Temporal variation in the effectiveness of biologics in asthma: Effect modification by changing patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The underlying population of patients selected for each respiratory monoclonal antibody might change as other biologics are approved. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effect modification by calendar time of the effectiveness of each respiratory biologics in asthma. METHODS: The Effectiveness of Respiratory biologics in Asthma (ERA) is a retrospective cohort of severe asthma patients from the Mass General Brigham clinics between January 2013 and September 2023. Periods were pre-specified as the anti-IgE (2013-2015), anti-IL5 (2016-2018), anti-IL4/13 (2019-2021) or anti-alarmin (2022-2023) era. We evaluated each biologic's effect on asthma-related exacerbations comparing the one-year period before and after therapy initiation using Poisson regression and Cox regression for time-to-first exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 647 biologic-naïve patients, 165 initiated omalizumab, 235 anti-IL5, 227 dupilumab, and 20 tezepelumab. Omalizumab's effectiveness improved as more biologics were approved: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.16 [0.94-1.43] anti-IgE era vs. 0.54 [0.37-0.80] anti-IL4/13-alarmin era. Omalizumab patients in the anti-IL4/13-alarmin era had lower blood eosinophil counts and less chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). For anti-IL5s, effectiveness peaked in the anti-IL4/13 era (IRR 0.52 [0.42-0.64]) when patients had higher BMI and less concomitant CRSwNP. Dupilumab was most effective in the anti-IL4/13 era (IRR 0.60 [0.50-0.72]). There were fewer current smokers in dupilumab patients in the anti-IL4/13 era. Results were similar in time-to-event analyses and in sensitivity analyses accounting for the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: There are temporal variations in the effectiveness of biologics partly explained by the shift in the underlying population, particularly for omalizumab. Though having more choices was associated with better patient selection for omalizumab, this was inconsistent for other biologics.

Ratio of plasma IL-13/TNF- ∝ and CXCL10/CCL17 predicts mepolizumab and omalizumab response in asthma better than eosinophil count or immunoglobulin E level.

To date, most studies to identify biomarkers associated with response to the anti-interleukin 5 agent, mepolizumab, and to the anti-immunoglobulin E agent, omalizumab have focused on clinically available biomarkers, such as the peripheral blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and total immunoglobulin E (IgE). However, these biomarkers often have low predictive accuracy, with many patients with eosinophilic or allergic asthma failing to demonstrate clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab respectively. In this study, we evaluated the association of baseline pre-biologic plasma levels of 26 cytokines and chemokines, including T-helper 1 (Th1)-, Th2-, Th17-related cytokines, and their ratios with subsequent clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab. We defined clinical response as a reduction in the baseline annual exacerbation rate by half or more over the one-year period following initiation of the biologic. Baseline levels of plasma IL-13 were differentially elevated in responders versus non-responders to mepolizumab and plasma CXCL10 levels were differentially elevated in responders to omalizumab. The ratio of IL-13/TNF-α had the best sensitivity and specificity in predicting response to mepolizumab and CXCL10/CCL17 to omalizumab, and these performed better as predictive biomarkers of response than BEC and IgE. Cytokines and chemokines associated with airway eosinophilia, allergic inflammation, or Th2 inflammation, such as IL-13 and CXCL10, may be better predictors of clinical response to mepolizumab and omalizumab, than IL-5 or IgE, the targets of mepolizumab and omalizumab.

Lung function trajectories in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma on mepolizumab, omalizumab, or dupilumab.

BACKGROUND: Lung function is an independent predictor of mortality. We evaluated the lung function trajectories of a cohort of patients with asthma receiving biologic therapy. METHODS: We identified 229 monoclonal antibody-naïve adult patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who initiated omalizumab, mepolizumab, or dupilumab between 2010 and 2022 in a large healthcare system in Boston, MA. Generalized additive mixed models were used to estimate the lung function trajectories during the 156 weeks following biologic initiation. Response was defined as an improvement in FEV1 or a decrease of ≤0.5% per year. The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to assess time to no additional improvement in FEV1 in responders. All models were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, baseline exacerbation rate, and baseline blood eosinophil count. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients initiated mepolizumab, 76 omalizumab, and 65 dupilumab. Baseline eosinophil count was highest in the mepolizumab group (405 cells/mcL) and lowest for omalizumab (250 cells/mcL). Both FEV1 and FVC improved in the mepolizumab group (FEV1 + 20 mL/year; FVC +43 mL/year). For omalizumab, there was an initial improvement in the first year followed by decline with an overall FEV1 loss of -44 mL/year and FVC -32 mL/year. For dupilumab, both FEV1 (+61 mL/year) and FVC (+74 mL/year) improved over time. Fifty percent of the mepolizumab group, 58% omalizumab, and 72% of dupilumab were responders. The median time to no additional FEV1 improvement in responders was 24 weeks for omalizumab, 48 weeks for mepolizumab, and 57 weeks for dupilumab. CONCLUSION: In this clinical cohort, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and dupilumab had beneficial effects on FEV1 and FVC with distinct post-initiation trajectories.

Exploring hospital practice types and their impact on glomerular pathologic patterns: Insights from the largest kidney biopsy cohort in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the influence of different kidney biopsy practices on the prevalence of glomerular pathologic patterns in the largest kidney biopsy registry in Thailand. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of kidney biopsy records from the period between 2000 and 2014. The records were obtained from 2 major institutions: King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, a large university-based hospital, and the Kidney Center Bangkok Hospital, which provides pathology services to hospitals throughout Thailand. The study included native kidney biopsies from all provinces in Thailand, excluding paediatric patients, kidney transplant recipients, and cases of inadequate and repeated biopsies. Patient demographics, indications for biopsy, and final glomerular diagnoses were compared across different hospital practice settings: university (UVH), private (PVH) and public (PBH). RESULTS: A total of 5893 eligible native kidney biopsies were identified from a pool of 7005 biopsies conducted over a 15-year period in 25 provinces throughout Thailand. The 3 most common indications for biopsy were suspected kidney involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (29%), nephrotic syndrome (NS) (29%), and acute glomerulonephritis (AGN)/rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis (RPGN) (13%). The leading indication for biopsy differed across practice types, with suspected kidney involvement in SLE being the primary indication in UVH, while NS took precedence in both PBH and PVH practices. Notably, UVH performed fewer kidney biopsies for asymptomatic urinary abnormalities and diabetes-related indications compared with PVH and PBH. The leading glomerular diagnoses correlated with the biopsy indications, with lupus nephritis (LN) being the most common diagnosis in UVH and PBH practices, whiles immunoglobulin A nephropathy was the predominant diagnosis in PVH practice. CONCLUSION: Hospital practice types significantly impact the prevalence of glomerular pathologic diagnosis patterns in kidney biopsy data, highlighting the importance of considering this influence in epidemiological comparisons.

Human gut, breast, and oral microbiome in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Dysbiosis characterises breast cancer through direct or indirect interference in a variety of biological pathways; therefore, specific microbial patterns and diversity may be a biomarker for the diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer. However, there is still much to determine about the complex interplay of the gut microbiome and breast cancer. Objective: This study aims to evaluate microbial alteration in breast cancer patients compared with control subjects, to explore intestine microbial modification from a range of different breast cancer treatments, and to identify the impact of microbiome patterns on the same treatment-receiving breast cancer patients. Methods: A literature search was conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the CENTRAL databases up to April 2021. The search was limited to adult women with breast cancer and the English language. The results were synthesised qualitatively and quantitatively using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: A total of 33 articles from 32 studies were included in the review, representing 19 case-control, eight cohorts, and five nonrandomised intervention researches. The gut and breast bacterial species were elevated in the cases of breast tumours, a significant increase in Methylobacterium radiotolerans (p = 0.015), in compared with healthy breast tissue. Meta-analysis of different α-diversity indexes such as Shannon index (p = 0.0005), observed species (p = 0.006), and faint's phylogenetic diversity (p < 0.00001) revealed the low intestinal microbial diversity in patients with breast cancer. The microbiota abundance pattern was identified in different sample types, detection methods, menopausal status, nationality, obesity, sleep quality, and several interventions using qualitative analysis. Conclusions: This systematic review elucidates the complex network of the microbiome, breast cancer, and therapeutic options, with the objective of providing a link for stronger research studies and towards personalised medicine to improve their quality of life.

Effect of Probiotics in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Probiotics may have the potential to protect against breast cancer, partly through systemic immunomodulatory action and active impact upon intestinal microbiota. Given a few clinical studies on their curative role, we conducted a systematic review of the potential effects of probiotics in breast cancer patients and survivors of breast cancer, aiming to support further clinical studies. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the CENTRAL databases from inception through to March 2022. A total of eight randomized clinical trials were identified from thirteen articles published between 2004 and 2022. We evaluated quality-of-life measures, observed bacterial species and diversity indices, probiotic-related metabolites, inflammatory biomarkers, and other responses in breast cancer patients and survivors. Results were synthesized qualitatively and quantitatively using random-effects meta-analysis. Different probiotics supplements utilized included Lactobacillus species alone (Lacto), with or without estriol; probiotic combinations of Lactobacillus with Bifidobacterium (ProLB), with or without prebiotic fructooligosaccharides (FOS); ProLB plus Streptococcus and FOS (ProLBS + FOS); and ProLB plus Enterococcus (ProLBE). We found that use of ProLBS with FOS in breast cancer patients and use of ProLBE in survivors of breast cancer show potential benefits in countering obesity and dyslipidemia. ProLBS with FOS use decreases pro-inflammatory TNF-α in breast cancer survivors and improves quality of life in those with breast-cancer-associated lymphedema. Supplementing probiotics capsules (109 CFU) with a prebiotic and using an intake duration of 10 weeks could provide a better approach than probiotics alone.

Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases. Design: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2013 through December 2019. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion (PLF) and/or other lumbar interbody fusion were included for the review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar spinal diseases. Results: Of 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other surgical techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate [RR = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72-0.97), p = 0.02, I 2 = 0.0%] at 1-year follow-up whereas there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow-up [RR = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.96-1.18), p = 0.27, I 2 = 69.0%]. The estimated RR of total adverse events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI = 0.59-1.38), p = 0.63, I 2 = 0.0%] was similar to no fusion, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF groups, and revision rate [RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.34-1.79), p = 0.56, I 2 = 39.0%] was similar to PLF and XLIF groups. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (no fusion, ALIF, PLF, PLIF, XLIF) [MD = 31.88 (95% CI = 5.33-58.44), p = 0.02, I 2 = 92.0%]. There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of blood loss (no fusion, PLIF, PLF) and clinical outcomes (PLF). Conclusions: Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, TLIF has a similar fusion rate, clinical outcomes, parameters concerning operation and complications to no fusion, PLF, and other interbody fusion (PLIF, ALIF, XLIF). Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020186858.

Human papillomavirus vaccination uptake in low-and middle-income countries: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of incident cases of HPV-attributable cancers is highest in the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) but many are yet to initiate HPV vaccination programs. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the uptake of HPV vaccination in LMICs at the beginning of the global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer and describes the gaps and challenges. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases for observational studies that reported the uptake of HPV vaccination until October 2020. The meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model to assess the pooled estimate of HPV uptake. CRD42021218429. FINDINGS: During 2008-2020, an estimated 3.3 million females received at least one dose of HPV vaccine with 61.69% of the target population vaccinated. In countries with high uptake, the pooled estimate of uptake was higher in females than males (45.48% vs 8.45%) and showed significant decline in 2015-2020 compared to 2006-2014 (89.03% vs 41.48%). In countries with low uptake, the estimate of uptake was low in both males and females (5.31% vs 2.93%) and showed increase in uptake in 2015-2020 compared to 2006-2014 (0.76% vs 5.22%). In countries with high uptake, compared to routine programs, the estimate was higher when delivered through demonstration programs (89.94% vs 59.74%). INTERPRETATION: The major concern was a significant drop in the uptake in countries that started with high uptake, challenges in the maintenance of vaccine uptake, sustainability of funding and the lack of standard monitoring and reporting.