» Articles » PMID: 32020483

Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Preclinical Sepsis Models: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Specialty Critical Care
Date 2020 Feb 6
PMID 32020483
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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 = 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.

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.

Citing Articles

Anti-PD-L1 therapy altered inflammation but not survival in a lethal murine hepatitis virus-1 pneumonia model.

Curran C, Cui X, Li Y, Jeakle M, Sun J, Demirkale C Front Immunol. 2024; 14:1308358.

PMID: 38259435 PMC: 10801642. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1308358.


VISTA nonredundantly regulates proliferation and CD69low γδ T cell accumulation in the intestine in murine sepsis.

Gray C, Armstead B, Chung C, Chen Y, Ayala A J Leukoc Biol. 2023; 115(6):1005-1019.

PMID: 38035776 PMC: 11135620. DOI: 10.1093/jleuko/qiad149.


Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Infection: What Is the Interplay?.

Papadakis M, Karniadakis I, Mazonakis N, Akinosoglou K, Tsioutis C, Spernovasilis N In Vivo. 2023; 37(6):2409-2420.

PMID: 37905657 PMC: 10621463. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13346.


Role of regulation of PD-1 and PD-L1 expression in sepsis.

Zhang T, Yu-Jing L, Ma T Front Immunol. 2023; 14:1029438.

PMID: 36969168 PMC: 10035551. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1029438.


Immune hyporeactivity to bacteria and multiple TLR-ligands, yet no response to checkpoint inhibition in patients just after meeting Sepsis-3 criteria.

Bick A, Buys W, Engler A, Madel R, Atia M, Faro F PLoS One. 2022; 17(8):e0273247.

PMID: 35981050 PMC: 9387870. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273247.


References
1.
DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View

2.
Higgins J, Thompson S . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186. View

3.
Callahan M, Postow M, Wolchok J . Targeting T Cell Co-receptors for Cancer Therapy. Immunity. 2016; 44(5):1069-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.04.023. View

4.
Wever K, Geessink F, Brouwer M, Tillema A, Ritskes-Hoitinga M . A systematic review of discomfort due to toe or ear clipping in laboratory rodents. Lab Anim. 2017; 51(6):583-600. PMC: 5700778. DOI: 10.1177/0023677217705912. View

5.
Hurchla M, Sedy J, Gavrieli M, Gavrielli M, Drake C, Murphy T . B and T lymphocyte attenuator exhibits structural and expression polymorphisms and is highly Induced in anergic CD4+ T cells. J Immunol. 2005; 174(6):3377-85. DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.174.6.3377. View