Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved patient survival outcomes in a variety of advanced malignancies. However, they can cause a number of immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) through lymphocyte dysregulation. Central nervous system (CNS) irAEs are rare, but as the number of indications for checkpoint inhibitors increases, there has been emergence of CNS immune-mediated disease among cancer patients. Given the relatively recent recognition of checkpoint inhibitor CNS irAEs, there is no standard treatment, and prognosis is variable. Therefore, there is a great need for further study of checkpoint inhibitor-induced CNS irAEs. Here, we present two unique cases of nivolumab-induced autoimmune encephalitis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and review the available literature.

No abstract

Background: Epilepsy affects nearly 50 million people worldwide. Self-management is critical for individuals with epilepsy in order to maintain optimal physical, cognitive, and emotional health. Implementing and adopting a selfmanagement program requires considering many factors at the person, program, and systems levels. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies to identify facilitators and barriers that impact implementation and adoption of self-management programs for adults with epilepsy. Methods: We used established systematic review methodologies for qualitative and mixed-methods studies. We included studies addressing facilitators (i.e., factors that aided) or barriers (i.e., factors that impeded) to implementation and adoption of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. We conducted a narrative thematic synthesis to identify facilitators and barriers. Results: The literature search identified 2700 citations; 13 studies met eligibility criteria. Our synthesis identified five themes that categorize facilitators and barriers to successful implementation epilepsy self-management: (1) relevance, intervention content that facilitates acquisition of self-management skills; (2) personalization, intervention components that account for the individual's social, physical, and environmental characteristics; (3) intervention components, components and dosing of the intervention; (4) technology considerations, considerations that account for individual's use, familiarity with, and ownership of technology; and (5) clinician interventionist, role and preparation of the individual who leads intervention. We identified facilitators in 11 of the 13 studies and barriers in 11 of the 13 studies and classified these by social-ecological level (i.e., patient/caregiver, program, site/system).