-
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Oct 2023As a novel anticancer therapy, chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell therapy may lead to cardiotoxic reactions. However, the exact incidence remains unclear. Our... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
As a novel anticancer therapy, chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell therapy may lead to cardiotoxic reactions. However, the exact incidence remains unclear. Our study aimed to preliminarily assess the prevalence of cardiotoxicity after CAR T cell treatment using a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for potentially relevant studies. All types of relevant clinical studies were screened and assessed for risk bias. In most instances, random-effect models were used for data analysis, and heterogeneity between studies was evaluated. Standard quality assessment tools were used to assess quality. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022304611). Eight eligible studies comprising 3567 patients, including seven observational studies and one controlled study, were identified. The incidence of cardiovascular events was 16.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.138-0.200, P < 0.01)]. Arrhythmia was the most common disorder, with an incidence of 6.5% (95% CI 0.029-0.115, P < 0.01). The occurrence of cardiotoxicity was associated with cytokine release syndrome (CRS), with a prevalence of 18.7% (95% CI 0.107-0.315, P < 0.01). Moreover, such adverse reactions were more common when CRS > 2 (OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.29, P < 0.01). The risk of cardiotoxicity was not notably higher in patients receiving CAR T cell therapy than in those receiving traditional anticancer treatment. However, sufficient attention should be paid to this. And further evidence from large-scale clinical trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Cardiotoxicity; T-Lymphocytes; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 36930381
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-023-01042-z -
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 -
Human Gene Therapy Mar 2023Dual-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has been proposed as a potential solution for overcoming antigen escape during anti-CD19 CAR-T treatment.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dual-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has been proposed as a potential solution for overcoming antigen escape during anti-CD19 CAR-T treatment. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of this novel treatment in patients with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) and B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). We systematically searched relevant literature based on databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane) and conference abstracts. The primary outcomes measured were the best objective response rate (ORR) or complete response (CR), 12-month overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and neurotoxicity. Fifteen registered prospective open-label clinical trials were included. Among the 260 patients with B-NHL, the pooled best ORR and CR were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-0.82) and 52% (95% CI: 0.40-0.63), respectively, and the pooled 12-month PFS and OS were 54.0% (95% CI: 0.47-0.61) and 66.0% (95% CI: 0.56-0.77), respectively. In the 159 patients with B-ALL, the combined best CR was observed to be 92% (95% CI: 0.82-0.99) and the pooled 12-month PFS and OS were 65.0% (95% CI: 0.51-0.77) and 73.0% (95% CI: 0.56-0.92), respectively. Moreover, in B-NHL patients, grade ≥3 CRS was observed in 14.0% (95% CI: 0.04-0.29) of these patients, and 5.0% (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) showed grade ≥3 neurotoxicity; in the case of B-ALL patients, grade ≥3 CRS and neurotoxicity occurred in 11.0% (95% CI: 0.04-0.19) and 2.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.06), respectively. This study demonstrates the safety and clinical efficacy of dual-targeting CAR-T cell therapies in B cell malignancies. Further, well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to establish the role of dual-targeting CAR-T cell therapy in patients with B cell malignancies.
Topics: Humans; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Prospective Studies; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; B-Lymphocytes; Lymphoma, B-Cell; Antigens, CD19
PubMed: 36734417
DOI: 10.1089/hum.2022.183 -
International Immunopharmacology Jan 2023Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematological malignancy without cure, and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell (CAR-T) therapy has been shown great...
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematological malignancy without cure, and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell (CAR-T) therapy has been shown great promising in MM. Unlike previous published studies mainly focusing on efficacy and safety, this study aims to summarize time points in the process of CAR-T therapy in MM and establish a standardized time-related CAR-T therapy platform to provide a reference for CAR-T treatment in MM.
METHODS
All the literatures were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, American Society of Hematology (ASH), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Hematology Association (EHA). Relevant median detection time of efficacy and safety-related indicators of CAR-T therapy in MM were extracted from included literatures, and median values were applied to represent detection time points of indicators. Notably, the median values were not the certain and optimal detection time points, while the significance is that indicators could be detected more frequently around the median values to obtain the ideal results.
RESULTS
This review presented the median detection time points of efficacy and safety-related indicators of CAR-T therapy in MM according to the chronological order. For short-term effects on inflammation status within 1 month after CAR-T initiation, the median time points of cytokine release syndrome onset, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome onset, neutrophils recovery and CAR-T expansion peak were 4.5, 8, 10 and 12 days, respectively. For medium-term effects on clinical response in MM beyond 1 month and up to 3 months following CAR-T infusion, the median time points of minimal residual disease negativity, the reduction of serum light chain to minimum, platelet recovery and the reduction of M protein to minimum were 30, 30, 44 and 90 days, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review summarized the median detection time points of efficacy and safety-related indicators of CAR-T therapy in MM and constructed the time-related CAR-T therapy platform, providing an evidence-based standard for establishment of CAR-T treatment regimen in MM.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Immunotherapy; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 36700772
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2022.109592 -
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 -
Bone Marrow Transplantation Apr 2023Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a leading cause of cancer death in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTLD... (Review)
Review
Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a leading cause of cancer death in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTLD portends a high risk of death and effective management is not well established. CD19-targeted CAR-T cell therapy has been utilized, but the risks and benefits are unknown. We report the first case of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) PTLD treated with lisocabtagene maraleucel and present a systematic literature review of SOTRs with PTLD treated with CD19 CAR-T therapy. Our patient achieved a complete response (CR) with limited toxicity but experienced a CD19 relapse 8 months after infusion despite CAR-T persistence. Literature review revealed 14 DLBCL and 2 Burkitt lymphoma PTLD cases treated with CD19 CAR-T cells. Kidney (n = 12), liver (n = 2), heart (n = 2), and pancreas after kidney (n = 1) transplant recipients were analyzed. The objective response rate (ORR) was 82.4% (14/17), with 58.5% (10/17) CRs and a 6.5-month median duration of response. Among kidney transplant recipients, the ORR was 91.7% (11/12). Allograft rejection occurred in 23.5% (4/17). No graft failure occurred. Our analysis suggests that CD19 CAR-T therapy offers short-term effectiveness and manageable toxicity in SOTRs with R/R PTLD. Further investigation through larger datasets and prospective study is needed.
Topics: Humans; Antigens, CD19; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse; Lymphoproliferative Disorders; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Organ Transplantation; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 36575360
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-022-01907-z