Targeted therapy with nanatinostat and valganciclovir in recurrent EBV-positive lymphoid malignancies: a phase 1b/2 study

Targeting Epstein-Barr virus in multiple sclerosis: when and how?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epidemiological evidence implicates Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) as the cause of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, its biological role in the pathogenesis of MS is uncertain. The article provides an overview of the role of EBV in the pathogenesis of MS and makes a case for targeting EBV as a treatment strategy for MS.

RECENT FINDINGS

EBV potentially triggers autoimmunity via molecular mimicry or immune dysregulation. Another hypothesis, supported by immunological and virological data, indicates that active EBV infection via latent-lytic infection cycling within the central nervous system or periphery drives MS disease activity. This supports testing small molecule anti-EBV agents targeting both latent and lytic infection, central nervous system-penetrant B-cell therapies and EBV-targeted immunotherapies in MS. Immunotherapies may include EBV-specific cytotoxic or chimeric antigen receptors T-cells, therapeutic EBV vaccines and immune reconstitution therapies to boost endogenous EBV-targeted cytotoxic T-cell responses.

SUMMARY

EBV is the probable cause of MS and is likely to be driving MS disease activity via latent-lytic infection cycling. There is evidence that all licensed MS disease-modifying therapies target EBV, and there is a compelling case for testing other anti-EBV strategies as potential treatments for MS.

Targeting latent viral infection in EBV-associated lymphomas

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) contributes to the development of a significant subset of human lymphomas. As a herpes virus, EBV can transition between a lytic state which is required to establish infection and a latent state where a limited number of viral antigens are expressed which allows infected cells to escape immune surveillance. Three broad latency programs have been described which are defined by the expression of viral proteins RNA, with latency I being the most restrictive expressing only EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and EBV-encoded small RNAs (EBERs) and latency III expressing the full panel of latent viral genes including the latent membrane proteins 1 and 2 (LMP1/2), and EBNA 2, 3, and leader protein (LP) which induce a robust T-cell response. The therapeutic use of EBV-specific T-cells has advanced the treatment of EBV-associated lymphoma, however this approach is only effective against EBV-associated lymphomas that express the latency II or III program. Latency I tumors such as Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and a subset of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) evade the host immune response to EBV and are resistant to EBV-specific T-cell therapies. Thus, strategies for inducing a switch from the latency I to the latency II or III program in EBV+ tumors are being investigated as mechanisms to sensitize tumors to T-cell mediated killing. Here, we review what is known about the establishment and regulation of latency in EBV infected B-cells, the role of EBV-specific T-cells in lymphoma, and strategies to convert latency I tumors to latency II/III.

Ganciclovir as a potential treatment for glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Glioma is a challenging malignant tumor with a low survival rate and no effective treatment. Recently, ganciclovir, an antiviral drug, combined with gene therapy and its own antiviral ability, has been proposed as a potential treatment for glioma. However, there are differences in the results of various clinical trials. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ganciclovir in treating glioma.

METHODS

We searched databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library before March 30, 2023. The search terms included glioma, ganciclovir, valganciclovir and treatment. Calculated 1, 2 and 4-year survival rate by risk difference (RD), and overall survival (OS) by odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 606 high-grade glioma patients were included. The results showed that ganciclovir can improve 2-yeaer (RD = 0.179, 95% CI 0.012-0.346, P = 0.036) and 4-year survival rate (RD = 0.185, 95% CI 0.069-0.3, P = 0.002) and OS (OR 2.393, 95% CI 1.212-4.728, P = 0.012) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that ganciclovir significantly improved the prognosis of glioma patients. Therefore, we suggest that more cases of ganciclovir as a glioma treatment can be conducted, or a large clinical trial can be designed.