Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants for immune-related adverse events and checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate an association between immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and impaired survival in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Whether this is related to corticosteroids or second-line immunosuppressants is unknown. In the largest cohort thus far, we assessed the association of immunosuppressant type and dose with survival in melanoma patients with irAEs. METHODS: Patients with advanced melanoma who received immunosuppressants for irAEs induced by first-line anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA-4 were included from 18 hospitals worldwide. Associations of cumulative and peak dose corticosteroids and use of second-line immunosuppression with survival from start of immunosuppression were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: Among 606 patients, 404 had anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-related irAEs and 202 had anti-PD-1-related irAEs. 425 patients (70 %) received corticosteroids only; 181 patients (30 %) additionally received second-line immunosuppressants. Median PFS and OS from starting immunosuppression were 4.5 (95 %CI 3.4-8.1) and 31 (95 %CI 15-not reached) months in patients who received second-line immunosuppressants, and 11 (95 %CI 9.4-14) and 55 (95 %CI 41-not reached) months in patients who did not. High corticosteroid peak dose was associated with worse PFS and OS (HRadj 1.14; 95 %CI 1.01-1.29; HRadj 1.29; 95 %CI 1.12-1.49 for 80vs40mg), while cumulative dose was not. Second-line immunosuppression was associated with worse PFS (HRadj 1.32; 95 %CI 1.02-1.72) and OS (HRadj 1.34; 95 %CI 0.99-1.82) compared with corticosteroids alone. CONCLUSIONS: High corticosteroid peak dose and second-line immunosuppressants to treat irAEs are both associated with impaired survival. While immunosuppression is indispensable for treatment of severe irAEs, clinicians should weigh possible detrimental effects on survival against potential disadvantages of undertreatment.

Multicenter cohort study on the presentation and treatment of acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Current studies have demonstrated conflicting results regarding surgical care for acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to assess trends in diagnosis as well as treatment of acute appendicitis in the Netherlands during the first and second COVID-19 infection wave. METHODS: All consecutive patients that had an appendectomy for acute appendicitis in nine hospitals from January 2019 to December 2020 were included. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies for acute appendicitis. Secondary outcomes included time between onset of symptoms and hospital admission, proportion of complex appendicitis, postoperative length of stay and postoperative infectious complications. Outcomes were compared between the pre-COVID group and COVID group. RESULTS: A total of 4401 patients were included. The mean weekly rate of appendectomies during the COVID period was 44.0, compared to 40.9 in the pre-COVID period. The proportion of patients with complex appendicitis and mean postoperative length of stay in days were similar in the pre-COVID and COVID group (respectively 35.5% vs 36.8%, p = 0.36 and 2.0 ± 2.2 vs 2.0 ± 2.6, p = 0.93). There were no differences in postoperative infectious complications. A computed tomography scan was used more frequently as a diagnostic tool after the onset of COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID (13.8% vs 9.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: No differences were observed in number of appendectomies, proportion of complex appendicitis, postoperative length of stay or postoperative infectious complications before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A CT scan was used more frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic.