ReviewCurrent opinion in infectious diseases2020
Infections associated with the new 'nibs and mabs' and cellular therapies.
Review in Current opinion in infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Mycology Today: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Review
- The Burden of Invasive Fungal Disease Following Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy and Strategies for Prevention.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Immunity to fungi in the lung.Seminars in immunology · 2023Review
- Orbital Infiltration in a Patient with Waldenström Macroglobulinemia: Need for Multidisciplinary Approach and Comparison with the Literature.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Liposomal amphotericin B-the future.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Novel Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Sepsis.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- An AIREless Breath: Pneumonitis Caused by Impaired Central Immune Tolerance.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewIn recent years, we have witnessed a remarkable surge in the clinical development of effective biological and cellular therapies for the treatment of neoplastic and autoimmune disorders. The present review summarizes our understanding of the pathogen-specific infection risk associated with the use of such therapies. RECENT
findingsA variety of biologics, in the form of either monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) or small molecule kinase inhibitors (Nibs), are continuously introduced in the clinic for the management of autoimmune and malignant diseases. In addition, cellular therapies such as the infusion of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are becoming increasingly available for patients with treatment-refractory lymphoid malignancies. Some of these biological and cellular interventions exert direct or indirect adverse effects on the induction of protective immune responses against various pathogens, resulting in heightened infection susceptibility. SUMMARY: The introduction of biological and cellular therapies for the treatment of malignant and autoimmune diseases has been associated with increased infection susceptiblity, which varies greatly depending on the specific immunomodulatory therapy, the infecting pathogen and the recipient patient population. A high index of clinical suspicion and efforts aiming at early diagnosis, targeted vaccination or prophylaxis, and prompt initiation of antimicrobial treatment should help improve infection outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.