Renal effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors
88
Citation
67
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Recent advances in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPI) development have led to major improvements in oncology patient outcomes. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) are two essential immune checkpoint receptors. Ipilimumab and tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4-blocking antibodies) and pembrolizumab and nivolumab (antibodies targeting PD-1 receptors) have already been approved by US Food and Drug Administration in several malignancies. Two different forms of ICPI-induced renal damage have been identified, including acute (granulomatous) tubulointerstitial nephritis and immune complex glomerulonephritis. The observed acute renal damage can be reversed upon ICPI drug discontinuation and renal function can recover back to normal following the introduction of systemic corticosteroid treatment. Any delay in treating this complication could result in definitive and irreversible renal injury.Keywords:
Tremelimumab
CTLA-4
Monoclonal antibody based immune checkpoint blockade therapies have achieved clinical successes in management of malignant tumors. As the first monoclonal antibody targeting immune checkpoint molecules entered into clinics, the molecular basis of ipilimumab-based anti-CTLA-4 blockade has not yet been fully understood. In the present study, we report the complex structure of ipilimumab and CTLA-4. The complex structure showed similar contributions from VH and VL of ipilimumab in binding to CTLA-4 front β-sheet strands. The blockade mechanism of ipilimumab is that the strands of CTLA-4 contributing to the binding to B7-1 or B7-2 were occupied by ipilimumab and thereafter prevents the binding of B7-1 or B7-2 to CTLA-4. Though ipilimumab binds to the same epitope with tremelimumab on CTLA-4 with similar binding affinity, the higher dissociation rate of ipilimumab may indicate the dynamic binding to CTLA-4, which may affect its pharmacokinetics. The molecular basis of ipilimumab-based anti-CTLA-4 blockade and comparative study of the binding characteristics of ipilimumab and tremelimumab would shed light for the discovery of small molecular inhibitors and structure-based monoclonal antibody optimization or new biologics.
Tremelimumab
CTLA-4
Immune checkpoint
Cite
Citations (81)
Recent studies suggest that combining nivolumab with ipilimumab is a more effective treatment for melanoma patients, compared to using ipilimumab or nivolumab alone. However, treatment with these immunotherapeutic agents is frequently associated with increased risk of toxicity, and (auto-) immune-related adverse events. The precise pathophysiologic mechanisms of these events are not yet clear, and evidence from clinical trials and translational studies remains limited. Our retrospective analysis of ~7700 metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab and/or nivolumab from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) demonstrates that the identified immune-related reactions are specific to ipilimumab and/or nivolumab, and that when the two agents are administered together, their safety profile combines reactions from each drug alone. While more prospective studies are needed to characterize the safety of ipilimumab and nivolumab, the present work constitutes perhaps the first effort to examine the safety of these drugs and their combination based on computational evidence from real world post marketing data.
Cite
Citations (25)
Tremelimumab
CTLA-4
Cite
Citations (9)
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial.
Cite
Citations (3,067)
In an early-phase study involving patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with nivolumab monotherapy, particularly among patients with tumors that expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Data are needed to assess the long-term benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with NSCLC.
Cite
Citations (2,316)
ABSTRACTMetastatic melanoma has less frequency, but considered as the most dreaded cancer. The combination of nivolumab & ipilimumab is proving their mettle in treating metastatic melanoma. The patients when administered with the combination of nivolumab & ipilimumab have shown improved median progression free survival, objective response rate and overall survival rate compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab monotherapy. The combination shrinks the tumor cells by attacking different checkpoints viz. CTLA-4 and PD-L1, respectively. The combination treatment reveals reduced disease progression and suggests nivolumab's non-cross resistant nature. The median progression free survival in "nivolumab plus ipilimumab" group has shown an increase of 66.7% and 296.6% in comparison to nivolumab and ipilimumab monotherapy. The other parameter viz. objective response rate improvement is equivalent to almost 14% and 38.6% when compared to nivolumab and ipilimumab monotherapy, respectively.KEYWORDS: Checkpoint inhibitorsmedian progression free survivalmetastatic melanomametastasizenivolumab AcknowledgementsThis research work was funded by the Institutional Fund projects under grant no. (IFPDP-111-22). Therefore, the authors gratefully acknowledge technical and financial support from the Ministry of Education and King Abdulaziz University, Deanship of Scientific Research, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Author contributionsConceived and designed the study or experiments: MW RKM AJ AA AHM SH (Steve Harakeh) AH SF RP SHh (Shafiul Haque). Performed the experiments/Collected the data: MW RKM AJ AA. Analyzed the data: MW RKM AJ AA. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: AHM SH AH SF RP SHh. Wrote the paper: MW RKM AJ AA AHM SH AH SF RP SHh. All authors reviewed the manuscript.Additional informationFundingThis research work was funded by the Institutional Fund projects under grant no. (IFPDP-111-22). Therefore, the authors gratefully acknowledge technical and financial support from the Ministry of Education and King Abdulaziz University, Deanship of Scientific Research, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Combination therapy
Cite
Citations (0)
Abstract Background: Currently, nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy in cancer treatment. Methods: We examined data from PubMed, Web of science, EBSCO and Cochrane library. Eleven articles fulfilled our criteria, which we divided into 3 groups; nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab, nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab and nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3) versus nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1). We measured the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR) and TRAEs in any grade and grade 3 or higher. Results: Compared with ipilimumab alone, the combined immunotherapy had better CR (RR: 4.89, p <0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, p <0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, p <0.001). The overall effect estimate favored the combined immunotherapy group in terms of the ORR (RR: 1.40, p <0.001) and PR (RR: 1.50, p <0.001) than nivolumab alone. Finally, N1I3 showed better PR (RR: 1.35, p =0.006) and ORR (RR: 1.21, p =0.03) than N3I1. The incidence of any TRAEs was similar between the both groups (RR: 1.05, p =0.06). However, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were lower in group N3I1 than group N1I3 (RR: 1.51, p <0.001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that the curative effect of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was better than that of ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy. In the combination group, N1I3 combination was more effective than N3I1. Although the side effects were slightly increased in group N1I3, the overall safety was acceptable.
Cite
Citations (0)
Antibody therapy
CTLA-4
Cite
Citations (168)
Patients with metastatic melanoma whose disease progresses on ipilimumab can clearly derive benefit from subsequent anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1). However, patients experience heterogeneous outcomes with ipilimumab, including rapid or delayed progression, and it is unclear whether patterns of ipilimumab progression influence subsequent clinical responses to anti-PD-1. We retrospectively reviewed data from 116 patients with metastatic melanoma who progressed on ipilimumab and were subsequently treated with pembrolizumab. The study objectives were to determine whether progression-free survival (PFS) with ipilimumab was associated with PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR; ORR + stable disease) with pembrolizumab. Patients with PFS ≥90 days after treatment with ipilimumab generally had superior outcomes with subsequent pembrolizumab treatment compared with patients with PFS <90 days (ORR, 49% vs. 35%, P = 0.12; CBR, 66% vs. 46%, P = 0.03). Patients with prolonged ipilimumab benefit (PFS ≥ 180 days) had excellent outcomes with pembrolizumab compared with rapid progressors (PFS < 45 days; ORR, 55% vs. 25%; CBR, 80% vs. 25%; median PFS, 249 vs. 50 days). Using logistic regression models, PFS with ipilimumab was independently correlated with response to pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51). This study shows that prolonged PFS with ipilimumab predicts excellent outcomes with subsequent pembrolizumab treatment, offering valuable prognostic information for clinicians. Cancer Immunol Res; 4(7); 569-73. ©2016 AACR.
Cite
Citations (20)
Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) are inhibitory checkpoints that are commonly seen on activated T cells and have been offered as promising targets for the treatment of cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)targeting PD-1, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab, and those targeting its ligand PD-L1, including avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab, and two drugs targeting CTLA-4, including ipilimumab and tremelimumab have been approved for the treatment of several cancers and many others are under investigating in advanced trial phases. ICIs increased antitumor T cells’ responses and showed a key role in reducing the acquired immune system tolerance which is overexpressed by cancer and tumor microenvironment. However, 50% of patients could not benefit from ICIs monotherapy. To overcome this, a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is frequently investigated as an approach to improve oncological outcomes. Despite promising results for the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, safety concerns slowed down the development of such strategies. Herein, we review data concerning the clinical activity and the adverse events of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy, assessing ongoing clinical trials to identify clinical outlines that may support combination therapy as an effective treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is one of the first studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy in several cancers.
Durvalumab
Tremelimumab
Atezolizumab
Combination therapy
Avelumab
CTLA-4
Immune checkpoint
Cite
Citations (93)