Toxic epidermal necrolysis induced by vemurafenib

An individual patient data meta-analysis of wound care in patients with toxic epidermal necrolysis

Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) involves extensive mucocutaneous loss, and care is supportive. The approach to wound care includes surgical debridement or using dressings while leaving the epidermis intact. Robust evidence for either approach is lacking. We compared surgical debridement to the use of dressings while leaving the epidermis in situ (referred to hereon as dressings) in adult patients with TEN. The primary outcome assessed was mortality. The secondary outcome was time to re-epithelialisation. The impact of medications was evaluated. An individual patient data (IPD) systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken. A random effects meta-analysis and survival analysis for IPD data examined mortality, re-epithelisation time and the effect of systemic medications. The quality of evidence was rated per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). PROSPERO: CRD42021266611 Fifty-four studies involving 227 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, with a GRADE from very low to moderate. There was no difference in survival in patients who had surgical debridement or dressings (univariate: p = 0.91, multivariate: p = 0.31). Patients who received dressings re-epithelialised faster than patients who underwent debridement (multivariate HR: 1.96 [1.09-3.51], p = 0.023). Intravenous immunoglobulin (univariate HR: 0.21 [0.09-0.45], p < 0.001; multivariate HR: 0.22 [0.09-0.53], p < 0.001) and cyclosporin significantly reduced mortality (univariate HR: 0.09 [0.01-0.96], p = 0.046; multivariate HR: 0.06 [0.01-0.73], p = 0.028) irrespective of the wound care. This study supports the expert consensus of the dermatology hospitalists, that wound care in patients with TEN should be supportive with the epidermis left intact and supported with dressings, which leads to faster re-epithelialisation.

Evaluation of Delayed-Type Hypersensitivity to Antineoplastic Drugs-An Overview

Nowadays, clinical practice encounters the problem of delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) induced by several drugs. Antineoplastic treatments are among the drugs which show an elevated proportion of DHT reactions, leading to the worsening of patients' quality of life. The range of symptoms in DHT reactions can vary from mild, such as self-limiting maculopapular eruptions, to severe, such as Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. The development of these reactions supposes a negative impact, not only by limiting patients' quality of life, but also leading to economic loss due to market withdrawal of the affected drugs and high hospitalization costs. However, despite this problem, there are no available standard in vitro or in vivo methods that allow for the evaluation of the sensitizing potential of drugs in the preclinical phase. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize the skin reactions caused by the different antineoplastic families, followed by a comprehensive evaluation of the in vitro and in vivo methods used to detect DTHs and that could be suitable to test antineoplastic hypersensitivity reactions.

Epidermal necrolysis in the context of immuno-oncologic medication as well as kinase inhibitors and biologics

BACKGROUND

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis are severe, primarily drug-induced reactions of skin and mucosa. Since they differ in the extent of skin detachment but not in etiology, they are grouped together as epidermal necrolysis (EN). Due to nationwide registration, representative data are available at the German Center for the Documentation of Severe Skin Reactions (dZh). Here, an increasing number of case notifications in the context with new immuno-oncologic drugs, kinase inhibitors and biologics have been observed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of 4,150 cases notifications between January 2003 and February 2019, 102 cases with exposure to these drug groups underwent systematic analysis, validation and causality assessment.

RESULTS

Two cases of EN to vemurafenib were confirmed and one case to afatinib and pembrolizumab, respectively. In 14 EN cases other drugs - predominantly allopurinol or cotrimoxazole - were the causative agent. Fourteen cases were EN-like reactions: six bullous lichenoid drug eruptions (DE) to pembrolizumab (2), obinutuzumab, nivolumab, rituximab, infliximab/nivolumab, and eight multiforme-like DE to rituximab (2), adalimumab, ramucirumab, bevacizumab, vemurafenib, sorafenib (2). Lichenoid DE were differentiated from EN through histopathology and by the protracted course of EN, multiforme-like DE by variable skin manifestations with only sparse epidermolysis or mucosal involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

A correct diagnosis is highly relevant in terms of prognosis and use of these drugs in malignoma treatment. Re-exposure is contraindicated in EN, but possible in other DE after rigorous risk-benefit evaluation.

Characterization and management of ERK inhibitor associated dermatologic adverse events: analysis from a nonrandomized trial of ulixertinib for advanced cancers

Background Ulixertinib is the first-in-class ERK1/2 kinase inhibitor with encouraging clinical activity in BRAF- and NRAS-mutant cancers. Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) are common with ulixertinib, so management guidelines like those established for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi)-associated dAEs are needed. Patients and Methods This was an open-label, multicenter, phase I dose escalation and expansion trial of ulixertinib evaluating data from 135 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled between March 2013 and July 2017. Histopathological features, management, and dAEs in 34 patients are also reported. Twice daily oral ulixertinib was administered at 10 to 900 mg in the dose escalation cohort (n = 27) and at 600 mg in 21-day cycles in the expansion cohort (n = 108). Results The incidence of ulixertinib-induced dAEs and combined rash were 79% (107/135) and 76% (102/135). The most common dAEs included acneiform rash (45/135, 33%), maculopapular rash (36/135, 27%), and pruritus (34/135, 25%). Grade 3 dAEs were observed in 19% (25/135) of patients; no grade 4 or 5 dAEs were seen. The presence of at least 1 dAE was associated with stable disease (SD) or partial response (PR) (OR = 3.64, 95% CI 1.52-8.72; P = .003). Acneiform rash was associated with a PR (OR = 10.19, 95% CI 2.67-38.91; P < .001). Conclusion The clinical spectrum of ulixertinib-induced dAEs was similar to EGFR and MEK inhibitors; dAEs may serve as a surrogate marker of tumor response. We propose treatment algorithms for common ERK inhibitor-induced dAEs to maintain patients' quality of life and dose intensity for maximal clinical benefit. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01781429.

Potentially life‑threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (Review)

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have emerged as a new frontier of cancer therapy. These agents include inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), BRAF, mitogen‑activated protein kinase kinase (also referred to as MEK), bcr‑abl, c‑KIT, platelet‑derived growth factor (PDGFR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Along with the evolving applications of TKIs, there has been an increased recognition of the breadth of potential cutaneous toxicities to these agents. In this review, we provide an overview of potentially life‑threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) that may occur during therapy with TKIs. These toxicities include Stevens‑Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP).

Severe skin toxicity with organ damage under the combination of targeted therapy following immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma

Targeted therapy combination (TTC: antiRAF+antiMEK) is known to improve metastatic melanoma survival. Few severe skin toxicities (grade ≥3) are described with first-line TTC (17% for vemurafenib+cobimetinib and none for dabrafenib+trametinib) in a phase III trial. Among our 42 patients treated by TTC between January 2014 and March 2017, 4.8% (2/42) of those treated in the first line presented severe skin rash versus 19% (8/42) of patients treated in the second line after previous immunotherapy. In particular, we observed one case of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and four cases of severe drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome under TTC in patients who had received immunotherapy previously. Thus, previous immunotherapy appears to play an important role in the skin rash onset and severity induced by TTC.

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions induced by targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies

With the increasing use of targeted anticancer drugs and immunotherapies, there have been a substantial number of reports concerning life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), including Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Although the potential risks and characteristics for targeted anticancer agent- and immunotherapy-induced SCAR were not well understood, these serious adverse reactions usually result in morbidity and sequela. As a treatment guideline for this devastating condition is still unavailable, prompt withdrawal of causative drugs is believed to be a priority of patient management. In this review, we outline distinct types of SCARs caused by targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies. Also, we discuss the clinical course, latency, concomitant medication, tolerability of rechallenge or alternatives, tumor response, and mortality associated with these devastating conditions. Imatinib, vemurafenib, and rituximab were the top three offending medications that most commonly caused SJS/TEN, while EGFR inhibitors were the group of drugs that most frequently induced SJS/TEN. For drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, imatinib was also the most common offending drug. Additionally, we delineated 10 SCAR cases related to innovative immunotherapies, including PD1 and CTLA4 inhibitors. There was a wide range of latency periods: 5.5–91 days (median). Only eight of 16 reported patients with SCAR showed clinical responses. Targeted anticancer drugs and immunotherapies can lead to lethal SCAR (14 deceased patients were identified as suffering from SJS/TEN). The mortality rate of TEN was high: up to 52.4%. The information compiled herein will serve as a solid foundation to formulate ideas for early recognition of SCAR and to discontinue offending drugs for better management.

Management of the cutaneous adverse effects of antimelanoma therapy

The advent of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has revolutionized the management of advanced melanoma. However, these novel therapies are associated with adverse effects (AEs), of which cutaneous toxicities are the most frequently observed. These cutaneous AEs can exert significant morbidity and impact on patient quality of life, hence the recognition and management of AEs is fundamental in preventing interruption or cessation of survival-prolonging treatments. Additionally, knowledge of these AEs are necessary in order for healthcare professionals to counsel patients when starting treatment and in the initiation of AE prophylaxis. The incidence and clinical presentation of the cutaneous toxicities of novel melanoma therapies will be discussed, and treatment guidelines provided.

Vemurafenib-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis: possible cross-reactivity with other sulfonamide compounds

Vemurafenib is a newly licensed target-directed medication. It has been proven to improve the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma and the BRAF(V600E) mutation; however, adverse cutaneous reactions are frequent. Few cases of life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) induced by vemurafenib have been reported. Dabrafenib, another selective BRAF inhibitor, has been licensed recently as an alternative drug with the same indications. From a molecular point of view, both vemurafenib and dabrafenib contain a sulfonamide group; cross-reactivity to sulfonamide compounds has been reported in allergic patients. We report on a patient with vemurafenib-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). In vitro analysis of lymphocyte reactivity to vemurafenib showed positive results, confirming drug causality. In addition, lymphocytes from the patient reacted to dabrafenib and to the antibiotic sulfonamide drug sulfamethoxazole. Moreover, lymphocytes from two patients with cutaneous adverse reactions to sulfamethoxazole also reacted to vemurafenib and dabrafenib in vitro. These data strongly suggest that there might be clinical cross-reactivity between BRAF inhibitors and sulfonamides in some patients. Thus, precautions should be taken to avoid sulfonamide drugs as much as possible in patients showing serious hypersensitivity reactions to vemurafenib and vice versa.