-
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 -
Viruses Mar 2023While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Immunization, Passive; Pandemics
PubMed: 36992474
DOI: 10.3390/v15030765 -
Cancer Research and Treatment Jul 2023We intend to evaluate the efficacy of salvage treatments for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) through meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of Salvage Treatments in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Including Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
PURPOSE
We intend to evaluate the efficacy of salvage treatments for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) through meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
R/R DLBCL trials were divided into two groups based on eligibility for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT), and meta-analysis of each group was performed. Random effects models were used to estimate the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was used as reference treatment.
RESULTS
Twenty-six ASCT-eligible cohorts from 17 studies comprising 2,924 patients and 59 ASCT-ineligible cohorts from 53 studies comprising 3,617 patients were included in the pooled analysis. In the ASCT-eligible group, the pooled 1-year PFS rate was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.65) for the CAR T-cell group and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.37) for the group with chemotherapy followed by ASCT intention. The two treatments were not significantly different in meta-regression analysis. In the ASCT-ineligible group, the pooled 1-year PFS was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.46) for CAR T-cell, and the highest primary outcome was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.57) for the tafasitamab group. CAR T-cell therapy showed significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy and therapies based on ibrutinib, lenalidomide, and selinexor. However, loncastuximab, polatuzumab plus bendamustine and rituximab, and the tafasitamab group showed no different efficacy than CAR T-cell therapy after adjusting for median number of previous lines of treatment.
CONCLUSION
Although several regimens were crudely grouped for classification, CAR T-cell therapy did not outperform chemotherapy followed by ASCT in the second-line setting or several recently developed agents in the ASCT-ineligible setting.
Topics: Humans; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Combined Modality Therapy; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Salvage Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse
PubMed: 36915243
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2022.1658 -
Cancer Gene Therapy Jun 2023Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is an effective treatment approach for patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Long-term response to autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cells in relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is an effective treatment approach for patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). However, identifying the factors that influence long-term response to this therapy is necessary to optimize patient selection and treatment allocation. We conducted a literature review and meta-analysis to investigate the use of autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy in both pediatric and adult patients with R/R B-ALL, using several databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Journals@Ovid, Embase, and clinicaltrial.gov. A total of 38 reports were analyzed, which enrolled 2134 patients. Time-to-event endpoints were estimated using reconstructed patient survival data. The study explored key modulators of response, including costimulatory domains, disease status, age, and lymphodepletion. The median overall survival and event-free survival were 36.2 months [95% CI 28.9, NR] and 13.3 months [95% CI 12.2, 17], respectively. The overall response rate was 76% [95% CI 71, 81]. The use of 4-1BB costimulatory domain in the CAR construct, administration of low-dose cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion, and pretreatment morphologic remission were associated with better overall survival, with hazard ratios of 0.72, 0.56, and 0.66, respectively. Morphologic remission and 4-1BB domain were associated with better event-free survival, with hazard ratios of 0.66 and 0.72, respectively. These findings suggest that CAR T cell therapy may offer long-term benefits to patients with R/R B-ALL. However, further research is needed to optimize patient selection and better understand the impact of various factors on the outcome of CAR T cell therapy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Antigens, CD19; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 36750666
DOI: 10.1038/s41417-023-00593-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Immunoglobulins; SARS-CoV-2; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 36734509
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013600.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies that evaluated standard immunoglobulin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab') fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´) fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´) fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Immunoglobulins; SARS-CoV-2; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36700518
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015167.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2023Patients who are immunocompromised have increased risk for morbidity and mortality associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because they less frequently mount... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Patients who are immunocompromised have increased risk for morbidity and mortality associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because they less frequently mount antibody responses to vaccines. Although neutralizing anti-spike monoclonal-antibody treatment has been widely used to treat COVID-19, evolutions of SARS-CoV-2 have been associated with monoclonal antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants and greater virulence and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the therapeutic use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma has increased on the presumption that such plasma contains potentially therapeutic antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the growing number of reports of clinical experiences of patients with COVID-19 who are immunocompromised and treated with specific neutralizing antibodies via COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion.
DATA SOURCES
On August 12, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma use in patients who are immunocompromised.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials, matched cohort studies, and case report or series on COVID-19 convalescent plasma use in patients who are immunocompromised were included. The electronic search yielded 462 unique records, of which 199 were considered for full-text screening.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 3 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEAURES
The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality after COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion; exploratory subgroup analyses were performed based on putative factors associated with the potential mortality benefit of convalescent plasma.
RESULTS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included 3 randomized clinical trials enrolling 1487 participants and 5 controlled studies. Additionally, 125 case series or reports enrolling 265 participants and 13 uncontrolled large case series enrolling 358 participants were included. Separate meta-analyses, using models both stratified and pooled by study type (ie, randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies), demonstrated that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for the amalgam of both randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies (risk ratio [RR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is associated with mortality benefit for patients who are immunocompromised and have COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Blood Component Transfusion; Immunization, Passive; Plasma; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36633846
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50647 -
Journal of Experimental & Clinical... Jan 2023CAR-T cells are widely recognized for their potential to successfully treat hematologic cancers and provide durable response. However, severe adverse events such as... (Review)
Review
CAR-T cells are widely recognized for their potential to successfully treat hematologic cancers and provide durable response. However, severe adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity are concerning. Our goal is to assess CAR-T cell clinical trial publications to address the question of whether administration of CAR-T cells as dose fractions reduces toxicity without adversely affecting efficacy. 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 hematologic cancers. Studies published in English were considered. Studies in children (age < 18), solid tumors, bispecific CAR-T cells, and CAR-T cell cocktails were excluded. Data was extracted from the studies that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Review identified a total of 18 studies that used dose fractionation. Six studies used 2-day dosing schemes and 12 studies used 3-day schemes to administer CAR-T cells. Three studies had both single dose and fractionated dose cohorts. Lower incidence of Grade ≥ 3 CRS and neurotoxicity was seen in fractionated dose cohorts in 2 studies, whereas 1 study reported no difference between single and fractionated dose cohorts. Dose fractionation was mainly recommended for high tumor burden patients. Efficacy of CAR-T cells in fractionated dose was comparable to single dose regimen within the same or historical trial of the same agent in all the studies. The findings suggest that administering dose fractions of CAR-T cells over 2-3 days instead of single dose infusion may mitigate the toxicity of CAR-T cell therapy including CRS and neurotoxicity, especially in patients with high tumor burden. However, controlled studies are likely needed to confirm the benefits of dose fractionation.
Topics: Child; Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Hematologic Neoplasms; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Cytokine Release Syndrome; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 36627710
DOI: 10.1186/s13046-022-02540-w -
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 -
Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) are neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against different epitopes of the receptor-binding domain of the... (Review)
Review
Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) are neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against different epitopes of the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that have been considered as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Objectives: This study seeks to assess the efficacy and safety of TGM/CGM to prevent COVID-19 in patients at high risk for breakthrough and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection who never benefited maximally from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for those who have a contraindication to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Design: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, medRxiv, ProQuest, Wiley online library, Medline, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2021 to 30 November 2022 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: 2019-nCoV, 2019 novel coronavirus, COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019, SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, combination, monoclonal, passive, immunization, antibody, efficacy, clinical trial, cohort, pre-exposure, prophylaxis, and prevention. We included studies in moderate to severe immunocompromised adults (aged ≥18 years) and children (aged ≥12 years) who cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19 or may have an inadequate response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The effect sizes of the outcome of measures were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and risk ratios (RRs). Results: Of the 76 papers that were identified, 30 articles were included in the qualitative analysis and 13 articles were included in the quantitative analysis (23 cohorts, 5 case series, 1 care report, and 1 randomized clinical trial). Studies involving 27,932 patients with high risk for breakthrough and severe COVID-19 that reported use of TGM/CGM combination were analyzed (all were adults (100%), 62.8% were men, and patients were mainly immunocompromised (66.6%)). The patients’ ages ranged from 19.7 years to 79.8 years across studies. TGM/CGM use was associated with lower COVID-19-related hospitalization rate (0.54% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.27), lower ICU admission rate (0.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.68), lower mortality rate (0.2% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.67), higher neutralization of COVID-19 Omicron variant rate (12.9% vs. 6%, p = 0.60), lower proportion of patients who needed oxygen therapy (8% vs. 41.2%, p = 0.27), lower RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate (2.1% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01), lower proportion of patients who had severe COVID-19 (0% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.79), lower proportion of patients who had symptomatic COVID-19 (1.8% vs. 6%, p = 0.22), and higher adverse effects rate (11.1% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.0066) than no treatment or other alternative treatment in the prevention of COVID-19. Conclusion: For PrEP, TGM/CGM-based treatment can be associated with a better clinical outcome than no treatment or other alternative treatment. However, more randomized control trials are warranted to confirm our findings and investigate the efficacy and safety of TGM/CGM to prevent COVID-19 in patients at risk for breakthrough or severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PubMed: 36547204
DOI: 10.3390/diseases10040118