Objective To describe the prevalence, clinical presentation, and management of rheumatic immune‐related adverse effects (Rh‐irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Methods From a database of all patients who received any ICI at the Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota campus between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2018, we retrospectively identified those with Rh‐irAEs, using diagnostic codes, search terms, and manual chart review. Results Of the 1,293 patients who received any ICI, Rh‐irAEs were clinically diagnosed in 43. Eighteen patients with Rh‐irAEs who received ICI therapy elsewhere were also analyzed. Clinical syndromes included inflammatory arthritis (n = 34 [prevalence 2%]), myopathy (n = 10), and other rheumatic syndromes (n = 17). Inflammatory arthritis was most commonly polyarticular, and glucocorticoid treatment was required in 26 patients (76%). The mean ± SD duration of treatment was 18 ± 18 weeks. Five patients (15%) also received disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, and ICI therapy had to be discontinued in 3 patients (9%). Myopathy was treated with glucocorticoids in all cases (mean ± SD treatment duration 15 ± 17 weeks) and led to 2 deaths and permanent ICI discontinuation in 9 patients (90%). Other syndromes included connective tissue diseases, vasculitis, polymyalgia rheumatica–like syndrome, and flare of preexisting rheumatic disease. Most (71%) were treated with immunosuppression, with 12% requiring ICI discontinuation. Conclusion This study represents the largest cohort of patients with Rh‐irAEs reported to date. Most patients received long courses of immunosuppressive treatment, although discontinuation of ICI therapy was required in only a minority.

To our knowledge, this represents the largest single-center cohort of patients with rheumatic diseases who were exposed to modern cancer immunotherapy. Only a minority of these patients experienced a flare of their preexisting rheumatic disease or any other IRAE.

No abstract

Oncolytic virotherapy can be achieved in two ways: (1) by exploiting an innate ability of certain viruses to selectively replicate in tumor tissues, and (2) by using viruses to deliver toxic or immunostimulatory genes to tumors. Vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) selectively replicates in tumors lacking adequate type I interferon response. The efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy using VSV against B16 melanomas in C57BL=6 mice is dependent on CD8 þ T and natural killer cells. Because immunotherapies that prime specific CD8 þ T cells against melanocyte= melanoma antigens can generate significant therapeutic responses, we hypothesized that engineering VSV to express the potent T cell costimulatory molecule CD40 ligand (VSV-CD40L) would enhance virotherapy with concomitant priming of melanoma-specific T cells. However, we observed no difference in antitumor efficacy between the parental VSV-GFP and VSV-CD40L. In contrast, intratumoral injection of a replication-defective adenovirus expressing CD40L (Ad-CD40L) consistently produced significantly greater therapy than either replication-competent VSV-GFP or VSV-CD40L. The Ad-CD40L-mediated tumor regressions were associated with specific T cell responses against tumor-associated antigens (TAAs), which took several days to develop, whereas VSV-CD40L rapidly induced high levels of T cell activation without specificity for TAAs. These data suggest that the high levels of VSV-associated immunogenicity distracted immune responses away from priming of tumor-specific T cells, even in the presence of potent costimulatory signals. In contrast, a replication-defective Ad-CD40L allowed significant priming of T cells directed against TAAs. These observations suggest that an efficiently primed antitumor T cell response can produce similar, if not better, therapy against an established melanoma compared with intratumoral injection of a replication-competent oncolytic virus.