PURPOSE The aim of the current study was to report the efficacy of topical and systemic treatments for immune-related cutaneous adverse events (ircAEs) attributed to checkpoint inhibitors in an uncontrolled cohort of patients referred to oncodermatology clinics. METHODS A retrospective analysis of patients with ircAEs evaluated by dermatologists from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, at three tertiary care hospitals and cancer centers were identified through electronic medical records. Clinicopathologic characteristics, dermatologic therapy outcome, and laboratory data were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 285 patients (median age, 65 years [range, 17 to 89 years]) with 427 ircAEs were included: pruritus (n = 138; 32%), maculopapular rash (n = 120; 28%), psoriasiform rash (n = 22; 5%), and others (n = 147; 34%). Immune checkpoint inhibitor class was associated with ircAE phenotype ( P = .007), where maculopapular rash was predominant in patients who received combination therapy. Severity of ircAEs was significantly reduced (mean Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade: 1.74 v 0.71; P < .001) with dermatologic interventions, including topical corticosteroids, oral antipruritics, and systemic immunomodulators. A total of 88 ircAEs (20%) were managed with systemic immunomodulators. Of these, 22 (25%) of 88 persisted or worsened. In seven patients with corticosteroid-refractory ircAEs, improvement resulted from targeted biologic immunomodulatory therapies that included rituximab and dupilumab. Serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) was elevated in 34 (52%) of 65 patients; grade 3 or greater ircAEs were associated with increased absolute eosinophils (odds ratio, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 13.4) and IL-10 (odds ratio, 23.8; 95% CI, 2.1 to 262.5); mean immunoglobulin E serum levels were greater in higher-grade ircAEs: 1,093 kU/L (grade 3), 245 kU/L (grade 2), and 112 kU/L (grade 1; P = .043). CONCLUSION Most ircAEs responded to symptom- and phenotype-directed dermatologic therapies, whereas biologic therapies were effective in patients with corticosteroid-refractory disease. Increased eosinophils, IL-6, IL-10, and immunoglobulin E were associated with ircAEs, and they may represent actionable therapeutic targets for immune-related skin toxicities.

No abstract

Cutaneous abnormalities in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis may demonstrate signs of their underlying condition or reveal associated disease entities. While a thorough examination of the scalp, skin, mucosa, and nails is integral to establishing a diagnosis, certain conditions will resolve only with dialysis or improvement of their renal disease and others may not require or respond to treatment. Half and half nails, pruritus, xerosis, and cutaneous hyperpigmentation are common manifestations in ESRD. With hemodialysis, uremic frost is no longer prevalent in ESRD patients and ecchymoses have decreased in incidence. Acquired perforating dermatoses are seen in over one-tenth of hemodialysis patients. Metastatic calcinosis cutis and calciphylaxis are both rarely reported, although the latter is seen almost exclusively in the setting of hemodialysis. Diagnosis of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis has historically been challenging; as such, new diagnostic criteria have been proposed. Blood porphyrin profiles are needed to differentiate between porphyria cutanea tarda and pseudoporphyria. We will review and provide an update on the aforementioned common cutaneous manifestations of ESRD in patients receiving dialysis.

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are life-threatening conditions with high morbidity and mortality. Supportive care management of SJS/TEN is highly variable. A systematic review of the literature was performed by dermatologists, ophthalmologists, intensivists and gynecologists with expertise in SJS/TEN to generate statements for supportive care guideline development. Members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists (SDH) with expertise in SJS/TEN were invited to participate in a modified, online Delphi-consensus. 9-point Likert scale questionnaires regarding 135 statements were administered. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was employed to evaluate and select proposed statements for guideline inclusion; statements with median ratings of 6.5-9 and disagreement index ≤1 were included in the guideline. For the final round, the guidelines were appraised by all the participants. An evidence-based discussion and recommendations for hospital setting and care team, wound care, ocular care, oral care, urogenital care, pain management, infection surveillance, fluid and electrolyte management, nutrition and stress ulcer prophylaxis, airway management, and anticoagulation in adult patients with SJS/TEN are included.

Background Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) of anticancer therapies may negatively impact dosing and quality of life. While therapy interruption patterns due to dAEs have been studied in hospitalized cancer patients, similar outcomes in outpatient oncodermatology are lacking. Objectives To analyse the therapy interruption patterns, clinico-histopathologic characteristics and management outcomes of outpatient dermatology consultations for acute dAEs attributed to the most frequently interrupted class of oncologic agents. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of all cancer patients who received a same-day outpatient dermatology consultation for acute dAEs at our institution from 1 January to 30 June 2015. Relevant data were abstracted from electronic medical records, including demographics, oncologic history and explicit recommendations by both the referring clinician and consulting dermatologist on anticancer therapy interruption. Consultations with the most frequently interrupted class of oncologic treatment were characterized according to clinico-histopathologic features, dermatologic management and clinical outcomes. Results There were 426 same-day outpatient dermatology consultations (median age 59, 60% female, 30% breast cancer), of which 295 (69%) had systemic anticancer therapy administered within 30 days prior. There was weak inter-rater agreement between referring clinicians and consulting dermatologists on interruption of anticancer treatment (n = 150, j = 0.096; 95% CI À0.02 to 0.21). Seventy-three (25%) consultations involved interruption by the referring clinician, most commonly targeted therapy (24, 33%). Maculopapular rash was commonly observed in 23 consultations with 25 dAEs attributed to targeted agents (48%), and topical corticosteroids were most frequently utilized for management (22, 38%). The majority (83%) of consultations with targeted therapy-induced dAEs responded to dermatologic treatment and 84% resumed oncologic therapy, although three (19%) at a reduced dose. Rash recurred only in two instances (13%). Conclusions A high frequency of positive outcomes in the management of targeted therapy-induced dAEs by outpatient consulting dermatologists and low recurrence of skin toxicity suggests impactful reductions in interruption of anticancer therapy.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) improves survival in many types of cancers including melanoma, non-small cell lung, renal cell, breast, and cervical cancers. However, many of these therapies are also associated with high grade dermatologic adverse events (DAEs), including Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), SJS/TEN-like reactions, high grade maculopapular and psoriasiform rashes, autoimmune bullous eruptions, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), which may limit their tolerability and use. It is important to properly identify and treat DAEs to ICB because these DAEs may be associated with positive anti-tumor response and patients may have limited options for alternative anti-cancer therapeutics. In this review, we describe high grade DAEs to increasingly used ICB agents, which target CTLA-4 and PD-1 or its ligand, PD-L1 and enable the immune system to target cancer cells. We further differentiate life-threatening adverse reactions from mimickers and report cases of serious DAEs which have been recorded in association with ICB through the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), which is an archive of adverse events associated with various drugs and therapeutic biologic products reported voluntarily by consumers and healthcare professionals as well as mandatorily by manufacturers. Lastly, we summarize management recommendations for these adverse events and discuss knowledge and evidence gaps in this area.