Safety of Infusing Ipilimumab Over 30 Minutes

Safety of accelerated infusion of nivolumab and pembrolizumab

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death-1, used for several types of cancer. The increased use of these drugs and the growing number of cancer patients place a significant burden on the hospital ward capacity. Safely reducing the infusion time of immune checkpoint inhibitors could improve capacity. The aim of this implementation project was to explore the safety of accelerated infusion time for nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Patients who received monotherapy nivolumab or pembrolizumab were included in the implementation project. The administration time according to label of nivolumab and pembrolizumab was reduced over 2-3 treatment cycles from 60 and 30-10 min. Vital signs were measured every 15 min from start until 30 min after completion of each administration. If a hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) occurred, infusion was interrupted, and its severity was graded. Between January 2023 and December 2024, 101 patients were enrolled (316 infusions). This included 72 patients with nivolumab and 29 with pembrolizumab treatment. Only grade 1 and 2 HSR were observed. In total 11 HSRs were observed during the administration of nivolumab. Nine HSRs occurred during the 30-minute and two during the 10-minute infusion. No HSR was recorded with pembrolizumab. The accelerated infusion of nivolumab and pembrolizumab in 10 min is safe and results in considerable time efficiency. This strategy is potentially feasible for more immune checkpoint inhibitors and should therefore be considered to facilitate the treatment of the increasing number of cancer patients.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-associated Pneumonitis: A Narrative Review

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab and ipilimumab, have significantly enhanced survival rates for multiple cancer types such as non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, and breast cancer, and they have emerged as an adjunct or primary therapy for malignant disease. Approximately 40% of patients with cancer on ICI therapy experience side effects called immune-related adverse events (irAE). While not the most common, pulmonary toxicities can be rapidly progressive, potentially fatal, and pose a three-fold increased risk for requiring intensive care unit-level of care. Pneumonitis is a focal or diffuse inflammation of the lung parenchyma, and clinical manifestations may be highly variable. While the onset is generally observed 6-12 weeks after the initiation of therapy, drug toxicity can develop rapidly within days after the first infusion or many months into therapy. Pneumonitis symptoms can be subtle or non-specific; therefore, a thorough and systematic evaluation considering other possible etiologies is crucial. Moreover, extrapulmonary findings, such as skin lesions, colitis, or endocrinopathies, should raise suspicion for irAE as drug toxicity can affect multiple organs simultaneously. Due to the significant overlap of clinical features between ICI-associated pneumonitis and respiratory infections, it can be challenging to differentiate the two conditions based on clinical presentation alone. A multidisciplinary approach to management is recommended for the treatment of ICI-associated pneumonitis, and classification of severity helps to guide interventions. Treatment options in more severe cases include systemic immunosuppression. Given the increased use of ICIs and greater probability that patients with ICI-associated pneumonitis will be seen in the emergency department, we aimed to provide a comprehensive framework for the diagnosis and management. In addition, identifying potential challenges in diagnosis and/or other contributors of respiratory symptoms and radiographic manifestations is highlighted.

Management of infusion-related reactions in cancer therapy: strategies and challenges

Several anticancer therapies have the potential to cause infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in the form of adverse events that typically occur within minutes to hours after drug infusion. IRRs can range in severity from mild to severe anaphylaxis-like reactions. Careful monitoring at infusion initiation, prompt recognition, and appropriate clinical assessment of the IRR and its severity, followed by immediate management, are required to ensure patient safety and optimal outcomes. Lack of standardization in the prevention, management, and reporting of IRRs across cancer-treating institutions represents not only a quality and safety gap but also a disparity in cancer care. The present article, supported by recently published data, was developed to standardize these procedures across institutions and provide a useful tool for health care providers in clinical practice to recognize early signs and symptoms of an IRR and promptly and appropriately manage the event.

Optimal timing of steroid initiation in response to CTLA-4 antibody in metastatic cancer: A mathematical model

Immune checkpoint inhibitors, introduced in recent years, have revolutionized the treatment of many cancers. However, the toxicity associated with this therapy may cause severe adverse events. In the case of advanced lung cancer or metastatic melanoma, a significant number (10%) of patients treated with CTLA-4 inhibitor incur damage to the pituitary gland. In order to reduce the risk of hypophysitis and other severe adverse events, steroids may be combined with CTLA-4 inhibitor; they reduce toxicity, but they also diminish the anti-cancer effect of the immunotherapy. This trade-off between tumor reduction and the risk of severe adverse events poses the following question: What is the optimal time to initiate treatment with steroid. We address this question with a mathematical model from which we can also evaluate the comparative benefits of each schedule of steroid administration. In particular, we conclude that treatment with steroid should not begin too early, but also not very late, after immunotherapy began; more precisely, it should start as soon as tumor volume, under the effect of CTLA-4 inhibitor alone, begins to decrease. We can also compare the benefits of short term treatment of steroid at high doses to a longer term treatment with lower doses.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care for the treatment of several cancers. While these immunotherapies have improved patient outcomes in many clinical settings, they bring accompanying risks of toxicity, specifically immune-related adverse events (irAEs). There is a need for clear, effective guidelines for the management of irAEs during ICI treatment, motivating the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) to convene an expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline. The panel discussed the recognition and management of single and combination ICI irAEs and ultimately developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to assist medical professionals in clinical decision-making and to improve outcomes for patients.

Immune-related adverse events of a PD-L1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy versus a PD-L1 inhibitor alone in first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

The addition of chemotherapy to a programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor is a more effective option as a first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It might also inhibit an overactive immune response and thereby reduce immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This meta-analysis assessed the rate of irAEs with a PD-(L)1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy (I+C) versus a PD-(L)1 inhibitor alone (I) and evaluated the indirect relative risk (RR) of I+C versus I.

METHODS

The protocol of this study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020139923). The pooled rates of irAEs at different grades were calculated by a single-arm meta-analysis weighted by sample size, and RRs were determined by direct meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison.

RESULTS

Overall, I+C had a lower rate of grade 3 or higher irAEs than I (7.1% vs 10.6%; indirect RR, 0.516; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.291-0.916), although irAEs of any grade were similar. The rate of pneumonitis with I+C was lower than the rate with I for any grade (5.9% vs 7.1%; indirect RR, 0.217; 95% CI, 0.080-0.588) and for grade 3 or higher. In the endocrine system, I+C was associated with a lower overall ratein comparison with I (16.1% vs 20.1%; indirect RR, 0.260; 95% CI, 0.120-0.564), whereas irAEs of the digestive system were similar with I+C and I. In other systems, I+C decreased the rate of skin reactions, including rash, in comparison with I (10.4% vs 12.9%; indirect RR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.299-0.751). The rate of grade 3 or higher skin reactions (excluding rash) also decreased with I+C versus I (1.1% vs 2.0%) with an indirect RR of 0.158 (95% CI, 0.032-0.765), whereas other included irAEs were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with a PD-(L)1 inhibitor alone, a combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of NSCLC decreased the rates of most irAEs, such as pneumonitis and endocrine and skin reactions, and the overall rate.

LAY SUMMARY

In the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the addition of chemotherapy to a programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1) inhibitor is a more effective option. Adding chemotherapy might reduce immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Thus, this article assesses the rate of irAEs with a PD-(L)1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy (I+C) in comparison with a PD-(L)1 inhibitor alone (I) and evaluates the indirect relative risk (RR) with I+C versus I. The key finding is that in comparison with a PD-(L)1 inhibitor alone, a combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of NSCLC decreases the rates of most irAEs, such as pneumonitis and endocrine and skin reactions, and the overall rate.

Immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma: a novel scenario of new toxicities and their management

Checkpoint inhibitors can cause an imbalance in immune tolerance that may clinically manifest as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). These events may involve many organs and tissues, including the skin, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, liver, endocrine system, kidneys, central nervous system (CNS), eyes and lungs. The incidence of irAEs appears to be lower with anti-programmed death antigen-1/programmed death antigen-ligand-1 agents than with the anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 antibody ipilimumab. Combined immunotherapy does not appear to be associated with novel safety signals compared with monotherapy, but more organs may be involved. Increased experience and the use of algorithms for the most common irAEs have resulted in severe toxicity and related deaths being reduced. However, continuous vigilance, especially regarding less common events, is needed to better characterize the wide spectrum of clinical manifestations.

Immunotherapy Toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are therapeutic antibodies that target regulatory molecules on T cells and represent the most widely used FDA-approved class of immunotherapy. ICIs are associated with unique immune-mediated toxicities called immune-related adverse events. These toxicities may affect any organ system, and their precise mechanisms of action remain under investigation. Current evidence suggests that activation of T cells is involved, although other components of the immune response have been implicated. This article summarizes toxicities, potential mechanisms of action, management strategies, and other clinical considerations. Unique mechanisms of action and immune-related toxicities of other FDA-approved classes of immunotherapy are reviewed.

Safety profile of nivolumab administered as 30-min infusion: analysis of data from CheckMate 153

PURPOSE

Nivolumab has been administered using a 60-min infusion time. Reducing this time to 30 min would benefit both patients and infusion facilities. This analysis compared the safety of 30- and 60-min infusions of nivolumab in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

CheckMate 153 is an open-label, phase 3b/4, predominantly community-based study ongoing in the United States and Canada. Patients with stage IIIB/IV disease with progression/recurrence after at least one prior systemic therapy received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks over 30 or 60 min for 1 year or until disease progression. The primary outcome overall was to estimate the incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related select adverse events; a retrospective objective was to estimate the incidence of hypersensitivity/infusion-related reactions (IRRs) with the 30-min infusion. Exploratory pharmacokinetic analyses were performed using a population pharmacokinetics model.

RESULTS

Of 1420 patients enrolled, 369 received only 30-min infusions and 368 received only 60-min infusions. Similar frequencies of hypersensitivity/IRRs were noted in patients receiving 30-min [2% (n = 8)] and 60-min [2% (n = 7)] infusions. Grade 3-4 treatment-related hypersensitivity/IRRs led to treatment discontinuation in < 1% of patients in each group; < 1% of patients in each group received systemic corticosteroids. Hypersensitivity/IRRs were managed by dosing interruptions, with minimal impact on total dose received. Nivolumab pharmacokinetics were predicted to be similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab infused over 30 min had a comparable safety profile to the 60-min infusion, including a low incidence of IRRs.

Safety of shortened infusion times for combined ipilimumab and nivolumab

BACKGROUND

Combined ipilimumab and nivolumab induces encouraging response rates in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. However, the approved protocol for dual checkpoint inhibition (3 mg/kg ipilimumab over 90 min and 1 mg/kg nivolumab over 60 min) is time-intensive and several trials have shown that both single agents can be safely administered at faster infusion rates.

AIM

To investigate whether combined checkpoint inhibition with 3 mg/kg ipilimumab and 1 mg/kg nivolumab can be safely administered over 30 min per agent.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the rate of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in the first 12 months of our single-institution experience using shortened infusion times for combined checkpoint inhibition with ipilimumab and nivolumab.

RESULTS

Between May 24, 2016 and June 10, 2017, a total of 46 melanoma patients received 100 shortened cycles of combined 3 mg/kg ipilimumab and 1 mg/kg nivolumab. One patient (2.2%; 1/46) had a questionable reaction after administration of 1 mg/kg nivolumab over 30 min, but none of the other patients had a bona fide IRR.

CONCLUSIONS

Shortened infusion times for combined ipilimumab and nivolumab treatment are safe, thereby facilitating a more efficient use of outpatient facilities and enhancing patient's convenience.

Managing toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: consensus recommendations from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Toxicity Management Working Group

Cancer immunotherapy has transformed the treatment of cancer. However, increasing use of immune-based therapies, including the widely used class of agents known as immune checkpoint inhibitors, has exposed a discrete group of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Many of these are driven by the same immunologic mechanisms responsible for the drugs' therapeutic effects, namely blockade of inhibitory mechanisms that suppress the immune system and protect body tissues from an unconstrained acute or chronic immune response. Skin, gut, endocrine, lung and musculoskeletal irAEs are relatively common, whereas cardiovascular, hematologic, renal, neurologic and ophthalmologic irAEs occur much less frequently. The majority of irAEs are mild to moderate in severity; however, serious and occasionally life-threatening irAEs are reported in the literature, and treatment-related deaths occur in up to 2% of patients, varying by ICI. Immunotherapy-related irAEs typically have a delayed onset and prolonged duration compared to adverse events from chemotherapy, and effective management depends on early recognition and prompt intervention with immune suppression and/or immunomodulatory strategies. There is an urgent need for multidisciplinary guidance reflecting broad-based perspectives on how to recognize, report and manage organ-specific toxicities until evidence-based data are available to inform clinical decision-making. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) established a multidisciplinary Toxicity Management Working Group, which met for a full-day workshop to develop recommendations to standardize management of irAEs. Here we present their consensus recommendations on managing toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

[Adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors used to treat melanoma and other cancer]

Monoclonal antibodies targeted against the immune checkpoint molecules CTLA-4 and PD-1 have recently obtained approval for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and advanced/refractory non small-cell lung cancers and metastatic renal cancer. Besides their efficacy profile, these immune targeted agents also generate immune-related adverse events that may be life threatening if not anticipated and managed appropriately. This new family of dysimmune toxicities remains largely unknown to the broad oncology community. We propose here some practical guidelines for the oncologist to help in the clinical care of patients under immune checkpoint molecules.

Recognizing and managing on toxicities in cancer immunotherapy

Over the past 4 years, cancer immunotherapy has significantly prolonged survival time of patients with prostate cancer, melanoma, lung cancer, and liver cancer, but its side effects are also impressive. Different types of the immune therapeutic agents have different on-target or off-target toxicity due to high affinity or weak specificity, respectively. Treatment toxicity spectrums vary greatly even in patients with the same type of cancer. Common toxicities are fevers, chills, diarrhea colitis, maculopapular rash, hepatitis, and hormone gland disorder; therefore, routine monitoring of thyroid function, liver function, renal function, and complete blood count are absolutely necessary once treatment begins. Some side effects are reversible, and can be processed through the standard medicines. However, serious toxicities are lethal, which should be frequently followed-up, identified at an early stage and immediately symptomatic treated by high-dose immunosuppressors. In this case, thereafter, the same agent should not be challenged again.

Current Diagnosis and Management of Immune Related Adverse Events (irAEs) Induced by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

The indications of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are set to rise further with the approval of newer agent like atezolimumab for use in patients with advanced stage urothelial carcinoma. More frequent use of ICIs has improved our understanding of their unique side effects, which are known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The spectrum of irAEs has expanded beyond more common manifestations such as dermatological, gastrointestinal and endocrine effects to rarer presentations involving nervous, hematopoietic and urinary systems. There are new safety data accumulating on ICIs in patients with previously diagnosed autoimmune conditions. It is challenging for clinicians to continuously update their working knowledge to diagnose and manage these events successfully. If diagnosed timely, the majority of events are completely reversible, and temporary immunosuppression with glucocorticoids, infliximab or other agents is warranted only in the most severe grade illnesses. The same principles of management will possibly apply as newer anti- cytotoxic T lymphocytes-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) antibodies are introduced. The current focus of research is for prophylaxis and for biomarkers to predict the onset of these toxicities. In this review we summarize the irAEs of ICIs and emphasize their growing spectrum and their management algorithms, to update oncology practitioners.

Ipilimumab in melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of melanoma is evolving rapidly over the past few years. Patients with BRAFv600 mutations can be treated with a combination of a BRAF-inhibitor and an MEK-inhibitor. Patients with BRAF wild-type tumors and BRAFv600 mutated tumors can be treated with immunotherapy i.e. check point inhibitors.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the efficacy and predictive markers, safety, and pharmacoeconomics of ipilimumab in melanoma Expert commentary: Ipilimumab was the first check point inhibitor reaching the clinic, gaining FDA and EMA approval for metastatic melanoma in 2011. Ipilimumab was also approved by FDA in the adjuvant setting for patients with high risk, stage III melanoma. The anti-PD1 directed antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab are superior to single agent ipilimumab, which is no longer considered the standard first line treatment in metastatic melanoma. The addition ipilimumab to nivolumab is associated with a higher response rate and a better PFS, particularly in patients with PD-L1 negative tumors, albeit at the cost of a steep increase in grade 3-4 adverse event rate. Definitive survival data on this combination are pending and the selection of patients potentially requiring the combination and its pharmacoeconomic implications are to be elucidated.

Toxicities of the anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint antibodies

Immune checkpoint antibodies that augment the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 pathway have demonstrated antitumor activity across multiple malignancies, and gained recent regulatory approval as single-agent therapy for the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma and nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Knowledge of toxicities associated with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade, as well as effective management algorithms for these toxicities, is pivotal in order to optimize clinical efficacy and safety. In this article, we review selected published and presented clinical studies investigating single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and trials of combination approaches with other standard anticancer therapies, in multiple tumor types. We summarize the key adverse events reported in these studies and their management algorithms.