-
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Mar 2022Even though a plethora of systemic therapies have been proposed for necrobiotic xanthogranuloma (NXG), there is no systematic review on this topic in literature. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Even though a plethora of systemic therapies have been proposed for necrobiotic xanthogranuloma (NXG), there is no systematic review on this topic in literature.
OBJECTIVE
To review all existing literature on the systemic therapy of NXG in order to identify the most effective therapies.
METHODS
All reported papers in the literature were screened for systemic treatments of NXG. Papers without proper description of the therapies, papers describing topical therapy, and articles without assessment of effectiveness were excluded. Subsequently, we analyzed 79 papers and a total of 175 cases.
RESULTS
The most effective treatments for NXG are intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), corticosteroids, and combination therapies including corticosteroids.
CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids and IVIG should therefore be considered first-line treatments in patients with NXG.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Necrobiotic Xanthogranuloma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35331271
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-022-02291-z -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
OBJECTIVE
This work aims to summarize both label and off-label biologics on AD treatment in phase II and phase III stages, and compile evidence on the efficacy of the most-studied biologics.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all documented biological therapies for AD. The criteria were further refined to focus on those treatments with the highest evidence level for AD with at least one randomized clinical trial supporting their use. Only studies or articles published in English were enrolled in this study.
FINDINGS
Primary searches identified 525 relevant articles and 27 trials. Duplicated articles and papers without a full text were excluded. Only completed trials were enrolled. We included 28 randomized controlled trials, 4 unpublished trials, 2 observational studies, and 1 meta-analysis. Eight kinds of biologics, including IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, anti-IL-13 antibodies, anti-IL-22 antibodies, anti-IL-33 antibodies, thymic stromal lymphopoietin inhibitor (TSLP), OX40 antibodies, and H4R-antagonists were included in this work. Dupliumab, as the most widely used and investigated biologic, was reported in 1 meta-analysis and 4 trials exploring its long-term use and application in both adults and pediatric patients. Besides dupilumab, four other IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors recruited were all randomized, clinical trials at phase 2-3 stage. Six different kinds of JAK inhibitors were summarized with strong evidence revealing their significant therapeutic effects on AD. There were 3 trials for nemolizumab, an anti-IL-13 antibody, all of which were in the phase 2 clinical trial stage. Results showed nemolizumab could be another alternative therapy for moderate-to-severe AD with long-term efficiency and safety.
CONCLUSION
The biological therapies with the most robust evidence on efficacy and long-term safety for AD treatment include dupilumab, barcitinib, abrocitinib, and delgocitinib. Most of the biologics mentioned in this review were still at the exploratory stage. This review will help practitioners advise patients seeking suitable biological therapies and offer experimental study directions for treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azetidines; Biological Products; Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Nitriles; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 33735876
DOI: 10.1159/000514535 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
Six cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain. IVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment. IVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Plasma Exchange; Polyneuropathies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35015296
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004429.pub3 -
RMD Open Dec 2023Refractory autoimmune diseases remain a significant challenge in clinical practice and new therapeutic options are needed. This systematic review evaluates the existing...
OBJECTIVE
Refractory autoimmune diseases remain a significant challenge in clinical practice and new therapeutic options are needed. This systematic review evaluates the existing reported data on the CD38-targeting antibody daratumumab as a new therapeutic approach in autoantibody-mediated autoimmune diseases.
METHODS
A protocolised systematic literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. Two databases (Medline and Embase) were searched for suitable studies. Usage of daratumumab in non-oncological or non-transplantation associated diseases with autoimmune pathophysiology was analysed including patient characteristics, therapeutic regimen, adverse events and patient outcome.
RESULTS
38 publications reporting the clinical course of 83 patients met the inclusion criteria. Daratumumab usage was reported in therapy-refractory cases (median of 5 different previous therapies) in 24 different autoimmune diseases. The median number of applications of daratumumab was 4, mainly via intravenous applications (87%). Concomitant treatment included glucocorticoids in 64% of patients, intravenous immunoglobulins (33%) and rituximab (17%). Remission or improvement of disease was reported in 81% of patients. Autoantibody depletion or reduction was stated in 52% of patients. Death occurred in three patients (3%). Adverse events were reported in 45% of patients including application-associated reaction (20%), infection (19%) and hypogammaglobulinaemia (33%).
CONCLUSION
Targeting CD38 via daratumumab is a new promising therapeutic option in therapy refractory autoimmune diseases. Efficacy as well as optimal therapeutic regimen and management or prevention of adverse events require further investigation. Therefore, systematic clinical trials of this therapeutic approach are needed.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Rituximab; Autoimmune Diseases; Autoantibodies
PubMed: 38101819
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003604 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Dec 2023The advent of targeted therapies signaled novel avenues for more optimal oncological outcomes. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have risen as a cornerstone of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The advent of targeted therapies signaled novel avenues for more optimal oncological outcomes. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have risen as a cornerstone of the ever-expanding targeted therapy era. The purpose of this systematic review is to delineate the rapidly evolving clinical landscape of ADCs for solid tumors.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases for phase II and III clinical trials. Outcomes of interest were the objective response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 92 clinical trials (76 phase II and 16 phase III) evaluated the efficacy and safety of ADCs for a plethora of solid tumors. Out of the 30 investigated ADCs, 8 have received approval by regulatory organizations for solid tumors. Currently, 52 phase III clinical trials for ADCs are ongoing.
CONCLUSION
ADCs have shown promising results for several solid tumors and various cancer settings.
Topics: Humans; Immunoconjugates; Antineoplastic Agents; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37866413
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104189 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, with an estimated incidence of 50 per 100,000 persons. People with epilepsy may present with various types of immunological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, with an estimated incidence of 50 per 100,000 persons. People with epilepsy may present with various types of immunological abnormalities, such as low serum immunoglobulin A (IgA) levels, lack of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass and identification of certain types of antibodies. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment may represent a valuable approach and its efficacy has important implications for epilepsy management. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of IVIg on the frequency and duration of seizures, quality of life and adverse effects when used as monotherapy or as add-on treatment for people with epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (2 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2 February 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 2 February 2017), Web of Science (1898 to 2 February 2017), ISRCTN registry (2 February 2017), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 2 February 2017), the US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov (2 February 2017), and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of IVIg as monotherapy or add-on treatment in people with epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Outcomes included percentage of people rendered seizure-free, 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one study (61 participants). The included study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial which compared the treatment efficacy of IVIg as an add-on with a placebo add-on in patients with refractory epilepsy. There was no significant difference between IVIg and placebo in 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. The study reported a statistically significant effect for global assessment in favour of IVIg. No adverse effects were demonstrated. We found no randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of IVIg monotherapy for epilepsy. Overall, the included study was rated as low/unclear risk of bias. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence was rated as low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We cannot draw any reliable conclusions regarding the efficacy of IVIg as a treatment for epilepsy. Further randomized controlled trials are needed.
Topics: Epilepsy; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28675262
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008557.pub3 -
The Lancet. Microbe Nov 2023Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy.
FINDINGS
We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1.
INTERPRETATION
Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19.
FUNDING
The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Australia; Treatment Outcome; Antibodies, Monoclonal
PubMed: 37924835
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00194-5 -
International Journal of... 2023Lecanemab is the latest monoclonal antibody that targets beta-amyloid approved exclusively for treatment of Alzheimer's disease with mild cognitive impairment or mild...
BACKGROUND
Lecanemab is the latest monoclonal antibody that targets beta-amyloid approved exclusively for treatment of Alzheimer's disease with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. This article aims to provide a systematic review of the efficacy, and safety of lecanemab in slowing clinical decline in Alzheimer's disease.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of various databases, including the National Institute of Health clinical trials registry, PubMed, and the Cochrane library, was conducted until July 2023 using the keywords lecanemab, BAN2401, and Alzheimer's disease. Additionally, conference abstracts listed in the Cochrane database (including Embase) and drug information from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label were examined. Only clinical trials published in the English language were considered. In total, 107 articles were retrieved, and after thorough evaluation, three randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trials involving 2729 participants were included in the analysis.
RESULTS
The FDA approved lecanemab for Alzheimer's disease in January 2023 which acts as a novel disease-modifying anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) human monoclonal antibody and is administered intravenously. Based on the clinical trials included in this review, lecanemab was found efficacious in reducing the accumulation of beta-amyloid and slowing down the cognitive decline and it was well tolerated. Lecanemab had a statistically significant change from baseline in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), Alzheimer's Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAScog14), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-MCI-ADL), and reductions in brain amyloid burden. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache, infusion-related reactions, and Amyloid related imaging abnormalities-edema.
CONCLUSIONS
Lecanemab therapy led to a substantial decrease in amyloid plaques and a noticeable slowing of clinical decline. The findings suggest a meaningful connection between the reduction in amyloid and the positive impact on patients' clinical outcomes, hinting at potential disease-modifying effects.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Activities of Daily Living; Amyloid beta-Peptides; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37902139
DOI: 10.1177/03946320231209839 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Clinical evidence suggests that first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies can improve survival in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapies in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.
INTRODUCTION
Clinical evidence suggests that first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies can improve survival in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsq-NSCLC). However, the optimal strategy remains unknown without a systematic comparison of their long-term effects.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis by retrieving up-to-date literature from PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine), and major international conference publications. Published studies and abstracts comparing first-line ICI combination therapies with other treatments for patients with advanced nsq-NSCLC were included. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was measured over 12 months for progression-free survival (PFS) and 18 months for overall survival (OS), and the Royston-Parmar model was used to extrapolate and compare data for the long-term outcomes.
RESULTS
We included a total of 11 trials involving 12 therapies and 6,130 patients. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy exhibited the best overall survival (OS) benefit at both 18 and 60 months [RMST = 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.96 to 3.97; life-years gained over a 5-year period = 2.18 years]. Nivolumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was found to present the best progression-free survival (PFS) benefit at 12 months (RMST 3.02, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.91), whereas atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy showed the best PFS benefit at 36 months (life-years gained over 3 years = 1.22 years). Subgroup analyses showed that among patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 50%, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in superior OS benefits at 18 and 60 months, respectively. Among patients with PD-L1 expression< 1%, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with OS benefits at both 18 and 60 months. Sintilimab plus chemotherapy was associated with relatively fewer grade ≥ 3 adverse events than other ICI combination therapies.
CONCLUSION
Our results show that ICI combination therapies showed better survival benefits than chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could provide the best OS benefits to patients with advanced nsq-NSCLC, whereas atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy could bring the best PFS benefits. The optimal ICI combination therapy varies depending on PD-L1 expression level.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=325005, identifier CRD42022325005.
Topics: United States; Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; B7-H1 Antigen; Nivolumab; Lung Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Bevacizumab; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36389713
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.948597 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Aug 2015Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) has an important role in T-cell regulation, proliferation and tolerance. Anti-CTLA-4 agents, such as ipilimumab and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) has an important role in T-cell regulation, proliferation and tolerance. Anti-CTLA-4 agents, such as ipilimumab and tremelimumab, have been shown to prolong overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma, and their use is being investigated in the treatment of other malignancies. Their novel immunostimulatory mechanism, however, predisposes patients to immune-related adverse effects, of which gastrointestinal effects such as diarrhoea and colitis are the most common.
AIMS
To discuss the existing literature and summarise the epidemiology, pathogenesis and clinical features of anti-CTLA-4-associated colitis, and to present a management algorithm for it.
METHODS
We searched PubMed for studies published through October 2014 using the terms 'anti-CTLA,' 'ipilimumab,' 'tremelimumab,' 'colitis,' 'gastrointestinal,' 'immune-related adverse effect,' 'immunotherapy,' 'melanoma,' and 'diarrhoea.'
RESULTS
Watery diarrhoea is commonly associated with anti-CTLA-4 therapy (27-54%), and symptoms occur within a few days to weeks of therapy. Diffuse acute and chronic colitis are the most common findings on endoscopy (8-22%). Concomitant infectious causes of diarrhoea must be evaluated. Most cases may be successfully managed with discontinuation of anti-CTLA-4 and conservative therapy. Those with persistent grade 2 and grade 3/4 diarrhoea should undergo endoscopic evaluation and require corticosteroid therapy. Corticosteroid-resistant cases may respond to anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha therapy such as infliximab. Surgery is reserved for patients with bowel perforation or failure of medical therapy.
CONCLUSION
Given the increasing use of anti-CTLA-4 therapy, clinicians must be aware of related adverse events and their management.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; CTLA-4 Antigen; Colitis; Diarrhea; Humans; Immunotherapy; Infliximab; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Skin Neoplasms; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 26079306
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13281