Search

Background: Cationic amphiphilic antihistamines have been shown to improve patient outcomes in immunogenic tumours, but whether they can augment and improve response to immunotherapy is unknown. We aim to evaluate the effect of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study at two tertiary referral centres in Taiwan between January 2015 and December 2021. Patients who received desloratadine, cyproheptadine, and ebastine were classified as cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users. The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and clinical benefit rate. Patients treated with cationic amphiphilic antihistamines were matched to patients who received non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamines based on variables including age, cancer type, stage, and history of allergic diseases., Results: A total of 734 ICI-treated patients were included. After matching, 68 cationic amphiphilic antihistamine and non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users remained for analysis. Compared with non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users, patients who received cationic amphiphilic antihistamines had a significantly longer median overall survival (24.8 versus 10.4 months; Log-rank, p = 0.018) and progression-free survival (10.6 versus 4.93 months; Log-rank, p = 0.004). The use of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines was associated with an approximately 50% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.55 [95% CI: 0.34-0.91]). Survival benefits were not seen in patients who received cationic amphiphilic antihistamines before immune checkpoint blockade. These survival benefits were observed regardless of the generation of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines., Conclusion: The use of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines was associated with improved survival among patients treated with immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Certain angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor‐γ (PPAR‐γ) activation property, which has been associated with improved programmed cell death ligand 1 blockade and cytotoxic T lymphocyte‐mediated antitumor activity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the impact of PPAR‐γ‐activating ARBs on patient survival in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) across all types of cancers. Results: A total of 167 patients receiving both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were included. Compared with non‐PPAR‐γ‐ARB users (n = 102), PPAR‐γ‐ARB users (n = 65) had a longer median overall survival (not reached [IQR, 16.0—not reached] vs. 18.6 [IQR, 6.1–38.6] months) and progression‐free survival (17.3 [IQR, 5.1—not reached] vs. 8.2 [IQR, 2.4–18.6] months). In Cox regression analysis, the use of PPAR‐γ‐activating ARBs had an approximately 50% reduction in all‐cause mortality and disease progression. Patients who received PPAR‐γ‐activating ARBs also had higher clinical benefit rates than non‐PPAR‐γ‐ARB users (82% vs. 61%, p = 0.005). Conclusion: The use of ARBs with PPAR‐γ‐activating property is linked with better survival among patients receiving ICIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most commonly used gastric acid suppressants in cancer patients. However, long-term use of PPIs can cause dysbiosis effects disrupting gut microbiota with subsequent impairment of the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Our study demonstrates that, in advanced non-small cell lung cancer and urothelial carcinoma, patients receiving ICIs with concomitant PPIs are associated with poorer survival outcomes, when compared not only with those without PPIs but also with patients treated with chemotherapy, implying that PPIs could compromise the effectiveness of ICIs, causing them to be less effective than chemotherapy. As a result, we suggest that clinicians should avoid unnecessary PPI prescription in these patients. Conversely, there is little survival association with PPI in patients with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the neck and head. Nevertheless, future high quality prospective studies including more cancer types are warranted. (1) Although emerging evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced dysbiosis negatively alters treatment response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients, no study systematically investigates the association between PPIs, ICIs, and chemotherapy; (2) Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, and PubMed were searched from inception to 20 May 2022, to identify relevant studies involving patients receiving ICIs or chemotherapy and reporting survival outcome between PPI users and non-users. Survival outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Network meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. p-scores, with a value between 0 and 1, were calculated to quantify the treatment ranking, with a higher score suggesting a higher probability of greater effectiveness. We also conducted pairwise meta-analyses of observational studies to complement our network meta-analysis; (3) We identified 62 studies involving 26,484 patients (PPI = 8834; non-PPI = 17,650), including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial carcinoma (UC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the neck and head. Eight post-hoc analyses from 18 randomized–controlled trials were included in our network, which demonstrated that, in advanced NSCLC and UC, patients under ICI treatment with concomitant PPI (p-score: 0.2016) are associated with both poorer OS (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.37 to 1.67) and poorer PFS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.61) than those without PPIs (p-score: 1.000). Patients under ICI treatment with concomitant PPI also had poorer OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.31) and poorer PFS (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.48) in comparison with those receiving chemotherapy (p-score: 0.6664), implying that PPIs may compromise ICI's effectiveness, making it less effective than chemotherapy. Our pairwise meta-analyses also supported this association. Conversely, PPI has little effect on patients with advanced melanoma, RCC, HCC, and SCC of the neck and head who were treated with ICIs; (4) "PPI-induced dysbiosis" serves as a significant modifier of treatment response in both advanced NSCLC and UC that are treated with ICIs, compromising the effectiveness of ICIs to be less than that of chemotherapy. Thus, clinicians should avoid unnecessary PPI prescription in these patients. "PPI-induced dysbiosis", on the other hand, does not alter the treatment response to ICIs in advanced melanoma, RCC, HCC, and SCC of the head and neck. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]