Treatment Of Immune-related Adverse Events Research Articles

Tofacitinib for the treatment of immune-related adverse events in cancer immunotherapy: a multi-center observational study.

Treatment strategy against immune-related adverse events (irAEs) induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) frequently requires other immunosuppressive agents. Tofacitinib is a rapidly acting JAK-STAT inhibitor with proven efficacy in multiple autoimmune diseases. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in the management of irAEs in cancer patients. Cancer patients who received ICIs and were treated with tofacitinib for the management of irAEs at 6 institutions were retrospectively included in this study. Demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained from electronic medical records. Longitudinal assessment of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) with clinical assessment was utilized to evaluate the benefit of tofacitinib treatment in patients with ICI myocarditis. Overall survival (OS) was also assessed. Fifty-three patients were included in this study. The median time from irAE onset to tofacitinib therapy was 17 (range, 2-186) days and the median duration of tofacitinib treatment was 52.5 (range, 3-277) days. Enrolled patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on clinical severity and steroid responsiveness including 11 life-threatening cases, 30 steroid-resistant cases, and 12 cases with steroid taper failure. Clinical remission rate in each group was 54.5%, 96.7%, and 100%, respectively (P < 0.01). Tofacitinib was well-tolerated with 4 patients (7.5%) developing infectious events. From the ICI initiation, the overall median OS was 16.1 (95% CI 7.8-26.9) months. Tofacitinib showed promising clinical efficacy in patients experiencing irAEs, particularly in patients who failed to respond to steroids or experienced relapse during steroid tapering. Moreover, and most importantly, tofacitinib exhibited a favorable safety profile in cancer patients developing irAEs in terms of both toxicity and anti-tumor activity. Future prospective studies are warranted.

Corticosteroids for Immune-Related Adverse Events and Checkpoint Inhibitor Efficacy: Analysis of Six Clinical Trials.

Retrospective studies suggest that immunosuppressive treatment of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) impairs survival in patients with melanoma who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we study this association across tumor types using data from six international phase II/III registrational trials. A post hoc analysis was performed on individual patient data from the anti-programmed cell death-1 (anti-PD-1) + anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (anti-CTLA-4) treatment arms of six clinical trials (CheckMate-067, -142, -214, -648, -743, and -9LA). Among patients who received systemic immunosuppression for treatment-related adverse events (trAEs), associations of peak and cumulative corticosteroid dose, and use of second-line immunosuppression with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using multilevel Cox regression with adjustment for age and sex. Of the 1,959 patients who received anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 therapy, 834 patients who were treated with immunosuppression for trAEs were included. Eight hundred and thirty-two patients (100%) received corticosteroids and 81 patients (10%) received second-line immunosuppressants. High corticosteroid peak dose was associated with worse PFS: adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj), 1.15 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.29) for 1 versus 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone and HRadj, 1.43 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.96) for 2 versus 0.5 mg/kg. Similar effects were observed for OS: HRadj, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.39) and HRadj, 1.66 (95% CI, 1.17 to 2.37) for 1 and 2 versus 0.5 mg/kg, respectively. Cumulative corticosteroid dose was not associated with survival. HRadj of use of second-line immunosuppression was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.68) for PFS and 1.25 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.77) for OS. Higher corticosteroid peak dose for trAEs is associated with worse survival across tumor types, while cumulative dose is not. Too few patients received second-line immunosuppressants to confirm or reject an association with survival. These data argue for a reconsideration of irAE management approaches, starting with lower corticosteroid dose whenever feasible.

Survivorship in Advanced Lung Cancer: Understanding a New Landscape and Opportunities.

People with advanced lung cancer represent a distinct group whose needs remain understudied, especially compared with people diagnosed with limited-stage disease. Fortunately, novel treatments such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors are leading to significant advances in prognosis and survival, even among those with advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. However, there are known gaps in symptom management, psychosocial and nutritional support, complex care coordination, health behavior coaching, and health care delivery efforts among patients living with advanced lung cancer. Many of these patients would benefit from survivorship and palliative care approaches. In particular, survivorship care may include health care maintenance, treatment of immune-related adverse events and late- or long-term effects, frailty assessment and rehabilitation, and care coordination. Palliative care may be best suited to discuss ongoing symptom management, advanced care planning, and end-of-life considerations, as well as psychosocial well-being. To this end, we share a review of the current status of the palliative and survivorship care infrastructure for patients with advanced lung cancer and provide suggestions across the care continuum for this diverse group of patients and families.

Studying Outcomes after Steroid-Sparing Immunosuppressive Agent vs. Steroid-Only Treatment for Immune-Related Adverse Events in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and Melanoma: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

The effects of steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents (SSIAs), used for the treatment of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), on immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) antitumor activity is not well known. We compared tumor outcomes of patients who received corticosteroid monotherapy (CS) versus a corticosteroid plus SSIA (CS-SSIA) for irAE treatment, using statistical methods to address immortal time bias. We conducted a retrospective case-control study on patients ≥ 18 years with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ≥1 ICI at a quaternary care center between 1 January 2016 and 11 January 2021. Patients were divided into two cohorts: CS or CS-SSIA. We used propensity score nearest-neighbor matching to match on tumor type, stage, and prior lines of therapy. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included the time from the start of the irAE treatment to the irAE resolution. Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression method with both (1) the time to the steroid and SSIA as time-varying covariates and (2) a binary exposure classification not accounting for the time to the treatment. A total of 167 patients were included after matching (132 in the CS cohort and 35 in the CS-SSIA cohort). Sixty-six percent of all the patients had melanoma. The most common irAEs requiring treatment were gastroenterocolitis and hepatitis. In an adjusted analysis not accounting for immortal time bias, there were no significant differences in PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI [0.46-1.23]) or OS (HR 0.82, 95% CI [0.46-1.47]). In analyses using a time-varying treatment indicator, there was a trend toward improved PFS in patients treated with SSIAs (HR 0.54, CI 0.26-1.10). There was no difference in OS (HR 1.11, CI 0.55-2.23). Patients with melanoma who specifically received infliximab had improved PFS compared to patients with CS only, after adjusting for immortal time bias (HR 0.32, CI 0.24-0.43). The use of SSIAs with CS did not have worse outcomes than CS monotherapy. In melanoma, our findings showed improved PFS for the use of infliximab versus steroid monotherapy for irAEs. Large, prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and guide the optimal treatment of irAEs.

433MO Tofacitinib for the treatment of immune-related adverse events in cancer immunotherapy: A multi-center study

433MO Tofacitinib for the treatment of immune-related adverse events in cancer immunotherapy: A multi-center study

S1694 The Safety of Immunosuppressants Used in the Treatment of Immune-Related Adverse Events of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

S1694 The Safety of Immunosuppressants Used in the Treatment of Immune-Related Adverse Events of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Endocrine immune-related adverse events in patients with metastatic renal and urothelial cancer treated with immune checkpoint-inhibitors

PurposeTo evaluate the incidence, diagnosis and treatment of immune-related adverse events (e-irAE) of checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).MethodsA retrospective, single-center study was conducted to identify a cohort that received ICI for mUC or mRCC. e-irAE were classified according to the CTCAE V.5.0. Patients received ICI for mUC or mCC between 01/2017 and 03/2021. A retrospective chart review was performed. T-Test, the chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test were performed.Results102 Patients received ICI [mUC: 40 (39%), mRCC: 62 (61%)]. 64 (63%) received an ICI monotherapy, 27 (27%) a dual ICI therapy, 11 (11%) a combination with VEGFi. e-irAE occurred in 19 (19%) patients [grade 1–2: 17 (84%), grade 3: 3 (16%)]. The median time until e-irAE was 42 days (range 11–211 days). 14 Patients developed thyroidism (14%), 4 (4%) a hypophysitis, 1 (1%) an adrenal insufficiency (AI). 7 patients (7%) had to discontinue ICI therapy [hypophysitis (100%), AI (100%), thyroidism (14%)]. 6 (86%) received cortisone. After a median range of 34 days 5 patients (71%) restarted ICI therapy. All patients (n = 4) with hypophysitis continued ICI [4 (100%) prednisone, 3 (75%) levothyroxine]. 11 (79%) presented with hyperthyroidism. 4 (37%) needed therapy (1 (7%) prednisone, 3 (21%) thiamazole, 2 (14%) beta blocker). The 9 (64%) patients with hypothyroidism received levothyroxine. Hypophysitis appears only on dual ICI (CTLA-4/PD-1) inhibition (p 0.007).ConclusionThis study shows the importance of adequate diagnosis and therapy of e-irAEs.

The Safety of Immunosuppressants Used in the Treatment of Immune-Related Adverse Events due to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: a Systematic Review.

Purpose: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use can lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that require treatment with immunosuppressive medications in moderate to severe cases. Oncology society guidelines recommend systemic steroids and immunosuppressants such as infliximab and vedolizumab for the treatment of refractory cases. Limited information is available about the safety profile and potential adverse effects of these immunosuppressants. We have investigated the safety profile of multiple immunosuppressants which are used in the treatment of ICI-related irAEs. Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting irAEs, from ICI use, and their medical management with immunosuppressants in adult cancer patients. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through September 1, 2022, using the following keywords or their equivalents: ICI, immunosuppressant, and irAE. We extracted observational studies and clinical trials that matched our criteria. A random effects model was used to estimate the overall incidence of infections associated with the treatment of irAEs. Results: Among the 11 studies included in this review (1036 total patients), melanoma (548 patients, 52.9%) was the most common primary cancer, followed by lung cancer (139 patients, 13.4%) and genitourinary cancers (131 patients, 12.6%). PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy (460 patients, 44.4%) was used most, followed by a combination of PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 therapy (350 patients, 33.8%) and CTLA-4 monotherapy (226 patients, 22%). A total of 1024 (98.8%) patients had their irAEs treated with systemic steroids with majority having colitis and hepatobiliary irAEs; 335 patients (32.3%) were also treated with infliximab (mainly for colitis). Our review found 22.3% of patients treated for irAEs developed infectious adverse events (95% CI: 15.6%-29.1%, p<0.001). Among the 3 studies reporting the types of infections (41 total patients), bacterial (80.5%), followed by fungal (36.6%), infections were most common. Conclusions: Adverse events from irAE treatment occurred in about one-third of patients that received either steroids or a combination of steroids and other immunosuppressants. Clinicians should be aware of these immunosuppressant-related adverse effects, which can negatively impact cancer treatment and patient outcomes, when treating irAEs and consider shortening treatment duration or using alternative strategies when possible to mitigate these complications, future prospective studies should further investigate the safety of immunosuppressants in treating irAEs.

Encouraging probiotics for the prevention and treatment of immune-related adverse events in novel immunotherapies against malignant glioma.

Among the malignant tumors in the central nervous system (CNS), glioma is the most challenging tumor to the public society, which accounts for the majority of intracranial malignant tumors with impaired brain function. In general, conventional therapies are still unable to provide an effective cure. However, novel immunotherapies have changed the treatment scene giving patients a greater potential to attain long term survival, improved quality of life. Having shown favorable results in solid tumors, those therapies are now at a cancer research hotspot, which could even shrink the growth of glioma cells without causing severe complications. However, it is important to recognize that the therapy may be occasionally associated with noteworthy adverse action called immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) which have emerged as a potential limitation of the therapy. Multiple classes of mediators have been developed to enhance the ability of immune system to target malignant tumors including glioma but may also be associated with the IRAEs. In addition, it is probable that it would take long time after the therapy to exhibit severe immune-related disorders. Gut microbiota could play an integral role in optimal immune development and/or appropriate function for the cancer therapy, which is a vital component of the multidirectional communication between immune system, brain, and gut, also known as gut-brain-immune axis. Here, we show the potential effects of the gut-brain-immune axis based on an "engram theory" for the innovative treatment of IRAEs.

Impact of Corticosteroids for IrAEs on the Clinical Outcome of Immunotherapy in Patients With NSCLC.

The impact of corticosteroids for the treatment of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) on the antitumor effect of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor is unclear. A total of 172 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with PD-1 inhibitors were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups: those who did not develop irAEs [1] and those who developed irAE and were either not treated with corticosteroids [2] or treated with low [3] or high doses [4], and overall survival (OS) was analyzed by the time of corticosteroid treatment. Landmark analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with time-dependent covariates. A high-dose steroid treatment within 60 days correlated with a significantly worse OS than that of the group with irAEs without steroids (p=0.004). Moreover, there was no significant difference in OS between the irAE without steroid and low-dose steroid groups. Early severe irAEs and high-dose corticosteroid treatment were poor prognostic factors in patients with NSCLC treated with PD-1 inhibitors.

A protein kinase D inhibitor suppresses AKT on T cells and antagonizes cancer immunotherapy by anti-PD-1.

Antibodies that block the interaction between PD-1 and PD-1 ligands (anti-PD-1) are in clinical use for the treatment of cancer, yet their efficacy is limited. Pre-approved therapies that enhance the effect of anti-PD-1 in combination are beneficial. Small-molecule inhibitors that attenuate T cell receptor signaling are reported to prevent T cell exhaustion and induce memory T cells with stem cell potential, resulting in a durable effector T cell response in combination with anti-PD-1. In search of such targets, we focused on protein kinase D (PKD), which is suggested to be suppressive in both tumor growth and TCR signaling. We report that CRT0066101, a PKD inhibitor (PKDi), suppressed the growth of mouse tumors at a sub-micromolar concentration in vitro. Despite its inhibitory effects on tumors, a single treatment of tumor-bearing mice with PKDi did not inhibit, but rather accelerated tumor growth, and reversed the therapeutic effect of anti-PD-1. Mice treated with PKDi showed reduced T cell infiltration and defects in the generation of effector T cells, compared to those treated with anti-PD-1, suggesting that PKDi inhibited ongoing antitumor responses. Mechanistically, PKDi inhibited phosphorylation of AKT, a primary checkpoint that is reactivated by anti-PD-1. In conclusion, PKD is fundamentally required for T cell reactivation by anti-PD-1; therefore, inhibition of PKD is not appropriate for combination therapy with anti-PD-1. On the other hand, a single dose of PKDi was shown to strongly suppress experimental autoimmunity in mice, indicating that PKDi could be useful for the treatment of immune-related adverse events that are frequently reported in anti-PD-1 therapy.

Physician awareness of immune-related adverse events from checkpoint inhibitors.

6571 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been one of the most significant developments in Oncology over the last decade. Despite being very effective for certain patient subsets, they have a unique side effect profile different from conventional chemotherapy that can manifest as immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). With increasing ICI use, clinicians will increasingly encounter these adverse events and thus, adequate knowledge on recognition and management of IRAEs is very important. Methods: To assess physician knowledge on IRAEs of ICIs, an online survey was administered to resident physicians in internal medicine (IM), emergency medicine (EM) and family medicine (FM) as well as to faculty physicians in IM, and FM at 3 tertiary care hospitals in Indiana. Results: We sent the survey to 413 physicians out of which 155 responded with a response rate of 38%. Out of 155 physicians, 110 were residents and 45 were faculty (27 hospitalists and 17 primary care physicians). Pembrolizumab was identified as a checkpoint inhibitor correctly by 79% of physicians, nivolumab by 64% and ipilimumab by 55%. Twenty-five percent of physicians incorrectly believed infliximab and adalimumab were ICIs. Most physicians (93%) were able to identify the gastrointestinal tract as an IRAE site whereas only 57% and 67% were able to identify cardiovascular and renal systems as an IRAE site, respectively. Fifty-nine percent of physicians believed steroids negatively affect efficacy of ICIs and should be used with caution to treat IRAEs. Sixty-five percent of physicians incorrectly thought endocrinopathies due to IRAEs are usually reversible. Most physicians (79%) believed IRAEs most commonly manifest in the first 6 months of treatment. Forty-five percent of FM residents considered antibiotics as the mainstay of treatment in ICI associated immune mediated colitis; this was significantly different from EM (15%) and IM (8%) residents(p = 0.0004). When comparing between residency programs, on a scale of 0-100, IM residents felt significantly more comfortable identifying IRAEs secondary to ICIs (27.1±24.2) when compared to EM (12.2±12.7) and FM residents (9.4±13.8; p = 0.0009). There was no significant difference among IM (19.8±20.1), EM (11.9±13.6), and FM residents (11.6±18.9; p = 0.11) when comparing how comfortable they were in treating IRAEs. When asked what the best way would be to learn about IRAEs, 36% chose printed material and algorithms, 30% picked online teaching module and 30% chose one time in-person lecture from an Oncologist. Conclusions: Resident and faculty physicians in multiple specialties are not comfortable in the management and treatment of IRAEs due to ICIs. Given that most of these physicians are usually the first point of contact with patients, physician education on identification and treatment of IRAEs is needed. Early detection of these toxicities is critical for their resolution.

Facts and Hopes in Prediction, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Immune-Related Adverse Events

Over the past decade, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has expanded across a wide spectrum of oncology indications. Immune-related adverse events (irAE) from ICIs represent a significant source of morbidity, and in rare instances, can lead to treatment-related mortality. There are significant opportunities to better identify patients at increased risk for immune-related toxicity, diagnose irAEs more accurately and earlier in their course, and develop more individualized therapeutic strategies once complications arise. Clinical characteristics, germline and somatic genetic features, microbiome composition, and circulating biomarkers have all been associated with higher risk of developing irAEs in retrospective series. Many of these data suggest that both antitumor and anti-host ICI-associated immune reactions may be driven by common features of either the tumor or the patient's preexisting immune milieu. While irAE diagnosis is currently based on clinical history, exclusion of alternative etiologies, and sometimes pathologic confirmation, novel blood-based and radiographic assays are in development to identify these complications more precisely. Anecdotal reports and small case series have highlighted the potential role of targeted immunomodulatory agents to treat irAEs, though further prospective investigation is needed to evaluate more rigorously their use in these settings. In this review, we highlight the current state of knowledge about predicting, diagnosing, and treating irAEs with a translational focus and discuss emerging strategies which aim to improve each of these domains.

Tocilizumab for the treatment of immune-related adverse events: a systematic literature review and a multicentre case series

ObjectiveResearch is moving towards a more personalized management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the treatment of these clinical manifestations. MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to retrieve data about the use of tocilizumab in the treatment of irAEs. Additionally, data from cancer patients referred to our Immune-related Adverse Event Clinic and treated with tocilizumab were collected. ResultsOur literature review identified 20 articles and 11 meeting abstracts. Data about 91 cancer patients who received tocilizumab for the treatment of irAEs were collected. In 85% of cases, this therapy was associated with clinical benefit and no case of disease progression was reported. ICI therapy was continued following irAE onset and biologic therapy initiation in only three patients.Five patients developed irAEs upon ICI initiation and were subsequently treated with tocilizumab at our Centre. At a median follow-up of eight months, tocilizumab was safely continued along with ICI in three out of five patients, and an adequate control of irAE was obtained in all cases. No significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab were reported. Only one patient experienced a disease progression 18 months after ICI discontinuation. ConclusionBoth our systematic literature review and case series highlight the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the treatment of irAEs. Furthermore, they both support the possibility of a combined approach with tocilizumab and ICI, to guarantee an effective irAEs management without losing the oncologic response.

Expert Perspective: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Rheumatologic Complications.

Rheumatologists increasingly receive consults for patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for cancer. ICIs can cause inflammatory syndromes known as immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). Several rheumatic IRAEs have been reported, including inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and myositis. For patients who present with musculoskeletal symptoms while receiving ICI therapy, it is important to have an algorithm for evaluation. The differential diagnosis includes a range of musculoskeletal syndromes, such as crystalline arthritis, mechanical issues, and osteoarthritis, in addition to IRAEs. After diagnosing a rheumatic IRAE, rheumatologists must work with the patient and the oncologist to form a treatment plan. Treatment of IRAEs is guided by severity. Evidence for management is limited to observational studies. Inflammatory arthritis and polymyalgia rheumatica are treated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in mild cases, glucocorticoids for moderate-to-severe cases, and sometimes require other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Myositis due to ICIs can be accompanied by myocarditis or myasthenia gravis. Glucocorticoids and withholding the ICI are usually required to treat myositis; some patients with severe myositis require intravenous immunoglobulin or plasmapheresis. Further research is needed to optimize treatment of IRAEs that does not compromise the antitumor effect of ICIs.

Kidney Biopsy Should Be Performed to Document the Cause of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Acute Kidney Injury: PRO.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have significantly improved the outcome for patients with cancer by effectively overcoming cancer resistance by allowing the host immune system to recognize and eliminate tumor cells. Immune checkpoints are regulatory receptors and ligands that allow immune-mediated destruction of foreign antigens while at the same time prevent autoimmune host organ injury. CPIs remove these breaks on the immune system and, not unexpectedly, are associated with the development of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). IRAEs are common with grade 3/4 toxicities developing in approximately 20% of patients. Skin, gastrointestinal tract, and endocrine IRAEs are most frequent; whereas IRAEs affecting the kidney are less common: 1%–2% with monotherapy and 5% with combined immune CPIs (1), although this is likely an underestimate (2). Various types of kidney injury have been described including acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (ATIN), acute tubular injury, glomerular diseases, and thrombotic microangiopathy (3). The 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on the treatment of IRAEs describes the expert consensus on the approach of organ-specific events (4). The guidelines recommend that if causes of AKI other than IRAEs have been eliminated, the physician should forego the need for biopsy and proceed with immunosuppressive therapy. According to this guideline, no other urinalysis is indicated but the nephrologist may consider further investigation. As far as kidney IRAEs are concerned, clinical findings and laboratory tests are suboptimal in predicting the precise underlying kidney lesion, making kidney biopsy necessary in the majority of cases to definitely diagnose the precise lesion, to guide therapy, and—possibly—to improve the overall outcome in patients treated with CPIs.

Clinical Characteristics and Treatment of Immune-Related Adverse Events of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been changing the paradigm of cancer treatment. However, immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) have also increased with the exponential increase in the use of ICIs. ICIs can break up the immunologic homeostasis and reduce T-cell tolerance. Therefore, inhibition of immune checkpoint can lead to the activation of autoreactive T-cells, resulting in various irAEs similar to autoimmune diseases. Gastrointestinal toxicity, endocrine toxicity, and dermatologic toxicity are common side effects. Neurotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, and pulmonary toxicity are relatively rare but can be fatal. ICI-related gastrointestinal toxicity, dermatologic toxicity, and hypophysitis are more common with anti- CTLA-4 agents. ICI-related pulmonary toxicity, thyroid dysfunction, and myasthenia gravis are more common with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Treatment with systemic steroids is the principal strategy against irAEs. The use of immune-modulatory agents should be considered in case of no response to the steroid therapy. Treatment under the supervision of multidisciplinary specialists is also essential, because the symptoms and treatments of irAEs could involve many organs. Thus, this review focuses on the mechanism, clinical presentation, incidence, and treatment of various irAEs.

Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Immune-related Adverse Events in Digestive System Related to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

恶性肿瘤的免疫治疗是当前肿瘤研究和治疗领域的热点，免疫检查点分子程序性死亡受体-1（programmed cell death receptor-1, PD-1）和细胞毒性T淋巴细胞相关抗原4（cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, CTLA-4）相关信号通路的激活可以抑制T淋巴细胞活化，肿瘤细胞通过激活该信号通路实现免疫逃逸。免疫检查点抑制剂（immuno-checkpoint inhibitors, ICIs）通过抑制该信号通路，活化T淋巴细胞发挥机体对肿瘤细胞的清除。因此，ICIs的相关毒性包括免疫相关的不良事件（immune-related adverse effects, irAEs）。消化系统如胃肠道、肝脏作为人体重要的消化吸收器官、代谢解毒器官，同时也是重要的免疫相关器官，是irAEs的常见受累系统。本文将分别对ICIs的肝脏、胃肠道不良反应的发生率、临床表现、诊断和处理分别进行阐述。

1260P - Impact of previous corticosteroid (CS) exposure on efficacy of programmed cell death-(Ligand) 1 blockade in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A single center retrospective analysis

BackgroundThe impact of previous cumulative exposure to CS before treatment start is unknown, while its use for the treatment of immune-related adverse events during PD-(L)1 therapy does not seem to reduce efficacy. We used real-world data to evaluate the effect of CS immunosuppressive dose (cumulative dose of>700mg of prednisone equivalent) or CS delivery modality (prolonged, daily dose >10mg of prednisone equivalent lasting >5 days, or pulsed, duration ≤5 days) over 3 months before treatment start. MethodsPatients with advanced NSCLC treated at our Institution with single agent PD-(L)1 blockade after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy and on CS treatment in the previous 3 months were included. Clinical and pharmacy records were reviewed to identify CS dose and duration. According to the label, patients must not have received CS>10mg prednisone or equivalent over 10 days before start of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy and had PS≤1. Patients must also have received >2 cycles of PD-(L)1 blockade to be eligible for efficacy analysis. ResultsWe identified 62 patients fulfilling our inclusion criteria, 28 (45%) and 36 (58%) of them received a CS immunosuppressive dose and pulsed CS, respectively, 8 (13%) had brain metastases, and 20 (32%) had squamous histology. As of the general population, 36 (58%) patients achieved a durable clinical benefit (DCB, partial response or stable disease >6 months). The median PFS was 4.3 months, and the 1-year survival rate was 39%. CS immunosuppressive dose was not associated with decreased DCB (44% vs 55%; p-value 0.9), nor with shorter median PFS (3.7 vs 4.4 months; HR 1.2; p-value 0.2), nor with lower 1-year survival rate (31% vs 43%; p-value 0.6). CS prolonged exposure was significantly associated with either decreased DCB (30% vs 69%; p-value 0.01) and shorter median PFS (2.7 vs 4.5 months; HR 1.8; p-value 0.05), but not with lower 1-year survival rate (29% vs 41%; p-value 0.06). ConclusionsProlonged exposure to>10mg of prednisone equivalent through pretreatment 3 months was associated with poorer outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with second-line PD-(L)1 blockade. Legal entity responsible for the studyThe authors. FundingHas not received any funding. DisclosureAll authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

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. 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. 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.