Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review.

Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) causes progressive decline of cognition and function. There is a lack of systematic literature reviews on prognostic and predictive factors in its early clinical stages (eAD), i.e., mild cognitive impairment due to AD and mild AD dementia. Objective: To identify prognostic factors affecting eAD progression and predictive factors for treatment efficacy and safety of approved and/or under late-stage development disease-modifying treatments. Methods: Databases were searched (August 2022) for studies reporting prognostic factors associated with eAD progression and predictive factors for treatment response. The Quality in Prognostic Factor Studies tool or the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess risk of bias. Two reviewers independently screened the records. A single reviewer performed data extraction and quality assessment. A second performed a 20% check. Content experts reviewed and interpreted the data collected. Results: Sixty-one studies were included. Self-reporting, diagnosis definition, and missing data led to high risk of bias. Population size ranged from 110 to 11,451. Analyses found data indicating that older age was and depression may be associated with progression. Greater baseline cognitive impairment was associated with progression. APOE4 may be a prognostic factor, a predictive factor for treatment efficacy and predicts an adverse response (ARIA). Elevated biomarkers (CSF/plasma p-tau, CSF t-tau, and plasma neurofilament light) were associated with disease progression. Conclusions: Age was the strongest risk factor for progression. Biomarkers were associated with progression, supporting their use in trial selection and aiding diagnosis. Baseline cognitive impairment was a prognostic factor. APOE4 predicted ARIA, aligning with emerging evidence and relevant to treatment initiation/monitoring.

Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies related to PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 inhibitors across tumor types: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of how the immune system regulates tumor growth has innovated the use of immunotherapeutics to treat various cancers. The impact of such therapies, including programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, on the production of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and their impact on outcomes, is poorly understood. This study aims to evaluate the clinical trial evidence on ADA incidence associated with PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 inhibitors in the treatment of cancer and to assess associations between treatment administered, ADA incidence, and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Embase®, Medline®, and EBM Reviews were searched via the OVID® platform on February 15, 2022. Conference proceedings, clinical trial registries, and global regulatory and reimbursement body websites were also searched. Eligible publications included clinical trials enrolling patients receiving cancer treatment with either PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 reporting outcomes including incidence or prevalence of ADAs and the impact of immunogenicity on treatment safety and efficacy. Reference lists of eligible publications were also searched. The review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and evidence quality assessment was conducted using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. RESULTS: After screening 4160 records and reviewing 97 full publications, a total of 34 publications reporting on 68 trials were included. A further 41 relevant clinical trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov and a further 32 from searches of packaging inserts. In total, 141 relevant trials covering 15 different checkpoint inhibitors and 16 different tumor types were included. Across the included trials, atezolizumab was associated with the highest incidence of ADAs (29.6% of 639 patients), followed by nivolumab (11.2% of 2,085 patients). Combination checkpoint inhibitor treatment appeared to increase the rate of ADAs versus monotherapy. Only 17 trials reported on the impact of ADAs on treatment outcomes with mixed results for the impact of ADAs on treatment efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of cancer are immunogenic, with the incidence of treatment-emergent ADAs varying between individual therapies. It remains unclear what impact ADAs have on treatment outcomes.

Atezolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Management of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the First-Line Setting: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: In 2020, atezolizumab-bevacizumab became the new standard of care (SOC) for first-line unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, following a decade where sorafenib was the preferred first-line treatment. In the last few years, a number of novel systemic treatments with non-inferiority and superiority to sorafenib have been approved as first-line treatments. Objectives: The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare randomised controlled trial evidence for atezolizumab-bevacizumab with globally relevant pharmacological comparators for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable HCC. Methods: Randomised controlled trials investigating first-line treatment of HCC in adults with no prior systemic treatment were eligible for inclusion into the SLR and were retrieved from Embase, MEDLINE, and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews. Interventions of interest for the NMA included atezolizumab-bevacizumab, sorafenib, lenvatinib, durvalumab (including in combination with tremelimumab), cabozantinib (including in combination with atezolizumab), camrelizumab (including in combination with rivoceranib), pembrolizumab (including in combination with lenvatinib), and tislelizumab. Random effects NMA was conducted for survival endpoints within a Bayesian framework with an informative prior distribution for between-study heterogeneity. The hazard ratios for relative treatment effect were estimated with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Results: The SLR identified 49 studies, of which eight formed a connected evidence network permitting the indirect treatment comparison of atezolizumab-bevacizumab with comparators of interest. The indirect comparisons suggested an improved overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus most comparators. All indirect treatment comparison results for atezolizumab-bevacizumab included the null value within the 95% CrI (n = 1) for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Conclusions: The results of the NMA indicate atezolizumab-bevacizumab is associated with superior or comparable OS and PFS together with a manageable safety profile compared with globally relevant comparators in the unresected HCC indication. The findings support that atezolizumab-bevacizumab remains SOC for the management of first-line unresectable HCC patients.