Busch Lindsay M, Sun Junfeng, Cui Xizhong, Eichacker Peter Q, Torabi-Parizi Parizad
Critical Care Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, USA.
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2020 Feb 4;8(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s40635-019-0290-x.
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.
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 = 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 = 6%, p = 0.39 with versus 4.01 (0.89, 18.05), I = 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 = 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.
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.
动物研究报告称免疫检查点抑制剂(CPI)可改善宿主防御能力并提高细菌感染性败血症期间的生存率,这为I期CPI败血症试验提供了依据。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以研究在临床前研究中CPI治疗的益处,以及是否对可能改变这种临床益处的变量进行了研究。分析了比较用程序性死亡1(PD-1)、程序性死亡配体1(PD-L1)、细胞毒性T淋巴细胞相关蛋白4(CTLA-4)或B和T淋巴细胞衰减器(BTLA)抑制剂治疗的动物与对照组在细菌或脂多糖攻击后的生存情况的研究。
纳入了11项研究中的19个实验(n = 709)。所有实验均在小鼠中进行,19个实验中有10个来自单一研究组。所有研究均未报告样本量计算和随机化情况,只有1项研究报告了盲法程序。在所有19个实验中,CPI增加了生存优势比(OR,95%CI)[3.37(1.55,7.31)],但存在异质性(I² = 59%,p < 0.01)。按靶向检查点分子、攻击部位或类型或同时进行的抗菌治疗进行分层后,在包括抗菌治疗的9个实验中的大多数实验中,CPI具有一致的效果[OR = 2.82(1.60,4.98),I² = 6%,p = 0.39],而在没有抗菌治疗的情况下为4.01(0.89,18.05),I² = 74%,p < 0.01。所有9项抗生素实验均采用盲肠结扎和穿刺(CLP)细菌攻击,其中6项还包括在CLP后3 - 4天进行白色念珠菌攻击。在这6个实验(n = 322)中,当CLP致死率消退时,CPI针对真菌攻击,且始终有益[2.91(2.41,3.50),I² = 0%,p = 0.99]。在3个未进行真菌攻击但提供抗生素的实验(n = 66)中,CPI在CLP后1天内给药,效果各异且无统计学意义[0.05(0.00,1.03);7.86(0.28,217.11);8.50(0.90,80.03)]。没有实验研究肺炎。
需要临床前研究表明CPI可为临床上导致败血症的常见细菌感染的抗生素治疗带来益处,以支持这种治疗方法。研究应在多个实验室具有可重复性,并包括减少偏倚风险的程序。