-
Endocrine Practice : Official Journal... 2013The monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab has been demonstrated to reduce the risks of relapse and accumulation of sustained disability in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab has been demonstrated to reduce the risks of relapse and accumulation of sustained disability in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients when compared to β-interferon. The development of autoimmune diseases, including thyroid disease, has been reported in the literature with a frequency of 20 to 30%. In this article, we describe 4 cases of alemtuzumab-induced thyroid disease in patients with MS. We also performed a systematic review of the available literature.
METHODS
Four patients who had received alemtuzumab for MS and subsequently developed thyroid dysfunction are presented. We compared our patients' clinical courses and outcomes to established disease patterns. We also undertook a systematic review of the published literature.
RESULTS
All 4 patients presented with initial hyperthyroidism associated with elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) receptor antibodies (TRAb). In 2 cases, hyperthyroidism did not remit after a total of 24 months of carbimazole therapy, and they subsequently underwent subtotal thyroidectomy. The third case subsequently developed biochemical hypothyroidism and required thyroxine replacement, despite having a markedly raised initial TRAb titer. Autoimmunity following alemtuzumab therapy in MS appears to occur as part of an immune reconstitution syndrome and is more likely in smokers who have a family history of autoimmune disease.
CONCLUSION
Management of alemtuzumab-induced thyroid disease is similar to the management of "wild-type" Graves' disease. The use of alemtuzumab in this setting will necessitate close monitoring of thyroid function and early intervention when abnormalities are developing.
Topics: Adult; Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Autoimmune Diseases; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Multiple Sclerosis; Thyroid Diseases
PubMed: 23757618
DOI: 10.4158/EP13020.RA -
Progress in Transplantation (Aliso... Dec 2009To describe the appropriateness and safety of induction immunosuppression for patients at risk for fatal rejection, and to describe the safety and effectiveness profiles... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To describe the appropriateness and safety of induction immunosuppression for patients at risk for fatal rejection, and to describe the safety and effectiveness profiles of the induction regimens available in the United States.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed database, EMBASE database, Google Scholar; references from pertinent articles were also reviewed to identify additional data.
STUDY SELECTION
A systematic literature review from January 1, 1980, through June 30, 2008, was performed. Included articles ranged from case series to prospective randomized controlled double-blind placebo-controlled trials that detailed the following topics with respect to induction immunosuppression: risk of fatal rejection, renal sparing, malignancy, OKT3, rabbit or equine antithymocyte globulin, daclizumab, basiliximab, and alemtuzumab.
RESULTS
Patients at highest risk for fatal rejection experienced a survival benefit from induction immunosuppression, whereas all other patients experienced no benefit or harm. Most of the early data detail positive experiences with polyclonal antibody regimens. Several newer trials compare the use of polyclonal strategies with the use of anti-CD25 targeted monoclonal antibodies. Few researchers have assessed the usefulness of an anti-CD52 approach. Overall, induction therapy remains a poorly studied and widely variable practice among the major US heart transplant centers.
CONCLUSION
At present, the unrestricted use of induction for all patients does not seem prudent. Induction should be individualized for each patient on the basis of a well-designed protocol, careful analysis of the transplant center's demographics, and the effectiveness and safety profiles of the regimens used.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Graft Rejection; Heart Transplantation; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Risk Factors; Transplantation Conditioning
PubMed: 20050456
DOI: 10.1177/152692480901900408 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) accounts for 25% of all leukaemias and is the most common lymphoid malignancy in western countries. Standard treatments include mono-... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) accounts for 25% of all leukaemias and is the most common lymphoid malignancy in western countries. Standard treatments include mono- or polychemotherapies, usually combined with monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab or alemtuzumab. However, the impact of these agents remains unclear, as there are hints for increased risk of severe infections.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review are to provide an evidence-based answer regarding the clinical benefits and harms of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies (such as rituximab, ofatumumab, GA101) compared to no further therapy or to other anti-leukaemic therapies in patients with CLL, irrespective of disease status.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2011), MEDLINE (from January 1990 to 4 January 2012), and EMBASE (from 1990 to 20 March 2009) as well as conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Hematology Association and European Society of Medical Oncology) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs examining monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies compared to no further therapy or to anti-leukaemic therapy such as chemotherapy or monoclonal antibodies in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed CLL.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used hazard ratios (HR) as effect measures for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment, and risk ratios (RR) for response rates, treatment-related mortality (TRM) and adverse events (AEs). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We screened a total of 1150 records. Seven RCTs involving 1763 patients were identified, but only five could be included in the two separate meta-analyses we performed. We judged the overall the quality of these trials as moderate to high. All trials were randomised and open-label studies. However, two trials were published as abstracts only, therefore we were unable to assess the potential risk of bias for these trials in detail.Three RCTs (N = 1421) assessed the efficacy of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies (i.e. rituximab) plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. The meta-analyses showed a statistically significant OS (HR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98, P = 0.03, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) was 12) and PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, P < 0.00001) advantage for patients receiving rituximab. In the rituximab-arm occurred more AEs, World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 (3 trials, N = 1398, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23, P < 0.0001; the number needed to harm for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 9), but that did not lead to a statistically significant difference regarding TRM (3 trials, N = 1415, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.01, P = 0.52).Two trials (N = 177) evaluated rituximab versus alemtuzumab. Neither study reported OS or PFS. There was no statistically significant difference between arms regarding complete response rate (CRR) (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.58, P = 0.14) or TRM (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.51, P = 0.15). However, the CLL2007FMP trial was stopped early owing to an increase in mortality in the alemtuzumab arm. More serious AEs occurred in this arm (43% with alemtuzumab versus 22% with rituximab; P = 0.006).Two trials assessed different dosages or time schedules of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies. One trial (N = 104) evaluated two different rituximab schedules (concurrent arm: fludarabine plus rituximab (Flu-R) plus rituximab consolidation versus sequential arm: fludarabine alone plus rituximab consolidation). The comparison of the concurrent versus sequential regimen of rituximab showed a statistically significant difference of the CRR with 33% in the concurrent-arm and 15% in the sequential-arm (P = 0.04), that did not lead to statistically significant differences regarding OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.65, P = 0.30) or PFS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.15, P = 0.11). Furthermore results showed no differences in occurring AEs, except for neutropenia, which was more often observed in patients of the concurrent arm. The other trial (N = 61) investigated two different dosages (500 mg and 1000 mg) of ofatumumab in addition to FluC. The arm investigating ofatumumab did not assess OS and a median PFS had not been reached owing to the short median follow-up of eight months. It showed no statistically significant differences between arms regarding CRR (32% in the FCO500 arm versus 50% in the FCO1000 arm; P = 0.10) or AEs (anaemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that patients receiving chemotherapy plus rituximab benefit in terms of OS as well as PFS compared to those with chemotherapy alone. Therefore, it supports the recommendation of rituximab in combination with FluC as an option for the first-line treatment as well as for the people with relapsed or refractory CLL. The available evidence regarding the other assessed comparisons was not sufficient to deduct final conclusions.
Topics: Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rituximab; Vidarabine
PubMed: 23152253
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008079.pub2 -
Current Pharmaceutical Design 2024Co-signaling and adhesion molecules are important elements for creating immune synapses between T lymphocytes and antigen-presenting cells; they positively or negatively...
BACKGROUND
Co-signaling and adhesion molecules are important elements for creating immune synapses between T lymphocytes and antigen-presenting cells; they positively or negatively regulate the interaction between a T cell receptor with its cognate antigen, presented by the major histocompatibility complex.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review on the effects of High Efficacy Disease Modifying Drugs (HEDMDs) for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) on the co-signaling and adhesion molecules that form the immune synapse.
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and other sources to identify clinical or preclinical reports on the effects of HEDMDs on co-signaling and adhesion molecules that participate in the formation of immune synapses in patients with MS or other autoimmune disorders. We included reports on cladribine tablets, anti- CD20 monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, inhibitors of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase, and natalizumab.
RESULTS
In 56 eligible reports among 7340 total publications, limited relevant evidence was uncovered. Not all co-signaling and adhesion molecules have been studied in relation to every HEDMD, with more data being available on the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (that affect CD80, CD86, GITR and TIGIT), cladribine tablets (affecting CD28, CD40, ICAM-1, LFA-1) and the S1P modulators (affecting CD86, ICAM-1 and LFA-1) and less on Natalizumab (affecting CD80, CD86, CD40, LFA-1, VLA-4) and Alemtuzumab (affecting GITR and CTLA-4).
CONCLUSION
The puzzle of HEDMD effects on the immune synapse is far from complete. The available evidence suggests that distinguishing differences exist between drugs and are worth pursuing further.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Cell Adhesion Molecules; Immunological Synapses; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 38343058
DOI: 10.2174/0113816128288102240131053205 -
Clinical Rheumatology Feb 2023Cutaneo us vasculitis (CV) has a broad spectrum of etiologies, and drugs are one of the main culprits. With the increasing use of targeted therapies in medicine,...
Cutaneo us vasculitis (CV) has a broad spectrum of etiologies, and drugs are one of the main culprits. With the increasing use of targeted therapies in medicine, especially in rheumatology and oncology, the number of CV cases reported due to these drugs has increased. Therefore, the recognition and treatment of CV associated with targeted agents have become more and more important. In the literature, anti-TNFs (n = 73, 59.5%), secukinumab (n = 7, 6%), rituximab (n = 5, 4%), tocilizumab (n = 1, 0.8%), ustekinumab (n = 8, 6.5%), abatacept (n = 3, 2.4%), Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 3, 2.4%), alemtuzumab (n = 3, 2.4%), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 20, 16%) have been reported as responsible agents. However, our knowledge of the pathogenetic mechanisms is fairly limited, and the standardized management is yet to be established. Furthermore, though it is uncommon, this complication may pose a safety issue. In this manuscript, we reviewed the literature on CV with or without systemic involvement related to targeted agents. We also proposed the pathogenetic mechanisms of these adverse events. Thus, we aimed to make it easier for clinicians to manage similar cases by reviewing the diagnosis and treatment processes.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; Antineoplastic Agents; Rituximab; Skin Diseases, Vascular; Ustekinumab; Vasculitis
PubMed: 36369405
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-022-06406-6 -
The Permanente Journal 2016B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (B-PLL) is a rare, aggressive leukemia distinct from chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with median survival of only 3 years. B-PLL is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (B-PLL) is a rare, aggressive leukemia distinct from chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with median survival of only 3 years. B-PLL is resistant to most chemotherapy and newer targeted therapies such as alemtuzumab and thalidomide. Phenylethyl isothiocyanate (PEITC) is a natural compound from horseradish with evidence for therapeutic potential in multiple leukemia types.
CASE PRESENTATION
Here we present a case report of a 53-year-old man whose chronic lymphocytic leukemia transformed to end-stage B-PLL, disqualifying him for allogenic stem cell transplantation. He was treated with PEITC followed by salvage R-CHOP (Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Hydroxydaunorubicin [doxorubicin hydrochloride], Oncovin [vincristine sulfate], Prednisone or Prednisolone) chemotherapy, which led to normalized white blood cell count and disease stabilization that requalified him for allogenic peripheral stem-cell transplant therapy. We conducted a systematic review to analyze and interpret the potential contribution of PEITC to his unexpectedly favorable R-CHOP response. Following sequential 8 weeks of PEITC/pentostatin and 6 cycles of R-CHOP, the patient received allogenic peripheral blood stem cell transplant on an outpatient basis and remains well at the time of this publication, with no evidence of CD20+ small B-cells.
DISCUSSION
Given the limited data for R-CHOP in B-PLL, this patient's recovery suggests presensitization of B-PLL cells toward R-CHOP, potentially justifying further investigation.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Isothiocyanates; Leukemia, Prolymphocytic, B-Cell; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 27168399
DOI: 10.7812/TPP/15-153 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for preventing rejection after liver transplantation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of T-cell specific antibody induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We planned to include trials with all of the different types of T-cell specific antibodies that are or have been used for induction (ie., polyclonal antibodies (rabbit of horse antithymocyte globulin (ATG), or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG)), monoclonal antibodies (muromonab-CD3, anti-CD2, or alemtuzumab), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (daclizumab, basiliximab, BT563, or Lo-Tact-1)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used RevMan analysis for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 randomised clinical trials with a total of 2067 liver transplant recipients. All 19 trials were with high risk of bias. Of the 19 trials, 16 trials were two-arm trials, and three trials were three-arm trials. Hence, we found 25 trial comparisons with antibody induction agents: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction (10 trials with 1454 participants); monoclonal antibody versus no induction (five trials with 398 participants); polyclonal antibody versus no induction (three trials with 145 participants); IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (one trial with 87 participants); and IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody (two trials with 112 participants). Thus, we were able to compare T-cell specific antibody induction versus no induction (17 trials with a total of 1955 participants). Overall, no difference in mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; low-quality of evidence), graft loss including death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; low-quality of evidence), and adverse events ((RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) outcomes was observed between any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Acute rejection seemed to be reduced when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence), and when trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed before the required information size was obtained. Furthermore, serum creatinine was statistically significantly higher when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (MD 3.77 μmol/L, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.21; low-quality evidence), as well as when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction, but this small difference was not clinically significant. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes - infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension - when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were found on quality of life.When T-cell specific antibody induction agents were compared with another type of antibody induction, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality, graft loss, and acute rejection for the separate analyses. When interleukin-2 receptor antagonists were compared with polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction, drug-related adverse events were less common among participants treated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; low-quality evidence), but this was caused by the results from one trial, and trial sequential analysis could not exclude random errors. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes: infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. No data were found on quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain because of the high risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials, the small number of randomised clinical trials reported, and the limited numbers of participants and outcomes in the trials. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce acute rejection when compared with no induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction, or when compared with another type of T-cell specific antibody. Hence, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, and compared with another type of antibody, for prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error (bias) and low risk of random error (play of chance).
Topics: Acute Disease; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibody Formation; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunity, Cellular; Immunosuppression Therapy; Liver Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 24901467
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010253.pub2 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Nov 2018Psychiatric comorbidity is prevalent in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Few studies have assessed whether second-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMT) are...
BACKGROUND
Psychiatric comorbidity is prevalent in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Few studies have assessed whether second-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMT) are associated with adverse psychiatric effects.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the APEs associated with natalizumab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide and alemtuzumab in MS. As a secondary objective, we evaluated changes in anxiety or depression scores following treatment with the aforementioned DMTs.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsychINFO, Central Register of Controlled Trials & Cochrane database of systematic reviews for published studies, and clinicaltrials.gov and regulatory documents from the US and Canada for unpublished studies. Data sources were searched from inception to September 2017. Studies reporting adverse psychiatric effects involving any DMT of interest were included. We report the incidence proportions of the adverse psychiatric effects and, where applicable, risk differences between DMT-exposed and unexposed individuals along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. We calculated the standardized mean differences (SMD) of changes in anxiety and depression scores if reported as study outcomes, and pooled the data using random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 4389 abstracts screened, 78 met the inclusion criteria, including 48 clinical trials, 28 observational studies and 2 case reports. Depression was the most commonly reported adverse psychiatric effect. Incidence proportions for all adverse psychiatric effects ranged from 0 to 24.7%. None of the DMT studied were associated with a statistically significant increased risk of any adverse psychiatric effect (range of risk difference: -7.69% [95%CI: -16.06%, 5.56%] to 6.67 [-8.56, 15.59]). Eighteen studies examined changes in depression or anxiety following fingolimod, natalizumab or dimethyl fumarate treatment; depression symptoms improved in fingolimod-treated groups (SMD [95%CI]: 1.18 [0.17, 2.19]). We did not identify studies examining changes in these outcomes following treatment with any of the other DMTs.
CONCLUSION
The DMTs reviewed were not associated with an increased risk of adverse psychiatric effect in MS, and some may reduce the incidence of depressive symptoms. This may reflect either a positive direct effect (e.g. immune modulation) or an indirect effect arising due to a positive impact on disease activity or course.
Topics: Anxiety; Depression; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 30248593
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.09.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017The treatment of multiple sclerosis has changed over the last 20 years. The advent of disease-modifying drugs in the mid-1990s heralded a period of rapid progress in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment of multiple sclerosis has changed over the last 20 years. The advent of disease-modifying drugs in the mid-1990s heralded a period of rapid progress in the understanding and management of multiple sclerosis. With the support of magnetic resonance imaging early diagnosis is possible, enabling treatment initiation at the time of the first clinical attack. As most of the disease-modifying drugs are associated with adverse events, patients and clinicians need to weigh the benefit and safety of the various early treatment options before taking informed decisions.
OBJECTIVES
1. to estimate the benefit and safety of disease-modifying drugs that have been evaluated in all studies (randomised or non-randomised) for the treatment of a first clinical attack suggestive of MS compared either with placebo or no treatment;2. to assess the relative efficacy and safety of disease-modifying drugs according to their benefit and safety;3. to estimate the benefit and safety of disease-modifying drugs that have been evaluated in all studies (randomised or non-randomised) for treatment started after a first attack ('early treatment') compared with treatment started after a second attack or at another later time point ('delayed treatment').
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO trials registry, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, and searched for unpublished studies (until December 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and observational studies that evaluated one or more drugs as monotherapy in adult participants with a first clinical attack suggestive of MS. We considered evidence on alemtuzumab, azathioprine, cladribine, daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, immunoglobulins, interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a (Rebif®, Avonex®), laquinimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, rituximab and teriflunomide.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two teams of three authors each independently selected studies and extracted data. The primary outcomes were disability-worsening, relapses, occurrence of at least one serious adverse event (AE) and withdrawing from the study or discontinuing the drug because of AEs. Time to conversion to clinically definite MS (CDMS) defined by Poser diagnostic criteria, and probability to discontinue the treatment or dropout for any reason were recorded as secondary outcomes. We synthesized study data using random-effects meta-analyses and performed indirect comparisons between drugs. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) along with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. We estimated the absolute effects only for primary outcomes. We evaluated the credibility of the evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 randomised trials, eight open-label extension studies (OLEs) and four cohort studies published between 2010 and 2016. The overall risk of bias was high and the reporting of AEs was scarce. The quality of the evidence associated with the results ranges from low to very low. Early treatment versus placebo during the first 24 months' follow-upThere was a small, non-significant advantage of early treatment compared with placebo in disability-worsening (6.4% fewer (13.9 fewer to 3 more) participants with disability-worsening with interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) or teriflunomide) and in relapses (10% fewer (20.3 fewer to 2.8 more) participants with relapses with teriflunomide). Early treatment was associated with 1.6% fewer participants with at least one serious AE (3 fewer to 0.2 more). Participants on early treatment were on average 4.6% times (0.3 fewer to 15.4 more) more likely to withdraw from the study due to AEs. This result was mostly driven by studies on interferon beta 1-b, glatiramer acetate and cladribine that were associated with significantly more withdrawals for AEs. Early treatment decreased the hazard of conversion to CDMS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.60). Comparing active interventions during the first 24 months' follow-upIndirect comparison of interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) with teriflunomide did not show any difference on reducing disability-worsening (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.66). We found no differences between the included drugs with respect to the hazard of conversion to CDMS. Interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) and teriflunomide were associated with fewer dropouts because of AEs compared with interferon beta-1b, cladribine and glatiramer acetate (ORs range between 0.03 and 0.29, with substantial uncertainty). Early versus delayed treatmentWe did not find evidence of differences between early and delayed treatments for disability-worsening at a maximum of five years' follow-up (3% fewer participants with early treatment (15 fewer to 11.1 more)). There was important variability across interventions; early treatment with interferon beta-1b considerably reduced the odds of participants with disability-worsening during three and five years' follow-up (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84 and OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89). The early treatment group had 19.6% fewer participants with relapses (26.7 fewer to 12.7 fewer) compared to late treatment at a maximum of five years' follow-up and early treatment decreased the hazard of conversion to CDMS at any follow-up up to 10 years (i.e. over five years' follow-up HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.73). We did not draw any conclusions on long-term serious AEs or discontinuation due to AEs because of inadequacies in the available data both in the included OLEs and cohort studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-quality evidence suggests a small and uncertain benefit with early treatment compared with placebo in reducing disability-worsening and relapses. The advantage of early treatment compared with delayed on disability-worsening was heterogeneous depending on the actual drug used and based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that the chances of relapse are less with early treatment compared with delayed. Early treatment reduced the hazard of conversion to CDMS compared either with placebo, no treatment or delayed treatment, both in short- and long-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence suggests that early treatment is associated with fewer participants with at least one serious AE compared with placebo. Very low-quality evidence suggests that, compared with placebo, early treatment leads to more withdrawals or treatment discontinuation due to AEs. Difference between drugs on short-term benefit and safety was uncertain because few studies and only indirect comparisons were available. Long-term safety of early treatment is uncertain because of inadequately reported or unavailable data.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Cladribine; Cohort Studies; Crotonates; Disease Progression; Glatiramer Acetate; Humans; Hydroxybutyrates; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon beta-1a; Multiple Sclerosis; Nitriles; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Time Factors; Toluidines
PubMed: 28440858
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012200.pub2 -
British Journal of Haematology Dec 2021Lymphocyte-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome (L-HES) is a rare disease driven by immunophenotypically aberrant T cells producing eosinophilopoetic cytokines such as...
Lymphocyte-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome (L-HES) is a rare disease driven by immunophenotypically aberrant T cells producing eosinophilopoetic cytokines such as interleukin-5 (IL-5). Treatment is challenging because L-HES is relatively steroid resistant and not amenable to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We searched the literature for clinical trials and observational studies, including case reports, of patients treated for L-HES. In all, 25 studies were selected; two were randomised controlled trials of IL-5 blockade, which included some patients with L-HES, and the rest were observational studies. Corticosteroids are often used as first-line therapy, but patients with L-HES have lower response rates than other types of HES. Treatments that reduce symptoms and steroid dependence in some patients include interferon-alpha (IFN-α), anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies, cyclosporine and mycophenolate. These drugs target T-cell activation and proliferation, or IL-5 directly. Although effective, IFN-α and cyclosporine were commonly reported to cause side-effects resulting in discontinuation. Alemtuzumab can induce remissions, but these are generally short lived. The anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies mepolizumab and benralizumab are effective and well tolerated, but with a high rate of relapse once withdrawn. Hydroxyurea, methotrexate, imatinib were unsuccessful in most patients studied. More prospective clinical trials are needed for patients with L-HES.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Cyclosporine; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Hypereosinophilic Syndrome; Imatinib Mesylate; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon-alpha; Interleukin-5; Lymphocyte Activation; Lymphocytes
PubMed: 34105142
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.17615