Immunotherapy efficacy and safety of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) versus programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors in pan-cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14113-e14113
Author(s):  
Jianchun Duan ◽  
Longgang Cui ◽  
Guoqiang Wang ◽  
Zhengyi Zhao ◽  
Shiqing Chen ◽  
...  

e14113 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that target programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) have led to a paradigm shift in cancer treatment, while whether PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors deliver different clinical outcomes remains obscure. Here we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety profile of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in pan-cancer patients. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane library, and Embase from January 2000 to December 2018 for randomized controlled trials that compared PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with standard treatment in patients with solid tumors. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. Retrospective studies and trials that compared anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with other immunotherapies were excluded. The primary outcome was the difference in overall survival (OS). Studies were stratified into comparison groups upon studies mirrored with trial design and patient characteristics. Effect size in each comparison group was pooled first, the difference in overall survival was estimated, and the overall effect sizes was pooled using a random-effects model. Results: A total of 3864 publications were retrieved through initial literature search, 17 randomized controlled trials involving 9549 patients with solid tumors were included for this meta-analysis. PD-1 inhibitors exhibited significantly improved OS over PD-L1 inhibitors either in overall population (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.87), as monotherapy (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96), or combination with chemotherapy (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53-0.82). PD-1 inhibitors also showed improved progression free survival (PFS) over PD-L1 inhibitors in overall population (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.94). No significant difference was observed for safety profile between PD-1 inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors as monotherapy. PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have less Grade 3-5 adverse events than PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy (overall RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.93). Sensitivity analysis presented a satisfactory consistency of the overall estimates across these analyses. Conclusions: PD-1 inhibitors exhibited better clinical performance for survival outcome and safety profile over PD-L1 inhibitors. Future studies and explorations of the underlying mechanisms are needed for the further optimization of treatment strategies in clinical practice.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21700-e21700
Author(s):  
Danrong Yang ◽  
Longgang Cui ◽  
Yuzi Zhang ◽  
Zhengyi Zhao ◽  
Yuezong Bai

e21700 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) have been new standard of care for non-small cell cancer patients. However, little is known about the difference in efficacy between these two types of drugs. In this study, we aimed to assess the differences between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 in NSCLC treatment through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase from January, 2000 to November, 2019. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. All randomized controlled trials that compared anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 with standard treatment in NSCLC cancer patients were selected as candidates. Studies with anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 were screened and paired upon the mirror principle. The primary outcome was the difference in overall survival (OS). As the main results, indirect comparison of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 were calculated for each mirror group and then pooled using a random-effects model. Results: 16 randomized controlled trials were included for the meta-analysis. Overall, anti-PD-1 exhibited superior OS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.95, P= .01) over anti-PD-L1. Subgroup analysis showed that anti-PD-1 exhibited superior OS over anti-PD-L1 ICIs in combination therapy (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.82, P <.01), but not in monotherapy (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74-1.06), 2nd line therapy (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.06) or 1st line therapy (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.03). Conclusions: The results demonstrated that anti-PD-1 exhibited favorable survival outcomes compared to anti-PD-L1 in NSCLC treatment, which provides an important guide for clinicians.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21139-e21139
Author(s):  
Yi Hu ◽  
Xiaochen Zhao ◽  
Yuezong Bai ◽  
Longgang Cui ◽  
Fan Zhang

e21139 Background: Several therapies based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved as the 1L standard of care for PD-L1≥ 50% advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, little is known about the difference in efficacy between different strategies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to help clinicians choose more reasonable treatment options. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and major conference proceedings from January 2010 to December 2020 for randomized controlled trials that had available subgroup hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival according to PD-L1≥ 50%. Only drugs met primary outcome or approved by FDA were included for analysis. The primary outcome was the difference in overall survival (OS). HRs and 95% CI were calculated for the pooled OS using a random-effects model. p<0.05 was considered as statistical difference. Results: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials were included for this meta-analysis. The pooled HR and 95% CI for monotherapy, ICI plus chemotherapy and ICI plus ICI were 0.64 (0.55, 0.74), 0.64 (0.51, 0.79) and 0.70 (0.55, 0.90), respectively. There was no statistical differences between ICI monotherapy and ICI plus chemotherapy (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77- 1.30), between ICI monotherapy and ICI plus ICI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69- 1.22) or between ICI plus chemotherapy and ICI plus ICI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66- 1.27). Conclusions: For PD-L1≥ 50% NSCLC patients, active ICI monotherapies showed no different efficacy when compared with ICI combination therapies.


2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000001143
Author(s):  
Glenardi Glenardi ◽  
Tutwuri Handayani ◽  
Jimmy Barus ◽  
Ghea Mangkuliguna

ABSTRACTPurposeof Review: To investigate the efficacy and safety of CVT-301 for motor fluctuation in Parkinson’s disease (PD).Recent Findings:This study demonstrated that the CVT-301 group had a higher proportion of patients achieving an ON state than the placebo group (OR=2.68; 95% CI: 1.86-3.86; p<0.00001). Moreover, CVT-301 had also shown to improve motor function by UPDRS-III score (SMD=3.83; 95% CI: 2.44-5.23; p<0.00001) and promote an overall improvement of PD by PGIC self-rating (OR=2.95; 95% CI: 1.78-4.9; p<0.00001). The most common adverse events encountered were respiratory symptoms (OR=12.18; 95% CI: 5.01-29.62; p<0.00001) and nausea (OR=3.95; 95% CI: 1.01-15.41; p=0.05).Summary:CVT-301 had the potential to be an alternative or even a preferred treatment for motor fluctuation in PD patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongbao Zhou ◽  
Yuanshan Cui ◽  
Xiaoyi Zhang ◽  
Youyi Lu ◽  
Zhipeng Chen ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter related bladder discomfort (CRBD). Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (from 1987 to July 2021) were used to search randomized controlled trials. The PRISMA checklists were followed. RevMan5.4.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eleven studies involving 1165 patients were involved in the analysis. The study reported that the incidence of CRBD observed in the antimuscarinics group was significantly lower than that of the control group at 0-, 1-, 2-, and 6-h after drug therapy (P = 0.001, P < 0.0001, P = 0.0005, and P = 0.001, respectively). For side effects, there were not statistical differences between the antimuscarinics group and the control group, mainly including dry mouth (risk ratio (RR) = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.95 to 1.80, P = 0.09), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.90, P = 0.87), facial flushing (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.43 to 2.61, P = 0.90), and blurred vision (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.35 to 2.58, P = 0.91). Besides, rescue analgesics were required less in the antimuscarinics group than in the control group (RR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.80, P = 0.003). Conclusions Compared with the control group, the antimuscarinics group had a significant improvement on CRBD, the patients were well tolerated and the use rate of rescue analgesics was low.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document