↓ Skip to main content

Coronary Toxicities of Anti-PD-1 and Anti-PD-L1 Immunotherapies: a Case Report and Review of the Literature and International Registries

Overview of attention for article published in Targeted Oncology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Coronary Toxicities of Anti-PD-1 and Anti-PD-L1 Immunotherapies: a Case Report and Review of the Literature and International Registries
Published in
Targeted Oncology, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11523-018-0579-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marion Ferreira, Eric Pichon, Delphine Carmier, Emilie Bouquet, Cécile Pageot, Theodora Bejan-Angoulvant, Marion Campana, Emmanuelle Vermes, Sylvain Marchand-Adam

Abstract

Immunotherapy medications that target programmed death 1 protein (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab, are currently used in the first- or second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancers, among other indications. However, these agents are associated with immune-related side effects, the most common of which are endocrinopathies, colitis, hepatitis, and interstitial pneumonitis. In contrast, coronary toxicities are rarely reported and remain poorly understood. Here, we describe the case of a patient who developed an acute coronary syndrome when treated with nivolumab as second-line therapy for metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma. A review of the literature, the French pharmacovigilance registry, and the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database led to the identification of four cases of patients with coronary manifestations attributable to anti-PD1 immunotherapy (with no reported cases of patients undergoing anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy), which we describe herein. The potential mechanisms causing adverse coronary reactions to this type of therapy, which is used to treat lung cancer as well as other solid and hematological neoplastic diseases, are also discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,324,628
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Targeted Oncology
#121
of 556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,975
of 327,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Targeted Oncology
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 556 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.