Sarcoidosis-like reaction induced by immune checkpoint inhibitor in a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma: a case report.

Nowadays, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have become the cornerstone of treatment for many tumors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies. However, these drugs are associated with several new side effects that need early detection. We present the case of a 41-year-old male patient who has been diagnosed with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with metastatic retroperitoneal lymph nodes and a subdiaphragmatic metastatic lesion, undergoing second-line treatment with a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. After completing four cycles, the patient was admitted to the hospital due to intermittent fever and profuse sweating. A CT scan showed multiple pathologically enlarged lymph nodes in several locations, raising suspicion of disease progression. The patient's clinical progress was favorable after symptomatic treatment (antipyretics) and was discharged one week after admission. Several days later, the patient complained about painful bilateral ocular redness and was diagnosed with bilateral anterior uveitis. Further blood tests showed elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) levels of 67 U/L (normal range: 8 - 52) and decreasing alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels of 698 ng/mL (previously 1210 ng/mL), indicative of non-progression of the oncological disease. Finally, an excisional biopsy confirmed the presence of non-necrotizing granulomatous lymphadenitis, leading to the diagnosis of sarcoidosis-like reaction (SLR) induced by immunotherapy as the etiology of the polyadenopathy syndrome. SLR, although uncommon, is an adverse effect of ICI treatment resulting from immune system dysregulation, which can mimic disease progression. It is crucial to be aware of this adverse event and to understand the optimal management approach.

Long-Term Treatment and Effect of Discontinuation of Calcifediol in Postmenopausal Women with Vitamin D Deficiency: A Randomized Trial.

Vitamin D plays a major role in bone health and probably also in multiple extraskeletal acute and chronic diseases. Although supplementation with calcifediol, a vitamin D metabolite, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in short-term clinical trials, its effects after long-term monthly administration have been studied less extensively. This report describes the results of a 1-year, phase III-IV, double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel, multicenter superiority clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of monthly calcifediol 0.266 mg versus cholecalciferol 25,000 IU (0.625 mg) in postmenopausal women with vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL). A total of 303 women were randomized and 298 evaluated. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to calcifediol 0.266 mg/month for 12 months (Group A1), calcifediol 0.266 mg/month for 4 months followed by placebo for 8 months (Group A2), and cholecalciferol 25,000 IU/month (0.625 mg/month) for 12 months (Group B). By month 4, stable 25(OH)D levels were documented with both calcifediol and cholecalciferol (intention-to-treat population): 26.8 ± 8.5 ng/mL (Group A1) and 23.1 ± 5.4 ng/mL (Group B). By month 12, 25(OH)D levels were 23.9 ± 8.0 ng/mL (Group A1) and 22.4 ± 5.5 ng/mL (Group B). When calcifediol treatment was withdrawn in Group A2, 25(OH)D levels decreased to baseline levels (28.5 ± 8.7 ng/mL at month 4 versus 14.4 ± 6.0 ng/mL at month 12). No relevant treatment-related safety issues were reported in any of the groups. The results confirm that long-term treatment with monthly calcifediol in vitamin D-deficient patients is effective and safe. The withdrawal of treatment leads to a pronounced decrease of 25(OH)D levels. Calcifediol presented a faster onset of action compared to monthly cholecalciferol. Long-term treatment produces stable and sustained 25(OH)D concentrations with no associated safety concerns. © 2023 Faes Farma SA. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Calcifediol is superior to cholecalciferol in improving vitamin D status in postmenopausal women: a randomized trial.

Vitamin D has shown to play a role in multiple diseases due to its skeletal and extraskeletal actions. Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency has become a worldwide health issue. Few supplementation guidelines mention calcifediol treatment, despite being the direct precursor of calcitriol and the biomarker of vitamin D status. This 1-year, phase III-IV, double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of calcifediol 0.266 mg soft capsules in vitamin D-deficient postmenopausal women, compared to cholecalciferol. Results reported here are from a prespecified interim analysis, for the evaluation of the study's primary endpoint: the percentage of patients with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels above 30 ng/ml after 4 months. A total of 303 patients were enrolled, of whom 298 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Patients with baseline levels of serum 25(OH)D <20 ng/ml were randomized 1:1:1 to calcifediol 0.266 mg/month for 12 months, calcifediol 0.266 mg/month for 4 months followed by placebo for 8 months, and cholecalciferol 25,000 IU/month for 12 months. At month 4, 35.0% of postmenopausal women treated with calcifediol and 8.2% of those treated with cholecalciferol reached serum 25(OH)D levels above 30 ng/ml (p < 0.0001). The most remarkable difference between both drugs in terms of mean change in serum 25(OH)D levels was observed after the first month of treatment (mean ± standard deviation change = 9.7 ± 6.7 and 5.1 ± 3.5 ng/ml in patients treated with calcifediol and cholecalciferol, respectively). No relevant treatment-related safety issues were reported in any of the groups studied. These results thus confirm that calcifediol is effective, faster, and more potent than cholecalciferol in raising serum 25(OH)D levels and is a valuable option for the treatment of vitamin D deficiency. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).