Dataset Information

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced aseptic meningitis and encephalitis: a case-series and narrative review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Along with the increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors comes a surge in immune-related toxicity. Here, we review the currently available data regarding neurological immune adverse events, and more specifically aseptic meningitis and encephalitis, and present treatment and diagnostic recommendations. Furthermore, we present five cases of immunotherapy-induced aseptic meningitis and encephalitis treated at our institution.

Recent findings

Neurological immune-related adverse events, including aseptic meningitis and encephalitis, secondary to checkpoint inhibitors are a rare but complex and clinically relevant entity, comprising a wide range of diseases, most often presenting with symptoms with a wide range of differential diagnoses. Our case-series highlights the challenges of such entities and the importance of properly identifying and managing aseptic meningitis and encephalitis.

Summary

Checkpoint inhibitor-induced meningoencephalitis warrants prompt investigations and treatment. Properly diagnosing aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, or mixed presentations may guide the treatment decision, as highlighted by our case-series. After rapid exclusion of alternative diagnoses, urgent corticosteroids are the therapeutic backbone but this could change in favour of highly specific cytokine-directed treatment options.

Plain language summary

Aseptic meningitis and encephalitis with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a single centre case-series and review of the literature Over the course of the past decade, checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer care. With their favourable toxicity profile and potential for durable and deep responses, they have become ubiquitous across the field of oncology. Furthermore, combination checkpoint inhibitors are also gaining ground, with increased efficacy and, unfortunately, immune-related toxicity. While there are guidelines based on extensive clinical experience for frequent adverse events, uncommon entities are less readily identified and treated. Neurological immune-related adverse events secondary to checkpoint inhibitors are a rare but complex entity, comprising a wide range of diseases, most often presenting with aspecific symptoms. In this paper, we discuss a single institution case-series of patients with autoimmune aseptic meningitis and encephalitis, and we perform a narrative literature review on this subject. We conclude with our treatment recommendations based on available evidence.

SUBMITTER: Thouvenin L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8010823 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent a promising novel class of cancer therapy, but immune-mediated adverse events can complicate ICI treatment. Acute cholecystitis in patients receiving ICI therapy has not been characterized. We aimed to describe the clinical features of patients who developed ICI-related cholecystitis.MethodsWe evaluated a case series of patients at a tertiary cancer center who received ICI therapy and developed cholecystitis, diagnosed by clinical presentation and diagnostic imaging, during 2010-2018. Patients with a history of chronic cholecystitis or other etiologies of acute cholecystitis, such as cholelithiasis, were excluded. A chi-square test was used to compare the frequency of cholecystitis between ICI regimens. Kaplan-Meier and log rank analyses were used to compare survival between subgroups.ResultsOf the 4253 patients who received ICIs in the study period, 25 (0.6%) patients developed suspected ICI-related cholecystitis. Alternatively, of the 31,426 cancer-matched patients who received non-ICI therapy, 72 (0.2%) developed acalculous cholecystitis (P < 0.001). Among the 25 included patients, the median time from ICI initiation to cholecystitis was 6 months (range, 0.1-31 months). Fifteen (60%) patients received an inhibitor of programmed death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) or of its ligand (anti-PD-L1) as a single agent, and 10 (40%) patients received an inhibitor of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) therapy alone or combined with anti-PD-1/L1. Anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy was associated with a higher risk of cholecystitis (P = 0.006). ICI therapy was discontinued in 20 patients, in three (12%) as a result of acute cholecystitis. Two (8%) patients developed sepsis, and four (16%) had perforation of the gallbladder wall. Five (20%) patients underwent surgical cholecystectomy, and eight (32%) underwent percutaneous drainage. Five (20%) patients were treated with steroids; two of them required surgery. Ten (40%) patients were able to restart ICI therapy. Patients who received a combination of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/L1 had more complications of cholecystitis than did patients who received either agent alone (P = 0.03).ConclusionsICI treatment can result in a clinical condition similar to typical acute cholecystitis in a minority of patients. ICI-related cholecystitis should be managed in a similar fashion to typical cholecystitis. The efficacy of steroids for the treatment of ICI-related cholecystitis is unclear.

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the setting of liver transplant (LT) pose a risk of rejection and hold unclear benefit in both the neoadjuvant (pre-transplant) and post-transplant salvage setting. In the pre-transplant setting, neoadjuvant ICIs may serve as a bridge to LT by downstaging disease burden to fit within transplant criteria. Outcomes in this setting include patients who had successful transplants without complications to patients who suffered severe complications, including fatal hepatic necrosis and graft failure requiring re-transplant. Some authors suggest having a period of three months between checkpoint inhibition and transplant may help mitigate adverse effects. In the post-LT setting, there are few treatment options if there is a recurrence of disease, which forces treatment teams to reconsider checkpoint inhibitors. Again, a longer period of time between transplant and checkpoint inhibition may reduce risk of rejection. Case reports of patients treated with ICIs post-transplant utilized either nivolumab or pembrolizumab. As combination atezolizumab/bevacizumab is a relatively new treatment option for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there are only three reported cases using this combination in the post-LT setting. While there were no cases of rejection, all three cases had progression of disease. As immunotherapy joins transplantation as a mainstay of treatment for HCC, it remains unclear how to best navigate when the treatment course involves both immune activation and immunosuppression.Case descriptionPatients who had an LT and were treated with ICIs (pre or post LT) at the University of Cincinnati were included in this retrospective chart review.ConclusionsFatal rejection remains a significant risk even 4 years after LT. Neoadjuvant ICIs also pose a risk for acute cellular rejection; however, this may not always be clinically significant. Graft versus host disease (GVHD) may be an additional, previously unreported risk of ICIs in the setting of LT. Prospective studies are needed to understand benefits and risks of checkpoint inhibitors in the LT setting.