Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies, are arguably the most important development in cancer therapy over the past decade. The indications for these agents continue to expand across malignancies and disease settings, thus reshaping many of the previous standard-of-care approaches and bringing new hope to patients. One of the costs of these advances is the emergence of a new spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often distinctly different from the classical chemotherapy-related toxicities. Owing to the growing use of ICIs in oncology, clinicians will increasingly be confronted with common but also rare irAEs; hence, awareness needs to be raised regarding the clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of these toxicities. In this Review, we provide an overview of the various types of irAEs that have emerged to date. We discuss the epidemiology of these events and their kinetics, risk factors, subtypes and pathophysiology, as well as new insights regarding screening and surveillance strategies. We also highlight the most important aspects of the management of irAEs.Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically improved the survival of patients with certain forms of cancer; however, these agents also have adverse effects that are often quite different to those of more traditional cancer therapies. In this Review, the authors describe the epidemiology, treatment and management of the various immune-related adverse events that can occur in patients receiving ICIs.

AbstractThe American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's Third Practice Advisory on local anesthetic systemic toxicity is an interim update from its 2010 advisory. The advisory focuses on new information regarding the mechanisms of lipid resuscitation, updated frequency estimates, the preventative role of ultrasound guidance, changes to case presentation patterns, and limited information related to local infiltration anesthesia and liposomal bupivacaine. In addition to emerging information, the advisory updates recommendations pertaining to prevention, recognition, and treatment of local anesthetic systemic toxicity.What’s New in This Update?This interim update summarizes recent scientific findings that have enhanced our understanding of the mechanisms that lead to lipid emulsion reversal of LAST, including rapid partitioning, direct inotropy, and post-conditioning. Since the previous practice advisory, epidemiological data have emerged that suggest a lower frequency of LAST as reported by single institutions and some registries, nevertheless a considerable number of events still occur within the general community. Contemporary case reports suggest a trend toward delayed presentation, which may mirror the increased use of ultrasound guidance (fewer intravascular injections), local infiltration techniques (slower systemic uptake), and continuous local anesthetic infusions. Small patient size and sarcopenia are additional factors that increase potential risk for LAST. An increasing number of reported events occur outside of the traditional hospital setting and involve non-anesthesiologists.

Ovarian cancer remains one of the most challenging malignancies to treat. Targeted therapies such as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have emerged as one of the most exciting new treatments for ovarian cancer, particularly in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or those without a functional homologous recombination repair pathway. Perhaps the most advantageous characteristic of PARP inhibitors is their mechanism of action, which targets cancer cells on the basis of their inherent deficiencies while seemingly avoiding normally functioning cells. Although health-care providers might assume a low toxicity profile because of their specific mechanism of action, PARP inhibitors are not completely benign and overall show a class effect adverse-event profile. Further complicating this situation, three different PARP inhibitors have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2014, each with their own specific indications and individual toxicity profiles. The diversity of adverse events seen both within and across this class of drug underscores the importance of having a comprehensive reference to help guide clinical decision making when treating patients. This Review characterises and compares all toxicities associated with each PARP inhibitor, both in monotherapy and in novel combinations with other drugs, with a particular focus on potential management strategies to help mitigate toxic effects. Although the excitement surrounding PARP inhibitors might certainly be warranted, a thorough understanding of all associated toxicities is imperative to ensure that patients can achieve maximal clinical benefit.

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) cause considerable mortality and morbidity but no recent reviews are currently available for the European region. Therefore, we performed a review of all epidemiological studies quantifying ADRs in a European setting that were published between 1 January 2000 and 3 September 2014. Included studies assessed the number of patients who were admitted to hospital due to an ADR, studies that assessed the number of patients who developed an ADR during hospitalization, and studies that measured ADRs in the outpatient setting. In total, 47 articles were included in the final review. The median percentage of hospital admissions due to an ADR was 3.5 %, based on 22 studies, and the median percentage of patients who experienced an ADR during hospitalization was 10.1 %, based on 13 studies. Only five studies were found that assessed ADRs occurring in the outpatient setting. These results indicate that the occurrence of ADRs in the European hospital setting—both ADRs that result in hospitalization and ADRs that occur during the hospital stay—is significant. Furthermore, the limited number of studies that were performed in the outpatient setting identify a lack of information regarding the epidemiology of ADRs in this setting.

The majority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have disease progression of a uniformly fatal disease. mCRPC is driven by both activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoural androgens; however, the current standard of care is therapy that targets a single androgen signalling mechanism. We aimed to investigate the combination treatment using apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate, each of which suppresses the androgen signalling axis in a different way, versus standard care in mCRPC. ACIS was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 167 hospitals in 17 countries in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and South America. We included chemotherapy-naive men (aged ≥18 years) with mCRPC who had not been previously treated with androgen biosynthesis signalling inhibitors and were receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form question 3 (ie, worst pain in the past 24 h) score of 3 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive web response system with a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size 4) to oral apalutamide 240 mg once daily plus oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily and oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily (apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone group) or placebo plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (abiraterone–prednisone group), in 28-day treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases, ECOG performance status, and geographical region. Patients, the investigators, study team, and the sponsor were masked to group assignments. An independent data-monitoring committee continually monitored data to ensure ongoing patient safety, and reviewed efficacy data. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was reported for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is completed and no longer recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02257736. 982 men were enrolled and randomly assigned from Dec 10, 2014 to Aug 30, 2016 (492 to apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone; 490 to abiraterone–prednisone). At the primary analysis (median follow-up 25·7 months [IQR 23·0–28·9]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 22·6 months (95% CI 19·4–27·4) in the apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone group versus 16·6 months (13·9–19·3) in the abiraterone–prednisone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·58–0·83; p<0·0001). At the updated analysis (final analysis for overall survival; median follow-up 54·8 months [IQR 51·5–58·4]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 24·0 months (95% CI 19·7–27·5) versus 16·6 months (13·9–19·3; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60–0·83; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse event was hypertension (82 [17%] of 490 patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone and 49 [10%] of 489 receiving abiraterone–prednisone). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 195 (40%) patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone and 181 (37%) patients receiving abiraterone–prednisone. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events with fatal outcomes occurred in three (1%) patients in the apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone group (2 pulmonary embolism, 1 cardiac failure) and five (1%) patients in the abiraterone–prednisone group (1 cardiac failure and 1 cardiac arrest, 1 mesenteric arterial occlusion, 1 seizure, and 1 sudden death). Despite the use of an active and established therapy as the comparator, apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone improved radiographic progression-free survival. Additional studies to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit the most from combination therapy are needed to further refine the treatment of mCRPC. Janssen Research & Development.

Cancer immunotherapy, which leverages features of the immune system to target neoplastic cells, has revolutionized the treatment of cancer. The use of these therapies has rapidly expanded in the past two decades. Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent one drug class within immunotherapy with its first agent FDA-approved in 2011. Immune checkpoint inhibitors act by disrupting inhibitory signals from neoplastic cells to immune effector cells, allowing activated T-cells to target these neoplastic cells. Unique adverse effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors are termed immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) and are usually immunostimulatory in nature. Almost all organ systems may be affected by irAEs including the dermatologic, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, endocrine, and cardiovascular systems. These effects range from mild to life-threatening, and their onset can be delayed several weeks or months. For mild irAEs, symptomatic care is usually sufficient. For higher grade irAEs, discontinuation of therapy and initiation of immunosuppressive therapy may be necessary. The management of patients with irAEs involves multidisciplinary care coordination with respect to the long-term goals the individual patient. Clinicians must be aware of the unique and sometimes fatal toxicologic profiles associated with immunotherapies to ensure prompt diagnosis and appropriate management.

The American College of Medical Toxicology established the Toxicology Investigators Consortium (ToxIC) Case Registry in 2010. The Registry contains all medical toxicology consultations performed at participating sites. The Registry has continued to grow since its inception, and as of December 31, 2015, contains 43,099 cases. This is the sixth annual report of the ToxIC Registry, summarizing the additional 8115 cases entered in 2015. Cases were identified by a query of the Registry for all cases entered between January 1 and December 31, 2015. Specific data reviewed for analysis included demographics (age, race, gender), source of consultation, reason for consultation, agents and agent classes involved in exposures, signs, symptoms, clinical findings, fatalities, and treatment. By the end of 2015, there were 50 active sites, consisting of 101 separate health-care facilities; 51.2 % of cases involved females. Adults between the ages of 19 and 65 made up the majority (64.2 %) of Registry cases. Caucasian race was the most commonly reported (55.6 %); 9.6 % of cases were identified as Hispanic ethnicity. Inpatient and emergency department referrals were by far the most common referral sources (92.9 %). Intentional pharmaceutical exposures remained the most frequent reason for consultation, making up 52.3 % of cases. Of these intentional pharmaceutical exposures, 69 % represented an attempt at self-harm, and 85.6 % of these were a suicide attempt. Nonopioid analgesics, sedative-hypnotics, and antidepressant agents were the most commonly reported agent classes in 2015. Almost one-third of Registry cases involved a diagnosed toxidrome (32.8 %), with a sedative-hypnotic toxidrome being the most frequently described. Significant vital sign abnormalities were recorded in 25.3 % of cases. There were 98 fatalities reported in the Registry (1.2 %). Adverse drug reactions were reported in 4.3 % of cases. Toxicological treatment was given in 65.3 % of cases, with 33.0 % receiving specific antidotal therapy. Exposure characteristics and trends overall were similar to prior years. While treatment interventions were required in the majority of cases, fatalities were rare.

ABSTRACTThe experimental use of lipid emulsion for local anesthetic toxicity was originally identified in 1998. It was then translated to clinical practice in 2006 and expanded to drugs other than local anesthetics in 2008. Our understanding of lipid resuscitation therapy has progressed considerably since the previous update from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and the scientific evidence has coalesced around specific discrete mechanisms. Intravenous lipid emulsion therapy provides a multimodal resuscitation benefit that includes both scavenging (eg, the lipid shuttle) and nonscavenging components. The intravascular lipid compartment scavenges drug from organs susceptible to toxicity and accelerates redistribution to organs where drug (eg, bupivacaine) is stored, detoxified, and later excreted. In addition, lipid exerts nonscavenging effects that include postconditioning (via activation of prosurvival kinases) along with cardiotonic and vasoconstrictive benefits. These effects protect tissue from ischemic damage and increase tissue perfusion during recovery from toxicity. Other mechanisms have diminished in favor based on lack of evidence; these include direct effects on channel currents (eg, calcium) and mass-effect overpowering a block in mitochondrial metabolism. In this narrative review, we discuss these proposed mechanisms and address questions left to answer in the field. Further work is needed, but the field has made considerable strides towards understanding the mechanisms.

During the last few years, several new drugs have been introduced for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, which have significantly improved the treatment outcome. All of these novel substances differ at least in part in their mode of action from similar drugs of the same drug class, or are representatives of new drug classes, and as such present with very specific side effect profiles. In this review, we summarize these adverse events, provide information on their prevention, and give practical guidance for monitoring of patients and for management of adverse events.