Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 29:13:1080998.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1080998. eCollection 2023.

Comparative cardiotoxicity risk of pembrolizumab versus nivolumab in cancer patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: A meta-analysis

Affiliations

Comparative cardiotoxicity risk of pembrolizumab versus nivolumab in cancer patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: A meta-analysis

Fabrice Yves Ndjana Lessomo et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Objective: Recently, several researchers have reported the incidence of cardiac-related toxicities occurring with nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda). There is still a need for balance between oncology treatment efficacy and reduction of cardiotoxicity burden in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-treated patients. Thus, the primary aim was to determine whether pembrolizumab or nivolumab would present with a greater risk for cardiotoxicity reports.

Materials and methods: This meta-analysis was performed with respect to the MOOSE reporting guidelines. Studies were retrieved by searching PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar; the search terms were Keytruda or Pembrolizumab, PD1 inhibitors, anti-PD1 drugs, Nivolumab or Opdivo, and cardiotoxicities or cardiac toxicity. The study was restricted to original articles investigating ICI-induced cardiac immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The targeted population was cancer patients treated with either pembrolizumab or nivolumab monotherapy, of which those with records of any cardiac events following the therapy were labeled as events. The measures used to achieve the comparison were descriptive proportions, probabilities, and meta-analysis pooled odds ratios (ORs).

Results: Fifteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. Nivolumab accounted for 55.7% cardiotoxicity and pembrolizumab, for 27.31% (P = 0.027). The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method, and the random-effect model yielded a pooled OR = 0.73 (95% CI [0.43-1.23] P = 0.24), with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99% P = 0). Hence, the difference in cardiotoxicity odds risk between pembrolizumab and nivolumab was not statistically significant. On subgroup analysis based on cardiotoxicity type, the "myocarditis" subgroup in which there was no statistical heterogeneity was associated with a significant cardiotoxicity risk increase with pembrolizumab (OR = 1.30 [1.07;1.59], P< 0.05; I2 = 0%, Ph = 0.4).

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to compare the cardiotoxicity potentials of nivolumab and pembrolizumab. In contrast to previous reports, the overall findings here demonstrated that nivolumab-induced cardiotoxicity was more commonly reported in the literature than pembrolizumab; however, myocarditis seemed more likely to occur with pembrolizumab therapy.

Keywords: cardiotoxicity; meta-analysis; nivolumab; pembrolizumab; risk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Prisma flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
This pie chart shows that in overall included studies, nivolumab monotherapy accounted for half percent of the total ICI-induced cardiotoxicities.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of comparison of pembrolizumab vs. nivolumab, outcome: 1.1 cardiotoxicity odds ratio.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M, et al. . Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; (2022). Available at: https://gco.iarc.fr/today (Accessed February 2021).
    1. Kostakou PM, Kouris NT, Kostopoulos VS, Damaskos DS, Olympios CD. Cardio-oncology: a new and developing sector of research and therapy in the field of cardiology. Heart Failure Rev (2019) 24(1):91–100. doi: 10.1007/s10741-018-9731-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Konala VM, Adapa S, Aronow WS. Immune checkpoint inhibitors-related cardiotoxicity. Am J Ther (2020) 27(6):e591–8. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000000988 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee L, Gupta M, Sahasranaman S. Immune checkpoint inhibitors: An introduction to the next-generation cancer immunotherapy. J Clin Pharmacol (2016) 56(2):157–69. doi: 10.1002/jcph.591 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Darvin P, Toor SM, Sasidharan Nair V, Elkord E. Immune checkpoint inhibitors: recent progress and potential biomarkers. Exp Mol Med (2018) 50(12):1–11. doi: 10.1038/s12276-018-0191-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources