SynthesisTargeted oncology2026
Infusion-Related Reactions from Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Tumors: A Proportional and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Targeted oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfusion-related reactions (IRRs) to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been reported in up to 20% of administrations, but the incidence varies among ICIs.
objectiveWe aimed to report and compare the incidence of IRRs among each ICI therapy. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science to identify phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs (CTLA-4, PD-1, PD-L1, and LAG-3 inhibitors) in solid tumors. We performed a random-effects model network meta-analysis to compare the odds ratios (ORs) of IRRs by using RCTs comparing dual ICIs, ICI monotherapy, and placebo/observation. A proportional meta-analysis was also performed to pool the incidence of IRRs of ICI monotherapy and dual ICIs. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registry (CRD42023433659).
resultsOverall, 40,872 patients from 61 phase 3 RCTs were included in the analysis. Proportional meta-analyses revealed that the pooled incidence of treatment-related IRRs was 2.31% for PD-1 inhibitors, 8.27% for PD-L1 inhibitors (avelumab: 13.53%, non-avelumab: 1.79%), 5.70% for PD-1 plus LAG-3 inhibitors, 5.55% for PD-1 plus CTLA-4 inhibitors, and 1.79% for CTLA-4 inhibitors. A network meta-analysis of treatment-related IRRs, including 12 RCTs, showed that avelumab (OR 79.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.84-1297.49) and atezolizumab (OR 43.99, 95% CI 2.65-729.89) had a significantly higher risk of treatment-related IRRs compared with placebo/observation. Network ranking revealed that avelumab, atezolizumab, and relatlimab plus nivolumab had the greatest risk of treatment-related IRRs.
conclusionsAvelumab has the highest risk of IRRs followed by atezolizumab and dual ICIs. This comparative study provides insight into the incidence of IRRs with ICI regimens. These results are useful in assessing which systemic therapies are responsible for IRRs, particularly when ICIs are combined with other agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41996022What 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.