Zubiri, Leyre

Importance The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is increasing. Little is known about the frequency of late-onset immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and the patient-specific risk factors associated with their development. Objectives To assess the incidence of persistent or de novo late-onset irAEs requiring hospitalization and identify patient factors associated with risk of late-onset irAEs. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective observational cohort study conducted from January 2011 to October 2022 included patients who received ICIs and were hospitalized with irAEs at an academic medical center. Exclusion criteria included ICI therapy outside of the hospital system and no irAE diagnosis during admission. Data were analyzed from November 15, 2022, to January 8, 2025. Exposure Late-onset irAEs. Main Outcomes and Measures The main study outcomes were (1) incidence of irAE hospitalization at 0 to 6 months (early), more than 6 to 12 months (intermediate), and more than 12 months (late) after ICI initiation and (2) patient factors associated with risk of late-onset irAEs. Results Among the 795 patients hospitalized with irAEs, the median age was 67.3 years (IQR, 58.3-74.8 years); 476 (59.9%) were male. Most patients (n = 517 [65.0%]) received anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti–programmed cell death 1 monotherapy, with the most common indications being melanoma (n = 335 [42.1%]) and lung cancer (n = 167 [21.0%]). The median time from start of ICI therapy to hospital admission was 2.7 months (IQR, 1.2-6.1 months), with 14.7% of patients (n = 117 of 795) presenting 6 to 12 months after initial ICI exposure and 10.8% of patients (86 of 795) presenting more than 12 months after initial exposure. The irAEs most likely to present late included those involving the kidney (10 of 32 [31.3%]) and hematologic (5 of 23 [21.7%]) organ systems. In univariate analysis, ICI type was significantly associated with the timing of hospital admission for irAEs; of the 517 patients receiving anti–PD-L1–based therapy, 13.5% (n = 70) presented late compared with 5.4% (9 of 167) receiving dual therapy with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 ( P < .001). Patients receiving perioperative ICI therapy were significantly more likely to be admitted at the intermediate interval (16 of 68 [23.5%]) compared with those with metastatic disease (87 of 678 [12.8%]) ( P = .03). Timing of irAE was also significantly associated with active ICI exposure; among the patients presenting late, 7.4% (48 of 651) had received ICI therapy within the last 60 days compared with 26.4% (38 of 144) who had not had recent ICI exposure ( P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this retrospective observational cohort study suggest that late irAEs are possible, with a subset of patients presenting years after the start of ICI therapy. Clinicians must remain vigilant for irAEs regardless of elapsed time from ICI therapy, especially as patients live longer and ICIs become more widely used. Future investigations are needed to better understand the risk factors for late-onset irAEs and the distinct immunologic pathways that underlie such events.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%–12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

AbstractImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPis) are a novel class of immunotherapeutic agents that have revolutionized the treatment of cancer; however, these drugs can also cause a unique spectrum of autoimmune toxicity. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is a rare, but often severe, complication of ICPis. We identified 14 patients from nine institutions across the United States who developed ICPi‐AIHA. The median interval from ICPi initiation to development of AIHA was 55 days (interquartile range [IQR], 22‐110 days). Results from the direct antiglobulin test (DAT) were available for 13 of 14 patients: 8 patients (62%) had a positive DAT and 5 (38%) had a negative DAT. The median pretreatment and nadir hemoglobin concentrations were 11.8 g/dL (IQR, 10.2‐12.9 g/dL) and 6.3 g/dL (IQR, 6.1‐8.0 g/dL), respectively. Four patients (29%) had a preexisting lymphoproliferative disorder, and two (14%) had a positive DAT prior to initiation of ICPi therapy. All patients were treated with glucocorticoids, with three requiring additional immunosuppressive therapy. Complete and partial recoveries of hemoglobin were achieved in 12 (86%) and 2 (14%) patients, respectively. Seven patients (50%) were rechallenged with ICPis, and one (14%) developed recurrent AIHA. Clinical and laboratory features of ICPi‐AIHA were similar in DAT positive and negative patients. ICPi‐AIHA shares many clinical features with primary AIHA; however, a unique aspect of ICPi‐AIHA is a high incidence of DAT negativity. Glucocorticoids are an effective first‐line treatment in the majority of patients with ICPi‐AIHA, and most patients who are rechallenged with an ICPi do not appear to develop recurrence of AIHA.