Dataset Information

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced Type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the timing and factors associated with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/anti-programmed cell death protein-1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitor-induced Type 1 diabetes.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases (August 2000-2018) for studies of any design on immune checkpoint inhibitors. A total of 71 cases were reviewed from 56 publications. Comparisons were made using Fisher's exact and Student's t-tests.

Results

The mean ± sd age at Type 1 diabetes presentation was 61.7±12.2 years, 55% of cases were in men, and melanoma (53.5%) was the most frequent cancer. The median time to Type 1 diabetes onset was 49 (5-448) days with ketoacidosis in 76% of cases. The average ± sd HbA_1c concentration was 62 ± 0.3 mmol/mol (7.84±1.0%) at presentation. All cases had insulin deficiency and required permanent exogenous insulin treatment. Half of the cases had Type 1 diabetes-associated antibodies at presentation, and those with antibodies had a more rapid onset (P=0.005) and higher incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (P=0.02) compared to people without antibodies.

Conclusions

Many people developed Type 1 diabetes within 3 months of initial PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor exposure. People presenting with Type 1 diabetes-associated antibodies had a more rapid onset and higher incidence of ketoacidosis than those without antibodies. Healthcare providers caring for people receiving these state-of-the-art therapies need to be aware of this potential severe adverse event.

SUBMITTER: Akturk HK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6698212 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesBased on the acknowledged organ-specific immune microenvironment, little is known regarding the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with lung cancer according to metastatic sites. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) vs chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer with liver metastases (LM) or brain metastases (BM).DesignMeta-analysis and systematic review.Data sourcesWe systematically searched in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science), up to 31 January 2022. We also reviewed the abstracts from major international conferences. Eligibility criteria were randomised controlled phase II or III trials reporting the overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) of LM or BM subsets.Data extraction and synthesisHazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for OS and PFS were extracted and aggregated using a random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-four randomised controlled trials with available outcomes for patients with BMs or LMs were identified. A total of 1124 patients with BM and 2077 patients with LM were included in the analysis. The pooled OS HR of patients with LMs was 0.83 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), and that of patients without LM 0.73 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.79). LM was associated with less benefits from ICIs. In patients with BM treated with ICIs, the pooled OS HR compared with the control arms was 0.71 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.94). Subgroup analyses by histology suggested that only patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with BM could gain benefit from ICIs (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68). BM negatively influenced efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer.ConclusionsOur results showed immunotherapy demonstrated efficacy in patients with lung cancer with LM and BM, survival benefits dominantly favoured patients with NSCLC. Patients with lung cancer with LM obtained less benefits from ICIs than those without. Therefore, organ-specific immunotherapeutic approaches should be considered.Prospero registration numberCRD42020212797.

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor-induced isolated adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency (IAD) is a rare but potentially fatal disease.MethodsWe comprehensively searched the PubMed database and made a systematic review of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced isolated adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency. If the status of other anterior pituitary hormones was not mentioned, the case was excluded.ResultsWe identified 123 cases diagnosed as immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced IAD, consisting of 44 female and 79 male patients. The average age of these patients was 64.3 ± 12.6 years old, and 67.5% were 60 years old or above. The majority (78.9%) of these patients received anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1) antibodies or anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) antibodies or both, and 19.5% received combined therapy, sequential therapy, or both. A total of 26 patients received anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 antibodies (anti-CTLA-4). The median ICI treatment cycle before the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency was 8 (6, 12), and the median ICI treatment duration before the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency was 6 (4, 8) months. Eleven cases developed IAD 1 to 11 months after discontinuation of ICIs. Fatigue and appetite loss were the most common symptoms, and surprisingly, there were two asymptomatic cases of IAD. Most patients (88 cases) had normal pituitary magnetic resonance imaging, only 14 cases reported mild atrophy or swelling pituitary gland, and 21 cases reported no imaging results. Most diagnoses were made by basal hormone levels, and pituitary stimulation tests were performed in only a part of the cases. No cases had been reported of discontinuation of ICI use due to IAD nor had there been any deaths due to IAD.ConclusionIAD was predominant in elderly male patients mainly receiving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies. It was sometimes difficult to recognize IAD at first glance since non-specific symptoms were common and asymptomatic cases of IAD were also reported. Although IAD can be deadly, it usually does not affect the continued use of ICIs.

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been increasingly used in cancer treatment, and a subset of patients undergo pseudoprogression. Recognizing the incidence of pseudoprogression is critical for clinical practice.PurposeTo evaluate by systematic review and meta-analysis the incidence of pseudoprogression in cancer treatment with ICIs, and compare the incidence according to response criteria, tumor types, and immunotherapeutic agents.Materials and MethodsMedline and Embase were searched to identify relevant studies published before December 31, 2018. Clinical trials, post hoc analysis of clinical trials, and prospective studies on ICI treatment in patients with malignant solid tumors were included. Pooled incidence of pseudoprogression for all included studies, per definition of pseudoprogression, cancer type, and drug type, was obtained by random-effects models with inverse variance weighting model.ResultsSeventeen studies with 3402 patients were analyzed. The pooled incidence of pseudoprogression was 6.0% (95% confidence interval: 5.0%, 7.0%). The definition of pseudoprogression were divided into four categories: progressive disease followed by partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) but not stable disease (SD) with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 (six studies); progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with RECIST 1.1 (five studies); progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with RECIST 1.0 (three studies); and progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with immune-related response criteria (irRC) (three studies). Incidence of pseudoprogression varied from 4.5% to 8.0% per definition, ranged from 5.0% to 7.0% per cancer type, and was 5.6% with the monotherapy of programmed cell death-1 inhibitor.ConclusionThe overall incidence of pseudoprogression was 6.0% and was less than 10% in subgroup analyses according to the definitions of pseudoprogression, cancer type, and immune checkpoint inhibitor type. Varying definitions across trials and studies indicates the need for uniform criteria of pseudoprogression for solid tumors.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the article by Dodd and MacDermott in this issue.