-
Journal of Autoimmunity Nov 2023This systematic review aimed to characterise the cognitive outcomes of patients who received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to characterise the cognitive outcomes of patients who received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was performed using PubMed, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Medline, and CINAHL (February 2023). Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Checklist for Case Reports and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomised Studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 1104 participants. There was considerable methodological heterogeneity with differing study designs (e.g., cohort studies, clinical trials, case studies, a qualitative interview, and a focus group), measures of cognition (e.g., self-report, neuropsychological measures, clinician assessed/neurological examinations), and longest follow-up time points (i.e., five days to five years).
DISCUSSION
Results of the studies were heterogenous with studies demonstrating stable, improved, or reduced cognition across differing time points. Overall, cognitive symptoms are common particularly in the acute stage (<2 weeks) post-infusion. Most deficits that arise in the acute stage resolve within one to two weeks, however, there is a subset of patients who continue to experience and self-report persistent deficits in the subacute and chronic stages. Future studies are needed to comprehensively analyse cognition using a combination of self-report and psychometric measures following chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in the acute, subacute, and chronic settings.
Topics: Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Cognition; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37837807
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2023.103126 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Mar 2021Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to...
Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively. In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Hospitalization; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 33731328
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0384-2020 -
Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports Apr 2020T cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL) is a rare mature T cell tumor. Available treatment options in this aggressive disease are largely inefficient and patient outcomes...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
T cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL) is a rare mature T cell tumor. Available treatment options in this aggressive disease are largely inefficient and patient outcomes are highly dissatisfactory. Current therapeutic strategies mainly employ the CD52-antibody alemtuzumab as the most active single agent. However, sustained remissions after sole alemtuzumab-based induction are exceptions. Responses after available second-line strategies are even less durable. More profound disease control or rare curative outcomes can currently only be expected after a consolidating allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) in best first response. However, only 30-50% of patients are eligible for this procedure. Major advances in the molecular characterization of T-PLL during recent years have stimulated translational studies on potential vulnerabilities of the T-PLL cell. We summarize here the current state of "classical" treatments and critically appraise novel (pre)clinical strategies.
RECENT FINDINGS
Alemtuzumab-induced first remissions, accomplished in ≈ 90% of patients, last at median ≈ 12 months. Series on allo-HSCT in T-PLL, although of very heterogeneous character, suggest a slight improvement in outcomes among transplanted patients within the past decade. Dual-action nucleosides such as bendamustine or cladribine show moderate clinical activity as single agents in the setting of relapsed or refractory disease. Induction of apoptosis via reactivation of p53 (e.g., by inhibitors of HDAC or MDM2) and targeting of its downstream pathways (i.e., BCL2 family antagonists, CDK inhibitors) are promising new approaches. Novel strategies also focus on inhibition of the JAK/STAT pathway with the first clinical data. Implementations of immune-checkpoint blockades or CAR-T cell therapy are at the stage of pre-clinical assessments of activity and feasibility. The recommended treatment strategy in T-PLL remains a successful induction by infusional alemtuzumab followed by a consolidating allo-HSCT in eligible patients. Nevertheless, long-term survivors after this "standard" comprise only 10-20%. The increasingly revealed molecular make-up of T-PLL and the tremendous expansion of approved targeted compounds in oncology represent a "never-before" opportunity to successfully tackle the voids in T-PLL. Approaches, e.g., those reinstating deficient cell death execution, show encouraging pre-clinical and first-in-human results in T-PLL, and urgently have to be transferred to systematic clinical testing.
Topics: Alemtuzumab; Animals; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Diffusion of Innovation; Forecasting; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Leukemia, Prolymphocytic, T-Cell; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32034661
DOI: 10.1007/s11899-020-00566-5 -
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Apr 2023The number of clinical studies evaluating the benefit of cytokine-induced killer cell (CIK) therapy, an adoptive immunotherapy, for colorectal cancer (CRC) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The number of clinical studies evaluating the benefit of cytokine-induced killer cell (CIK) therapy, an adoptive immunotherapy, for colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. In many of these trials, CIK therapy was coadministered with conventional cancer therapy. The aim of this review is to systematically assess the available literature, in which the majority were only in Chinese, on CIK therapy for the management of CRC using meta-analysis and to identify parameters associated with successful CIK therapy implementation.
METHODS
Prospective and retrospective clinical studies which compared CIK therapy to non-CIK therapy in patients with CRC were searched for electronically on MEDLINE, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases. The clinical endpoints of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), OS and PFS rates, overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity were meta-analyzed using HR and relative ratio (RR), and subgroup analyses were performed using chi-square (χ) test and I-squared (I) statistics for study design, disease stage, cotherapy type, and timing of administration.
RESULTS
In total, 70 studies involving 6743 patients were analyzed. CIK therapy was favored over non-CIK therapy for OS (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.65), PFS (HR=0.55, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.63), and ORR (RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.74) without increasing toxicity (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.16 to 2.25). Subgroup analyses on OS and PFS by study design (randomized vs non-randomized study design), disease stage (Stage I-III vs Stage IV), cotreatment with dendritic cells (DCs) (CIK vs DC-CIK therapy), or timing of therapy administration (concurrent vs sequential with coadministered anticancer therapy) also showed that the clinical benefit of CIK therapy was robust in any subgroup analysis. Furthermore, cotreatment with DCs did not improve clinical outcomes over CIK therapy alone.
CONCLUSION
Compared with standard therapy, patients who received additional CIK cell therapy had favorable outcomes without increased toxicity, warranting further investigation into CIK therapy for the treatment of CRC.
Topics: Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cytokine-Induced Killer Cells; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37117007
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-006764 -
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance Apr 2021The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel coronavirus termed SARS-CoV-2, has spread quickly worldwide. Convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients following recovery...
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel coronavirus termed SARS-CoV-2, has spread quickly worldwide. Convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients following recovery from COVID-19 infection and development of antibodies against the virus is an attractive option for either prophylactic or therapeutic treatment, since antibodies may have direct or indirect antiviral activities and immunotherapy has proven effective in principle and in many clinical reports.
OBJECTIVE
We seek to characterize the latest advances and evidence in the use of CP for COVID-19 through a systematic review and quantitative analysis, identify knowledge gaps in this setting, and offer recommendations and directives for future research.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were continuously searched for studies assessing the use of CP for COVID-19, including clinical studies, commentaries, reviews, guidelines or protocols, and in vitro testing of CP antibodies. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal of all clinical studies was conducted using a universal tool independent of study designs. A meta-analysis of case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Substantial literature has been published covering various aspects of CP therapy for COVID-19. Of the references included in this review, a total of 243 eligible studies including 64 clinical studies, 79 commentary articles, 46 reviews, 19 guidance and protocols, and 35 in vitro testing of CP antibodies matched the criteria. Positive results have been mostly observed so far when using CP for the treatment of COVID-19. There were remarkable heterogeneities in the CP therapy with respect to patient demographics, donor antibody titers, and time and dose of CP administration. The studies assessing the safety of CP treatment reported low incidence of adverse events. Most clinical studies, in particular case reports and case series, had poor quality. Only 1 RCT was of high quality. Randomized and nonrandomized data were found in 2 and 11 studies, respectively, and were included for meta-analysis, suggesting that CP could reduce mortality and increase viral clearance. Despite promising pilot studies, the benefits of CP treatment can only be clearly established through carefully designed RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS
There is developing support for CP therapy, particularly for patients who are critically ill or mechanically ventilated and resistant to antivirals and supportive care. These studies provide important lessons that should inform the planning of well-designed RCTs to generate more robust knowledge for the efficacy of CP in patients with COVID-19. Future research is necessary to fill the knowledge gap regarding prevention and treatment for patients with COVID-19 with CP while other therapeutics are being developed.
Topics: COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Immunization, Passive; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 33825689
DOI: 10.2196/25500 -
Mayo Clinic Proceedings May 2021To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies,... (Review)
Review Meta-Analysis
To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies, 2 dose-response studies, and 96 case reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 16, 2021, were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of randomized clinical trials and matched control data demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Mortality; SARS-CoV-2; Time-to-Treatment; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 33958057
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.02.008 -
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Dec 2022The potential of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells to successfully treat hematological cancers is widely recognized. Multiple CAR-T cell therapies are currently... (Review)
Review
The potential of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells to successfully treat hematological cancers is widely recognized. Multiple CAR-T cell therapies are currently under clinical development, with most in early stage, during which dose selection is a key goal. The objective of this review is to address the question of dose-dependent effects on response and/or toxicity from available CAR-T cell clinical trial data. For that purpose, systematic literature review of studies published between January 2010 and May 2022 was performed on PubMed and Embase to search clinical studies that evaluated CAR-T cells for hematological cancers. Studies published in English were considered. Studies in children (age <18 years), solid tumors, bispecific CAR-T cells and CAR-T cell cocktails were excluded. As a result, a total of 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-nine studies tested multiple dose levels of CAR-T cells with at least >1 patient at each dose level. Thirteen studies observed dose-related increase in disease response and 23 studies observed dose-related increase in toxicity across a median of three dose levels. Optimal clinical efficacy was seen at doses 50-100 million cells for anti-CD19 CAR-T cells and >100 million cells for anti-BCMA CAR-T cells in majority of studies. The findings suggest, for a given construct, there exists a dose at which a threshold of optimal efficacy occurs. Dose escalation may reveal increasing objective response rates (ORRs) until that threshold is reached. However, when ORR starts to plateau despite increasing dose, further dose escalation is unlikely to result in improved ORR but is likely to result in higher incidence and/or severity of mechanistically related adverse events.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; T-Lymphocytes; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Neoplasms; Hematologic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36549782
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2022-005678 -
Virology Journal May 2024Multiple studies have provided evidence of suboptimal or poor immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Immunologic responses to the third and fourth doses of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines in cell therapy recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Multiple studies have provided evidence of suboptimal or poor immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and chimeric antigen receptor-T (CAR-T) cell therapy compared to healthy individuals. Given the dynamic nature of SARS-CoV2, characterized by the emergence of many viral variations throughout the general population, there is ongoing discussion regarding the optimal quantity and frequency of additional doses required to sustain protection against SARS-CoV2 especially in this susceptible population. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the immune responses of HSCT and CAR-T cell therapy recipients to additional doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.
METHODS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the study involved a comprehensive search across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, and Cochrane Biorxiv and medRxiv, focusing on the serological responses to the third and fourth vaccine doses in HSCT and CAR-T cell patients.
RESULTS
This study included 32 papers, with 31 qualifying for the meta-analysis. Results showed that after the third dose, the seroconversion rate in HSCT and CAR-T cell therapy recipients who didn't respond to the second dose was 46.10 and 17.26%, respectively. Following the fourth dose, HSCT patients had a seroconversion rate of 27.23%. Moreover, post-third-dose seropositivity rates were 87.14% for HSCT and 32.96% for CAR-T cell therapy recipients. Additionally, the seropositive response to the fourth dose in the HSCT group was 90.04%.
CONCLUSION
While a significant portion of HSCT recipients developed antibodies after additional vaccinations, only a minority of CAR-T cell therapy patients showed a similar response. This suggests that alternative vaccination strategies are needed to protect these vulnerable groups effectively. Moreover, few studies have reported cellular responses to additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in these patients. Further studies evaluating cellular responses are required to determine a more precise assessment of immunogenicity strength against SARS-CoV-2 after additional doses.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Antibodies, Viral; Vaccination; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 38702752
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-024-02375-1 -
Heart & Lung : the Journal of Critical... 2022Convalescent plasma treatment for severe and critically ill Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Convalescent plasma may not be an effective treatment for severe and critically ill covid-19 patients: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Convalescent plasma treatment for severe and critically ill Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical improvement and mortality risk of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases for the randomized controlled studies about convalescent plasma therapy in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes were clinical improvement and mortality risk of severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients that were therapied by convalescent plasma.
RESULTS
A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4543 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to control, no significant difference was observed for either clinical improvement (6 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, p = 0.16, moderate certainty) or mortality risk (14 studies, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03, p= 0.18, low certainty) in patients of convalescent plasma therapy group.
CONCLUSION
Convalescent plasma did not increase the clinical improvement or reduce the mortality risk in the severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.
Topics: COVID-19; Critical Illness; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 35149308
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2022.01.019 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021The efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has already been demonstrated. However, patients...
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has already been demonstrated. However, patients with a history of/active secondary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma were excluded from the licensing trials conducted on two widely used CAR-T cell products, Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-cel) and Tisagenlecleucel (Tisa-cel). Hence, the objective of the present review was to assess whether secondary CNS lymphoma patients would derive a benefit from Axi-cel or Tisa-cel therapy, while maintaining controllable safety.
METHOD
Two reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library independently in order to identify all records associated with Axi-cel and Tisa-cel published prior to February 15, 2021. Studies that included secondary CNS lymphoma patients treated with Axi-cel and Tisa-cel and reported or could be inferred efficacy and safety endpoints of secondary CNS lymphoma patients were included. A tool designed specifically to evaluate the risk of bias in case series and reports and the ROBINS-I tool applied for cohort studies were used.
RESULTS
Ten studies involving forty-four patients were included. Of these, seven were case reports or series. The other three reports were cohort studies involving twenty-five patients. Current evidence indicates that secondary CNS lymphoma patients could achieve long-term remission following Axi-cel and Tisa-cel treatment. Compared with the non-CNS cohort, however, progression-free survival and overall survival tended to be shorter. This was possibly due to the relatively small size of the CNS cohort. The incidence and grades of adverse effects in secondary CNS lymphoma patients resembled those in the non-CNS cohort. No incidences of CAR-T cell-related deaths were reported. Nevertheless, the small sample size introduced a high risk of bias and prevented the identification of specific patients who could benefit more from CAR-T cell therapy.
CONCLUSION
Secondary CNS lymphoma patients could seem to benefit from both Axi-cel and Tisa-cel treatment, with controllable risks. Thus, CAR-T cell therapy has potential as a candidate treatment for lymphoma patients with CNS involvement. Further prospective studies with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are warranted and recommended.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biological Products; Central Nervous System Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Safety; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; T-Lymphocytes; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 34290712
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.693200