658 Toxicities of single agent and combination immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with pre-existing autoimmune diseases

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A695-A695
Author(s):  
Sabina Sandigursky ◽  
Safa Houssein ◽  
Xerxes Pundole ◽  
Elizaveta Efuni ◽  
Samuel Cytryn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Autoimmune Diseases ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Combination Group ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Increased Risk

BackgroundAutoimmunity is associated with increased risk of malignancy. However, patients with pre-existing autoimmune diseases (AIDs) were excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials as these agents can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Data are limited on the safety and efficacy of combination immunotherapy in this at-risk population.MethodsWe conducted a multi-center retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICI therapy in patients with pre-existing AID treated at NYU and at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Primary endpoints were occurrence of irAEs and AID flares. Secondary endpoints were time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS).ResultsOf 121 patients identified from our institutional databases, 53% received single-agent anti-PD-1 therapy, and 47% received ICI combination. Over half of malignancies were lung cancer (34%) and melanoma (20%). Preexisting AIDs included: rheumatologic (58%), gastrointestinal (12%), endocrine (16%) and neurologic (4%). Overall, 94% had asymptomatic AID, and 21% were receiving systemic immunomodulatory drugs at ICI initiation. Median duration of follow up after ICI initiation was 9 (0.4–41.9) months in patients receiving ICI combination and 8 (0.2–47.3) months in patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Combination therapy was associated with higher rates of irAEs compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy (56% versus 28%). Grade 3/4 irAEs were equivalent in both groups: combination (38%) and anti-PD-1 group (39%). Treatment related deaths were not observed in any group. AID flares occurred in 36% of the anti-PD-1 group versus 29% of combination group. Adverse events (irAEs and/or flares) required systemic immunomodulatory therapies more frequently in the combination group (84%) versus the anti-PD-1 group (59%), and permanent ICI discontinuation was reported in 19% of patients in the combination group versus 11% in the anti-PD-1 group. Tumor progression was observed in 49% of patients on combination ICI and TTF was 14.5 months (95% CI 0.000–31.5), while progression was observed in 64% of patients on anti-PD-1 monotherapy and TTF was 6.4 months (95% CI 4.01–8.9) (p=0.019). Median OS in the combination therapy group was not reached whereas it was 27.3 months in the anti-PD-1 monotherapy group.ConclusionsOur novel findings suggest that high rates of adverse events were observed in patients with pre-existing AIDs treated with ICI combination therapy. However, they were manageable and rarely required permanent ICI discontinuation. Taken together, these data show that ICIs should be offered, albeit with caution in patients with AIDs, to achieve durable cancer remission. Prospective clinical data are needed to guide these complex decisions.Ethics ApprovalThe study was approved by NYU Langone’s Ethics Board, approval number i18-01657 and MD Anderson’s Ethics Board, approval number PA19-0089

Toxicities of single agent and combination immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with autoimmune diseases.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14176-e14176
Author(s):  
Samuel Cytryn ◽  
Elizaveta Efuni ◽  
Sabina Sandigursky
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Autoimmune Diseases ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Combination Group ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Increased Risk

e14176 Background: Autoimmunity is associated with increased risk of malignancy. However, patients with pre-existing autoimmune diseases (AIDs) have been excluded from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) known to cause immune activation and lead to immune related adverse events (irAEs). Data is limited on the safety and efficacy of these agents when used in AID patients and physicians are therefore wary to use them in this at-risk population. Methods: We conducted a single institution retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICI therapy in patients with pre-existing AIDs from 2011 to 2018. Primary endpoints were irAEs and AID flares. The secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Of 84 total patients, 70 (83%) received ICI monotherapy and 14 (17%) received combination therapy. AIDs included: rheumatic 40 (48%), dermatologic 25 (30%), endocrine 16 (19%) and gastrointestinal 14 (17%) diseases of which 18 (21%) were on immune suppression. Combination therapy was associated with higher rates of severe grade 3-4 irAEs in 5/14 (36%) patients versus 8/70 (11%) with monotherapy (p = 0.022). ICIs were discontinued due to irAEs in 10/84 (12%) of all patients; 4/14 (29%) in the combination group and 6/70 (9%) in the monotherapy group (p = 0.057). While 32 patients (38%) had at least one AID flare, ICI was only permanently discontinued in 2 patients. Flare rates were higher for combination use: 8/14 (57%) compared to 23/70 (33%) for monotherapy (p = 0.086). Combination therapy was associated with higher median OS 27.8 months [95% CI 11.4-44.3] compared to monotherapy 12.3 months [95% CI 9.7-14.8] (p = 0.0007). OS had a positive correlation with flare (p = 0.007) and severe irAEs (p = 0.037). Conclusions: Our data suggest that rates of irAEs in patients with pre-existing AIDs are similar to those reported in the literature with single agent ICIs. While risk of severe irAEs and flares is increased with combination therapy, they are associated with overall survival. In our cohort, irAEs and flares were manageable and in most patients did not require permanent discontinuation for monotherapy or combination therapy suggesting that ICIs should be offered to this population, albeit with caution.

Incidence and outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related myositis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15128-e15128
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Aldrich ◽  
Xerxes Pundole ◽  
Sudhakar Tummala ◽  
Clark Andersen ◽  
Mahran Shoukier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Muscle Enzymes ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Md Anderson

e15128 Background: Data from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) clinical trials show a higher incidence of ICI-related myositis with single agent ICI compared to combination therapy, but the true frequency in clinical practice is unknown. We sought to determine the incidence and clinical course of patients with ICI-related myositis at our institution. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients treated with ICIs at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2016 and 2019. Suspected cases of ICI-related myositis were identified using International Classification of Disease version 10 codes and confirmed by reviewing medical records, muscle enzymes and pathology. Patients treated with single agent anti-programmed death-1/ligand-1 (monotherapy) were compared to patients treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab (combination therapy) with Fischer’s exact tests, t tests, and Kaplan Meier analysis. Results: A total of 8,705 patients received ICI (7,428 monotherapy and 1,277 combination therapy), of which 31 (0.36%) were diagnosed with myositis. Estimated incidence of myositis was 0.28% and 0.78% (p=0.004), in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively. One patient was treated with ipilimumab alone (excluded from pooled data). Overall median age was 69 years (range: 40-95) with median follow up of 4 months after presentation for myositis. Thirteen (43%) patients had myositis alone and 17 (57%) had overlap with myasthenia gravis or myocarditis or both. After myositis resolution, 5 (17%) patients were rechallenged on ICI, of which 1 (20%) patient experienced a myositis flare. Differences between combination and monotherapy are summarized in the table. Patients treated with combination had shorter time to symptoms, but similar symptom grade at presentation, median length of hospitalization, and initial tumor response, compared to patients given monotherapy. Median overall survival (OS) was longer in combination vs monotherapy. Conclusions: Patients receiving combination ICI therapy had higher incidence of myositis with earlier onset than monotherapy; however, no differences in cancer outcomes or hospitalizations were observed between groups. Creation of multi-center databases are needed to develop treatment guidelines for ICI-related adverse events that will improve outcomes. [Table: see text]

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicity in the clinical practice setting.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14128-e14128
Author(s):  
Laura Schmidt ◽  
Brian McGuire ◽  
Wendy Hui ◽  
George W. Carro ◽  
Thomas A. Hensing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Autoimmune Disease ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Practice Setting ◽  
Clinical Practice Setting

e14128 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are changing the landscape of treatment in oncology. The use of ICIs is growing rapidly as the indications for these medications broaden and new ICIs become approved. Given the rapid growth and relative infancy of the use of ICIs, much information stands to be gained on their use in the clinical practice setting, especially regarding toxicity. Methods: The primary objective of this project was to examine the incidence and severity of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), after treatment with single-agent or combination ICIs at a multi-site community cancer center. A retrospective chart review was conducted on all patients who had received ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, or ipilimumab plus nivolumab from May 1, 2011 to June 30, 2017. Data collected included patient demographics, disease state, treatment information, preexisting autoimmune disease, previous immunotherapy, and adverse event details. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Data was collected on 383 patients. Dermatologic irAEs were common across single agent ICIs (overall incidence 23%). Diarrhea and/or colitis incidence was highest with CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (26% at 3 mg/kg and 22% at 10 mg/kg) versus the other monotherapy PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors. Endocrinopathies were most common with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (55%) and pneumonitis incidence was highest with nivolumab (6%). ICI toxicity occurred in 63% of patients with preexisting autoimmune disease versus 54% of those without a baseline autoimmune disease. Incidence of hospitalization and treatment holds due to irAEs was higher with combination therapy (57% and 66%, respectively) than with monotherapy (10% and 24%, respectively). Conclusions: Overall, there was increased incidence in ICI toxicity in patients at this oncology institution versus what has been reported in clinical trials. Patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases appeared to have mainly low-grade toxicities with slightly increased incidence of irAE compared with those without pre-existing autoimmune disease. Treatment holds and hospitalizations were higher in patients treated with combination therapy ICIs compared to monotherapy ICIs.

657 Interleukin-6 receptor blockade for management of immune checkpoint inhibitor related adverse events in patients with melanoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A694-A694
Author(s):  
Chantal Saberian ◽  
Faisal Fa’ak ◽  
Jean Tayar ◽  
Maryam Buni ◽  
Sang Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Interleukin 6 ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Interleukin 6 Receptor ◽  
Md Anderson

BackgroundManagement of certain immune mediated adverse events (irAEs) can be challenging and may require prolonged/chronic immune suppression with corticosteroids or other immunosuppressant which could compromise and even reverse the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). While the exact immunobiology of irAEs is not fully understood there is enough evidence that IL-6 induced Th-17 that may play critical role in the pathogenesis. Herein, we describe our clinical experience using interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6R) blockade in management of irAEs in melanoma patients.MethodsWe searched MD Anderson databases to identify cancer patients who had received ICIs between January 2004 and March 2020. Of 11,391 ICI-treated patients, 21 patients with melanoma who received IL-6R blockade after ICI infusion were identified and their medical records were reviewed.ResultsMedian age was 61 years (41–82), 52% were females, 90% received anti-programmed cell death-1 antibodies. Fourteen patients (67%) had de novo onset irAEs (11 had arthritis, and 1 each with polymyalgia rheumatica, oral mucositis, and CNS vasculitis), and 7 patients (33%) had flare of their pre-existing autoimmune diseases (5 had had rheumatoid arthritis, and 1 each with myasthenia gravis and Crohn’s disease). Median time from ICI initiation to irAEs was 91 days (range, 1–496) and to initiation of IL-6R blockade was 6.6 months (range, 0.6–24.3). Median number of IL-6R blockade was 12 (range, 1–35), and 16 patients (76%) were concomitantly receiving corticosteroids of median dose of 10 mg (range, 5–20 mg). Of the 21 patients, irAEs improved in 14 (67%) (95% CI: 46%-87%). Of 13 evaluable patients with arthritis, 11 (85%) achieved remission or minimal disease activity as defined by the clinical disease activity index. Median time from initiation of IL-6R blockade till improvement of irAEs was 2.9 months (range, 1.5–36.9). Nineteen patients tolerated well IL-6R blockade, while two patients stopped treatment due to abdominal pain and sinus tachycardia. The median CRP levels at irAEs was 84 mg/L (0.6–187) and decreased to 1.9 mg/L (0.56–12) at 10 weeks after initiation of IL-6R blockade (P=0.02). Of the 17 evaluable patients, the overall tumor response rate by RECIST-1.1 criteria was similar before and after IL-6R blockade initiation (41% vs. 53%).ConclusionsOur data demonstrated that IL-6R blockade could be an effective therapy for irAEs management without dampening the efficacy of ICIs. Prospective clinical trials with longitudinal blood, tumor, and inflamed tissue biopsies are planned to accurately validate these findings and better study the immunobiology of irAEs.Ethics ApprovalThe study was approved by The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center intuition’s Ethics Board, approval number PA19-0089

scholarly journals OP0098 POLYPHARMACY IS ASSOCIATED WITH A POORER TREATMENT RESPONSE AND INCREASED RISK OF ADVERSE EVENTS IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 54.1-54
Author(s):  
S. Benamar ◽  
C. Lukas ◽  
C. Daien ◽  
C. Gaujoux-Viala ◽  
L. Gossec ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Treatment Response ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Biological Database ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Early Ra ◽  
Increased Risk

Background:Polypharmacy is steadily increasing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They may interfere with treatment response and the occurrence of serious adverse events. Medications taken by a patient may reflect active comorbidities, whereas comorbidity indices usually used include past or current diseases.Objectives:To evaluate whether polypharmarcy is associated with treatment response and adverse events in an early RA cohort and to establish whether polypharmacy could represent a substitute of comorbidities.Methods:We used data from the French cohort ESPOIR, including 813 patients with early onset arthritis. Patients included the current study had to start their first disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) within 24 months of inclusion in the cohort. Disease activity data were collected at one, five and ten years from the initiation of the first DMARD. For each patient, treatments were collected at baseline and at five years. Medications count included all specialties other than background RA therapy, analgesics/NSAIDs and topicals. Polypharmacy was defined as a categorical variable based on the median and tertiles of distribution in the cohort. Treatment response was assessed by achieving DAS28 ESR remission (REM) at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years from the initiation of the first DMARD. The occurrence of severe adverse events (SAE) was measured by the occurrence of severe infection, hospitalization, or death during the 10-year follow-up. The association between patient’s characteristics and achievement of REM and occurrence of SAE were tested in univariate analysis. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate associations between polypharmacy and REM at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years (we used baseline polypharmacy for the 1-year analysis and five years polypharmacy for the 5- and 10-years analyses). Multivariate adjustment was made for age, sex, BMI, duration of disease, initial DAS28 ESR, initial HAQ, smoking status, rheumatic disease comorbidity index (RDCI).Results:The proportion of patients who achieved REM one year after the initiation of the first DMARD was 32.1% in the polypharmacy according to the median group (patients taken ≥2 medication) versus 67.9% in the non-polypharmacy group (p=0.07). At 5 years after the first DMARD, the proportion of patients with REM was 45.0% in the polypharmacy group versus 56.3% in the non-polypharmacy group (p=0.03). At 10 years the proportion of patients with REM was 32.5% in the polypharmacy group versus 67.5% (p=0.06). Patients who take greater or equal to 2 medications had a 40% lower probability of achieving REM (OR = 0.60 [0.38-0.94] p = 0.03) at 5 years from the first DMARD (if RDCI index was not included in the model). At 10 years, patients receiving multiple medications had a 43% lower probability of achieving REM (OR = 0.57 [0.34-0.94] p = 0.02). SAE incidence was 61 per 1000 patient-years. For patients who developed SAE all causes 71.4% where in the polypharmacy group versus 57.8% were in the non-polypharmacy group (p = 0.03; univariate analysis). These results are no longer significant after adjustment for comorbidities indices.Conclusion:In this early RA cohort, polypharmacy is associated with a poorer treatment response and increased risk of adverse events. Polypharmacy may represent a good substitute of comorbidities for epidemiological studies.Acknowledgements:We are grateful to Nathalie Rincheval (Montpellier) who did expert monitoring and data management and all theinvestigators who recruited and followed the patients (F. Berenbaum, Paris-Saint Antoine; MC. Boissier, Paris-Bobigny; A. Cantagrel, Toulouse; B. Combe, Montpellier; M. Dougados, Paris-Cochin; P. Fardellone and P. Boumier, Amiens; B. Fautrel, Paris-La Pitié; RM. Flipo, Lille; Ph. Goupille, Tours; F. Liote, Paris- Lariboisière; O. Vittecoq, Rouen; X. Mariette, Paris-Bicêtre; P. Dieude, Paris Bichat; A. Saraux, Brest; T. Schaeverbeke, Bordeaux; and J. Sibilia, Strasbourg).The work reported on in the manuscript did not benefit from any financial support. The ESPOIR cohort is sponsored by the French Society for Rheumatology. An unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) was allocated for the first 5 years. Two additional grants from INSERM were obtained to support part of the biological database. Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly and more recently Fresenius and Biogen also supported the ESPOIR cohort.Disclosure of Interests:Soraya Benamar: None declared, Cédric Lukas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis and Roche-Chugai, Claire Daien Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abivax, BMS, MSD, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Abivax, BMS, MSD, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis et UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis et UCB, Anne-Christine Rat Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, Consultant of: Pfizer, Lilly, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Consultant of: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai., Jacques Morel Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Médac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Médac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer

scholarly journals Cardiovascular safety and efficacy of metformin-SGLT2i versus metformin-sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Desye Gebrie ◽  
Desalegn Getnet ◽  
Tsegahun Manyazewal
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Sodium Glucose Cotransporter

AbstractDiabetes is a serious threat to global health and among the top 10 causes of death, with nearly half a billion people living with it worldwide. Treating patients with diabetes tend to become more challenging due to the progressive nature of the disease. The role and benefits of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes are well-documented, while the comparative safety and efficacy among the different combination options have not been elucidated. We aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence on the comparative cardiovascular safety and efficacy of combination therapy with metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin-sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 August 2019 without restriction in the year of publication. We included randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes who were on metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or metformin-sulphonylureas combination therapy at least for a year. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hypoglycemia, and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We followed PICOS description model for defining eligibility and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for reporting results. Of 3,190 citations, we included nine trials involving 10,974 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (risk ration [RR] = 0.93, 95% CI [0.52, 1.67]), serious adverse events (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.79, 1.17]) and adverse events (RR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]) between the two, but in hypoglycemia (RR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.10, 0.17], P < 0.001). Participants taking metformin-sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = − 0.10%, 95% CI [− 0.17, − 0.03], body weight (MD = − 4.57 kg, 95% CI [− 4.74, − 4.39], systolic blood pressure (MD = − 4.77 mmHg, 95% CI [− 5.39, − 4.16]), diastolic blood pressure (MD = − 2.07 mmHg, 95% CI [− 2.74, − 1.40], and fasting plasma glucose (MD = − 0.55 mmol/L, 95% CI [− 0.69, − 0.41]), p < 0.001. Combination therapy of metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors is a safe and efficacious alternative to combination therapy of metformin and sulphonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, there remains a need for additional long-term randomized controlled trials as available studies are very limited and heterogeneous.

scholarly journals Checkpoint-blocker induced autoimmunity is associated with pretreatment T cell expression profiles and favourable outcome in melanoma

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Ye ◽  
A Olsson-Brown ◽  
R. A. Watson ◽  
V. T. F. Cheung ◽  
R. D. Morgan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cells ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
T Cell Receptor ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Cell Receptor ◽  
Pre Treatment

1Abstract1.1BackgroundImmune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) activate CD8+ T cells to elicit anti-cancer activity but frequently lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The relationship of irAE with baseline parameters and clinical outcome is unclear. We investigated associations between irAE development, CD8+ T cell receptor diversity and expression and clinical outcome in a non-trial setting.1.2MethodsPatients ≥18 years old with metastatic melanoma (MM) receiving combination ICB (ipilimumab plus nivolumab – cICB, n=60) or single-agent ICB (nivolumab/pembrolizumab – sICB, n=78) were prospectively recruited. We retrospectively evaluated the impact of irAEs on survival. This analysis was repeated in an independent cohort of MM patients treated at a separate institution (n=210, cICB:74, sICB:136). We performed RNA sequencing of CD8+ T cells isolated from patients prior to treatment, analysing T cell receptor clonality differential transcript expression according to irAE development.1.3Results48.6% of patients experienced treatment-related irAEs within the first 5 cycles of treatment. Development of irAE prior to the 5th cycle of ICB was associated with longer progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) in the primary cohort (log-rank test, PFS: P=0.00034; OS: P<0.0001), replicated in the secondary cohort (OS: P=0.00064). Across cohorts median survival for those patients not experiencing irAE was 14.4 (95% CI:9.6-19.5) months vs not-reached (95% CI:28.9 - Inf), P=3.0×10−7. Pre-treatment performance status and neutrophil count, but not BMI, were additional predictors of clinical outcome. Analysis of CD8+ T cells from 128 patients demonstrated irAE development was associated with increased T cell receptor diversity post-treatment (P=4.3×10−5). Development of irAE in sICB recipients was additionally associated with baseline differential expression of 224 transcripts (FDR<0.1), enriched in pro-inflammatory pathway genes including CYP4F3 and PTGS2.1.4ConclusionsEarly irAE development post-ICB is strongly associated with favourable survival in MM and increased diversity of peripheral CD8+ T cell receptors after treatment. irAE post-sICB is associated with pre-treatment upregulation of inflammatory pathways, indicating irAE development may reflect baseline immune activation states.Key messageImmune-related adverse events (irAEs) commonly occur in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy. In real world setting we find development of early irAEs post-ICB treatment is associated with survival benefit, indicative of a shared mechanism with anti-tumour efficacy. CD8+ T cells from patients who develop irAE show increased receptor diversity, and pre-treatment samples from patients who develop irAE post single-agent anti-PD1 show over-expression of inflammatory pathways, indicating baseline immune state can determine irAE development.

scholarly journals A Randomized Phase 2 Study of ADXS11-001 Listeria monocytogenes–Listeriolysin O Immunotherapy With or Without Cisplatin in Treatment of Advanced Cervical Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 764-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Partha Basu ◽  
Ajay Mehta ◽  
Minish Jain ◽  
Sudeep Gupta ◽  
Rajnish V. Nagarkar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Listeria Monocytogenes ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Combination Group ◽  
Listeriolysin O ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Phase 2 Study

ObjectivesA global unmet medical need exists for effective treatments for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer, as patients have a short life expectancy. Recently, immunotherapies have shown promising survival benefits for patients with advanced forms of cancer. Axalimogene filolisbac (ADXS11-001), aListeria monocytogenesimmunotherapy with a broad effect on the immune system, is under investigation for treatment of human papillomavirus–associated cancers including cervical cancer.MethodsThis phase 2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ADXS11-001, administered with or without cisplatin, in patients with recurrent/refractory cervical cancer following prior chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. A total of 109 patients were treated, and 69 were evaluable for tumor response at equal to or more than 3 months postbaseline.ResultsMedian overall survival (OS) was comparable between treatment groups (ADXS11-001: 8.28 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.85–10.5 months; ADXS11-001 + cisplatin: 8.78 months; 95% CI, 7.4–13.3 months). The 12- and 18-month milestone OS rates were 30.9% versus 38.9%, and 23.6% versus 25.9% for each group, respectively (34.9% and 24.8% combined). Median progression-free survival (6.10 vs 6.08 months) and the overall response rate (17.1% vs 14.7%) were similar for both groups. ADXS11-001 was generally well tolerated; adverse events were predominantly mild to moderate in severity and not related to treatment. More adverse events were reported in the combination group (429 vs 275).ConclusionsThese promising safety and efficacy results, including the encouraging 12-month 34.9% combined OS rate, warrant further investigation of ADXS11-001 for treatment of recurrent/refractory cervical cancer.

Expansion of pharmacist clinical services to optimize the management of immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 954-960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine E Renna ◽  
Elizabeth N Dow ◽  
Jason J Bergsbaken ◽  
Ticiana A Leal
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Early Recognition ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Caregiver Education

Introduction The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized cancer treatment and is now a part of the treatment paradigm for several malignancies. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors are generally well tolerated, treatment is associated with immune-related adverse events, some serious and potentially life threatening. Early identification and prompt appropriate management of immune-related adverse events are crucial to prevent morbidity and mortality. The complexity and severity of immune-related adverse events require interdisciplinary collaboration to optimize care. Patient and caregiver education and continued communication between patients and members of the oncology care team are vital for timely recognition and successful management of immune-related adverse events. The objective of this program is to provide a proof of concept; a pharmacist-led immune checkpoint inhibitor management program will increase early recognition and management of immune-related adverse events through patient and caregiver education and proactively assessing patients for toxicities. Methods At the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, we developed and implemented a pharmacist-driven program, referred to as the immune checkpoint inhibitor program, which aimed to ensure patient and caregiver education and continuous monitoring of immune-related adverse events. This program utilized pharmacist–patient encounters to improve patient and caregiver education and follow-up monitoring. The design and implementation are detailed. Pharmacist interventions and patient outcomes were evaluated. Results At interim analysis, 47 patients were enrolled in the program and pharmacists completed 34 interventions on 26 patients. Pharmacists are well positioned to educate patients and caregivers on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and provide proactive monitoring to detect immune-related adverse events. We hypothesize that the interventions made by pharmacist may lead to earlier recognition and treatment of immune-related adverse events.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors after clinically significant immune-related adverse events in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Abou Alaiwi ◽  
Wanling Xie ◽  
Amin H Nassar ◽  
Shaan Dudani ◽  
Dylan Martini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Clinically Significant

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) induce a range of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with various degrees of severity. While clinical experience with ICI retreatment following clinically significant irAEs is growing, the safety and efficacy are not yet well characterized.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective study identified patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with ICI who had >1 week therapy interruption for irAEs. Patients were classified into retreatment and discontinuation cohorts based on whether or not they resumed an ICI. Toxicity and clinical outcomes were assessed descriptively.ResultsOf 499 patients treated with ICIs, 80 developed irAEs warranting treatment interruption; 36 (45%) of whom were restarted on an ICI and 44 (55%) who permanently discontinued. Median time to initial irAE was similar between the retreatment and discontinuation cohorts (2.8 vs 2.7 months, p=0.59). The type and grade of irAEs were balanced across the cohorts; however, fewer retreatment patients required corticosteroids (55.6% vs 84.1%, p=0.007) and hospitalizations (33.3% vs 65.9%, p=0.007) for irAE management compared with discontinuation patients. Median treatment holiday before reinitiation was 0.9 months (0.2–31.6). After retreatment, 50% (n=18/36) experienced subsequent irAEs (12 new, 6 recurrent) with 7 (19%) grade 3 events and 13 drug interruptions. Median time to irAE recurrence after retreatment was 2.8 months (range: 0.3–13.8). Retreatment resulted in 6 (23.1%) additional responses in 26 patients whose disease had not previously responded. From first ICI initiation, median time to next therapy was 14.2 months (95% CI 8.2 to 18.9) and 9.0 months (5.3 to 25.8), and 2-year overall survival was 76% (95%CI 55% to 88%) and 66% (48% to 79%) in the retreatment and discontinuation groups, respectively.ConclusionsDespite a considerable rate of irAE recurrence with retreatment after a prior clinically significant irAE, most irAEs were low grade and controllable. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm that retreatment enhances survival outcomes that justify the safety risks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document