Objectives: Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The choice of procedure depends on several factors, including the clinical judgement of the heart team and patient preferences, which are captured by actively informing and involving patients in a process of shared decision making (SDM). We synthesised the most up-to-date and accessible evidence on the benefits and risks that may be associated with TAVI versus SAVR to support SDM in this highly personalised decision-making process. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Wiley) were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 with no language restrictions. Reference lists of included studies were searched to identify additional studies. Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVI versus SAVR in patients with SAS and reported on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit or hospital, valve durability, rehospitalisation/reintervention, stroke (any stroke or major/disabling stroke), myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (NOW-AF), endocarditis, acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery time or pain were included. Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane tool (one reviewer extracted/assessed the data, and the second reviewer checked it). Dichotomous data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects to generate a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Continuous data were pooled using the inverse-variance method with random-effects and expressed as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I ² statistic. Results: 8969 records were retrieved and nine RCTs (61 records) were ultimately included (n=8818 participants). Two RCTs recruited high-risk patients, two RCTs recruited intermediate-risk patients, two RCTs recruited low-risk patients, one RCT recruited high-risk (≥70 years) or any-risk (≥80 years) patients; and two RCTs recruited all-risk or ‘operable’ patients. While there was no overall change in the risk of dying from any cause (30 day: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 5 years: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), cardiovascular mortality (30 day: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.39; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 2 years: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), or any type of stroke (30 day: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.14;≤1 year: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; 5 years: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30), the risk of several clinical outcomes was significantly decreased (major bleeding, AKI, NOW-AF) or significantly increased (major vascular complications, PPM implantation) for TAVI vs SAVR. TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay vs SAVR (MD −3.08 days, 95% CI −4.86 to −1.29; 4 RCTs, n=2758 participants). Subgroup analysis generally favoured TAVI patients receiving implantation via the transfemoral (TF) route (vs non-TF); receiving a balloon-expandable (vs self-expanding) valve; and those at low-intermediate risk (vs high risk). All RCTs were rated at high ROB, predominantly due to lack of blinding and selective reporting. Conclusions: No overall change in the risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular mortality was identified but 95% CIs were often wide, indicating uncertainty. TAVI may reduce the risk of certain side effects while SAVR may reduce the risk of others. Most long-term (5-year) results are limited to older patients at high surgical risk (ie, early trials), therefore more data are required for low risk populations. Ultimately, neither surgical technique was considered dominant, and these results suggest that every patient with SAS should be individually engaged in SDM to make evidence-based, personalised decisions around their care based on the various benefits and risks associated with each treatment. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019138171.

Effector T cells (T_EFF) are a barrier to booster vaccination because they can rapidly kill Ag-bearing APCs before memory T cells are engaged. We report in this study that i.v. delivery of rhabdoviral vectors leads to direct infection of follicular B cells in the spleen, where the earliest evidence of secondary T cell responses was observed. This allows booster immunizations to rapidly expand CD8⁺ central memory T cells (T_CM) during the acute phase of the primary response that is dominated by T_EFF. Interestingly, although the ablation of B cells before boosting with rhabdoviral vectors diminishes the expansion of memory T cells, B cells do not present Ags directly. Instead, depletion of CD11c⁺ dendritic cells abrogates secondary T cell expansion, suggesting that virus-infected follicular B cells may function as an Ag source for local DCs to subsequently capture and present the Ag. Because T_CM are located within B cell follicles in the spleen whereas T_EFF cannot traffic through follicular regions, Ag production and presentation by follicular APCs represent a unique mechanism to secure engagement of T_CM during an ongoing effector response. Our data offer insights into novel strategies for rapid expansion of CD8⁺ T cells using prime-boost vaccines by targeting privileged sites for Ag presentation.

Background: There have been no licensed treatment options in the UK for treating thrombocytopenia in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery. Established management largely involves platelet transfusion prior to the procedure or as rescue therapy for bleeding due to the procedure.Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two thrombopoietin receptor agonists, avatrombopag (Doptelet^®; Dova Pharmaceuticals, Durham, NC, USA) and lusutrombopag (Mulpleta^®; Shionogi Inc., London, UK), in addition to established clinical management compared with established clinical management (no thrombopoietin receptor agonist) in the licensed populations.Design: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.Setting: Secondary care.Participants: Severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count of < 50,000/µl) in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery.Interventions: Lusutrombopag 3 mg and avatrombopag (60 mg if the baseline platelet count is < 40,000/µl and 40 mg if it is 40,000–< 50,000/µl).Main outcome measures: Risk of platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or risk of rescue therapy only.Review methods: Systematic review including meta-analysis. English-language and non-English-language articles were obtained from several databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, all searched from inception to 29 May 2019.Economic evaluation: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.Results: From a comprehensive search retrieving 11,305 records, six studies were included. Analysis showed that avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or rescue therapy only, and mostly with a statistically significant difference (i.e. 95% confidence intervals not overlapping the point of no difference). However, only avatrombopag seemed to be superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in reducing the risk of rescue therapy, although far fewer patients in the lusutrombopag trials than in the avatrombopag trials received rescue therapy. When assessing the cost-effectiveness of lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, it was found that, despite the success of these in avoiding platelet transfusions prior to surgery, the additional long-term gain in quality-adjusted life-years was very small. No thrombopoietin receptor agonist was clearly cheaper than both lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, as the cost savings from avoiding platelet transfusions were more than offset by the drug cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, for all thresholds below £100,000, no thrombopoietin receptor agonist had 100% probability of being cost-effective.Limitations: Some of the rescue therapy data for lusutrombopag were not available. There were inconsistencies in the avatrombopag data. From the cost-effectiveness point of view, there were several additional important gaps in the evidence required, including the lack of a price for avatrombopag.Conclusions: Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy, but they were not cost-effective given the lack of benefit and increase in cost.Future work: A head-to-head trial is warranted.Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019125311.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The prognosis of men with prostate cancer (PC) with mutations in DNA damage response (DDR) genes undergoing different treatments is unclear. This systematic review compared clinical outcomes in PC ... Lay abstract Genes involved in the DNA damage response (DDR) are mutated in around one in five men with prostate cancer (PC). While new treatment guidelines recommend that advanced PC patients be s...

Large-scale assays, such as microarrays, next-generation sequencing and various “omics” technologies, have explored multiple aspects of the immune response following virus infection, often from a public health perspective. Yet a lack of similar data exists for monitoring immune engagement during oncolytic virus immunotherapy (OVIT) in the cancer setting. Tracking immune signatures at the tumour site can create a snapshot or longitudinally analyse immune cell activation, infiltration and functionality within global populations or individual cells. Mapping immune changes over the course of oncolytic biotherapy—from initial infection to tumour stabilisation/regression through to long-term cure or escape/relapse—has the potential to generate important therapeutic insights around virus-host interactions. Further, correlating such immune signatures with specific tumour outcomes has significant value for guiding the development of novel oncolytic virus immunotherapy strategies. Here, we provide insights for OVIT from large-scale analyses of immune populations in the infection, vaccination and immunotherapy setting. We analyse several approaches to manipulating immune engagement during OVIT. We further explore immunocentric changes in the tumour tissue following immunotherapy, and compile several immune signatures of therapeutic success. Ultimately, we highlight clinically relevant large-scale approaches with the potential to strengthen future oncolytic strategies to optimally engage the immune system.

The oncolytic mutant vesicular stomatitis virus VSVΔ51 achieves robust efficacy in multiple extracranial tumor models. Yet for malignancies of the brain, direct intratumoral infusion of VSVΔ51 causes lethal virus-induced neuropathology. Here, we have developed a novel therapeutic regime that uses peripheral immunization with a single sub-lethal dose of VSVΔ51 to establish an acute anti-viral state that enables the safe intracranial (IC) infusion of an otherwise lethal dose of VSVΔ51 within just 6 hr. Although type I interferons alone appeared insufficient to explain this protective phenotype, serum isolated at early time points from primed animals conferred protection against an IC dose of virus. Adaptive immune populations had minimal contributions. Finally, the therapeutic utility of this novel strategy was demonstrated by peripherally priming and intracranially treating mice bearing aggressive CT2A syngeneic astrocytomas with VSVΔ51. Approximately 25% of animals achieved complete regression of established tumors, with no signs of virus-induced neurological impairment. This approach may harness an early warning system in the brain that has evolved to protect the host against otherwise lethal neurotropic viral infections. We have exploited this protective mechanism to safely and efficaciously treat brain tumors with an otherwise neurotoxic virus, potentially widening the available treatment options for oncolytic virotherapy in the brain.