Evidence Hub

Successful treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated fulminant myocarditis with abatacept and ruxolitinib: a case report

Elena Wadden, C. Lai, P. Grivas, S. Bhatia, A. Portuguese, J. Salem, Javid J. Moslehi, Richard K. Cheng

European Heart Journal: Case Reports, 2025

20 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a class of cancer immunotherapy with growing indications for treatment of various malignancies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are monoclonal antibodies that block inhibitory pathways in immune cells, including cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA4), programmed death 1 receptor (PD1), and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PDL1), to activate the immune system. However, these agents can disrupt self-tolerance and lead to immune-related adverse events. Fulminant myocarditis, a feared complication of ICIs, can be highly fatal, and there is a need for effective treatment options. Case summary A 70-year-old patient with recurrent metastatic disease of urothelial carcinoma subsequently developed fulminant myocarditis after receiving eight cycles of pembrolizumab. He developed cardiogenic shock and required inotropes and a percutaneous microaxial flow pump placement for temporary mechanical circulatory support. He received methylprednisolone initially and then was started on second-line immunosuppression agents, ruxolitinib and abatacept, for steroid-refractory myocarditis. Abatacept is thought to inhibit activation of T-cell CTLA4 and PD1/PDL1 pathways and reverse ICI-activated pathways. Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor that impairs immune activation through suppressing cytokine sensing and production and T-cell activation. After these treatments, the patient subsequently clinically improved and his myocarditis…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free