The safety and efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer and pre-existing autoimmune diseases

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.

Safety and effectiveness of combination versus monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases

Patients with preexisting autoimmune disease (pAID) are generally excluded from clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for cancer due to concern of flaring pAID. In this multi-center, retrospective observational study, we compared safety of ICI combination (two ICI agents) versus monotherapy in cancer patients with pAIDs. The primary outcome was time to AEs (immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and/or pAID flares), with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Sixty-four of 133 patients (48%) received ICI combination and 69 (52%) monotherapy. Most had melanoma (32%) and lung cancer (31%). Most common pAIDs were rheumatic (28%) and dermatologic (23%). Over a median follow-up of 15 months (95%CI, 11-18 mo), the cumulative incidence of any-grade irAEs was higher for combination compared to monotherapy (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 2.27, 95%CI 1.35-3.82). No statistically significant difference was observed in high-grade irAEs (sHR 2.31 (0.95-5.66), P = .054) or the cumulative incidence of pAID flares. There was no statistically significant difference for melanoma PFS between combination versus monotherapy (23.2 vs. 17.1mo, P = .53). The combination group was more likely to discontinue or hold ICI, but > 50% of the combination group was still able to continue ICI therapy. No treatment-related deaths occurred. In our cohort with pAIDs, patients had a tolerable toxicity profile with ICI combination therapy. Our results support the use of ICI combination if deemed necessary for cancer therapy in patients with pAIDs, since the ICI toxicities were comparable to monotherapy, able to be effectively managed and mostly did not require ICI interruption.

Improved lung cancer clinical outcomes in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases

PURPOSE

Concomitant autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) can add morbidity and complicate treatment decisions for patients with lung cancer. We evaluated the tumour characteristics at diagnosis and clinical outcomes in lung cancer patients with or without ARD.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 10 963 patients with lung cancer, treated at Johns Hopkins. Clinical data including tumour characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the cancer registry. Data on patients' history of 20 ARD were extracted from the electronic medical record. Logistic regression was used to compare tumour characteristics between those with and without ARD; Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were performed to compare survival outcomes.

RESULTS

ARD was present in 3.6% of patients (n=454). The mean age at diagnosis was 69 (SD 10) and 68 (SD 12) in patients with and without ARD (p=0.02). Female sex and smoking history were significantly associated with a history of ARD (OR: 1.75, OR: 1.46, p<0.05). Patients with ARD were more likely to be diagnosed with stage 1 lung cancer (36.8% vs 26.9%, p<0.001) and with smaller tumour size (OR: 0.76, p=0.01), controlling for sex, race and histology. Notably, lung cancer patients with ARD had a significantly prolonged median overall survival (OS) (7.11 years vs 1.7 years, p<0.001), independent of stage.

CONCLUSION

Patients with ARD and lung cancer had better OS compared with their counterparts, independent of cancer stage and treatments and were less likely to have advanced stage lung cancer at diagnosis. Additional studies are needed to investigate the differential immunological anti-tumour immune activity and genomic variations in patients with and without ARD.

Immune-related adverse effects of checkpoint immunotherapy and implications for the treatment of patients with cancer and autoimmune diseases

During the past decade, there has been a revolution in cancer therapeutics by the emergence of antibody-based immunotherapies that modulate immune responses against tumors. These therapies have offered treatment options to patients who are no longer responding to classic anti-cancer therapies. By blocking inhibitory signals mediated by surface receptors that are naturally upregulated during activation of antigen-presenting cells (APC) and T cells, predominantly PD-1 and its ligand PD-L1, as well as CTLA-4, such blocking agents have revolutionized cancer treatment. However, breaking these inhibitory signals cannot be selectively targeted to the tumor microenvironment (TME). Since the physiologic role of these inhibitory receptors, known as immune checkpoints (IC) is to maintain peripheral tolerance by preventing the activation of autoreactive immune cells, IC inhibitors (ICI) induce multiple types of immune-related adverse effects (irAEs). These irAEs, together with the natural properties of ICs as gatekeepers of self-tolerance, have precluded the use of ICI in patients with pre-existing autoimmune diseases (ADs). However, currently accumulating data indicates that ICI might be safely administered to such patients. In this review, we discuss mechanisms of well established and newly recognized irAEs and evolving knowledge from the application of ICI therapies in patients with cancer and pre-existing ADs.

Challenges and knowledge gaps with immune checkpoint inhibitors monotherapy in the management of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a survey of oncologist perceptions

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint-inhibitors (ICIs) are changing outcomes in different cancer settings, notably for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There are, however, still important gaps of evidence for clinical practice when using these novel treatments. In this study, we assessed physicians' opinion and experience on challenges for clinical practice with ICIs monotherapy in NSCLC.

METHODS

A survey was conducted on experienced physicians treating patients with NSCLC with ICIs. Two rounds of pilot tests were carried out for validation among a group of experts. Topics under analysis were in relation to treatment of elderly populations, performance status, brain metastases, use of steroids or antibiotics, the effects of gut microbiome, autoimmune diseases, human immunodeficiency virus infection, solid organ transplants, use of anti-programmed cell death protein 1 versus anti-programmed death-ligand 1 drugs, atypical tumour responses, predictors of response, duration of treatment and a final open question on additional relevant challenges.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-one answers were collected, including 106 (48%) valid answers from experts for final analysis (physicians who have treated at least 20 patients with NSCLC with ICIs). The vast majority agreed that the selected topics in this study are important challenges ahead and more evidence is needed. Moreover, predictors of response, treating brain metastasis, shorter duration of treatment, the effects of gut microbiome and concomitant use of steroids were voted the most important topics to be further addressed in prospective clinical research.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey contributed to understanding which are the main challenges for clinical practice with ICIs monotherapy in NSCLC. It can also contribute to guide further clinical research, considering the opinions and experience of those who regularly treat NSCLC patients with ICIs.

Treatment of rheumatic adverse events of cancer immunotherapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), used to treat many advanced cancers, activate the immune system to elicit an antitumor response. ICIs can also cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs) when nontumor tissues are affected by excess inflammation and autoimmunity. Rheumatic irAEs include inflammatory arthritis, myositis, sicca syndrome, polymyalgia rheumatica, and several other rare phenotypes. Treating rheumatic irAEs requires balancing the desire to decrease off-target inflammation while not negatively impacting the antitumor immune response. In this review, treatment recommendations for rheumatic irAEs have been discussed. Pathogenesis of rheumatic irAEs has been briefly reviewed. Knowledge about the effects of corticosteroids and steroid-sparing agents on tumor responses has been detailed to give context for treatment decisions. Recommendations ultimately depend not only on the clinical presentation and severity of the irAE but also on the goals of cancer treatment. Finally, how to safely use ICI therapy in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases is considered.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitor use in patients with cancer and pre-existing autoimmune diseases

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically changed the management of advanced cancers. Designed to enhance the antitumour immune response, they can also cause off-target immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are sometimes severe. Although the efficacy of ICIs suggests that they could have wide-ranging benefits, clinical trials of the drugs have so far excluded patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease. However, evidence is accumulating with regard to the use of ICIs in this 'at-risk' population, with retrospective data suggesting that they have an acceptable safety profile, but that there is a risk of disease flare or other irAE occurrence. The management of immunosuppressive drugs at ICI initiation in patients with autoimmune disease (or later in instances of disease flare or irAE) remains a question of particular interest in clinical practice, in which there is always a search for the balance between protecting against autoimmunity and ensuring a good tumour response. Although temporary use of immunosuppressants seems safe, prolonged use or use at ICI initiation might hamper the antitumour immune response, prompting clinicians to use the minimal efficient immunosuppressive regimen. However, a new paradigm is emerging, in which inhibitors of TNF or IL-6 could have synergistic effects with ICIs on tumour response, while also preventing severe irAEs. If confirmed, this 'decoupling' effect on toxicity and efficacy could change therapeutic practice in this field. Knowledge of the current use of ICIs in patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease, particularly with regard to the use of immunosuppressive drugs and/or biologic DMARDs, can help to guide clinical practice.

Risk factors and predictors of immune-related adverse events: implications for patients with non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are now utilized as a standard of care treatment for multiple cancers, including in both the metastatic setting as well as in earlier stages of disease. The identification of unique immune-related adverse events (irAE) that occur during ICI treatment has led to intense research to identify potential risk factors and biomarkers that may assist in clinical decision making. Although initial studies in ICI were primarily in advanced stage disease, the use of ICI in earlier stages of disease as adjuvant therapies requires a better understanding of patient risk stratification to mitigate or prevent serious irAE.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we set out to describe the current state of research regarding potential risk factors for irAE in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, as well as explore the barriers to understanding irAE. We review data from irAE that occur in large phase 3 trials and prospective studies focusing on irAE, as well as the many retrospective studies that currently form the bulk of our understanding of irAE.

Adverse Cardiovascular Complications following prescription of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors: a propensity-score matched Cohort Study with competing risk analysis

Background

Programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death- ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab and atezolizumab, are major classes of immune checkpoint inhibitors that are increasingly used for cancer treatment. However, their use is associated with adverse cardiovascular events. We examined the incidence of new-onset cardiac complications in patients receiving PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors.

Methods

Patients receiving PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors since their launch up to 31st December 2019 at publicly funded hospitals of Hong Kong, China, without pre-existing cardiac complications were included. The primary outcome was a composite of incident heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or atrial flutter with the last follow-up date of 31st December 2020. Propensity score matching between PD-L1 inhibitor use and PD-1 inhibitor use with a 1:2 ratio for patient demographics, past comorbidities and non-PD-1/PD-L1 medications was performed with nearest neighbour search strategy (0.1 caliper). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis models were conducted. Competing risks models and multiple propensity matching approaches were considered for sensitivity analysis.

Results

A total of 1959 patients were included. Over a median follow-up of 247 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 72-506), 320 (incidence rate [IR]: 16.31%) patients met the primary outcome after PD-1/PD-L1 treatment: 244 (IR: 12.57%) with heart failure, 38 (IR: 1.93%) with acute myocardial infarction, 54 (IR: 2.75%) with atrial fibrillation, 6 (IR: 0.31%) with atrial flutter. Compared with PD-1 inhibitor treatment, PD-L1 inhibitor treatment was significantly associated with lower risks of the composite outcome both before (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.32, 95% CI: [0.18-0.59], P value=0.0002) and after matching (HR: 0.34, 95% CI: [0.18-0.65], P value=0.001), and lower all-cause mortality risks before matching (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: [0.64-0.93], P value=0.0078) and after matching (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: [0.65-1.00], P value=0.0463). Patients who developed cardiac complications had shorter average readmission intervals and a higher number of hospitalizations after treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in both the unmatched and matched cohorts (P value<0.0001). Multivariable Cox regression models, competing risk analysis with cause-specific and subdistribution hazard models, and multiple propensity approaches confirmed these observations.

Conclusions

Compared with PD-1 treatment, PD-L1 treatment was significantly associated with lower risk of new onset cardiac complications and all-cause mortality both before and after propensity score matching.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40959-021-00128-5.