Search

Despite significant progress in our understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis and extensive clinical research, there are few proven therapies addressing the underlying immune dysregulation of this life-threatening condition. The aim of this scoping review is to describe the literature evaluating immunotherapy in adult patients with sepsis, emphasizing on methods providing a "personalized immunotherapy" approach, which was defined as the classification of patients into a distinct subgroup or subphenotype, in which a patient's immune profile is used to guide treatment. Subgroups are subsets of sepsis patients, based on any cut-off in a variable. Subphenotypes are subgroups that can be reliably discriminated from other subgroup based on data-driven assessments. Included studies were randomized controlled trials and cohort studies investigating immunomodulatory therapies in adults with sepsis. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov, from the first paper available until January 29th, 2024. The search resulted in 15,853 studies. Title and abstract screening resulted in 1409 studies (9%), assessed for eligibility; 771 studies were included, of which 282 (37%) were observational and 489 (63%) interventional. Treatment groups included were treatments targeting the innate immune response, the complement system, coagulation and endothelial dysfunction, non-pharmalogical treatment, pleiotropic drugs, immunonutrition, concomitant treatments, Traditional Chinese Medicine, immunostimulatory cytokines and growth factors, intravenous immunoglobulins, mesenchymal stem cells and immune-checkpoint inhibitors. A personalized approach was incorporated in 70 studies (9%). Enrichment was applied using cut-offs in temperature, laboratory, biomarker or genetic variables. Trials often showed conflicting results, possibly due to the lack of patient stratification or the potential influence of severity and timing on immunomodulatory therapy results. When a personalized approach was applied, trends of clinical benefit for several interventions emerged, which hold promise for future clinical trials using personalized immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Genetic variation underly inter-individual variation in host immune responses to infectious diseases, and may affect susceptibility or the course of signs and symptoms. Methods: We performed genome-wide association studies in a prospective cohort of 1138 patients with physician-confirmed Lyme borreliosis (LB), the most common tick-borne disease in the Northern hemisphere caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Genome-wide variants in LB patients—divided into a discovery and validation cohort—were compared to two healthy cohorts. Additionally, ex vivo monocyte-derived cytokine responses of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to several stimuli including Borrelia burgdorferi were performed in both LB patient and healthy control samples, as were stimulation experiments using mechanistic/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. In addition, for LB patients, anti-Borrelia antibody responses were measured. Finally, in a subset of LB patients, gene expression was analysed using RNA-sequencing data from the ex vivo stimulation experiments. Results: We identified a previously unknown genetic variant, rs1061632, that was associated with enhanced LB susceptibility. This polymorphism was an eQTL for KCTD20 and ETV7 genes, and its major risk allele was associated with upregulation of the mTOR pathway and cytokine responses, and lower anti-Borrelia antibody production. In addition, we replicated the recently reported SCGB1D2 locus that was suggested to have a protective effect on B. burgdorferi infection, and associated this locus with higher Borrelia burgdorferi antibody indexes and lower IL-10 responses. Conclusions: Susceptibility for LB was associated with higher anti-inflammatory responses and reduced anti-Borrelia antibody production, which in turn may negatively impact bacterial clearance. These findings provide important insights into the immunogenetic susceptibility for LB and may guide future studies on development of preventive or therapeutic measures. Trial registration: The LymeProspect study was registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (NTR4998, registration date 2015–02-13). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rezafungin, a novel, once-weekly echinocandin for the treatment of candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis (IC) was non-inferior to caspofungin for Day 30 all-cause mortality (ACM) and Day 14 global cure in the Phase 3 ReSTORE trial (NCT03667690). We conducted pre-planned subgroup analyses for patients with a positive culture close to randomization in ReSTORE., Methods: ReSTORE was a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial in patients aged ≥18 years with candidemia and/or IC treated with once-weekly intravenous rezafungin (400 mg/200 mg) or once-daily intravenous caspofungin (70 mg/50 mg). This analysis comprised patients with a positive blood culture drawn between 12 hours before and 72 hours after randomization, or a positive culture from another normally sterile site sampled between 48 hours before and 72 hours after randomization. Efficacy endpoints included Day 30 ACM, Day 14 global cure rate, and Day 5 and 14 mycological response. Adverse events were evaluated., Results: This analysis included 38 patients randomized to rezafungin and 46 to caspofungin. In the rezafungin and caspofungin groups, respectively: Day 30 ACM was 26.3% and 21.7% (between-group difference [95% confidence interval] 4.6% [-13.7, 23.5]); Day 14 global response was 55.3% and 50.0% (between-group difference 5.3% [-16.1, 26.0]); and Day 5 mycological eradication was 71.1% and 50.0% (between-group difference 21.1% [-0.2, 40.2]). Safety was comparable between treatments., Conclusions: These findings support the efficacy and safety of rezafungin compared with caspofungin for the treatment of candidemia and/or IC in patients with a positive culture close to randomization, with potential early treatment benefits for rezafungin., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)