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.

Compared with CT, TBAT and RBAT exhibited differential effects on outcome measures. Therapist-based BAT may improve temporal efficiency, smoothness, trunk control, and motor impairment of the distal upper limb. Robot-assisted BAT may improve shoulder flexion and quality of life.

BackgroundAlthough the effects of robot-assisted arm training after stroke are promising, the relative effects of unilateral (URT) vs. bilateral (BRT) robot-assisted arm training remain uncertain. This study compared the effects of URT vs. BRT on upper extremity (UE) control, trunk compensation, and function in patients with chronic stroke.MethodThis was a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The intervention was implemented at 4 hospitals. Fifty-three patients with stroke were randomly assigned to URT, BRT, or control treatment (CT). Each group received UE training for 90 to 105 min/day, 5 days/week, for 4 weeks. The kinematic variables for arm motor control and trunk compensation included normalized movement time, normalized movement units, and the arm-trunk contribution slope in unilateral and bilateral tasks. Motor function and daily function were measured by the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Motor Activity Log (MAL), and ABILHAND Questionnaire.ResultsThe BRT and CT groups elicited significantly larger slope values (i.e., less trunk compensation) at the start of bilateral reaching than the URT group. URT led to significantly better effects on WMFT-Time than BRT. Differences in arm control kinematics and performance on the MAL and ABILHAND among the 3 groups were not significant.ConclusionsBRT and URT resulted in differential improvements in specific UE/trunk performance in patients with stroke. BRT elicited larger benefits than URT on reducing compensatory trunk movements at the beginning of reaching. In contrast, URT produced better improvements in UE temporal efficiency. These relative effects on movement kinematics, however, did not translate into differential benefits in daily functions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00917605.

No abstract

We compared a unilateral robot-assisted training protocol (URTP) and a bilateral robot-assisted training protocol (BRTP) to study their differential effects. We recruited 21 patients with stroke who received 90-105 min of therapy 5 days/wk for 4 wk. Participants in the URTP and BRTP groups practiced forearm pronation and supination and wrist flexion and extension in a simultaneous manner with the Bi-Manu-Track. The control group received standard rehabilitation. Clinical measures included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, the Medical Research Council instrument, grip strength, and the Modified Ashworth Scale to assess motor impairment, muscle power, muscle strength, and spasticity, respectively. The pilot study indicated that the URTP and BRTP might have differential benefits for movement improvement. URTP might be a more compelling approach to improving upper-limb motor impairment, muscle power, and strength at the distal joints than BRTP, whereas BRTP could be an optimal approach to improving proximal muscle power.