A guide to immunotherapy for COVID-19 van de Veerdonk, Frank L; Giamarellos-Bourboulis, Evangelos; Pickkers, Peter ...
Nature medicine,
01/2022, Letnik:
28, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Immune dysregulation is an important component of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. A large body of literature has reported the effect of immune-based therapies in patients with COVID-19, with some ...remarkable successes such as the use of steroids or anti-cytokine therapies. However, challenges in clinical decision-making arise from the complexity of the disease phenotypes and patient heterogeneity, as well as the variable quality of evidence from immunotherapy studies. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence generated by major clinical trials of host-directed therapy. We discuss patient stratification and propose an algorithm to guide the use of immunotherapy strategies in the clinic. This will not only help guide treatment decisions, but may also help to design future trials that investigate immunotherapy in other severe infections.
This observational study aimed to determine whether pain sensitivity in patients with noncancer chronic pain, taking either methadone or morphine, is similar to patients maintained on methadone for ...dependence therapy, compared with a control group. Nociceptive thresholds were measured on a single occasion with von Frey hairs, electrical stimulation, and cold pressor tests. In all subjects receiving methadone or morphine, nociceptive testing occurred just before a scheduled dose. Cold pressor tolerance values in patients with noncancer, chronic pain, treated with morphine and methadone, were 18.1 +/- 2.6 seconds (mean +/- SEM) and 19.7 +/- 2.3 seconds, respectively; in methadone-maintained subjects it was 18.9 +/- 1.9 seconds, with all values being significantly (P < .05) lower than opioid-naïve subjects (30.7 +/- 3.9 seconds). These results indicate that patients with chronic pain managed with opioids and methadone-maintained subjects are hyperalgesic when assessed by the cold pressor test but not by the electrical stimulation test. None of the groups exhibited allodynia as measured using the von Frey hairs. These results add to the growing body of evidence that chronic opioid exposure increases sensitivity to some types of pain. They also demonstrate that in humans, this hyperalgesia is not associated with allodynia.
This article presents an observational study whereby the pain sensitivity of patients with chronic pain managed with opioids and opioid-maintained patients were compared with opioid-naïve patients. The results suggest that opioid use may contribute to an increase in the sensitivity to certain pain experimental stimuli.
IMPORTANCE: The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents an unprecedented challenge to identify ...effective drugs for prevention and treatment. Given the rapid pace of scientific discovery and clinical data generated by the large number of people rapidly infected by SARS-CoV-2, clinicians need accurate evidence regarding effective medical treatments for this infection. OBSERVATIONS: No proven effective therapies for this virus currently exist. The rapidly expanding knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 virology provides a significant number of potential drug targets. The most promising therapy is remdesivir. Remdesivir has potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, but it is not US Food and Drug Administration approved and currently is being tested in ongoing randomized trials. Oseltamivir has not been shown to have efficacy, and corticosteroids are currently not recommended. Current clinical evidence does not support stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic represents the greatest global public health crisis of this generation and, potentially, since the pandemic influenza outbreak of 1918. The speed and volume of clinical trials launched to investigate potential therapies for COVID-19 highlight both the need and capability to produce high-quality evidence even in the middle of a pandemic. No therapies have been shown effective to date.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is declared as an international emergency in 2020. Its prevalence and fatality rate are rapidly increasing but the medication options are still limited for ...this perilous disease. The emergent outbreak of COVID-19 triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) keeps propagating globally. The present scenario has emphasized the requirement for therapeutic opportunities to relive and overcome this latest pandemic. Despite the fact, the deteriorating developments of COVID-19, there is no drug certified to have considerable effects in the medical treatment for COVID-19 patients. The COVID-19 pandemic requests for the rapid testing of new treatment approaches. Based on the evidence, hydroxychloroquine is the first medicine opted for the treatment of disease. Umifenovir, remdesivir, and fevipiravir are deemed the most hopeful antiviral agent by improving the health of infected patients. The dexamethasone is a first known steroid medicine that can save the lives of seriously ill patients, and it is shown in a randomized clinical trial by the United Kingdom that it reduced the death rate in COVID-19 patients. The current review recapitulates the existing evidence of possible therapeutic drugs, peptides, humanized antibodies, convulsant plasma, and vaccination that has revealed potential in fighting COVID-19 infections. Many randomized and controlled clinical trials are taking place to further validate these agent's safety and effectiveness in curing COVID-19.
•The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic has swept in the world.•There is currently no specific treatment available for patients with COVID-19 infection.•Clinical trials of numerous ...potential candidates are underway.•The current status of potential therapeutic approaches for COVID-19 is summarized.
As of April 15, 2020, the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic has swept through 213 countries and infected more than 1,870,000 individuals, posing an unprecedented threat to international health and the economy. There is currently no specific treatment available for patients with COVID-19 infection. The lessons learned from past management of respiratory viral infections have provided insights into treating COVID-19. Numerous potential therapies, including supportive intervention, immunomodulatory agents, antiviral therapy, and convalescent plasma transfusion, have been tentatively applied in clinical settings. A number of these therapies have provided substantially curative benefits in treating patients with COVID-19 infection. Furthermore, intensive research and clinical trials are underway to assess the efficacy of existing drugs and identify potential therapeutic targets to develop new drugs for treating COVID-19. Herein, we summarize the current potential therapeutic approaches for diseases related to COVID-19 infection and introduce their mechanisms of action, safety, and effectiveness.
Abstract Context While vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition are effective strategies in treating clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), ...the most effective therapeutic approach for patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC) is unknown. Objective To systematically review relevant literature comparing the oncological outcomes and adverse events of different systemic therapies for patients with metastatic non-ccRCC. Evidence acquisition Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 24, 2016. Only comparative studies were included. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed. A meta-analysis was planned for and only performed if methodologically appropriate; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis The literature search identified 812 potential titles and abstracts. Five randomized controlled trials, recruiting a total of 365 patients, were included. Three studies compared sunitinib against everolimus, one of which reported the results for non-ccRCC as a subgroup rather than as an entire randomized cohort. Individually, the studies showed a trend towards favoring sunitinib in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS; Everolimus versus Sunitinib in Patients with Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma hazard ratio HR: 1.41, 80% confidence interval CI 1.03–1.92 and 1.41, 95% CI: 0.88–2.27, Evaluation in Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.67–2.01, Efficacy and Safety Comparison of RAD001 Versus Sunitinib in the First-line and Second-line Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.9–2.8), but this trend did not reach statistical significance in any study. Meta-analysis was performed on two studies which solely recruited patients with non-ccRCC reporting on PFS, the results of which were inconclusive (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.91–1.86). Sunitinib was associated with more Grade 3–4 adverse events than everolimus, although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis represent a robust summary of the evidence base for systemic treatment of metastatic non-ccRCC. The results show a trend towards favoring vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy for PFS and overall survival compared with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, although statistical significance was not reached. The relative benefits and harms of these treatments remain uncertain. Further research, either in the form of an individual patient data meta-analysis involving all relevant trials, or a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power to detect potential differences between treatments, is needed. Patient summary We examined the literature to determine the most effective treatments for advanced kidney cancer patients whose tumors are not of the clear cell subtype. The results suggest that a drug called sunitinib might be more effective than everolimus, but the statistics supporting this statement are not yet entirely reliable. Further research is required to clarify this unmet medical need.
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a form of chronic progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease of unknown origin. Recently, nintedanib and pirfenidone demonstrated efficacy in slowing ...disease progression and were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Although numerous treatments have been evaluated in IPF, none have shown significant decreases in mortality. The objective of this study was to identify all pharmacologic treatments evaluated for IPF and analyze their efficacy via Bayesian network meta-analysis and pairwise indirect treatment comparisons. This review did not evaluate the effect of steroid therapy.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published on or before August 2014. Studies were required to contain a randomized evaluation of nonsteroidal drug therapy for treatment of IPF and be published in English. Key outcomes of interest for this analysis were pulmonary function as measured by FVC as well as all-cause and respiratory-specific death. All outcomes were analyzed via a Bayesian framework.
Our review identified 30 eligible studies that evaluated 16 unique treatments. Under both the fixed-effect and random-effect models for respiratory-specific mortality, no treatments performed better than placebo. For all-cause mortality, pirfenidone and nintedanib had effects approaching significance with credible intervals slightly crossing the null under a fixed-effect model. Notably, for respiratory-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and decline in percent predicted FVC, nintedanib and pirfenidone were virtually indistinguishable and no clear advantage was detected.
Although two treatments have been approved for IPF on the basis of reduced decline in pulmonary function, neither one has a clear advantage on mortality outcomes.
Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard pharmacotherapy (methylphenidate ...and atomoxetine) improves ADHD symptoms in the short-term, but poor data were published about long-term treatment. In addition a number of patients present partial or no response to methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Research into the main database sources has been conducted to obtain an overview of alternative pharmacological approaches in adult ADHD patients. Among alternative compounds, amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts and lisdexamfetamine) have the most robust evidence of efficacy, but they may be associated with serious side effects (e.g. psychotic symptoms or hypertension). Antidepressants, particularly those acting as noradrenaline or dopamine enhancers, have evidence of efficacy, but they should be avoided in patients with comorbid bipolar disorder. Finally metadoxine and lithium may be particularly suitable in case of comorbid alcohol misuse or bipolar disorder.
Summary In March, 2010, a group of breast cancer experts met to develop a consensus statement on breast cancer prevention, with a focus on medical and therapeutic interventions. We present the ...conclusions in this Review. First we agreed that the term chemoprevention is inappropriate and suggested that the term preventive therapy better represents this feature of management. Two selective oestrogen-receptor modulators—tamoxifen and raloxifene—are so far the only medical options approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for preventive therapy. Of these tamoxifen has greater efficacy and can be used in premenopausal women, but raloxifene has fewer side-effects. Two newer drugs in this class, lasofoxifene and arzoxifene, also show efficacy and possibly a better overall risk-benefit profile, but need further assessment. Aromatase inhibitors might be more efficacious, and results of prevention trials are eagerly awaited. Newer agents, notably bisphosphonates and metformin, have shown promise in observational studies and need to be assessed in randomised prevention trials. Other agents, such as aspirin, other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COX-2 inhibitors, retinoids, rexinoids, and dietary components have limited effects or are in the early phases of investigation. New contralateral tumours in women with breast cancer might be generally useful as a model for prevention, as has been seen for tamoxifen. If valid such a model would facilitate the design of simpler, cheaper, and better-focused trials for assessing new agents.
PDF
