A review of neurotoxicities associated with immunotherapy and a framework for evaluation.

Immuno-oncology agents, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapies, are increasing in use for a growing list of oncologic indications. While harnessing the immune system against cancer cells has a potent anti-tumor effect, it can also cause widespread autoimmune toxicities that limit therapeutic potential. Neurologic toxicities have unique presentations and can progress rapidly, necessitating prompt recognition. In this article, we review the spectrum of central and peripheral neurologic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with ICI therapies, emphasizing a diagnostic framework that includes consideration of the therapy regimen, timing of symptom onset, presence of non-neurologic irAEs, pre-existing neurologic disease, and syndrome specific features. In addition, we review the immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) associated with CAR-T cell therapy and address diagnostic challenges specific to patients with brain metastases. As immunotherapy use grows, so too will the number of patients affected by neurotoxicity. There is an urgent need to understand pathogenic mechanisms, predictors, and optimal treatments of these toxicities, so that we can manage them without sacrificing anti-tumor efficacy.

Consensus disease definitions for neurologic immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Telemedicine visits in myasthenia gravis: Expert guidance and the Myasthenia Gravis Core Exam (MG-CE).

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Telemedicine may be particularly well-suited for myasthenia gravis (MG) due to the disorder's need for specialized care, its hallmark fluctuating muscle weakness, and the potential for increased risk of virus exposure among patients with MG during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic during in-person clinical visits. A disease-specific telemedicine physical examination to reflect myasthenic weakness does not currently exist. METHODS: This paper outlines step-by-step guidance on the fundamentals of a telemedicine assessment for MG. The Myasthenia Gravis Core Exam (MG-CE) is introduced as a MG-specific, telemedicine, physical examination, which contains eight components (ptosis, diplopia, facial strength, bulbar strength, dysarthria, single breath count, arm strength, and sit to stand) and takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. RESULTS: Pre-visit preparation, remote ascertainment of patient-reported outcome scales and visit documentation are also addressed. DISCUSSION: Additional knowledge gaps in telemedicine specific to MG care are identified for future investigation.