Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants for immune-related adverse events and checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in melanoma.

Background: Recent studies indicate an association between immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and impaired survival in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Whether this is related to corticosteroids or second-line immunosuppressants is unknown. In the largest cohort thus far, we assessed the association of immunosuppressant type and dose with survival in melanoma patients with irAEs.
Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma who received immunosuppressants for irAEs induced by first-line anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA-4 were included from 18 hospitals worldwide. Associations of cumulative and peak dose corticosteroids and use of second-line immunosuppression with survival from start of immunosuppression were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression.
Results: Among 606 patients, 404 had anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-related irAEs and 202 had anti-PD-1-related irAEs. 425 patients (70 %) received corticosteroids only; 181 patients (30 %) additionally received second-line immunosuppressants. Median PFS and OS from starting immunosuppression were 4.5 (95 %CI 3.4-8.1) and 31 (95 %CI 15-not reached) months in patients who received second-line immunosuppressants, and 11 (95 %CI 9.4-14) and 55 (95 %CI 41-not reached) months in patients who did not. High corticosteroid peak dose was associated with worse PFS and OS (HR _adj 1.14; 95 %CI 1.01-1.29; HR _adj 1.29; 95 %CI 1.12-1.49 for 80vs40mg), while cumulative dose was not. Second-line immunosuppression was associated with worse PFS (HR _adj 1.32; 95 %CI 1.02-1.72) and OS (HR _adj 1.34; 95 %CI 0.99-1.82) compared with corticosteroids alone.
Conclusions: High corticosteroid peak dose and second-line immunosuppressants to treat irAEs are both associated with impaired survival. While immunosuppression is indispensable for treatment of severe irAEs, clinicians should weigh possible detrimental effects on survival against potential disadvantages of undertreatment.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GAPH reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dome, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seerave. All paid to institution. MJBA reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dome, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas and Bayer, and received research funding from Merck-Pfizer. All paid to institution. KC reports consultancy fees from Eli Lilly AbbVie and Pfizer. ATJM has received fees from AbbVie, Actelion, CSL Behring, Experf, Novartis, and Shire and declares speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CUB reports consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GSK, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dome, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Third Rock Ventures, and received research funding from 4SC, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NanoString and Novartis. All paid to institution. His is co-founder of and owns shares in Immagene BV and Signature Oncology, and is inventor on several related patents (including submitted): WO 2021/177822 A1, N2027907 and P091040NL2. SA reports consulting/advisory relationships with Merck Sharp and Dome, Sanofi, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Ipsen and Galapagos. All paid to institution. DP reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre and Novartis. Partly paid to intstitution. EK reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore and Lilly, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath, Novartis and Pierre-Fabre. Not related to current work and paid to institute. ML reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen-Cilag B.V. All paid to institution. AMMvdV reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Eisai, Merck, Pierre Fabre and Ipsen. All paid to institution. JBAGH reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Achillus Tx, AstraZenica, BioNTech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CureVac, GlaxoSmithKline, Imcyse, Iovance Bio, Instil Bio, Ipsen, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dome, Molecular Partners, Neogene TX, Novartis, Pfizer, PokeAcell, Roche, Sanofi, Scenic, T-Knife and TRV, and received research funding from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Merck Sharp and Dome, Novartis and Sastra Cell Therapy. All paid to institution. KPMS reports consulting/advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, Abbvie, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sairopa. She received honoraria from Novartis and Merck Sharp and Dome, and research funding from TigaTx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips and Genmab. All paid to institution. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)