Search

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury (ICPi-AKI), but the optimal duration of therapy has not been established. Prolonged use of corticosteroids can cause numerous adverse effects and may decrease progression-free survival among patients treated with ICPis. We sought to determine whether a shorter duration of corticosteroids was equally efficacious and safe as compared with a longer duration. METHODS: We used data from an international multicenter cohort study of patients diagnosed with ICPi-AKI from 29 centers across nine countries. We examined whether a shorter duration of corticosteroids (28 days or less) was associated with a higher rate of recurrent ICPi-AKI or death within 30 days following completion of corticosteroid treatment as compared with a longer duration (29-84 days). RESULTS: Of 165 patients treated with corticosteroids, 56 (34%) received a shorter duration of treatment and 109 (66%) received a longer duration. Patients in the shorter versus longer duration groups were similar with respect to baseline and ICPi-AKI characteristics. Five of 56 patients (8.9%) in the shorter duration group and 12 of 109 (11%) in the longer duration group developed recurrent ICPi-AKI or died (p=0.90). Nadir serum creatinine in the first 14, 28, and 90 days following completion of corticosteroid treatment was similar between groups (p=0.40, p=0.56, and p=0.89, respectively). CONCLUSION: A shorter duration of corticosteroids (28 days or less) may be safe for patients with ICPi-AKI. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury (ICPi-AKI) has emerged as an important toxicity among patients with cancer.MethodsWe collected data on 429 patients with ICPi-AKI and 429 control patients who received ICPis contemporaneously but who did not develop ICPi-AKI from 30 sites in 10 countries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ICPi-AKI and its recovery. A multivariable Cox model was used to estimate the effect of ICPi rechallenge versus no rechallenge on survival following ICPi-AKI.ResultsICPi-AKI occurred at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 8-32) following ICPi initiation. Lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and extrarenal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were each associated with a higher risk of ICPi-AKI. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis was the most common lesion on kidney biopsy (125/151 biopsied patients [82.7%]). Renal recovery occurred in 276 patients (64.3%) at a median of 7 weeks (IQR 3-10) following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids within 14 days following ICPi-AKI diagnosis was associated with higher odds of renal recovery (adjusted OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.58 to 4.41). Among patients treated with corticosteroids, early initiation of corticosteroids (within 3 days of ICPi-AKI) was associated with a higher odds of renal recovery compared with later initiation (more than 3 days following ICPi-AKI) (adjusted OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16 to 3.79). Of 121 patients rechallenged, 20 (16.5%) developed recurrent ICPi-AKI. There was no difference in survival among patients rechallenged versus those not rechallenged following ICPi-AKI.ConclusionsPatients who developed ICPi-AKI were more likely to have impaired renal function at baseline, use a PPI, and have extrarenal irAEs. Two-thirds of patients had renal recovery following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids was associated with improved renal recovery.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used for various malignancies. However, their safety and efficacy in patients with a kidney transplant have not been defined. To delineate this, we conducted a multicenter retrospective study of 69 patients with a kidney transplant receiving ICIs between January 2010 and May 2020. For safety, we assessed the incidence, timing, and risk factors of acute graft rejection. For efficacy, objective response rate and overall survival were assessed in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma, the most common cancers in our cohort, and compared with stage-matched 23 patients with squamous cell carcinoma and 14 with melanoma with a kidney transplant not receiving ICIs. Following ICI treatment, 29 out of 69 (42%) patients developed acute rejection, 19 of whom lost their allograft, compared with an acute rejection rate of 5.4% in the non-ICI cohort. Median time from ICI initiation to rejection was 24 days. Factors associated with a lower risk of rejection were mTOR inhibitor use (odds ratio 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.72) and triple-agent immunosuppression (0.67, 0.48-0.92). The objective response ratio was 36.4% and 40% in the squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma subgroups, respectively. In the squamous cell carcinoma subgroup, overall survival was significantly longer in patients treated with ICIs (median overall survival 19.8 months vs. 10.6 months), whereas in the melanoma subgroup, overall survival did not differ between groups. Thus, ICIs were associated with a high risk of rejection in patients with kidney transplants but may lead to improved cancer outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to determine optimal immunosuppression strategies to improve patient outcomes.

Despite recent advances in the management of urothelial cancer (UC), cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy regimens remain critical. However, their use can be complicated in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is not uncommon in UC patients. Based on the Galsky criteria for cisplatin ineligibility, most patients with CKD will be excluded from receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy altogether. For patients with borderline kidney function, several strategies – such as the use of split-dose cisplatin, dose reductions, or extra hydration – may facilitate the use of cisplatin, but these need to be prospectively validated. This review highlights the critical need for a multidisciplinary team, including onco-nephrologists, to help manage renal complications and optimize delivery of cancer care in complex UC patients with CKD. Plain Language Summary In patients with urothelial cancer, the presence of chronic kidney disease can significantly impact treatment options, eligibility for clinical trials, and overall patient outcomes. This review discusses key strategies and newer treatment options that can be used to optimize outcomes in patients who often can't receive standard treatments. Importantly, this article also highlights the critical importance and need for a multidisciplinary team of specialists, including kidney specialists with a focus on cancer patients, to help manage kidney function and deliver high-quality care to patients with urothelial cancer and chronic kidney disease. Tweetable Abstract How can we more effectively treat metastatic urothelial cancer patients who have chronic kidney disease? We discuss the evolving treatment landscape, highlight current challenges, and future directions, including the key role for onco-nephrologists as part of the multidisciplinary care team. #urothelialcancer #bladdercancer #CKD #onconephrology. Article highlights Chronic kidney disease is common in patients with cancer. It is thought to affect 34.1–54.7% of urothelial cancer patients and can result in inferior outcomes. Onco-nephrology clinics can help in the management of these patients. Hydration and magnesium supplementation are important to reduce cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. In patients with poor kidney function, alternative regimens such as split-dose cisplatin and carboplatin can also be used where appropriate. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiological Collaboration equation is recommended for routine monitoring of kidney function in urothelial cancer patients. Onco-nephrologists can help when there is difficulty in accurately assessing kidney function. Hydronephrosis is a common finding in patients with urothelial cancer. Percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteric stenting can be considered for these patients to help optimize their kidney function. Discussion with onco-nephrology, urology, and interventional radiology can help to clarify the optimal approach. For patients undergoing dialysis, platinum-based chemotherapy can be considered on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with onco-nephrology input to decide on optimal dosing and timing of treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors can also be considered with evidence showing comparable side effects to non-dialysis patients. There are few data to guide the use of platinum chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid organ transplant patients. Multidisciplinary input including the transplant physician and onco-nephrology is paramount in monitoring graft function and the dosing of antirejection medications. Special consideration should be given to the implications and risk of rejection. Chronic kidney disease patients are under-represented in clinical trials, which limits the generalizability of these data to these patients. The inclusion criteria for clinical trials should be broadened to include chronic kidney disease patients and the criteria for assessing kidney function should be harmonized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last 13 years, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has grown remarkably, owing to their unprecedented anti-tumor efficacy in certain tumor groups. With increased use of ICIs, we are seeing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) more frequently. Renal irAEs, such as ICI-associated acute kidney injury (ICI-AKI), are reported in 2%–5% of patients treated with ICIs, with acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (ATIN) as the most common histopathologic lesion, though various forms of glomerulonephritis have also been reported. Modifiable risk factors for ICI-AKI include concurrent use of ATIN-associated drugs, like proton pump inhibitors, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics, and dual ICI therapy with both Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte Associated Protein 4 (CTLA-4) and Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 and its ligand (PD1/PDL-1) blockade. Kidney biopsies remain the diagnostic modality of choice, though several promising non-invasive biomarkers, which have not yet been broadly clinically validated have emerged. The treatment of ICI-AKI involves holding ICIs, discontinuation of ATIN-associated drugs and initiation of immunosuppression with corticosteroids as first-line therapy. With prompt treatment initiation, most patients achieve full or partial renal recovery, allowing for re-challenge with ICI. However, a subset of patients will require additional steroid-sparing therapies for corticosteroid-dependent or refractory ICI-AKI. Here we review developments in our understanding of the pathophysiology of ICI-AKI, the approach to diagnosis (with a focus on the emergence of novel diagnostic tools), prognostic factors and the current evidence for establishing treatment standards for ICI-AKI. As the evidence base remains largely retrospective, we identify questions that would benefit from future prospective studies in the diagnosis, management and prognostication of ICI-AKI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) across cancer programs has created the need for standardized monitoring and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Delayed recognition without appropriate treatment can have serious and life-threatening consequences. The management of irAEs presents a unique set of challenges that must be addressed at a multidisciplinary level. Although various national and international guidelines and working groups provide high-level recommendations for the management of irAEs, practical guidance is lacking. Furthermore, timely collaboration between specialists requires institutional protocols that enable the early recognition, assessment, and treatment of irAEs. Such protocols should be developed by institution specialists and include algorithms for all healthcare providers involved in the care of patients treated with ICIs. At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, practical step-by-step multidisciplinary treatment approaches with recommendations for the management of irAEs were developed in collaboration with experts across Canada. Here, we provide an in-depth description of the approaches, outlining baseline investigations prior to the initiation of ICIs, as well as the monitoring and management of irAEs based on symptoms, severity, and involved organ systems. We encourage other centres to adapt and modify our approaches according to their specific needs and requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As life expectancy among pediatric solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) improves, the risk of comorbid conditions such as malignancy post-transplantation has also increased. SOTRs are at elevated risks of post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLDs), and skin and solid cancers. PTLDs typically occur early following transplantation, while skin and solid cancers frequently arise in young adulthood (25-40 years). By 30 years following transplantation, 26-41% of pediatric SOTRs have developed cancer. Different risk factors exist for PTLD, and skin and solid cancers, which are modified by cumulative immunosuppression, infections, transplanted organ, and the underlying disease process associated with initial organ failure (e.g., kidney failure). Optimal cancer treatment strategies depend on the specific cancer type, stage, and patient comorbidities. Immunosuppression reduction may be beneficial for certain cancers but must be considered against the risks of acute and chronic rejection and allograft loss. Lifestyle counseling regarding smoking avoidance and sun protection, as well as human papillomavirus vaccination, is an important aspect of cancer prevention. Currently, no cancer screening guidelines exist specifically for pediatric SOTRs. Adult population screening guidelines have not been validated in transplant populations. Therefore, an individualized approach should be taken to cancer screening for pediatric SOTRs, accounting for other cancer risk factors., Author(s): Cal Robinson [sup.1] [sup.2] , Rahul Chanchlani [sup.3] [sup.4] [sup.5] , Abhijat Kitchlu [sup.6] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.42327.30, 0000 0004 0473 9646, Division of Paediatric Nephrology, Department of Paediatrics, [...]

Introduction: Collaborative management of kidney disease relies on coordinated and effective partnerships between multiple providers. Siloed traditional health systems often result in delays, barriers to treatment access, and inefficient monitoring. Methods: We conducted a 1-year observational mixed-methods study. We included all consecutive referrals except for patients without telephone access. We assessed 4 domains of outcomes: (1) patient and caregiver experience, (2) provider experience (e.g., physicians and pharmacists), (3) clinical outcomes specific to medication-related outcomes (e.g., adherence, adverse drug events [ADEs]), and (4) value and efficiency (i.e., medication access, defined as time to treatment and resolution of medication reimbursement issues). Results: Sixty-five patients were referred to the integrated virtual pharmacy (iVRx) model. Most (72%) patients were male. Patients had a median (min, max) age of 60 (27, 85) years and were taking 8 (4, 13) medications. Compared with traditional care delivery models, medication access improved for 56% of participants. Direct home delivery of medication resulted in 91% of patients receiving prescriptions within 2 days of a nephrologist visit. During more than 2,000 pharmacist-patient encounters, 208 ADEs were identified that required clinician intervention to prevent patient harm. When these ADEs were classified by severity, 53% were mild, 45% were moderate (e.g., delaying dose titration in patients initiated on glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists due to intolerable gastrointestinal side effects), and the remaining 2% of ADEs were severe, meaning clinical intervention was required to prevent a serious outcome (e.g., uncontrolled blood pressure, prevention of acute kidney injury). Nephrologists reported high satisfaction with iVRx, citing efficiency, timely response, and collaboration with pharmacists as key facilitators. Of the 65 patient participants, 98% reported being extremely satisfied. Conclusions: The iVRx is an acceptable and feasible clinical strategy. Our pilot program was associated with improved kidney care by increasing medication access for patients and avoiding potential harms associated with ADEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]