Dataset Information

Comparative Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors for Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: Comprehensive evidence comparing treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) among PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is unavailable. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Randomized controlled trials in cancer patients treated with PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors or their combinations with chemotherapy/placebo and compared with PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors/chemotherapy/placebo were identified through comprehensive searches of multiple databases. Bayesian NMA was performed using random-effects model. Relative ranking of treatments was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Incidences and odds ratios of trAEs and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of all-grade (Grade 1-5) and high-grade (Grade 3-5) were estimated. Results: Twenty-three RCTs (14,204 patients) comparing six different strategies were included. The incidence of trAEs was lowest for PD-L1 inhibitors (all-grade: pooled incidence = 60.4%, SUCRA = 77.2%; high-grade: 6.4, 73.8%). PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy had the highest incidence of all-grade trAEs (88.6, 10.1%), while PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy had the highest incidence of high-grade trAEs (8.2, 9.3%). The use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors alone was associated with significant reductions on high-grade trAEs, compared with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy. PD-1 inhibitors had the highest incidence of irAEs (all-grade: 15.1, 9.5%; high-grade: 3.5, 16.8%). Compared with PD-L1 inhibitors, PD-1 inhibitors neither increased trAEs nor irAEs significantly. Results from sensitivity analyses were consistent. Conclusions: Current data showed that PD-L1 inhibitors had the best safety on both trAEs and irAEs. Awareness of the comparative safety could promote further appropriate utilization of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Huang YF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6779807 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors for Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Huang Ya-Fang YF Xie Wen-Jie WJ Fan Hai-Yu HY Du Juan J

Frontiers in oncology 20191001

<b>Background:</b> Comprehensive evidence comparing treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) among PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is unavailable. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Randomized controlled trials in cancer patients treated with PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors or their combinations with chemotherapy/placebo and compared with PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors/chemotherapy/placebo were identified through comprehensive searches of multiple databases. Bayesian NMA was per ...[more]

PMID: 31632907

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: The clinical use of immunotherapies targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is rapid expanding, but the equivalency of these inhibitors remains unclear. We aimed to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Knowledge, related reviews and abstracts for randomized controlled trials of five PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for patients with solid tumors before November 30th, 2018. We estimated summary hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (ORs) for grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TrAEs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random-effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD42018116624). Results: Totally, 43 reports of 35 trials comprising 21261 patients were eligible for the analysis. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and durvalumab were more effective than control treatment, and no significant differences were identified in OS and PFS between any two inhibitors. Avelumab was associated with significantly inferior OS to nivolumab (HR 1.37, 95%CrI 1.05-1.78) and pembrolizumab (HR 1.33, 95%CrI 1.02-1.73), and with inferior PFS to nivolumab (HR 1.60, 95%CrI 1.03-2.51). Compared with placebo, nivolumab had increased risk of grade 3-5 TrAEs (OR 2.35, 95%CrI 1.35-4.17). Compared with standard-of-care, nivolumab (OR 0.39, 95%CrI 0.28-0.54), pembrolizumab (OR 0.43, 95%CrI 0.30-0.60), atezolizumab (OR 0.37, 95%CrI 0.21-0.64) and avelumab (OR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.12-0.48) significantly reduced grade 3-5 TrAEs. There were not significant differences in grade 3-5 TrAEs between any two inhibitors. Conclusion: This Bayesian network meta-analysis revealed that nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and durvalumab yielded equivalent survival, while avelumab was associated with unfavorable survival. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were comparable in the risk of TrAEs, and safer than conventional therapies.

Project description:BackgroundTriple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is a lethal subtype of breast cancer with limited treatment options. The purpose of this Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy and safety of inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in treating TNBC.MethodsOur search strategy was used in six databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature database, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science up to November 2nd, 2022, as well as a thorough search in the most used trial registries. We included phase II and III randomized controlled trials that looked at the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of TNBC and reported either Overall Survival (OS), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), or pathological Complete Response (pCR). The risk of bias was assessed utilizing Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool, and the statistical analysis was performed using a frequentist contrast-based method for NMA by employing standard pairwise meta-analysis applying random effects model.Results12 trials (5324 patients) were included in our NMA including seven phase III trials. Pembrolizumab in a neoadjuvant setting achieved a pooled OS of 0.82 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.03), a PFS of 0.82 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.94) and a pCR 2.79 (95% CI 1.07 to 7.24) compared to Atezolizumab's OS of 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.15), PFS of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97), and pCR of 1.94 (95% CI 0.86 to 4.37). Atezolizumab had less grade ≥ 3 adverse events (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.42) than Pembrolizumab (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.33) in the neoadjuvant setting.ConclusionsPD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibited varying efficacy in terms of OS, PFS, and pCR. They were associated with an increase in immune-related adverse effects. When used early in the course of TNBC, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exert their maximum benefit. Durvalumab as a maintenance treatment instead of chemotherapy has shown promising outcomes. Future studies should focus on PD-L1 expression status and TNBC subtypes, since these factors may contribute to the design of individualized TNBC therapy regimens. Systematic review registration PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022380712.

Project description:BackgroundPD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have significantly improved the outcomes of those patients with various malignancies. However, the incidence of adverse events also increased. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the risk of cardiovascular toxicity in patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.Materials and methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library databases for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all-grade and grade 3-5 cardiovascular toxicity of single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors to placebo/chemotherapy, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy to chemotherapy, or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors to single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and pooled our data in a meta-analysis stratified by tumor types and PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. The Mantel-Haenszel method calculated the odds ratio (OR) and its corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 50 trials were included in the analysis. Single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors increased the risk of all-grade cardiotoxicity compared with placebo (OR=2.11, 95%CI 1.02-4.36, P=0.04). Compared with chemotherapy, patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy had a significant higher risk of all-grade (OR=1.53, 95%CI 1.18-1.99, P=0.001) and grade 3-5 cardiotoxicity (OR=1.63, 95%CI 1.11-2.39, P=0.01) cardiotoxicity, especially patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [all-grade cardiotoxicity (OR=1.97, 95%CI 1.14-3.41, P=0.02) and grade 3-5 cardiotoxicity (OR=2.15, 95%CI 1.08-4.27, P=0.03)]. Subgroup analysis showed that PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy were associated with a higher risk of grade 3-5 cardiotoxicity (OR=2.08, 95%CI 1.18-3.66, P=0.01). Compared with placebo or chemotherapy, single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors did not increase the risk of all-grade of myocarditis, arrhythmia and hypertension. However, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy increased the risk of all-grade arrhythmia (OR=1.63, 95%CI 1.07-2.46, P=0.02) [PD-L1 inhibitor-containing treatment (OR=1.75, 95%CI 1.09-2.80, P=0.02)], and the risk of all-grade hypertension (OR=1.34, 95%CI 1.02-1.77, P=0.04) and grade 3-5 hypertension (OR=1.54, 95%CI 1.10-2.15, P=0.01).ConclusionsOur results suggest that single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors increase the risk of all-grade cardiotoxicity, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy increase the risk of all-grade and grade 3-5 cardiotoxicity, especially in those patients treated with PD-1 inhibitor-containing treatment and those with NSCLC. In addition, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy increase the risk of arrhythmia and hypertension. Therefore, this evidence should be considered when assessing the benefits and risks of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in treating malignancies.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022303115.

Project description:IntroductionThis meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitors or PD-L1 inhibitors [PD-(L)1 inhibitors] for muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma (MIBC).Materials and methodsFour databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and 21 CENTRAL) were searched for articles studying neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors for MIBC. The search time period was from the establishment of each database to 21 July 2023. Meta-analyses of pCR, pPR, Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate, RFS, and OS were performed.ResultsIn total, 22 studies were included for meta-analysis. The overall pooled pCR of neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.36 (95%CI=0.30-0.42, p=0.00). In subgroup meta-analysis, the pooled PCR of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.27 (95%CI=0.19-0.35, p=0.1), 0.41 (95%CI=0.21-0.62, p=0.01), 0.43 (95%CI=0.35-0.50, p=0.06), respectively. The overall pooled pPR of neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.53 (95%CI=0.46-0.60, p=0.00). In subgroup meta-analysis, the pooled pPR of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.36 (95%CI=0.22-0.51, p=0.01), 0.51 (95%CI=0.39-0.62, p=0.43), and 0.61 (95%CI=0.53-0.69, p=0.01), respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and RFS were reconstructed, but there was no significant difference among three groups in terms of OS or RFS. The pooled result of Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate for neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.15 (95%CI=0.09-0.22, p=0.00%). In subgroup analysis, the pooled result of Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate for PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.07 (95%CI=0.04-0.11, p=0.84), 0.31 (95%CI=0.16-0.47, p=0.06), and 0.17 (95%CI=0.06-0.31, I2 = 71.27%, p=0.01), respectively.ConclusionNeoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors were feasible and safe for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Compared with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy were associated with higher pCR and pPR, but higher Grade≥3 irAEs. Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and RFS indicated that neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors had an acceptable long-term prognostic, but it was not possible to discern statistical differences between the three neoadjuvant subgroups.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023452437, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42023452437).

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published in English between January 2007 and February 2018.Review methodsOnly head-to-head phase II and III randomised controlled trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments or different doses of the same ICI drug were included: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, atezolizumab, conventional therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and their combinations), two ICI drugs, or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Eligible studies must have reported site, organ, or system level data on treatment related adverse events. High quality, single arm trials and placebo controlled trials on ICI drugs were selected to establish a validation group.Results36 head-to-head phase II and III randomised trials (n=15?370) were included. The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for all adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (probability 76%, pooled incidence 66.4%), nivolumab (56%, 71.8%), pembrolizumab (55%, 75.1%), ipilimumab (55%, 86.8%), and tremelimumab (54%, not applicable). The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for severe or life threatening adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (49%, 15.1%), nivolumab (46%, 14.1%), pembrolizumab (72%, 19.8%), ipilimumab (51%, 28.6%), and tremelimumab (28%, not applicable). Compared with conventional therapy, treatment-related adverse events for ICI drugs occurred mainly in the skin, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary systems. Taking one ICI drug was generally safer than taking two ICI drugs or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Among the five ICI drugs, atezolizumab had the highest risk of hypothyroidism, nausea, and vomiting. The predominant treatment-related adverse events for pembrolizumab were arthralgia, pneumonitis, and hepatic toxicities. The main treatment-related adverse events for ipilimumab were skin, gastrointestinal, and renal toxicities. Nivolumab had a narrow and mild toxicity spectrum, mainly causing endocrine toxicities. Integrated evidence from the pooled incidences, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses implied that nivolumab is the best option in terms of safety, especially for the treatment of lung cancer.ConclusionsCompared with other ICI drugs used to treat cancer, atezolizumab had the best safety profile in general, and nivolumab had the best safety profile in lung cancer when taking an integrated approach. The safety ranking of treatments based on ICI drugs is modulated by specific treatment-related adverse events.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017082553.

Dataset Information

Comparative Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors for Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparative Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors for Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets