Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced cancer patients with autoimmune disease: A meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and uncontrolled trials reporting on the use of checkpoint blockers in patients with cancer and pre-existing autoimmune disease

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients with autoimmune disease have been excluded from randomized trials of immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs). We conducted a systematic review of observational studies and uncontrolled trials including cancer patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease who received ICBs.

METHODS

We searched 5 electronic databases through November 2023. Study selection, data collection, and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 investigators. We performed a meta-analysis to pool incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including de novo events and flares of existing autoimmune disease, hospitalizations due to irAEs, as well as deaths.

RESULTS

A total of 95 studies were included (23,897 patients with cancer and preexisting autoimmune disease). The most common cancer evaluated was lung cancer (30.7 %) followed by skin cancer (15.7 %). Patients with autoimmune disease were more likely to report irAEs compared to patients without autoimmune disease (relative risk 1.3, 95 % CI 1.0 to 1.6). The pooled occurrence rate of any irAEs (flares or de novo) was 61 % (95 % CI 54 % to 68 %); that of flares was 36 % (95 % CI 30 % to 43 %), and that of de novo irAEs was 23 % (95 % CI 16 % to 30 %). Flares were mild (grade <3) in half of cases and more commonly reported in patients with psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (39 %), inflammatory bowel disease (37 %), and rheumatoid arthritis (36 %). 32 % of the patients with irAEs required hospitalization and treatment of irAEs included corticosteroids in 72 % of the cases. The irAEs mortality rate was 0.07 %. There were no statistically significant differences in cancer response to ICBs between patients with and without autoimmune disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease had irAEs, these were mild and managed with corticosteroids in most cases, with no impact on cancer response. These results suggest that ICBs can be used in these patients, but careful monitoring is required, as over a third of the patients will experience a flare of their autoimmune disease and/or require hospitalization. These findings provide a crucial foundation for oncologists to refine their monitoring and management strategies, ensuring that the benefits of ICB therapy are maximized while minimizing its risks.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in Cancer patients with rheumatologic preexisting autoimmune diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with rheumatologic preexisting autoimmune disease (PAD) have not been enrolled in clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Therefore, the risks and benefits of ICI therapy in such patients are unclear. Herein, we investigated the safety and efficacy of ICIs in rheumatologic PAD patients through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched for additional studies. We analyzed the following data through Stata software: incidence of total irAEs (TirAEs), rate of flares, incidence of new on-set irAEs, rate of discontinuation, objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR).

RESULTS

We identified 23 articles including 643 patients with rheumatologic PAD. The pooled incidences of TirAEs, flares and new-onset irAEs were 64% (95% CI 55%-72%), 41% (95% CI 31%-50%), and 33% (95% CI 28%-38%), respectively. In terms of severity, the incidences were 7% (95% CI 2%-14%) for Grade 3-4 flares and 12% (95% CI 9%-15%) for Grade 3-4 new-onset irAEs. Patients with RA had a greater risk of flares than patients with other rheumatologic PADs did (RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.03-1.77). The ORR and DCR were 30% and 44%, respectively. Baseline anti-rheumatic treatment was not significantly associated with the frequency of flares (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.63-1.77) or the ORR (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.12-1.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with rheumatologic PAD, particularly those with RA, are susceptible to relapse of their rheumatologic disease following ICI therapy. ICIs are also effective for treating rheumatologic PAD patients. PROSPECTIVE REGISTER OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS (PROSPERO): number CRD 42,023,439,702.

PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint therapy demonstrates favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune and cholestatic liver disease

Introduction

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of many malignancies in recent years. However, immune-related adverse events (irAE) are a frequent concern in clinical practice. The safety profile of ICI for the treatment of malignancies in patients diagnosed with autoimmune and cholestatic liver disease (AILD) remains unclear. Due to this uncertainty, these patients were excluded from ICI clinical trials and ICI are withheld from this patient group. In this retrospective multicenter study, we assessed the safety of ICI in patients with AILD.

Methods

We contacted tertiary referral hospitals for the identification of AILD patients under ICI treatment in Europe via the European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases (ERN RARE-LIVER). Fourteen centers contributed data on AILD patients with malignancies being treated with ICI, another three centers did not treat these patients with ICI due to fear of irAEs.

Results

In this study, 22 AILD patients under ICI treatment could be identified. Among these patients, 12 had primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), five had primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), four had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), and one patient had an AIH-PSC variant syndrome. Eleven patients had hepatobiliary cancers and the other 11 patients presented with non-hepatic tumors. The applied ICIs were atezolizumab (n=7), durvalumab (n=5), pembrolizumab (n=4), nivolumab (n=4), spartalizumab (n=1), and in one case combined immunotherapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Among eight patients who presented with grade 1 or 2 irAEs, three demonstrated liver irAEs. Cases with grades ≥ 3 irAEs were not reported. No significant changes in liver tests were observed during the first year after the start of ICI.

Discussion

This European multicenter study demonstrates that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors appear to be safe in patients with AILD. Further studies on the safety of more potent dual immune checkpoint therapy are needed. We conclude that immunotherapy should not categorically be withheld from patients with AILD.

Immunosuppressive therapy management in cancer patients with autoimmune diseases treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A case series and systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Prescribing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to cancer patients with an autoimmune disease (AID) is presumed safe when cautious adverse event management is applied. However, guidelines on immunosuppressant (IS) adaptations are limited and real-world evidence is scarce.

METHODS

Current practice of IS adaptations is described in a case series of AID patients treated with ICIs in a tertiary university hospital in Belgium (1/1/2016-31/12/2021). Patient, drug and disease-related data were documented using retrospective chart review. A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed to identify similar cases (1/1/2010-30/11/2022).

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were described in the case series (62% with active AID). Systemic IS were changed before ICI initiation in 5/9 patients. Four patients continued therapy, of which one achieved partial remission. Patients who had IS (partially) stopped before ICI start (n = 4) had AID flares in two cases; immune-related adverse events in three cases. In the systematic review, 37 cases were identified in 9 articles. Corticosteroids (n = 12) and non-selective IS (n = 27) were continued in, respectively, 66% and 68% of patients. Methotrexate was frequently discontinued (13/21). Biologicals, excluding tocilizumab and vedolizumab, were withheld during ICI treatment. Out of all patients with flares (n = 15), 47% had stopped IS therapy before ICI start and 53% had continued their AID drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

A detailed overview of IS management in patients with AID receiving ICI therapy is presented. Expanding the knowledge base germane to IS management with ICI therapy in the diverse population is essential to evaluate their mutual impact, thus advancing responsible patient care.

Pathological Complete Response to Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Combination following Serious Immune-Related Adverse Events in an Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Patient with a History of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)-based combinations have improved survival outcomes of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients and are currently recommended as first-line treatment options. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease (AD) of unknown etiology characterized by a chronic inflammatory process involving joints and extra-articular organs. Patients with AD are usually excluded from large randomized clinical trials investigating immunotherapeutic drugs. Therefore, little is known about clinical outcomes of patients with a history of RA treated with ICIs in real-world practice. In the present study, we report the clinical outcome of an advanced RCC patient with a history of RA treated with pembrolizumab in combination with axitinib. The patient experienced serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and achieved pathological complete response following only one ICI administration. Our case report shows that ICI-based combinations can be administered efficaciously in advanced RCC patients with a history of AD. However, a close monitoring of these patients is required, given the risk of irAEs and clinical exacerbations of symptoms associated with the preexisting AD. Moreover, prospective clinical data are needed to assess the hypothesis of a correlation between the onset of irAEs and AD flares and responses and survival outcomes to ICIs.

The Role and Mechanism of Metformin in Inflammatory Diseases

Metformin is a classical drug used to treat type 2 diabetes. With the development of research on metformin, it has been found that metformin also has several advantages aside from its hypoglycemic effect, such as anti-inflammatory, anti-aging, anti-cancer, improving intestinal flora, and other effects. The prevention of inflammation is critical because chronic inflammation is associated with numerous diseases of considerable public health. Therefore, there has been growing interest in the role of metformin in treating various inflammatory conditions. However, the precise anti-inflammatory mechanisms of metformin were inconsistent in the reported studies. Thus, this review aims to summarize various currently known possible mechanisms of metformin involved in inflammatory diseases and provide references for the clinical application of metformin.

Efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 monotherapy versus anti-PD-1 antibodies plus lenvatinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a real-world experience

Background

The efficacy of anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 monotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) is limited, and combination therapy with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab has shown promising results. However, comparative studies between immune monotherapies and combination therapies are lacking.

Objectives

To investigate the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 monotherapy (PD-1) and anti-PD-1 plus lenvatinib (PD-1 + L) in patients with aHCC to guide clinical treatment decisions.

Design

A retrospective study was conducted on a cohort of patients with aHCC who received either PD-1 monotherapy or PD-1 + L combination therapy between January 2018 and January 2020.

Methods

The study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 94 eligible patients with aHCC, with 39 in the PD-1 group and 55 in the PD-1 + L group. The efficacy outcomes, including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety, were assessed.

Results

With a median follow-up of 30.1 months, the PD-1 + L group demonstrated a significantly higher ORR (32.7% versus 10.3%, p = 0.013), better DCR (80.0% versus 53.8%, p = 0.012), longer median PFS (10.6 versus 4.4 months, p < 0.001) and longer median OS (18.4 versus 8.5 months, p = 0.013) than PD-1 group. For the responders, the efficacy of the two groups was durable (DOR was 11.6 versus 3.5 months, p = 0.009). Subgroup analyses based on prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment and the presence or absence of macrovascular tumor thrombosis or extrahepatic metastases favored the PD-1 + L group. The combination therapy was a good predictor of PFS and OS in multivariate analysis. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were more common in PD-1 + L group, with higher incidences of hypertension and hand-foot skin reactions.

Conclusions

PD-1 monotherapy and PD-1 plus lenvatinib combination therapy were well-tolerated in patients with aHCC. PD-1 + L showed significantly better survival benefits than PD-1 monotherapy.

Review of the Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Context of Cancer Treatment

Checkpoint proteins are an integral part of the immune system and are used by the tumor cells to evade immune response, which helps them grow uncontrollably. By blocking these proteins, immune checkpoint inhibitors can restore the capability of the immune system to attack cancer cells and stop their growth. These findings are backed by adequate clinical trial data and presently, several FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors exist in the market for treating various types of cancers, including melanoma, hepatocellular, endometrial, lung, kidney and others. Their mode of action is inhibition by targeting the checkpoint proteins CTLA-4, PD-1, PD-L1, etc. They can be used alone as well as in amalgamation with other cancer treatments, like surgery, radiation or chemotherapy. Since these drugs target only specific immune system proteins, their side effects are reduced in comparison with the traditional chemotherapy drugs, but may still cause a few affects like fatigue, skin rashes, and fever. In rare cases, these inhibitors are known to have caused more serious side effects, such as cardiotoxicity, and inflammation in the intestines or lungs. Herein, we provide an overview of these inhibitors and their role as biomarkers, immune-related adverse outcomes and clinical studies in the treatment of various cancers, as well as present some future perspectives.

A Concerted Vision to Advance the Knowledge of Diabetes Mellitus Related to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The rubric of immune-related (ir) diabetes mellitus (DM) (irDM) encompasses various hyperglycemic disorders related to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPis). Beyond sharing similarities with conventional DM, irDM is a distinct, yet important, entity. The present narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the literature regarding irDM published in major databases from January 2018 until January 2023. Initially considered rare, irDM is increasingly being reported. To advance the knowledge of irDM, the present review suggests a concerted vision comprising two intertwined aspects: a scientific-centered and a patient-centered view. The scientific-centered aspect addresses the pathophysiology of irDM, integrating: (i) ICPi-induced pancreatic islet autoimmunity in genetically predisposed patients; (ii) altered gut microbiome; (iii) involvement of exocrine pancreas; (iv) immune-related acquired generalized lipodystrophy. The patient-centered aspect is both nurtured by and nurturing the four pillars of the scientific-centered aspect: awareness, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of irDM. The path forward is a multidisciplinary initiative towards: (i) improved characterization of the epidemiological, clinical, and immunological profile of irDM; (ii) standardization of reporting, management, and surveillance protocols for irDM leveraging global registries; (iii) patient stratification according to personalized risk for irDM; (iv) new treatments for irDM; and (v) uncoupling ICPi efficacy from immunotoxicity.