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。
9 [$ W6 S1 a5 V2 T5 m. b4 K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。
5 b0 i3 q1 e4 h( M8 r! m比如下面这例:$ i* f8 b1 ]; l4 L1 L. N' d5 ]
《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》
0 {& i! E% d8 t7 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。3 @3 M: v r) V, ~4 ^1 J5 e( T
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。
( ~* r2 W' a+ m; o: n但是患者第三次治疗的时候就因为严重的肺炎死了。
& j( S+ e8 Y7 b L' Y6 X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 @+ j8 K% ~* c“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. ” u2 w) Z* d3 [6 Z* ] f
5 D. l+ r; j' x4 o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。7 S2 g6 d* ?2 K3 _( ^( C
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。
4 T% @+ j2 P3 @( B+ v+ ]. K ' [$ e' p( q$ X8 E
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。4 R0 W2 L" X4 J* d: e
3 h: P1 ^" n s' x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。7 |# e, U6 q0 K6 ]( [
r/ S* h; W- K
1 K, Q+ t5 P# _2 `- h
H1受体拮抗剂抗组胺药/ L0 X4 T1 m2 B. x G
$ ^ D6 F( a, V/ J' ?' o6 B0 p一、几个回顾性的研究
' P4 o; h* q8 \( s. C3 @ # e6 o) }. y- `
1、《Efficacy of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines on outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors》0 L4 F4 c* b: \
! ~, A3 ?/ @7 S" {+ z1 lICI+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])。$ ~% i. C: K/ C$ r
“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.”% _! ~3 H5 w; r. X6 e& d9 x
0 {9 ]2 X$ H# E7 W& c) a4 B
9 k) _" ]% b0 a" i2 J$ X2、《Impact of antihistamines use on immune checkpoint inhibitors response in advanced cancer
$ I, |- N+ D- N9 j; I5 ~patients》
5 ~! ]9 r- g; S d I" H! ~ , Z1 w7 K) T5 y+ @/ b `. t# V
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。
; q" K; y" e9 H
& w9 [, |, @- H$ s d* c“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”
j* G; H' M- Y8 |) }
' Z# `# M4 ?- w. p 7 v; i* v* y; n% d7 I$ ?1 j; C
3、《Concomitant medication of cetirizine in advanced melanoma could enhance anti-PD-1 efficacy by promoting M1 macrophages polarization》7 L7 A; z) y0 ^5 v% W8 m
- t9 t8 p, t4 H+ }6 h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).; }& l) i; H ?9 V) Z1 E0 F4 A
) k3 S& b$ e# b% f" V2 N; _
“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). ”; F$ o \* Y; x; y9 C
3 E4 K; K. F) U. K$ g3 o- k
0 W/ J) Z: q3 j, x+ C4、《The allergy mediator histamine confers resistance to immunotherapy in cancer patients via activation of the macrophage histamine receptor H1》$ S; D( h. I+ Z( C: _
6 B7 B2 N8 y- {' E+ G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。' p$ q+ Z" F. ^# ?4 @$ b
# d5 ?9 B3 ?# r4 r/ F8 R
“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.”& c. @( o1 f" s- H% P( U
7 H+ Z& a J9 K
二、增效的作用机制
* U: y/ Y; ?1 v
- ]- p2 a6 N9 f1、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。4 ]! O* f' o7 }0 w( Z
0 M6 y" [4 d- @5 H' L$ r e+ f2、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)
& t. p5 j8 O# q2 D- p4 V/ ] ; ^* t3 o# l- r, b
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。: M% U; K, k3 k q" q
# X$ l5 ^: G6 k, P. U% N( N7 f
+ S0 i( [1 F. B/ V" c. L" h, |
三、减毒的作用机制
( n4 L3 `2 B5 L6 a6 j 5 A5 v' k' k7 y; P$ Z
1、抑制IL-1β、 IL6、IL8等促炎细胞因子。 M9 K/ O" C L7 ]9 t# h
. V2 F8 [6 E7 s! t, b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》)( }% A9 w [! x* p" ]! @; {
: i7 |3 w% \, B& h1 Y2、抑制 NF-KB
: H: L7 e( n ?* e. h2 v8 g
: A# p# [! d- d5 A$ |“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》)
8 o+ N7 m/ f8 y9 g! V) y' M |