CD40-activated B cells induce anti-tumor immunity in vivo

The introduction of checkpoint inhibitors represents a major advance in cancer immunotherapy. Some studies on checkpoint inhibition demonstrate that combinatorial immunotherapies with secondary drivers of anti-tumor immunity provide beneficial effects for patients that do not show a strong endogenous immune response. CD40-activated B cells (CD40B cells) are potent antigen presenting cells by activating and expanding naïve and memory CD4 + and CD8 + and homing to the secondary lymphoid organs. In contrast to dendritic cells, the generation of highly pure CD40B cells is simple and time efficient and they can be expanded almost limitlessly from small blood samples of cancer patients. Here, we show that the vaccination with antigen-loaded CD40B cells induces a specific T-cell response in vivo comparable to that of dendritic cells. Moreover, we identify vaccination parameters, including injection route, cell dose and vaccination repetitions to optimize immunization and demonstrate that application of CD40B cells is safe in terms of toxicity in the recipient. We furthermore show that preventive immunization of tumor-bearing mice with tumor antigen-pulsed CD40B cells induces a protective anti-tumor immunity against B16.F10 melanomas and E.G7 lymphomas leading to reduced tumor growth. These results and our straightforward method of CD40B-cell generation underline the potential of CD40B cells for cancer immunotherapy

CCC meets ICU: Redefining the role of critical care of cancer patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Currently the majority of cancer patients are considered ineligible for intensive care treatment and oncologists are struggling to get their patients admitted to intensive care units. Critical care and oncology are frequently two separate worlds that communicate rarely and thus do not share novel developments in their fields. However, cancer medicine is rapidly improving and cancer is eventually becoming a chronic disease. Oncology is therefore characterized by a growing number of older and medically unfit patients that receive numerous novel drug classes with unexpected side effects.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>All of these changes will generate more medically challenging patients in acute distress that need to be considered for intensive care. An intense exchange between intensivists, oncologists, psychologists and palliative care specialists is warranted to communicate the developments in each field in order to improve triage and patient treatment. Here, we argue that "critical care of cancer patients" needs to be recognized as a medical subspecialty and that there is an urgent need to develop it systematically.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>As prognosis of cancer improves, novel therapeutic concepts are being introduced and more and more older cancer patients receive full treatment the number of acutely ill patients is growing significantly. This development a major challenge to current concepts of intensive care and it needs to be redefined who of these patients should be treated, for how long and how intensively.</p

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

B cell regulation of the anti-tumor response and role in carcinogenesis

The balance between immune effector cells such as T cells and natural killer cells, and immunosuppressive Treg cells, dendritic, myeloid and monocytic sub-populations in the tumor microenvironment acts to calibrate the immune response to malignant cells. Accumulating evidence is pointing to a role for B cells in modulating the immune response to both solid tumors and hematologic cancer. Evidence from murine autoimmune models has defined B regulatory cell (Breg) subsets that express cytokines such as IL-10, TGF-β, and/or express immune regulatory ligands such as PD-L1, which can suppress T cell and/or natural killer cell responses. Multiple murine tumor models exhibit decreased tumor growth in B cell deficient or B cell depleted mice. In several of these models, B cells inhibit T cell mediated tumor immunity and/or facilitate conversion of T cells to CD4(+)CD25(+)FoxP3(+) T regs, which act to attenuate the innate and/or adaptive antitumor immune response. Mechanisms of suppression include the acquisition of inhibitory ligand expression, and phosphorylation of Stat3, and induction of IL-10 and TGF-β, resulting in a Breg phenotype. Breg suppressive activity may affect diverse cell subtypes, including T effector cells, NK cells, myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and/or tumor associated macrophages. B cells may also directly promote tumorigenesis through recruitment of inflammatory cells, and upregulation of pro-angiogenic genes and pro-metastatic collagenases. Breg infiltration has now been identified in a variety of solid tumor malignancies including but not limited to ovarian, gastric, non-small cell lung cancer, pancreatic, esophageal, head and neck, and hepatocellular carcinomas. Increasing evidence suggests that recruitment of B cells and acquisition of suppressive activity within the tumor bed may be an important mechanism through which B cells may modulate innate and/or adaptive anti-tumor immunity. B cell depletion in the clinic using anti-CD20 antibodies and/or inhibitors of BTK and/or other signaling pathways, may be a useful strategy for augmenting the anti-tumor immune response

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Hematological-oncological intensive care patients. Treatment without borders

The number of treatment options and success of treating patients with cancer have both significantly increased in recent years. However, many of these patients require intensive care due to comorbidities, treatment-associated complications, or severe infections. At the same time, the boundaries between what is feasible and sensible are difficult to draw. Over the past few years, awareness of the problems these cancer patients may have in the intensive care unit has increased and discussions have begun. This article intends to offer a discussion basis and also possible solution strategies