Acute kidney injury in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury (ICPi-AKI) has emerged as an important toxicity among patients with cancer. Methods: We 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. Results: ICPi-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. Conclusions: Patients 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

Intranasal fentanyl spray versus intravenous opioids for the treatment of severe pain in patients with cancer in the emergency department setting: A randomized controlled trial.

ObjectiveIntranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting.MethodsWe randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 "none" to 10 "worst pain"). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group).ResultsAt T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (ConclusionsTwo of three analyses supported non-inferiority of INF versus IVH, while one analysis was inconclusive. Compared to IVH, INF had the advantage of shorter time to administration.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02459964

PICC lines in patients with chronic kidney disease and cancer: What are we saving the vein for?

PICC lines should be allowed in patients with cancer and CKD stage 3 and beyond as the risk of ESRD is significantly less than risk of progression of cancer or death. Based on the results of the study, future research and practice need to evaluate current guidelines in appropriateness of PICCs among patients with cancer and CKD. Joanne Dalusung pictured.https://openworks.mdanderson.org/aprn-week-21/1013/thumbnail.jp

Shorter versus longer corticosteroid duration and recurrent immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated AKI

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