ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requires multidisciplinary boards to handle complex cases. This study aimed to examine the evolving practices of the IMMUCARE board and to evaluate its impact on clinical practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IMMUCARE board gathers oncologists and organ specialists from the Cancerology Institute of the Lyon University Hospital since 2018. We conducted a retrospective analysis of its activity (participants' specialty, referred cases, and recommendations) from 2018 to 2021, coupled with a survey among the physicians who participated. RESULTS: Across 68 board meetings, 245 cases from 195 patients were discussed. Each board had a median of six participants (IQR, 5-8). Participation rates varied across specialties and also over time (participation of nephrologists and rheumatologists significantly increased over time, whereas it decreased for endocrinologists). Most of the referred patients (89%) were treated at our center. Only 4% of referrals concerned eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), whereas the majority pertained to irAEs. The board recommended ICI interruption for 56% and steroids for 41% of them. Immunosuppressants were recommended in 17% of cases, with a notable increase over time. ICI reintroduction was debated in 50% of cases, and the board identified a definitive contraindication in 26% of them. The survey of 49 of 98 physicians showed that the board significantly affected immunosuppressant introduction and ICI rechallenge decisions. The board's educational and collaborative benefits were highlighted, but time constraints posed challenges. CONCLUSION: Our 4-year analysis of irAE management practices reveals changing patterns in the distribution of cases presented and in specialists' involvement. Dedicated multidisciplinary boards remain essential, particularly for intricate cases. Expanding access to these boards is crucial to ensure comprehensive care for all patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: The French RAMSES study is an observational prospective multicentre real-life cohort including severe asthmatic subjects. The objective of the study was to compare the characteristics of patients, in terms of phenotype and asthma care trajectories, between those managed by tertiary referral centres (TRCs) or secondary care centres (SCCs). Methods: Patients were prospectively recruited and enrolled for a 5-year follow-up. Patients' characteristics were analysed at inclusion and compared between TRCs and SCCs. Results: 52 centres (24 TRCs and 28 SCCs) included 2046 patients: 1502 (73.4%) were included by a TRC and 544 (26.6%) by a SCC. Patients were mainly women (62%), 53±15â years old, 67% with Asthma Control Test <20; at inclusion, 14% received oral corticosteroids (OCS) and 66% biologics. Compared with the SCC group, the TRC group had more frequent comorbidities and lower blood eosinophil counts (262 versus 340â mm-3; p=0.0036). OCS and biologics use did not differ between groups, but patients in the TRC group benefited more frequently from an educational programme (26% versus 18%; p=0.0008) and received more frequently two or more sequential lines of biologics (33% versus 24%; p=0.0105). In-depth investigations were more frequently performed in the TRC group (allergy tests: 74% versus 62%; p<0.0001; exhaled nitric oxide fraction: 56% versus 21%; p<0.0001; induced sputum: 6% versus 3%; p=0.0390). Conclusions: Phenotypes and care trajectories differed in the RAMSES cohort between SCCs and TRCs, probably related to different levels of asthma severity and differences in medical resources and practices among centres. This highlights the need for standardisation of severe asthma care.