4.4 Review

Vasculitis associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors-a systematic review

期刊

CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 37, 期 9, 页码 2579-2584

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-018-4177-0

关键词

CTLA-4; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; PD-1; PDL-1; Vasculitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent experimental and genetic studies have implicated the role of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death protein-ligand 1 (PDL-1), and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) in the pathogenesis of medium and large vessel vasculitis. This study sought to evaluate the occurrence and nature of vasculitis associated with cancer treatment using immune checkpoint inhibition (anti-PD-1, anti-PDL-1, and anti-CTLA4). A systematic review of the medical literature was conducted by searching all available clinical data up to February 2018 in several databases and search engines including Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Searches included the following FDA-approved anti-PD1 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab), anti-PDL1 (atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab), and anti-CTLA4 (ipilimumab). The vasculitis cases were compiled and classified based on the 2012 revised Chapel Hill Consensus Conference nomenclature. The clinical feature of the vasculitis cases and their relationship to immune checkpoint inhibition was assessed. There were 53 cases of vasculitis of which 20 were confirmed. The main reported type of vasculitis was large vessel vasculitis and vasculitis of the central and peripheral nervous system. All cases resolved with either holding the immune checkpoint inhibitors and/or administering glucocorticoids. No death related to vasculitis was reported. Vasculitis, namely large vessel and vasculitis of the nervous system, is associated with immune checkpoint inhibition. Results of this study add to the growing evidence regarding the relationship between immune checkpoints and vasculitis and suggest that the pathway may be a therapeutic target.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据