Citations

Importance Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations. Objective To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states. Evidence Review PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched. Findings In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease. Conclusions and Relevance The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.

Abstract Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are an essential systemic therapy for advanced melanoma. However, most melanomas develop resistance to ICI. Tumor-derived soluble PD-L1 (sPD-L1) and other soluble immunosuppressive factors drive checkpoint inhibitor resistance and correlate with inferior survival. We previously showed that therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) removes sPD-L1 from circulation. Thus, we hypothesized that TPE-mediated removal of sPD-L1 and other immunosuppressive factors could overcome immunotherapy resistance in refractory melanoma. Methods: In this clinical trial (NCT04581382), we prospectively enrolled eighteen (18) patients with widely metastatic melanoma with progression despite anti-PD-1 ICI and elevated sPD-L1 by ELISA (≥1.7ng/mL). Each patient received radiotherapy to between one and three metastatic lesions (at least two unirradiated lesions) followed by three TPE sessions on consecutive days and re-challenge with checkpoint inhibitor. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints of the study were adverse events (AEs) and sPD-L1 reduction by TPE, respectively. Secondary endpoints included RECIST-based response in unirradiated lesions and overall survival. Correlative studies included kinetics of sPD-L1 and soluble immonsuppressive factors and dynamics of peripheral immune cell phenotypes. Results: Mean age was 62 (SD 13) and seven of eighteen (39%) were female. Mean baseline sPD-L1 was 26.31 ng/mL (40.01). The treatment was well-tolerated with one (6%) patient with grade 3 and 4 adverse events from a central line infection after TPE. Levels of sPD-L1 were significantly reduced by TPE (mean 80.2% reduction, p<0.0001). Two patients (11.1%) experienced complete response (CR), one (5.6%) partial response, three (16.7%) stable disease, and 12 (66.7%) progressive disease. In one case, immunotherapy was discontinued after two years due to no detectable lesions. Changes in tumor-reactive (TTR) GZMB+/CX3CR1+/CD11ahigh and other peripheral immune cell populations predicted overall survival in this cohort. In addition to sPD-L1, other soluble mediators of ICI resistance were also reduced by TPE and predicted overall survival in this cohort. Summary/Conclusion: sPD-L1 and other soluble immunoregulatory signaling molecules are important mediators of ICI resistance. SBRT and TPE can resensitize ICI-refractory melanoma by removing these factors. Patients with persistently elevated or rapid rebound of sPD-L1 following TPE experienced poor response and overall survival. Serial monitoring of sPD-L1 may predict response to ICI and multiple courses of TPE may be necessary. Our findings may apply in other ICI-resistant cancers with elevated sPD-L1. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04581382, ReCIPE-M1 (Rescuing Cancer Immunotherapy with Plasma Exchange in Melanoma 1).

Importance The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear. Objective To compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma. Data Sources The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions. Study Selection Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers). Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events. Results A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], −10.3% [95% CI, −11.8% to −8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, −4.7% [95% CI, −8.0% to −1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, −5.5% [95% CI, −8.4% to −2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, −0.6% [95% CI, −1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, −1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty). Conclusions and Relevance In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.