Key result
Immune checkpoint inhibitors linked to higher risk of atherosclerotic vascular events in cancer patients.
Why the study?
Although clinical trials and meta-analyses reported low incidence of AVEs during ICI treatment, preclinical and retrospective data suggest ICIs increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular events.
Do immune-checkpoint inhibitors increase the risk of atherosclerotic vascular events in cancer patients?
Do immune-checkpoint inhibitors increase the risk of atherosclerotic vascular events in cancer patients?
Growing evidence suggests immune checkpoint inhibitors increase the risk of atherosclerotic vascular events, highlighting the need for cardiovascular risk optimization in these patients.
Warrants closer vascular monitoring in cancer patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors; leaves open whether preventive strategies modify risk.
In clinical trials and meta-analysis, atherosclerotic vascular events (AVEs) during treatment with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been reported with low incidence. However, preclinical data suggest that these drugs can promote atherosclerosis inflammation and progression of atherosclerosis plaques, and there is now growing and convincing evidence from retrospective studies that ICIs increase the risk of atherosclerotic vascular events including arterial thrombosis, myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke. Prospective studies are needed to increase knowledge on long-term effect of ICIs or their combinations with other cardio-toxic drugs, but in the meantime a careful assessment and optimization of cardiovascular risk factors among patients treated with ICIs is advisable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Inno et al. (2021) conducted a review in Cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) was evaluated on Atherosclerotic vascular events (AVEs). Immune checkpoint inhibitors increase the risk of atherosclerotic vascular events, including arterial thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke, in cancer patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: