Objective: Current knowledge surrounding the diagnosis and mechanisms that result in immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated diabetes (ICI-DM) remain to be fully defined. We present clinical vignettes of patients that have presented to our hospital to illustrate the heterogenous clinical profiles that patients with ICI-DM can experience. We also provide an update on ICI-DM, focusing on current and future perspectives and emerging therapies. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the electronic records of five ICI-DM patients who presented to St. Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne between 2020 and 2024, with patients identified from the hospital endocrinology and oncology databases. We also performed a literature review via a PubMed search using the keywords “checkpoint inhibitors” and “diabetes” between the years 2015 and 2025 to allow us to collate a descriptive review on ICI-DM. Results: Our cases show some heterogeneity in presentation, with biochemical evidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in 4/5 patients, presentation 18–253 days (median 47 days) from ICI commencement, HbA1c 59–78 mmol/mol (median 66 mmol/mol), and c-peptide 0.06–0.77 pmol/mL (median 0.09 pmol/mL). Islet autoantibodies were present in 4/5 cases and high-risk HLA alleles identified in 1/2 tested patients. The findings from our descriptive review support a similar heterogeneity in ICI-DM presentations. Inconsistent diagnostic criteria for ICI-DM were noted with low c-peptide being the most common biochemical presentation. Pancreatic volume is emerging as a useful predictive marker of ICI-DM development. We found no reports of the reversal of ICI-DM with immunosuppression in humans, although recent preclinical studies suggest that this approach is feasible. Conclusions: Diagnostic criteria should include new-onset hyperglycaemia with low paired c-peptide, and may be supported with T1DM-associated autoantibodies and evidence of pancreatic atrophy on imaging. Further research is needed in the realm of predicting ICI-DM and considering the role of immunosuppression as a treatment modality.
Karavendzas et al. (Wed,) studied this question.