6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Incidence, risk factors and outcomes of checkpoint inhibitor-induced liver injury: A 10-year real-world retrospective cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background & Aims

          Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) account for increasing numbers of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) cases. We aimed to determine the incidence rate and risk factors associated with checkpoint inhibitor-induced liver injury (ChILI).

          Methods

          Prescription event monitoring was performed on all melanoma and renal cancer patients who received CPI at a tertiary centre between 2011 and 2021. ChILI cases were identified using the definitions, grading, and causality assessment methods validated for DILI. We assessed risk factors associated with ChILI in CPI-naive patients using multivariable logistic regression model. Consecutive patients with suspected ChILI from two other tertiary centres were adjudicated and combined for case characterisation and outcomes of ChILI.

          Results

          Out of 432 patients who received CPI over 10 years, ChILI occurred in 38 (8.8%) with an overall incidence rate of 11.5 per 1,000 person-months (95% CI 8.2–15.8). Probability of ChILI was highest in combination therapy (32%) and no new events occurred beyond 135 days of treatment. Risk factor analysis showed that combination therapy, female sex, higher baseline alanine transferase level and lower baseline alkaline phosphatase level were independently associated with higher risk of ChILI. In total, 99 patients were adjudicated to have ChILI from three centres. Although Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events classified 20 patients (20.2%) to have ‘life-threatening’ grade 4 hepatitis, ChILI severity was graded as mild in 45 (45.5%) and moderate in the remaining 54 (54.5%) cases.

          Conclusions

          The real-world risk of ChILI is higher than previously reported. Among patients receiving dual CPI, this risk falls markedly after 4.5 months. As Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events overestimates its clinical severity, case-definition, evaluation and management of ChILI should be revised to harmonise care.

          Impact and implications

          Using prescription event monitoring over a 10-year period, the incidence rate of checkpoint inhibitor induced liver injury (ChILI) based on established case definitions for drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is 11.5 per 1,000 person-months. Formal causality assessment identified an alternative cause in 19% of patients with suspected ChILI highlighting the importance of systematic evaluation by clinicians to minimise unnecessary immunosuppression. Intensity of monitoring in patients receiving combination therapy regime after 4.5 months of therapy can be reduced as the risk of new onset ChILI beyond this point is minimal. Current Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading overestimates clinical severity of ChILI and hence contributes to avoidable hospitalisation.

          Graphical abstract

          Highlights

          • Real-world risk of checkpoint inhibitor-induced liver injury (ChILI) is higher than previously reported.

          • In patients receiving a combination therapy regimen, the risk of new onset ChILI beyond 4.5 months of therapy is minimal.

          • Female sex, lower baseline ALP and higher ALT are independent factors associated with increased risk of ChILI.

          • Severity of ChILI using DILI criteria is lower than that estimated by the CTCAE criteria used in oncology.

          • Rechallenge following ChILI is feasible; less than 10% develop recurrent liver injury that meet DILI criteria.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma

          New England Journal of Medicine, 373(1), 23-34
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

            Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

              The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progression-free and overall survival. The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P=0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P=0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JHEP Rep
                JHEP Rep
                JHEP Reports
                Elsevier
                2589-5559
                18 July 2023
                October 2023
                18 July 2023
                : 5
                : 10
                : 100851
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                [2 ]National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                [3 ]Department of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
                [4 ]Department of Oncology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
                [5 ]Leeds Liver Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
                [6 ]Centre for Cancer Sciences, Translational Medical Sciences, Biodiscovery Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Address: Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. guru.aithal@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                Article
                S2589-5559(23)00182-9 100851
                10.1016/j.jhepr.2023.100851
                10505983
                37727807
                df0fc7d9-4fdc-4f2e-855e-e8fa82a403d0
                © 2023 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 June 2023
                : 6 July 2023
                Categories
                Research Article

                checkpoint inhibitors,immunotherapy,immune-mediated hepatitis,hepatotoxicity,drug-induced liver injury,incidence rate,risk factors

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content30

                Cited by9

                Most referenced authors972