read each preprint/publication and extracted relevant data from individual studies. Data were pooled using the random-effects model and expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 13 206 patients from 12 randomised controlled trials were included. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.02, p = 0.96) or time to clinical improvement (median difference of 1.08 days with 95% CI ranging from -0.15 to +2.30 days) between convalescent plasma versus placebo/standard of care therapy. The use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significantly reduced risk of death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.65-1.02, p = 0.08). Reassuringly, overall incidence of infusion-related serious adverse events was low (3.25%) and not significantly different (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93-1.40, p = 0.22) for convalescent plasma transfusion compared to placebo/standard of care therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
There is low to moderate certainty evidence that the addition of convalescent plasma to current standard of care therapy is generally safe but, does not result in any significant clinical benefit or reduction of mortality in COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34189780
DOI: 10.1111/tme.12803