A multi-center study on safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients with kidney transplant.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used for various malignancies. However, their safety and efficacy in patients with a kidney transplant have not been defined. To delineate this, we conducted a multicenter retrospective study of 69 patients with a kidney transplant receiving ICIs between January 2010 and May 2020. For safety, we assessed the incidence, timing, and risk factors of acute graft rejection. For efficacy, objective response rate and overall survival were assessed in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma, the most common cancers in our cohort, and compared with stage-matched 23 patients with squamous cell carcinoma and 14 with melanoma with a kidney transplant not receiving ICIs. Following ICI treatment, 29 out of 69 (42%) patients developed acute rejection, 19 of whom lost their allograft, compared with an acute rejection rate of 5.4% in the non-ICI cohort. Median time from ICI initiation to rejection was 24 days. Factors associated with a lower risk of rejection were mTOR inhibitor use (odds ratio 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.72) and triple-agent immunosuppression (0.67, 0.48-0.92). The objective response ratio was 36.4% and 40% in the squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma subgroups, respectively. In the squamous cell carcinoma subgroup, overall survival was significantly longer in patients treated with ICIs (median overall survival 19.8 months vs. 10.6 months), whereas in the melanoma subgroup, overall survival did not differ between groups. Thus, ICIs were associated with a high risk of rejection in patients with kidney transplants but may lead to improved cancer outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to determine optimal immunosuppression strategies to improve patient outcomes.

Impact of a telemedicine eICU cart on sepsis management in a community hospital emergency department.

Introduction Intensivist involvement for patients with sepsis is associated with decreased complications and mortality, and lower hospital resource utilization, but few studies have evaluated outcomes for patients exposed to electronic intensive care unit (eICU) telemedicine sepsis management in the emergency department (ED). In this study, we assess whether eICU cart exposure in the ED improved compliance with components of the 2010 Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles, length of stay (LOS), disposition and hospital costs. Methods An institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study was completed on patients with confirmed sepsis who presented to our ED from July 2010 through February 2013. Results Of 711 patient ED encounters, 314 cases met criteria for analysis (95 exposed and 219 non-exposed). Patient cohorts had similar demographics and comorbid International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) diagnoses. The exposed cohort received antibiotics more quickly (122.3 minutes ±83.3 versus 163.4 minutes ±204.4, p = 0.043) and were more likely to have lactic acid levels drawn within six hours (98.9% vs. 90%, p = 0.019). The exposed cohort had a shortened ED LOS (in days) 0.08 ± 0.28 versus 0.16 ± 0.37, p = 0.036. Hospital LOS, disposition and death were similar in both cohorts. Total hospital costs for the exposed cohort were lower and less variable (US$19,713 ± 16,550 vs. US$24,364 ± 25068), but this was not significant ( p = 0.274). Discussion Our findings suggest that in individuals with confirmed sepsis, ED exposure to a telemedicine-based eICU cart impacted adherence to aspects of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommended bundle, but did not impact overall survival and medical costs.