In-depth characterization of NK cell markers from CML patients who discontinued tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy

IntroductionTreatment-free remission (TFR) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase is considered a safe option if suitable molecular monitoring is available. However, the question arises as to which factors can contribute to the maintenance of TFR, and immunologic surveillance of the remaining leukemic cells is believed to be one of them. Argentina Stop Trial is an open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial assessing TFR after tyrosine kinase inhibitors interruption, that after more than 4 years showed a successful TFR rate of 63%.MethodsIn this context, we set up an immunological study by flow cytometry in order to analyze specific NK cell subsets from peripheral blood patient samples both at the time of discontinuation as well as during the subsequent months.ResultsAt the time of discontinuation, patients show a mature NK cell phenotype, probably associated to TKI treatment. However, 3 months after discontinuation, significant changes in several NK cell receptors occurred. Patients with a higher proportion of CD56dim NK and PD-1+ NK cells showed better chances of survival. More interestingly, non-relapsing patients also presented a subpopulation of NK cells with features associated with the expansion after cytomegalovirus infection (expression of CD57+NKG2C+), and higher proportion of NKp30 and NKp46 natural cytotoxicity receptors, which resulted in greater degranulation and associated with better survival (p<0.0001).DiscussionThis NK cell subset could have a protective role in patients who do not relapse, thus further characterization could be useful for patients in sustained deep molecular response

Elevated plasma levels of IL-6 and MCP-1 selectively identify CML patients who better sustain molecular remission after TKI withdrawal

Abstract Treatment-free remission (TFR) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is safe under adequate molecular monitoring, but questions remain regarding which factors may be considered predictive for TFR. Argentina Stop Trial (AST) is a multicenter TFR trial showing that 65% of patients sustain molecular remission, and the prior time in deep molecular response (DMR) was associated with successful TFR. Luminex technology was used to characterize cytokines in plasma samples. Using machine learning algorithms, MCP-1 and IL-6 were identified as novel biomarkers and MCP-1low/IL-6low patients showed eightfold higher risk of relapse. These findings support the feasibility of TFR for patients in DMR and MCP-1/IL-6 plasma levels are strong predictive biomarkers

DataSheet_1_In-depth characterization of NK cell markers from CML patients who discontinued tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.docx

IntroductionTreatment-free remission (TFR) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase is considered a safe option if suitable molecular monitoring is available. However, the question arises as to which factors can contribute to the maintenance of TFR, and immunologic surveillance of the remaining leukemic cells is believed to be one of them. Argentina Stop Trial is an open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial assessing TFR after tyrosine kinase inhibitors interruption, that after more than 4 years showed a successful TFR rate of 63%.MethodsIn this context, we set up an immunological study by flow cytometry in order to analyze specific NK cell subsets from peripheral blood patient samples both at the time of discontinuation as well as during the subsequent months.ResultsAt the time of discontinuation, patients show a mature NK cell phenotype, probably associated to TKI treatment. However, 3 months after discontinuation, significant changes in several NK cell receptors occurred. Patients with a higher proportion of CD56dim NK and PD-1+ NK cells showed better chances of survival. More interestingly, non-relapsing patients also presented a subpopulation of NK cells with features associated with the expansion after cytomegalovirus infection (expression of CD57+NKG2C+), and higher proportion of NKp30 and NKp46 natural cytotoxicity receptors, which resulted in greater degranulation and associated with better survival (pDiscussionThis NK cell subset could have a protective role in patients who do not relapse, thus further characterization could be useful for patients in sustained deep molecular response.</p

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care