Cargando…

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Animal studies reporting immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) improved host defense and survival during bacterial sepsis provided one basis for phase I CPI sepsis trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the benefit of CPI therapy in preclinical studies, and wh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Busch, Lindsay M., Sun, Junfeng, Cui, Xizhong, Eichacker, Peter Q., Torabi-Parizi, Parizad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7000606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32020483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-019-0290-x
_version_ 1783494070422732800
author Busch, Lindsay M.
Sun, Junfeng
Cui, Xizhong
Eichacker, Peter Q.
Torabi-Parizi, Parizad
author_facet Busch, Lindsay M.
Sun, Junfeng
Cui, Xizhong
Eichacker, Peter Q.
Torabi-Parizi, Parizad
author_sort Busch, Lindsay M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Animal studies reporting immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) improved host defense and survival during bacterial sepsis provided one basis for phase I CPI sepsis trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the benefit of CPI therapy in preclinical studies, and whether variables potentially altering this clinical benefit were investigated. Studies were analyzed that compared survival following bacteria or lipopolysaccharide challenge in animals treated with inhibitors to programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1 (PD-L1), cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4), or B- and T-lymphocyte attenuator (BTLA) versus control. RESULTS: Nineteen experiments from 11 studies (n = 709) were included. All experiments were in mice, and 10 of the 19 were published from a single research group. Sample size calculations and randomization were not reported in any studies, and blinding procedures were reported in just 1. Across all 19 experiments, CPIs increased the odds ratio for survival (OR, 95% CI) [3.37(1. 55, 7.31)] but with heterogeneity (I(2) = 59%, p < 0.01). After stratification by checkpoint molecule targeted, challenge site or type, or concurrent antibacterial treatment, CPIs had consistent effects over most experiments in the 9 that included antibacterial treatment [OR = 2.82 (1.60, 4.98), I(2) = 6%, p = 0.39 with versus 4.01 (0.89, 18.05), I(2) = 74%, p < 0.01 without]. All 9 antibiotic experiments employed cecal-ligation and puncture (CLP) bacterial challenge while 6 also included a Candida albicans challenge 3–4 days after CLP. In these six experiments (n = 322), CPIs were directed at the fungal challenge when CLP lethality had resolved, and were consistently beneficial [2.91 (2.41, 3.50), I(2) = 0%, p = 0.99]. In the three experiments (n = 66) providing antibiotics without fungal challenge, CPIs were administered within 1 day of CLP and had variable and non-significant effects [0.05 (0.00, 1.03); 7.86 (0.28, 217.11); and 8.50 (0.90, 80.03)]. No experiment examined pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical studies showing that CPIs add benefit to antibiotic therapy for the common bacterial infections causing sepsis clinically are needed to support this therapeutic approach. Studies should be reproducible across multiple laboratories and include procedures to reduce the risk of bias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7000606
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70006062020-02-21 Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis Busch, Lindsay M. Sun, Junfeng Cui, Xizhong Eichacker, Peter Q. Torabi-Parizi, Parizad Intensive Care Med Exp Research BACKGROUND: Animal studies reporting immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) improved host defense and survival during bacterial sepsis provided one basis for phase I CPI sepsis trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the benefit of CPI therapy in preclinical studies, and whether variables potentially altering this clinical benefit were investigated. Studies were analyzed that compared survival following bacteria or lipopolysaccharide challenge in animals treated with inhibitors to programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1 (PD-L1), cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4), or B- and T-lymphocyte attenuator (BTLA) versus control. RESULTS: Nineteen experiments from 11 studies (n = 709) were included. All experiments were in mice, and 10 of the 19 were published from a single research group. Sample size calculations and randomization were not reported in any studies, and blinding procedures were reported in just 1. Across all 19 experiments, CPIs increased the odds ratio for survival (OR, 95% CI) [3.37(1. 55, 7.31)] but with heterogeneity (I(2) = 59%, p < 0.01). After stratification by checkpoint molecule targeted, challenge site or type, or concurrent antibacterial treatment, CPIs had consistent effects over most experiments in the 9 that included antibacterial treatment [OR = 2.82 (1.60, 4.98), I(2) = 6%, p = 0.39 with versus 4.01 (0.89, 18.05), I(2) = 74%, p < 0.01 without]. All 9 antibiotic experiments employed cecal-ligation and puncture (CLP) bacterial challenge while 6 also included a Candida albicans challenge 3–4 days after CLP. In these six experiments (n = 322), CPIs were directed at the fungal challenge when CLP lethality had resolved, and were consistently beneficial [2.91 (2.41, 3.50), I(2) = 0%, p = 0.99]. In the three experiments (n = 66) providing antibiotics without fungal challenge, CPIs were administered within 1 day of CLP and had variable and non-significant effects [0.05 (0.00, 1.03); 7.86 (0.28, 217.11); and 8.50 (0.90, 80.03)]. No experiment examined pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical studies showing that CPIs add benefit to antibiotic therapy for the common bacterial infections causing sepsis clinically are needed to support this therapeutic approach. Studies should be reproducible across multiple laboratories and include procedures to reduce the risk of bias. Springer International Publishing 2020-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7000606/ /pubmed/32020483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-019-0290-x Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Busch, Lindsay M.
Sun, Junfeng
Cui, Xizhong
Eichacker, Peter Q.
Torabi-Parizi, Parizad
Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7000606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32020483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-019-0290-x
work_keys_str_mv AT buschlindsaym checkpointinhibitortherapyinpreclinicalsepsismodelsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sunjunfeng checkpointinhibitortherapyinpreclinicalsepsismodelsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT cuixizhong checkpointinhibitortherapyinpreclinicalsepsismodelsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT eichackerpeterq checkpointinhibitortherapyinpreclinicalsepsismodelsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT torabipariziparizad checkpointinhibitortherapyinpreclinicalsepsismodelsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis