-
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Mar 2022Even though a plethora of systemic therapies have been proposed for necrobiotic xanthogranuloma (NXG), there is no systematic review on this topic in literature. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Even though a plethora of systemic therapies have been proposed for necrobiotic xanthogranuloma (NXG), there is no systematic review on this topic in literature.
OBJECTIVE
To review all existing literature on the systemic therapy of NXG in order to identify the most effective therapies.
METHODS
All reported papers in the literature were screened for systemic treatments of NXG. Papers without proper description of the therapies, papers describing topical therapy, and articles without assessment of effectiveness were excluded. Subsequently, we analyzed 79 papers and a total of 175 cases.
RESULTS
The most effective treatments for NXG are intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), corticosteroids, and combination therapies including corticosteroids.
CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids and IVIG should therefore be considered first-line treatments in patients with NXG.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Necrobiotic Xanthogranuloma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35331271
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-022-02291-z -
Systematic Reviews Nov 2015Several options are available for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), but disease control remains elusive for many patients. Recently, literature has emerged... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Several options are available for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), but disease control remains elusive for many patients. Recently, literature has emerged describing anti-IgE monoclonal antibody as a potential therapy for CRS. However, its effectiveness and safety are not well known. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-IgE therapy and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research for the management of CRS.
METHODS
Methodology was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42014007600). A comprehensive search was performed of standard bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, and clinical trials registries. Only randomized controlled trials assessing anti-IgE therapy in adult patients for the treatment of CRS were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a pre-defined extraction form and performed quality assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE framework.
RESULTS
Two studies met our inclusion criteria. When comparing anti-IgE therapy to placebo, there was a significant difference in Lund-McKay score (p = 0.04) while no difference was seen for percent opacification on computed tomography (CT). At 16 weeks, treatment led to a decrease in clinical polyp score. No significant difference was seen with regard to quality of life (Total Nasal Symptom Severity (TNSS), p < 0.21; Sinonasal Outcome Test 20 (SNOT-20), p < 0.60), and no serious complications were reported in either trial. Based on the quality assessment, studies were deemed to be of moderate risk of bias and a low overall quality of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of anti-IgE monoclonal antibody therapy for the treatment of CRS.
Topics: Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Chronic Disease; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26581392
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0157-5 -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
OBJECTIVE
This work aims to summarize both label and off-label biologics on AD treatment in phase II and phase III stages, and compile evidence on the efficacy of the most-studied biologics.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all documented biological therapies for AD. The criteria were further refined to focus on those treatments with the highest evidence level for AD with at least one randomized clinical trial supporting their use. Only studies or articles published in English were enrolled in this study.
FINDINGS
Primary searches identified 525 relevant articles and 27 trials. Duplicated articles and papers without a full text were excluded. Only completed trials were enrolled. We included 28 randomized controlled trials, 4 unpublished trials, 2 observational studies, and 1 meta-analysis. Eight kinds of biologics, including IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, anti-IL-13 antibodies, anti-IL-22 antibodies, anti-IL-33 antibodies, thymic stromal lymphopoietin inhibitor (TSLP), OX40 antibodies, and H4R-antagonists were included in this work. Dupliumab, as the most widely used and investigated biologic, was reported in 1 meta-analysis and 4 trials exploring its long-term use and application in both adults and pediatric patients. Besides dupilumab, four other IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors recruited were all randomized, clinical trials at phase 2-3 stage. Six different kinds of JAK inhibitors were summarized with strong evidence revealing their significant therapeutic effects on AD. There were 3 trials for nemolizumab, an anti-IL-13 antibody, all of which were in the phase 2 clinical trial stage. Results showed nemolizumab could be another alternative therapy for moderate-to-severe AD with long-term efficiency and safety.
CONCLUSION
The biological therapies with the most robust evidence on efficacy and long-term safety for AD treatment include dupilumab, barcitinib, abrocitinib, and delgocitinib. Most of the biologics mentioned in this review were still at the exploratory stage. This review will help practitioners advise patients seeking suitable biological therapies and offer experimental study directions for treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azetidines; Biological Products; Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Nitriles; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 33735876
DOI: 10.1159/000514535 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
Six cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain. IVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment. IVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Plasma Exchange; Polyneuropathies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35015296
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004429.pub3 -
RMD Open Dec 2023Refractory autoimmune diseases remain a significant challenge in clinical practice and new therapeutic options are needed. This systematic review evaluates the existing...
OBJECTIVE
Refractory autoimmune diseases remain a significant challenge in clinical practice and new therapeutic options are needed. This systematic review evaluates the existing reported data on the CD38-targeting antibody daratumumab as a new therapeutic approach in autoantibody-mediated autoimmune diseases.
METHODS
A protocolised systematic literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. Two databases (Medline and Embase) were searched for suitable studies. Usage of daratumumab in non-oncological or non-transplantation associated diseases with autoimmune pathophysiology was analysed including patient characteristics, therapeutic regimen, adverse events and patient outcome.
RESULTS
38 publications reporting the clinical course of 83 patients met the inclusion criteria. Daratumumab usage was reported in therapy-refractory cases (median of 5 different previous therapies) in 24 different autoimmune diseases. The median number of applications of daratumumab was 4, mainly via intravenous applications (87%). Concomitant treatment included glucocorticoids in 64% of patients, intravenous immunoglobulins (33%) and rituximab (17%). Remission or improvement of disease was reported in 81% of patients. Autoantibody depletion or reduction was stated in 52% of patients. Death occurred in three patients (3%). Adverse events were reported in 45% of patients including application-associated reaction (20%), infection (19%) and hypogammaglobulinaemia (33%).
CONCLUSION
Targeting CD38 via daratumumab is a new promising therapeutic option in therapy refractory autoimmune diseases. Efficacy as well as optimal therapeutic regimen and management or prevention of adverse events require further investigation. Therefore, systematic clinical trials of this therapeutic approach are needed.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Rituximab; Autoimmune Diseases; Autoantibodies
PubMed: 38101819
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003604 -
Health Technology Assessment... Aug 2016End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation followed by induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) and rabbit antihuman thymocyte immunoglobulin (Thymoglobuline,(®) Sanofi) as induction therapy and immediate-release tacrolimus [Adoport(®) (Sandoz); Capexion(®) (Mylan); Modigraf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Perixis(®) (Accord Healthcare); Prograf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Tacni(®) (Teva); Vivadex(®) (Dexcel Pharma)], prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf,(®) Astellas Pharma); belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix,(®) Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) [Arzip(®) (Zentiva), CellCept(®) (Roche Products), Myfenax(®) (Teva), generic MMF is manufactured by Accord Healthcare, Actavis, Arrow Pharmaceuticals, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Mylan, Sandoz and Wockhardt], mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus (Rapamune,(®) Pfizer) and everolimus (Certican,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents undergoing renal transplantation.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted to 7 January 2015 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science [via Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted to 15 January 2015 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Databases (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and EconLit (via EBSCOhost).
REVIEW METHODS
Titles and abstracts were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria, as were full texts of identified studies. Included studies were extracted and quality appraised. Data were meta-analysed when appropriate. A new discrete time state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed; graft function, and incidences of acute rejection and new-onset diabetes mellitus were used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.
RESULTS
Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four non-RCTs were included. The RCTs only evaluated BAS and tacrolimus (TAC). No statistically significant differences in key outcomes were found between BAS and placebo/no induction. Statistically significantly higher graft function (p < 0.01) and less biopsy-proven acute rejection (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.57) was found between TAC and ciclosporin (CSA). Only one cost-effectiveness study was identified, which informed NICE guidance TA99. BAS [with TAC and azathioprine (AZA)] was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) versus no induction (BAS was dominant). BAS (with CSA and MMF) was not predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus no induction (BAS was dominated). TAC (with AZA) was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus CSA (TAC was dominant). A model based on adult evidence suggests that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY, BAS and TAC are cost-effective in all considered combinations; MMF was also cost-effective with CSA but not TAC.
LIMITATIONS
The RCT evidence is very limited; analyses comparing all interventions need to rely on adult evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
TAC is likely to be cost-effective (vs. CSA, in combination with AZA) at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Analysis based on one RCT found BAS to be dominant, but analysis based on another RCT found BAS to be dominated. BAS plus TAC and AZA was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY when all regimens were compared using extrapolated adult evidence. High-quality primary effectiveness research is needed. The UK Renal Registry could form the basis for a prospective primary study.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013544.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antilymphocyte Serum; Azathioprine; Basiliximab; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Everolimus; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Models, Economic; Mycophenolic Acid; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Sirolimus; Tacrolimus; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 27557331
DOI: 10.3310/hta20610 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Dec 2023The advent of targeted therapies signaled novel avenues for more optimal oncological outcomes. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have risen as a cornerstone of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The advent of targeted therapies signaled novel avenues for more optimal oncological outcomes. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have risen as a cornerstone of the ever-expanding targeted therapy era. The purpose of this systematic review is to delineate the rapidly evolving clinical landscape of ADCs for solid tumors.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases for phase II and III clinical trials. Outcomes of interest were the objective response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 92 clinical trials (76 phase II and 16 phase III) evaluated the efficacy and safety of ADCs for a plethora of solid tumors. Out of the 30 investigated ADCs, 8 have received approval by regulatory organizations for solid tumors. Currently, 52 phase III clinical trials for ADCs are ongoing.
CONCLUSION
ADCs have shown promising results for several solid tumors and various cancer settings.
Topics: Humans; Immunoconjugates; Antineoplastic Agents; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37866413
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104189 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, with an estimated incidence of 50 per 100,000 persons. People with epilepsy may present with various types of immunological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, with an estimated incidence of 50 per 100,000 persons. People with epilepsy may present with various types of immunological abnormalities, such as low serum immunoglobulin A (IgA) levels, lack of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass and identification of certain types of antibodies. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment may represent a valuable approach and its efficacy has important implications for epilepsy management. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of IVIg on the frequency and duration of seizures, quality of life and adverse effects when used as monotherapy or as add-on treatment for people with epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (2 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2 February 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 2 February 2017), Web of Science (1898 to 2 February 2017), ISRCTN registry (2 February 2017), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 2 February 2017), the US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov (2 February 2017), and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of IVIg as monotherapy or add-on treatment in people with epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Outcomes included percentage of people rendered seizure-free, 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one study (61 participants). The included study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial which compared the treatment efficacy of IVIg as an add-on with a placebo add-on in patients with refractory epilepsy. There was no significant difference between IVIg and placebo in 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. The study reported a statistically significant effect for global assessment in favour of IVIg. No adverse effects were demonstrated. We found no randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of IVIg monotherapy for epilepsy. Overall, the included study was rated as low/unclear risk of bias. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence was rated as low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We cannot draw any reliable conclusions regarding the efficacy of IVIg as a treatment for epilepsy. Further randomized controlled trials are needed.
Topics: Epilepsy; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28675262
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008557.pub3 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2021Tocilizumab is an anti-IL-6 therapy widely adopted in the management of the so-called "cytokine storm" related to SARS-CoV-2 virus infection, but its effectiveness, use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tocilizumab Therapy versus Standard of Care in over 15,000 COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients during the First Eight Months of the Pandemic.
BACKGROUND
Tocilizumab is an anti-IL-6 therapy widely adopted in the management of the so-called "cytokine storm" related to SARS-CoV-2 virus infection, but its effectiveness, use in relation to concomitant corticosteroid therapy and safety were unproven despite widespread use in numerous studies, mostly open label at the start of the pandemic.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies utilising tocilizumab in COVID-19 on different databases (PubMed/MEDLINE/Scopus) and preprint servers (medRxiv and SSRN) from inception until 20 July 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42020195690). Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed. The impact of tocilizumab and concomitant corticosteroid therapy or tocilizumab alone versus standard of care (SOC) on the death rate, need for mechanical ventilation, ICU admission and bacterial infections were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies with 15,531 patients (3657 cases versus 11,874 controls) were identified. Unadjusted estimates ( = 28) failed to demonstrate a protective effect of tocilizumab on survival (OR 0.74 ([95%CI 0.55-1.01], = 0.057), mechanical ventilation prevention (OR 2.21 [95%CI 0.53-9.23], = 0.277) or prevention of ICU admission (OR 3.79 [95%CI 0.38-37.34], = 0.254). Considering studies with adjusted, estimated, tocilizumab use was associated with mortality rate reduction (HR 0.50 ([95%CI 0.38-0.64], < 0.001) and prevention of ICU admission (OR 0.16 ([95%CI 0.06-0.43], < 0.001). Tocilizumab with concomitant steroid use versus SOC was protective with an OR of 0.49 ([95%CI 0.36-0.65], < 0.05) as was tocilizumab alone versus SOC with an OR of 0.59 ([95%CI 0.34-1.00], < 0.001). Risk of infection increased (2.36 [95%CI 1.001-5.54], = 0.050; based on unadjusted estimates).
CONCLUSION
Despite the heterogeneity of included studies and large number of preprint articles, our findings from the first eight of the pandemic in over 15,000 COVID-19 cases suggested an incremental efficacy of tocilizumab in severe COVID-19 that were confirmed by subsequent meta-analyses of large randomized trials of tocilizumab. This suggests that analysis of case-control studies and pre-print server data in the early stages of a pandemic appeared robust for supporting incremental benefits and lack of major therapeutic toxicity of tocilizumab for severe COVID-19.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34501738
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18179149 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022CD47-SIRPα interaction acts as a "don't eat me" signal and is exploited by cancer to downregulate innate and adaptive immune surveillance. There has been intense... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CD47-SIRPα interaction acts as a "don't eat me" signal and is exploited by cancer to downregulate innate and adaptive immune surveillance. There has been intense interest to develop a mechanism of blockade, and we aimed to analyze the emerging data from early clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant databases and conference abstracts including clinical trials using CD47 and/or SIRPα inhibitors in cancer treatment. Nonlinear mixed models were applied for comparison of response and toxicity. We retrieved 317 articles, 24 of which were eligible. These included 771 response-evaluable patients with hematologic (47.1%) and solid tumors (52.9%). Of these, 6.4% experienced complete response, 10.4% partial response, and 26.1% stable disease for a 16.7% objective response rate (ORR), 42.8% disease control rate, and 4.8-month median duration of response. ORR was significantly higher for hematologic cancers (25.3%) than solid cancers (9.1%, p=0.042). Comparing by mechanism, seven CD47 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and six selective SIRPα blockers were given alone or combined with checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapy, and/or chemotherapy. In solid cancers, selective SIRPα blockade showed a higher ORR (16.2%) than anti-CD47 mAbs (2.8%, p=0.079), which was significant for combination therapies (ORR 28.3% vs 3.0%, respectively, p=0.010). Responses were seen in head and neck, colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, hepatocellular, non-small cell lung, and HER2+gastroesophageal cancers. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was seen in 3.3% of patients (5.4% anti-CD47 mAbs, 1.4% selective SIRPα blockers; p=0.01). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) ≥grade 3 was 18.0%, similar between the two groups (p=0.082), and mostly laboratory abnormalities. For anti-CD47 mAbs, the most common toxicities included grade 1-2 fatigue (27.2%), headache (21.0%), and anemia (20.5%). For selective SIRPα blockers, these included grade 1-2 infusion reaction (23.1%) and fatigue (15.8%). Anti-CD47 mAbs were significantly more likely than selective SIRPα blockers to cause grade 1-2 fever, chills, nausea/vomiting, headache, and anemia. In conclusion, combination therapies using selective SIRPα blockade had higher response rates in solid tumors than anti-CD47 mAb combinations. Hematologic changes were the main TRAEs, and selective SIRPα blockers seemed to have a better grade 1-2 toxicity profile. Treatment was well-tolerated with minimal DLTs.
Topics: Humans; Protein Binding; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Fatigue; Headache; Neoplasms; CD47 Antigen
PubMed: 36439116
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1027235