A narrative review of the controversy on the risk of mycobacterial infections with immune checkpoint inhibitor use: does Goldilocks have the answer?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized oncologic treatment. Whether ICIs increase susceptibility to or provide protection against mycobacterial infections remains controversial. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the literature on the link between ICI use and mycobacterial infections-tuberculosis and non-tuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) infections-and to critically discuss evidence linking ICIs with mycobacterial infections, the possible confounders, and, if indeed the ICIs predispose to such infections, the potential mechanisms of how this may occur.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on PubMed for relevant articles published from 2011 to current time [2024] utilizing specific keywords of "immune checkpoint inhibitors", "programmed cell death protein-1", "PD-1", "programmed death-ligand 1", "PD-L1", "cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4", or "CTLA-4" with that of "non-tuberculous mycobacterial lung disease", "tuberculosis", or "mycobacteria". The bibliographies of identified papers were perused for additional relevant articles.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

studies using human cells indicate that ICIs would be salubrious for the host against mycobacteria. Yet, many case reports associate ICI use with mycobacterial infections, mostly tuberculosis. Potential confounders include immunosuppression from the cancer, concomitant use of immunosuppressive drugs, lung injury and distortion from chemotherapeutics or radiation, and reporting bias. Mice with genetic disruption of the programmed cell death protein-1 () gene are paradoxically more susceptible to (). In contrast, mice administered neutralizing antibody to T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing protein 3 (TIM3) or knocked out for gene have greater capacity to control an infection. We posit that hosts with greater baseline immunodeficiency are more likely to derive benefit from ICIs against mycobacterial infections than those with more intact immunity, where ICIs are more likely to be detrimental.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies are needed to test the hypothesis that ICIs may either protect or predispose to mycobacterial infections, depending on the baseline host immune status. Prospective studies are required of patients on ICIs that control for potential confounders as anecdotal case reports are insufficient to provide a causal link. Murine studies with ICIs are also required to corroborate or refute studies of mice with genetic disruption of an immune checkpoint.