马上注册,结交更多好友,享用更多功能,让你轻松玩转社区。
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?立即注册
x
以ICI为代表的免疫治疗单药有效率太低,尤其是对所谓冷肿瘤;联合做增敏增效治疗是主要出路。
- R) Z- a8 T/ v7 B1 T; g5 }# ~但人的免疫系统是个整体,那些免疫细胞相关的因素也并非只管肿瘤,增敏增效治疗有可能增加全身炎症;即便是直奔肿瘤去的,过于放飞自我的免疫细胞掀起的免疫活动的强度,患者也未必能耐受得了;ICI治疗本身就风险巨大,再叠加这些风险因素,有时候就表现为“怕你死得不够快”了。
- \% K ~, m0 i7 ]( [2 u- m2 N比如下面这例:! t) x& L3 g+ C5 c/ V
《Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy Combined With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and GM-CSF as Salvage Therapy in a PD-L1-Negative Patient With Refractory Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Case Report and Literature Review》
9 O" ]3 c; r& a这篇论文讲了一个很时髦的疗法,“布拉格疗法”---ici+放疗+特尔立(gm-csf),治疗一位食管癌患者。
9 a8 K \( V0 ]( P( _& j0 a0 \增敏增效的疗效肯定是有的,因为这位患者pd-l1是阴性的,布拉格治疗也起效了。
+ f/ a7 \* Z! V* {1 w: ~但是患者第三次治疗的时候就因为严重的肺炎死了。
! w% ?& `5 r$ }" ~直接对肺病灶放疗,肺炎本身就不可避免;会急剧加重炎症的pd-1i、gm-csf再联着用;再配上只会用激素的一言难尽的治疗措施.........
2 D B! O4 M# \( t* r“This study aimed to report a case of a patient about advanced unresectable ESCC negative expression of PD-L1, who experienced tumor progression after chemoradiotherapy and targeted therapy.A significant systemic effect was seen after PD-1 inhibitor combined with GM-CSF and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for metastatic lesions, however, severe pneumonia occurred after the triple-combination therapy. ”
) l+ X9 g$ t% c1 I4 d; N $ Z% H) N) b8 ?$ d. K6 W
所以一切给免疫增敏增效的治疗,“减毒”要与“增效”并重,甚至“减毒”要在“增效”之前。
9 o/ z) k! t; Z; x- m& X这里的“减毒”,主要指的是 1、尽量不增加不可控的炎症风险 2、最好能对那些不利的促炎细胞因子、趋化因子之类的有所抑制。
6 ~, `( ]' W! y8 ^
, d/ ~& e3 A8 |7 {: V( k3 O简化的办法就是从消炎药中去找增敏增效药。当然消炎药也要看其具体作用机制,如果是增加treg等四座大山来消炎的,那也有免疫抑制促肿瘤发展的风险,那也不能用。
" n! `/ ~$ e: q+ S/ K- m4 E( @. V
, q e; }$ q0 a X. f从今天开始陆续介绍一些给免疫治疗“减毒”“增效”的辅助用药。' r/ x) o6 O1 O5 Y x& B% ]
" I' y& u! _3 m- ]$ J! ]9 m5 d1 U! \0 z
' ~1 X7 G. h9 w$ H n7 u. U. G
H1受体拮抗剂抗组胺药
# l' W& Y) j- ]' ]
, U3 w y# k/ u7 C$ B一、几个回顾性的研究
! ?1 I) P% }, w5 E4 p: m
$ X' q* v$ a8 z8 j1、《Efficacy of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines on outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors》
q# O+ W" W# @, D, F* K7 H g# K& T- C0 i# D, `! t. S- l
ICI+地氯雷他定或者赛庚啶或者依巴斯汀这三种H1受体拮抗剂抗组胺药的患者与只用ICI患者相比,中位总生存期显著延长(24.8个月对10.4个月;Log-rank,p = 0.018),无进展生存期显著延长(10.6对4.93个月;对数秩,p = 0.004);全因死亡率降低了约50%(HR,0.55 [95% CI: 0.34-0.91])。
( d+ C) u$ c% J' t+ E, Y* a$ ~“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.”
0 Q/ |8 n& ?- q$ g" y
2 Q, B/ \2 N1 g- k# c5 m 7 S5 b4 R' U9 @# \1 H
2、《Impact of antihistamines use on immune checkpoint inhibitors response in advanced cancer% _/ o" m8 B1 S' m1 ?
patients》
4 k7 a: l1 x" r$ Q3 E
/ H- z2 A& ~3 [一共纳入133名已经发生转移并使用ici治疗的肿瘤患者,其中黑色素瘤(33.1%)患者最多。最常见的ICI是nivolumab (63.2%)。55名(38.4%)患者在接受ICIs的同时接受了抗组胺药。最常见的抗组胺药是pheniramine(85.5%)。同时接受抗组胺药和ICIs的患者,中位无进展生存期(PFS) (8.2比5.1个月,log-rank p = 0.016)和总生存期(OS) (16.2比7.7个月,log-rank p = 0.002)更长。在多变量分析中,在校正混杂因素(如表现状态、骨或肝转移和同步化疗)后,这些患者的PFS(风险比(HR) = 0.63,95% CI:0.40–0.98,p = 0.042)和OS (HR = 0.49,95% CI:0.29–0.81,p = 0.006)也更好。
+ \2 z) v" B t( t, r / Z4 q5 g/ i0 [# R. f+ ?6 A
“A total of 133 patients receiving ICIs in the metastatic setting were included. Melanoma (33.1%) was the most common tumor type. The most common ICI was nivolumab (63.2%). Fifty-fi ve (38.4%) patients received antihistamines concomitantly with ICIs. The most common antihistamine was pheniramine (85.5%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) (8.2 vs. 5.1 months, log-rank p = 0.016) and overall survival (OS) (16.2 vs. 7.7 months, log-rank p = 0.002) were longer in patients receiving antihistamines concomitantly with ICIs. In multivariate analysis, PFS (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% CI:0.40–0.98, p = 0.042) and OS (HR = 0.49, 95% CI:0.29–0.81, p = 0.006) were also better in those patients after adjusting for confounding factors, such as performance status, bone or liver metastasis, and concurrent chemotherapy”
7 G8 Y: ?" I, Y j; M; S & [* V* r5 c# N+ g, h
# z$ p* C2 A4 j6 T3、《Concomitant medication of cetirizine in advanced melanoma could enhance anti-PD-1 efficacy by promoting M1 macrophages polarization》
' i) k6 @8 E) C0 V( g! q ; C7 {" F9 q; I
接受西替利嗪联合抗PD-1药物治疗的患者无进展生存期显著延长(PFS平均无病生存期:28个月对15个月,风险比0.46,95%可信区间:0.28-0.76;p = 0.0023)和OS(平均OS为36比23个月,HR为0.48,95% CI为0.29-0.78;p = 0.0032)。伴随治疗与ORR和DCR显著相关 (p < 0.05).! M8 \$ F) s* S2 ^) s/ e
+ ~, N" }* q- G1 M* e3 g“atients treated with cetirizine concomitantly with an anti-PD-1 agent had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS; mean PFS: 28 vs 15 months, HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28-0.76; p = 0.0023) and OS (mean OS was 36 vs 23 months, HR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29-0.78; p = 0.0032) in comparison with those not receiving cetirizine. The concomitant treatment was significantly associated with ORR and DCR (p < 0.05). ”
8 U5 p# W2 J' `4 F8 C( x8 y
, @: j4 O2 ~9 C1 M) d 6 e1 q: A' j, d: p
4、《The allergy mediator histamine confers resistance to immunotherapy in cancer patients via activation of the macrophage histamine receptor H1》
0 Y2 y0 d d* W. h5 H ; V0 D9 c6 ? X; B6 O
血浆组胺水平低的癌症患者对抗PD-1治疗的客观缓解率是血浆组胺水平高的患者的三倍以上。
' ~/ H% k ]( c+ Z& d4 |
" x& g7 E. ~2 i9 M( _9 j) F" F“cancer patients with low plasma histamine levels had a more than tripled objective response rate to anti-PD-1 treatment compared with patients with high plasma histamine.”
8 _' |9 s( P2 Z; j* l * V& z: E) x) l1 c+ v
二、增效的作用机制
% a3 \* B0 R9 k ~
0 w& _8 c9 F' }. X6 Z1、2021年的《Allergic Mediator Histamine Confers Immunotherapy Resistance in Cancer Patients via Histamine Receptor 1 on Macrophage》这篇论文讲,组胺受体H1 (HRH1)在肿瘤微环境里的TAM肿瘤相关巨噬细胞上表达,这种表达会诱导TAM极化成促癌的M2表型,抑制CD8+T细胞的功能。- r1 i; b S% W1 G
, f" b, T( o" F: z* [9 v2、2022年的《Concomitant medication of cetirizine in advanced melanoma could enhance anti-PD-1 efficacy by promoting M1 macrophages polarization》这篇论文验证了上述观点。用了H1抗组胺药cetirizine后,与接受西替利嗪的患者的血液样品中的基线相比,巨噬细胞的特异性标记物FCGR1A/CD64的表达在治疗后增加,但在仅接受抗PD1的患者中没有增加,并且与干扰素途径相关的基因如CCL8的表达正相关(rho = 0.32p = 0.0111),ifit 1(rho = 0.29;p = 0.0229),ifit 3(rho = 0.57;p %3C 0.0001),ifi 27(ρ= 0.42;p = 0.008),MX1(ρ= 0.26;p = 0.0383)和RSA D2(ρ= 0.43;p = 0.0005)。“he expression of FCGR1A/CD64, a specific marker of macrophages, was increased after the treatment in comparison with baseline in blood samples from patients receiving cetirizine, but not in those receiving only the anti-PD1, and positively correlated with the expression of genes linked to the interferon pathway such as CCL8 (rho = 0.32; p = 0.0111), IFIT1 (rho = 0.29; p = 0.0229), IFIT3 (rho = 0.57; p < 0.0001), IFI27 (rho = 0.42; p = 0.008), MX1 (rho = 0.26; p = 0.0383) and RSAD2 (rho = 0.43; p = 0.0005).” FCGR1A/CD64是M1型巨噬细胞的特异性标志物。(https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/ UniProtP12314)
, V3 P& y" ]$ O; A) w8 j l + m. N3 d- }/ I! D5 `8 F' x
TAM是肿瘤微环境中免疫抑制的四座大山之一,属于普遍共性问题。" V3 j1 ~+ L5 F7 N' E
( W* W2 ? g, Q: f$ K
4 B' h7 ]" ?. h
三、减毒的作用机制
4 m# ?8 K( O4 P f3 N' z6 h
b- }6 \ u; B0 x( ?1、抑制IL-1β、 IL6、IL8等促炎细胞因子。- k1 V# p% N+ ]0 b; T9 \9 y9 }
0 W: X# a# W, Y7 G9 J1 U6 Y
例如 “Both H1 antihistamines reduce all symptoms of allergic rhinitis, including nasal congestion and the plasmatic level of IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α, after 4 weeks of treatment. ” (《In Vivo Anti-Inflammatory Effect of H1 Antihistamines in Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial》)
1 J* K0 Q! i9 N* s' z
2 P3 P0 `; ?, m- t5 R6 U, M2、抑制 NF-KB+ h p6 }" l5 x& O9 \
@# y9 }7 p* O2 M: o“H1 antihistamines reduced basal NF-kappaB activity (rank order of potency: desloratadine > pyrilamine > cetirizine > loratadine > fexofenadine).” (《Desloratadine inhibits constitutive and histamine-stimulated nuclear factor-kappaB activity consistent with inverse agonism at the histamine H1 Receptor》)4 z6 k: l) C# g* x1 Q& t" a
|