Jiaqin Cai, Wenhua Wu, Zhuang Jie, Guifeng Zhang, Xiaoxia Wei, Hong Sun
{"title":"免疫检查点抑制剂再挑战后irAEs的发生:一项更新的荟萃分析","authors":"Jiaqin Cai, Wenhua Wu, Zhuang Jie, Guifeng Zhang, Xiaoxia Wei, Hong Sun","doi":"10.1155/2023/9963927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What Is Known? and Objective. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) play an important role in various cancers. The efficacy and safety of rechallenge with ICIs after immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were not well known. Accumulating studies report inconsistent findings. Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis by including more studies. Methods. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies reporting the rechallenge of ICIs after irAEs. The evaluation outcomes included the incidence of irAEs, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Results and Discussion. A total of 896 ICI rechallenge cases from 24 studies were included. Compared to the initial treatment with ICIs, rechallenge showed a higher incidence of all-grade irAEs (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.51–5.10; \n \n p\n =\n 0.001\n \n ) and high-grade irAEs (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27–2.78; \n \n p\n =\n 0.002\n \n ), but ORR (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.55–1.84; \n \n p\n =\n 0.97\n \n ) and DCR (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.68–2.15; \n \n p\n =\n 0.52\n \n ) were not further improved after the rechallenge of ICIs. What Is New? and Conclusion. More studies are included in this paper to compare and analyze the efficacy and safety of ICIs after rechallenge, so as to update the previous meta-analyses, and finally get different conclusions from the previous meta-analyses in terms of safety. Our results suggest that rechallenged ICIs after irAEs showed similar efficacy and lower safety than initial ICIs. However, these results need to be further verified by high-quality studies with large samples. In addition, we added subgroup analysis not available in previous meta-analyses to explore the association of cancer type, age, and gender factors with the incidence of irAE after ICI rechallenge.","PeriodicalId":15381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Occurrence of irAEs after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge: An Updated Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jiaqin Cai, Wenhua Wu, Zhuang Jie, Guifeng Zhang, Xiaoxia Wei, Hong Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/9963927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What Is Known? and Objective. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) play an important role in various cancers. The efficacy and safety of rechallenge with ICIs after immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were not well known. Accumulating studies report inconsistent findings. Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis by including more studies. Methods. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies reporting the rechallenge of ICIs after irAEs. The evaluation outcomes included the incidence of irAEs, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Results and Discussion. A total of 896 ICI rechallenge cases from 24 studies were included. Compared to the initial treatment with ICIs, rechallenge showed a higher incidence of all-grade irAEs (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.51–5.10; \\n \\n p\\n =\\n 0.001\\n \\n ) and high-grade irAEs (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27–2.78; \\n \\n p\\n =\\n 0.002\\n \\n ), but ORR (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.55–1.84; \\n \\n p\\n =\\n 0.97\\n \\n ) and DCR (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.68–2.15; \\n \\n p\\n =\\n 0.52\\n \\n ) were not further improved after the rechallenge of ICIs. What Is New? and Conclusion. More studies are included in this paper to compare and analyze the efficacy and safety of ICIs after rechallenge, so as to update the previous meta-analyses, and finally get different conclusions from the previous meta-analyses in terms of safety. Our results suggest that rechallenged ICIs after irAEs showed similar efficacy and lower safety than initial ICIs. However, these results need to be further verified by high-quality studies with large samples. In addition, we added subgroup analysis not available in previous meta-analyses to explore the association of cancer type, age, and gender factors with the incidence of irAE after ICI rechallenge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9963927\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9963927","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
什么是已知的?和目标。免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)在各种癌症中发挥着重要作用。免疫相关不良事件(irAE)后用ICIs再激发的疗效和安全性尚不清楚。越来越多的研究报告了不一致的发现。因此,我们通过纳入更多研究进行了最新的荟萃分析。方法。我们在PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和Cochrane Library上搜索了报告irAE后ICIs再挑战的研究。评估结果包括irAE的发生率、客观反应率(ORR)和疾病控制率(DCR)。结果和讨论。共纳入24项研究中的896例ICI再激发病例。与ICIs的初始治疗相比,再次激发显示所有级别的irAE(OR,2.78;95%CI,1.51–5.10;p=0.001)和高级别irAE(OR1.88;95%CI1.27–2.78;p=0.002)的发生率更高,但再次激发ICIs后,ORR(OR,1.01;95%CI 0.55–1.84;p=0.097)和DCR(OR1.21;95%CI0.68–2.15;p=0.052)没有进一步改善。新增内容?和结论。本文纳入了更多的研究,对ICIs再激发后的疗效和安全性进行比较和分析,以更新以往的荟萃分析,最终在安全性方面得出与以往荟萃分析不同的结论。我们的结果表明,irAE后再次激发的ICIs显示出与初始ICIs相似的疗效和更低的安全性。然而,这些结果需要通过大样本的高质量研究来进一步验证。此外,我们添加了以前的荟萃分析中不可用的亚组分析,以探索癌症类型、年龄和性别因素与ICI再激发后irAE发生率的关系。
Occurrence of irAEs after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge: An Updated Meta-Analysis
What Is Known? and Objective. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) play an important role in various cancers. The efficacy and safety of rechallenge with ICIs after immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were not well known. Accumulating studies report inconsistent findings. Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis by including more studies. Methods. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies reporting the rechallenge of ICIs after irAEs. The evaluation outcomes included the incidence of irAEs, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Results and Discussion. A total of 896 ICI rechallenge cases from 24 studies were included. Compared to the initial treatment with ICIs, rechallenge showed a higher incidence of all-grade irAEs (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.51–5.10;
p
=
0.001
) and high-grade irAEs (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27–2.78;
p
=
0.002
), but ORR (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.55–1.84;
p
=
0.97
) and DCR (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.68–2.15;
p
=
0.52
) were not further improved after the rechallenge of ICIs. What Is New? and Conclusion. More studies are included in this paper to compare and analyze the efficacy and safety of ICIs after rechallenge, so as to update the previous meta-analyses, and finally get different conclusions from the previous meta-analyses in terms of safety. Our results suggest that rechallenged ICIs after irAEs showed similar efficacy and lower safety than initial ICIs. However, these results need to be further verified by high-quality studies with large samples. In addition, we added subgroup analysis not available in previous meta-analyses to explore the association of cancer type, age, and gender factors with the incidence of irAE after ICI rechallenge.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics provides a forum for clinicians, pharmacists and pharmacologists to explore and report on issues of common interest. Reports and commentaries on current issues in medical and pharmaceutical practice are encouraged. Papers on evidence-based clinical practice and multidisciplinary collaborative work are particularly welcome. Regular sections in the journal include: editorials, commentaries, reviews (including systematic overviews and meta-analyses), original research and reports, and book reviews. Its scope embraces all aspects of clinical drug development and therapeutics, including:
Rational therapeutics
Evidence-based practice
Safety, cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of drugs
Drug interactions
Clinical impact of drug formulations
Pharmacogenetics
Personalised, stratified and translational medicine
Clinical pharmacokinetics.